Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Debunked: Socialism has never worked

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    An ‘oligarchy’ is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families, who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next.

    In the US the rich are getting richer, the poor are becoming poorer and the middle class is disappearing. Unlike any other country in the West, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners control 37 per cent of the country's wealth and it’s increasing. Is it the will of the people that has brought this about or is it the manipulation of the wealthy oligarchs? I suggest the latter. So while, as you indicate, the wealthy have advantages in rising to the top of government it is nowhere near to the extent it exists in the USA, where the inequitable distributions of wealth is obscene, resulting in a restless and violent underclass.
    The government of every country I can think of meets your definition of Oligarchy, Tassman, if you are trying to paint the US as an oligarchy. Being rich in the USA doesn't mean you are in control of the government. We have plenty of rich people who are not in control. Yet the people who are in control of the government are rich. Just like in Australia and every other country.

    And the poor in the USA are richer than most of the rest of the world.
    Even if someone in the USA only made $10,000 they would be within the top 16% of the richest people in the world.

    http://www.globalrichlist.com/


    And only 13.5% of the population even qualifies as under the poverty level.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      ...the people who are in control of the government are rich. Just like in Australia and every other country.
      I wonder if Tass appreciates the irony that some of the richest and most ruthless people in government are his ideological kin? Or does he buy the lie that it's only heartless conservatives who are filthy rich?
      Last edited by Mountain Man; 09-07-2017, 08:59 AM.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        I wonder if Tass appreciates the irony that some of the richest and most ruthless people in government are his ideological kin? Or does he buy the lie that it's only heartless conservatives who are filthy rich?
        Reminds me of Al Gore shilling for global warming and carbon credits while flying around the country in a jet and living on an estate that uses 10 times or more energy than what an average family does, or Michael Moore whining about the 1% when he IS the 1% and lives in a freaking mansion.

        These types of liberals, like Tassy, are all hypocrites.

        Personally I find nothing wrong with being successful and rich. That is what everyone strives for. You don't see anyone (except maybe nuns and monks) going around saying they want to be poor. One of the biggest "taxes" on the rich is the lottery. poor people throw away needed cash on a snowball in hell chance to become rich.

        And in America (probably in Australia too) it is possible for anyone to become rich because of our economic system.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Reminds me of Al Gore shilling for global warming and carbon credits while flying around the country in a jet and living on an estate that uses 10 times or more energy than what an average family does, or Michael Moore whining about the 1% when he IS the 1% and lives in a freaking mansion.

          These types of liberals, like Tassy, are all hypocrites.
          So...you're saying that Tassman is in the 1%, owns a private jet, and lives in a mansion?

          Tassman, can you confirm? It's for research.
          Last edited by Zymologist; 09-07-2017, 09:29 AM.
          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
            So...you're saying that Tassman is in the 1%, owns a private jet, and lives in a mansion?

            Tassman, can you confirm? It's for research.


            No, just that he is a hypocrite, whining about the rich when he would jump at the chance to be one of them.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post


              No, just that he is a hypocrite, whining about the rich when he would jump at the chance to be one of them.
              I want to believe. I choose to believe.
              I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Reminds me of Al Gore shilling for global warming and carbon credits while flying around the country in a jet and living on an estate that uses 10 times or more energy than what an average family does, or Michael Moore whining about the 1% when he IS the 1% and lives in a freaking mansion.
                But they're "responsible". Average schlubs like us can't be entrusted with such luxury.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                  So...you're saying that Tassman is in the 1%, owns a private jet, and lives in a mansion?

                  Tassman, can you confirm? It's for research.
                  he will most likely be in the 1%. There are a lot of people who would not consider themselves to be, but really are.
                  http://www.globalrichlist.com/
                  using the site Sparko linked to above, someone on a salary of NZ$51,000pa with no other benefits is in the top 0.99%. That is the roughly the equivalent to what a teacher with a graduate degree in NZ will earn.
                  Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
                  1 Corinthians 16:13

                  "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
                  -Ben Witherington III

                  Comment


                  • The "poor" in the US are wealthy compared to some countries.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      In the US the rich are getting richer, the poor are becoming poorer and the middle class is disappearing.
                      No, in the US, the poor have continued to get richer, and insofar it is meaningful to say the middle class is shrinking, it's because the middle class has been moving upward. E.g. see the animated graph here: https://www.ft.com/content/98ce14ee-...7-d47aa298f769

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      In broad terms Reagan's economic policy (so-called Reaganomics) was to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation. The ultimate outcome was the market crash in 2008, from which the US is still recovering. Australia, my home country, did not adopt such policies and neither did it suffer a similar market crash. Read into it what you will.
                      Those were the stated goals, but that's not what actually happened.
                      Federal spending continued increasing just as fast (and faster than prior to 1975). (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...deral_Spending).

                      Although marginal tax rates were reduced, the total amount of federal taxes collected greatly increased. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/r...ederal_Revenue

                      And the effective capital gains tax rate noticeably increased by the end of Reagan's administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F...tory_chart.pdf

                      The Reagan administration didn't accomplish much in the way of reducing government regulation. Rather, the economic cost of federal regulation increased. https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

                      My understanding is that there was a tighter monetary policy, and that that did finally put an end to the runaway inflation and stagflation of the 1970s. However that did not continue, and hardly can have caused the housing and financial bubble that popped in 2008. Far more likely is that the rather loose/expansionary monetary policy of the late 1990s and the 2000s caused the bubble.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                        So...you're saying that Tassman is in the 1%, owns a private jet, and lives in a mansion?

                        Tassman, can you confirm? It's for research.
                        No I'm not in the one percent. Nor should there be "one percent" controlling 37 percent of the national wealth as per the US. Especially given that "as of 2015, more than 43 million people live below the poverty line in the United States. Of those, 14.5 million were children"- University of Michigan. Whilst all countries have poverty, only the USA has an obscenely rich one percent to rub their noses in it.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          No I'm not in the one percent. Nor should there be "one percent" controlling 37 percent of the national wealth as per the US.
                          Why not? They earned it.

                          Especially given that "as of 2015, more than 43 million people live below the poverty line in the United States. Of those, 14.5 million were children"- University of Michigan. Whilst all countries have poverty, only the USA has an obscenely rich one percent to rub their noses in it.
                          Prove that they "rub their noses in it". Without using idiots like Paris Hilton or Lindsey Lohan (Both libtards btw.)
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          - Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            No I'm not in the one percent. Nor should there be "one percent" controlling 37 percent of the national wealth as per the US. Especially given that "as of 2015, more than 43 million people live below the poverty line in the United States. Of those, 14.5 million were children"- University of Michigan. Whilst all countries have poverty, only the USA has an obscenely rich one percent to rub their noses in it.
                            43 million is less than 13%. Australia's percentage is 12.5% - nearly identical.

                            And the poor in our countries is way better off than in most of the world. Here is a map of world poverty by country, showing the percentage of the population living on less than $1.25 per day.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              No I'm not in the one percent. Nor should there be "one percent" controlling 37 percent of the national wealth as per the US. Especially given that "as of 2015, more than 43 million people live below the poverty line in the United States. Of those, 14.5 million were children"- University of Michigan. Whilst all countries have poverty, only the USA has an obscenely rich one percent to rub their noses in it.
                              While I have to agree that the situation in the US and the world is not desirable, liberal wealth redistribution schemes all point to a strong liberal government controlling everything, and a liberal oligarchy ruling. The only difference from what we have today is that schemers are in charge rather than creators of wealth.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                No I'm not in the one percent. Nor should there be "one percent" controlling 37 percent of the national wealth as per the US. Especially given that "as of 2015, more than 43 million people live below the poverty line in the United States. Of those, 14.5 million were children"- University of Michigan. Whilst all countries have poverty, only the USA has an obscenely rich one percent to rub their noses in it.
                                By what kind of non-arbitrary principle does Tassman conclude that a statistical distribution should be or should not be a certain way? And he declares a statistic to be bad per se, and thus independently of any question of causation or just/unjust acquisitions/entitlements/desert--that is, independently of any question of justice? E.g. in the fable of the ant and the grasshopper, there is a great inequality, but it's for a reason. If the statistic were bad per se, then that moral wrong could be rectified by simply destroying the wealth of the rich, and make everyone poor. Which is obviously absurd.

                                I believe the world-wide statistic is even "worse", that the top 1% in the world owns about 50% of the world's wealth. And that's because people in a certain geographic area had certain values and ideas and culture that were conducive to support of liberty, private property, and free markets, which resulted in more innovation and savings and increasing the means of production, which caused the creation of wealth there to exceed its consumption, so that their wealth increased like never before seen in world history. In other places, those same values and ideas were not held, and they didn't create and save as much wealth. It seems absurd to conclude that the people who created more wealth are somehow bad for doing so because it caused a particular statistic because others didn't create as much. It's like blaming the ant for being industrious and thus making the grasshopper feel bad, and thus missing the actual moral of the fable, of virtue and vice.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X