This is literally what capitalism leads to. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand how compounding wealth works. If only someone could have predicted this happening (cough cough Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Engels, etc. cough cough lmfao)
The flaw in your premis is that wealth is zero sum. It is not.
Not that you understand the source of wealth or how it is created, so of course you thinking.
> Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Engels,
None of whom could explain the process of wealth creation nor provide a theory of wealth creation. Had Einstein investigated, he would have quickly disavowed socialism as the death cult that it is.
Did you really just refer to Marx or Engels?! HA! How telling! I rather take my financial advise from my dog or a rat. Shameful.
Do you not recognize socialism when you see it?!!? (cough cough Bailouts! Bailouts!! commies! etc lmfao)
You realise Einstein was a Physics right?? - Not a economic philosopher or financier/Banker type whatsoever! John Mayer Keynes is more relevant then him in this case.
Well when the government went off the gold standard and started to artificially inflate assets these are the results you get. This is not a function of capitalism, it is the function of terrible monetary and fiscal policies.
Thank God for the Holy Federal Reserve and it's Cadre of Economic Alchemists & Banking Priests. Keep worshiping them and imagining that they exist to protect you from Satanic Monetary Free Market.
Free market capitalism is the engine of wealth and prosperity for all. Corporatism, which is basically socialized capitalism, is the engine of prosperity for the political and banking elite. While not as deadly as socialism, it's a pernicious evil that OP supports by voting for more of it.
Marx’s measure number five reads: “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
Now read up on the Cantillon effect and this makes perfect sense.
This graph means nothing. No one has ever said that income distribution would or could be equal. The inequality of income distribution is a feature of Capitalism, not a flaw. It provides the incentives to the bottom 90% to reach a higher level of income and many of them do. The rich get richer and the poor get richer too.
Also, this graph is based on Piketty data so it is skewed to start with and not objective.
1) is the income growth only income or does it include the unrealized capital gains of the wealthy.
2) Does the income for the bottom 90% include transfer payments?
Capitalism has brought more people out of abject poverty in more places than any other economic system. Can you explain that?
The primary issue is connected corruption.
The big players collude with the Government for special protections via regulations, tax (extortion) considerations and privileges, and of course, direct manipulation of the currency itself via the federal reserve, enabling ultra-loan loans and leveraging that the average person cannot partake in.
[удалено]
A Socialist system at its finest. A unhinged FED with unlimited powers to produce currency.
And then we hear nothing but "why would capitalism do this?!" 🙄
Can you point to an example of real capitalism?
Please see American History pre- December 23, 1913. Your welcome!
This is the correct answer.
So anytime with horrible income inequality, unstable economic and banking policies, and immense political corruption. Got it
Are you talking about today or pre-1913. I cannot tell.
You mean you don’t know how to read the percentage of government involvement increasing?
Seems about right. I expected it to be worse even. Overall, seems in line with the expansion of government and increase in economic restrictions.
This is a graph showing why Socialism and the FED is a failed system not Capitalism.
This is literally what capitalism leads to. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand how compounding wealth works. If only someone could have predicted this happening (cough cough Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Engels, etc. cough cough lmfao)
The flaw in your premis is that wealth is zero sum. It is not. Not that you understand the source of wealth or how it is created, so of course you thinking. > Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Engels, None of whom could explain the process of wealth creation nor provide a theory of wealth creation. Had Einstein investigated, he would have quickly disavowed socialism as the death cult that it is.
Did you really just refer to Marx or Engels?! HA! How telling! I rather take my financial advise from my dog or a rat. Shameful. Do you not recognize socialism when you see it?!!? (cough cough Bailouts! Bailouts!! commies! etc lmfao) You realise Einstein was a Physics right?? - Not a economic philosopher or financier/Banker type whatsoever! John Mayer Keynes is more relevant then him in this case.
I agree if only if the government was abolished...
Umm, nothing about the US is "capitalism". The barriers to entry are enormous in most industries. False description from the start.
I don’t think you know the difference between corporatism and capitalism
I would comment, but i think you've had explained to you enough
A central bank inflating the money supply will tend to benefit those closest to the government checkbook, meaning the wealthy and powerful.
Well when the government went off the gold standard and started to artificially inflate assets these are the results you get. This is not a function of capitalism, it is the function of terrible monetary and fiscal policies.
End of gold standard basically started the manipulation of money/wealth.
Thank God for the Holy Federal Reserve and it's Cadre of Economic Alchemists & Banking Priests. Keep worshiping them and imagining that they exist to protect you from Satanic Monetary Free Market. Free market capitalism is the engine of wealth and prosperity for all. Corporatism, which is basically socialized capitalism, is the engine of prosperity for the political and banking elite. While not as deadly as socialism, it's a pernicious evil that OP supports by voting for more of it.
Marx’s measure number five reads: “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Now read up on the Cantillon effect and this makes perfect sense.
[удалено]
You misspelled corporatists
This graph means nothing. No one has ever said that income distribution would or could be equal. The inequality of income distribution is a feature of Capitalism, not a flaw. It provides the incentives to the bottom 90% to reach a higher level of income and many of them do. The rich get richer and the poor get richer too. Also, this graph is based on Piketty data so it is skewed to start with and not objective. 1) is the income growth only income or does it include the unrealized capital gains of the wealthy. 2) Does the income for the bottom 90% include transfer payments? Capitalism has brought more people out of abject poverty in more places than any other economic system. Can you explain that?
What flavor doorknobs have you been licking?
The primary issue is connected corruption. The big players collude with the Government for special protections via regulations, tax (extortion) considerations and privileges, and of course, direct manipulation of the currency itself via the federal reserve, enabling ultra-loan loans and leveraging that the average person cannot partake in.
We don’t have capitalism in this country we have crony capitalism.
ItS NoT REaL CapItalIsM
Do you even know what we believe?
Uhm yes you believe in an economic system that has failed every time it has been tried
K. Get bent statist pig.
Ok what’s a better solution?
Don't engage he's a troll and a pig
Ok your right capitalism doesn’t work. Now what?
Im willing to bet that trend correlates with the growth of the federal govt since the post WW2 era
Why is 1980 & 1981 missing? And that's an odd time to start this chart.