Conditions ripe for uprising across America

[Seth]

marxist propaganda ...lol

that's your answer for everything

It is when it is Marxist propaganda.

it won't wash

facts are facts

Various credible members of the international press disagree with your "facts" and explicitly challenge the data upon which they are based, which appear to have been deliberately manufactured by Chavez and his ilk precisely to conceal the dire situation in Venezuela caused by the flight of international capital in response to Chavez's "nationalization" (read: theft) of private property.

That's one of the things Marxists won't admit to; in a country like Venezuela that has an economy dependent on international capital investment, when the government seizes the assets of international companies, they extract what they can of their capital and assets and flee the country, never to return. Chavez is now stuck with all the infrastructure and little of the expertise needed to operate it, and as he blunders about like a bull in a china shop trying to pander to the Marxists and socialist dupes, the infrastructure decays. He's running on OPM right now. There is no new investment capital flowing into Venezuela, nor will there be so long as the threat of nationalization of infrastructure and resources exists.

Eventually the OPM will run out, or we will decide to bring down his government by boycotting and blockading his oil deliveries, and his regime will fall, like every Marxist dictatorship in South America eventually does.

[Warren Dew]

That last bar is what Americans who don't actually use their brains think they'd like it to be, anyway.

Those who actually use their brains would realize that 20% of the U.S. population is under the age of 15, and thus should be expected to have an invisibly small sliver of the wealth. The next 20% is still in school or just starting to work, has had no chance to accumulate savings or equity in a house, and should also have an invisibly small sliver of the wealth. If you go by households rather than individuals, those under 15 don't count in the statistics, but the next 20% of individuals who are mostly still in school or just starting are also mostly in single person households, and thus represent twice as many households per person - so the bottom 40% or so of households they make up should still be expected to have an invisibly small sliver of the wealth. Either way, any rational distribution should see all the wealth held by the "top" 60%. After that, you should still expect substantial disparity since one would expect people to gradually accumulate retirement savings and home equity over their lifetimes.

It gets even more extreme when you look at the percentiles right at the top:

This is a slightly more valid complaint. In this case, though, it's useful to dig further than the top 1% - it turns out that the majority of what's owned by the top one percent is actually owned by the top one tenth of one percent - 0.1%. We're not talking about your moderately rich small business owners or two doctor couples here; we're talking about the George Soroses and Warren Buffetts of the world.

Unfortunately, those superrich folks have duped the press and the less well off into targeting only the moderately rich, for example with Obama's calls to raise the top income tax rate on earned income. Meanwhile, the superrich themselves don't pay earned income rates, but rather the much lower capital gains rates. This is why you'll never hear Democrats arguing for replacing the low capital gains rates with something more reasonable like inflation adjusting basis costs - they're basically owned by the superrich.

Edit: more on income inequality and the top tenth of a percent: http://psychohist.livejournal.com/51801 ... 33#t147033

[Coito ergo sum]

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

Let's assume this is true, and that only some people in the US effectively have opportunity.

Your suggested replacement would do what, exactly, to improve that? How would communism give everyone more opportunity than they have now?

[laklak]

The playing field may not be flat, but it's hardly a cliff. I can give any number of examples from my own experience of people who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They're not super rich, but they live comfortable, middle-class lives despite (in some cases) absolutely horrendous upbringings. That doesn't mean that we can sit back and say "they're poor because they're lazy" any more than we can say "everyone who is successful has rich parents". As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

[sandinista]

The playing field may not be flat, but it's hardly a cliff. I can give any number of examples from my own experience of people who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They're not super rich, but they live comfortable, middle-class lives despite (in some cases) absolutely horrendous upbringings. That doesn't mean that we can sit back and say "they're poor because they're lazy" any more than we can say "everyone who is successful has rich parents". As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

Only, your second statement is far more accurate than your first. Not sure what "truth" your referring to.

[.Morticia.]

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

Let's assume this is true, and that only some people in the US effectively have opportunity.

Your suggested replacement would do what, exactly, to improve that? How would communism give everyone more opportunity than they have now?

there are many different ways to enable people to do what they want

The best way it to

ASK THEM

not tell them.

[Atheist-Lite]

The trouble with communism is that it has never been fully tried out except in one country and the USA isn't doing too well with it.

[Seth]

Your opinion wouldn't be so laughable if you didn't actually believe it.

Yes, the IDEA is that people have opportunity, but the reality is different. Just look at the facts. The facts don't lie.

The fact is that the playing field is not flat, it's more like a cliff.

So in a way it's yes, there is opportunity, but NOT for all.

Only for the advantaged, the well born and the lucky.

But keep on peddling your blame the victim lies, because that way you won't have to confront the reality of how 99.5 % of the people live and take responsibility.

Let's assume this is true, and that only some people in the US effectively have opportunity.

Your suggested replacement would do what, exactly, to improve that? How would communism give everyone more opportunity than they have now?

there are many different ways to enable people to do what they want

The best way it to

ASK THEM

not tell them.

Ask them? That's it? And what if they want to rape and murder you? Is that okay with you?
Don't you think perhaps you ought to ask them what they want, and then see if what they want is to harm or steal from others before you ratify their desires?

[Seth]

The trouble with communism is that it has never been fully tried out except in one country and the USA isn't doing too well with it.

No, the trouble with Communism is that it's been tried time and again and it NEVER WORKS, except temporarily, and only on the smallest and most voluntary of scales. There are plenty of examples of "communist" collective farms and religious retreats that run just fine with a "classless" society. But they don't scale up at all, particularly when participation becomes mandatory, rather than voluntary.

[.Morticia.]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

[JOZeldenrust]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

[Ian]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

True. The official name for the country (since Qaddafi took over) is The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

If anything, Libya might wind up becoming more of a free market state after the Leader and Guide of the Revolution is finally thrown out or killed. I'm guessing that'll be a matter of days.

[.Morticia.]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

What is it then?

The masses don't own anything and all the profits go to the privileged and foreign corps.

Seems like a mature capitalist economy to me.

[Seth]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

True. The official name for the country (since Qaddafi took over) is The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

If anything, Libya might wind up becoming more of a free market state after the Leader and Guide of the Revolution is finally thrown out or killed. I'm guessing that'll be a matter of days.

Yah. Tin-pot Marxist dictators are still dictators, even if they use capitalistic economic ideas to support their kleptocracy.

[Seth]

People are having trouble with Capitalism in Libya, seems they don't like it very much.

They are on the wrong end of the capitalist imperialist stick and can't export their suffering like the west does.

You can say a lot of terrible things about Libya, but not that it was a capitalist country.

What is it then?

The masses don't own anything and all the profits go to the privileged and foreign corps.

Seems like a mature capitalist economy to me.

It's a kleptocratic dictatorship.