Why do non-wealthy people believe in the "free market"?

I consider this a silly or trick question designed to try to side line the debate and keep the status quo for whatever reason. You for instance are not really that rich, so don't worry about your own money and hopefully you still don't expect to strike it rich and become a multi,multi millionaire.

Let's return to the tax rates of prior years when the American economy actually did better than in recent years.

"glorious poor", "nefarious rich".

Let's just say the several thousand folks who own and or control the majority of the world's large corporations and run things primarily for their benefit are a problem and have proven themselves to be a very selfish lot who need to be controlled democratically by the world's billions.

I believe iirc correctly the top 400 folks in America own more than the lower 150 million. So you think this is fine? Do you think it is fine as the Republican S. Ct. does that they should be allowed to funnel unlimited wealth to buying our politicians?

 

Arguably true, and arguably due to a host of distinctly un-capitalist programs and regulatory barriers.

Regardless, at the end of the day, this is what capitalism offers - a fake freedom to choose. But, as thadeus noted, it absolves anyone of blame for this situation other than the worker not willing to slave away at whatever price the "market" pays.

 

The free market giveth and the free market taketh away.

Obviously we have come together as a society and decided that the risk-reward ratio of a true free market is not something we're willing to put up with, so we modify it.

I liken it to sacrificing speed in a vehicle for control, ideally you want the right combination of both.

Why does Joe the Plumber support unbridled capitalism? Ignorance and propaganda, mostly. He has no idea about the actual ramifications of pure capitalism, is constantly being fed BS about the evils of regulation, and is so ****-sure that the only thing standing between him and unimaginable wealth/success is the government.

An educated/informed populace cures all ills.

Spot on. Greed + gullible idealism = fail.

 

Alternatively:

 

There in lies the American problem: Money uses money to gain power, to gain more money. It's a snowball rolling down hill to plutocracy. If the plutocrats own the means of public information (Fox) they control the message. If they can buy the politicians (unlimited corporate PAC money) they control legislation (tax cuts for the rich), if they infiltrate the schools they change the history (the US is a Christian nation), if they pay the pundits they control the criticism (the unions and NPR are the problem).

The antidote I see spreading is the proliferation of information. It's becoming possible for the smaller funded groups of egalitarians and original thinkers to counter the control of the plutocrats with logic and self-evident fairness; though it's a hard slog. We've seen it in the Arab world recently, we see China fighting against it, we watch two comedians eviscerate the plutocrats 4 nights a week.

It's the same class warfare it's always been, now it's just fought with information instead of cannons verses pitchforks.

 

My inquiry is not a trick question, but it is a hard question. It's easy to determine that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or George Soros are "rich." However, I was asking you to define the dividing point. That's a fairly simple request. Are you rich at earnings of $100,000 a year? $500,000 a year? $1M a year? If you have assets of $250,000, are you rich? $1M? $5M?

Personally, I have never considered myself rich or poor, just comfortable. I've never looked up to a person who had more money nor down at a person who had less. My parents and grandparents instilled a value of "there but for the grace of God go I." I've seen both great joy and great unhappiness in "rich" and "poor" alike.

Without definitions any discussion of resolutions is fruitless. You obviously are unhappy with "rich" people. I just want to know who -- and where -- you, thad, rhad, et al believe the villains are.

 

This proliferation of information is a deluge which most just don't have the time to sift through or the education to comprehend its meaning. It's a catch-22 that keeps people too busy or stupid to know they're being screwed.

John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Matt Taibbi, et al., all have followers whose numbers pale in comparison to the number of people that are ignorant or apathetic of the problems we're facing. Most Americans means those who are registered to vote and those who always vote, because that's what matters.

I think Americans have very far to go (25% unemployment, 10% drop median income for the 'middle class') before those in the top 0.05% who actively work in Congress and the media to keep the status quo of extreme wealth and income disparity will deliver meaningful concessions.

 

so a system didnt make me rich, therefore i shouldnt believe in it.

 

Exactly. For this topic, I define rich as "those in the top 0.05% who actively work in Congress and the media to keep the status quo of extreme wealth and income disparity". This criteria shows that not all people in that income bracket are bad, just the ones that are like the Koch Brothers.

 

Nope.

1. Advocate a system that benefits you the most
2. Label the rich as "selfish"
3. ??????
4. Profit!!!

 

Seems kind of dumb to root against your own interests to the benefit of a very small number of people.

 

It's nice that you bring up this nonsensical syllogism. And you're a good case study for us here.

I'd assume you're not too rich yourself if you followed the "Obama is killing the stock market" line you were pushing in March 2009, 3 days prior to the beginning of an unprecedented, 2 year+ global equity bull market - since, if you were actually had the courage of your convictions - you're obviously poor by now --> why don't you tell us why you continue to support the rich then?

 

Apologies for breaking this into two parts. I had a more urgent task to perform.

How are the world's billions going to run the large corporations? What committee will you replace current CEOs that would not succumb to the same temptations faced by the "power elite" who run the corporations now? This extreme idealism achieves new lows in realism. All your rhetoric produces is a new power elite who will give themselves the same privileges, only in the name of the people (see Hugo Chavez). Equilibrium achieved.

The real solution is in creating legislation with teeth 1) like not allowing politicians access to corporate lobbyists (whether paid lobbyist or CEO). A pol would be allowed to talk with a lobbyist only if all lobbyists from all sides and the public (with at least two weeks' notice) meet at the same time or 2) like treating investment speculation like gambling income/loss laws.

 

First, you should respond to the smackdown uolj layed on you in another thread that you oh so conveniently tried to duck.

Second, your reading comprehension is still terrible. How are you a "lawyer" again?

 

Ah, living gratuitiously through the various personae of newyorker and his routine.

Well, maybe he, you and MFW and jo mama and sir jackie and dadakota can form a "he-man sam haters" club and meet in the shed behind the old mill. I nominate Rockets Dynasty as president.

I'll even buy you a tire swing!

Ah, and doublescore! the "lawyer" barb - you and joseph mama have that one cornered.

What reading comprehension? You're telling me in March 2009, that Obama's policies are weighing heavily on the market -precisely three days later, the market took off like a rocket and didn't look back.

Did some intervening event occur in those three days, or was your assessment misguided - or did you not even believe it yourself when you made it?

 

Not interested in your trolling little samuel. You should concern yourself more with finding a full time gig so you can boast about even better numbers you can't seem to grasp.

Keep ****ing that chicken!

 

no, i'm saying that the its no big deal that president any president believes in capitalism

 

I have made no claims of being unhappy nor have I used any language akin to "villain".

 

Well I would classify myself the same. Let's say upper middle class and was brought up the same wrt to those making less or more. I though I haven't known that many really rich folks. However, we are not talking about personal happiness; we are talking about enough money for a decent life for the majority. I just read a recent Atlantic Article that talks about the unhappiness of the rich, always wondering if folks just like them for their money or the difficulty they have in achieving a stable career since often they have inherited enough money to never need to work or achieve much in the work force. BTW as far as personal happiness and money goes study after study has shown that those who are happiest are those who have sufficient and tend to have a bit more than those they associate with. The Atlantic says a good 20% of folks making say $5 million a year are unhappy as they spend stupidly trying to have the lifetstyle of those making say $25 million per year.Much of the American middle class has "sufficient" if we can go back to the years of secure, health care retirement and affordable college tuition. This is all we are asking and tough **** if the top 1-2% will suffer a reduction in their recent income gains due to Reagan/Bush tax policies.

We are talking about running society in a way to minimize unnecessary economic suffering of most.

You can try to steer the conversation to an abstract attempt to define "rich", but let's get less abstract.

Folks above $250,000 per yr need to be taxes a bit more. Those making above $500,000 need to be taxed a bit more than them. Those making $1 million per year near to be taxed even more. Thos making ten million a year or more need to be taxed much much more and billionaires even more.
to avoid a straw man I am not talking about 25 new tax rates...
.

 

Then you have my apologies. My question is neither an indictment nor a probe for tactical position. It is just a question to help understand the animousity toward the capitalistic system. I agree that our system needs some tweaks to curb the unbridled corporate and political greed that has driven the economy aground, but the system overall has been the sparkplug of the world's most vibrant economic system ever.