That would only serve to make retirement systems more of a Ponzi scheme than they already are. The problem with secondary markets is that they produce nothing. Well, other than give Zuckerberg and his ilk an excuse to install themselves as the permanent emperors of their fiefdoms. If investment funds had balls and conservatives weren't just paying lip service to strengthening the country/community and all that crap, retirement funds would only invest in primary issuances and, for example CalPERS, only in issuers doing business in California and creating jobs. But I get that everyone is just looking out for numero uno. Some are just more honest about it than others. [/rant]
One of the real issues with large wealth and capitalism is the exponential effect of "it takes money to make money". Much like Mr. Trump's small million dollar loan, the more money you have the easier it is to get credit and use it to hire competent assistance beyond your skills: Lawyers, Tax Accountants, PR people, Lobbyist, Scientist, Engineers etc. And once the snowball is rolling downhill the manipulation of markets becomes possible like Jon D. Rockefeller buying his way into monopoly. Being equal in smarts, ambition and skills, the competitor with more access to money and credit will dominate by controlling the market for workers, knowledge, public perception and the favor of law. I think most Americans realize that and that's why in the face of corruption we still have a progressive income tax and anti-trust laws. But the natural course of capitalism, left unattended, will concentrate wealth and power.
The extreme hoarding of money by the billionaire class is hard for most people to understand. Why don't they want to share it?
Look at our planet and the governments that are available for research and tell me that any system of government gives more opportunity for the common man to turn himself into a rich man that capitalism. Every other form of government is FAR more likely to concentrate wealth and power as has been proven time and again... but don't let history or reality get in the way of your rant against the rich. The problem with any system that steals from one man to give to another is there is always a human that will be deciding who gets what and there goes utopia. Nope, the rich man doesn't owe anyone anything and only someone who isn't willing to go get his own would think it is fair to steal from one man to give to another. The entitlement mindset will only steal the opportunities that are available in this great nation and the will to pursue them from the people and give them to the powerful.
If Americans didn't understand the need to regulate capitalism and the advantages of wealth to promote competition , Standard Oil would be the only company in the the country. They would have owned everything. The purpose of a "nation" is to promote the general welfare of the People.
Yes, sadly many people are more than eager to forget the lessons of the past, and to cast them far away. It's strange because we've seen what happens when we get rid of regulations, and it wasn't pretty, or healthy for the nation.
I know we've been over this before. But there have been actual studies done, and the United States isn't in the top 5 of nations that have upward mobility as far as making more for yourself. This is from the study. http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm That's overall ranking. That is despite the vast superiority of natural resources that exist within the United States. The U.S. did rank in the top 5 on this one, but not first. All of those nations have a more liberal government programs than the United States. It is broken down into several categories and they are all listed there. These are facts not the "American Dream" myth that has been pushed for so long here
It's a fact that the general wellbeing and economic health of a country are benefitted by the circulation of the currency. If they rich really wanted to get richer they would be all for a higher minimum wage, subsidised technical training and college, and repatriated corporate taxes. A greater population with disposable incomes creates demand and growth.
They all have higher income tax rates and lower corporate tax rates so there really isn't much difference. I know people from these places that live here and none of them have ever said that the opportunities there are better than the opportunities here... All of them are here because of opportunities here that were not available there. You don't know anyone that is moving to Sweden to get rich do you?
What do you think the statistical odds are for getting rich in the US? What are the statistical odds for living a comfortable life in the democratic socialist countries aforementioned? Seems like a conservative would be for the safer bet. (seems like a 'christian' would be for social equity)
The people you know are exceptions to the rule, and aren't the rule. You can look at the multiple studies that show the opportunities are greater in general in those places than in the United States. For some certain industries that won't be the case. For instance, there will be more film editing opportunity in a place like Los Angeles because of the larger television and film industry in Los Angeles. The corporate tax rate is also dependent on the amounts of deductions claimed. The effective corporate tax rate in the United States is much less than the stated level of corporate income tax. I do know how to read the multiple studies that show it is easier to be an entrepreneur in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and the UK than in the United States. The U.S. is even further down in overall ability to move up. You can use anecdotal evidence if you like, but that is a known logical fallacy. Well researched studies trump known logical fallacies like anecdotal evidence every time.
Sorry, but this is just total ignorant BS. I've spent significant time in Scandinavia and their top talent often comes to the US -- especially NYC and Silicon Valley -- to find opportunities. Maybe if you're speaking about the broad middle class you might be right, but the best of the best often come to the US for at least a chunk of their careers.
We are undergoing a technological shift that is very reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th century. Folks need to understand communism/socialism was in direct response to this shift. We need to reform entitlements and shore up the "floor" that prevents people falling into utter economic despair. Otherwise, populism and more radical ideologies will spring up. The 2007/2008 economic crisis truly separated those with skills for the new economy and those without. Plenty of well-paying jobs on indeed and other job websites, just don't have enough qualified people to fill them on top of employer's able to be picky.
Well if you have some personal anecdotes then certainly that would be far more credible than actual studies... Oh wait, it doesn't. In fact to argue that it does is a well known logical fallacy. Now if you are saying that the 10 richest people in the U.S. might have more than the ten richest in the Scandinavian nations, then your argument has no relation to the general ability to move up in the overall, opportunities for entrepreneurship, and the economy of growth, then the U.S. doesn't have the most opportunities to move up economically. You're free to read an actual study which is more credible, than some trips to Scandinavia you've taken. It's also humorous that you mention their broad middle class as if that's something bad. A growing healthy middle class is a goal for the United States.
I don't know if you missed it, but nations with far more socialistic government programs than the United States have demonstrated more opportunity to increase one's economic standing. To believe that there can't be elements of socialism and people could also be worried about their own money is silly and demonstrates a great misunderstanding.
