How to fight inequality

[questionmark]

Nokia got killed by by touch screen phones, and are now partnered with Microsoft. t's participating in a global market, which by most standards has less regulation. They are certainly participating in economic markets. Capitalism is not a philosophy. It's a response to economic knowledge and logic. Socialism, and communism is a philosophy built off of emotion. They all have the same goal, but one is scientific and the others emotional.

Have you used the tablets. Why are those people fans? It's because they work better and are good products. That's what creates "fans". Im using my iphone right now. my kindle and samsung suck.

Now lets take money from apple and save Nokia because we care about their workers and kids and feel they should have the same lifestyle as the kids of apple employees. Worse yet let's sacrifice the parts of the retirements of those invested in apple to encourage Nokia that not being able to compete is a good thing.

Microsoft and Nokia have teamed up because they are getting killed.

This is the very process of capitalism that brings us good innovative products for cheaper and cheaper prices all the while providing tons of cutting edge careers. Nokia is a crapy example of a company in a "socialist" country being forced to partner with a company epitomizes capitalism to survive. Ironically gates donated billions to the un, and has contributed more to the world than you or I could ever hope for. All while being a dirty corporate tycoon.

http://en.m.wikipedi...e_Giving_Pledge

Besides all that not answering the question: Nokia did not partner up with Microsoft, they sold the whole shebang to them. They are one of those companies that build about everything (from boots to phones) in its country of origin and have absolutely no problem with selling those parts that do not give the expected returns.

My question was about innovation, to which you answered that it requires capitalism. I am still waiting how you explain away Nokia, one of the most innovative phone companies that ever were around.

And while we are at it, please also explain away the AK 47....

[White Crane Feather]

Besides all that not answering the question: Nokia did not partner up with Microsoft, they sold the whole shebang to them. They are one of those companies that build about everything (from boots to phones) in its country of origin and have absolutely no problem with selling those parts that do not give the expected returns.

My question was about innovation, to which you answered that it requires capitalism. I am still waiting how you explain away Nokia, one of the most innovative phone companies that ever were around.

And while we are at it, please also explain away the AK 47....

Did the innovators expect/hope for a descent rate of return for their input?

Edited February 21, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[questionmark]

Did the innovators expect/hope for a descent rate of return for their input?

what does that have to do with the fact they created an innovation outside a "capitalistic" system?

[White Crane Feather]

what does that have to do with the fact they created an innovation outside a "capitalistic" system?

It was capitalistic. That's what it is. Capitalising

[questionmark]

It was capitalistic. That's what it is. Capitalising

So getting a clap on the back from Uncle Joe is capitalizing?

Interesting... gonna apply that to my employees...

The motivation might be totally egotistical but not everybody wants a monetary gain, for some being put on a pedestal suffices, for other being recognized as the hero who saved the jobs of his neighbors and yet to others (who have no real ambitions) the motivation is money. But any of those can lead people to create innovations.

[Yamato]

Do not imagine that i trust power Blindly Yamato, I do not - but I can influence the way power behaves in Government. I do not have the same power over the corporate sector. I am well aware of the many abuses of power of government - but government is a direct reflection of society, and if we become complacent or indifferent to its functioning - that is when we are open to abuse. The citizens have fallen asleep on the job and need to wake up to reality.

I am not anti-markets as I feel they have an important role in society - but they are not society - just a small part of it.

I have faith in neither the free market or government to solve all problems. Yours is an extremist utopian ideal that one small part of society, the market, could assume the functions of society and we would all be better off as a result. Your are wrong, just as all ideologues are wrong.

The market is a part of society - not all of it. If the market assumes to prominent a role in society, and yet fails to address the real needs of the people in society, those been for a meaningful employment and a secure place to live and bring up a family, then it is not fit for purpose and it needs an intervention to either curtail its influence or make it better serve the needs of society.

There are no states of perfection we can get to if we just apply the theory a little harder, reality is far more messy than that.

I have an adage for you "the problem with reality is that it keeps letting the theory down", you should think on that when proposing your simplistic solutions.

Br Cornelius

I don't need equivalence to society or perfection. You guarantee failure every time if you try to apply your word games seemingly hellbent on hurdling over these impossible heights. Easy to talk about on the internet, impossible to apply in reality. What I suggest may sound simple because it's not theory at all. It's proven every day by everybody.

If you want to do the things that you just admitted, you need to empower yourself first. You need rights, to organize, to protest, to communicate, to challenge authority, speak truth to power and shine the sunlight up their rear ends. You don't get to do any of that by shunning freedom and liberty first.

If anyone tries to start out their reality your way, they're done before they can even begin.

[+DieChecker]

You are kidding right? You don't see the irony of people protesting capitalism while at the exact same time benefitting from it?

Maybe Br Cornelius is unaware that the lower 25% of the US is considered Poor and probably doesn't have internet, or a computer, much less a laptop or iphone.

[+DieChecker]

While you're waiting for MeanieAndMe to reply to win a argument point, I'd like to interject something here;

I personally don't see anything wrong with someone trying to "get ahead" as you say or to better themselves for their own fulfillment. But does getting a associate degree for the purpose of getting a higher income or career, help in a p***-poor or this stagnant economy?

Well, since the economy has been down for like 6 years now, and there have been statistics collected for all those years, and since those statistics show that people with associates degrees are less likely to be unemployed, and more likely to be paid more.... I'd call that evidence.

Your fellow conservatives out in the real world and on (Corporate) Fox News for the past few years, have been pushing the point, that getting a vocation are a trade (plumber, mechanic, IT Tech, Landscaper, etc) works best in a economy like this. They were especially pushing that point hard during the 99% protest. Now why would they do and say that? It's obvious because they knew that not everybody with a degree would be able to get the job/career they wanted, especially when the economy sucks or is stagnant, which is a logical point. Of course a lot of people, including myself, weren't expecting the economy to take a dive the way it did. Some of us learned a big lesson on that, that's for sure.

So if you're trying to drive the point that a degree will always get you the career and what you want in the current economic condition, so far...I beg to differ.

Who said ALWAYS? I said "greater chance" and "statistically better chance". See my post that you quoted...

What is wrong with someone wanting to get ahead? If they do, then an associate degree in the right subject is a (statistically) big step in the right direction.

It's not like I'd Force everyone in poverty to go to school. I'm sure many of them are perfectly happy the way they are.

[Mikko-kun]

You are kidding right? You don't see the irony of people protesting capitalism while at the exact same time benefitting from it?

But does it make it wrong when you consider that you likely end up supporting capitalism anyhow no matter what you buy because the biggest cut, the cut that actually matters, goes back to stock market. If it didn't, the 1% wouldn't be so rich. Do you have to be poor and live on the line to be eligible to protest it? If you see an animal being beaten for no reason, you can't do anything because you're not the one suffering?

[+DieChecker]

First, let's establish if having "meaningful employment" is a Right.

In which nations is "meaningful employment" considered a right? Are those nations then having significantly less poverty issues?

So, do you believe that if we strike down the top 1% that somehow we're going to return to the 1970s statistics? Would knocking down the Rich actually better the situation of the Poor and Middle Class? If the CEO making 5 million per year is taxed to 90%, is the worker under him going to go from an income of $25,000 a year to $29,000 a year?

I'm not sure that I agree with the EU being a neoliberal institution. Neoliberals are rabidly anti-debt, and anti-social-entitlement, and generally move to privatize state enterprizes. I don't see a lot of that happening in the EU.

Yet, it was Government that was warned over and over again, years, and years before, and did nothing. Clinton... Bush II... Nothing...

You can't blame the market for being the creature that it is, just as you can't blame a tiger for being a tiger. It is the governments job to monitor the chains on the tiger, and if they are warned and do nothing, and the tiger kills the villagers, it is still not the tiger's fault. At least IMHO.

Yes, but would there have been a 1 year recession, rather then a Great Recession? Probably yes, it would have been lesser in scale and lesser in timespan.

So, who lost money in the stock market in 2008? Answer? Only those that sold. I held my stocks and actually bought Low, following that for years. Thus, I am in a much Better situation now then I otherwise would have been.

Cash value decreased, but only those that sold lost. Most investment in Stocks, such as 401K and mutual funds, where not "wiped out". Most of the deregulated risky stuff is only played with by the major players... the banks.

Still waiting on Br Cornelius to show how having a well paying job is a Right.

And, how taking money from the Rich will increase the income of everyone else.

And, how the EU is neoliberal, when neoliberal is anti-tax, anti-debt, anti-entitlement and pro-privatization.

And, how the government is faultless in the 2008 bubble bust.

And, how the common man's accounts in the stock market were "wiped out", when all the speculating was done by the Rich and Banks.

[Harte]

Maybe Br Cornelius is unaware that the lower 25% of the US is considered Poor and probably doesn't have internet, or a computer, much less a laptop or iphone.

Here's the problem with "probably"-

(CNSNews.com) - Americans who live in households whose income is below the federal “poverty” level typically have cell phones (as well as landline phones), computers, televisions, video recorders, air conditioning, refrigerators, gas or electric stoves, and washers and dryers and microwaves, according to a newly released report from the Census Bureau. In fact, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones, and a healthy majority—58.2 percent—have computers. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs#sthash.J483QiyV.dpuf

Only 15% of Americans live at or below the poverty line.

Harte

[White Crane Feather]

So getting a clap on the back from Uncle Joe is capitalizing?

Interesting... gonna apply that to my employees...

The motivation might be totally egotistical but not everybody wants a monetary gain, for some being put on a pedestal suffices, for other being recognized as the hero who saved the jobs of his neighbors and yet to others (who have no real ambitions) the motivation is money. But any of those can lead people to create innovations.

It's called utility. Money is only one type of representation. Free trade and capitalism attempts to maximize utility in a society.

[+DieChecker]

Here's the problem with "probably"-

Only 15% of Americans live at or below the poverty line.

Harte

Perhaps "Poverty" isn't the same as what it used to be? When I grew up "poor" I had patches sewn on my pants and jackets, and there was a corner of the porch we couldn't use because the plywood had rotted out where it butted up to the mobile home.

Is there anything specific mentioned about iphones and lap tops? Those are usually more high end, yes?

So, if the "poor" have all those amenities then are they really not making a "living wage"?

Edited February 21, 2014 by DieChecker

[questionmark]

Perhaps "Poverty" isn't the same as what it used to be? When I grew up "poor" I had patches sewn on my pants and jackets, and there was a corner of the porch we couldn't use because the plywood had rotted out where it butted up to the mobile home.

Is there anything specific mentioned about iphones and lap tops? Those are usually more high end, yes?

So, if the "poor" have all those amenities then are they really not making a "living wage"?

Poor is somebody who lacks the standards and comforts normal in a society, the official measure is the "Supplemental Poverty Measure"

[questionmark]

It's called utility. Money is only one type of representation. Free trade and capitalism attempts to maximize utility in a society.

Nice, but that still does not support your statement that capitalism is the prerogative for innovation. Please stick to the theme.

[White Crane Feather]

But does it make it wrong when you consider that you likely end up supporting capitalism anyhow no matter what you buy because the biggest cut, the cut that actually matters, goes back to stock market. If it didn't, the 1% wouldn't be so rich. Do you have to be poor and live on the line to be eligible to protest it? If you see an animal being beaten for no reason, you can't do anything because you're not the one suffering?

The stock market is publicly owned. You can not eat the animal and stop being part of the problem. The top 1% does not own most of the equity in our society, it controls it. That statistic is thrown around as a straw man.

I did not say it was wrong either I think it's silly and hypocritical. Many people in the movement will end up with 401ks and participate in the stock market. The reason I think it's silly is because they are out there protesting and they don't even really understand the problem most of the people here don't either. Its Not like the civil rights movement. It's like someone protesting civil rights then going back home and putting on their kkk uniform.

[Mikko-kun]

Well I have to disagree with that 1% not controlling the equity. On certain items it's true, but when you talk about large luxury boats or things like that, it's the privilege of the 1%. And it's not a matter whether they have a luxury boat or not, but that they can make the rest of the people do jobs for them, not vice versa. There should be good and fair reasons why it's like that, instead of hierarchal reasons. What did the 1% do to earn the ruling position? What gives them the right to practically decide what the rest of the people do? Who cares about the items, I dont think anyone cares whether they have luxury boats or crystal castles but what most people are (or at least should be) upset about is they're being controlled for seemingly obscure and roundabout reasons.

[White Crane Feather]

Nice, but that still does not support your statement that capitalism is the prerogative for innovation. Please stick to the theme.

Yes it does.... Utility is the prerogative of innovation, capitalism supports the maximization and freedom to pursue utility. If you increase the opportunity costs of any given endeavor, the utility ( money being a certain kind of representation of utility), is decreased. Simple math and logic tells you that socialist attitudes dampen innovation. Take the extremes of socialist attitudes like communism, and nobody wants to do anything except for the rare few that can consume utility without money. Communists countries know this and allow for capitalistic ideas within their party to flourish. Everyone else is basically a slave. A little hint. If you live in a communist country... Join the party.

[White Crane Feather]

Well I have to disagree with that 1% not controlling the equity. On certain items it's true, but when you talk about large luxury boats or things like that, it's the privilege of the 1%. And it's not a matter whether they have a luxury boat or not, but that they can make the rest of the people do jobs for them, not vice versa. There should be good and fair reasons why it's like that, instead of hierarchal reasons. What did the 1% do to earn the ruling position? What gives them the right to practically decide what the rest of the people do? Who cares about the items, I dont think anyone cares whether they have luxury boats or crystal castles but what most people are (or at least should be) upset about is they're being controlled for seemingly obscure and roundabout reasons.

I don't know what you mean. I'm not in the 1% and nobody controls me. I doubt you are controlled either.

I think you may be listening to a lot if propaganda. The 1% is controlled by the market, the people who are not 1% ers control the market.

Edited February 21, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Mikko-kun]

And though I dont believe anyone is truly inherently apathic person, I can understand the willingness to submit to control, it's like being in a comfortable cradle, letting the "automatic pilot" do the work for you.

But what I dont understand is why those who want to have power over their life, and are totally willing to make the sacrifices, have very restricted paths to rise up. I can understand the meeting the demands reason, but I can't understand accommodating a system that's there "just because" -reason. If free market creates monopolies, which is quite a big and shaky if, but if it does (we must account to it because it's a possible worse-case scenario), then the actual power to decide isn't in the hands of anyone else but those on top. I dont think any item or utility can replace the freedom of doing what you want with your life.

[Mikko-kun]

I don't know what you mean. I'm not in the 1% and nobody controls me. I doubt you are controlled either.

I think you may be listening to a lot if propaganda. The 1% is controlled by the market, the people who are not 1% ers control the market.

I've subjected myself to propaganda of all kind to learn more sides of the matter so I wouldn't be left one-eyed in my views. That's the side-effect, yes.

Your reasoning is probably because you dont know the reality of the working man. And by saying this I'm not saying you wouldn't know what it's like to work hard both physically and mentally, but when what you see in your future is 10-20 years more of that work before you can be free. And I'm one of the lucky ones, the unlucky ones have 20-40 years of work before they can be free. Free to choose what they do for a living instead of taking the job that pays the most. It's not a matter of getting rich, but getting by with a job that you'd see fit. On one hand I can understand why some jobs are more preciously-paid because of the training and what it takes to be good in the job.

But on the other hand I can't understand why those who still do "necessary" like changing an elderly person's diapers or cleaning the streets or fixing roads, why those kinda jobs need to be paid so little that they must spend 20-40 years there before they can consider a safe go for their own living. Should those jobs be reserved for only those with apathic mindset? Are they loser jobs?

[+DieChecker]

Poor is somebody who lacks the standards and comforts normal in a society, the official measure is the "Supplemental Poverty Measure"

From the link:

The Census Bureau releases two reports every year that describe who is poor in the United States. The first report calculates the nation's official poverty measure based on cash resources. The second is known as the supplemental poverty measure (SPM) and takes account of cash resources and non-cash benefits from government programs aimed at low income families.

So the "official" measure is based on family income.

But the SPM is also financially based. I didn't see where it calculates how many are missing necessities. It just uses a value based on what the expectation is for clothes, food, housing and utilities to estimate closer to who is actually below the line where it gets harder and harder to get all necessities.

[+DieChecker]

One of the main issues I hear is that the top 1% of the 1% (the billionaires) pay less taxes then a middle class person, percentage wise. That can be shown to be TRUE. But, this is because, as Mitt Ronmey showed during the 2012 election, that there is a seperate income tax rate for investment income. Which is where many of the uber rich earn their money. As was said back in 2012, if this is a problem, it is easy to fix by taxing investment income the same as regular income.

[Harte]

Perhaps "Poverty" isn't the same as what it used to be?

LOL!

You got that right, pal.

Nothing is what it used to be.

I laugh when people talk about "the good old days."

Yes, lets go back to when people and animals **** in the gutters of every street. Back to when measels would kill you, like as not.

When I grew up "poor" I had patches sewn on my pants and jackets, and there was a corner of the porch we couldn't use because the plywood had rotted out where it butted up to the mobile home.

My mom would iron-on the patches, then sew over them. The result was stronger than the fabric ever was.

But, a generation earlier, people would have looked at us like we were rich for having an iron and a sewing machine! LOL

Is there anything specific mentioned about iphones and lap tops? Those are usually more high end, yes?

The source I gave links to the census report on this matter. I didn't read it so i don't know how specific it gets.

Harte

[Mikko-kun]

One of the main issues I hear is that the top 1% of the 1% (the billionaires) pay less taxes then a middle class person, percentage wise. That can be shown to be TRUE. But, this is because, as Mitt Ronmey showed during the 2012 election, that there is a seperate income tax rate for investment income. Which is where many of the uber rich earn their money. As was said back in 2012, if this is a problem, it is easy to fix by taxing investment income the same as regular income.

Kinda, but kinda not. What prevents the rich from going to tax paradises if you'd fix it like that? That's what they do in my country when they dont like the taxes and other equalizing methods here.