[Pops]

[b]Here's another list, a little newer, 8 people who own more than half the world combined:
Bill Gates: America founder of Microsoft (net worth $75 billion)
Amancio Ortega: Spanish founder of Inditex which owns the Zara fashion chain (net worth $67 billion)
Warren Buffett: American CEO and largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8 billion)
Carlos Slim Helu: Mexican owner of Grupo Carso (net worth: $50 billion)
Jeff Bezos: American founder, chairman and chief executive of Amazon (net worth: $45.2 billion)
Mark Zuckerberg: American chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook (net worth $44.6 billion)
Larry Ellison: American co-founder and CEO of Oracle (net worth $43.6 billion)
Michael Bloomberg: American founder, owner and CEO of Bloomberg LP (net worth: $40 billion)

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pres ... half-world

[onlooker]

You can't exonerate the excesses of Capitalism simply by saying it works better than Socialiams or Communism.

No one seeks to "exonerate" the excesses of Capitalism. There's even a joke that goes Capitalism is the worst possible economic system....except for the others.
No you all are not exonerating them , you are just ignoring them.

You have to define also what "better" means. Is Capitalism highly efficient to convert resources to commodities and sell them for a profit? Yes exceedingly so. But for the purpose of this discussion we have to concede the "failings" of Capitalism. It produces highly unequal and unjust results.

Not necessarily. Look at the Capitalist countries of the EU and Scandinavia. Income distribution there is far less unequal then in the US, largely because (1) tax rates on the rich are higher then in the US and (2) The populations are mostly less diverse and the pockets of extreme poverty we see in the US in inner cities and poor rural areas don't exist there----at least not on the large scales seen in the US
The point is to compare the 20% or so of rich world people who consume 80% or so of resources with the converse ie. the third world.

Capitalism also has been highly destructive to the Environment and does not account for this. It simply labels this destruction as "externalities" and they are not accounted for or viewed as a negative in any ledger or accounting process.

That just isn't true. All the major environmental movements and environmental legislation had their origin in Capitalist countries, and have been most successful in wealthy Capitalist countries. Far from "not being accounted for in a ledger" the Capitalist west invented a very basic Capitalist approach to pollution and even global warming.....and that is to fine polluters and tax polluters. The Carbon tax for example....a Capitalist idea.....is our best hope of reducing CO2 emissions.
Oh c'mon, the Carbon tax has been a joke so far. they have found loopholes and ways around that. And what movements they're have been have been created and instigated for by the people and NGO's to force politicians to act. Not the Corporations

The owners of Capital have shown no restraint in their exploitation of Nature

That just isn't true. There are thousands of environmental laws and regulations in the US and EU that restrict what the rich can do. Yes, some of them break the laws, but that doesn't change the fact that there are restraints on what the rich can do to exploit nature.
Cheers!

Yea, and they found the perfect way around it. Globalization. So they go where the elites of country A or country B have no problem sacrificing their environment to be included in the globalized economic system and reap the rewards or not face the penalties of rejecting the impositions of the globalized economic framework. You know party today and the heck with the tomorrow, which is what our entire species has done.

[KaiserJeep]

I didn't say Capitalism was a paragon of anything. I simply said it works better than anything else we have tried. Then I observed that Socialism - the thread topic - has a virtually unbroken record of failure. In fact the only "successes" one can point to are the Scandahoovian countries that layer outright social liberalism and do-goodism all over Capitalist revenue streams and high taxation. That's not so much establishing socialism as "good" as it is victimizing the wealthy to achieve some questionable social goals.

To net things out, a bunch of members are knocking Capitalism, the system with a huge record of success over hundreds of years. Then a bunch of you are lauding one or more forms of government/economics that Marx and Engels discussed in The Communist Manifesto in the 19th Century, and for which no single example of success lasting more than 50 years or so yet exists.

[onlooker]

Kaiser, I have NOT hardly lauded or praised Communism/Socialism. Mostly criticized Captalism. I personally would most favor a world of Anarchism as a political system. No govt, simply people cooperating and agreeing finally on how best to live together. Of course, you would say it would end up like Capitalism. But perhaps it would end up as our species finally learning to live in harmony with each other and Nature.

[Ibon]

I have a specific question for KJ.

Would you agree that strengthening social services is one of the key components to prevent socialism and to keep capitalism resilient.

Ibon, I CAN say with a high degree of confidence that so-called "social services" have been used for decades to suppress and oppress Blacks in America's inner cities.

KJ, I was surprised by your response. When asking the question to you I was thinking about social security, medicare, public assistance, disability, getting unemployment benefits, etc . To what degree some of these programs could build resiliency by keeping them or even expanding them. Your response went straight to the topic of the unintended consequences of institutional poverty with African Americans receiving welfare. I find that response incredibly odd because my question was not addressing a race, it was in reference to every American who benefits from a basic social safety net.

The subject of institutional poverty happening as a result of welfare within the African American community is a totally separate topic. It is an issue, one of the unintended consequences of social services that needs to be addressed but why the hell did you reach straight for this topic in your response?

I had a lightbulb insight reading your response. I have to ask in all sincerity the members of this board if what I am suspecting might be true. It dawned on me reading KJ's response that maybe the expansion of healthcare, Obamacare, failed to ever get a chance to develop because the president who proposed it was a black man. And that in the eyes of many white americans Obamacare was Obama's attempt to get healthcare free for African Americans. I never thought of this before until I read KJ's response to my question.

I always thought what killed Obamacare was the fact that it was a ineffective compromise from the beginning because of pressure from lobbyists from pharmaceutical and medical providers. I never thought that maybe unconsciously many Americans saw it as an extension of welfare to blacks. KJ's response to my question made me wonder?

Any opinions?

[KaiserJeep]

onlooker, you prefer "no rules" to "rules". Well, we can agree on that much, although it won't work until after everybody is wise and educated. Don't hold your breath for that to happen.

Meanwhile, the rest of you have expressed your dissatisfaction with the way wealth is distributed. Whoopie ding. Don't overlook the fact that EVERYBODY, from your (Top 10%) wealthy and ungrateful selves to the really poor in Bangladesh and other Turd World countries, has MORE food and money than they used to have. Also, don't fail to note that 5 of the 8 wealthy people listed above earned it in High Tech.

In spite of things like Global Warming, FF exhaustion, and numerous other bad things, the average person's life continues to improve. So go complain some more, ingrates. It's 2:40 PM on a Friday and I'm having my first brew.

[KaiserJeep]

Ibon, FWIW I was not thinking exclusively of Blacks. My relatives in Arkansas who collect welfare have been decimated by the methamphetamine crisis and opioids, for example, and they would be called "poor white trash" by most.

Obama had little to do with Obamacare, in spite of the name. IMHO it is failing because the insurance companies structured it for profit, and not for better care for people.

[Ibon]

I have a queation for you. Do your workers call you "El Jefe"? The literal meaning is "the boss", but since the time of Fidel Castro, there has been a subtext, and "El Jefe" is covertly despised, a term of mild contempt. It usually means they are rolling eyes behind your back as you walk away.

None of my employees, indigenous or latino, ever called me jefe or patron or any other titled name. We are all on a first name basis. I was being a bit facetious in my last comment. I don't want to get off topic but racism between indigenous and latinos here in Panama and much of the Americas is a major problem. I have to deal with this often. The stereotypes of the lazy drunk indian is as alive and well here in rural Panama as it is in rural Montana.

On the positive side the younger generations of indigenous are not uncle toms or kowtowing to the latinos as much as their parents. They are products of a more modern education and are dialed into digital information. Even the most basic farm worker earning $ 15 a day has a smart phone with a camera and Whatsapp and google. The indigenous family that works for us is a classic example. The father was initially taken aback and shocked by how informal and casual his children would relate to me. He was old school and it took me years to break this division where he saw me as the patron and himself as the subordinate indian. There are latino land owners here totally racist and they treat their indigenous staff like they are children. And guess what? They end up acting the role! No surprise.

[Pops]

In fact the only "successes" one can point to are the Scandahoovian countries that layer outright social liberalism and do-goodism all over Capitalist revenue streams and high taxation. That's not so much establishing socialism as "good" as it is victimizing the wealthy to achieve some questionable social goals.

Yeah, those questionable social goals... like happiness:

There is a new top ranking country, Finland, but the top ten positions are held by the same countries as in the last two years, although with some swapping of places. Four different countries have held top spot in the four most recent reports- Denmark, Switzerland, Norway and now Finland.

+ Canada, Australia, New Zealand, several EU socialist countries... oh, and at #18 on the happiness list, the US

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-repo ... HR_web.pdf

---

The problem is your strawman. Yep, totalitarian regimes are a drag and suck the life out of a an economy, yep, central planning is not efficient and I'd hate to live where the gov owns everything. But calling a program that allow old farts to save the cat food for the cat is hardly a questionable social goal.

You also have a false dilemma problem. Not all socialism is communism and contrary to Marx, socialism isn't necessarily the rest stop before communism. As has been shown even here in the land of privatized profit and home of socialized risk, social democracy in fact is made to coexist with capitalism.

[Pops]

I always thought what killed Obamacare was the fact that it was a ineffective compromise from the beginning because of pressure from lobbyists from pharmaceutical and medical providers. I never thought that maybe unconsciously many Americans saw it as an extension of welfare to blacks. KJ's response to my question made me wonder?

Any opinions?

My personal opinion is colored by my adult life having been controlled by the pre-existing conditions exclusion. The US pays double and our care is half as effective as any modern economy. And there is one reason, providers charge what they want and the consumer is captive; pay the freight or get off the bus.

the overriding reason for our out-of-whack costs is the exorbitant price tag attached to everything from doctors' time to prostatectomies to brand-name drugs. Not extra or wasted care. Not red tape or a half-dozen other frequently blamed factors.

http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/0 ... s-high-jha

As my sig says, some things people can't do so well for themselves. Negotiating for healthcare is one. Which is why all other modern economies have some type of government control over the system.

As for racism, it has been used to influence US policy from day one, but the bigger culprit is political money. US docs make 3 times their counterparts elsewhere because they charge what they want, they won't give that up without a fight. That means buying off every politician in sight.

[Ibon]

My personal opinion is colored by my adult life having been controlled by the pre-existing conditions exclusion. The US pays double and our care is half as effective as any modern economy. And there is one reason, providers charge what they want and the consumer is captive; pay the freight or get off the bus.

the overriding reason for our out-of-whack costs is the exorbitant price tag attached to everything from doctors' time to prostatectomies to brand-name drugs. Not extra or wasted care. Not red tape or a half-dozen other frequently blamed factors.

http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/0 ... s-high-jha

Couldn't agree more. We could go off topic fast opening this up. I will just say two things. I was in the medical device industry for two decades and was intimately aware of the price difference and inefficiencies in the US market. I could write hundreds of posts but of course it would have no affect in convincing those who think a public health care option is socialism.

The 2nd thing is I lived as a resident in two countries with two versions of public health care. Canada which has a public option and Switzerland which works on an exchange with regulated pricing. Both systems far superior for value for money compared to the US.

But alas, folks who never saw the mechanics of exhorbitant price gouging in the industry and folks that never lived under another health care system are woefully ignorant of how absolutely awful the topic of health care is in the US.

I don't even have the energy to discuss this topic any longer it is so pathetic.

That racial dimension regarding Obama promoting a public option and how some Americans perceived this as another form of welfare for blacks..... I haven't let go of this thought. I think it is a minor factor but significant in the heads of a significant portion of Americans.

Hey Cog and Plant, what do you guys think?

[Cog]

I never really saw ocare as anything specifically done to reward blacks one way or the other. If you recall hillary Clinton tried a similar program which failed to pass. Poor whites and blacks already had free healthcare in the form of medicaid cards. Medicaid was expanded to include more people.

The middle class saw their premiums continue to rise although we were promised otherwise. That caused some resentment about poor people getting free healthcare while the middle class got the bill.

My main objection and from most people on the right was the tax penalty for not having healthcare. That smacked of government overreach and punishment for simply existing. People on the right don't like coercion from a government entity.

This relates back to my objections to socialism. When the government invades the space of capitalism, they own you. Individual choices are eliminated in favor of some mythical public good. Winners and Losers are chosen by some government entity answerable to no one.

Socialism is about control.

[Ibon]

Individual choices are eliminated in favor of some mythical public good.

When you ask a Canadian or Swede if they would rather pay lower taxes and loose their public health care they overwhelming say NO. There is nothing mythical about the public good they enjoy. That is your narrative Cog and is an ideology that you have been indoctrinated to believe.

You invest in stocks. You look at the balance sheet of corporations you invest in. Why don't you apply the same metric to the cost and benefits in how much health care today your dollar buys you. The private health care system is so severely rigged. The price gouging for drugs and procedures is so ludicrous in the USA compared to other markets. This is the result of decades of lobbyists exerting their influence in Washington.

Your current president is just as ineffective at draining this swamp as any of the others have been. This issue eclipses any partisan division and political ideology. In fact all the divisiveness makes all the lobbyists smile because it keeps you and me distracted as they continue to fuck over the American population with their sleeze rigged game.

[Cog]

Good for the swedes and Canadians. I'm not either. I'm an American. Dislike and distrust of governmental control is hard wired in my genes so to speak.

[onlooker]

Well, let's see if we can sway Cog
HOW BAD IS U.S. HEALTH CARE? AMONG HIGH-INCOME NATIONS, IT’S THE WORST, STUDY SAYS
https://www.newsweek.com/united-states- ... rst-637114

[Ibon]

Good for the swedes and Canadians. I'm not either. I'm an American. Dislike and distrust of governmental control is hard wired in my genes so to speak.

Your confusing genes and culture, you know nature vs nurture, and I can assure you that you have been nurtured with an ideology that when applied in its pure and uncompromised form is actually screwing you over. Your a lapdog to the very wealthy who rig the system even if you do dabble in buying shares and managing your portfolio.

Many in your position have watched those investments being forced to liquidate to pay for exorbitant drugs and procedures.

[Cog]

Ibon,

I never got the vapors about how much wealthy people make or feel I'm entitled to their gains. I worry about my own life and navigating the path I've worked on for my entire working life. I find its a much easier way than trying to control what others are doing. I've spent my life gaming the capitalist system and understanding how it works for me personally. Why would I give up that advantage to a group of government bureaucrats to decide what is fair or unfair? Capitalism can be brutal to you if you don't use it or understand it. Life is not fair and its not fair in your socialist utopia either. There are always elites even in hard core communist systems.

Just like the comments upstream about how much CEO's are paid relative to the other workers in a corporation. For one thing its only the business of the corporate board what the compensation of CEO's is and shareholders can throw the board out by voting their shares if they don't like the set-up.

For the second thing, where does this entitlement feeling come from that you or a group of somethings are entitled to another's labors? Other than the normal taxation that we all suffer. Nowhere in the US Constitution can I find the authority of the government to interfere in corporate pay scales. Perhaps your copy is different.

[Pops]

The central mechanism of capitalism is competition, the main tool of competition is "shopping." We are arguably now in the end stage where competition is merely to see whether Bezos or the Waltons will wind up with everything.

Few Americans can comparison shop healthcare, few even see the cost of their healthcare and virtually all in the private sector are limited in choice by the "provider network" their respective insurance co has negotiated a deal with. Once in a different life I recommended to the board that we include a year end statement when we gave out meager (and soon ended) christmas bonuses. To show the money grubbing moochers (our valuable human resource) the hidden cost to the company for each employee. Not just the cost of employer share so-sec but health insurance premiums — no one knew. And that was in the late 80s before costs exploded.

And of course unless you aren't insured, you just see the "co-pay." Even if you are interested in saving the system money, it's very hard to comparison shop, tho there are a few more tools than in the past.

But, trying to stay sorta on topic, our system is so far the opposite of socialization as to be essentially monopoly capitalism. Since were quoting Marx, he said monopoly is the end stage after all the productivity has been wrung out of the system (read "worker").
After competition comes acquisition.

Take the CVS Atena merger. This commentfrom the most powerful anticompetitive association in the US:

The American Medical Association (AMA) will today announce that after conducting an exhaustive analysis on the proposed acquisition of Aetna by CVS Heath, the nation’s largest physicians' organization urges regulators to block the merger. The AMA position is based on evidence indicating the merger’s likely anticompetitive effects on Medicare Part D, pharmacy benefit management services, health insurance, retail pharmacy, and specialty pharmacy.

the gulf is vast between a fully socialized system like Briton where .gov hires the doctors, to our system that not only allows providers to set prices but literally say here is the price, pay it or die. There are long waits in British hospitals, but no one goes bankrupt over the bill.

.

[Ibon]

Just like the comments upstream about how much CEO's are paid relative to the other workers in a corporation. For one thing its only the business of the corporate board what the compensation of CEO's is and shareholders can throw the board out by voting their shares if they don't like the set-up.

Cog, you have mentioned a couple of times that why should one concern themselves with how much a CEO earns or what the board of a corporation decides. You need to understand that to raise this issue is not because we are socialists wanting fair distribution. As you say the capitalist game is all about those who are rewarded for their efforts.........now lets finish that sentence with a few more words......in a level playing field.

If you consider Pops last email and if you are true to your capitalist ideology you have to recognize that there is no competition for consumers in the way hospitals and insurance companies set pricing. Of all the private industries in the US there is none as bad as the pharmaceutial, insurance companies and medical industries in fixing prices and eliminating a central tenant of capitalism which is competition itself.

So the level playing field is not level, because of those lobbyists gaming the system. I am rather apposed to have them attempting to poke my rectum. Aren't you?

[lpetrich]

Good for the swedes and Canadians. I'm not either. I'm an American. Dislike and distrust of governmental control is hard wired in my genes so to speak.

By that argument, one comes up with something that I'd proposed in End Protection Welfare! If government control is a bad thing, then it is an especially bad thing for governments controlling military and police forces. Contrary to a misconception that seems to be common, military and police forces are not vigilante organizations but government employees under the command of governments.