Red flag in the US: one of three Democrats identifies as Socialist

Walmart has to take many more risks and work much harder than mom-and-pop to keep its market share.

Walmart isn’t a person, in fact the person who started it and took the bulk of those risks to make out what it is has long passed. Yet a handful of billionaires his creation created still live above the rest of us while aspiring Mom and Pop store owners don’t stand a chance.

You’re right that it has to work hard to maintain its market share, perhaps you should ask yourself how it was able to attain that market share in the first place. It’s not because they were really just that much better than everyone else, it’s because the bigger you get the easier it gets to continue getting bigger. No, it’s not an absolute rule, which you will no doubt default to responding with, it’s a force for which individual results may vary but the overall trend is certain. As one billionaire put it, “turning one thousand dollars into two takes a great amount of work, turning a billion dollars into two is inevitable”.

inmorality is not inherent to capitalism but to human nature.

Correct, and I hate to break it to you but capitalism is a system run by human beings.

The entire point of “socialism” is to introduce a force that counters that inherent trait in human nature for the betterment of all of society.

Socialim is diametrally opposed to capitalism because it seeks a utopian equality by means of coercion.

This is just a jumbled mess of incoherence.

You continue to shift back and forth from socialism in its most extreme form (which no one and certainly not myself is defending) to socialism as you and all your right wing cohorts are defining; it which is basically any form of government intervention in our economy that seeks to provide a safety net for anyone. This is why your strawman attacks are so pervasive, and also why I keep quoting “socialism”, because you guts continue to make up your own words.

Maybe you are thinking that social assistance is part of socialism. I don't think so. To my knowledge, the US always had social assistance and it was never considered a socialist policy.

Then why are you calling me a socialist of you don’t think my policies are socialism? Have you paid attention to a single word I’ve word I’ve written?

So, it's a fallacy to say that capitalism creates poverty.

Don’t know a single person arguing that.

there will always be someone more capable than you when it comes to productivity and wealth creation. That's a fact and we don't have to feel sorry about that.

No one does. No one is saying every person contributes equally.

Do you even know what I’m for? Have you bothered to ask me a single question to better understand what I’m telling you? Or are you right now just arguing with “the left”? Cause if that’s the case I’ll just leave the two of you alone.

Why does he have to ask you if you already have an answer?

Yet a handful of billionaires his creation created still live above the rest of us while aspiring Mom and Pop store owners don’t stand a chance.

Again, those people are one Dylan Mulvaney ad away from losing all or most of that. Mom and Pop have way less to lose on one bad decision.

It’s not because they were really just that much better than everyone else,

Gonna need more than a naked declaration to prove this.

Also, you refused to address the point about the inequality of risk-taking culture vs. risk-averse cultures. So that point remains uncontested as the only defined and uncontested inequality. Increased capital and securities almost always translates to increased risk, along with the wealth potential you ascribed.

I know you really want the "wealth begets wealth" to be a truism, but the above and the real world prove it can never be. Putting that increased capital to work exposes it to increased risk, the very variable your argument keeps ignoring conveniently.

turning a billion dollars into two is inevitable

The scale of capital has additional problems aside from risk. Warren Buffett has repeatedly discussed this difficulty: enormous amounts of capital are harder to compound at extraordinary rates because there are fewer opportunities large enough to materially affect the portfolio. Turning $1,000 into $2,000 requires finding $1,000 of profitable opportunity. Turning $1 billion into $2 billion requires generating another billion dollars of value. And there are quite a few people in the real world who lose money after gaining a billion in the same time frame rather than doubling it. The existence of billionaires who subsequently lose substantial portions of their wealth is itself enough to disprove “inevitable.” That alone disproves this attempted truism.

Yet again, what you are calling socialism is not an alternative to capitalism, it’s a set of policy ideas that exist within capitalism. So your separation of these two things leads to nothing but incoherence, you’re attacking a strawman.

Sorry, my friend, but you completely misunderstand my argument. I am not creating a strawman trying to argue "...a set of policy ideas that exist within capitalism." I am arguing that neither communism nor socialism knows how to create personal wealth by policy. They are completely dumb to the process, which is why they do not endure more than a single human lifetime. They depend on other people's money, and when that has expired, they are done. Dead.

Attaining wealth is only possible in an organized society that operates based on rules defining how wealth can be attained in the first place.

No! One can attain wealth by theft of it. That is exactly what C/S does, because they do not know how to obtain it by the very means you described in the above quote. What C/S cannot do is to continue to build on stolen wealth. They know only how to spend what they have previously taken.

They know only how to spend what they have previously taken.

30 trillion has been spent fighting the "war on poverty" since LBJ.

The current poverty rate is close to the poverty rate in 1973.

That's a huge chunk of your country's debt right there.

How can China have the second largest economy threatening to over take America within 30 years if they don’t know how to create wealth?

You are absolutrely right. The Democrat Party may have declared "war on poverty" by LBJ, but not by him, nor since have they demonstrated, since FDR, they know how to fight a war. even by metaphor.

Debby,

The prediction of China's economy overtaking ours in 30 years is old, and now debunked news. Try to keep up. Fact: The wealth in private hands in the U.S. is 73% greater than in China, and we corner the market on the count of billionaires in the world at nearly 29%. Publicly, our GDP surpasses China by 59.6%.

Net result: I would place no bets on your opinion.

And, no. Chona does not know how to create wealth, either. They play their money game, still, by manipulating the worth of the Chnese RMB, which is cheating by any legitmate currency valuation. China is still communist, and that is a theft of wealth, not the creation of it.

Double_R wrote:

Do you even know what I’m for? Have you bothered to ask me a single question to better understand what I’m telling you? Or are you right now just arguing with “the left”? Cause if that’s the case I’ll just leave the two of you alone.

I don't know what you're for but I certainly know what you're against. You said you are against the concentration of wealth and the gap between the poor and the rich. I mean, is there something more socialist than this? To me it's very clear, you're a socialist who doesn't have the balls to come out of the closet.

Sooner or later you will realize that you're a lefty because lefties don't seek justice, they seek obedience. For capitalism to work people need freedom and unfortunately socialism doesn't provide that to people. Capitalism and socialism are like oil and water so I don't know how you think to reconcile those ideologies.

Maybe you're thinking about a soft socialism like the social democracy practiced in Europe which is what Americans would call "wokism". If you keep up with the news, you'll know that this is not sustainable. Look at France and Britain, these countries are destroyed thanks to the "soft socialism" you want to pursue. Europe has almost zero technological development due to this soft socialism that limits the investment with high taxes. Europe is getting invaded by the goat fuckers from the Middle East who are raping their women and living at the expense of European taxes. Europe is going to go bankruptcy because of this soft socialism and the US with the Democrat party was trying to follow along.

China has more billionaires than America 1110 to Americas 1000.

I am arguing that neither communism nor socialism knows how to create personal wealth by policy.

Then you are talking to yourself because this doesn’t address a single thing I’ve argued in this thread.

What I’m arguing here is that capitalism has a natural progression where as it matures, the wealth within that society will become concentrated to the point where a minuscule fraction control vast amounts of that society’s wealth. This is a problem for capitalism because the more a society’s wealth becomes concentrated the less the people actually doing the hard work which makes the system function are incentivized to contribute. Taken to its extreme end, this will collapse the system.

This doesn’t mean we abandon capitalism. It means we need to introduce a force to counteract the force I just described. That means things like… social security, medicare, progressive taxation, you know… policy ideas that help working people. You can demonize those kinds of things as socialism all you want, they’re still necessary in a mature capitalistic system.

And not for nothing, but you should be cheering those kinds of things on. The harder it is for the working class while the rich continue to fly around in their private jets and more trillionaires are created, the more people are going to turn to socialistic policies and accept nothing less than to burn it all down. This is exactly the kind of sentiment that created the biggest moron as president we’ve ever seen. They thought he was fighting for the little guy which is why they all flocked to him. They didn’t give a damn about small government and conservative values. Once the dust settles with him they will move on, and it won’t be to the party of tax breaks for the rich.

Again, those people are one Dylan Mulvaney ad away from losing all or most of that. Mom and Pop have way less to lose on one bad decision.

You really think you’re onto something with this Dylan Mulvaney example. Cute. BTW I just bought a case of Bud light last week. Still on the shelves.

I think this point that you’re raising is extremely telling though. You see risk taking as proportionate to the dollar amount one has to lose. It’s this kind of thinking that is exactly the problem. Major companies can lose millions of dollars in a deal and it won’t make a difference to the lives of a single shareholder. A mom and pop store losing 10k in some cases could be enough to put them out of business.

So no, the major company will not lose more in any meaningful sense.

This also pertains to everything else in this conversation. You keep going back to risk taking, most people are in no position to take any risks at all. The husband and father who is barely able to pay rent and put food on the table is in no position to put $2k into a stock account or towards a business venture. The single mom who has to raise her kids and care for her aging parents isn’t able to set aside funds for that online store she dreamed of. Those kinds of risks are only practical for people who already have the means, which is why every single time there’s some economic downturn those are the folks who survive. That’s not an accident, that’s how the system is designed.

I know you really want the "wealth begets wealth" to be a truism, but the above and the real world prove it can never be.

That’s because you consistently engage in black or white fallacies, which is why you’re unable to tell different things apart from each other.

Wealth begets wealth is one of the most basic facts about capitalism, it’s not a controversial statement at all and it is so easily observable. You literally live in a society where 1% of the nation owns more wealth than the bottom half combined and you don’t think statement is true, that is incredibly absurd.

Your problem is that you keep trying to turn the statement into an absolute, as if I saying it’s true in every example even though I’ve clarified for you multiple times that’s not what I’m saying. It’s a personal choice at this point to not understand what I’m telling you.

Then you are talking to yourself because this doesn’t address a single thing I’ve argued in this thread.

I was unaware that I am obligated to respond to everything you post. Mostly, in fact, sorry to say, I ignore it.

But you continue to maintain that wealth begets wealth, and that is only true under a system [capitalism] that encourages [not forces] one to know how to

CREATE wewath. People who steal wealth do so because they either don't know how to create it themselves or don't want to bother doing it themselves, since they think they can get it by theft. But, wealth just does not grow on trees, as they say, and there is a reason for it, unless the product of trees [fruit] is that person's business.

You literally live in a society where 1% of the nation owns more wealth than the bottom half combined and you don’t think statement is true, that is incredibly absurd.

That just tells me that 1% of society knows how to create wealth better than the other 99%. So what? We are all free to learn, and continue learning, and take advantage of that education. Also true in this country, the most significant cause of poverty in this country is the lack of sufficient education, i.e., obtaining at least a high school education. That much is free of any tuition, isn't it? But, the more education, the better. That's called ambition, and one either has it, or they don't. Tell me that ambition is evil. On the face of it, I'll tell you you're wrong. It all depends on what each of us decide what we'll do with ambition. That poor decision is what makes it evil, not the thing, itself.

and it won’t make a difference to the lives of a single shareholder. 

You mean like mom and pop shareholders? Pretty sure their stocks can lose value like everyone who has access to www.fidelity.com can watch their stocks lose value.

Wealth begets wealth is one of the most basic facts about capitalism, it’s not a controversial statement at all and it is so easily observable. 

Again...wealth begets consumption is the observable norm. 30 trillion spent (blown) on the war on poverty, and the poverty rate is the same as 1973. Very few Americans took all those COVID checks and logged into any of the hundreds of stock market access points.

Discipline and delayed gratification begets wealth over time. And wealth begets consumption over time.

I think this point that you’re raising is extremely telling though

What's even more telling is your concession to what Warren Buffett explained.

The husband and father who is barely able to pay rent and put food on the table is in no position to put $2k into a stock account or towards a business venture. The single mom who has to raise her kids and care for her aging parents isn’t able to set aside funds for that online store she dreamed of. Those kinds of risks are only practical for people who already have the means, which is why every single time there’s some economic downturn those are the folks who survive. That’s not an accident, that’s how the system is designed.

So you agree, wealth begets consumption. 95% of the world lives on a fraction of the income of the average American. All those expenditures you listed are choices. Choices to take their wealth... and consume it all. Saving not even a penny. Only a rare choice to delay gratification can possibly reverse the norm.

That is why only 1% of Americans own 75% of the wealth in America.

And in the beginning GOD said, let there be money.

Trump is a good example of that.

You said you are against the concentration of wealth and the gap between the poor and the rich. I mean, is there something more socialist than this? To me it's very clear, you're a socialist who doesn't have the balls to come out of the closet.

This is so painfully stupid.

Since you would later in the same post refer to an alternative as “soft socialism” it’s clear that you understand that there are very different degrees of “socialism” and insist on painting me with the most extreme brush you’ve got despite me being absolutely clear that it doesn’t describe my views.

This is what happens when you have no arguments. When you do not understand what you are actually talking about beyond the labels you were taught to throw around. You haven’t contributed a single meaningful thought throughout our conversation. Let me know when you have an actual idea to break down instead of a derogatory epithet.

For capitalism to work people need freedom and unfortunately socialism doesn't provide that to people.

For the, what… third, fourth time(?), the “socialism” that I advocate for not only doesn’t contradict capitalism/freedom, it works within it. You would understand this of you actually understood any of the words you keep throwing around.

Capitalism and socialism are like oil and water so I don't know how you think to reconcile those ideologies.

Read the words I write and maybe some of them will penetrate.

He is thinking socialism is the greater good for the greatest number.

All those expenditures you listed [a dad who can barely put food on the table or a single mom stuck caring for her children and her aging parents] are choices. Choices to take their wealth... and consume it all. Saving not even a penny.

[1% of the nation owns more wealth than the bottom half combined] just tells me that 1% of society knows how to create wealth better than the other 99%.

We can stop pretending that this debate has anything to do with policy. This is really simple, you guys really believe that we are all nothing more than where our financial positions ended up. Luck and/or good fortune have nothing to do with it. Advantages built into our capitalistic system don’t exist, and therefore any policy that attempts to provide any kind of benefit for those towards the bottom is inherent theft from their wealthier

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

If not, I’d like to ask you a hypothetical. I’m sure you’re familiar with the basics of how basketball works. Each basket is two points, for this analogy we’ll set aside 3’s and FT’s…

Imagine a rule that each basket scored will be worth 2 points plus the size of your lead (if you have the lead). So Team A vs Team B, A scores first, B misses, A scores again. A now leads 6-0 (the second basket was worth 4pts [2pts plus the 2pt lead]). Next possession B scores, then A scores. That means so far, Team A is winning 10-2.

Play this game out. How does it end? Or more to the point; are these rules put together to measure which team is actually better?

Answer this question, then we can discuss how it relates to the conversation.

 you guys really believe that we are all nothing more than where our financial positions ended up. Luck and/or good fortune have nothing to do with it. Advantages built into our capitalistic system don’t exist, and therefore any policy that attempts to provide any kind of benefit for those towards the bottom is inherent theft from their wealthier

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

You are wrong.

The fact is simple, the normal course of wealth is to beget consumption. The rare course is to delay gratification. Sometimes that's easier for some than others due to culture. Luck might bring wealth, but not the temperament to grow it instead of consuming it. My point remains despite the straw variables you toss about. It is IMPOSSIBLE to grow wealth with zero sense of delayed gratification, no matter the starting point. Neither capitalism nor socialism can grant this temperament, but only one system rewards it.

And I suppose if you really think about it, Socialism rewards consumption behaviors while discouraging delayed gratification. The more you consume, the more redistribution you can qualify for.

Where Capitalism truly becomes predatory is when you have an institutionalized mix of both, where delayed gratifiers use their government influence to exploit others to promote the overconsumption of the fruits of their investments. (See Big Pharma during COVID.) There's a very interesting argument to be made that a mixed system tends to perversely pair the strongest accumulators of capital with institutions that subsidize or facilitate overconsumption behaviors.

In a way, pure socialism might be better than the current mixed system while also being vastly inferior to pure capitalism without all the cronyism of a mixed system. Arguably, the mixed system is the worst of the 3 worlds because the incentives align toward the greatest exploitation eventually.

China has a mixed system communism blended with capitalism. Today China is the second largest economy in the world expected to pass America in 30 years to become number one.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Glad to. Show me how I am robbing the poor in my extended area when I contributre 20% of my increase annually directly to the poor who exist around me in my area. Some of them, I know personally, and they are grateful for my help. Some of them gave up on education, and I have taught them how to do it. That, alone, can lift them to self-sufficiency, and they are trying to get there. My investments over the past 40 years have been good to me, and I am certain some I am helping will raise themselves out of poverty to personal wealth, by their own efforts.

Some of those I help came from good, middle-class homes, but for whatever reason - usually personal lack of ambition- did not finish high school. Their choice, and they acknowledge it. They know they disadvantaged themselves. Some are now completing GEDs, and a couple plan on further education through night school.

Your "basketball" game [inconsistent rules with reality, because that's not how either basketball, or a free market economy works]. That said, your scoring is manipulated to support your argument, which is not real, either. So, play another game and we'll talk,

Your wife must be proud of you.

When I hear "right to food, right to healthcare, right to own a home, right to ...."

This translates to an encouragement to eat all you want to, don't worry about taking care of your body, don't save up for a house, etc...

This cultural shift is straight up promoting overconsumerism through very perverse incentives. What America ends up with is a huge socio-economic class rift between the saves and the save-nots.

It leads to obesity which is the current problem with food in America.