linate

Why does anyone have to believe the accuser here?

What are some policies that you support that would foster broad based prosperity?

All im doing is observing how you approach things on here. I never see you promoting ideas or policies that are good for most people... your points are always about people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Less about society making sure everyone has adequate bootstraps to pull themselves up with

Good points

What are some specific policy proposals that they advocate for that would do anything like that? From what I see they simply propose all things free market. How original. Its not that everyone else hasn't thought of the free market, its just that eveveryone else realizes its not the panacea they think it is. Now, if you wanted to talk about specific policy proposals that have free market underpinnings but aren't simply deregulate everything you might be on to something

with someone like trump, even if it was proven beyond doubt he was a rapist I doubt it would change polling too much. I think both parties kinda assume he's a perverted deviant already. I dont even know how much the Epstein stuff would take him down if the claims were better proven.

I think the more accurate answer is that they can't think outside the box, cause I don't think they are too thoughtful. But to be fair it's hard to know what the further left would do if they got power. They have a lotta good ideas but they have a lotta bad ideas too

Why keep the conservative mantra as every man for himself? I think the reason they insist on that thinking is due to lack of creativity in political and policy and social thought. We don't need runaway welfare and hand outs to create broad based prosperity. We could pass regulations that cost nothing but helps many, we could give loans that much be paid back that help many. We could use small grants to the right people or change our tax code. As I always say, we've lost the policy in politics. Instead of creative policy that helps most, they get stuck in simplistic either or socialms debates. There'seven conservative ideas that could help, but again they keep it very simplistic and focus on generic ideas about how we can't help others instead of creative ways in which we can

They would rather have broad based prosperity than prosperity by a select few who can achieve it right? Assuming thats the case why do you focus so much on outliers and rich people, why dont you focus on policies that promote broad based prosperity?

If they dont want broad based prosperity why not?

You would rather have broad based prosperity than prosperity by a select few who can achieve it right? Assuming thats the case why do you focus so much on outliers and rich people, why dont you focus on policies that promote broad based prosperity?

From ai...

There's nothing inherently impossible about a government-sponsored retirement match. It's a policy choice rather than an economic impossibility.

For example, the government could create a program like:

* For every $1 you contribute to a retirement account (such as a 401(k) or IRA), the government contributes 25–100 cents, up to a yearly limit.

* The match could phase out for higher-income households, concentrating benefits on low- and middle-income workers.

* The funds could be required to stay invested until retirement, just like many retirement accounts today.

In fact, the U.S. already has something similar, though it's much smaller:

* The Saver's Match (which replaces the old Saver's Credit) will provide eligible lower-income workers with a federal matching contribution to their retirement accounts, rather than just a tax credit.

There are several advantages:

* It encourages more people to save.

* It helps workers whose employers don't offer a 401(k) match.

* Compound growth can make even modest matching contributions significantly more valuable over decades.

* It can reduce future reliance on government assistance in retirement.

The tradeoffs are:

* It costs taxpayers money.

* It increases the federal budget deficit unless offset by spending cuts or higher taxes.

* Policymakers would need to decide who qualifies and how generous the match should be.

Many economists across the political spectrum see targeted retirement matching for lower-income workers as a more effective incentive than tax deductions, since tax deductions tend to provide the largest benefits to higher-income households.

So the idea is entirely feasible. In fact, the U.S. has already begun moving in that direction with the Saver's Match, although on a much smaller scale than a typical employer 401(k) match.

A rough estimate is **on the order of $50–100 billion per year**, depending on how generous the program is and how many people participate.

Here's one way to approximate it:

* Bottom 50% of U.S. adults: about **130 million people**.

* Assume about **80 million** are working.

* Suppose **60% participate** → **48 million workers**.

* Assume the average salary is **$40,000**.

* A 6% contribution is **$2,400**.

* If the government matched **100% of that 6%**, the maximum match would be **$2,400 per participating worker**.

That yields:

* 48 million × $2,400 ≈ **$115 billion per year**.

However, not everyone contributes the full 6%, and some earn much less than $40,000. If average contributions were closer to 3–4% of pay, or participation were lower, the annual cost could fall into the **$50–80 billion** range.

For context:

* The federal government spends roughly **$1.6 trillion** annually on Social Security.

* Annual defense spending is around **$900 billion**.

* Total federal spending is roughly **$7 trillion**.

So a universal 6% match for the bottom half of earners would likely cost **about 0.7–1.6% of the federal budget**. It would be a significant program, but not outside the scale of major existing federal initiatives.

One interesting economic effect is that much of this money would remain invested in businesses through retirement accounts rather than being spent immediately. That means the long-term fiscal cost isn't simply "money gone"—the policy would increase household wealth and capital formation, though whether those long-term benefits offset the upfront budget cost is a matter economists continue to debate.

See above

I'll give you the fact that anyone can get rich but that's the case no matter who's been president

I'd rather have broad based prosperity not just a select few pulling it off

When the economy is in trouble gold and silver shoot up. When inflation shoots up commodities shoot up. The stock market represents mostly the rich, not the large majority of Americans. These aren't the flex that you think they are

Employment is just fluctuating but simply being employed aint much of a flex either if the large majority of people can barely survive

Yes. Those are two related but distinct aspects of an economy.

You can have **extensive pooling of resources**—through taxes, universal healthcare, public pensions, unemployment insurance, and other social programs—while still having **substantial wealth inequality** if ownership of assets remains concentrated.

For example:

* A country may provide universal healthcare and generous social benefits (high resource pooling).

* At the same time, the wealthiest households may own most of the businesses, stocks, and investment properties.

* As those assets appreciate over decades, wealth can become increasingly concentrated even though everyone's basic needs are better protected.

Conversely, a country could have relatively little redistribution but broad ownership of productive assets (through widespread stock ownership, employee ownership, or other mechanisms), which could reduce wealth inequality.

So there are really two different questions:

1. **How are income and resources redistributed?** (pooling)

2. **Who owns productive assets?** (wealth distribution)

These interact, but one does not determine the other. That's why many economists distinguish between **income inequality** and **wealth inequality**—they often move together, but not always.

This distinction strengthens your earlier point: **the degree of resource pooling alone doesn't determine how unequal wealth becomes.** Asset ownership patterns, returns on capital, inheritance, housing markets, and other factors all play major roles.

If the usa is not necessarily better as an economic model it could still be said it fosters greater wealth disparity and top heavy wealth. Why?

Your intuition is pointing at something real, but it needs a bit of tightening.

A useful way to frame it is:

If an economy has **less pooling of resources (lower redistribution / weaker social insurance)**, then:

* more income stays “privately controlled” at the top end

* market outcomes dominate (wages, capital returns, inheritance)

* and therefore **wealth dispersion tends to be higher**

So yes: *less pooling can allow greater wealth inequality.*

But the key correction is this:

> Wealth inequality is not mainly determined by how “pooled” resources are—it’s primarily driven by how income from capital vs labor accumulates over time.

That means you can get:

* **high inequality in highly pooled systems** (if ownership of capital is still unequal)

* **lower inequality in less pooled systems** (if wages are high, mobility is strong, and asset ownership is broad)

### Where the US actually fits

The U.S. is somewhat unique:

* It is **not very “pooled” compared to Europe** (weaker welfare state than, say, Sweden or Germany)

* But it is also a **very large, deep capital market economy**

* So wealth accumulates heavily through:

* stocks

* housing

* business ownership

* inheritance

That combination tends to produce:

* strong upward mobility for some

* but also **very high wealth concentration at the top**

### The important nuance

“Pooling resources” (taxes, transfers, public services) affects inequality mainly by:

* reducing bottom-end deprivation

* increasing floor stability (healthcare, education, unemployment support)

* modestly compressing income distribution

But it is not the main driver of extreme wealth inequality. The big drivers are:

* capital ownership distribution

* returns to capital vs wages (Piketty-style dynamics)

* inheritance

* housing asset inflation

* education/labor market sorting

### A sharper way to restate your idea

A more precise version of your argument would be:

> Lower redistribution tends to allow more inequality to persist, but the magnitude of wealth inequality is more strongly shaped by capital accumulation dynamics than by the level of resource pooling alone.

.....

First, a small correction to the premise: the U.S. actually has one of the **most diverse capital markets in the world** (public equities, private equity, venture capital, REITs, derivatives, etc.). What’s *less diverse* is not the existence of instruments, but **who owns what and how broadly capital is distributed across households and firms**.

If your question is really “why does U.S. capital ownership and corporate structure end up more concentrated or less broadly shared than in some other advanced economies?”, there are a few big structural reasons.

---

## 1. The U.S. is unusually equity-heavy and market-driven

The U.S. leans strongly toward **public markets and equity ownership**, rather than:

* cooperative ownership models (more common in parts of Europe)

* state-backed industrial ownership (common in parts of Asia historically)

* bank-centered capital systems (Germany, Japan, etc.)

That matters because:

* equity markets tend to **scale winner-take-most dynamics**

* successful firms grow very large (Apple, Amazon, Google effects)

* ownership accumulates where early capital already existed

So “diversity” exists in *instruments*, but outcomes cluster.

---

## 2. Household capital ownership is uneven

In many European countries, there is:

* higher participation in pensions tied to collective bargaining

* stronger automatic enrollment in retirement systems

* more mandated savings pools (which spread equity exposure broadly)

In the U.S.:

* ownership is more **voluntary and market-dependent (401(k), IRAs, brokerage accounts)**

* participation correlates strongly with income and financial literacy

* large shares of stocks are held by the top wealth decile

So capital is “diverse,” but **not evenly distributed across the population**.

---

## 3. Weak cooperative / stakeholder corporate tradition

Compared to places like:

* Germany (codetermination, worker representation on boards)

* Scandinavia (labor-capital coordination, wage compression institutions)

* Netherlands (stakeholder governance models)

The U.S. emphasizes:

* shareholder primacy

* managerial autonomy

* profit maximization over stakeholder balancing

This pushes firms toward:

* scaling aggressively

* concentrating ownership

* prioritizing capital returns over wage dispersion

---

## 4. Venture capital + tech winner-take-most effects

A uniquely strong feature of the U.S. is:

* deep venture capital ecosystem

* extremely high upside tolerance

* strong network effects in tech markets

That creates:

* fewer but larger dominant firms

* rapid capitalization of “superstar” companies

* concentrated equity returns

So paradoxically, **innovation increases capital concentration**.

---

## 5. Tax and inheritance structure amplifies accumulation

Relative to many peer countries:

* inheritance is less aggressively constrained (compared to Europe/Asia)

* capital gains are lightly taxed relative to labor in many brackets

* wealth can compound across generations with fewer structural brakes

That leads to:

* persistent ownership clusters

* dynastic capital formation

---

## 6. Financialization and index concentration

Even “broad” tools like index funds introduce hidden concentration:

* a large share of passive capital flows into the same mega-cap firms

* top companies receive disproportionate inflows

* market capitalization reinforces itself

So even diversified investing ends up **structurally tilted toward a small group of firms**.

---

## The key synthesis

The U.S. doesn’t lack capital diversity in *form*—it has plenty of instruments.

What it lacks relative to some other systems is:

> **broad, structurally enforced diffusion of ownership across households and across firms**

Instead, it has:

* highly efficient capital allocation

* strong scale-up mechanisms

* but also strong reinforcement of winners and existing capital holders

---

So you have no qualms over deporting people who were born and raised for decades here through no fault of their own? Sending people who are culturally American to the slums of foreign countries? Don't you have any desire to find ways to make exceptions to keep some people here or do you take a handling there can be no exceptions approach? If your parents brought you personally here as a kid being born here and the government tried to deport you as a 30 year old man to a third world country, what would you think and feel? Would that be justice?

Why do you think we have given citizenship for hundreds of years to people born here unless that was what was understood?

Yes the founders might not have understood the amendment to apply to birth tourism but if we assume originally they gave citizenship to people born here, the court can't simply engage in judicial rule making for their preferences. That'd be legislating from the bench

I do not wish for your arguments here to ve true... whence, they are not true

I suspect that the original Americans understood the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United states" as meaning people born here become citizens. Originalism and all that

There's pros and cons to birth right citizenship. One con is some people are born here and effectively have no home country. Does it make sense for someone born here and lived for 30 years to suddenly be deported to a random foreign country that they know nothing about?

My understanding is that the most straightforward interpretation of the birthright amendment is that birthright citizenship makes most sense

And the pope's mentioned a minimum wage sanctioned by the state

And pope's said legislation is necessary for this stuff

I can only conclude that you have blinders on due to deep seated bias

When the popes have said private property is subordinate to contracts, or telling the government to intervene, telling the government to enact luxory taxes, or saying everyone has a right to resources enough to live, this is pretty clearly a social contract, a liberal idea. It would be reasonable to say conservatives also believe in all that but for you to spin it as "charity" is butchering the texts logic. Normally in political thought people say there's government assistance and intervention that is pitted against private charity. That's not doing justice to these texts without you just asserting otherwise

I think the argument from miracles is weak evidence for god and from nde science as strong evidence for god. These are based on empirical science, not philosophy. Atheists just are too bias and lack objectivity to see that. The only point I acknowledged to you is that philosophy only isn't evidence for god. Im mostly thinking of classical Christian apologetics like causation and argument from design, stuff like that

That's my point, the usa isn't a minimalist government, we just spend on defense and any extent our government is smaller its because our health care is half privatized and welfare like childcare is privatized too. So if a conservative point is we can't spend like other countries due to our defense spending and inability to reign in Healthcare like the rest of the world thats fair point.... but that's a different point than saying the usa only works cause its minimalist. That's just not true, effectively. Plus there are fiscally respondible ways to have a social welfare system too, so its not either runaway government or nothing

Correct

Of course it depends on how we define it you are right. Im used to talking to old school republicans and libertarians who think any welfare is bad so I tend to say a social welfare is a liberal idea or a basic welfare net is bias to liberal. But you are right not all Republicans agree

The Fall of the New Rome

Is the United States the new "Rome"? If so, can America be saved, or must it fall victim to the forces of fascism, corporate plutocracy and tyranny? Is there a way out, to return to democracy and freedom? This blog explores the political, social and spiritual issues that affect the US today.

Is America repeating the mistakes of ancient Rome?

T.M.Elkins

T.M.Elkins is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in alternative journals such as Serpentine, local newspapers in the New York area, and at OpEd News.com. Originally from New Jersey, she currently resides in Germany.

In 2001, a book published by a small publishing company in the US came and went without receiving much fanfare. Nestled among the many glossy get-rich-quick, positive thinking and self- help books that one commonly finds in Christian bookstores, "When the Empire Strikes Out: Are We Repeating the Pattern of Past Civilizations? ", with its serious title and earnest, analytical tone, could not have seemed less untimely.

After all, America had just experienced a whole decade of growth, peace and self-indulgence. The economy was booming, after a few "setbacks" like the dot com bubble that burst in 2000. The Soviet Union, long considered America's archenemy, had collapsed. The cold war was over, and Clinton had promised a "peace dividend". What could go wrong?

The book's author, William R. Goetz, delved into a theory with which most Americans are unfamiliar- Sir John Glubb's theory of the rise and fall of empires- and what this theory could mean to Americans- namely, that the United States was in the throes of its imminent collapse and death. Needless to say, the book was not terribly popular. Truth never is.

At the time, I found a copy in my local Christian bookstore, and read it with great eagerness. Goetz explains how Sir John Glubb's famed book The fate of empires and Search for survival . The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival outlined seven phases in the life span of an empire, from the first, the Age of Outburst, to the last, the Age of Decline and Collapse.

Goetz's book applied this theory to the history of the United States, and came to the almost inevitable conclusion that the United States was heading for disaster.

The parallels between the last days of Rome and the last few decades of the United States are appallingly clear. Of course, we have all heard of the decadence of Rome's final years. In Caesar and Christ, Will Durant described Rome's final days as follows:

"Prostitution flourished. Homosexualism was stimulated by contact with Greece and Asia: many rich men paid a talent ($3,600) for a male favorite; Cato complained that a pretty boy cost more than a farm. Marc Antony surrendered to such sensuality that his subjects lost respect for his authority. He surrounded himself with dancers, musicians, courtesans and roisterers, and took wives and concubines whenever a fine woman struck his fancy."

The worst ruler, Nero "divorced one wife, murdered his own mother, killed a pregnant second wife, then in regret found a youth who closely resembled her, had him emasculated, married him and used him in every way like a woman." Has it gotten so bad in the US yet? Thankfully, America has not yet produced a new Nero, but the many sexual scandals (including Bill Clinton's famed cigar incident with intern Monica Lewinsky) should give us cause to consider.

Goetz quotes Henry Cabot Lodge in The History of Nations: "Perhaps the most significant mark of the corruption of the age is the frequency of divorce and the general aversion to marriage..... immorality was the rule." Another sign of a society in decline is the division of wealth: "(There were) two predominant classes in the state... the mass of beggars and the (incredibly wealthy). The "economic and social disintegration", as Lodge put it, caused the Romans to become lazy, overly fond of luxury and adverse to hard work. The indolence of its citizens, the endless internal struggles brought about by societal disunity, and the financial burden of providing free bread for thousands- these were the first cracks in Rome's invincible facade. Add to this the assimilation of thousands of barbarians into Rome, the frequent invasions from without and the many foreign wars designed to bring in much-needed funds to pay for the bloated military, public welfare and luxurious decadence of the Roman aristocracy, and you have the makings of disaster.

To be sure, the long, slow decline of Rome has long been a favorite of historians, and innumerable books have pondered the causes for her fall. While few have read all of Edward Gibbon's momentous seventeen- volume work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the gist of the book's chronicle of Rome's downfall can be summed up in what Gibbons describes as the five significant factors in her inglorious end: a rapid increase in divorce, a craze for pleasure, a bloated military coupled with ignorance of enemies within, an increase in violence and a decline in religious morals. This, yet again, reads like a perfect description of American society today.

The frivolity, hedonism, obsession with convenience (so that even walking five minutes is considered an undue burden) are one side of America's decline. Home-grown terrorists, school massacres, a sudden rash of child abductions by predatory pedophiles and the splintering of society are the darker side.

Selfishness and individualism cause children to be seen as a burden, instead of a blessing. Abortion, as in modern times, was also practiced in ancient Rome, along with infanticide. While most Americans think of Europeans as "liberal", many of the late term-abortions performed stateside would be illegal in Ireland, Poland or Germany. America has the dubious distinction of being one of the few countries on earth that allows abortions up to the last week of pregnancy, without restrictions.

American hedonism has also brought us the "Great Recession" we are now seeing: a nation that, for decades, consumed without producing, bought what it couldn't afford and demanded more wages for itself, while consuming cheap goods from overseas, is destined for defeat.

When he wrote his book in the last years of the nineties, Goetz could hardly have seen just how horribly wrong America's short- sighted economic policies could have gone- we now see Washington sending trillions of dollars to rich banking billionaires, while a whole generation of kids will spend their formative years living in tents, sleeping in motels or in their parents' cars. Meanwhile, the open borders with Mexico means that the modern day "barbarians" will continue their invasion. Millions of American citizens, out of work, are depending on extended unemployment benefits and food stamps; at the same time, America's wealthy elite would rather hire illegal immigrants than US citizens.

On the political level, we see other signs: the growth of a centralized, bloated bureaucracy, an inefficient, bloated military, the increase in expensive overseas battles, and a buildup in debt and ongoing corruption. No nation has ever successfully fought two wars on two fronts simultaneously and survived. The last two to try were Napoleon and Hitler, and both were defeated. The arrogance of our nation's leaders to think that they could succeed at such a task is astounding.

Interestingly, in chapter ten, Goetz enumerates the many threats facing America, many of which have, in the following years, come to pass. The Chinese have already committed many of the attacks that Goetz described a decade ago, including infiltration of the food supply (the melamine poisoning), shutting down power grids (which happened in 2003) and attacking the economic system through hacking (which happened last year). China's "information warfare" program is the second largest in the world- after the US. Because of America's dwindling number of native-born IT specialists (another product of the failed school and University system), we can expect the quality of China's program to soon exceed that of the US, if it hasn't already.

In When Nations Die, Jim Nelson Black writes: "As I examine the parallels between American society and other great empires in history, I am often stunned by the way our civilization mirrors the fallen giants of the past." If we want to see the future, we need only look at the past. Goetz's book now seems chillingly prophetic in its warnings. Too bad America's leaders were too busy playing golf, conducting sexual affairs or attending campaign fundraisers to pay attention to his dire warnings.

What makes you think the way we designed our economic system is better than every other developed country? Please read my last post to educate yourself before responding

Right?

Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.

It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.

The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.

It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.

The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today