Yep, Capitalism Sure Seems To Benefit Most Americans...

[All_In 0]

http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statisti...of-the-people-1Socialist policies helped avert a major crisis in capitalism recently...socialist countries consistently rank as the best in the world...when will americans wake up?

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

are you ****ing kidding me with this again?

[Balloon guy 158]

Actually it is only because of capitalist countries like America that spend so much money on defense that all these socialist countries are able to afford their little experiments.If they had to actually pay for their own defense, they wouldn't be able to afford all the things they give away for 'free'Look at the former Soviet Union, it tried to do both and that's why it failed. But that's okay if the eurotrash wants to ignore our underwriting all their social programs. When the bad stuff hits, we'll survive much better than a country that is dependent on 60+% of their populous' tax revenue.BTW, you might want to look a little closer at the success of these programs...they are starting to tear a bit at the seams.

[Balloon guy 158]

And it should be added, that much of this defense spending is going towards killing radical muslim extremist.You know, the ones that subscribe to Al-Jazeera

[brvheart 1,752]

are you ****ing kidding me with this again?

WAKE UP, NAKED COWBOY!

[All_In 0]

Actually it is only because of capitalist countries like America that spend so much money on defense that all these socialist countries are able to afford their little experiments.If they had to actually pay for their own defense, they wouldn't be able to afford all the things they give away for 'free'Look at the former Soviet Union, it tried to do both and that's why it failed. But that's okay if the eurotrash wants to ignore our underwriting all their social programs. When the bad stuff hits, we'll survive much better than a country that is dependent on 60+% of their populous' tax revenue.BTW, you might want to look a little closer at the success of these programs...they are starting to tear a bit at the seams.

LOL, this is about as shallow thinking as one can get...america spends obscene amounts on their military, and therefore socialist countries are ranked the best in the world...haha, u've outdone yourself this time.and to compare those countries to the ussr, man, u really have no clue. educate yourself, for your sake. u look ridiculous.

[hblask 1]

http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statisti...of-the-people-1Socialist policies helped avert a major crisis in capitalism recently...socialist countries consistently rank as the best in the world...when will americans wake up?

I'm not sure if you are trolling, or what, but these are really lame. Most of them can be answered with a simple question:"What do you think the appropriate value should be?" I'm leaving town for a few days or I'd look at them individually and tell you why they're stupid, but you'll just have to sleep knowing those statistics are stupid.

[Balloon guy 158]

LOL, this is about as shallow thinking as one can get...america spends obscene amounts on their military, and therefore socialist countries are ranked the best in the world...haha, u've outdone yourself this time.and to compare those countries to the ussr, man, u really have no clue. educate yourself, for your sake. u look ridiculous.

I will type slower.America spends huge amounts of money on our military. We also have agreements with other countries to come to their aid if they are attacked. Because of these agreements, countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway all can reduce their military spending to fractions of what they would have to spend if they didn't have the USofA to watch their back. Do you think the Soviet Union didn't invade those countries because they were so well armed by themselves during the cold war?If America pulls back to our own borders, all of those countries will have to make a decision, to arm themselves, or to keep giving away 16 weeks of paid vacations with free healthcare They won't be able to do both.We on the other hand , should we pull back, can sell our used weapons and ships to these countries, and use this money to fund free healthcare for all of Mexico, Canada and the US. And still be stronger than any country on the planet.But we are awesome, so I can understand why you have a hard time understanding how un-awesome your country is.

[El Guapo 8]

What does this have to do with Socialism? Are socialist not allowed to own stock, or are they given stock, or ... I don't even know what to ask.Also, how are they quantifying that? Because Mutual Funds and Pensions own stocks, which companies are owned by wealthy individuals, is that what they are saying?I'm confused.

[dapokerbum 0]

LOL, this is about as shallow thinking as one can get...america spends obscene amounts on their military, and therefore socialist countries are ranked the best in the world...haha, u've outdone yourself this time.and to compare those countries to the ussr, man, u really have no clue. educate yourself, for your sake. u look ridiculous.

From the guy who still types you as "u" ... LOL

[Balloon guy 158]

What does this have to do with Socialism? Are socialist not allowed to own stock, or are they given stock, or ... I don't even know what to ask.Also, how are they quantifying that? Because Mutual Funds and Pensions own stocks, which companies are owned by wealthy individuals, is that what they are saying?I'm confused.

Whoa whoa whoa El Guapo.Let me square you away with the delicacy of this poster.all_In has no need for facts, not when hyperbole and anti-semitism fills all the nooks and cranny of his swiss cheese like arguments.Trying to get facts interjected will only confuse this poor lad, forcing him farther and farther into his beliefs that they are all lying, and they need to be brought down.And just like in the movie V is for Vendetta did you arrive at a completely stupid conclusion and you found that the 'hero' was really an idiot who didn't make any sense at all and is borderline a sexual molestor, All_In will not come to a pretty end at the conclusion of this debate.So save your facts for those that have actually thought about the topic. Not for those that are just reading from their daily cheat sheets given to them by people laughing that anyone would buy the stuff they are selling.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

I got 6 statistics in and stopped because they're all mind blowingly retarded.- 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.This study this statistic came from isn't referenced anywhere in the place it cites as a "source", which isn't anything more than a glorified blog. Does it mean number of shares? Market cap? Either way it seems like a proposterous statistic considering how many people's 401Ks are invested in mutual funds and the other ways that people, and specifically institutions (which a big chunk of your middle class "investment money" is invested through) invest. Like the rest of these points, I really don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism vs. socialism either. Even if the statistic were proven true (which i have seriously doubt is even possible, leading me to believe it's completley made up), it's basically saying that "people who start and run companies receive and hold on to ownership in those companies, because your personal wealth being tied to your results is a fantastic motivator to be good at your job." THE SKY IS FALLING!!!- 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.- 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.- A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.Only one of these statistics (the 3rd) referenes the age of people they polled, and they started with people aged 25. Of course a 25 year old won't have more than 10,000 saved for retirement. None of the articles reference how these statistics compare to other countries, or countries with more socialized governments, so I again fail to see how this has any bearing on your argument.If you want to make a salient point, how about "we don't teach kids early enough or often enough about how personal finance works"? There's one that I think everyone could probably agree with. Of course, this has nothing to do with evil capitalism and is more a failing of the education system, so I can understand you not being interested. To this specific point, my long term life goals include going back to teach personal finance to high school kids and helping to develop a standardized curriculum to combat this problem. -66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.Amazing that the statistic stops right there doesn't it? Right when things started to head south? Remember the whole "owners are tied to the results of their companies" concept? Yeah, I'd wager that the largest income decline was in that same category for the last 4 years while the economy as been in decline. Should we now feel sorry for them? The people in that 1% are the owners of companies. They take the biggest risks, and as a result suffer the biggest losses and reap the biggest rewards. - 24% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.Sounds like plenty of people own stocks if a downturn in the stock market is causing people to re-evaluate their liquidity. You do realize that other countries have stock markets, right? It's not just an america thing. I'm sorry that everyone in america can't retire at a nice socialist 55, but as we're seeing all across europe every day in the headlines, neither can those nice socialists since their governments are also bankrupt from their awesome socialist entitlement programs.

[CaneBrain 95]

I got 6 statistics in and stopped because they're all mind blowingly retarded.- 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.This study this statistic came from isn't referenced anywhere in the place it cites as a "source", which isn't anything more than a glorified blog. Does it mean number of shares? Market cap? Either way it seems like a proposterous statistic considering how many people's 401Ks are invested in mutual funds and the other ways that people, and specifically institutions (which a big chunk of your middle class "investment money" is invested through) invest. Like the rest of these points, I really don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism vs. socialism either. Even if the statistic were proven true (which i have seriously doubt is even possible, leading me to believe it's completley made up), it's basically saying that "people who start and run companies receive and hold on to ownership in those companies, because your personal wealth being tied to your results is a fantastic motivator to be good at your job." THE SKY IS FALLING!!!- 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.- 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.- A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.Only one of these statistics (the 3rd) referenes the age of people they polled, and they started with people aged 25. Of course a 25 year old won't have more than 10,000 saved for retirement. None of the articles reference how these statistics compare to other countries, or countries with more socialized governments, so I again fail to see how this has any bearing on your argument.If you want to make a salient point, how about "we don't teach kids early enough or often enough about how personal finance works"? There's one that I think everyone could probably agree with. Of course, this has nothing to do with evil capitalism and is more a failing of the education system, so I can understand you not being interested. To this specific point, my long term life goals include going back to teach personal finance to high school kids and helping to develop a standardized curriculum to combat this problem. -66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.Amazing that the statistic stops right there doesn't it? Right when things started to head south? Remember the whole "owners are tied to the results of their companies" concept? Yeah, I'd wager that the largest income decline was in that same category for the last 4 years while the economy as been in decline. Should we now feel sorry for them? The people in that 1% are the owners of companies. They take the biggest risks, and as a result suffer the biggest losses and reap the biggest rewards. - 24% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.Sounds like plenty of people own stocks if a downturn in the stock market is causing people to re-evaluate their liquidity. You do realize that other countries have stock markets, right? It's not just an america thing. I'm sorry that everyone in america can't retire at a nice socialist 55, but as we're seeing all across europe every day in the headlines, neither can those nice socialists since their governments are also bankrupt from their awesome socialist entitlement programs.

the only one I would like you to discuss (because it is the only one that is not ridiculous or cherry picked) is the disparity between exec pay and average worker pay. Why has exec pay skyrocketed in the last 25 years while other wages have stayed stagnant? I can never figure this out because it seems pretty damning of something but I dont know what.

[Balloon guy 158]

the only one I would like you to discuss (because it is the only one that is not ridiculous or cherry picked) is the disparity between exec pay and average worker pay. Why has exec pay skyrocketed in the last 25 years while other wages have stayed stagnant? I can never figure this out because it seems pretty damning of something but I dont know what.

My old union side starts to rumble when I see this kind of stat. But another old part of me sees this different, the one that used to build houses, the high end market out in our area basically has saved tons of companies from going BK because they have so many 10,000 sq ft homes being built.Probably the same thing in most US cities...

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

the only one I would like you to discuss (because it is the only one that is not ridiculous or cherry picked) is the disparity between exec pay and average worker pay. Why has exec pay skyrocketed in the last 25 years while other wages have stayed stagnant? I can never figure this out because it seems pretty damning of something but I dont know what.

I mean, it's hard to discuss when i don't know any more details. The OPs link references this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/25481. That's a blog entry on a super liberal blogsite named after an insult to Bush, and the blog provides no point of reference to where it's getting its numbers. The blog says "The ratio of executive salary to the average paycheck during the mid-twentieth century was about thirty to one. In the last decade it has ranged from three hundred to over five hundred to one." That seems... impossible? Unless they're referring to the lowest level workers in multinational corporations where the CEO can actually make 10+M annually. Mixing hyperbole and statistics is dangerous as it erodes your credibility extremely fast... as does getting your "facts" from blogs which amount to little more than letters to the editor. I'm not blaming you cane, I think your question is extremely valid, I just wish we had a solid quantitative point of reference to work from.More to your point though, I think it's a fair one if the numbers support it. I actually think executive compensation is out of whack with the level of work performed in years where the success of a company is largest due to a rapidly expanding economy. However, I dont' think the government has any say at all in it in the vast majority of cases though. That decision is left up to the board of directors of a corporation to set executive pay. The board of directors has to answer to the shareholders. If the shareholders feel the board is wasting their money on executive comp, they get in trouble. When companies do the right thing though in this regard, people notice. The companies that are paying obscene amounts of money to executives tend to look bad. On the flip side, there are lots of companies where the executives have taken voluntary pay cuts recently, and it's netted them plenty of free advertising and goodwill.Here are a few results i found in 30 seconds of googling where the executives have taken voluntary pay cuts to reflect the state of the company, in many cases, larger % pay cuts were taken by the executives than required of the staff (see the first link for an example of this in AMD). http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10144356-92.htmlhttp://www.floridatrend.com/article.asp?aID=51444http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL565284820090205http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/toyota-to...cutives-salary/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1aee9896-84a8-11...144feabdc0.htmlThese companies are those to look up to, and as you can see, these articles about the executives can be found on websites where people in the relevant demographic will find them and hopefully consider patronizing these businesses as a result of their good corporate stewardship. Yay free markets.Going back to the cause, I would guess that the globalization of the economy has a lot to do with the increase in executive compensation. There's simply a lot more to manage from a business and data flow perspective than there was 30-50 years ago. The CEO of mcdonalds probably does a lot more today than he did 50 years ago when it wasn't in almost every country on earth. Has the workload increased in line with the increase in pay? Quite frankly, I don't know.

[CaneBrain 95]

I mean, it's hard to discuss when i don't know any more details. The OPs link references this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/25481. That's a blog entry on a super liberal blogsite named after an insult to Bush, and the blog provides no point of reference to where it's getting its numbers. The blog says "The ratio of executive salary to the average paycheck during the mid-twentieth century was about thirty to one. In the last decade it has ranged from three hundred to over five hundred to one." That seems... impossible? Unless they're referring to the lowest level workers in multinational corporations where the CEO can actually make 10+M annually. Mixing hyperbole and statistics is dangerous as it erodes your credibility extremely fast... as does getting your "facts" from blogs which amount to little more than letters to the editor. I'm not blaming you cane, I think your question is extremely valid, I just wish we had a solid quantitative point of reference to work from.More to your point though, I think it's a fair one if the numbers support it. I actually think executive compensation is out of whack with the level of work performed in years where the success of a company is largest due to a rapidly expanding economy. However, I dont' think the government has any say at all in it in the vast majority of cases though. That decision is left up to the board of directors of a corporation to set executive pay. The board of directors has to answer to the shareholders. If the shareholders feel the board is wasting their money on executive comp, they get in trouble. When companies do the right thing though in this regard, people notice. The companies that are paying obscene amounts of money to executives tend to look bad. On the flip side, there are lots of companies where the executives have taken voluntary pay cuts recently, and it's netted them plenty of free advertising and goodwill.Here are a few results i found in 30 seconds of googling where the executives have taken voluntary pay cuts to reflect the state of the company, in many cases, larger % pay cuts were taken by the executives than required of the staff (see the first link for an example of this in AMD). http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10144356-92.htmlhttp://www.floridatrend.com/article.asp?aID=51444http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL565284820090205http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/toyota-to...cutives-salary/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1aee9896-84a8-11...144feabdc0.htmlThese companies are those to look up to, and as you can see, these articles about the executives can be found on websites where people in the relevant demographic will find them and hopefully consider patronizing these businesses as a result of their good corporate stewardship. Yay free markets.Going back to the cause, I would guess that the globalization of the economy has a lot to do with the increase in executive compensation. There's simply a lot more to manage from a business and data flow perspective than there was 30-50 years ago. The CEO of mcdonalds probably does a lot more today than he did 50 years ago when it wasn't in almost every country on earth. Has the workload increased in line with the increase in pay? Quite frankly, I don't know.

Thank you I was just looking for some thoughts. On its face, it just seems a bit crazy.I did hear an interesting theory from my uncle (works in hedge funds) who is prone to saying anything on his mind when he is drunk. He said the reason workers' wages have plateaued in the last 30 years is because the workforce is now accessible to women/blacks/latinos......more people in equals less pay for everyone. Not the craziest thing I have ever heard. He also thinks our addiction to cheap shit depresses wages.I have no idea if any of that is remotely true but he is really successful in finance so I can't just discount it out of hand.

[Balloon guy 158]

Thank you I was just looking for some thoughts. On its face, it just seems a bit crazy.I did hear an interesting theory from my uncle (works in hedge funds) who is prone to saying anything on his mind when he is drunk. He said the reason workers' wages have plateaued in the last 30 years is because the workforce is now accessible to women/blacks/latinos......more people in equals less pay for everyone. Not the craziest thing I have ever heard. He also thinks our addiction to cheap shit depresses wages.I have no idea if any of that is remotely true but he is really successful in finance so I can't just discount it out of hand.

Did you ask him if he was a racist?Did he get offended, indignant, or laugh it off?

[CaneBrain 95]

Did you ask him if he was a racist?Did he get offended, indignant, or laugh it off?

He's not even a little. He just said it as a statement of fact.He is crazy though.....he wants us to invade Iran.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

i would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

[strategy 4]

I would like you to forward my resume

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Cover letter required obviously.

[strategy 4]

****

[CaneBrain 95]

I would like you to forward my resume

I would be happy to do so with a glowing recommendation if you like. I would not get too excited though IN THIS ECONOMY.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Wow. That might be the stupidest set of "Statistics" I've ever seen....and the accompanying pictures are the dumbest part.Just curious all-in, living in the Socialist North what are your responses to the following:How much Canadian (or US) Stock and Bonds do you own?Do you live paycheck to paycheck?What has your income growth been in the past 7 years?How much do you contribute to your Retirement Savings?Do you have more than $10,000 saved for Retirement?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...socialist countries are ranked the best in the world...

Rankings?