Billionaire Ray Dalio: Capitalism basically is not working for the majority of people

[Truth Detector]

True, but it's still not as much as it should be. The fact that 40% of people don't have $400 for an emergency is a big problem.
We also have to be careful with statistics relating to "disposable income," since it can be defined subjectively.
And the wealth gap hasn't been this bad since the thirties.

We have greater wealth today than we had in the thirties. That is a simple fact. We are far more productive and have far more free time than we had in the thirties.

I am still trying to understand what is this "liberal Socialism" you speak of is and How it would be better?

 

[PoliTalker]

That's what happens when the 1% gets too strong.

It's not sustainable.

We are reverting back to a society of lords and serfs.

 

[Irish Exit]

How about we better educate the bottom 10% and stop making excuses for failure and speed up consumerism with higher paid job growth?

I am fine with the first part and oppose the second. We have to better educate them so they can afford to pay hyper inflated prices for less goods.

 

[Irish Exit]

Without consumerism why have capitalism? I think you missed the mark here. It really is education. Kids these days are graduating more with indoctrination than they are education. Many cannot read or write past the 6th grade and forget it when it comes to economics.

Math? We are 14th in the world? When you raise kids based on how to feel good and not get their feelings hurt, you're not going to get a lot of ambitious go getters trying to invent the next BIG thing.

Functioning service economies can still provide goods. they are better goods designed to last, not go for the highest volume at the lowest price point. Why not have an economy based on minimizing consumption of labor instead of maximizing it. The problem isn't that everybody deserves an award. It is that everybody needs a big screen TV in every room of their house, a screen for every seat in their car, and a screen for every seat on an airplane.

 

[Irish Exit]

But because of social programs, such as universal health care and affordable college, living standards are still higher in European and East Asian Liberal Socialist countries than in America.

While the things you mention raise the standard of living for the poor in europe, it comes at a price for others, thus the yellow vest protestors, etc etc etc. Countries like Germany are becomining economically polarized. European doctors bring home what an American nurse would.

 

[Irish Exit]

People spending money is good, that's what causes the economy to thrive. Things get bad when there isn't enough money moving around, and that's what happens under Capitalism because wealth becomes too centralized.

Except wealth isn't too centralized, although what you are advocating for is centralizing all wealth in the hands of the government which would undercut your entire position if that is your objection. Money and wealth are not the same thing. People being able to afford their own homes is wealth. People being provided a home by the government is not.

 

[Truth Detector]

Why not have an economy based on minimizing consumption of labor instead of maximizing it.

Because an efficient market is based on consumer demand and supply. Attempts to "manage" markets leads to distortions and bad outcomes. I would think that after this long, educated people can recognize this.

 

[iolo]

Capitalism works for capitalists. Sometimes, for a while, it helps others, but never for long, and its current development will ensure the death of humanity. Enjoy!

 

[PoliTalker]

While the things you mention raise the standard of living for the poor in europe, it comes at a price for others, thus the yellow vest protestors, etc etc etc. Countries like Germany are becomining economically polarized. European doctors bring home what an American nurse would.

And yet still, they have better health outcomes in Europe, they live longer than Americans.

They also happen to work fewer hours per year and have longer paid vacations, too.

That doesn't sound too bad, ya know?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Kacper,

Except wealth isn't too centralized, although what you are advocating for is centralizing all wealth in the hands of the government which would undercut your entire position if that is your objection. Money and wealth are not the same thing. People being able to afford their own homes is wealth. People being provided a home by the government is not.

Your argument is self-contradictory.

You express a fear of too much wealth going to the government.

But then you also have a concern that the government is going to give it to the people.

So what is your REAL concern?

That it will be more difficult to become super-wealthy?

That it may become more difficult to hand that wealth down from generation to generation?

That succeeding generations of once-wealthy families may have to actually work for it themselves?

I don't think the government is in any danger of building a Federal Surplus into a vast fortune which is unavailable to the people.

The government doesn't sit on money or sequester it away from active circulation. The government doesn't act to shut down the economy. That's what the super-wealthy do.

 

[Irish Exit]

And yet still, they have better health outcomes in Europe, they live longer than Americans.

They also happen to work fewer hours per year and have longer paid vacations, too.

That doesn't sound too bad, ya know?

America's suicide rate that drags our numbers down has little to do with wealth. Having people not working for a living would worsen it as more people would be more socially isolated as work is a large part of their social lives.

 

[Irish Exit]

Because an efficient market is based on consumer demand and supply. Attempts to "manage" markets leads to distortions and bad outcomes. I would think that after this long, educated people can recognize this.

efficiency in the markets isn't necessary and it is certainly not something we have now either. the government manages too much demand anyway.

 

[Irish Exit]

Hello Kacper,



Your argument is self-contradictory.

You express a fear of too much wealth going to the government.

But then you also have a concern that the government is going to give it to the people.

So what is your REAL concern?

That it will be more difficult to become super-wealthy?

That it may become more difficult to hand that wealth down from generation to generation?

That succeeding generations of once-wealthy families may have to actually work for it themselves?

I don't think the government is in any danger of building a Federal Surplus into a vast fortune which is unavailable to the people.

The government doesn't sit on money or sequester it away from active circulation. The government doesn't act to shut down the economy. That's what the super-wealthy do.

I have expressed my concerns many times at this site. I am not sure how self-sufficiency and sustainable living are such foreign concepts to you. I guess you are too caught up in democratic culture war non-sense to see that people can be poorer in terms of income and have better quality of living, that poor people can be more self-sufficient than they currently are, or that super wealthy people's wealth depends on other super wealthy people wanting what they have so the government taking it would have no economic effect different than the government just creating that same amount of money out of thin air. Trillions of dollars being caught up in the capital markets at any given time increases the purchasing power of a dollar on Main Street. Put that money on Main Street and you will see outrageous inflation.

 

[Truth Detector]

efficiency in the markets isn't necessary and it is certainly not something we have now either. the government manages too much demand anyway.

Markets aren't exactly "efficient", but more-so when left alone without failed attempts to "manage" them. And yes, it is necessary to allow the free market to work with limited regulations and control.

 

[Irish Exit]

Markets aren't exactly "efficient", but more-so when left alone without failed attempts to "manage" them. And yes, it is necessary to allow the free market to work with limited regulations and control.

The government is self-dealing. They do not manage the markets to maximize anything other than their ability to continue to service current debt while running up even more debt. Their obsession with growth has spread like a cancer throughout the American intellect. It is little more than chartalism at its finest. They might as well go full-neo and just mint some trillion dollar coins and be done with it.

 

[Nordberg]

Here are the charts showing how badly the wealth gap is askew. It is not just a normal slope, but it has been created and accelerated by the Repubs. http://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/ The wealth gap is worse than the Gilded Age and if America wants to survive, it must be be addressed . The wealthy are not just greedy, but are creating a different country before our eyes. The oligopoly/plutocracy is well on its way. The rich are not patriots. They only care about more and more money. Money=power.

 

[Nordberg]

Here is another representation.

find the truth before you talk or act.

 

[evince]

Capitalism works for capitalists. Sometimes, for a while, it helps others, but never for long, and its current development will ensure the death of humanity. Enjoy!

what country that is successful is a non capitalist nation?


your ideas has never produced a nation that works for ANYONE but dictators

 

[StoneByStone]

So Venezuela is a shining success and Socialist utopia in your little mind?

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?110515-Venezuela-and-the-Myth-of-the-Liberal-Media

Have you ever lived in Europe or been to Asia? The living standards are NOTHING like we have here.

You're right. In most of those countries, they're higher. Things like health care and college are more affordable, there's less crime, less illiteracy, longer life expectancy, and generally happier people.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-life

We have greater wealth today than we had in the thirties. That is a simple fact. We are far more productive and have far more free time than we had in the thirties.

I am still trying to understand what is this "liberal Socialism" you speak of is and How it would be better?

Yes, but during the thirties, the economy was struggling due to a large gap between the rich and the poor. Today that gap is as big as it's been since the thirties.

Liberal Socialism is a form of Socialism that allows for private property and a mostly free market. Wealth is redistributed mostly through social programs. These kind of economics have been successful in every first world country they have been tried in.

How is that even credible?

The Nazis and Fascists used WWI and the unfair treatment during the post-war period as propaganda to gain support.

I guess you forgot the part where we were attacked. Good lord dude, you're sounding like a deluded, low IQ idiot now.

We were attacked because we were helping the Soviet Union. Make sure you know what you're talking about before acting cocky. You ended up making yourself look stupid again.

 

[StoneByStone]

While the things you mention raise the standard of living for the poor in europe, it comes at a price for others, thus the yellow vest protestors, etc etc etc. Countries like Germany are becomining economically polarized. European doctors bring home what an American nurse would.

The Yellow Vest protesters are protesting the economic burden for things like fuel prices that are mainly affecting the working-class. France needs more Socialism, not less. However, they also made the huge mistake of inviting in the third world, which is dragging down wages and costing the government too much.
And yeah, American doctors make way too much. Doctors might not like that, but in order to have a more stable economy, they need to get taxed more.