re: Anyone have an actual good alternative to the economic system we have created?

quote:

---

It actually makes up more...

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

Thought this was interesting.....1.89% of the population accounts for 7.3% of our GDP.

---

Why is that interesting?

quote:

---

quote:
Wealth is the last thing mankind is holding on to that lets us feel better than others.

Nah. It's all about how you define success. Some do it through altruism--"I volunteered more, so I'm a public servant and you're a capitalist pig." Some through athleticism, having the hotter wife/husband, musical talent, and yes perhaps most or certainly many through financial success. It's part of the human condition either way; you'll find that natural "greedy" impulse in any system.

The better question is:
quote:
So what aspect of capitalism prevents everyone from starving? What is the major difference in the two systems to you?

With capitalism, or at least historically with the US, we have religious and other non-denominational charitable entities and individuals to provide shelters, foundations, soup kitchens, legal aid, etc. My GF (no pics) was an avid member of dance marathon while at LSU and helped raise hundreds of thousands for a local children's hospital--through individual altruism allowed by the market.

With Communism/other heavily government-run systems, the government decides it can do these things better...and just look at how something as simple as the post office turned out. It took Fedex and UPS to get the USPS off its butt and get better.

This is not to say capitalism is perfect or there is no area the government shouldn't touch. It's simply to say we should err on the side of more individual and market liberty. Look at the healthy lollipop thread with that kid. We have a system that allowed a child, no less, to create an equally (presumably) tasty treat which is actually healthy. The market provides innovation and merit-based advance, while allowing our religious/altruistic nature the room to work effectively through the market or straight up donation. As I have heard from my Youtube perusing, conservatives regularly donate more than liberals, and conservatives generally like a freer economic and intellectual market.

---

Great post! The problem is that when people do not have spare money to give after the wealth distribution is completed. How will your gf, pics of gtfo, get people to donate who do not have it. If we have a limited money supply, and the rich continue to accumulate wealth, doesn't that leave us with crumbs?

quote:

---

Drug test for Welfare

“We can lift our citizens from welfare, from dependence to independence, and from poverty to prosperity,” Trump said in his State of the Union address last week, the latest signal that Republicans want “welfare reform” this year.

---

The thing about welfare is that cutting it would also hurt small businesses. And cut into profits to big chains as well. In theory, if welfare is cut, the people who is no longer able to receive it will find a job, but there is going to be a percentage who will not. Then it would likely increase crime, etc, etc...

quote:

---

Are you sure about that? My computer cost 2500, how does that math work out? I mean I really don't know but do they last longer or do we look at the average age of cars on the road and assume this? Maybe, because of the ever increasing cost of a new car that looses 10% of its value as you drive off the lot, people drive their cars longer/buy more used cars?

---

You have to also throw in the fact that more people today "have" to have the latest and greatest, so people don't get the full life of their vehicle because they are ready to move on to something new.

quote:

---

quote:
It actually makes up more...


No, it doesn't.

---

1/14= 7.142%
Actual percentage = 7.3%
7.3% > 7.142%

quote:

---

Thought this was interesting.....1.89% of the population accounts for 7.3% of our GDP.


Why is that interesting?

---

Interesting that such a small percentage of workers accounts for so much GDP. More interesting though is the higher percentage of the GDP the financial sector is, the higher inequality in the country

quote:

---

quote:
If we have a limited money supply, and the rich continue to accumulate wealth, doesn't that leave us with crumbs?


We don't have a limited money supply, though.

Another faulty premise.

---

We don't? We have a limited amount of currency in circulation. If we print more than is already in circulation it debases the value even further past .04% of the 1913 US Dollar

The poor will always be with us, proven in every major country in the world. The US and some other countries offer a genuine opportunity for upward mobility if you work hard, live below your means, and have reasonable intelligence. Communism will fail every time, and socialism tends to pull the economy in that direction. If a country has a healthy middle class, then that economy is working well; eliminate the middle class and it is a failure. Not an economist, just my two cents.

quote:

---

quote:
Are you sure about that?


While what he said is true, there is really more to it. At the end the day, Mustangs cost what they cost because consumers are willing to pay the price offered.

---

So are you saying we have gotten to a point where we are more willing to spend more money now than then?

quote:

---

The poor will always be with us, proven in every major country in the world.

---

Have you ever thought that we just haven't ever done it right? Everything starts somewhere and at sometime. Our middle class are being destroyed right now, give it 20 more years lol

quote:

---

Great post!

---

Thanks! It's great to have good conversation.

quote:

---

The problem is that when people do not have spare money to give after the wealth distribution is completed. How will your gf, pics of gtfo, get people to donate who do not have it. If we have a limited money supply, and the rich continue to accumulate wealth, doesn't that leave us with crumbs?

---

An actual economist would be great in this conversation. But no, I don't believe the money supply is limited. In fact, thanks to the recent tax cuts, I've been able to put that back into the economy and I see that infrastructure and manufacturing is revitalizing. Employment at historic lows, consumer confidence up, etc.

Consider this, too. While the rich may be getting richer at higher rates than the poor, the poor are still increasing in wealth (talking in regard to the US), just not as much. The gap is there and maybe even increasing, but thanks to the market, we have technology today that lets the poor live as comfortable as some of the richest in centuries past: air conditioning, better beds, better winter clothes, places have light that never would have, cheaper-made food. I see even hobos in New Orleans have tents instead of cardboard boxes. This isn't to say I envy their unfortunate plight!

But again, while there is a truly destitute group who obviously can't donate, you're not exactly asking the bearded wonder under the bridge for church donations. That's where your donations go. Professional athletes, many of our deemed "evil" rich, and local philanthropists donate to all kinds of causes. White people in their '20s aren't stopping mission trips to Honduras any time soon. Carnegie Hall is an example, among many others, of the evil robber barrons (I mean, they are the pinnacle of the worst of capitalism to be fair) giving back to the arts, etc.

What I'm getting at is that I don't know how our money supply is limited. In fact, our economy seems poised to be as strong as ever. Further, while the rich continue to accumulate wealth, the bottom also does, and the BOTTOM bottom still has better stuff to try and rough it thanks to the market. So, no, we're still going to have donative individuals and entities (so long as the left doesn't destroy what's left of familial and faith-based values) thanks to our American system. It's not perfect, but it is the best yet.