"The Socialist Left is the problem."

>"The Socialist Left is the problem."

t. Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
stop-ttip.org/blog/we-the-people/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

So the 9.99% below the top 1% has more than 50% percent of America's wealth?
Interesting

wtf I hate obama now

Weird, it's almost like the inequality doubled ever since the neoliberal "left" took permanent ruling positions

Exactly.

Yet, Sup Forums thinks for some reason that increasing Socialism is the issue.

It will eventually prove Marx right. The wealthy will gradually bring the entire system down on their heads. A true Marxist is a capitalist.

As more leftist policies are made the less social mobility is experienced by society, of course the rich gets even richer as few key business profit from it.

Why? Clearly you can see from this graph that the trend dates back to ~1987. That's at least, 3 Bush terms, 2 Clinton terms and 2 Obama terms.

No one in America considers Reagan to be a leftist.

wtf i hate robots now

...

Actually the wealthy is not the sole responsible, the State itself makes the existence of super wealth possible.

...

If you can't see that you're being fucked there is no hope for you.

If you kill all the jews you automatically solve the 1% problem.

However the left is too busy inviting muslims into europe and legalizing degeneracy.

The inequality has reached and absolutely staggering level.

>the worker is solely responsible for the increased productivity and should be compensated in kind.

Yeah, nah not true.

Not the argument.

This is truly batshit insane.

That's part of key arguments in favor of libertarianism.

Yes it is, also social democracy.

>clinton gives our jobs to mexico in 93
>bush gives our jobs to china in 2001

it's almost like you completely misinterpreted what he said

Government is merely the shadow cast over society by big business. America is an extreme example but more often than not policies are shaped more by how much money you have and give a candidate.

You're leaving out the first guy.

Some would argue that it started when Nixon detached the dollar from gold and then really kicked into gear with Reagan's neo-liberalism.

Funny how capitalism suddenly chose 1971 as the year to stop working. It really makes you think.

Or maybe it's not just a coincidence that that's when the US severed the gold standard and started giving freshly printed money to the rich...

You can have all the free shit and communism you want here in the US, it's still not going to punish the mega rich, THEY DON'T FUCKING PAY TAXES HERE.

The mega rich are "globalists", they have their money stashed overseas in untouchable banks. You could raise the tax rate to 100% and they wouldn't blink a fucking eye, it won't impact them.

There is no hope for you OP if you can't see that the people who make up the 1% can not be touched by your small minded "durrr hurrr muh tax".

You need tarrifs and NATIONALISM to stop the outside pests from sucking us dry.

NATIONAL SOCIALISM

>starts falling in 1986/1987
>reagan
>neoliberal

Actually social democracy is what brought US to the current state of extreme inequality, free societies without artificial mechanisms of wealth distribution share the lowest level of inequality possible in post-industrial human societies.

That's one of the main causes certainly.

I'm not arguing with you on this user, but the types of things Sanders is proposing were not the cause of this. This was our own brand of neo-liberalism, detaching from the gold standard and a government increasingly in control of the top .01% at the expense of everyone else below 1%.

Most conservatives will not agree but that's the truth

Reagan started neo-liberal policies. There is no arguing this and no one disputes this. Off-shoring and deregulation.

Neo-liberal means neo-conservative in Europe.

It gets worse every year. Get ready for the next crash, the sovereign debt crisis. Basically the mortgage/banking crisis part 2. Except now it's the people who bailed out the banks who need bailing out. The solution as always will be more printed money. This time from the IMF. Maybe... unless there's a total loss of confidence in the markets in which case everyone defaults and new national currencies will likely be formed backed by commodities, likely gold. Or if that doesn't happen, chaos.

I love how sanders wants to make things even worse. He wants to push the Fed to keep interest rates even LOWER. Where does he think all that cheap fed money goes to? The working class? It's the cause of the entire wealth inequality problem.

> but the types of things Sanders is proposing were not the cause of this
Actually Sanders policies would lead to even lower social mobility, even bigger government expending and power.

You seem knowledgable about this topic. So, what happens if the people and the gov are out of money and can't be bailed out. Does this mean that the banks can repo the whole county?

That graph looks like Austria.
Coincidence? I think not

>filename says reagan
>the "Great Regression" starts before he's even in office or does anything
People who think Reagan represents free market capitalism are retarded.

How would that work if so? What happens in a huge portion of the country needs to pay up including the gov and no one has the money to do so?

you realize reagan was elected in '80, right?

yes it is, that graph argues that a rise in productivity should be matched with a rise in pay as shown in the "the great prosperity" side and arguing that the rise in productivity post 1980 should've have been matched with a rise in pay. If this isnt your argument then know that that is the argument the graph implies.

Weimar Germany

That is my argument and the argument in the image, that is not what the other guy was saying it was.

If the government can't pay it's debts, they default. Happens all the times in shitty countries. But it means they would have a very very hard time borrowing more money if they do. This would be a calamity for most western countries which have high debts like the US, as most government spending would have to stop immediately because there is not nearly enough money in the tax base alone to cover their obligations. Some expect that if this happened in the US, they would create a new dollar to replace the old one, and back it by gold. This would immediately restore confidence in the currency and the US could borrow again. I've heard talk over the years that the US has planned internally for the scenario should it occur.

>Does this mean that the banks can repo the whole county?
That's not a realistic scenario. Banks don't like repoing things. They only repo a house so they can immediately sell it to get some of their money back. If the economy goes to shit and the people who they gave mortgages to can't pay for them, but can pay just as much for them as anyone else on the market right now then there's no benefit for them to repo. They rather just renegotiate the debt and cut their losses. There's a lot of complex scenario's that can happen in a financial catastrophe. Hyperinflation can make debt disappear. Strong deflation can quickly make it default. Both are possibilities.

>The globalist AND domestic socialist left, who voluntarly prostitutes itself for a elitaristic neo liberal globalist pipe dream, is the problem
Fixed it for you.

btw, welfare state IS the problem, as it makes it irrational to inovate.

They default. Basically the fear people had of happening to countries since 2008.

or the can do and print new money to pay the debt. But in the end it's the same as a default.

He was inaugurated in '81. How does the mere election of Reagan cause the "great regression?"

This line of questioning is meaningless anyways, Reagan nor republicans in general have ever been pro free market. He increased income taxes, he increased capital gains taxes, , he not only continued the war on drugs but fueled it more so than Nixon, and was an interventionist (into the economy and foreign affairs). It just baffles me how people attack Reagan and declare victory over free market capitalists or libertarians.

I think your scenario where the IMF and the World Bank bail out the West is the likely plan for this scenario, but it would start with a default. So it looks like many people in our nation would go broke and the gov would have to cut most spending.

Thanks man, just one more question.

If the US defaults, roughly how long would it be until the IMF and World Bank would be able to bail us out and bring stability back?

t. New to Sup Forums

It's almost like social policies weren't a thing until the 60s. Weird huh

>. It just baffles me how people attack Reagan and declare victory over free market capitalists or libertarians.

I hope you're not talking about me, because I haven't argued that this was the free market or libertarians.

>where the problem starts has to do with who on in charge at that time
Hey retards, were you never told that legislation has a delayed effect, sometime decades and I'd argue possibly centuries?

If a problem manifests itself in the 60's, it's not because it was created then

Referring to the people talking about "neoliberals." I often see that term thrown around here in libertarian threads.

>legislation takes decades or centuries to have any kind of measurable effect

>If the US defaults, roughly how long would it be until the IMF and World Bank would be able to bail us out and bring stability back?
If the IMF bails anyone out, it would be to prevent a default happening. I'm not sure if they could do as much after someone defaults. Especially the US. If the US defaulted, european countries would soon follow because there would be a market panic. This is why europe was so so SO worried about greece defaulting. Even though they are tiny, if they defaulted it would cause a panic and spread to other countries and then it might not be controllable.

Also be aware, the IMF only holds currencies of other countries. So if trust in national currencies collapses, then so to will trust in anything the IMF can offer.

Short answer: I don't think the IMF could do much for you if you defaulted. The US could get back on it's feet pretty quick though if it backed the dollar with a stable commodity. That will depend a lot on the people in power being willing to do that though which is not at all a given.

youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

related.

Basically the US are sitting on a ticking time bomb with low interest rates, right? Once the interest rates go up, they will see much more defaults and much fewer investments or any scale. No new machinery, factories, jobs, anything. Big recession. And if the US never ever increases the interest rate, they have to take more and more debt up until no one will lend them money, crashing the worthless dollar.

muhhhhh 1%


ITS IRRELEVANT, what matters is average people are much richer than world average and ITS SUSTAINABLE

LOWER TAXES FOR ALL AND GIVE MENTAL HEALTHCARE FOR LIBERALS, that's the right social policy

exactly. I recall reading if US bond yields rose to 3% or something pretty low like that, it would consume the entire tax base to pay the interest on them.

Don't forget though. If the dollar crashes, we are all totally fucked.

Buy gold folks.

SHUT IT DOWN

Look at how he uses a different number of countries in each of his statistics. Almost like he deliberately excludes countries with data contradicting his theories.
23 Countries (all western countries, including Singapore and Israel, but not Swiss and Canada)
21 Countries (Now with Switzerland and Canada, goodbye Singapore and Isreal)
at 7:00, 12 Countries excluding all of scandinavia and portugal, but keeping spain and New Zealand)
30 seconds later, Scandinavia makes a comeback with first entrance Greece and Ireland. And Singapore is back too. No China, no Poland or Russia, fucking Singapore.
8:24 11 Countries, excluding Spain, cause every other European country matter and Australia.

Fuck off with your fucking TED talk bullshit.

decades is given. You have to be a brain dead retard to not think anh changes to the economy are felt instantly

I argue centuries because things like changes to voting and government structure take a long time to accumulate

I would argue the reason congress ceded so much power to the executive is largely because of the changes to how the senate is voted in

The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.

The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.

The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.

The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.

The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.

The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.

>European education

The thing is that there's barely any left left in the United States. They've abolished worker unions and fully embraced the neoliberal free market bullshit. To see this all you need is to google how much the government is pushing TTIP and TTP which are pretty much about giving more power to the elites and multinationals. The "democractic" Clinton will sign that agreement in a hearth beat and you can rest assured that the income inqueality will increase even more and they'll just blame brexit or terrorism or something.

stop-ttip.org/blog/we-the-people/

>They've abolished worker unions
wut

In addition.

>I'm responsible for Brexit

Neoliberalism seems like a cool guy, he should hang around.

>vote left to fight inequality
>school now has vegetarian food
>dudes on road signs now have skirts
>thanks left

This is Sup Forums, so you should expect this coming, but what would that chart look like without niggers?

>They've abolished worker unions

Blablabla, therefore toleranza.

fucking marxistes.

Seems I confused articles on criticism against labor unions with actual action, but never the less based on what I've read they've been weakened thanks to corruption.

> they've been weakened thanks to corruption.

This is true but it's not really that the unions have been weakened so much as they've been completely misused by the mafia which have been running them for the last 70+ years in the US.

>neoliberal
>left

if only you dumbshits would stop adopting retarded american rhetoric you wouldn't make these mistakes

>le socioeconomic brackets meme
If you actually think this graph tells you anything at all, you're an illiterate goy and a very good goy at that. How many people are there in each group over that time? What is the average income for each group over that time?

>what is a percentage

Percentage of wealth means precisely nothing. When you get a paycheck do you get it in percentage? When you go to the store and buy something do you pay it in percentage? The only people who measure income and wealth as percent """"""shares"""""" are socialists and commies because they believe in the zero-sum economy religion.

The fact that he excludes countries on certain graphs doesn't necessarily mean that they contradict with his theories. We are talking about many different countries with their own laws, religions and very different cultural and social values that can heavily influence the graphs. It would be stupid and simplistic to think that income inequality is the sole reason for things shown in the graphs.

>If you actually think this graph tells you anything at all, you're an illiterate goy and a very good goy at that.

The "good goy" would be someone that keeps the system running, despite knowing that it doesnt do any good for him.

stop shitposting they are called neo-cons for a reason

>Germans
>Reading

It seems that liberal rapebabbies are still unable to get the basic reading comprehension

Sage, report, ignore.

Hey, that graph kinda looks like Austria

That said, most graphs look kinda like Austria.

increasing socialist policy IS the issue

Quite the contrary.

What most of the industrial nations increasingly saw since 1980 has been market liberalism.

In a system where money equals political power, who has more power; a group that countrols 90% of the wealth or a group that controls 10% of the wealth?

And that red line will keep descending until it meets the median income of India and China.

I hope you're all happy with your Free Market Overlord.

>Neoliberalism seems like a cool guy, he should hang around.
The thing is that neoliberals didn't want Trump or Brexit to happen, their forced ideals just gave birth to rise of populism in Europe that's now taking for in many ways. Of course they will never admit it themselves and will continue to blame us, the people for their crimes.

However now that the most Neoliberal state in the EU has left, things are getting exciting.

>However now that the most Neoliberal state in the EU has left
That would still be Ireland.

Otherwise, agreed.

So 4 Democrat terms and 3 Republican terms. Interesting, huh.

The problem is that he randomly includes Singapore, a random country in South East Asia, or Israel in his comparison and not Spain or Greece when these countries have a lot more in common with the Western world. If he would be consistent and include all the OECD countries, he could make a valid point, but it really seems he specifically excludes some data that doesn't support his cause. How can one compare the laws religion and cultural/social values of Singapore and the US and not Canada and the US?

Also the measures are highly debatable, some weird measure of child well-being ranking Greece higher than the UK. Or the measurement of "trust"

His claim is that the economic equality in a country harms the society, and he is therefore stupid and simplistic.

I can tell you, without looking at any statistic, that the social problems in Spain and Greece worsened since they were forced into austerity and neoliberal reforms.

>implying neo-liberalism wasn't the stated goals of reagan's second term
>implying milton freidman didn't push for neo-liberal policies

neo-liberal =/= leftist/regressive

So it's not inherently the economic inequality, but rather a recession?

Most "socialist" in America are not even real socialists like Bernie. They give gibsmedats, but they favor business than the people

> Greece enforced Austerity

But is that really the case?

>The west has become more socialist
>At the same time wealth inequality has risen
>OP somehow thinks more socialism will solve this

I'm litterary in tears at the stupidity of OP right now