Do You Agree With Thomas Piketty?

Barnardot

@Nomenclature Well hes right and its all ways the case. What do you want to be commie where every one is equal like equally poor so then go and live in North Korea. Your always going to get in equality any way so thats life and any way those 1 per cent of the population who make 60 per cent of the money are the ones who give jobs to poor lazy dufisies so at least there getting more than they wood any way. Where I work we get a lot of immigrants and I know the boss pays them less but he shuts up and as long as they dont cause trouble then every thing is ok. But what gets me is that the secretary up stairs gets a lot more than us and all she does is sit on her fat bottom all day playing solitaire on the PC and then the boss takes her out for real long lunches. 

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

I have to say you are flat out one of the dumbest people I've ever spoken to. You're literally sitting there defending your own exploitation.

MayCaesar

I am not sure how it is possible to agree or disagree with this statement: "probably higher than in any other society, at any time in the past, anywhere in the world.". Probably? What probability are we talking about exactly? And what measure of income inequality are we using and why? In statistics a large variety of measures of scale are routinely used, and the "integral over the top 1% divided by the integral over the whole population" is not one of them and appears to be nitpicked in order to entice the desired reaction from the reader.

Furthermore, nominal fraction does not represent a meaningful difference between the two groups' well-being. Nominally the difference between someone who can afford 500 calories worth of food a day and someone who can afford 2500 is much smaller than between someone who can afford 2500 and someone who can afford 2500000 - yet the difference in nutritional quality of the allowance in the first case is dramatically higher.
Humans do not have infinite needs in most respects, and the saturation of most needs is achieved not very far into the income distribution in modern developed countries. My friend who is a postdoc drives a nicer car than Warren Buffet, and I wear a nicer t-shirt than Mark Zuckerberg. Sure, Mark can afford to buy a million t-shirts per each one that I buy - but would he? Doubtful. 

Nowadays even in developing countries talented people can live pretty prosperous lives. Places like China or India that until very recently were impoverished hell-holes nowadays have thriving middle classes, and there is virtually no roof to one's potential success. Yes, if you live in Shanghai, then you have far more opportunities than if you live in a tiny village in one of the western provinces - but you only need to pack your bags and move to fix that, as many people do. One's momentary income says very little about their ability to significantly increase it in the future, and someone who washes dishes in a restaurant in Shanghai suburbs today 10 years from now could be running the whole restaurant chain and expanding it into Korea and Japan.

Lastly, income inequality does not have a direct impact on anyone's life. If I make $100k a year, it makes no difference to me whether my neighbor makes $10k, or $1m, or $1b, or $1t, provided the government of my country recognizes our property rights and does not allow us to interfere in each other's business. Income inequality is one of those fuzzy macroeconomical quantities that do not really mean anything that is of consequence to anyone, but can be used as intermediate steps in certain analyses - like complex numbers in electrodynamics.

I would really like to see more economists tackling actual tangible issues, rather than these fuzzy macroindicators that are not actionable or indicative of anything testable. What I am interested in is what I need to do to be better off 5 years from now than I am now; I could not care less what fraction of the income across 320 million people (the overwhelming majority of whom I will never meet) the top 1% (the overwhelming majority of whom I will never meet) will take. That so many appraised economists instead focus on the former indicates to me a certain degree of intellectual cowardice prevalent in the field: "You made a poor financial decision and are now screwed" is a much less popular conclusion to make, than "Our country has high inequality, and your problems are derivative of this". Yet, just like in medicine, painful truthful diagnoses are infinitely preferable to sweet misleading ones. If I have cancer as a consequence of drinking too much alcohol, I want to know it and start taking steps towards getting rid of it; I do not want to hear that my chest pains are normal and will go away eventually, and die 2 months later.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;I have to say you are flat out one of the dumbest people I've ever spoken to. You're literally sitting there defending your own exploitation.

Well thank you so much for elevating me well above your level and for making a worthwhile contribution to the conversation.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

I am not sure how it is possible to agree or disagree with this statement: "probably higher than in any other society, at any time in the past, anywhere in the world.". Probably? What probability are we talking about exactly?

It seems to me like he's just trying to protect his statement in case some smartass digs up a 5,000 year old South American culture he didn't know about. 

Dee

@Nomenclature

I have to say you are flat out one of the dumbest people I've ever spoken to. You're literally sitting there defending your own exploitation.

He is indeed an incredibly dumb brute by our standards in civilized countries , tragically he's a norm in the USA ; Trump relied on the votes of people like this who no doubt had to be shown how to actually cast a vote.

In the classic book The ragged trousered Philanthropist the main character Frank Owen tells his fellow workers that they are being brutally exploited and  used as mere underpaid beasts of burden , but his fellow workers insist a better life is "not for the likes of them" hence the title of the book.

Americans on here are exactly the same they worship the system that exploits them , affordable heathcare/ education is obviously in their infantile minds part of a "Commie " system and not to be trusted.

I've argued over the years on here about ridiculous healthcare /education costs and they rabidly defend such , don't even mention minimum wage laws it totally pushes them over the edge 

Dee

@Barnardot ;

Well hesright and it's all ways the case. What do you want to be commie where every one is equal like equally poor so then go and live in North Korea.

Who's saying they want to be poor you i-iot?


 Your always going to get in equality any way so thats life and any way those 1 per cent of the population who make 60 per cent of the money are the ones who give jobs to poor lazy dufisies

Right got ya , so anyone looking for a decent wage is lucky to get any wage as they were lazy to start with

so at least there getting more than they wood any way.

You're the turkey voting for Christmas 

 Where I work we get a lot of immigrants and I know the boss pays them less but he shuts up and as long as they dont cause trouble then every thing is ok. 

That's so American isn*it he exploits foreign workers and if they ask for wage equality they're "causing trouble " 

But what gets me is that the secretary up stairs gets a lot more than us and all she does is sit on her fat bottom all day playing solitaire on the PC and then the boss takes her out for real long lunches. 

Why does it get to you? You just said ....

 "Your always going to get in equality any way so thats life and any way those 1 per cent of the population who make 60 per cent of the money are the ones who give jobs to poor lazy dufisies "

She deserves a lot more than you as your always "going to get in equality"  You should be on your knees thanking your boss for giving "lazy dulfisies" like you and your family a job in the first place.

Whats truly despicable is you and fellow Americans think foreign men /women working the same job should get less money , you're a spineless coward. When I was a student of 16 I worked part time and found out my employer was paying me and another two guys more than the rest , I told the guys at tea break called the Union and had the site close until he came to his senses, no doubt you and fellow Americans laugh when having a beer at these unfortunates getting screwed , you're a despicable bunch of cowards.

MayCaesar

Nomenclature said:

@MayCaesar

I am not sure how it is possible to agree or disagree with this statement: "probably higher than in any other society, at any time in the past, anywhere in the world.". Probably? What probability are we talking about exactly?

It seems to me like he's just trying to protect his statement in case some smartass digs up a 5,000 year old South American culture he didn't know about. 

Making his statement therefore insubstantial. In science, you make statements that are either true or false; in particular, when you make a statistical statement, then you protect it with a quantitative estimate based on a certain probabilistic model (the use of which you first have to justify). "Probably" means nothing, and it is a statement that is designed to not be false regardless of any evidence available, therefore insubstantial. 

"I probably will be a millionaire in 10 years." I challenge anyone to refute this statement in a logical manner.

jack

Argument Topic: income inequality in modern day America is, "probably higher"

@MayCaesar

Hello May:

In addition to the inexact word "probably", I can't tell if the word "higher" means the income gap is growing or shrinking.

If the guy who said this wrote a book, don't EVER read it..

excon

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

Making his statement therefore insubstantial. In science, you make statements that are either true or false

He's not a scientist. He's an economist. Moreover, in order to be sure that statement were true he'd have to be the world's most knowledgeable historian. 

I'm afraid your claim about science is fundamentally inaccurate. The entire methodology of science is built on "probably". It is structured on the basis of inductive reasoning, rather than the deductive reasoning of mathematics. If science were capable of delivering definitively "true" statements then it would never encounter occasions where it had to change its model of reality because the previous one was wrong. Science is very much a work in constant progress, not an unbendable, objective set of indisputable facts.

MayCaesar

@Nomenclature

Evonomics is a science, and Piketty has a heavy publication record in scientific journals. And he knows well that the scope of any claim must be properly constrained in order to fit the evidence. An accurate claim would be something like this: "Metric X of inequality is the highest in the US across all countries the metric has been measured for over the past 200 years".

In science you build models based on concrete assumptions. The models are constantly revised, yet the revision is dictated by concrete testable hypotheses. "X is probably true" is not a testable hypothesis due to its vagueness and is unscientific. No one says that "Earth is probably not flat": it is factually not flat as per existing experimentally tested models, and an objective claim can be made along these lines. And this claim you can logically agree or disagree with, for agreement and disagreement lead to measurably different expected consequences.

Suppose I were to disagree with Tommy's claim. What would it mean? What would my disagreement imply and how could it be tested? It is like me saying, "The Earth is probably flat", and you disagreeing: no matter what you do, I can always respond with, "I said 'probably', not 'certainly'". It is like playing chess with the additional rule allowing me at any point in time to say, "I win", and score a point. This is how religions or ideologies work, but this is not how science works, or logic in general for that matter.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

Evonomics is a science

No, not really. It's a social science. Social sciences are especially renowned for producing probable rather than definitive conclusions, so this only further weakens your initial claim.

And he knows well that the scope of any claim must be properly constrained in order to fit the evidence. An accurate claim would be something like this: "Metric X of inequality is the highest in the US across all countries the metric has been measured for over the past 200 years".

I'm unsure where you got 200 years from, but that's a lot more conservative a statement. Piketty is clearly sceptical that any society has ever demonstrated a higher degree of economic equality. If, as an economist, Piketty is unaware of any other society which has ever demonstrated a higher level of economic inequality, then it is perfectly acceptable for him to express that, while qualifying his statement as "probably" rather than definitely true. You seem to be under the assumption that Piketty is offering a definite conclusion, whereas his use of the word "probably" disqualifies that from the outset. His statement is more a hypothesis than a conclusion. 

In science you build models based on concrete assumptions.

There's no such thing as a concrete assumption. You're using ambiguous, metaphorical, borderline oxymoronic language which means absolutely nothing in objective terms.

The models are constantly revised, yet the revision is dictated by concrete testable hypotheses. "X is probably true" is not a testable hypothesis

You're not listening. Probability is the central currency of science. This subject matter has been rigorously covered by authors such as Karl Popper and David Hume. It is impossible to make a definitively true statement in science, for the simple reason that every measurement a scientist makes exists only in the past. Hence, science relies on the fundamental assumption that the future will "probably" resemble the past. 

The word "probably" isn't part of Piketty's hypothesis. That's his own opinion about the likely validity of the hypothesis. The hypothesis itself is perfectly testable because it is falsifiable.

MayCaesar

@Nomenclature

Replying to my claim that economics is science, you said, "No, not really. It's a social science". Do you need me to point out in what way this does not make any sense? And I have never claimed that science does not produce probable conclusions.

No, I am perfectly clear on the context in which Thomas made his statement. I am not criticizing the statement, but pointing out that it is not scientific and that agreeing or disagreeing with it does not have a clear meaning.

A concrete assumption is something that can be states directly, through use of human language. An assumption that is inconcrete rather is based on gut feeling or some other non-intellectual factors and is not verbalizable.

Probability is quantifiable and probabilistic statements are testable. "According to this model, X is true with 95% probability" is a probabilistic statement. "X is probably true" is a subjective perception/opinion piece that is not testable.
The fact (?) that Thomas' claim is based on rigorous and testable analysis does not change the nature of the claim itself. You asked people whether they agree with this claim, not whether they agree with the underlying analysis, and I explained to you why agreement or disagreement makes no functional difference. I am happy to discuss the underlying reasoning if that is what you are interested in.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

Replying to my claim that economics is science, you said, "No, not really. It's a social science". Do you need me to point out in what way this does not make any sense?

It makes perfect sense. Science -- or natural science, if you prefer -- deals with the objective, largely predictable natural world. The social sciences study human behaviour, which by contrast is subjective and largely unpredictable. The social sciences specifically lack effective methodologies with which to draw universal conclusions. If you are simply making an appeal to semantics (i.e. the fact that the social sciences includes the word, "science"), then that itself is a bad idea in the context of a sentence in which you confuse the words "what" and "which".

 I have never claimed that science does not produce probable conclusions.

Not only did you do so, but that is the very basis for this argument. You specifically wrote:-

 In science, you make statements that are either true or false

And that claim is false. In science, you make statements which are probable.

No, I am perfectly clear on the context in which Thomas made his statement. I am not criticizing the statement, but pointing out that it is not scientific

I wonder if you are possibly mildly delusional. You invented the context in which he made his statement by referencing an illusionary value of 200 years, whereas Piketty's own statement concerned all of documented history. Furthermore, by the bizarre standards you are demanding of social science, then no statement within the entire field is scientific, contradicting your first argument that it is even a science in the first place! Social science functions on the basis of extrapolating smaller data sets into larger potential conclusions which are not supported by those individual data sets.

A concrete assumption is something that can be states directly, through use of human language.

Again, you are not listening. The phrase "concrete assumption" is an oxymoron. It is a self-contradictory statement. The very rudimentary quality which qualifies something as an assumption is that there is no justifiable proof to call it a fact, so when you use an adjective designed to present it as immutable and unchallengeable then that is an abuse of both language and reason. The Cambridge dictionary defines the word concrete, when used as an adjective, as:-

Clear and certain. Based on sure facts or existing things rather than guesses or theories.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concrete

An assumption is a guess. Therefore, "concrete assumption" is oxymoronic (i.e. self-contradictory) language.

Probability is quantifiable and probabilistic statements are testable.

It is quantifiable, but it cannot always be quantified in the real world because of the immense complexity of the equations which would be needed to quantify it. That fact is the rational basis of chaos theory. 

Secondly, you are openly contradicting yourself again. You literally wrote:-

"X is probably true" is not a testable hypothesis

So I think you need to make up your mind. Are probabilistic statements testable or not?

Nomenclature

@jack

If the guy who said this wrote a book, don't EVER read it

Piketty is one of the most respected economists in the entire world you stumbling halfwit. It is largely thanks to his work that income inequality is a contemporary topic of discussion in the first place.

Every time you open your mouth, ignorance falls out of it.

MayCaesar

@Nomenclature

I talked about "science", not "natural sciences". You do not get to replace my claims with something else and then respond to that in place of the original claims - you have been guilty of doing that in the past as well.
Social sciences differ from natural sciences only in the strength of the conclusions derived, therefore warranting an especially careful interpretation of them. They do not differ in the rigor of the methodology that is universal across all scientific fields since it derives from logic itself.

No, you make statements that are either true or false - and when you do not know whether the statement with no additional assumptions is true or not, you assign a numerical probability to it, or you refrain from making it. It is okay to use fuzzy phrases such as "this result may indicate that...", but they do not serve as scientific statements one is to agree or disagree with and merely suggest a direction for further inquiry. They are very similar in functionally to the following statement: "this behavior is curious and may warrant a further investigation".

I was giving an example of a random claim that is testable. And no, there are plenty of scientific statements in economics, and the statements of the kind I proposed are commonplace even in Thomas Piketti's own work. You have not read his papers published in peer-reviewed journals, have you?

I said nothing about an assumption being provable; I said that a concrete assumption is one that can be verbalized. Yet another instance of you making up claims and attributing them to me.

If something cannot be quantified in the real world, then it is not a probabilistic statement. As for chaos theory, it is a completely different and unrelated beast, and it has about as much to do with what you are trying to use it to support as the game theory has to do with video games - wjmhich is something, but not a lot.

Probabilistic statements are testable. "X is probably true" is not a probabilistic statement and is untestable. There is no contradiction here.

Dee

@Nomenclature

You're not listening. Probability is the central currency of science. This subject matter has been rigorously covered by authors such as Karl Popper and David Hume. 

You're correct Nom , he never listens he preaches , he famously said on here that only  his opinion counts more than others as he claims he has a masters degree in physics, a case of academic bullying as in who has the better or best degrees.

Neither Poppers or Humes assertions  have come close to being refuted , Popper was brilliant , Hume was a genius his positions  on morality ,the problem  of causation ,the  problem of induction have not come close to being proved logically faulty in any way.


Your opponent never listens,  he preaches because he has no creativity which is why he hides behind the opinions of others,  he never once questions  what and why he believes what he believes.

He's like a bar man's cat full of wind and piss.

Barnardot

@Dee Your trying to copy girlie boy Adolf by making some thing out of what no body said so I’m wise to that baloney any way Any way you can try and look goody boy logical as much as you like but realty is realty and that sort of thing about wages always goes on and it’s like the left side of the bottom of a black guy it’s not right and in fare. But there worse in limy land because all the workers go on strike and cause the hole country to come to a holt so is that right no it’s not.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

I cannot agree or deny because there are no data points presented.  
My statement however is who gives a crap.  We are also the most prosperous civilization in history.

The only reason anyone gives a crap about income inequality is because people are jealous and look at the economy as a zero sum game.
I.e. there is only a certain amount of money available therefore if someone earns a lot they are preventing/exploiting those who aren't.  This idealogy is used to rile people up and make them feel victimized, a powerful political tool.

However, the economy isn't a zero sum game and advanced in technology increase the earning potential of everyone and may increase the overall prosperity of everyone even if a disparity grows.  Take Apple for example, certainly there executives make a ton of money, but there growth certainly has created an expansion of opportunity in the area of jobs, intellectual opportunity/communication, and overall betterment of livelihoods.

Equity doesn't equal more prosperous.  And the exploitation of the common person often is a result of regulation, not a lack of it. 

Dee

@Barnardot

As usual being the dumb brute you are I answer each of your points and in the process demonstrate you are indeed a dumb brute and your response is "that thing always goes on" and as I pointed out you totally support it yet  wail like a liddle gurl because the boss pays his secretary more than you , boo hoo.

Then as usual being a dummy you again claim I'm a "limy " ( I'm still not) 

And you further claim ......


 But there worse in limy  because all the workers go on strike and cause the hole country to come to a holt so is that right no it’s not.

You see that's what real men and women do as in if they're unhappy about wages/conditions , they're brave enough to do something about it ; you on the other hand are a yellow bellied coward who sneaks around whispering and giggling  you get paid more than the foreign and you lick the b-tt of your boss who keeps you on your lead as you're to cowardly to strike.

Only a yellow coward and b-stard like you thinks knocking of chickens is a "manly job" 

Barnardot

@Dee well I wouldn’t want to be doing the stuff that your on if it makes you that angry but I’m not the one who under pays workers but the fact is those workers don’t mind and if the boss could get local whites he would but they won’t work because they don’t want to and get well fair instead so what can the boss do. 

Dee

@Barnardot

But I'm not angry at all I'm amused you really believe workers who do the same work as you are delighted they get paid less?

Seriously? Surely even you can't be that dense.

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@Nomenclature

I cannot agree or deny because there are no data points presented.  
My statement however is who gives a crap.  We are also the most prosperous civilization in history.

The only reason anyone gives a crap about income inequality is because people are jealous and look at the economy as a zero sum game.
I.e. there is only a certain amount of money available therefore if someone earns a lot they are preventing/exploiting those who aren't.  This idealogy is used to rile people up and make them feel victimized, a powerful political tool.

However, the economy isn't a zero sum game and advanced in technology increase the earning potential of everyone and may increase the overall prosperity of everyone even if a disparity grows.  Take Apple for example, certainly there executives make a ton of money, but there growth certainly has created an expansion of opportunity in the area of jobs, intellectual opportunity/communication, and overall betterment of livelihoods.

Equity doesn't equal more prosperous.  And the exploitation of the common person often is a result of regulation, not a lack of it. 

Another way to put it is that this type of analyses lacks the temporal dimension. The values in question are assumed to be static, while in reality throughout his life an economical agent moves around the distribution of these values, and the distribution itself changes over time.

Consider someone who is at the point of his life in which I was 5 years ago: a broke graduate student with a lot of debt, little income and no property to speak of. Now consider someone else who was at that point 5 years ago, but now has moved up the ladder, quadrupled his income, obliterated his debt, acquired some investments and land property. Virtually all existing measures of inequality will include both of these datapoints, even though they refer essentially to the same economical agent, just at different points in his time. So the "inequality" in question includes inequality of a person today relative to the same person 5 years ago! Needless to say, this inequality is going to grow as the person's earnings grow - which some dishonest or simply confused economists would actually consider a bad thing.
Think about it: me quadrupling my income over 5 years is a bad thing, because it contributes to the measured inequality.

In macroeconomics the system is frozen in time: a snapshot is taken and the observed quantities are described. Yet human life is not a snapshot, it is a movie. One snapshot represents an economical agent's well-being about as well as one frame represents a 2 hour long movie.

Nomenclature

@Dee

You're correct Nom , he never listens he preaches , he famously said on here that only  his opinion counts more than others as he claims he has a masters degree in physics, a case of academic bullying as in who has the better or best degrees.

Yeah, he doesn't have a master's degree in physics. Not unless they're handing them out free with bars of candy. He's definitely not an unintelligent guy, but you're right that he's very pretentious. 

Neither Poppers or Humes assertions  have come close to being refuted , Popper was brilliant , Hume was a genius his positions  on morality ,the problem  of causation ,the  problem of induction have not come close to being proved logically faulty in any way.

Absolutely. They were both intellectual powerhouses. Popper's solution to Hume's problem is a work of genius, and falsifiability is still the defining hallmark of any legitimate scientific hypothesis. Popper literally changed the scientific method. Instead for looking for evidence to support their theories, scientists now search for ways to rule them out. 

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

The only reason anyone gives a crap about income inequality is because people are jealous and look at the economy as a zero sum game.

The economy is a zero sum game. You can't create more resources than exist naturally on the planet. They are finite. When a society begins to create more wealth it drives inflation, because the resources remain constant while the capital used to purchase them grows. 

Wealth inequality is the fundamental component of capitalism. Unless there's a gap between your wealth and everybody else's wealth, you aren't rich. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
Economist Thomas Piketty wrote that real term income inequality in modern day America is, "probably higher than in any other society, at any time in the past, anywhere in the world."

Probably? No, it is factual. I told you months ago why income inequality exists and how inequality of income is held in America. To repeat the fact for you again, variation in income application is held by the axiom of valueeach and every monetary system creates. In America the Federal Reserve Notes is simply in poor relationship to its overall life and a term of a nation’s debt. It is that simple. Also as you do not understand and only support in faith the use of some mathematics, some issue of risk are associated or created by applications of fixed equations and algebra when the methods in quarantine for containment are not clear. In other words, people are lead to believe a scientific method used to create a fixed mathematical equation they io not fully understand

 Most social economic experimentation were people use taxation in volume when publicly distributed at such high levels it cannot be transferred or acts as a visual display of social punishment the idea is popular the outcome is economic failure. Most times the failure is to exployt weakness or destroy evidence of criminal wrongs that often take years to put together as so they can produce conviction or admission. 

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

That would be true if you think we are using every reasource the planet/universe has to offer to its maximum and most efficient extent. 

Let's say gas gets you 5 mpg.  Then someone creates a fuel efficient manner to increase to 100 mpg.  Well, while the amount of resources are the same the earning potential increased 20 fold.

I may not be rich but my life can still be prosperous in comparison to individuals whose countries focus on equity.
What makes 0 sense to be is if total equity was the most efficient method, free markets would naturally promote it as it is more efficient.
People would create communes and shared wealth.  However no one/no group who proposes wealth equity ever is willing to create this utopia themselves, even though there is nothing preventing them from doing so.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Let's say gas gets you 5 mpg.  Then someone creates a fuel efficient manner to increase to 100 mpg

Sure, but how many times does that happen? Besides which, there's a more powerful counterforce at work, which is the rapidly expanding population. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion people, whereas today there are over three times that many. In just seventy years the population has tripled. Same resources but three times as many mouths to feed.

People would create communes and shared wealth.  However no one/no group who proposes wealth equity ever is willing to create this utopia themselves, even though there is nothing preventing them from doing so.

I don't think that's true. If you look at Venezuela in the 1970s, it was putting big money into social programs until the west conspired to crash the price of oil, which was its main source of income. The entirety of the world's wealth is tied up in the present system, so there's no way the people in charge are going to let a bunch of hippies show the rest of the world there's a better way of doing things. 

Whatever your thoughts about the real world impact of communism (which I do agree often turned out brutally), the ideology itself was about trying to create a fairer way of organising wealth, and the western powers fought it tooth and nail. Within days of the Russian revolution in 1917, the west was economically blockading Russia. 

John_C_87

So we all have a crystal clear understanding.
A person must have wealth, to then share wealth otherwise the idea of sharing wealth is much better placed in laymen's terms as theft.

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

Often there's not that large of a jump but innovation has been occuirng at quite a rapid rate.  In large part I think free market capitalism has stimulated that.
I don't view population increase as a problem.  Overall global starvation has decreased over that time period while living conditions have improved. 

Hippies aren't generally responsible for creating businesses.  When they do they can run them however they want.  No one is preventing this.

I do not like communism.  Not only does it not work, it is immoral. "Organizing wealth" is basically another term for stealing.  Large corporations under capitalism aren't void of corruption, but often that is created by their connection to governments and overrrgulation.  Connecting them more will just make it worse.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers

I do not like communism.  Not only does it not work, it is immoral. "Organizing wealth" is basically another term for stealing.  Large corporations under capitalism aren't void of corruption, but often that is created by their connection to governments and overrrgulation.  Connecting them more will just make it worse.

This is not true MichaelElpers Organized wealth is what takes place when groups of people acquire cash equity through civil winnings with a limited market of people who question the award equity’ having a real value because of laws which dictate organized public acts of perjury without armed services trials to establish otherwise. What Executive officer Obama, Executive officer Biden, and Executive Officer Trump are really attempting is to stall litigation of legal malpractice in a Military or as I like to Constitutionally now say is "Armed Service" Tribunal. It is to be done this way because it is the State and Federal court that by law cannot sue themselves by laws only their are bound by. Which is not what is really taking place anyway as the process is just clearing States and Federal representation from the people in the courts of unintentional conspiring to treason. This the verbal grievance most often declared openly by so called 1st Amendment right which is by whole truth nothing by a test of the more perfect state of the Union with Constitutional right.