ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Economy & Government

The Day the Dollar Died...

Updated on December 14, 2017

Divide and Destroy

As you can see by the picture above, the dollar is under attack. It is being picked apart. What's more, the pieces are no longer worth anything. In a sense, it is only imaginary money, soon to evaporate, like all fiat monies do.

To get a clearer mental picture we need only look to the numbers.


The U.S. National Debt is exploding. It approaches 20 Trillion dollars.

That does not take into account things like Social Security. A budget item approaching a trillion, but as a liability? Over 16 trillion.

Medicare's budget? Over a trillion. It's liability? Nearly 28 trillion.

Total unfunded liabilities? Close to 110 Trillion dollars.

If we take all the assets of every citizen, every American company, every corporation, large or small, we could collect about 133 trillion dollars. But this is academic. As if we could cash in the wealth and simply pay the bill. We can't. It does not work that way -- unless we are slaves to the state.

The population of the U.S. is about 326 million. Of those, about 95 million are not in the labor force.

Of those working, about 23 million are government employees. Meaning they live from the proceeds earned by the rest of us.

About 42 million Americans live in poverty.

Over 165 million Americans receive some type of government assistance, paid for by taxes and newly printed 'funny' money.

The dollar to gold ratio was about $9000 an ounce. Now it is near $6000. It currently sells at about $1225.

The dollar to silver ratio was about $1000 per ounce. Now it's closer to $700. Current price? Less than $18.

When will the Inflation Bomb come home to roost?

Inflation Bomb Opinion

Given the current situation, when will the U.S. Dollar die?

See results

Wealth as a Resource

Wealth is a resource to be divided among us?

Money, earned or inherited, is not yours, but belongs to all of us, like the air we breathe?

This anti-concept, begs one simple question: Who is doing the redistributing and why?

Before one delves into questions about who needs what or where the wealth can be best utilized, one must ask even a more basic question: what is wealth?

And another - by what right does one redistribute?

There is no such right to STEAL. And there is no getting around the theft. One cannot rationalize it away. To take bread from another, without permission, is theft.

Can we define wealth as money? Some would say this is correct, but then add: it would need to be a heck of a lot of money. Others would say wealth is property or education or peace, but let us focus on the basics: money.

Money or wealth is not created by the printing presses. Yes, it is printed and electronically manipulated by governments, but these are, by and large, mere vestiges of real wealth. They are ledger numbers, not unlike bitcoin. Fiat money.

Real Estate and gold (and silver etc.) retain value, but fiats devalue and decay, even as they are redistributed.

Wealth held in valued assets retains value. If one has a home, the real value of that asset decays little over time, but when valued in fiat-bubbles, the alleged value will tumble and/or pop with the next governmental edict.

If one has earned money working at one's job or perhaps risking much by creating a business, the money belongs not to others, but to its earner. It is only during the creation and organization of large groups of people, when it becomes clear that certain things must be accomplished to maintain such groups, such nations.

There must be rules to protect the individuals, from inside and outside forces. From murder, slavery and theft.

But it is not about the nation. It is about what that nation, ultimately a vast collection of individuals, means.

Here we determine the basic idea of maintaining a more moral system of governance. Meaning we wish that we are as free as possible, but we also wish to live in peace. We must understand that we should have certain agreements between us.

Just what are these agreements? For one, we agree to protect ourselves. So we create an army and hire police. It's not a 'protection racket," however. We should not create 'Military Industrial Complex' bent on despotism.

It turns out that we value our lives and freedom to move about. We also agree that we need a way to settle our disagreements, and contract with each other, so we hire judges and lawyers and we build court houses. We record our agreements.

But these judges and lawyers are not our keepers. Should they act otherwise -- at that moment -- they should be fired and or jailed. They are merely the protectors of our 'rights' and nothing more.

Then we make a pact. It is our pact which defines us. It is the core of our beliefs. We call it a Constitution. We agree, in our Constitution, that life is precious, freedom is required, but happiness is not guaranteed.

We call these ideas our solemn oaths to one another. Our moral foundation. We vow never to violate our pact. Never. For if we do, we must dissolve our voluntary agreements.

Our U.S. Constitution defines our lives as belonging to us alone and to no other.

We define our freedom as movement, trade, speech, religion or no religion - so long as these freedoms do not take others' lives, lest they take ours first or threaten to take such.

We articulate our freedoms to such an extent that we know freedoms cannot conflict. Such as...there is no such freedom to steal. We label the freedom to own property or money or cattle - the Wealth Clause.

We agree to tax or bill each other, solely in support of our moral rights, as we have delineated. This is not theft, if we agree.

Once we tax each or create voluntary lotteries, for reasons other than what is allowed in our Constitution, we have violated our pact. We have abdicated our morality in favor of expediency.

"I Redistribute, do you?"

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Karl Marx (1818-1883) | Source

The Land of the Wealth Distributors

In the land of Wealth Redistributors, money, they say, belongs to the people. Moral rights are the flavor of the month. The ends, justifies the means. It's all about the people...the people...

Sure, you answer, "I am one of those people."

No, they correct. Wealth belongs to all of us and I am their elected representative.

You answer, "But it belongs to me. And just who are these people you represent?"

As I say, I represent the people - the majority.

"You do not represent me. So I must be from the minority."

You are not the majority of people, comes the response, true. It is after all, a dictatorship of the people, is it not?

"But do I not have the right to the product of my sweat? I have paid my taxes to the army, the courts, even the police. I live in a small town and even pay local taxes for my Fire Department, but why must I pay for your peoples' food?"

They are hungry and they need houses and healthcare too.

"Does that give them or you the right to violate the pact? The right to enslave me for my money?"

You are not a slave, but a member of society and as such, society (the majority) has overruled the pact in favor of the poor.

"Suppose I quit?" you respond.

It makes no difference, you are a resource.

"And if I leave?"

Your wealth will be confiscated in that case.

The Envy Meter

Do you believe in Involuntary Wealth Distribution?

See results

© 2014 Jack Shorebird


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      Let us forget labels. We get into trouble there. I won't call you on them.

      ...without your permission, I gather (whether you voted for a particular government or not) you would not like me taking what you have, simply because I may not have as many. I don't think you would mind me asking and I think you might even help me if I'm starving, of your own free will. Am I on the mark?

      I'm learning a new thing from you. Actually, I'm re-learning. Labels get people messed up. Labels can be like football teams. You like this team and it's always the best and I like that team and you are always wrong. But I think most people are actually a lot closer that they think.

      Forget the darned labels. I'm curious, John, what do you really think?

      When we come to a two person consensus, let's label it then. It can be a new label. Toss out the old, grab the new. Rebrand.


      (jgshorebird is a shortened version of: Jack Garroter Shorebird. He does not exist, however.)

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      Hi JG (excuse the familiarity)

      You ask "would I have the right to supplement my sack of potatoes with your's, without permission?" I don't know anywhere outside the capitalist system where this happens.

      I assume you are relating this to the support of the unemployed and low paid. This isn't done without permission - you and I voted for our government and therefore accept (if not approve) what the government does.

      This is unlike capitalist redistribution of wealth where we have never any say in the matter.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      Thanks for taking your time to post Stan. But, you probably already know that I have fundamental disagreement with your post.

      Any movement of wealth, be it via deficit spending, borrowing by the government, without the express consent of the taxpayer, is involuntary redistribution. It is not necessarily a direct confiscation at times, but, at its core, it is the same thing. And I have a core argument here - I do not believe that a government should control the money supply, period.

      Social Security is simply a wealth transfer. It's taking money from all workers (or most of them) and redistributing the proceeds, by force of law, to others. There is no Social Security Trust Fund, no money in the bank. Some countries do actually bank these types of funds, but, in the end, it is still required by law, that people contribute. And you are right pointing out that it's not the idea that lazy people collect redistributed wealth, but it is the idea that it's involuntarily redistributed, in the first place.

      And then we get into the theory of money. I define money as a tool, a medium of exchange, with intrinsic value, such as gold, silver etc. It should not be subject to wide swings in value, it should not be controlled by governments, but by the individuals who own the money - in my view.

      I do not support Central Planning for the same reason I do not advocate involuntary servitude. By what right does a government control the money supply? A government cannot, with any semblance of fiscal stability, control an entire economy. Witness the value of a dollar plummeting since we were children, and before. This is not a result of a lack of planning, but Centralization and Control of the purse strings. But the strings are now frayed and we know this. The FED is simply a Ponzi Scheme.

      When the FED creates money from nothing, what happens? Inflation. If they contract the supply? Theoretically: deflation. But this is relevant, primarily, to fiat money systems, controlled by governments. Wide swings in the value of money, inflation, devaluation, credit bubbles and bursts, are usually the result of controls, instituted by government. There are exceptions of course, such as when the real price of oil rises, causing price inflation of many other goods as a result, but this is usually a temporary problem. And I find it telling that the Federal Reserve contracted the money supply just prior the the Great Depression in the US.

      One cannot rationally expect that adding fiat dollars to a faltering economy will increase production or create long term jobs. This is a fallacy. One is simply devaluing the entire stock of fiats. Add fiats and prices go up, subtract, and they go down? No. Once you add fiats, the prices never recover to earlier levels. The incomes never catch up to the higher cost of living. And when the economy heats up, as it is so called, the FED pulls the plug. Where's the money now? Dunno. Poof. Such is the beauty of Central Planning.

      I'm not saying that governments, and by this I mean all levels of governing, from my town, to DC - do not require some form of financing. Far from it. I'm simply saying that the fiat system does not work, has never stabilized (unless you consider constant devaluation stable) and should be replaced with a sound money system. At least at this level, we will be able to actually observe the wealth transfers and not be fooled into thinking that the current US Monetary Policy does not routinely redistribute our money.

      And to support the involuntary redistribution of wealth because governments can, in theory, slow the rate of inflation, making bridge building cheaper than it will be next month, is folly. If I could rob Peter to pay Paul, it would still make me a thief. (There's a joke here, but I will refrain.)

      When the government injects cash into the economy to create jobs, they are doing several things. They are, but not immediately, devaluing the dollar - and it will never recover this Keynesian cut. They are, allowing banks to loan more money, thereby increasing the velocity of this devaluation. They are, down the road a bit, causing prices to rise. They are, causing the cost of living to rise. They are, in the final analysis, rocking along in a Ponzi Scheme, hoping that everything will be just fine - then wondering why the masses of poor are increasing, the middle class is deteriorating and the rich, though less rich, appear as Kings on High. Their answer: more fiats and higher taxes, they say. Feed the greed of the masses and create class warfare. Demonize the rich. This is a recipe for eventual Fiscal Collapse. And, if we do not get our financial house in order, we ask for greater calamities.

      And I am not saying that a sound money system is immune to the ups and downs of economic expansions and busts. No. What I am saying is that a sound money system retains value. For example, even today a twenty dollar gold piece buys a man's suit - same as it did 100 years ago and arguably, 200 years ago. What is an ounce of gold worth now? Over 1000 US Fiats? What would it be worth if it was in circulation as legal tender? According to Ludwig von Mises, gold would have an added value - an additional utilitarian premium. It would be worth, in fiat terms, a lot more. Same with silver etc. Not so with 20 fiat dollars. I can purchase maybe some socks and underwear, but no suit.

      Money does not create jobs. People create jobs. In the long term, a devaluing currency loses trust and jobs, and much more. People will find alternative, even semi-sound currencies, to substitute for their failing fiats. One such substitute, of recent note, but arguably with no intrinsic value itself, is Bitcoin. It has a high utilitarian value, however.

    • stanfrommarietta profile image

      stanfrommarietta 3 years ago

      Generally there is no distribution of the wealth in most cases. Much of the benefits are paid for with deficit spending (that's how we fought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and many government appropriations for education, general welfare were funded). Social Security is paid for with FICA taxes and is not a distribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. The idea that most people want to sit around and not work and live off benefits paid for from taxes is a false idea. Deficit spending ultimately ends in the money being created for it out of nothing by the Federal Reserve. Deficit spending is principally to be used during deflations (recessions, depressions) and should not be used when there is inflation, since it would only feed the fires of inflation. But in a deflationary period, new money is needed to be added into the economy to make up for losses in the private sector, imports (like at WallMart, Target, etc..), taxes not spent, and savings. As long as there are materials and factories not working at full production and workers seeking work because there are not enough jobs, new money will replace old that was lost to the economy or out of circulation, which sustained previous levels of production, and these will be available at stable prices. People are not out of work because they are lazy and shiftless. They are out of work because money was lost to the economy and not enough was circulating to maintain full production and full employment. The solution is to create demand for goods and services by growing the ranks of consumers. To do that you need to create jobs. And government has done that by spending on infrastructure, where private companies do the work with new money from the government, and produce something that everyone benefits from--upgraded roads, bridges, dams, levees, power grids, airports, railways. It is foolish not to do this during a recession because the work on infrastructure then will be the least expensive, since prices will have fallen.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      Then perhaps it is easier to get my point across this way. Bear with me. It's rather simplified.

      If you and I were the only people on earth- yes I know it would be an awfully argumentative place - and you grew more potatoes than me, would I have a right to supplement my sack of potatoes with yours? Without your permission?

      And you are correct about the beer here - the American Beer - it is rather bland. There are a few good brands now, but the Micro Breweries are best. As for fish, the "Red Eye" Snapper here is very good, that is if you can reel them in before the sharks or barracudas denude your hooks.

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      Why do I think that? Could it be because you seem to want to discuss anything but? But if you do want to take it one point at a time I'm up for that.

      Or we could even sample a fine pint of English beer. Not decrying German beer but you don't really get a chance to sample English beer in the US.

      It's good to meet you too. And, I do eat bangers and mash - veggie bangers of course but there are some excellent ones out there. In fact I have several carnivorous friends who eat veggie sausages in preference to meat ones. I have been known to slip sometimes and eat fish and chips too!

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      Why do you think that?

      Maybe we should take one point at a time. Like a trip down the canals...via the Locks. You can point out the error of my ways and I can point out the error of yours - in the realm of the politic.

      Then, some day, when I wander in the UK, we can have a pint of German Beer. Hofbrau Dunkel please. Or a bit of red wine.

      If not - it was nice to have met you. And, although vegetarianism might be a worthy goal, on occasion, a bit of 'bangers and mash' would help me - or 'fish and chips.'

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      I don't think you want to discuss the involuntary redistribution of wealth, do you?

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      I think we need some definitions here...





      an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

      synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market





      a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

      synonyms: leftism, welfarism;

      On Cuba: (look these up if you care)

      -Cuba, Land Of The $250,000 Family Sedan

      -On 9 September 1994, the U.S. and Cuban governments agreed that the U.S. would grant at least 20,000 visas annually in exchange for Cuba's pledge to prevent further unlawful departures on boats.

      -low pay of doctors (only $15 a month)

      -The Cuban state adheres to socialist principles in organizing its largely state-controlled planned economy.

      -The average monthly wage as of July 2013 is 466 Cuban pesos, which are worth about US$19.

      -Cuba had the second-highest number of imprisoned journalists of any nation in 2008 (the People's Republic of China had the highest).

      -The European Union in 2003 accused the Cuban government of "continuing flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms".

      -The United States continues an embargo against Cuba "so long as it continues to refuse to move toward democratization and greater respect for human rights"

      Need more? Cubans are not free. Are they %100 enslaved? No. There are few fences around the shark infested waters of Cuba.

      On Shoe Makers and free markets: I just don't understand Socialism? Ask Raul Castro, he understands - better than you.

      State Capitalism? You mean Fascism. Let me define that for you:





      an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

      The USSR was not Fascist. The 'state' ran the businesses, the Coop (failing) farms - that is Socialism.

      On Walmart - again: Define afford? Do you not know how an economy functions? The lowest price and/or the best product wins out. If Walmart were to pay their high school kids more money, they would need to raise prices.

      Do you really think that Walmart CEO's have enough money to forfeit? No. And even if they did, why should they? By what right? Do you wish to force them to lower their salaries? That is slavery or if you like the softer word: Socialist.

      And I can shop at a dozen other stores too. You make it sound like Walmart is the only employer or business in the World. Their competition is fierce. It's stay lean and mean or fail. Work hard, or go bankrupt.

      And did you know that Walmart employees are actually promoted? They then earn even more money? Earn. Getting off the dole. A dole created by socialist politics, worthless money...created by - shall we say: government controls? Walmart does not even function in a free economy and they are still kicking butt. Kmart has all but failed. They might pay better, but have virtually no clerks on duty. Not a good selection either.

      "Capitalists in general do not actually believe in a free market, they may claim to but they secretly want it all to themselves." Huh? So even if that was true, how would a greedy Capitalist even accomplish this goal? Of course they want wealth. It pays for stuff. It's a reward. But how would they do it? Get it all? Only one way: buy the government: Fascism. Or have the government create monopolies. Coercive Monopolies have never existed, without government edicts.

      Bill Gates is the latest genius. I don't use any of his products, however. Here, there are Macs, home made systems at the flea market, Chinese knock-offs, etc. So what are you talking about? I haven't used Windows in years - pain in the arse. And even if I did use Gates' stuff - I'd do it voluntarily.

      Oh crap: Winston said that. Guess I can't trust him anymore... but to finish, he got it half correct at the end of that quote: The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

      How about my hero: "I swear, by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Who am I?

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      You entirely miss my point about Wal Mart et al. The fact that people have to be paid by the government to be able to work there is enforced redistribution of wealth from the tax payer to Wal Mart who can actually afford to pay their workers but choose not to.

      Capitalists in general do not actually believe in a free market, they may claim to but they secretly want it all to themselves.

      The scenario that you describe in your shoe factory just doesn't happen. Bill Gates seems to have managed to sort things so that everybody who uses a computer has to use his products (or pay him for them even if they don't use them) without any government intervention at all.

      By the way, who said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings"?

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      Winston Spencer Churchill was born into the family of the Dukes of Marlborough, a branch of the Spencer family (the very same one that produced Lady Diana) I'm sure he would make a brilliant advocate for socialism!

      I make statements without supporting evidence because all the evidence is out there for all to see. Where is your evidence that Cubans are slaves?

      As for your comment on shoemakers, you just do not understand socialism. It isn't about government control, we leave that to capitalist monopolies. State capitalism as practised in the USSR is not socialism.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.


      I attribute the wealth redistribution to a flawed monetary system - no sound money - the a move toward Socialist ideologies.

      I attribute low wages to fiat monies - paper pounds - and government IOU's. Backed by the wind.

      I attribute a welfare system, taking wealth without permission - determining there is not enough to go around - then devaluing the monies - in order to close that gap. (Inflation.)

      I do not see Walmart as some many toothed scary beast taking advantage of people. They pay a wage and the people who work there accept it or not. They do not have to work there. They are not slaves - yet. This is not Cuba - yet. Many 'workers', in fact do not decide to accept low wages. Many choose to be plumbers.

      Good plumbers in the US make more money than the average attorney. The plumber who hires 5 people, grows his business (up until Obama Care) made more money - more wealth - than the average Proctologist. I know electricians who earn more that doctors, but they run small businesses. These are the 1%.

      The point is, if you think high school kids working at Walmart or Welfare Moms or Retirees, deserve more money, then start your own 'Walmart' - and pay them more. No one has a right to 'decent' wage or even a job. Someone has to create that job and that someone is not a slave to the worker.

      And you make these blanket statements - without providing the least bit of evidence. Every school child in the UK knows, or should know, that inflation is simple math. More money chasing less goods = inflation. That is not a function of Capitalism. The problem is magnified, geometrically, when the fiats (with no intrinsic value) are spilled into the economy. This spilling idea was created, not by the Socialists, per se, but extends into antiquity. The Romans even created fiats. Nearly valueless monies. This is not free unfettered capitalism, but a controlled, over regulated, non-capitalist system.

      Capitalists - I speak of those Capitalists who believe free unfettered trade, without special government favors creating coercive monopolies, value sound monies, not worthless monies, and use some form of representative government - have some form of Contractual Constitution spelling out their personal liberties.

      And in a Capitalist system (notice I did not type Capitalistic, such as where the US is right now - sort of) no one company or group of companies can control 99% of the wealth. This would require a government edict. You cannot stop free trade in a free society, without force. That is the exclusive realm of other forms of government.

      If one company began to corner the shoe market in the free economy, for example, so long as the price was good and the quality was there, people would buy the shoes. Consumers would benefit. Other small shoe companies would fail. The richer company could then buy out or undercut the remaining companies. Finally, the great shoe maker company would prevail. Thinking they are now in total control, they begin to raise prices. Then suddenly, as if from nowhere, the plumber starts a small Sandals-R-Us company. The monopolistic Shoe Store is furious. They try to buy him out, but failing that, they begin to copy his shoe designs. Next, the Shoe Store sells Sandals-R-Us imitations, for a better price. Sandles-R-Us fails. Shoe Store sees another opportunity to raise prices, but it happens again and again - there seems to be no stopping these foolish shoe and sandal makers. A new idea creeps into the no-longer-Capitalist Shoe Store. Socialism he thinks. That is the answer. The means of production must be placed in the hands of me - I mean the people. Then I can have the government 'order' the people to buy only my shoes! Shoe Makers of the World Unit! And eventually - from each according to his ability, to each, according to his need! Even if we must force them! Failing that, the Shoe Store begins planning a third way. Somewhere between Marxist and Capitalism...he thinks, yes! I'll call it Fascism! Government in bed with business - what a plan!

      A great man once said that "Socialism is the Philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." You might have heard of this man. His name was Winston Churchill.

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      if you don't believe that the top 1% have increased their productivity by that much and you don't believe that it is from wealth redistribution, what do you attribute it to?

      Wal Mart does receive money from tax payers to relieve them of having to pay decent wages.

      How do you manage to work out that inflation is a primary socialist principle? Inflation is purely a function of capitalism and who says we must create five year plans? I think you are confusing state capitalism with socialism.

      Capitalism is a dictatorship by very few people, socialism isn't. Again you are getting confused over your systems.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      No, I do not think the top 1% have increased their production by that amount. I believe the reason is not income/wealth redistribution, however.

      If Walmart receives money from peoples' taxes, yes it is wrong. Yes it would be forced redistribution of wealth. But...if Walmart receives a smaller tax bill as a Corporation, I do not see a problem.

      In the US, the Corporations pay salaries to people and people pay taxes. Most of the taxes in the US come from to top earners. These top earners are forced to subsidize the majority. They, the richest 10%, pay most of the taxes (over 70%) already. The remaining 90% pay the rest. That's according to CNN Money in 2010. I'm sure it's higher now.

      In fact, there are not enough funds, even with taxes, to pay the bills, so the Govt devalues the currency - the hidden tax: inflation. Inflation is a massive redistribution of wealth. Each top earner can watch as his/her dollar shrinks - but so do the rest of our dollars evaporate. The poor become poorer. The Middle becomes hollow. The top is left with billions that are now worth far less. Everybody loses. Corporate welfare is a grain of sand blowing from the cliffs at Dover, compared to inflation. Evil corporations are not the problem. Those who control the fiats are a big chunk of the problem.

      This game can only last so long. Eventually, one invites hyper-inflation. And, if I may paraphrase one of our Govt types (Ron Paul) - in the end, a fiat currency devalues rather quickly. (I did not vote for Paul.)

      And what happens when the dollar evaporates? We are all tied together - by the EUROS, the YEN, and so on. The US is in debt to China...

      So if you blame the top earners and ignore inflation, you are in a sense throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. And I do believe 'inflation' is a primary monetary Socialist principle, correct? They must create 5 year plans? Maynard Keynes? I'm more of a Ludwig von Mises fan myself.

      And let me help you with something. A pure Democracy is a dictatorship by the 51%. Socialism is a dictatorship by a small group of elected (or not) people. A govt of alleged Philosopher Dictators? All that power in the hands of the little group of cronies. Dangerous. History has educated us over and over: concentrated power, with no checks and balances, no constitution (or a fraudulent one) with fickle men/women who change laws like you change your shirt, is a recipe for ruin. And the US is not immune. It is following Europe down the fiscal drain.

      A Constitutional Democratic-Republic is 'rule by laws' - hopefully 'just' laws. And not rule by men. Hopefully, with a Constitution guaranteeing certain unalienable rights, we can alleviate the fickleness. However, the US is much closer to a 'U.S.S.A.' now - or a Socialistic-Democracy. Hence the trouble we are in.

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      You are using diversionary tactics. The subject was the involuntary redistribution of wealth, not the superior nature of capitalism over socialism.

      In an earlier post I said "You can't seriously believe that the top 1% have increased their productivity by 31.4% whilst the other 99% have increased their productivity by only 0.4%". A point you omitted to address.

      That is forced redistribution of wealth.

      So is the $47,000 tax payout to every Wal Mart store in the US, not a pay out from profits but an enforced pay out from tax payers.

      Just to be even, I suspect MacDonalds receives a similar boost to its profits at the tax payers expense.

      So shall we go back to discussing the topic of your hub or shall we continue to discuss your complete misunderstanding of socialism?

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      First, tell me when and where you think the 1% will ever own 99% of the wealth - in a Capitalist Nation? One which does not define social relationships in terms of force? And where does such a nation exist?

      And while you are at it, please define 99% of the wealth. Does this mean 1% own 99% of everything? All of the property? All cash, gold, guns and steel? I challenge you to show me one nation like this, with a population of more than 10 souls. Is there such a slave State? North Korea perhaps? Will they own my shoes, my computer, my toilet paper? If I am so broke, how will I continue to buy toilet paper. Will the rich loan me the money? What is the profit in that - for the rich? Would it not behoove the rich to keep everyone as rich as possible? Sure helps trade a lot.

      And how would all of these lucky wealthy people, of this 1% future nation, you mention, convince the governments to relinquish 99% of the land they hold - 99% the National Parks, the Aircraft Carriers, the Walmarts, the Sock Shops etc.? I dare say, if this happened in my neck of the woods, we'd grab our guns and go. (Sorry, I understand you cannot do this as easily in the UK.) But in a freer economy, what is to stop the next Floormart or Ceiling-mart start up? ...and trade floor tiles or ceiling wood, for wealth? Nothing.

      I'm afraid that you will only find Socialist, Fascist, and or Dictatorships - which hold so much of the wealth - via outright confiscation - in the hands of the 1%. Putin and his Oligarchs. A Saudi Prince. A North Korean Despot.

      My point about Cuba, the former USSR, and other failed dream nations,was that they all began with the notion of Socialism - at least in name - but as we all know the name is a lie. They all degenerated into Nanny-States, Autocracies, Socialist dreams-utopias, and eventually, outright Despotic Regimes, of one flavor or another.

      And if you are going to state people are dying, as a result of free trade, i,e., Capitalism, then give me an example. I will then show you that these nations are in no way free, but partially enslaved - by - you guessed it: Socialism or its brood.

      And I do not advocate Corporate Welfare. However, in many minds, especially in those of Socialists, Corporate Welfare is giving a tax break to Corporations. Letting them keep more of their money. This is less confiscation, not welfare.

      US sanctions on Cuba? The US does not own the world. Many nations trade with Cuba, but poor Socialist Dreams, run by corrupt leaders (of the people) don't tend to attract much business. In Cuba, we could be jailed for blogging this. That's not the fault of the US.

      There is only one sure method to redistribute wealth and that is by force. Whether by sanctions, fine, or imprisonment - it is nonetheless, force. And that, my friend, is immoral. This is most often begun with the call to Socialism, as a means to the ultimate of failed fantasies: Communism. Capitalism, again, within the laws I have mentioned, never requires one to live for the sake of another.

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      If you think that because the NAZI's were socialist just because that word was included in their name then I'm afraid that you have no idea about what socialism means.

      National Socialism is an oxymoron, socialists are international.

      At the time in Germany socialists were just about as welcome as they are today in the USA.

      Hitler was butchering socialists before he started on the Jews.

      Anyway, you avoid my question - what happens to your capitalist system when 1% own 99% of the wealth?

      There may be no pure capitalist nations but most are driven by capitalism. Many things that people call socialist are purely capitalist in cause, such as unemployment benefits and wage subsidies.

      Capitalism as it is worked today is anything but moral, it kills tens of thousands of people every day.

      Walmart is a perfect example of corporate profits being propped up by tax payers. Or looking at it another way, the involuntary redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to the private corporation.

      If Cuba is indeed bankrupt could that be the responsibility of US sanctions?

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      You don't seem to follow Margaret's point. She meant, at least to me, that Socialism, whether it takes the form of a dictatorship of the people or a Kingdom of Autocrats, will spend everyone's money, not in defense (you spell it 'defence' right?) of their liberties, but in support of the whims of some groups of people over the desires and wants of other groups of people. Socialism is not about morality, but favor and power. Expedience. Five Year Plans. Eventual collapse. Class warfare.

      Capitalism, in its best form, is secured by moral laws. Free trade. Sound money. Rewards. Liberty. Right to Property. No involuntary servitude (slavery) - such as in Socialism. Capitalism, again, structured in the sets of rights I've previously mentioned, garners cooperation and trade.

      Socialism is a system of men, making laws, not based on any sense of freedom or morality, but upon a sense of envy of the wealthy, envy of the mind, and envy of the productive. Envy. Hatred.

      National Socialism (NAZI) was beaten, but at great cost. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased them. Remember? The USSR - collapsed. Cuba - a bankrupt island, as always, with people fleeing to Florida in leaky rafts, are risking their lives in ninety miles of shark infested ocean.

      That is the story of Socialism. It's a rerun. A morbid fascination with building a utopia by force, upon the broken battered bodies of those trying to flee.

      You mentioned Capitalism. Unfortunately there are no Capitalist nations on this earth, of any size. The US is a mixed economy - Socialist, Capitalistic, Theocratic (a bit), Democratic (a lot), and Republic (not enough). And that is the problem.

      And I am not afraid of the Boogy-man. I do not fear the wealthy or the productive. I look at their creations. Walmart - where I can buy almost anything any day and at a very good price. New medicines, which save lives. New computers that allow me to bother you. Ad infinitum. If there was no profit, no reward for one's effort, then why bother? I could just live in Cuba with free Medical care, I suppose - until I could make my escape from that Socialist Paradise!

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      The question is not one of morality. Margaret Thatcher said, erroneously, that socialism was fine until it ran out of other peoples money. She should have applied that to capitalism.

      Take it to extremes and what happens to your capitalist system when 1% own 99% of the wealth?

      You might say that will never happen but at what point would you say enough is enough?

      As your favoured 1% increases its wealth the wealth of the 99% decreases and ultimately that cannot be good even for the 1%.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      The question is not one of productivity or if Warren Buffet has billions in cash stuffed in his desk drawer. The question is one of moral right. Does Warren have the moral right to keep his earnings, so long as he did in fact earn? And by earnings it is meant the wealth one accumulates by selling products or services which others voluntarily purchase - having the right to purchase the same elsewhere or not to purchase same, at all. Warren is a pretty productive guy. On the other hand, if Warren steals his wealth, he has no right to it.

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      You shouldn't be asking me those questions. They should be directed at the one percenters.

      You can't seriously believe that the top 1% have increased their productivity by 31.4% whilst the other 99% have increased their productivity by only 0.4%.

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 3 years ago from Southeastern U.S.

      Perhaps, a suggestion has been made that we should fight 'evil' with confiscation? Did the top earners steal the money? No, they earned it (I hope). Now some among us, probably many, might wish a share? But to do so, force must be applied. Either a fine can be levied (excessive taxes) or the properties of the top earners can be seized. How does that make one feel? Evil, perhaps? Justified? How? Like a thief justifies the theft of his neighbor's television, because it's bigger than the one he stole last year?

      Earners earn and the moochers confiscate. Pick a side. (I'd rather earn, buts it's tough with these devaluing fiats.)

      The problem is not the earners, but the confiscators, the moochers, and a government bent on devaluation of the fiat monies - putting many of us in the poorhouse. The middle class is decaying, not because of top earners, but inflation - caused by government controls. As the prices rise they then place blame on the productive among us. They are berated because they produce.

    • John Holden profile image

      John Holden 3 years ago

      Yes, involuntary wealth redistribution is evil.

      Between 2009 and 2011 the top one percent of US earners saw their incomes increase by 31.4 whilst the other 99% saw their incomes increase by only 0.4%.

    • gmwilliams profile image

      Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

      Yes, socialism is becoming alive. The successful and affluent are now derided instead of being admired while the so-called downtrodden are seen as victims of "socioeconomic oppression" to be lifted out of their "malaise". The fact is that the poor are in dire socioeconomic straits due to their negative life choices and mindset. They also refuse to take responsibility and to be accountable for their condition. The middle class and the affluent are that way because of intelligent life choices pure and simple.