Checks on the Excesses of Capitalism
Most people agree that regulations are needed.
What would the regulations and safeguards be based on?
How can they be implemented?
What are the excesses?
Should States get more involved?
Should the Fed deal with whatever causes the inequity of wealth?
What would the Framers say?
What would the nature of the "regulations" be?
How do we check Governmental Loopholes, Bailouts, and Back-room Bonuses on both the Federal and State level?
The catch is, that at all costs, the people must remain sovereign.Unregulated Capitalism is unsustainable and will eventually cannibalize the economy of the US and the world. Capitalism's most destructive by-products are Greed and Selfishness. Most successful Capitalist pay little or no taxes. They just pile up more and more moneyand power, denying the Great Unwashed money, power, or cake. The King nor 400 Kings shouldn't own over 90% of the wealth on earth. The people will soon become restless and history will repeat itself.
How true, as the situation accelerates, it must by its very nature become unsustainable
This country, and most European countries experienced almost pure capitalism in the mid 1800's commonly referred to the industrial revolution. Hmmmm, how'd that go?
Which US capitalists pay little or no taxes? With links, please?
Unregulated capitalism is unsustainable: Can you please Elucidate?
Can you also explain how it will cannibalize the economy and the world?
How does capitalism deny "the masses" money and power?
Where do the fat cats stash their mice?
How is their avoiding being taxed detrimental to us? We benefit by their industriousness do we not? Shouldn't their industriousness be encouraged somehow?
Definition of Industriousness: diligent and hard-working.
Surely, we should not equate diligence and hard work with Greed and Selfishness!
*And most importantly,
How do you propose to regulate capitalism? Can it be done without scraping the freedom which promotes it?
No one in their right (or left) mind would want to scrap the potential of liberty through individual independence, would they?
Would They?1. About 50 years ago when I was a child it cost 7 cents to ride public transportation buses. Bread was 15cents a loaf. Milk was about 40 cents a gallon. A new automobile was less than 2 thousand dollars. Most things worth having were made in America. Fifty years later, bus fare, bread, milk, and a new automobile has inflated 100’s and thousand’s of percent because capitalism is most successful when price increases. To slow, stop, or roll back prices is anti-capitalism. Fifty years from now the majority of people in the US won’t be able to afford the fore-mentioned goods and service. 1.
2. Money is power and the great unwashed has no power and can’t buy cake without food stamps. 2.
3. Taxes is how the capitalist got rich in America. Tax money and government handout made it possible for railroads and interstate highways used by capitalist to improve commerce nationwide. Federal Tax dollars has been the cash cow that financially backed capitalism in America. Now the masses need Federal taxes for help during joblessness and those that got rich with the help of tax dollars don’t want to pay taxes to help the masses. 3.
4. Money is stashed and invested offshore. It takes money to make money, not hard work. The more money the less work. 4.
5. We need not scrap capitalism but, it need to be better regulated and excesses need to be put in check. 5.Caps on income. Income and profit regulation.
Who determines the cap? Who has the right to limit my profit or income (ethical right, not legal - anyone that can make laws can have the legal right).
Who has the right to have so much money and recources that it affects the rest of the population?
Anyone that can legally earn it.
But, realistically speaking, no one individual has that much. Even Gates, with his billions, cannot have a real impact on the country as a whole solely with money. With the power behind it, yes, but not with a few billion $$.
But you didn't answer - which individual has an ethical right to tell put a cap on my ability to earn?Why would it have to be an individual? Why couldn't it be a concensus of leaders who are considered intelligent and ethical people?
Kind of like we do with the supreme court, or the electoral college.I don't believe there is a single American leader that I would consider more ethical than the common man in the street.
And that man in the street is not so obviously morally superior as to be fit to set the rules for where others must limit their abilities. No one is.
But the supreme court is not judging morality issues, but legal ones and that is a completely different story.
One good example would be the United States itself.
Is it your feeling then that the US should divest itself of half it's wealth? We should give away the factories we've worked to hard to build, and the trains we spent lives to construct? Who should we give it to, and why?
To the down trodden. The up trodden don't deserve much do they.
Hmm. That would be me, then. Suddenly the plan looks much better!
It wouldn't work in the long term anyway.
It would probably revert back to normal within a few generations.No "probably" about it; wealth re-distribution schemes are doomed to failure from the start as the ones producing the wealth don't like them and the ones getting all the "free" wealth are not the ones running things.
oh yeah!
Well, I 'm actually starting to wonder if
Obama care would be worth it for me to look into.
I hear its free for part time workers...Mine was free. With a deductible of $12,700 it is worth what I paid for it, too.
You gave the government all your info... for what?
Well, our illustrious leader ordered me to! AND he promised "affordable" care, too!
But I didn't give them anything they don't already have. It's all on the 1040 form except whether I smoke or not. And I don't care who knows that.
How obedient of you! (You might go to heaven for it!)
I would get it just to avoid being taxed.
- unless, of course, I could write off the tax…(Haven't asked my tax lady yet.)Doubtful - I expect it will take much more than that. And while I might get a vote of confidence as a "thank you" from the insurance company I doubt that it will mean much, considering the source.
Do you think hackers are a threat? Our houses and property?
*shrug* It's always a possibility - it always will be when you go on the net. Or use a credit card or get a drivers license or hold a job.
I watch where I am (on the web), give as little information as possible, and accept I'm at risk. It's a part of life today, I guess.
I heard a while ago that China will eventually take hold of US property through technological means... If you don't own your home they could disappear the proof and records. Probably not in our life-time. Or maybe an asteroid will it the power stations first.
Life without technology… How fun would that be... again?...cuz, I don't want my property to be confiscated by anyone! I would like to be proactive…if possible. And if the asteroid hits… I want to be ready.
- might need horses, hay, kerosine lanterns and cook stoves, kerosine, candles, fire pit, water source like property with a well, natural sauna house, solar know-how, Heritage seed supply, small farm capabilities, and a goat and a cow…
Boy, I hope that asteroid stays put.Oh. Then just keep a couple sets of physical proof of ownership. I'm not exactly sure how homeownership works, but I'm sure it would be possible to have physical records?
There are plenty of survivalist sites out there to get info from, but you probably know that already.
I thought about becoming one myself at one point:)
Changed my mind though, for several different reasons.
What factories? The factories overseas, where labor is cheap? Why are service jobs growing faster than GOOD jobs? What do we make and build here anymore? How long will it be before those jobs are sent overseas as well? What incentive is there to create products here?
Hopefully you are right. But you never can be sure with tyrants and ungodly power hungry socialistic governments who value nothing except Conquest.
C'mon Kathryn, another ? after I took the time to answer all of your questions.. I think you knew the answers to all the questions you asked me but thought I had no answers to your questions I don't believe you are that ignorant. I believe you know HOW! already. You couldn't honestly address my answers openly, so I will ignore your How question because you don't really want to know the truth.
Your view of the truth is interesting to me. Believe me, I am trying to learn from anyone who makes sense. So far, Wilderness makes the most sense… to me. Why would you not contribute?
The truth is, I am very prone to left thinking. I hate that in me.If its wilderness that makes sense to you, I understand that because you both ask question that you don't really want a truthful answer to, but really have nothing to add or subtract from the question answered.
Ah, but do you actually have truthful answers, or just opinions based on a fantasized picture of how things should be done?
Do you really believe that the rich people are "stashing" their money somewhere? Their mattress, maybe? 'Cause it's a great way to go broke...That is what I am prone to:
Wishful thinking.
You can only be burned so many times before you start to wake up.Unfortunately, some never wake up. It will always be the talented, the able, the workers that are successful that are the evil ones, taking from the mouths of others. Because they won't pay $20/hr for a few flipped burgers.
I would agree that Capitalism needs to be better regulated and that the excesses need to be put in check… and I really do not know how this should be done without removing the causes of capitalism, which is free markets and a percolating economy. Equality would be nice, but the truth is we are all accountable for our own successes and failures… This fact is a reality and cannot be taken away.
Does you, junko, also believe in "Caps on income. Income and profit regulation," as janesix stated?No, equality would NOT be nice; that's a pipe dream of the socialists.
Equalize the wealth of the nation amongst all people and you remove any incentive from the handful that actually produced that wealth to continue to do so. A decreasing standard of living is the inevitable result for any but the smallest groups that engage in such practice.
Somewhere we crossed the line between helping the poor and trying to make everyone equal, and when half the population isn't helping to support the country we can all forsee trouble coming. To some it means take from the rich and give to the poor so that you can take it back in taxes, but it won't work. The rich have that nasty habit of fighting back to keep what is theirs.The word "incentive" blasts out at me loud and clear.
INCENTIVE makes sense!I didn't say anything about income equality. I said income caps. On outrageous wealth.
I didn't say the CEO of a company and a burger flipper should get equal amounts.
Heck, it could be a merit system. More money for the more important Jobs. Scientists get more, a man who does laundry at a hotel a whole lot less, but a livable wage.Misunderstanding; the equality reference was in response to Kathryn's post and referred to equality in wealth (I think) and not income.
So what's "outrageous wealth" and why? And at what age? A million dollars? 10 million? A billion? And will the owners of that kind of money agree with you or do you claim your choice is superior somehow?
A "livable" wage. As determined by whom and for whom? Does the Dad with 6 kids and a stay at home wife earn the same as the single guy for doing the same work?
You'd be hard pressed to find a full time job in this country that doesn't pay a "livable" wage for the single guy with 2 room mates, no car, no cell phone, no cable TV, no eating out or movies, and that doesn't guzzle a six pack per day. Somehow, "livable" has come to mean a life of luxuries unheard of just a few decades ago. I don't swallow it, and I don't swallow that we should not have jobs for teens beginning their work career and with zero skills or aptitude. Jobs that cannot pay that mythical "living wage" for a family of four and remain in business.I don't know. Maybe you didn't grow up with the poverty that surrounded me and those I know. There IS true poverty here. People who have to choose between $1000 a month medications and food.
It's hard to see someone with a private jet and two swimming pools and know there are people suffering true poverty next door.Hard, yes, but that does not give you, I or anyone else the right to take what they have. Becoming a thief, from an ethical basis, is just not an option.
Or so I see it; others will disagree and will happily take whatever they can legally get their hands on without regard to the ethics of it all. And to top it off, going too far down the road of socialism will, IMHO, always fail and result in a declining standard for everyone. Poverty will go from a little hungry once in a while to literal starvation and graves.Where did I say anything about stealing from anyone?
Come, come - how else do you put a cap on wealth? How will you get Bill Gates's billions if not by (ethical) theft? When someone crosses your cap (and they will) how will you take what they have earned if not by (ethical) theft? 'Cause I don't think a polite request will do the trick!
And there really isn't much difference when you decide that YOU will set wages without regard to the value of work performed. That is a private matter between two other people and you have no right to interfere; doing so is, in a way, just another way to play Robin Hood by stealing from one to give to another.I didn't say anything about taking Bill Gate's money. I said put a cap on wealth. This is all hypothetical anyway. If this were ever done(which it won't be), it would take years to put into place. Future wealth, not me going into your home with a gun and taking your money. Incentives of higher pay for jobs that help society. Meritocracy.
This society is failing. Everyone ignores this. How long do you think it can be sustained? It will fall due to greed. That's practically a guarantee unless SOME kind of major change is implemented.If you don't reduce people's wealth by gunpoint, how WILL you do it? Now or in the future makes no difference; put a cap in for all future wealth and people will cross it. What then if not take it by force (theft)? And of course you never did answer what was "excessive" wealth, or what point in our lives we could accumulate that figure.
And you don't want meritocracy; that would mean the washerwoman with 6 kids earns $2,000 per month. You certainly don't want the politicians determining who "helps society" and deserves more money!
I agree that our current direction for society will fail; socialism and forced sharing of the wealth always does. Make people more responsible for themselves and it can live on for a long time yet.
But even the lottery money comes from all who contribute! You earn what you agree to. If the hotel does not offer a livable wage and a person takes the job, who is to be accountable for the decision of that person????
Why not that person?Have you ever seen the people who work in laundries? I have. They are the people who can only get that kind of crappy job. Mentally disabled and retarded. People with severe social issues. Single mothers who have been abandoned by their husbands. It's more often due to circumstances out of people's control. But they are willing to work, and try to take care of themselves.
And that the work appropriate for a teen or handicapped person with no other skills and living in a state home is being done by a single mom with kids to care for somehow increases the value of the work done? I don't see it.
Remember, the money goes to a person, but wages are a return for a task that has been done. The person's life situation, their looks, their health or other needs - none of that changes the value of the task. You don't go shopping for a new easy chair and, finding one for $50, give the clerk a hundred dollar bill - why expect an employer to do it? Business is no more obligated to care for the needy of the nation than individuals are - that is a function of society.
- you said a man. You did not say a disabled person or a displaced woman. Now I cry.
The question remains...who is accountable for a person.
The answer lingers longer: that person and his loved ones.
Why the government????
It is wishful thinking that survival of the fittest is not still in play.
And is this not true?
And why do I feel so bad saying it?As long as the body of people has sovereignty all will be fine. What's good for the people is whats good for the (general) government. And remember: The tyrant is the most unhappy of men, because everybody hates him.
That the greatest capitalists pay little to no taxes isn't really a problem with capitalism; it's a problem with the tax codes. We need to simplify tax codes. Why should the government be in the business of giving tax breaks to certain people? Is it the government's business whether or not we're married, give to charity, or have children? Should the government be giving preferential treatment to people for "acting" in a way that pleases Big Brother? The tax codes should be simple. The taxes should be minimal, but everybody should pay. The government shouldn't be in the business of trying to socially engineer its people by offering tax incentives.
Our tax codes are not representative of capitalism; on the contrary, they represent a big, over-reaching government which tries to regulate capitalists by offering tax incentives for government-pleasing behavior.+1 Well said - that "social engineering" is a major problem in this country. If a thing is worth doing it doesn't need a subsidy (via a tax break) to encourage it.
Some guidelines should be:
1) Is this regulation market friendly? Another words is the regulation going to increase or decrease output. This is important because as output grows the country as a whole usually profits.
2) Is the regulation usurping the legislative function of Congress? Right now bureaucratic agencies have more power than Congress and can arbitrarily make laws without a vote. This is a dangerous trend if left unchecked.
3) Is the regulation top down or bottom up? Top down regulation involves the strong arming and direct involvement of the government. This should be a option of last resort. Its usually much more beneficial to allow the free markets to regulate themselves as they have done very well for a long time.Thank you. This need's to be home-printed and put up on everyone's fridge.
I am an Indian, we experienced excesses of Fabian socialism and now ongoing western type capitalism or liberalized economy and Globalization.
If economies are being driven by capitalists across the globe . It seems, you have a dream to make world free of
profit and loss and fail-safe system will do holy care job for citizens.
Isms goes extreme , it fails. Isms can be contained but greed , lust that spoils systems and people suffer. In China after switching over to market economy, income levels rose but crimes too. This is the dilemma of system.
I think Scandinavians proved that it can be done , capitalism can be brought under control and implementation of welfare schemes sincerely then it can reduce excesses of capitalism
Human is a complex machine and cannot be kept in confined space, human is constructive and destructive animal .
Sweden is democratic socialist country as they claim and ahead in generous funding to developing nations and promoter of peace. but Sweden manufactures Arms and sells.These are double standards because they cannot earn revenue to run welfare schemes for their citizens.. India is a buyer of Swedish arms and famous Bofors gun scandal!!
Advocates of capitalism say it allows freedom of expression and always open to accept new ideas and innovation and so charities and philanthropy but by earning profit in business and part of donated in Corporate Social responsibility !!!Things will work themselves out on their own. If that's not the case and it takes human impetus, then other options need to be looked at.
All current societal structures, especially capitalism, aren't working not from lack of trying, but from the nature of human behavior.
We lack the higher consciousness that was available to cultures like the ancient Egyptians. Figure out what was going on there, and we might have a clue.Higher consciousness in ancient Egyptians? I'm certainly no expert there, or even very well informed, but I thought they kept slaves? And that there was a most definite ruling class, far, far above the common citizen. How many commoners built pyramids for their afterlife, pyramids that bankrupted the system?
Egypt started out as a high civilization, and then declined. But it still managed to stay together for three thousand years. A plan was mapped out for building structure, which took place over a long period of time. Pyramids were not meant as tombs. Any common citizen could have any position except for that of Pharoah and perhaps the Pharoah's wife. Society was basically ruled by the priest class, who had to be trained for years. They had to follow a series of initiations, where most of the candidates were weeded out. If they didn't understand the laws of nature, they were weeded out. One early initiation weeds out potential candidates by swimming a maze with crocodiles in the water above them. This easily takes out any possibilities of cowardice, and also ensures the candidate has critical thinking under duress. We don't know if the original Egyptians had slavery. We don't know exactly what the laws for maintaining society were. There are no records at all from the beginning. But we do know that society was maintained by the priest class, who understood the laws of nature.
"We don't know exactly what the laws for maintaining society were."
Then we don't know that anyone could be a Priest (ruler), do we?. Or any of the others in high society (merchants, politicians, etc.)
Tomb: a place to put dead bodies. And I'm sure this time that that's what they did with pyramids. Each one has a dead Pharoah in it. Or did before the grave robbers came, anyway.
Slaves - both the Hebrews and Christians seem to think so, and their written records bear that out.
Safeguards; protect and maintain competition. No (or very few) monopolies, no price fixing, etc. Including price fixing by labor. When a union sets prices for an entire industry it is out of line.
Should feds "deal" with wealth inequity? As inequity is primarily caused by differences in people - abilities, motivations, wants, etc. - no. Should a couple prefer lots of kids to lots of money it is their choice, for instance. Should someone want money so badly they work 60-70 hours per week to afford their Cadillac, RV, mansion and boat, it is their choice and they owe no one any of that money. Realistically, we have to have a graduated income tax structure, but keep it to a minimum.We have laws in place regarding monopolies. I would say we need to pay attention to safeguards which are built in and which may be being overlooked by …?
Overall, I think we do a decent job there. Where we fail quite badly is the buying of laws from lawmakers greedy for power and money. That one is extremely common and desperately needs checked and checked hard.
Laws could be established to prevent lobbying for corrupt purposes.
Nobody lobbies for the good of the country, only for their own personal benefit or sometimes to promote their personal concept of morality. Should we stop all lobbying? Stop just corporate lobbying (hard to prove if they didn't want the origin to be known)? Stop all corporate gifts, including campaign funding?
hmmm. Maybe we should not allow lobbying, but allow corporate gifts and the free speech of campaign funding.
- no, lobbying is a right.
maybe limit it to once a month...
Kathryn asked me where did they stash their money my answer didn't mention a mattress. That why its hard to have positive dialog with people who ask questions just to deflect dialog and also put words in comments and accuse of wards unspoken.
Sorry - I missed both her question and your answer. I just caught that you blame capitalists for all the countries evils because they "stash" their ill gotten gain.
Just wondered what you meant by that; if you know where they are putting that stash, and who is stupid enough to do it, or just slinging dirt on the economic system that produced the richest country and nearly the highest standard of living in the world.I asked, "Where do the fat cats store their mice: junko said, "Money is stashed and invested offshore. It takes money to make money, not hard work. The more money the less work."
I see. That's where I caught it, but still wonder where it is stashed. Invested off shore, of course - over regulation has virtually guaranteed that business will leave the country for a profit somewhere else. But I don't understand the "stash" thing.
Ah, to regulate or not to regulate! That is the question! Well, knowing when to regulate and when not to. That word "regulate" is still confusing to me.
Sometimes it refers to taxation.Regulate = control. Our politicians are better businessmen and women that the men and women that have spent a lifetime running their business. They thus have the right and need to run all business as they see fit, leaving only the minute details to those that actually understand how to make it happen out there.
Tonights best answer: "...protect and maintain competition." by wilderness.
Thank you once again, wilderness.I unrestrained greed ethical?
Is supporting unrestrained greed ethical?Unrestrained capitalistic "growth" can ONLY have one result. That would be the stripping of the Earth of all of it's useable resources.
Do you think the Earth is a never-ending cornucopia of resources?
Fresh water from the available aquifiers...already happening
Rainforests...our very source of the air we breath
Oil
Metals
Etc.
These things cannot be replace, folks. What aren't you getting here???? Why in the world do you put excessive population growth and the desire of people everywhere for luxuries at the feet of capitalism? Just because it is the only system that can provide it all?
These things are not being depleted because of a social or financial model - they are depleted because people WANT their goodies and luxuries. Including kids.Because capitalism is the epitome of unrepressed greed.
Because it IS using up our resources at an upresidented, unsustainable level.
I didn't say anything about overpopulation. You did. That's another story. A problem that needs to be addressed as well.
Who uses the VAST MAJORITY of the world's resources? The United States. Much of those resources are just to keep our infrastructure functioning. Corporations are allowed to destroy forests at a rate of an area the size of panama every YEAR. They are allowed to pollute sources of water used for drinking and agriculture. Who sucks up the dwindling world's supply of oil? Do I have to mention it?We use the VAST MAJORITY of the world's resources? Our corporations are allowed to destroy forests at a rate of an area the size of panama every YEAR? They are allowed to pollute sources of water used for drinking and agriculture? We suck up the dwindling world's supply of oil?
How should this be stopped. These are indeed good examples of excessiveness. I am at a complete loss to comprehend this situation.
What if the president told us who is doing this (George Soros for one) and stopped supporting the production of his oil in Brazil and stopped cooperating with these gigantic capitalists for the benefit of the countries they are destroying and the destruction they are creating. How can this type of thing stop? The giants would have to grow a conscience... Can we help them do that? SOMEHOW?
But you can't take away the freedom of capitalism and the competition we all benefit from!
You want bandaids to place over the holes in the dam.
Bandaids aren't going to work.
How long do you think the bandaids are going to last before the holes get too big?It seems the conclusion of some is that *capitalism leads to greed.*
No, greedy people lead to greed. Why blame an *ism,* when individual people and their selfish decisions are to blame?
Perhaps the best check to the excesses of capitalism is respect for nature and fellow man. Can't be regulated from without…only from within.
Q. How can people stop other people from pillaging the people or the land?
A. Stop buying their products.
Awareness of who is doing what is required. Well, we have the internet now. We have twitter. Shouldn't be hard to act en mass when it is called for.
Right?I think I shall follow the lead of my parents. Throw away the computer, microwave, second car, and TV. Rent out half the house; what they had is good enough. Dump the air conditioner. Start a large garden and buy a rifle; quit buying vegetables and meat. Trash the cell phones and go back to a landline only. Maybe raise a cow in the back yard.
The folks didn't have any of that stuff, and we don't need it either! So lets act en mass - who's with me?!if your parents can do it, so can we!
No?Well, I can. Those living in the high rise apartments downtown LA might have a small problem with the garden/hunting thing.
But they can still throw out the AC and dump the second car. It will help save the earth until they die of starvation or dehydration (my well will suffice me there - not sure what you will do).Yes, I really want to find some property with a well. Somewhere where there is a lot of rainfall, yet warm. Suggestions? Georgia? or one of the southern states? Peru? Costa Rica?
I actually lived on an acre of land in Mendocino county (early 80's). A fixer upper with no electricity, I had NOTHING! no gas , no electricity. Not even a good working vehicle… just an old 49 chevy that sometimes would start with an aligator clip and sometimes not. The well was pumped by turning on a generator every morning. Not easy living, not fun. I had to have a cord of wood for the wood stove and chopped my own kindling every morning. My son was two and cried every time I made a move. Why? Because in the city I had addicted him to my constant attention. Here I had to do stuff!
Looking back on it... I miss those days. Vegetables in the ice chest…No ice. I got used to warm vegetables. I started a garden... out across the stream, beyond the path of the deer and the redwoods. Sigh.
We could go back in time… We might, voluntarily … eventually.
Or not.
Good idea.
Already done here. I own less than $100 worth of STUFF. And that includes clothing. I own:
4 sets of clothing (all second hand)
2 pairs of shoes
about a hundred books (all second hand)
A stack of notebooks
Enough personal items to fit in a shoebox
An incomplete set of Battlestar Galactica DVD's (my one luxury item)I bet YOU could engage in capitalism and not be greedy!
Ummm... here is the plan:
You bring a bunch of paints and canvases to the homeless in your area. You get them to paint anything they want. They have all sorts of time on their hands and might really enjoy painting. They might create some really interesting pieces. You could sell these paintings for them in an open air setting... like in a park or in a donated gallery space. People would come from miles around to this really great art show for a really great cause and purchase these interesting works of art. All of you could split the profits, you taking less of course, and you never know where all this industry could lead!
No?
Odd - I would not have thought of the entitlement mentality as capitalism, but that is surely where greed has led a great many today.
Entitlement mentality is not only a condition of the poor.
It is also a condition of the rich and the middle class, who think they are entitled to whatever they want. It's "OK" to take what you can get, regardless of how it affects the rest of society.
The thing is, you expect people to regulate themselves "from within".
Very few people are willing to do that.
It's unrealistic.( You are right: We should have stopped buying products from China a long time ago. Maybe Nixon should not have opened up trade with China in the first place.)
However, I have noticed people have a tendency to follow good leaders. If the president told us to stop buying products created by Monsanto, for instance, wouldn't we as a nation get on board?
Why doesn't he?I certainly do not expect powerful corporate interests to be concerned about anything beyond the 'bottom line' It is conservatives that always seem to believe that people will do the right thing without being compelled to do so. Without the regulators, who knows what would get into the market place without scruntiny. Look how much trouble it was to get big tobacco to admit that their products were addictive. I accuse everyone of it who has a superior knowledge to exploit those that do not and the golden rule is no longer applicable. The excesses of capitalism began to be confronted during the turn of the last century, with greedy trusts, exploitative labor conditions and a book called "the Jungle". You don't really believe the idea that people are going to self regulate for the good of his fellow man do you?
You do know that tobacco was the first currency don't you? The early Americans traded goods for tobacco itself. This is the dismal beginning of our capitalism.
And New York was a very successful city because of the work ethic brought with the darn Dutch.
Blame the Dutch.
But back to the matter at hand:
What about this statement made by junko?
3.) Taxes is how the capitalist got rich in America. Tax money and government handout made it possible for railroads and interstate highways, used by capitalists, to improve commerce nationwide. Federal Tax dollars has been the cash cow that financially backed capitalism in America. Now the masses need Federal taxes for help during joblessness and those that got rich with the help of tax dollars don’t want to pay taxes to help the masses.There is some truth in 3) (as opposed to all the others) in that business (and capitalism) depend on the transportation infrastructure as much as consumers do. And the water, sewer, and electrical grid as well. Plus the GPS system, weather stations and satellites, radio/TV systems and our schools, such as they are.
But it is a little more than unfair to insinuate that the happy homeowner doesn't need and use those things just as much as the evil capitalists do. Just as it is a little unfair to say that capitalist businesses pay no taxes, while every dollar they earn is taxed twice at every level from city to federal.Yes and they were built for the benefit of all!
Exactly. They were built for all of us and we all benefit from them. Those projects helped capitalists, socialists, theists, atheists and all the other "ists" you can come up with.
When would everything get back to normal if we increased the process of doling out money?
...and you do know where the tax money comes from don't you?
It comes from the people.
So, when could the up-trodden stop paying for the down trodden? Never? Then where would the incentive to even be up-trodden come from?
If you are ambitious and determined toward success and you earn money, but the government takes most of it away for the benefit of others who are becoming increasingly weak, then where is the incentive going to come from for you to keep trying…to stay "up?"
It really comes down to that…
INCENTIVE!
Work, success and industriousness needs to be ENCOURAGED and rewarded.
Not discouraged and punished.
Who would not agree with this.
This is not right or left thinking
This is logical thinking..Unfortunately, a great many on the left will disagree. It kind of points out that the entitlement society we are rapidly building won't work, and that is a thought that cannot be permitted to spread.
I hate saying this but in all honesty we have to allow for natural selection on some level.
No?
Humans must take care of their own in the end. Their own families, their own loved ones. They must take responsibility for the weak ones within the family and the community.
It is amazing to think that it really comes down to love.
Love tempered with logic.
Thats what is required for survival of the fittest.That's great. If you want to continue to live at the level of animals.
I believe as thinking, caring humans, we JUST MIGHT be capable of creating a society that is better than the one we have today. If we take a good look at where the real problems lie, and make an effort to fix them.
Survival of the fittest. It's survival of the greediest.
This society will not last the way it is going."If we take a good look at where the real problems lie, and make an effort to fix them."
H O W ?I don't know.
That should be the goal of the human species.
If we can all agree that there is a problem, then maybe we can start working together to find a solution.Okay… Maybe with a concerned, honest president who is elected by the people to office. Sadly, even if George Washington were here today he probably wouldn't have a chance to get elected. Not a chance.
We are obviously doomed. But I still say,
Long live capitalism!
Until they destroy the planet, learn their lessons and reap their Karma.I don't think we are doomed.
I'm not saying capitalism is itself a bad thing. I just don't think it can be sustained as it is. Without some form of control. A strong form of control that people won't like. They most likely won't agree to it. It most likely won't work.
For some reason, I have hope that people will start to see things as they are, and work out a system that will be sustainable that will also be acceptable for most people.
What I actually think is in the works is completely different. But I'd like to give humanity a chance to figure this thing out for ourselves first.lol...no
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, for the simple fact that humans are incapable of keeping secrets, especially of that magnitude."What I actually think is in the works is completely different. But I'd like to give humanity a chance to figure this thing out for ourselves first."
Could you give a hint… or are you writing a book.No, not writing a book. You would probably just think I'm insane, and I'm actually tired of being laughed at.
But I will try to explain, because you asked, and because I like putting out my ideas in case someone actually thinks what I say has merit.
I think the universe has a predetermined pattern from begging to end. Humanity is a single organism that hasn't yet fully formed. It is heading in that direction. It is an expansion of awareness that we will all eventually be pulled into, and into a cohesive whole. I don't think we are "special", just a transitional part of the Universe as a whole.A predestined pattern until the end. Interesting. I think this discussion is veering back to Yoga . ha ha ha!
Do you think Jesus is going to return or reincarnate? or is that an analogy for our own destiny toward higher consciousness leading to astral and eventually causal?"Do you think Jesus is going to return or reincarnate?
No
or is that an analogy for our own destiny toward higher consciousness leading to astral and eventually causal?"
Yes. Although I think it is essentially a cycle. It happens over and over again. Maybe not in all the exact details, but a general pattern.
But we could try to obtain a concerned, honest president… couldn't we?
I think that suggestion isolates the ultimate difficulty. It seems like the body of *We the People* does need a benevolent guiding light, in general.
Also, if George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or John Adams were here today… those three would probably advocate a major overhaul and revolution.
You know what they would say?
*Stop Paying Taxes.*
(Yay for freedom of speech.)
Could anyone throw the whole entire nation in Jail?
Or what could "they" do if the whole entire nation stopped paying taxes one fine year???? via technology, Twitter, Facebook etc. (Yay for technology.) What would happen? Ah, the calamity.
Just wondering.Ever hear of the Council of Foreign Relations?
"The CFR is considered to be the nation's most influential foreign-policy think tank. Its membership has included senior politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, and senior media figures." Wikipedia
Well, I just heard Obama proclaiming something about Canada and Mexico cooperating with US.
CFR wants to remove the borders of Mexico and Canada. They have very big plans for the economic unity of these three nations. This is why the bullet train is being built here in CA. The first phase plans for it to stop in Modesto, but they want it to eventually cover the entire territory of Mexico, US and Canada.
It is starting to happen right before our very eyes.
We need a president who will not yield to the plans of the CFR.
Unfortunately, the current one is yielding to NWO plans... according to what I just heard him say on the radio.
Not a conspiracy theory at all.
Reality.
or not?
Related Discussions
- 88
Will economy collapse? Why/why not? Timetable?
by jerryl 14 years ago
What's your opinion, and the reasoning behind it?
- 15
Is capitalism creating a world economy?
by rhamson 13 years ago
The constant call for less taxes and less regulation is constantly the demand of supporters of capitalism. Is the demand for trade with countries of lesser economies and sophisticated workforces creating a leveling of standards of living and creating a decline in personal incomes in the US?
- 29
Is the monentary squeezing of the middle class just a coincidence?
by Moderndayslave 11 years ago
With wages adjusted for inflation either stagnant or losing ground and commodities and the cost of living going up. Is the US economy being systematically gutted or is this just a coincidence? What's your opinion and why?
- 308
CHALLENGE to Atheists: How did the Egyptians build the Great Pyramids?
by Czirják Csaba 11 years ago
How did they do this over 5000 years ago without the invention of the wheel, according to scientists?Why do we find perfectly cut granite rectangles, which could only be cut by diamonds, that weigh about 1,500 tons that are around 2000 years old, when it would take 21 heavy duty cranes to lift this...
- 16
McConnell v. Trump: Who is Right?
by Allen Donald 3 years ago
Reports on the COVID stimulus bill negotiations reveal that President Trump was going to push for stimulus checks up to $2,000 for individuals after he received many emails and communications from his supporters about how much they were suffering.President Trump began drafting his push for these...
- 11
is there a better way then capitalism to run a countries economy?
by nightwork4 12 years ago
is there a better way then capitalism to run a countries economy?have you ever thought of a better idea then capitalism and what would you call it ?