# How is Capitalism working out for you?



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The folks that formed "Occupy Wall Street" were never able to get their message out, the News Media had more fun depicting them as crybaby College kids mad about having to pay for their tuition and highlighting the filthy conditions and other peripheral issues.
But I doubt most folks have any idea of how skewed it has become.
Most have forgotten or never knew the anti-trust, anti-monopoly efforts of 80 years ago that prevented the wealthiest few from taking over the steel industry and the fuel industry.

Many just don't really care.

I'd like you to take a moment and see what our economy really looks like. Then let me know if you already knew, were surprised, think it can and should continue, or think it is too late to change.

Here is the video:
http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10...tely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=2


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> The folks that formed "Occupy Wall Street" were never able to get their message out, the News Media had more fun depicting them as crybaby College kids mad about having to pay for their tuition and highlighting the filthy conditions and other peripheral issues.
> But I doubt most folks have any idea of how skewed it has become.
> Most have forgotten or never knew the anti-trust, anti-monopoly efforts of 80 years ago that prevented the wealthiest few from taking over the steel industry and the fuel industry.
> 
> ...


I don't have time to look at your link right now, but capitalism has been great for us. Sure, there are lots of stumbling blocks, mostly the government, but it works well for us if your willing to put the hours in!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Hey, Jeff, check back when you have a chance to actually view the focus of this thread.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Pretty much what' I've known for a long time.. the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer... and we've got Unkle and all his greed to thank... If Unkle wasn't so fast to jump in bed with all the other rich corporations, so he gets richer, then things wouldn't be as big a mess as it is.. 

The system is rigged... Too much greed, it causes capitalism to become such a corrupt idea.. .In theory it's a good idea, but in reality, there are too many ways for greed to tear the system apart along with the country...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Ok, I watched it! So, what is your solution to that bad, evil 1%? The system has worked well for those that are willing to take a chance, those that don't want to work hard and try to make a better life for themselves and family usually end up with jobs that fir their skill level. These occupy folks just made poor life choices, and now they want others to pay for those poor choices. The other hindrance in moving up fiscally is government intrusion, nafta and programs like that are detrimental to our working folks.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Wow... jeffery.. You're the last person I would have expected to take that route.. 

There are MANY hard working people that can't get ahead... Some reasons such as depressed areas of the country... Businesses got regulated out of business (think coal, farming and such) and nothing is left.. Sooo.. I take it they should all pick up and move to the city since that's what Unkle wants?

A big solution would be to get the government out of our day to day lives, and stop taking the side of large corporations and granting them corrupt ways to write checks they want..

I used to work my but off 70 hours a week, and was highly skilled in what I did.. I didn't make much, because that industry couldn't pay much.. profits were thin... Now I don't do much work at all, and sit on my butt not learning, not doing much, waiting for something to happen while making big stacks of cash... .. I was much happier working hard, than I am now just sitting around.. 

I'm leaving this, because I'm sick of the corporate world.. They are taking over and it's sad... I'm going back to low pay and many hours of a lot harder work.. Why, because I can't be happy in the city and working for a corporate money machine..


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

OK I watched the video. Here are my thoughts:

All this information on the "top 1%" is presented as evidence that free markets do not work. The information is always presented as if in order to believe in free market enterprise you have to either accept or ignore a large strengthening elite sector. The video does not address at all how the free market creates or even encourages this scenario.

I believe that wealth concentrations come from single large sources of buying power. For example if 100 people have 100 dollars to go shopping with that money will be scattered over a large number of stores, and types of goods. However if 1 person has 10000 dollars to spend it is much more likely to be spent in a very narrow market. Thus wealth concentration begets further wealth concentration. In other words large single source spending creates the wealth seen in the video for the top 1%.

Now what is the largest single source concentration of wealth and spending in the U.S? This is an entity which consumes and spends over 35% of the entire nations GDP. It's the government. That entity causes the largest concentration of wealth I have been able to identify. If we believe the above premise to be true, then government spending is the #1 contributor to the wealth gap talked about in the video.

So, whenever I see information presented about the wealth inequality as eveidence that a larger government is required I want to point out, as the person did in the video, that they should "wake up" and see the true source cause of the inequality.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

Sorry- but I totally think you are only as poor as you allow yourself to think you are- 
I know many a people who do not have a dime in the bank and they are the happiest people in the world!
Knowledge is power- and power is more important than money- because you would have the power to know how to do things- 
sounds like a simpleton- but it is what I think


----------



## arcticow (Oct 8, 2006)

Government at all levels and corporations feed off one another, have for years. As long as this continues, and neither one will willingly change things, concentration will continue until there is nothing left to drain. Money vampires at their finest...


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I wonder what it's really going to take for all the rich people to realize their money won't do them much good if this country is so out of whack that no one will buy any of their goods any more.. Eventually there's going to be a tipping point to where we're going to have to start over...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> The folks that formed "Occupy Wall Street" were never able to get their message out, the News Media had more fun depicting them as crybaby College kids mad about having to pay for their tuition and highlighting the filthy conditions and other peripheral issues.
> But I doubt most folks have any idea of how skewed it has become.
> Most have forgotten or never knew the anti-trust, anti-monopoly efforts of 80 years ago that prevented the wealthiest few from taking over the steel industry and the fuel industry.
> 
> ...


 It sure does work great. My friends are building up their vending business and that alone means they are depending on other Capitalistic Companies coming on line, building up, and expanding their work crew. Works great in this country. That is what makes America great.
They are right now in the process of getting another 3 businesses that in total have around 850 people, that will really eland their vending business, thank goodness for America, and thank goodness for capitalism

I had guy that lives about 1/2 miles from me passing a petition around to stop a hog barn from going up.
I told him I will NOT sign it as I believe win Capitalism if the guy sons the land and he wants to build a hog barn more power to him. He only got one signature to stop it. LOL
Needless to say the barn is now being built about a 1/2 mile away, That guy is a few hundred feet away, a city slicker that moved into the country and living in and around agricultural land and want to stop progress and capitalism. He lost. LOL. let the 1% got sit in a corner. LOL


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Give that hog farmer a little time.. Eventually an even richer hog farmer will come along, and he'll start talking to his other rich friends and politicians, and before you know it, the small hog farmer will be regulated and pushed out of business.. 

It's a system of the rich, for the rich, and they don't like little gys taking one dime of their profits.. 

Been happening for decades, and it's not getting any better..


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> Give that hog farmer a little time.. Eventually an even richer hog farmer will come along, and he'll start talking to his other rich friends and politicians, and before you know it, the small hog farmer will be regulated and pushed out of business..
> 
> It's a system of the rich, for the rich, and they don't like little gys taking one dime of their profits..
> 
> Been happening for decades, and it's not getting any better..


 They are building this and in conjunction with a larger hog business. Nothing wrong with getting bigger either.
That is America, and following the American dream. And if that place in years gets bigger, so be it. The bigger a place gets the more help is hired the more those folks spend and goes into the local economy. Not a thing wrong with that either.m Keeps the Mom and pop stores and restaurants in business also.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

You're not thinking this all the way though.. 

In so many business any more, there's basically a Big Three... So many small companies have been bought out or regulated out of business, that only three have been able to stay in business.. This goes for a whole lot of businesses and industries.. 

Yes, there might be a few smaller ones, but as a whole.. it's three... 

What happens is, there's less competition.. they can lower salaries because there isn't as much competition in hiring... They can set higher prices, because they don't have to compete against as many other companies.. 

Right now, the big three in silicon valley ware in the middle of lawsuits because of this.. They are being sued because they all agreed not to hire or steal employees from each other... The workers are upset because there's no competition in hiring, and meaning lower pay rates.. 

Like I said, in theory, capitalism is great, but when it gets down to the realities, it's not working out as well as planned... When you get a rich guy at the top, he starts taking out the competition. He has his political friends help... 

If the government stayed out of business, then it may work better, but the way the system is now, it's broken... 

About the time the government really started regulating businesses in the 70's and even more so in the 80's.. things started taking a bad turn, and the rich suddenly got a lot richer.. then into the 90's and especially the early 00's, CEO pay rates started sky rocketing... and they put that money to good use making them even richer and pushing more businesses out of business..


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

So what do you suggest? Socialism?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Oh no way.. but I do think the government should get out of the business world, and lobbyist should be outlawed.. 

I also believe term limits should be placed on congress, and that would help keep the career politicians from creating networks of cronies which help make them rich, keep them rich, and in turn, the politicians doing the same for their business owner friends.. 

That would be a small start to a large problem..


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> They are building this and in conjunction with a larger hog business. Nothing wrong with getting bigger either.
> That is America, and following the American dream. And if that place in years gets bigger, so be it. The bigger a place gets the more help is hired the more those folks spend and goes into the local economy. Not a thing wrong with that either.m Keeps the Mom and pop stores and restaurants in business also.


Contractors or an actual partnership? I agree there is nothing wrong with getting bigger, but to grow the general overall economy in an area you need high paying jobs, minimum wage jobs don't increase the overall economy and can be a drag on it with increased demand for welfare, food stamps, etc.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Where can we find unrestricted capitalism? The government has blocked it every which way.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> Give that hog farmer a little time.. Eventually an even richer hog farmer will come along, and he'll start talking to his other rich friends and politicians, and before you know it, the small hog farmer will be regulated and pushed out of business..
> 
> It's a system of the rich, for the rich, and they don't like little gys taking one dime of their profits..
> 
> Been happening for decades, and it's not getting any better..


You have just hit the nail on the head. Without the government control of the system the small hog farmer wouldn't have to worry would he? Therefore its not capitalism causing the problem its _fascism_.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

It's like asking "do you want to eliminate bacteria from your body"? Not at all a useful thought. 
Some bacteria are deadly but some bacteria are neccessary to live. And it's impossible to eliminate anyway.

Yes- some people do bad things in the name of capitalism- some people do good in the name of capitalism. Mostly both the good and bad have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with the principles of the person involved. 

I prefer the system that allows me the best chance to compete. And I have not seen that attribute in any other system.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

How is capitalism working out? Over the last 150 years, the most capitalistic large country in the world became the richest country in the world. In the mid 1800's, there was very little difference in GDP per capita wealth between most countries. By 1950, the US had a big lead, with western Europe in second. Go fiigger, fighting world wars is bad for the economy. But after WW2, as Europe went more socialist, they started falling further behind even with all the US aid. 

In the US, the poor are vastly richer than something like 90% of the rest of the world. There are exceptions of course, sometimes people just have bad things happen, more often, people cause bad things in their life. Some of the folks I've seen complaint he loudest about how bad they have it, find the money for drugs, cigs, alcohol, and child support to a string of wives. Capitalism can't fix every problem in the world. 

The more socialist, USSR and CHina, a country is, the faster it falls behind. In the mid 1800s, they weren't significantly different in per capita wealth, 100 years later they were WAY behind. 

The success stories have all been countries that went more towards capitalism. Singapore, Hong Kong, both with a lack of natural resources but very capitalist gov'ts grew wealth faster than most every other country in the last 50 years. China has made huge improvements in wealth once they moved towards capitalism. 

Personally, as a business owner, capitalism has been good for me.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

sooo.. OK.. since capitalism is so great, and since this country is so wonderful and rich compared to the rest of the world.. how do we explain the dollar isn't worth near as much as it used to be, and what's going to happen when it becomes worth nothing?

Many countries are already wanting to get away from the dollar as the world currency..

We're so far loaned out, we'll never repay our loans, and eventually the rest of the world is going to wake up and realize this and we're done..


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

What does national debt have to do with capitalism?
Capitalism at its core is what helped build this country from nothing but a couple of boatloads of people.
If you want something, you work for it. If you want more, you work lomger, smarter, harder.
If something isn't working out, and you aren't succeeding at what you are doing, do something else.
That is true capitalism.
Beauricrats breathing down your neck, blocking your every move, and taxing and regulating you into the ground and out of business, that is NOT capitalism.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

simi-steading said:


> sooo.. OK.. since capitalism is so great, and since this country is so wonderful and rich compared to the rest of the world.. how do we explain the dollar isn't worth near as much as it used to be, and what's going to happen when it becomes worth nothing?
> 
> Many countries are already wanting to get away from the dollar as the world currency..
> 
> We're so far loaned out, we'll never repay our loans, and eventually the rest of the world is going to wake up and realize this and we're done..


You are lumping the govt and the rest of the country into the same pile. 
The federal debt and lessening of confidence in the dollar is the work of the govt. 

Wealth building was done by the individual citizens of the U.S. Most of our success was due to having the freedom to pursue one's ambitions, but it can't be overlooked that this piece of real estate has a wealth of natural resources, too.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

haypoint said:


> The folks that formed "Occupy Wall Street" were never able to get their message out, the News Media had more fun depicting them as crybaby College kids mad about having to pay for their tuition and highlighting the filthy conditions and other peripheral issues.
> But I doubt most folks have any idea of how skewed it has become.
> Most have forgotten or never knew the anti-trust, anti-monopoly efforts of 80 years ago that prevented the wealthiest few from taking over the steel industry and the fuel industry.
> 
> ...


Bill Gates out-achieved Rockefeller, did he not??? Windows went world wide and I don't think Standard Oil did back in John's day. And good grief, the Spanx lady became a billionaire. There are still people rising from modest means to become uber-rich in this country.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I love capitalism. It has helped me buy my first car, Helped put me through college. Helped me buy a house and raise a family. All I had to do was work hard and keep trying. Thats why my Grandparents came to this Country. Capitolism has helped out more people then any other system.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> sooo.. OK.. since capitalism is so great, and since this country is so wonderful and rich compared to the rest of the world.. how do we explain the dollar isn't worth near as much as it used to be, and what's going to happen when it becomes worth nothing?
> 
> Many countries are already wanting to get away from the dollar as the world currency..
> 
> We're so far loaned out, we'll never repay our loans, and eventually the rest of the world is going to wake up and realize this and we're done..


Again you are not talking about capitalism, you are talking about government control of the economy via rules, regs and laws. That is fascism. 

When the government remained within the limits set by the constitution and allowed business to work with limits set on the principle of a level field where rules were applied equally and the rules were set only to protect rights the system hummed along. It was only when the government started overstepping its constitutional limits that things started going haywire. 

Established companies usually LOVE government regulations no matter how much they publicly howl about them. Why? Because the HUGE cost of complying with the regs in new businesses prevents new companies from starting. Regs usually have grandfather clauses which allow established companies to slowly bring their business into compliance with the regulations which allows them to pass any extra cost onto the people who really pay the cost, the buyers. So new regs are a win-win for them. No new competition and no revenue lost.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> . . . the Spanx lady . . .


That brought some really UGLY pictures to my mind!


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Working well so far. We have a house, food, clothes and things we need.


----------



## Farmer Willy (Aug 7, 2005)

To answer your question, capitalism is working out pretty darned well for me. Worked for my parents and grandparents as well. 

Next question.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Can anyone name a system which raised more people out of poverty, not just in the US but worldwide? The question of capitalism working is on its face trolling, but deep down it's just plain stupid.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

I have very mixed feelings about it. I would like to justify my good feelings by pointing to the things the system has allowed me to accomplish/accumulate. However, I know that along with my hard work,there was a certain amount of luck as to the family into which I was born and the people who were in my life. I wish everyone had the good fortune I did. There but for the grace of God ...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Ok, I watched it! So, what is your solution to that bad, evil 1%? The system has worked well for those that are willing to take a chance, those that don't want to work hard and try to make a better life for themselves and family usually end up with jobs that fir their skill level. These occupy folks just made poor life choices, and now they want others to pay for those poor choices. The other hindrance in moving up fiscally is government intrusion, nafta and programs like that are detrimental to our working folks.


Was NAFTA developed to help the 99%?


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

We don't have capitalism. We have highly regulated corporate cronyism. Just enough socialism to allow government to rig the game for their friends, and just enough freedom to allow them to keep the spoils.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> It's like asking "do you want to eliminate bacteria from your body"? Not at all a useful thought.
> Some bacteria are deadly but some bacteria are neccessary to live. And it's impossible to eliminate anyway.
> 
> Yes- some people do bad things in the name of capitalism- some people do good in the name of capitalism. Mostly both the good and bad have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with the principles of the person involved.
> ...


I embrace the ideal of Capitalism. But does a system where 40% (and growing) is owned by 1% and the poorest 40% don't have 2% , give you the best chance to compete?


----------



## kendall j (Mar 30, 2007)

Kind of hard to tell how capitalism and free markets work when the government is constantly picking winners and losers.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Hers' some information about those "monopolies"; http://mises.org/daily/5266/


The myth about standard oil's monopoly rarely takes into consideration that the reason they had a monopoly is because they lowered the price from about 25C per gallon to about 7C. Still, they enjoyed no special government privileges that prevented others from entering the market and competing, THAT is only possible through government intervention.

True free market capitalism has not been seen in the USA since 1913.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Farmer Willy said:


> To answer your question, capitalism is working out pretty darned well for me. Worked for my parents and grandparents as well.
> 
> Next question.


 Next question? OK. Did you watch the video that goes with this discussion? If I could ask yet another question, Do you see any problem in this country with a continuation of expanding poverty and an ever wealthier top 1%?


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

haypoint said:


> I embrace the ideal of Capitalism. But does a system where 40% (and growing) is owned by 1% and the poorest 40% don't have 2% , give you the best chance to compete?


Which system is that? I reject the wild premise that anything we have today is even remotely related to capitalism. Government bailouts, central bank money printing, artificially rigged interest rates, heavy regulation and taxes....these are the major factors in our economy. This is nothing to do with capitalism. Your beef should be with increased SOCIALISM.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I love Capitalism. I admire Henry Ford for employing Capitalist principals that started the US economy rolling. He paid a high wage, ($5.00 over the standard $1.00)that gave the Middle Class cash to buy homes, cars, etc. That helped industrialize the US. It also gave us the ability to convert to the War Effort. Ford invested in this country, He prospered. We prospered. People were willing to fight for this country because they had succeeded here and had their homes at risk.

Today, that type of Capitalism does not exist in the big businesses. Our manufacturing capacity is in decline. The rich live here because it is safe, but do not spend their riches here. They have no interest in providing incomes to workers that would spur spending that would grow the economy.

But if you are fine with a growing poor class, shrinking middle class and 19% of our population on a slow gain, while the elite gain more control over this nation's assets, hang on, you are about to see it unfold.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

...about to?


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

simi-steading said:


> Give that hog farmer a little time.. Eventually an even richer hog farmer will come along, and he'll start talking to his other rich friends and politicians, and before you know it, the small hog farmer will be regulated and pushed out of business..


So your complaint is not actually against capitalism or free markets. What you are describing is corruption and what we often call "crony capitalism".


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

haypoint said:


> I love Capitalism. I admire Henry Ford for employing Capitalist principals that started the US economy rolling. He paid a high wage, ($5.00 over the standard $1.00)that gave the Middle Class cash to buy homes, cars, etc. That helped industrialize the US. It also gave us the ability to convert to the War Effort. Ford invested in this country, He prospered. We prospered. People were willing to fight for this country because they had succeeded here and had their homes at risk.
> 
> Today, that type of Capitalism does not exist in the big businesses. Our manufacturing capacity is in decline. The rich live here because it is safe, but do not spend their riches here. They have no interest in providing incomes to workers that would spur spending that would grow the economy.
> 
> But if you are fine with a growing poor class, shrinking middle class and 19% of our population on a slow gain, while the elite gain more control over this nation's assets, hang on, you are about to see it unfold.


The reason that "type" of capitalism doesn't exist here is because government intervention makes it impossible. Ford paid a high wage because America was producing and manufacturing. That meant high demand for workers.

Today your government spoils the pool by suppressing interest rates and printing money to create inflation. This skews the entire resource allocation process toward the creation of asset bubbles and away from savings and production. Rich live here and enjoy inflated asset prices because of this market manipulation. They do not "have any interest in providing incomes to workers" because that is not how the world works and never will. People don't just spend their money to grow the economy to give you a good job. They employ people when it benefits THEM. That happens when production and savings are allowed to thrive in a free environment. The price of wages is a function of supply and demand, not good will.

I am NOT ok with a shrinking middle class, growing poor and increased control by the elite. But those things are increasing in direct proportion to our rejection of capitalism .


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

What a thorny topic. I don't have any answers. Socialism unrestrained rewards people who don't work hard and don't make good choices. Socialism unrestrained makes most people equally poor. What we have now has created enormous inequities especially in recent years. That's not how things used to be. There is so much intervention in both arenas in this country that what they call capitalism in this country is not working the way it used to. 

Maybe it gets down to morals and values. There are too many people who do not display the hard work ethic that built this country. There are too many people willing to take advantage of others to line their own pockets. You can't regulate your way to morals and values. 

Wish I had an answer. In years past, capitalism worked very well for me. Now I'm in that middle zone where I'm so squeezed by all the taxes and fees that it's harder and harder to feel like I am prospering. I'm trying to hold on where I'm at. I'm sure there are a lot of people in that same boat. I get a raise at work but I don't have any more discretionary dollars because it's either taken by increasing taxes and fees or it's eaten up by a dollar that buys less and less. In terms of salary I might be making more, but I am sure not keeping more and I'm sure not spending more on extras that would support other businesses the way I did in years past when I made less money than I do now.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> The reason that "type" of capitalism doesn't exist here is because government intervention makes it impossible.


Baloney.

The problem is that those that want the old-school "easy money" of capitalism, are sad because it's more work now. In America 2014, if it's not easy, it's not worth doing. 

I have seen plenty of new _*small*_ businesses opening constantly - all over the Midwest, since 2010 and many other small businesses expanding.

I have watched an auto body shop almost daily, literally since they hung out a sign, 3 years ago. First it was a few cars, the lot then filled, then cars waiting repair, were parked at an out-of-business bar next door. Now they have purchased the bar and made it into another shop.

Since the City is pretty strict, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they don't have business taxes, licenses, OSHA, EPA, insurance etc. to contend with, just like everybody else, including established body shops.

One way to improve business climate in America, is to stop making excuses and get busy


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk[/ame]

jeff daniels america is not the greatest nation anymore

warning, has a bit of raw language in it.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I watch two minutes of the video, but it's just another using numbers, to tell a story that some want to hear, video, IMO. It's like very wealthy people are a new discovery.

Capitalism is working great for my family.

I have no time to complain, or even obsessively watch Fox news, because I'm working 13 hours a day at my driving job, last year, being the best I ever had.

Capitalism = fuel sales and last year, there was plenty of fuel sales. We have had a few driver quit to buy their own rigs (to haul molten Aluminum), as there is a lot more money in it.

My sheep/farming went bust, due to high production costs, lower lamb prices, but that's capitalism in action. Didn't even miss it this last winter.

DW started a Jewelry business and I'm thinking about buying a for hire dump truck.

During my entire lifetime, there has been people with money and people without, money. Other than the disappearance of easy money, of middle class factory jobs, little has changed.

It one wants money, they are gong to have to figure out a way to get it.

Nothing new.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Was NAFTA developed to help the 99%?


Not at all! It was implemented to benefit certain government employees and the companies that donated to those politicians.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

didn't watch the video (slow connection)but I think I will throw my hat in the ring for a round or two.
people are talking about how crappy capitalism is but if it's so bad why are people by the millions wanting to immigrate here ?
America IS STILL the land of opportunity if you ask me,I don't hear people talking about how great it would be to live in Finland,England,France,Norway,,etc etc,,and if you do work somewhere overseas it's usually an American based company or a company the supplies America.
China is having an boom??,who wants to live there?,,if the goverment doesn't kill you for trying think free the pollution will .
this country isn't perfect and the little guy gets screwed alot but it doesn't mean we give up,we just fight harder if we have grit.
how good of a system is capitalism?,,pretty good because if we as a country fail it seems the whole world will follow in our footsteps.
maybe off topic a touch but I read a line the other day but not sure where but it goes like this
the problem with America is class,there are 3 classes of people and two political partys to represent them.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...onal-press-club-speech/#.U0xR74X5ijY.facebook


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Not at all! It was implemented to benefit certain government employees and the companies that donated to those politicians.


How does the government benefit from a negative trade balance. Or is everything evil government?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Next question? OK. Did you watch the video that goes with this discussion? If I could ask yet another question, Do you see any problem in this country with a continuation of expanding poverty and an ever wealthier top 1%?


The problem I see is that the government continues to move the goal post's. There will always be poor and rich folks. To me, where you land has to do with ones work ethic. Sure, some will work their hands to the bone and still not live up to THEIR own expectations, but, life isn't fair, and we all know it. Some of the poor in America, should look at the poor in other countries to see how the REALLY poor live. Lots of "poor" here drive Cadillacs!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> How does the government benefit from a negative trade balance. Or is everything evil government?


It doesn't! Politician's don't care. They do whatever is best for themselves. If that means selling out our citizens so that their really going to struggle, so be it.......politicians don't care!


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Capitalism is working fine for me but I happily go to work everyday. With our system I can better myself by hard work. I don't mind hard work and I do not want to redistribute the wealth. I would rather earn mine than steal it from someone who I am jealous of.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

There are, no doubt, those "at the top" that are making a boatload of money, sometimes by putting the livelihoods of the rest of us in jeopardy (like the banks giving out loans to those that should not have gotten them). But there are many others that have comfy jobs working for the state, federal, or local government. And there are specialists upon specialists in any medical procedure, all taking their share, causing health care costs to go through the roof. And pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies, and . . .And yes, I plead guilty as well as I am in one of these groups. If you want to talk big business, talk BIG business that includes ALL these folks. And also remember that that rich bank owner also is the one that will pay your neighbor the carpenter $30,000 to remodel his bathroom. Then, consider the non-capitalistic alternative. One only needs to visit a communist country for a week or two to be only so relieved to actually leave - I did.

Ironically, it may be those rich few at the top that indeed help move us much closer to Euro-style socialism.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Capitalism, to the extent it still exists in this country, is certainly good for those who are going to be the primary recipients of the $36,000 of federal tax my wife and I "contributed" for 2013.

:shocked:


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

It doesn't really matter what form of government or economy you have, people are people and when you give them money and power they corrupt. There isn't a single form of modern government that doesn't suffer from a significant amount of corruption.

The OWS movement was severely hampered by government controlled media and PAID agitators. There were individuals paid to come in and cause multitudes of problems to make the rest of us look bad. It is a common practice, the US government did it in egypt and many arab spring nations, the Russians are doing it in the Ukraine. 

Despite the corruption we see, the failed economic theories, the corporate welfare, out control college and medical costs, we still have it pretty decent here. I can go buy a car tomorrow, or go fishing, work on my homestead, or just go to work. No one is going to tell me I can't, I can(for the moment) drink clean water right out of my house and use a flush toilet. We take a lot for granted here, myself included, if we want change go our and get it.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Hitching my wagon to a capitalist with vision when I was 22 worked pretty good for me and still works well for me helping maintain what I built during the ride with him in pursuit of his vision during that phase of my life.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

haypoint said:


> How does the government benefit from a negative trade balance. Or is everything evil government?


Whenever I think of 'government' the image which comes to mind is that of men and women who have embarked on a life (career) as a professional politician. Getting elected or re elected is the primary objective in their lives. There exists another group who are key in the pursuit of the politician, they are known as lobbyist. They have access to millions of dollars and will make available to the politician. For this donation, the lobbyist has the ear of the politician and sadly the vote. There is no government, only people who wish to remain in power under the mantle of government.

I have no doubt this comes across as cynical to many. I don't know the solution, but term limits would be a good start.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

haypoint said:


> I embrace the ideal of Capitalism. But does a system where 40% (and growing) is owned by 1% and the poorest 40% don't have 2% , give you the best chance to compete?


I can not begin to describe how your statement about the underdog and competing reflects the attitude and individual I encountered daily during my career as a table games dealer in a large casino. A more pathetic group I have yet to meet. ( ETA: Certainly not including you in that group haypoint, I respect what you have accomplished, I also appreciate your input and research to topics on HT)

Hard work, realistic expectations and an understanding about life and happiness were all foreign concepts to most of these people. Unmet expectations leading to frustrations and anger which were always some obscure entity's fault ruled the day and knowing an evil force and not themselves was the problem, afforded them much comfort.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Interesting comments. Even more interesting how people will spend 10 minutes telling us how Capitalism is good and we just need government to get out of the way, but missed the point by refusing to absorb the explanation of the changes we are undergoing. The realization that we are on a slide with no end in sight, in an ever tilted playing field doesn't seem to exist in the minds of many.

I guess I should have titled this thread, " Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, what do you think is in your future? 
Capitalism worked best with a large middle class. But the middle class is going away. Ancient Europe had Kings and serfs. When the government stops funding poverty, we will move closer to that model.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Or, when the govt quits funding poverty, the poor might actually gain some self pride and do something for themselves.
Government funded poverty is called welfare. Welfare breeds laziness.
Look at my families income level, we are considered poor. But we don't collect welfare. We want something, we work for it.
Sure, if we were wealthy, it would ne much easier, but would also be easier to start spending our wealth on frivolous nonsense, and make us lazy like 75%+ of Americans.
People in poverty today don't know what true poverty is.
Put a pot of water over a fire and add anything you can scrounge up, including grass and weeds, that is your supper, possibly several days in a row. No electricity, no medical, no coat, gloves, many times, no shoes. No phone, little or no firewood. House contents might amount to a knife, 3 spoons, a couple of bowls, a broken table, and one or two blankets.
That is living poor, poverty, true poverty isn't sitting in the house hacking on the phone, in front of the tv, complaining you are hungry because you just ate the last of the doritos and the food stamps don't come for another 4 days.

Yeah, by many standards, my family is poor, but I have a wife and two kids. Lots of love in this house. We all have clothes on our back, shoes on our feet and food in our bellies.
I work hard to produce the majority of our food and our heat.
But we eat together, pray together, work together, and when the chores are done, we laugh and play together.
If that makes my family poor, than bring it on.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Interesting comments. Even more interesting how people will spend 10 minutes telling us how Capitalism is good and we just need government to get out of the way, but missed the point by refusing to absorb the explanation of the changes we are undergoing. The realization that we are on a slide with no end in sight, in an ever tilted playing field doesn't seem to exist in the minds of many.
> 
> I guess I should have titled this thread, " Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, what do you think is in your future?
> Capitalism worked best with a large middle class. But the middle class is going away. Ancient Europe had Kings and serfs. When the government stops funding poverty, we will move closer to that model.


Actually, while the rich are getting richer, the poor are holding their own. It's the vaunted class that seems to be losing.
So, since you seem to have the complaint in this thread, what is your solution?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Actually, while the rich are getting richer, the poor are holding their own. It's the vaunted class that seems to be losing.
> So, since you seem to have the complaint in this thread, what is your solution?


You hold the belief of most Americans. That is the point of the video explanation. The poor aren't holding their own. The Middle Class isn't holding its own. The rich aren't just getting richer, they are off the chart getting richer. 

I don't have a solution. But until the majority admits that the current trend is unsustainable, nothing will be done. 

Just watch the video and get back with me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

While the video aid helps, some seem unable to load the web site, so here is what the video says:
"There's a chart I saw recently that I can't get out of my head. A Harvard business professor and economist asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth was distributed in the United States. This is what they said they thought it was.
Dividing the country into five rough groups of the top, bottom, and middle three 20% groups, they asked people how they thought the wealth in this country was divided. Then he asked them what they thought was the ideal distribution, and 92%, that's at least 9 out of 10 of them, said it should be more like this, in other words more equitable than they think it is.
Now that fact is telling, admittedly, the notion that most Americans know that the system is already skewed unfairly. But what's most interesting to me is the reality compared to our perception. The ideal is as far removed from our perception of reality as the actual distribution is from what we think exists in this country.
So ignore the ideal for a moment. Here's what we think it is, again, and here is the actual distribution. Shockingly skewed. Not only do the bottom 20% and the next 20%, the bottom 40% of Americans barely have any of the wealth. I mean, it's hard to even see them on the chart. But the top 1% has more of the country's wealth than 9 out of 10 Americans believe the entire top 20% should have. Mind blowing.
But let's look at it another way, because I find this chart kind of difficult to wrap my head around. Instead, let's reduce the 311 million Americans to just a representative 100 people. Make it simple.
Here they are, teachers, coaches, firefighters, construction workers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, some investment bankers, a CEO, maybe a celebrity or two. Now let's line them up according to their wealth, poorest people on the left, wealthiest on the right. Just a steady row of folks, based on their net worth. We'll color code them, like we did before, based on which 20% quintile they fall into.
Now, let's reduce the total wealth of the United States, which was roughly
$54 trillion in 2009, to this symbolic pile of cash, and let's distribute it among our 100 Americans. Well, pure socialism, all of the wealth of the country distributed equally, we all know that won't work. We need to encourage people to work, and work hard, to achieve that good old American dream and keep our country moving forward.
So here's that ideal we asked everyone about. It's something like this curve. This isn't too bad. We've got some incentive, as the wealthiest folks are now about 10 to 20 times better off than the poorest Americans. But, hey, even the poor folks aren't actually poor, since the poverty line has stayed almost entirely off the chart. We have a super healthy middle class, with a smooth transition into wealth. And yes, Republicans and Democrats alike chose this curve. Nine out of ten people, 92%, said this was a nice, ideal distribution of America's wealth.
But let's move on. This is what people think America's wealth distribution actually looks like. Not as equitable, clearly, but, for me, even this still looks pretty great. Yes, the poorest 20% to 30% are starting to suffer quite a lot, compared to the ideal, and the middle class is certainly struggling more than they were, while the rich and wealthy are making, roughly, 100 times that of the poorest Americans and about 10 times that of the still healthy middle class.
Sadly, this isn't even close to the reality. Here is the actual distribution of wealth in America. The poorest Americans don't even register. They're down to pocket change. And the middle class is barely distinguishable from the poor. In fact, even the rich, between the top 10 and 20 percentile, are worse off.
Only the top 10% are better off. And how much better off? So much better off that the top 2% to 5% are actually off the chart, at this scale. And the top 1%, this guy, well his stack of money stretches 10 times higher than we can show. Here's his stack of cash restacked, all by itself.
This is the top 1% we've been hearing so much about. So much green in his pockets that I have to give him a whole new column of his own because he won't fit on my chart. 1% of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth. The bottom 80%, 8 out of every 10 people, or 80 out of these 100 only has 7% between them, and this has only gotten worse in the last 20 to 30 years.
While the richest 1% take home almost a quarter of the national income today, in 1976, they took home only 9%, meaning their share of income has nearly tripled in the last 30 years. The top 1% own half the country's stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. The bottom 50% of Americans own only half a percent of these investments, which means they aren't investing. They're just scraping by.
I'm sure many of these wealthy people have worked very hard for their money. But do you really believe that the CEO is working 380 times harder than his average employee? Not his lowest paid employee, not the janitor, but the average earner in his company. The average worker needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO makes in one hour.
We certainly don't have to go all the way to socialism to find something that is fair for hardworking Americans. We don't even have to achieve what most of us consider might be ideal. All we need to do is wake up and realize that the reality in this country is not at all what we think it is."


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think part of the problem is behavior. Too many people indulge themselves with "things" instead of building wealth. There is a huge segment of the population who, even if you gave them a million dollars free and clear, would very soon be poor again. Somehow the principles of managing money for the long term to build security and then wealth are not getting taught.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Interesting comments. Even more interesting how people will spend 10 minutes telling us how Capitalism is good and we just need government to get out of the way, but missed the point by refusing to absorb the explanation of the changes we are undergoing. The realization that we are on a slide with no end in sight, in an ever tilted playing field doesn't seem to exist in the minds of many.
> 
> I guess I should have titled this thread, " Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, what do you think is in your future?
> Capitalism worked best with a large middle class. But the middle class is going away. Ancient Europe had Kings and serfs. When the government stops funding poverty, we will move closer to that model.


The "rich" keep getting richer because they do the things which make them rich. The "poor" keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that make them poor.

I know a guy who is 'poor' and gripes all the time about not having enough money. He does this while he lights up another smoke and just after telling me about buying another part to "fix up his truck" (not fix but "fix up") and before telling about the movie he went to see last night then says he's going to go to the vending machine to buy a sandwich to microwave for lunch.

I went to school a guy who's dad was a sharecropper and he grew up living in a house the farm owner provided. Yet today he owns his own business, lives in a huge house he had built in the 'nice' part of our old home town. He bought his wife a new Mustang for her birthday because he had bought himself a new truck and bass boat for his.

What's the difference between the two guys? One does nothing but gripes about it and the other worked his butt off getting an education and saving his nickles and dimes then put those nickles and dimes into his business until he could stop working so hard.

I can tell you that the griper will ALWAYS be poor.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Amen!


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

simi-steading said:


> Oh no way.. but I do think the government should get out of the business world, and lobbyist should be outlawed..
> 
> I also believe term limits should be placed on congress, and that would help keep the career politicians from creating networks of cronies which help make them rich, keep them rich, and in turn, the politicians doing the same for their business owner friends..
> 
> That would be a small start to a large problem..


If I'm understanding you, then what you're really saying is that capitalism isn't the problem, but rather crony capitalism?

If so, then I agree with you 100% on that, and pretty much everything else you said too.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I heard someone say something once, and it makes a lot of sense.
The difference between most people and the extremely wealthy, the thing that makes the wealthy even more so, is this.
Average man dreams about having a lot of money so he can buy this and buy that. His hobbies become his drive.
An extremely wealthy man only thinks about what he can do to make more money.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> I love capitalism. It has helped me buy my first car, Helped put me through college. Helped me buy a house and raise a family. All I had to do was work hard and keep trying. Thats why my Grandparents came to this Country. Capitolism has helped out more people then any other system.


Yep. My great-grandparents were poor Irish immigrants who ended up owning a string of 13 bakeries here and in No. Ireland. But not until they took a lot of chances and put in a lot of hard work.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

watcher said:


> The "rich" keep getting richer because they do the things which make them rich. The "poor" keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that make them poor.


Not to discount your story of attitude, but it also helps when one group can basically buy the government and make sure the rules to the game - at least the real ones that matter - continue to be written and enforced to their liking. And to be clear, I see the Republican and Democrat parties as pretty much two branches of the same party.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

haypoint said:


> I love Capitalism. I admire Henry Ford for employing Capitalist principals that started the US economy rolling. He paid a high wage, ($5.00 over the standard $1.00)that gave the Middle Class cash to buy homes, cars, etc. That helped industrialize the US. It also gave us the ability to convert to the War Effort. Ford invested in this country, He prospered. We prospered. People were willing to fight for this country because they had succeeded here and had their homes at risk.
> 
> Today, that type of Capitalism does not exist in the big businesses. Our manufacturing capacity is in decline. The rich live here because it is safe, but do not spend their riches here. They have no interest in providing incomes to workers that would spur spending that would grow the economy.
> 
> But if you are fine with a growing poor class, shrinking middle class and 19% of our population on a slow gain, while the elite gain more control over this nation's assets, hang on, you are about to see it unfold.


Henry Ford didn't have repressive government regulations and high corporate taxes to deal with. That makes a huge difference, especially when it comes to the wages and benefits companies are able to pay their employees. The cost of doing business has increased exponentially since Ford's time.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Kasota said:


> What a thorny topic. I don't have any answers. Socialism unrestrained rewards people who don't work hard and don't make good choices. Socialism unrestrained makes most people equally poor. What we have now has created enormous inequities especially in recent years. That's not how things used to be. There is so much intervention in both arenas in this country that what they call capitalism in this country is not working the way it used to.
> 
> Maybe it gets down to morals and values. There are too many people who do not display the hard work ethic that built this country. There are too many people willing to take advantage of others to line their own pockets. You can't regulate your way to morals and values.
> 
> Wish I had an answer. In years past, capitalism worked very well for me. Now I'm in that middle zone where I'm so squeezed by all the taxes and fees that it's harder and harder to feel like I am prospering. I'm trying to hold on where I'm at. I'm sure there are a lot of people in that same boat. I get a raise at work but I don't have any more discretionary dollars because it's either taken by increasing taxes and fees or it's eaten up by a dollar that buys less and less. In terms of salary I might be making more, but I am sure not keeping more and I'm sure not spending more on extras that would support other businesses the way I did in years past when I made less money than I do now.


Those taxes and fees are the problem. That's the fault of a government practicing progressive/socialist ideology, not capitalism.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Not at all! It was implemented to benefit certain government employees and the companies that donated to those politicians.


And it was signed by President Bill "I feel your pain, America" Clinton. You know, one of those compassionate democrats who are fighting for the working people of this country.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Not to discount your story of attitude, but it also helps when one group can basically buy the government and make sure the rules to the game - at least the real ones that matter - continue to be written and enforced to their liking. And to be clear, I see the Republican and Democrat parties as pretty much two branches of the same party.


In a fascist system you either pay the government or they shut you down.

Blaming the rich for doing that to get/stay rich is like blaming a baseball player for stealing home. They are just playing by the rules while trying to win the game.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

my3boys said:


> Those taxes and fees are the problem. That's the fault of a government practicing progressive/socialist ideology, not capitalism.


You need to use the correct terms. Government control of business by rules, regs, taxes, etc is fascism NOT socialism.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Too answer the op, capitalism is working great for us too. Dh works for a wonderful company. When they have a good year, he gets a Christmas bonus. They provide good health insurance and life insurance, along with other benefits. His employer does right by his employees not because the government tells him to, but because it's the right thing to do.

The only thing that hurts us is the high taxes we pay (federal, state, local, and property taxes. We have some of the highest property taxes in the nation because of the school tax). 

We are having trouble finding a property we can afford because of the state and federal regulations on building and improvements to your property. They make you jump through so many hoops and pay so many fees. It's getting to be only the wealthy can afford to build any more because they're the ones that can afford all the fees. 

As a middle class family, we're finding government is the problem in our lives. We would do better with less government, more true capitalism!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

my3boys said:


> Too answer the op, capitalism is working great for us too. Dh works for a wonderful company. When they have a good year, he gets a Christmas bonus. They provide good health insurance and life insurance, along with other benefits. His employer does right by his employees not because the government tells him to, but because it's the right thing to do.
> 
> The only thing that hurts us is the high taxes we pay (federal, state, local, and property taxes. We have some of the highest property taxes in the nation because of the school tax).
> 
> ...


I understand that most communities have building regulations and zoning. this is on the township and county level, controlled by the locally elected officials. I guess, different states might have different rules. What State and Federal fees are you forced to pay in building or improving your property? In my county I have to pay $50. for a township zoning permit, a building permit, then an electrical permit, plumbing permit and a Health Department Permit for my well and septic system. Each requires an inspection and the County spends more in inspection wages than it takes in for permit fees. But I want a community that has safe houses and protected ground water. My electrical Co-Op won't hook up service to a slip shod wired house. In spite of all these permits, it pales in comparison to the cost of the land.

Your "highest in the nation" school taxes are generally voted upon in each school district, so you only have your neighbors to blame for that.

In what ways do you want the government out of your lives, specifically? 

But the real question, did you listen to the original video or read the transcripts in post number 65? If that trend continues to accelerate, what is the future of your three sons?


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

my3boys said:


> Too answer the op, capitalism is working great for us too. Dh works for a wonderful company. When they have a good year, he gets a Christmas bonus. They provide good health insurance and life insurance, along with other benefits. His employer does right by his employees not because the government tells him to, but because it's the right thing to do.
> 
> The only thing that hurts us is the high taxes we pay (federal, state, local, and property taxes. We have some of the highest property taxes in the nation because of the school tax).
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying, but there are still parts of the country where average Joe can build. Obviously not where your employment and schools are, but where I live, my 3 acres cost $134 year in property taxes. My house was here when I bought, but if i wanted to build a house, barn, anything, no permits required. Only regulation we have is the septic system has to be inspected before backfill.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I can't see the video but reading the synopsis makes me think of that it's facts are very, very, very selective.
I immediately wondered if the amount held in pension funds are counted as wealth for the individuals vested in it- that bumps up almost all government employees and is a significant resource to them. Then I also suspect the poor catagory excludes minor things like food stamps, tax credits, housing subsidies, utility assistence, medicaid, etc. I know the government excludes a lot of these things when saying how many are poor in their stats. They sometimes include food stamps for some things but otherwise only direct cash like TANF, maybe SSI.
Then again what is counted as wealth? Who knows but I suppose it could be something like a house, even though a lot of it is mortgaged.
The only people whose wealth is easily nailed down is the wage earning middle class- the ones making too much in wages to get subsidies (at least until obamacare,) but unable to have a huge amount in stocks, etc. I can tell the wealth of the self-employed is really hard to fix. 
Now I agree there has been a sizable loss in wage earning midle class jobs starting withNAFTA. 
I swear that most of the increase in the accumulations of the rich have been due to the continuing siphoning of interest away from savings in banks done by the Fed. The richest have corralled almost all of the money pumped into the system as it pretty much ends in the stock market and other equities.
But now who is the source of that problem? Could be the cooperation between the equity markets and their bought politicians (Democrats and Republicans both)? 
So again, what is your solution?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

my3boys said:


> Henry Ford didn't have repressive government regulations and high corporate taxes to deal with. That makes a huge difference, especially when it comes to the wages and benefits companies are able to pay their employees. The cost of doing business has increased exponentially since Ford's time.


Henry had to go up against the govt. to some degree because there was a patent on the very concept of a motor car when he was getting started. He fought the patent and won. 

I think he did face high taxes. I read somewhere that he paid $30 million in taxes in 1930 alone. Rates have moved up and down over the years but always been from high to obscene at the top. That's why there is an industry built around minimizing one's tax burden legally. 

The "big name" capitalists and industrialists didn't just want to make money. They wanted to dominate, to win. Human nature hasn't changed, still the driving force behind many successful people. Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, many others were rich enough to live the high life and all their descendents for many generations. But they didn't just go sit on a beach somewhere, they kept striving for more, more, more.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

It would be crazy hard for me not to endorse capitalism. A high school dropout, son of a machinist, and blackest of the black sheep of our family I realized early on my life could be a dead end - or - whatever I could accomplish through my own efforts.

I borrowed against the equity in my house to start my first business at 25, ran it for 9 years and sold it. Started another, ran it for 12 years and sold it. Started another, ran it for 7 years and sold it. Ok, I'm a little ADHD, but the point is there's no other system in the world under which I could have done that.

When I paid my employees considerably more than the going rates it wasn't due to altruistic egalitarianism. I knew I could attract and keep the best craftsmen available, which would in turn attract and keep the best accounts available. Our reputation for quality and timely competence spread, and while our competitors were trying to low bid, we were signing no-bid contracts.

Yes, the government is the biggest impediment to capitalism, and growing more so every day. Also, I don't expect this train to make the next curve. In the meantime though, I've designed and built a prototype of a product I'll be selling over the internet to preppers somewhere inside the next 3 months. It's really pretty easy, even with the government - get an EIN, get an assumed name from the state, set up a sales tax bond, get a county license, get insurances - product liability, workers comp, premises, general liability, etc. I won't get rich, but I'll be satisfied with a reasonable ROI.

To quote that great Russian philosopher Yakov Shmirnov "What a Country".


----------



## woodsy (Oct 13, 2008)

If you have a Netflix DVD plan you might like the documentary 
http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Heist-Who-Stole-the-American-Dream/70251215?strkid=424455416_0_0&strackid=1c1d186d45c7d687_0_srl&trkid=222336

Shows how the middle class rose up but has been in decline for decades as well as why and who all
is/was behind it .


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Interesting comments. Even more interesting how people will spend 10 minutes telling us how Capitalism is good and we just need government to get out of the way, but missed the point by refusing to absorb the explanation of the changes we are undergoing. The realization that we are on a slide with no end in sight, in an ever tilted playing field doesn't seem to exist in the minds of many.
> 
> I guess I should have titled this thread, " Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, what do you think is in your future?
> Capitalism worked best with a large middle class. But the middle class is going away. Ancient Europe had Kings and serfs. When the government stops funding poverty, we will move closer to that model.


So if you don't think Capitalism is good , what are you thinking is better. Socialism, Communism? The farther we have moved FROM Capitalism things have gotten worse. 2+2 ? Just look at Detroit if you want to see what the socialists dream looks like.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Woodsy, what is the name of that film. When I click the link, it just takes me to a netflix sign up page.


----------



## woodsy (Oct 13, 2008)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Woodsy, what is the name of that film. When I click the link, it just takes me to a netflix sign up page.


Whoops sorry, shows up for me.

Its called Heist, who stole the american dream ?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

7thswan said:


> So if you don't think Capitalism is good , what are you thinking is better. Socialism, Communism? The farther we have moved FROM Capitalism things have gotten worse. 2+2 ? *Just look at Detroit if you want to see what the socialists dream looks like*.


Boy you got that right, capitalism is good, any other ways are failing all over the world.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

watcher said:


> In a fascist system you either pay the government or they shut you down.
> 
> Blaming the rich for doing that to get/stay rich is like blaming a baseball player for stealing home. They are just playing by the rules while trying to win the game.


Well of course they're playing by the rules - they helped write them!


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Interesting comments. Even more interesting how people will spend 10 minutes telling us how Capitalism is good and we just need government to get out of the way, but missed the point by refusing to absorb the explanation of the changes we are undergoing. The realization that we are on a slide with no end in sight, in an ever tilted playing field doesn't seem to exist in the minds of many.
> 
> I guess I should have titled this thread, " Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, what do you think is in your future?
> Capitalism worked best with a large middle class. But the middle class is going away. Ancient Europe had Kings and serfs. When the government stops funding poverty, we will move closer to that model.


You are wasting your time and energy with topics like this here. 7 out of 10 of the people who will respond are christian right leaning folks, who are convinced that all poor people are only that way because they are lazy. You can slap them in the face with facts as to why the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, but they will never be able to see/understand it.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

fishinshawn said:


> You are wasting your time and energy with topics like this here. 7 out of 10 of the people who will respond are christian right leaning folks, who are convinced that all poor people are only that way because they are lazy. You can slap them in the face with facts as to why the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, but they will never be able to see/understand it.


So what facts have you presented as to *why* the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? All I've seen in this thread is "wake up! this is happening!" but there is no support as to how further regulation and larger government will make it better.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Boy you got that right, capitalism is good, any other ways are failing all over the world.


Look around, capitalism is failing as well.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

7thswan said:


> So if you don't think Capitalism is good , what are you thinking is better. Socialism, Communism? The farther we have moved FROM Capitalism things have gotten worse. 2+2 ? Just look at Detroit if you want to see what the socialists dream looks like.


Actually, I don't think Detroit is at all what a socialist's dream looks like. I would hazard to guess that there has yet to exist an example of a true socialist society - in its most true form - because human nature always seems to get in the way. I think pure socialism is an ideal that I'm not sure human beings can attain.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Nate_in_IN said:


> So what facts have you presented as to *why* the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? I'll I've seen in this thread is "wake up! this is happening!" but there is no support as to how further regulation and larger government will make it better.


I don't bother anymore, mostly because I don't care if people here see, understand, or accept the reality of the situation.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Actually, I don't think Detroit is at all what a socialist's dream looks like. I would hazard to guess that there has yet to exist an example of a true socialist society - in its most true form - because human nature always seems to get in the way. I think pure socialism is an ideal that I'm not sure human beings can attain.


That are lots of examples of socialist societies, just not on a very large scale.

The largest in the US was perhaps the Shakers. Another one is The New Harmony experiment led by Robert Owen.

A lot can be learned by studying those societies.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

7thswan said:


> So if you don't think Capitalism is good , what are you thinking is better. Socialism, Communism? The farther we have moved FROM Capitalism things have gotten worse. 2+2 ? Just look at Detroit if you want to see what the socialists dream looks like.


 Correlation doesn't equal causation. Like I said earlier, all society's suffer from corruption, capitalism is no different then socialism and communism in that respect. The nordic model of socialism has been moderately successful and probably suffers from the least amount of corruption, but that could be more a function of the population and people then of the specific models, hard to say.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Actually, I don't think Detroit is at all what a socialist's dream looks like. I would hazard to guess that there has yet to exist an example of a true socialist society - in its most true form - because human nature always seems to get in the way. I think pure socialism is an ideal that I'm not sure human beings can attain.


No, not the Socialists dream, but it is what happens when socialists and communists do their deeds.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

fishinshawn said:


> I don't bother anymore, mostly because I don't care if people here see, understand, or accept the reality of the situation.


Sounds like an excuse to avoid the question.

And, if you really don't care, as you say, why are you still getting involved in this thread?

Christian or not, right leaning or left, doesn't change the facts, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer more often than not due to their own thoughts, attitudes, and actions. Even if those actions contribute to the corruption of our government, it is still their actions.

If a person is living in the slums, and working a go nowhete job for years before the company shuts down, leaving them unemployeed, well, that was their choice to stay there living in the slums and working a go nowhere job.
Sure, it is easier said than done, but noone stopped that person from going somewhere else and seeking other opportunities.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> That are lots of examples of socialist societies, just not on a very large scale.
> 
> The largest in the US was perhaps the Shakers. Another one is The New Harmony experiment led by Robert Owen.
> 
> A lot can be learned by studying those societies.


I apologize, I wasn't very clear with my statement. I meant that there were no examples that were acting as the sole system of government rather than a socialist segment of society existing within another system of government.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

7thswan said:


> No, not the Socialists dream, but it is what happens when socialists and communists do their deeds.


It's what happens when something is managed poorly. It has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or communism. Bad management can happen under any system, thus the entire point of this thread.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Prime example of seeking other opportunities, a guy I knew as a teen, and latrr worked with him at a metal stamping plant. He got hungry, he wanted more. He got a couple books about computers, every break, he could be found in the break lounge reading away in his computer books.
Then he got more books and more books. Got on the internet, studied more, and more.
This was back mid and late 1990's.
A couple of years of that and he started a computer repair business out off his garage. That lasted a few years, now he has a nice building that he had built, a few employees, a small fleet of fully logo'd Chevy service vans, and contracts with almost every bank, retail store, and business for miles and miles around.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

bloogrssgrl said:


> I apologize, I wasn't very clear with my statement. I meant that there were no examples that were acting as the sole system of government rather than a socialist segment of society existing within another system of government.


One could argue that North Korea is a Socialist country.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> One could argue that North Korea is a Socialist country.


 I wouldn't agree with that. I'm not talking about a conservative's view on socialism here. I talking about all people truly, _truly_ contributing to their ability, and all people resisting the urge to have power over their fellow beings. Thus my comment that I think pure socialism goes against much of the laziness, greed and jealousy inherent in many humans.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

fishinshawn said:


> You are wasting your time and energy with topics like this here. 7 out of 10 of the people who will respond are christian right leaning folks, who are convinced that all poor people are only that way because they are lazy. You can slap them in the face with facts as to why the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, but they will never be able to see/understand it.


Sure they are lazy. Look at Union workers, they could just go get a job elsewhere, but they bring in a Union to use as a Thug Bully. Then Buisness moves away, just as people do when they are strong armed. The Government is using the Rich to get ahead so don't try to make out like Buisness is the bad Guy when the Government is in bed with them.If the Poor don't want to be Poor, stop acting/behaveing like poor People do, go DO what people that have more do-work, quit complaining because that's life-Work.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

fishinshawn said:


> I don't bother anymore, mostly because I don't care if people here see, understand, or accept the reality of the situation.


But you DO care enough to tell people that they are "blind to the truth"?

ound: :hysterical:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> It's what happens when something is managed poorly. It has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism or communism. Bad management can happen under any system, thus the entire point of this thread.


But that is what Socialism is. They want to manage people into some kind of "idea". The leaders-whomever that is/are usally a group- try to even things out by playing a equality game, when there is no such thing because we are all different. It will always get messed up when Humans(s) think that they are smarter/better than someone else and try to manage their life and how they are expected to behave. Creativity cannot be regulated, and when Freedom is taken away so does Will and Creativity. America was great because we were Free and were able to create because it had a purpose and gave us goals. Socialism and communisum kills the human spirit. That right there is why people stay poor, because the government tells them they are nothing,that they are stupid by giving them things for free. People set their free things by the side of the road because they are unwanted and not good for anything anymore. We have to stop telling people this by the way we treat them.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

7thswan said:


> But that is what Socialism is. ...
> 
> _They_ want to ...


You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it.


ETA: I should clarify that, again, I'm speaking of the true spirit of Socialism, not how it unfortunately plays out in the hands of humans who cannot rise above their own selfishness. Kind of like how the true _spirit_ of Christianity (the two big laws of loving God and your neighbor) is a beautiful idea but finding someone who can truly live it is another story. Every system can be prone to corruption.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Thus my comment that I think pure socialism goes against much of the *laziness, greed and jealousy* inherent in many humans.


Rather than being the reasons socialism doesn't work, the bolded words above are the very reason for socialism.

Laziness because it's too much effort to strive for your individual best.
Greed because they want for free what someone else earned.
Jealousy because the "rich" don't deserve what they have.

The socialist's answer? Nobody has to work harder than the next (unions), no need for greed since everyone's equally poor, and no rich to be jealous of (unless you count the elite leaders).

Human nature is indeed at fault in any system, but capitalism is the most symbiotic with human nature of all systems. It lets those who can, do. Everyone benefits, maybe in different ways, but everyone does.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

bloogrssgrl said:


> You are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it.
> 
> 
> ETA: I should clarify that, again, I'm speaking of the true spirit of Socialism, not how it unfortunately plays out in the hands of humans who cannot rise above their own selfishness. Kind of like how the true _spirit_ of Christianity (the two big laws of loving God and your neighbor) is a beautiful idea but finding someone who can truly live it is another story. Every system can be prone to corruption.


Government is/are Humans. And yes, they are selfish, they just want votes to get them power and $.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Rather than being the reasons socialism doesn't work, the bolded words above are the very reason for socialism.
> 
> Laziness because it's too much effort to strive for your individual best.
> Greed because they want for free what someone else earned.
> ...


We're always going to be considered "selfish" "Greedy" ect. by the school bully that takes our lunch.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Rather than being the reasons socialism doesn't work, the bolded words above are the very reason for socialism.





Ozarks Tom said:


> Laziness because it's too much effort to strive for your individual best.
> Greed because they want for free what someone else earned.
> Jealousy because the "rich" don't deserve what they have.
> 
> ...


You are completely missing my point. You are thinking of it in terms of what you see as failed social programs in a currently faulty system of government. Again, I'm talking about the true spirit of the system â each person _truly_ working to their ability and each person _truly_ receiving according to their need.

I would go so far as to say that I also believe that if a community was completely living by the two golden rules of Christ, it would be a socialist society. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you would not only want your neighbors to be able to have the same things (materially, spiritually, whatever) as you want for yourself, but you want to help them achieve it. And if your neighbor were living by the same ideals, s/he would feel the same towards you and not take advantage of you or your hard work by trying to gain more than her/his true needs, and would act in kind to help you to the best of her/his ability. Everyone has to be on the same page for it to work. Which is why it you will never see a true socialist system on any sort of large scale. I'm sure the small scale communities even have their struggles with it.

To me, socialism is what will exist if we humans can ever free ourselves from our greed, jealousy, selfishness and need for power over our fellow beings. I think it is a higher level of existence than mere governance. It doesn't preclude creativity or kill the human spirit - on the contrary, I believe it nurtures creativity and is the state that is present when human spirit is at its apex.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

Fishinshawn, this has been a pretty decent conversation with people bringing up various points of view. Not everyone agrees. That's the whole point of a conversation. Why the attack on people who are Christians and those who are right-leaning? How does that add anything constructive to the conversation?


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Kasota said:


> Fishinshawn, this has been a pretty decent conversation with people bringing up various points of view. Not everyone agrees. That's the whole point of a conversation. Why the attack on people who are Christians and those who are right-leaning? How does that add anything constructive to the conversation?


I haven't attacked anyone. Many/most Christian right leaners can't even see the point bloogrssgrl has eloquently stated over and over again. They look at socialism through a heavily biased right leaning filter, that doesn't even allow them to acknowledge what she has said. They hear socialism and automatically think of a bunch of smelly hippies laying around smoking pot trying to make the government pay for everything. 

How many people actually bothered to research the nordic model of socialism I mentioned in my post? Probably none, because of the preconceived notions they have about anything with the word socialism in it. I have debated this point on this website and others with people to many times. I won't do anyones research for them anymore, if anyone truly wants to know, the information is out there. Most would rather belly ache and complain about Obama, fake birth certificates, and needing a republican leader.


----------



## 65284 (Sep 17, 2003)

FDR, beloved by many, set this country on the road to wrack and ruin. It was given a gigantic shove down that road by LBJ. The beliefs and policies of those 2 are the root cause of many of the countries woes.


----------



## fishinshawn (Nov 8, 2010)

Vash said:


> But you DO care enough to tell people that they are "blind to the truth"?
> 
> ound: :hysterical:


I don't do peoples research for them anymore. I used to, but the simple fact is none of these little debates ever change anyones mind. Everyone quotes statistics, studies etc., then tries to debunk the other sides, and it just goes on and on until the thread is locked, deleted, infractions issued etc.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

fishinshawn said:


> I haven't attacked anyone. Many/most Christian right leaners can't even see the point bloogrssgrl has eloquently stated over and over again. They look at socialism through a heavily biased right leaning filter, that doesn't even allow them to acknowledge what she has said. They hear socialism and automatically think of a bunch of smelly hippies laying around smoking pot trying to make the government pay for everything.
> 
> How many people actually bothered to research the nordic model of socialism I mentioned in my post? Probably none, because of the preconceived notions they have about anything with the word socialism in it. I have debated this point on this website and others with people to many times. I won't do anyones research for them anymore, if anyone truly wants to know, the information is out there. Most would rather belly ache and complain about Obama, fake birth certificates, and needing a republican leader.


Perhaps the difference is talking about socialistic beliefs between society members and socialistic beliefs as a basis of government. The view presented can be a utopian society that is true. Here's the catch, it requires everyone to have the same and similar belief system.

I believe the best government should not be socialist in nature because it does not allow for different social belief systems because it is a social belief system. It's best to keep beliefs out of government and allow societies to form their own socialist beliefs.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

my3boys said:


> Henry Ford didn't have repressive government regulations and high corporate taxes to deal with. That makes a huge difference, especially when it comes to the wages and benefits companies are able to pay their employees. The cost of doing business has increased exponentially since Ford's time.


In 2013, Ford Motor company, made $8.6_ *billion*_ in pre-tax profits.



> was one of _Ford's_ best years ever;


http://corporate.ford.com/our-compa...-20140128a?packedargs=releaseId=1377632179109


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

The OP, and the accompanying vid, makes the same mistake that many make. Namely, that economics is a zero-sum game.

These people believe that societal wealth is a pie, and that anyone who has a bigger piece of the pie is necessarily making another person's piece smaller. That is absolutely untrue. Wealth is created. The pie grows when wealth is created. Think of how all of our politicians talk about 'growing' the economy. If wealth is finite and not created, how does an economy grow?? It wouldn't. Don't believe me? Compare the US's GDP from 100 years ago. Adjust for inflation, even. 

Those 'evil' rich folks who 'own' most of the economy? Their wealth and accumulation of wealth is not preventing any single one of us from gaining more wealth. What prevents someone from gaining wealth is a direct result of what they do and don't do or what they can and can't do. Period. 

I especially loved the nonsense that a CEO doesn't work harder than his employees. Really? Have you ever met a CEO? I mean of a really large multinational corporation, the kind of CEO that makes millions a year. I have. It was a wake up call about my own personal abilities and intelligence, trust me. I could never do his job anymore than the average wage employee where I work could do his manager's job. 

And what is 'wealth'? To me, it is being able to make an honest living that enables me to not live paycheck to paycheck. That's freedom, I tell ya...not having to check your bank account all the time. Capitalism has enabled me to do that.

My encounter with that CEO made me realize that I will never have his level of wealth, but I know that I am able to gain what I now consider wealth, maybe a even a bit more if I work hard and overcome a few of my weaknesses...if I could only get the govt to stop commandeering my wealth.

So, yes. Capitalism is treating pretty me darn fine. And I will be yet another person who asks, what is your alternative?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

7thswan said:


> So if you don't think Capitalism is good , what are you thinking is better. Socialism, Communism? The farther we have moved FROM Capitalism things have gotten worse. 2+2 ? Just look at Detroit if you want to see what the socialists dream looks like.


I did not say Capitalism is bad, just that what ever it is that we now have isn't working for a majority of folks.

I really hate to defend Detroit, but to be factually correct, Detroit hasn't experienced real Socialism. While we could have a lively debate on whether the Auto Industry left Detroit or White Flight took their money and jobs to the 'burbs, leaving the jobless Black population to pick the bones of the remaining businesses. 40 years of Liberal Leadership intent on lining their own pockets than attracting jobs. But, any community that can sustain a loss of 200,000 jobs and come back to thrive would be news to most of us.

Perhaps the first step in fixing something is admitting or at least recognizing it is broken. I see nothing that is set to halt the trends shown on those charts. I see us headed to a cast system, where the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich and several levels in between and no group can move up. Or equally possible, yet terrible, a system where the very few wealthy control our government and everyone else is poor. 

Oh, sure, once in awhile the jackass catches the carrot on a stick, but for the most part " Slum Dog Millionaire" is rare.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Perhaps the difference is talking about socialistic beliefs between society members and socialistic beliefs as a basis of government. The view presented can be a utopian society that is true. Here's the catch, it requires everyone to have the same and similar belief system.
> 
> I believe the best government should not be socialist in nature because it does not allow for different social belief systems because it is a social belief system. It's best to keep beliefs out of government and allow societies to form their own socialist beliefs.


Thank you for a well explained opinion. I agree, it is idealistic. Although, so are the basic beliefs of my religion and I haven't abandoned the them yet. Hope does spring eternal.

Having said that, every system is corruptible. So I guess maybe the question is "What is the least of all the evils?" And at least for myself, how to I reconcile it with my deeper held beliefs?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Perhaps the first step in fixing something is admitting or at least recognizing it is broken.


I agree. So when are you going to quit defending every big gov't program that doesn't work?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Interesting comments. Even more interesting how people will spend 10 minutes telling us how Capitalism is good and we just need government to get out of the way, but missed the point by refusing to absorb the explanation of the changes we are undergoing. The realization that we are on a slide with no end in sight, in an ever tilted playing field doesn't seem to exist in the minds of many.
> 
> I guess I should have titled this thread, " Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, what do you think is in your future?
> Capitalism worked best with a large middle class. But the middle class is going away. Ancient Europe had Kings and serfs. When the government stops funding poverty, we will move closer to that model.





> *How is Capitalism working out for you?*


You asked the question, but apparently, you don't like the answer.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, with the middle class struggling in beteen?

No kidding?

We had a massive recession, where people lost their jobs and stocks hit the dirt. Rich people bought the stock dirt cheap and are making a mint, now that the market has come back. The capital gains rate is only 18% and the market is up 110%, so they are not hurting.

Poor people are too old, too sick or too lazy to work, so they take what they get. Many work hard and are still poor.

Middle class are filling the void, using lower wages, fewer benefits and higher taxes. Unions once made the middle class, but we can't get rid of them fast enough. 

We (or at least I) were cheering for Capitalism (and ignoring the "numbers" rhetoric), because it's the true future for any real "middle class" wealth in America. We can no longer count on the benevolence of employers (as if there ever was any) to ensure we have a middle class life. There are no Unions, so now it's part time work with no benefits.

As Capitalists, despite all odds, one has control over their destiny. They can make a great living. They can be a millionaire. They can lose verything, but they are doing their own thing.

If we are indeed _doomed_, what difference does it make? Personally, I'd rather die rich, than poor, so I am going to keep trying.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

"Socialism" in America, is just a silly notion, anyway.

The _downtrodden _need taken care of.

Liberals want to take care of them.

Conservatives get rich, taking care of them.

That's not how Socialism works.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Capitalism is hard at work supporting some three hundred million americans. Not only does it support those enterprising individuals with guts enough to get on board and play the game it works well enough that the socialists among us can tax the players enough to support their ilk as well. OK so the socialists can't really support themselves by taxing the capitalists... but the capitalists do create a strong enough economic situation that they are able to borrow enough to support them. So far they have been able to borrow seventeen TRIllion dollars against a capitalist system will be expected to pay back.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> I agree. So when are you going to quit defending every big gov't program that doesn't work?


When you stop lying about them.:duel:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Which government program has been successful? The war on drugs has given us full jails and more abusers on the streets than ever before... to me that's a big failure... same with our wonderful war on poverty... we have done nothing but increase the numbers of poor folks with all of our enabling programs. Please show me a winner when it comes to accomplishing anything when government gets involved.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

haypoint said:


> When you stop lying about them.:duel:


What lies are being told?


May I ask, how many socialistic governmental programs are supporting you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> What lies are being told?
> 
> 
> May I ask, how many socialistic governmental programs are supporting you?


I can't speak for others but only for myself... I receive a small stipend from the federal government each month of which they snatch back a third of before I ever see it. Just filed our income tax which basically took back the other two thirds. Yippee skippy for SS disability that I paid into for right at forty years.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> When you stop lying about them.:duel:


Care to point out my lies?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Care to point out my lies?


 Site all the government programs that I support that do not work. That was the statement you made. since it is quite far off the topic of this thread, feel free to take up your feud on a PM.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> What lies are being told?
> 
> 
> May I ask, how many socialistic governmental programs are supporting you?


Yes, none. I did draw a few Unemployment checks 40 years ago. Does that count?:nanner:


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

I think Haypoint is mostly confused about what capitalism is. You can't really discuss the effects or the existence of capitalism unless you can correctly define and understand it.

He wants to ignore the fact that all the ills of society that he sites as an effect of "capitalism" have increased through the years as our markets have become more socialized. Wealth inequality has grown in direct proportion to our adoption of socialization, and government manipulated markets. We've had more and more of what Haypoint wants over the past 80 years, and the results have been terrible. Yet he sights those terrible results as a reason to continue with more government intervention. Its a logical death spiral.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I guess I haven&#8217;t been too clear. When I ask How capitalism is working, I wanted the focus to be on the video, that a few didn&#8217;t watch and a few didn&#8217;t understand. What we now have isn&#8217;t what our founders envisioned for us. 
While we may have moved towards Socialism over the years, it is not the cause of societal ills, but an attempt to reduce the social ills. 
While this is a complex and multi-faceted topic, let me make a single point. Big Business, controlled by the elite 1% account for nearly half of the money donated to political campaigns. Suddenly we needed NAFTA. The giant sucking sound was jobs leaving the country. With record breaking numbers of people thrown out of their jobs and record numbers of families thrown out of their homes, the Middle class felt they shouldn&#8217;t starve, while the elite fed you the belief that those folks are simply lazy, there are jobs. They just bought houses they couldn&#8217;t afford. All while the elite hire tax lawyers to insure all their money isn&#8217;t taxed like your money is, while their incomes sky rocketed.

Even back when if you didn&#8217;t like the price or quality of a buggy whip, you could compete head on, with a level playing field, there was another movement. A movement I doubt the founding fathers thought about. Carnige and Rockafeller. But we had a president that cared about the people. He saw the power they had amassed. He throttled it back and the country was better for it. The middle class grew.
We have had far more government manipulated markets in our past than we have now. For most of our 225 year history, we protected ourselves with tariffs on imports. It was the tariff on imported wool products that was paid back to American sheep farmers that kept many family farms growing sheep and providing for their families.
I fear that we are going to get what Washington politicians gives us and they are paid off by the elite 1%, while most continue to believe their 6 second news reports.
Maybe, I shouldn&#8217;t have led with Capitalism. Perhaps the question should be, &#8220; Where are we going and why are we in this hand basket?&#8221;


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Capitalism has worked great for me. I liver better than 95% of the population of the whole planet so that's very satisfying. I absolutely do not care about the 1%, it's a completely bogus leftist class warfare tactic designed to distract from the complete and absolute failure of leftism wherever it is tried. The 1% just keep making the pie bigger, they're not getting my piece.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Maybe, I shouldnât have led with Capitalism. Perhaps the question should be, â Where are we going and why are we in this hand basket?â


Because someone got an handbasket, put a cupcake on the bottom and a whole lot of people leaped in for the free lunch and found a free ride instead?

It's true that some idealists love socialism because it promises a cure for social ills. However, since social ills are caused by human behavior, it can never ever fix it without putting all people into straight jackets- enforce by violence an anti-humane nature government.

Somehow, no matter how many times it leads to awful abuses of people, someone, dazzled by the promise of a fix for what makes people people, always starts with dewy eyed rationalization, patiently explaining why, if people would just stop being people, it would be paradise. It irritates them when people don't slap the sides of their head and exclaim that they now see the light.

Of course it is not long before they realize they can't even get other dewy eyed to toe the line and the violence starts.

Never works but it is such a beautiful lie.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

This thread is really quite amusing. It must be very frustrating for leftists when informed people don't buy their claptrap. That's why they always resort to bayonets and barbed wire in the end.


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> This thread is really quite amusing. It must be very frustrating for leftists when informed people don't buy their claptrap. That's why they always resort to bayonets and barbed wire in the end.


Agreed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I understand that most communities have building regulations and zoning. this is on the township and county level, controlled by the locally elected officials. I guess, different states might have different rules. What State and Federal fees are you forced to pay in building or improving your property? In my county I have to pay $50. for a township zoning permit, a building permit, then an electrical permit, plumbing permit and a Health Department Permit for my well and septic system. Each requires an inspection and the County spends more in inspection wages than it takes in for permit fees. But I want a community that has safe houses and protected ground water. My electrical Co-Op won't hook up service to a slip shod wired house. In spite of all these permits, it pales in comparison to the cost of the land.
> 
> Your "highest in the nation" school taxes are generally voted upon in each school district, so you only have your neighbors to blame for that.
> 
> ...


A word that sends shivers down the spines of property owners "Wetlands". Get that applied to your property and the feds have you by the short hairs.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Well of course they're playing by the rules - they helped write them!


Which is how it works in a fascist governmental system. The government controls businesses and uses that control to extort money and power. If you want to play in the game you have to pay the people who control it an entrance fee.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishinshawn said:


> You are wasting your time and energy with topics like this here. 7 out of 10 of the people who will respond are christian right leaning folks, who are convinced that all poor people are only that way because they are lazy. You can slap them in the face with facts as to why the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, but they will never be able to see/understand it.


Its not just laziness which is the problem, its lack of drive. I know many people who have no problem busting their butts 8-10 hours a day working at a job but would never consider starting their own business. Working for someone else is not the way to get rich.

My formerly poor friend could have easily went to work for someone else and had a good job which would have allowed him to buy a nice little house and a new car every few years. But because he had the drive and took the risk of working for himself he has a nice BIG house and buys new cars for himself and his wife every couple of years.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Rich getting Richer. I hope so that is why they were rich from the beginning. They are not dumb.
Now how about this for a investment.

The Milwaukee Bucks basketball team were sold to Herb Kohl for $18 million in 1985. Kohl, 79, is a Milwaukee native whose family owned a chain of grocery and department stores.
Today he just sold The Bucks for 550 Million. Not bad investment, 18 million 29 years ago and make this kind of return. That is neat.
But it took someone with the dollars to do that in the first place. You have to have money to make money, that has been told and known since day one.
Kohl is now going to help build a new arena with a a 100 million dollar donation to the new owners so they will build a new place for the Bucks to play in and so the Bucks will remain in the State of WI.
And for those that do not know Herb Kohl is also former Democratic State Senator from WI. You can bet your bottom dollar that he donated a bunch of dollars to the D's so they could get Obama in, and keep him in for a 2nd term.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> You are completely missing my point. You are thinking of it in terms of what you see as failed social programs in a currently faulty system of government. Again, I'm talking about the true spirit of the system â each person _truly_ working to their ability and each person _truly_ receiving according to their need.
> 
> I would go so far as to say that I also believe that if a community was completely living by the two golden rules of Christ, it would be a socialist society. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you would not only want your neighbors to be able to have the same things (materially, spiritually, whatever) as you want for yourself, but you want to help them achieve it. And if your neighbor were living by the same ideals, s/he would feel the same towards you and not take advantage of you or your hard work by trying to gain more than her/his true needs, and would act in kind to help you to the best of her/his ability. Everyone has to be on the same page for it to work. Which is why it you will never see a true socialist system on any sort of large scale. I'm sure the small scale communities even have their struggles with it.
> 
> To me, socialism is what will exist if we humans can ever free ourselves from our greed, jealousy, selfishness and need for power over our fellow beings. I think it is a higher level of existence than mere governance. It doesn't preclude creativity or kill the human spirit - on the contrary, I believe it nurtures creativity and is the state that is present when human spirit is at its apex.


Small problem here. Just where in either of those rules does it say we should not or are not allowed to have more than we "need"? 

Also who gets to set that level? What if you "need" a 60" HDTV to be happy while I don't "need" a TV at all?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Perhaps the difference is talking about socialistic beliefs between society members and socialistic beliefs as a basis of government. The view presented can be a utopian society that is true. Here's the catch, it requires everyone to have the same and similar belief system.
> 
> I believe the best government should not be socialist in nature because it does not allow for different social belief systems because it is a social belief system. It's best to keep beliefs out of government and allow societies to form their own socialist beliefs.


The best governmental system would be one which allowed people to act freely but hold them responsible for those actions. If you want to drop out of school and party all the time, fine. But don't expect anyone to help you when you realize you can't get a "good" job because you don't have an education.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I did not say Capitalism is bad, just that what ever it is that we now have isn't working for a majority of folks.
> 
> I really hate to defend Detroit, but to be factually correct, Detroit hasn't experienced real Socialism. While we could have a lively debate on whether the Auto Industry left Detroit or White Flight took their money and jobs to the 'burbs, leaving the jobless Black population to pick the bones of the remaining businesses. 40 years of Liberal Leadership intent on lining their own pockets than attracting jobs. But, any community that can sustain a loss of 200,000 jobs and come back to thrive would be news to most of us.
> 
> ...


The question is why did those jobs leave? Could it be because the liberal leaches were sucking too much blood money from the companies? When you have to pay someone in 1975 $20/hr to put lugnuts on a car plus offer him all kinds of benefits you should realize that you are not going to be able to continue to do this for very long.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

> What if you "need" a 60" HDTV to be happy while I don't "need" a TV at all?





> Capitalism has worked great for me. I liver better than 95% of the population of the whole planet so that's very satisfying.


 Oh, I don't know...how about we just start off with making sure people have clean water and enough food to eat? Maybe somewhere warm and dry to sleep. Then we can look into televisions for everyone.



> Which is how it works in a fascist governmental system. The government controls businesses and uses that control to extort money and power. If you want to play in the game you have to pay the people who control it an entrance fee.


 Maybe so. But in _our_ system, the upper echelon can put their millions behind their chosen candidates, lobby (read "buy off") the others that get into office, churn their corporate cronies through the law-making and judicial system as though there were revolving doors and ensure that the laws are written and enforced in such a way that it keeps the money flowing ever upwards. That's our corporatocracy at work.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

watcher said:


> The question is why did those jobs leave? Could it be because the liberal leaches were sucking too much blood money from the companies? When you have to pay someone in 1975 $20/hr to put lugnuts on a car plus offer him all kinds of benefits you should realize that you are not going to be able to continue to do this for very long.


Pu-lease. $20 an hour to put on lug nuts was most likely negotiated. The company negotiated with a union, I am assuming. If the company didn't do a good job representing themselves in those negotiations, whose fault is that??? 

I know two people who work in a car assembly plant, both have had surgeries to repair tendons and have other problems caused by repetitive motion. Good wages are also a hedge against a possible shortened work life. 

There is a Ford plant in Kansas City. When Ford was in trouble and considering a bailout, their union contracts were re-negotiated and considerable concessions were given by the union. Today Ford is doing great and has recently added a lot of jobs here. They didn't have to take those jobs to a 3rd world country or even a "right to work" state. They negotiated with their unions and made a deal where everybody wins. More companies could do that if they really wanted to.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Nothing wrong with being poor. In fact, I chose that route when I gave up a big government paycheck with benefits and retirement. Figured I could just live cheap.

Now I realize government and the central bankers are driving up the cost of living, which affects the poor more than the rich. For example, when gov't money is thrown at it, the healthcare industry can charge more. Five to ten times more than the Surgery Center of Oklahoma charges, as it refuses government money.

In the 5 years my daughter was at a state university, tuition doubled. That could not happen without all the gov't money thrown at it, while telling everyone they have to go to college to make it. In true capitalism, nobody can double their prices in such a short time and stay in business.

Government has become a means of taking from one group, and giving to another, and that is how many get rich. I have a BIL who makes big money billing Medicare in his home health care business. That is not free market capitalism. I have a brother who is well off from his USDA job which allowed him to make certain farmland investments. Also has a big retirement coming. Another brother is doing well selling stuff to rich farmers who get big subsidies. While government claims to help the poor, those programs give more to the rich.

When the housing crisis and recession hit, were the poor bailed out? Did the government pay off mortgages? No, you had to be "too big to fail".

Some might say the poor are not hurt, because they don't have to pay taxes. That ignores the inflation tax. The central bank prints money out of thin air to finance themselves and gov't. The devalued currency drives prices up for the poor. So every time the poor pay for groceries or whatever, they are supporting those who benefit most from that printed money.

And the central banks keep interest rates low to supposedly stimulate the economy and benefit Wall Street. But those low rates also make the earnings on savings very low, so those in retirement are getting next to nothing on their savings. Another way to rob the poor. 

So while some make it by hard work and innovation, others are in the stream of printed money - banks, Wall street, education industry, healthcare industry, military-industrial complex, etc.

Another interesting thing. The anti-poverty programs have had the effect of replacing dads with a gov't check, but the homes with single moms have more poverty and crime. One more program having exactly the opposite effect of what is promised. This is a direct way the government is increasing poverty. This guy outlines this with an array of statistics. Poverty was going down before LBJ started his War on Poverty, but then it started going up again.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4[/ame]


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

By the way, you create wealth by producing something. Government produces nothing. So as more people work for government, less wealth is produced.

In addition, dads aren't going to produce as much when they don't have to because gov't is doing it for them.

I know a young guy with 2 little kids. He gets over $500 a month for food. He was talking about going to school and becoming a mechanic, but has killed that plan. No incentive. He recently bought a $800 TV and sound system. Doing fine even though he is in the poor category. He also has a couple of pretty nice vehicles - better than I have. Including a Jeep he just put a lift kit on.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> The question is why did those jobs leave? Could it be because the liberal leaches were sucking too much blood money from the companies? When you have to pay someone in 1975 $20/hr to put lugnuts on a car plus offer him all kinds of benefits you should realize that you are not going to be able to continue to do this for very long.


Ford still manages to do it - 40 years later.

They gave their 41,000 UAW workers a $10,000 bonus in 2011 and still managed to get a record $7.2 billion in _profits_ last year. Their average Union wage is much higher than $20/hr.

Granted a lot of that income was from foreign work


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Oh, I don't know...how about we just start off with making sure people have clean water and enough food to eat? Maybe somewhere warm and dry to sleep. Then we can look into televisions for everyone.


Ok. How clean must that water be and what kinds of and how much is enough food? Do I get to demand that my water be 99 44/100% pure H2O or do I have to drink untreated well water which is loaded with hydrogen sulfide? Are you going to be "happy" with a good balanced diet of rice, beans and veggies or are you going to expect to have steak and tatters?

If your well isn't 'clean' enough who gets to pay to for your water treatment system? 

Its nice to fantasize about a wonderful world where its from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Its another thing entirely when the real world kicks you in the face.




bloogrssgrl said:


> Maybe so. But in _our_ system, the upper echelon can put their millions behind their chosen candidates, lobby (read "buy off") the others that get into office, churn their corporate cronies through the law-making and judicial system as though there were revolving doors and ensure that the laws are written and enforced in such a way that it keeps the money flowing ever upwards. That's our corporatocracy at work.


You have a slanted view of things. First off money/trade has always and will always make the world go around. That's just a fact of human nature. You can sometimes work around it in small groups but overall its going to happen.

Second, if your view of things were true do you think we'd have things such as the world's highest corporate tax rates, EPA and OSHA rules which cost corporations BILLIONS of dollars a year in lost profit, obamacare which requires corporations to pay billions of dollars for health care for their employees, laws which prevent corporations from firing striking employees and any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of laws, rules and regulations which cost companies billions upon billions of dollars each and every year?

You are so blinded by your hatred(?) of the rich and/or evil corporations and/or capitalism that you fail to see its the fascist government system we have had in power for decades which is causing 99% of the problems being talked about. Want to see more wealth spread to more people? Get the government back into the role it is supposed to play and watch.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Site all the government programs that I support that do not work. That was the statement you made. since it is quite far off the topic of this thread, feel free to take up your feud on a PM.


Many here who have pointed out that your capitalism complaints are really crony capitalism/fascism/socialism complaints, no matter what you call it...big gov't complaints. That was the on topic purpose of my message. To elaborate, Twobottom in msg 132 already said most of what I was going to say, so I won't repeat it. 

You called me a liar. Care to defend that?

As to a feud, I don't know what you are talking about. I believe we have very different opinions of big gov't. I don't think that constitutes a feud. 

To help you with the capitalism issue. When I start/invest in a business, we provide various services and products to willing buyers who think the value of our solutions merit the price. That is capitalism. The company I helped start (in a small way) that made a highly custom computer solution for NSA/CIA did not gain market acceptance due to accreditation issues. That company went out of business and I lost my entire investment. That is capitalism. 

GM failed and was bailed out by the gov't, largely ignoring and/or rewriting bankruptcy law. That is not capitalism. The AIG bailout was not capitalism. The gov't subsidizing mortgages contributing to home price inflation and an eventual market collapse is not capitalism. The gov't deciding that Lehman Bros should be allowed to fail while facilitating (?demanding?) the sale of Countrywide Mortgage to BOA is not capitalism. 

It would take billions and billions of my capitalistic efforts to equal the anti-capitalistic efforts of the gov't. We don't have too much capitalism, we have too little.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> While we may have moved towards Socialism over the years, it is not the cause of societal ills, but an attempt to reduce the social ills.


There is a logical flaw there. Why can't it be both? The popularity of socialism is the triumph of good intentions over bad results.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> The question is why did those jobs leave? Could it be because the liberal leaches were sucking too much blood money from the companies? When you have to pay someone in 1975 $20/hr to put lugnuts on a car plus offer him all kinds of benefits you should realize that you are not going to be able to continue to do this for very long.


There are some that think Henry Ford was such a good man when in fact that is very wrong. He was bad and had a turnover rate that was horrible.
And the car that is selling great is the Ford Fusion is not even made in the USA, it is Made In Mexico. LOL
*
The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think*



> At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Fordâs turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I was just thinking about a big factor resulting in more poor. That is our endless wars, which have made us less secure by antagonizing people against us.

I've heard estimates that the Iraq war alone will cost $6 trillion after lifetime care of the countless thousands of maimed, debilitated and mentally deranged veterans. That dollar figure is beyond comprehension. About 60,000 per household.

That money has to come from somewhere. Either from the rich, through direct taxes, limiting them from hiring the poor. Or the money comes from printing dollars out of thin air, causing the inflation tax that certainly hurts the poor.

Now some would say that war is good for jobs. Sure is, if you are in the bomb or bullet or reconstruction business after we blow up a country. But blowing stuff up doesn't create new assets or wealth. Reminds me of the broken window fallacy - some think if we went around breaking windows, it would create jobs. This is the kind of thinking upon which most gov't programs are based - artificial stimulus, not real effort and wealth creation.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPmo2e-bAMQ[/ame]


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And the car that is selling great is the Ford Fusion is not even made in the USA, it is Made In Mexico. LOL


 Fyi, Ford used to build Fusions only in Mexico but beginning in August 2013 began turning out this car at Flat Rock MI as well.

http://www.automotive.com/news/flat...usion-an-additional-1400-people-hired-149031/


----------



## FarmerPreacher (Feb 22, 2014)

Works great for me! But l am a old fashion kjv Bible believer Pastor in Ky and support the tea party with old fashion conservative values and guns!! And proud of it! Hey..if you don't like Capitalism you can go to another country and see how that works for ya !! It has what made this country great with the founding of our country was on Bible principles!! AMEN !!


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

And the fusion mat be assembled in Mexico, but hundreds or thousands of people all over the USA have jobs making components for the fusion.
There is a plastic factory about 15 miles from me that makes some interior parts and a metal stamping plant about 30 miles from me that makes several small parts, like seat nrackets, etc for fusions.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DJ wrote:"That money has to come from somewhere. Either from the rich, through direct taxes, limiting them from hiring the poor. Or the money comes from printing dollars out of thin air, causing the inflation tax that certainly hurts the poor."

I wish it were true that the more money the rich had, the more people they would hire. But it isn't taxes that limit them from hiring the poor. NAFTA allows them to hire lots of poor people, but in other countries, then ship it here, without tariff or duty. They don't do it to avoid taxes, they do it to earn more money. The elite do not have their money invested here, so inflation isn't a concern for them like it is for you with your life savings hung up in a bank or 401c3.
The money they earn leaves this country. Our China trade balance causes trillions to leave this country. The millions of legal and illegal aliens send their earnings home, out of this country. This country is bleeding cash. Foreign aid, and a series of protracted wars, bleed this once great nation. While wages of the very rich double every year. But you think everything is fine because the Auto Repair place just hired another mechanic.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Depending on which aspect it's had some mixed results in my life. I know it hasn't worked as well for me as it has for Henrique de Castro who just got a $58M severance package from Yahoo for 15 months of failure.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Depending on which aspect it's had some mixed results in my life. I know it hasn't worked as well for me as it has for Henrique de Castro who just got a $58M severance package from Yahoo for 15 months of failure.


I hear this argument a lot.... and still don't understand why someone else's success diminishes anyone else's. :shrug:


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Oh, I don't know...how about we just start off with making sure people have clean water and enough food to eat? Maybe somewhere warm and dry to sleep. Then we can look into televisions for everyone.


You know what, I took care of all that myself. No one else, including the government did anything to take care of that for me. I have zero sympathy for parasites.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I never got a job from a poor person. I have gotten jobs from those that have made it in this country, and now are looked upon as being bad just because they have more money, well that is the American dream to make it in the USA.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I hear this argument a lot.... and still don't understand why someone else's success diminishes anyone else's. :shrug:


It doesn't and that wasn't my point. But I also don't believe that success and riches are all predicated on hard work, intelligence and positive results.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Pu-lease. $20 an hour to put on lug nuts was most likely negotiated. The company negotiated with a union, I am assuming. If the company didn't do a good job representing themselves in those negotiations, whose fault is that???


When a company has no way to replace workers who refuse to work, due to threats from the unions and the government, that company is basically at the mercy of those workers. IOW, when the government stuck its nose deeper into business and removed a business owner's right to fire non workers the balance of power shifted.

Look at this way. Say you hired a plumber to redo your bathroom for $5K. After he had the old one taken apart he told you he wanted $10K to finish the job. When you told him forget it you'll hire someone else to finish it he tells you its against the law for you to hire anyone to finish a job he has started. When you check you find out he is correct, if you try to hire someone else you could face huge fines and even jail time. What are you going to do? Go without a bathroom or pay the guy the $10K?





MO_cows said:


> There is a Ford plant in Kansas City. When Ford was in trouble and considering a bailout, their union contracts were re-negotiated and considerable concessions were given by the union. Today Ford is doing great and has recently added a lot of jobs here. They didn't have to take those jobs to a 3rd world country or even a "right to work" state. They negotiated with their unions and made a deal where everybody wins. More companies could do that if they really wanted to.


Really? Tell that to someone working in US footwear manufacturing. Oh wait you probably won't be able to find them because the unions drove almost everyone of them offshore in the 70s. I watch this happen from the inside. Unions were told if they didn't give some and allow for more automation in the plants the plants would have to shut down. Unions said they'd strike first. The companies said who you going to strike because we are leaving and they left.

I grew up in a union house in a union town in a non-right to work state. I can tell you this caused there to be a huge us-vs-them feeling in the plants. When I got a job in a non union shop I was AMAZED at the difference. There was a feeling of 'we are all in this together' between workers and management. And I have found that to be the case everywhere I have worked since.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> It doesn't and that wasn't my point. But I also don't believe that success and riches are all predicated on hard work, intelligence and positive results.


Working your fingers to the bone generally results in boney fingers and not much else.

Working smart is how most folks become wealthy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Look at this way. Say you hired a plumber to redo your bathroom for $5K. After he had the old one taken apart he told you he wanted $10K to finish the job. When you told him forget it you'll hire someone else to finish it he tells you its against the law for you to hire anyone to finish a job he has started. When you check you find out he is correct, if you try to hire someone else you could face huge fines and even jail time. What are you going to do? Go without a bathroom or pay the guy the $10K?


I would simply tell him to go ahead and finish the job.... and then when he is finished I would pay him the 5 grand as stipulated in the original contract. The plumber would then have every right to spend his 5k suing me for the amount he tried to hijack me for.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

watcher said:


> When a company has no way to replace workers who refuse to work, due to threats from the unions and the government, that company is basically at the mercy of those workers. IOW, when the government stuck its nose deeper into business and removed a business owner's right to fire non workers the balance of power shifted.
> 
> Look at this way. Say you hired a plumber to redo your bathroom for $5K. After he had the old one taken apart he told you he wanted $10K to finish the job. When you told him forget it you'll hire someone else to finish it he tells you its against the law for you to hire anyone to finish a job he has started. When you check you find out he is correct, if you try to hire someone else you could face huge fines and even jail time. What are you going to do? Go without a bathroom or pay the guy the $10K?
> 
> ...


Sorry things were so out of balance in your home town. It isn't that way everywhere. I have friends and family whose jobs are union and they appreciate and respect their employers and don't take advantage of them. Their company doesn't take advantage of them, either, thanks to their unions. 

As far as manufacturers going offshore, plenty of non union companies have taken advantage of the world's cheapest labor pools, too. You are grossly exaggerating to dump the responsibility for outsourcing solely on unions. 

Yes there needs to be reform so unions can't use their member's dues money to play politics. I have personally called the Teamster's local to complain about political content in their newsletters. But, I refuse to go along with the "all unions are just evil" mentality. I think the union members did exactly what the general population of the US did over the years -- didn't remain vigilant and let too many of the wrong people get elected and into power.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

watcher said:


> You need to use the correct terms. Government control of business by rules, regs, taxes, etc is fascism NOT socialism.


Unless its both, depending on the area of government we are talking about. The welfare state has certainly become a means of redistributing income to make things more "equal".

I agree that government control of business is fascism.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

watcher said:


> Ok. How clean must that water be and what kinds of and how much is enough food? Do I get to demand that my water be 99 44/100% pure H2O or do I have to drink untreated well water which is loaded with hydrogen sulfide? Are you going to be "happy" with a good balanced diet of rice, beans and veggies or are you going to expect to have steak and tatters?
> 
> If your well isn't 'clean' enough who gets to pay to for your water treatment system?
> 
> Its nice to fantasize about a wonderful world where its from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Its another thing entirely when the real world kicks you in the face.


Clean, healthy water should not be a luxury and I'd rather pay for that before another industry subsidy, another drone, or another congressional perk. Getting food into hungry mouths would not require existing on beans, rice and veggies - and if you think that is the case you need to familiarize yourself with just how much food the US throws away every day - but if beans, rice and veggies were offered to a starving mouth, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

If you don't see the plight of your fellow man as reality kicking you in the face, you are much more adept at turning a blind eye than I.




watcher said:


> You have a slanted view of things.


 Har, har, har, har, har. Well, hello there, Pot. EVERYONE has a slanted view of things. You don't seriously think you are above that, do you? Oh wait...



watcher said:


> Second, if your view of things were true do you think we'd have things such as the world's highest corporate tax rates, EPA and OSHA rules which cost corporations BILLIONS of dollars a year in lost profit, obamacare which requires corporations to pay billions of dollars for health care for their employees, laws which prevent corporations from firing striking employees and any of the other hundreds upon hundreds of laws, rules and regulations which cost companies billions upon billions of dollars each and every year?


-Highest corporate tax rates/highest corporate profits
-EPA and OSHA rules/less environmental and workman compensation litigation eating profits - sounds more like smart business protection to me
-Obamacare/extremely profitable health and insurance industry (You didn't really think it was about making health care affordable, did you?)
-Hundreds upon hundreds of laws, rules and regulations/yet the US is continuously ranked as most friendly to entrepreneurs and one of the top most business friendly countries in the world. Hmm...all those laws don't seem to be scaring many people off. 



> You are so blinded by your hatred(?) of the rich and/or evil corporations and/or capitalism that you fail to see its the fascist government system we have had in power for decades which is causing 99% of the problems being talked about. Want to see more wealth spread to more people? Get the government back into the role it is supposed to play and watch.


 And you are so blinded by your hatred of the non-rich that blah, blah, blah... You make accusations against me based on nothing but my belief that a system that cares for one's fellow being is more of an ideal that what we currently have. Judging by the comments on this thread, I think it's pretty. darn. clear. that most people aren't going to part with their wealth out of benevolence if it is left up to them which, once. yet. again., is why I said socialism is idealistic and not likely to exist as a major system of government. The holders of the wealth toss blame while keeping their boots on their foreheads of the have-nots, and the have-nots basically give up and take what scraps are thrown to them. A system everyone can be proud of. :facepalm:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bloogrssgrl said:


> The holders of the wealth toss blame while keeping their boots on their foreheads of the have-nots, and the have-nots basically give up and take what scraps are thrown to them. A system everyone can be proud of. :facepalm:


This actually describes socialism at its finest. I like a free market system so anyone who has the desire and ability can rise to the top. Yes here will be those that never get rich... but many will and a majority will still do much better than the abject poverty they would face in a socialist setting.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Czar of Russia? Emperor of Roman Empire? Suleyman of the Ottoman Empire? Care to name any others where the top 1% held most of the money? Oh, yea, that Capitalist Country in North America...........It's OK, folks, go back to watching Dancing With the Stars, everything is fine.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Czar of Russia? Emperor of Roman Empire? Suleyman of the Ottoman Empire? Care to name any others where the top 1% held most of the money? Oh, yea, that Capitalist Country in North America...........It's OK, folks, go back to watching Dancing With the Stars, everything is fine.


Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Kim Jung-un? Of course they did it by making sure no one else has any money rather than accumulating it themselves.

If you actually want to discuss the evil of money concentrating in few hands, then you should do that rather than pronouncing the evil of capitalism as if that was identical with the problem.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This actually describes socialism at its finest. I like a free market system so anyone who has the desire and ability can rise to the top. Yes here will be those that never get rich... but many will and a majority will still do much better than the abject poverty they would face in a socialist setting.


35 billionaires dropped out of the billion list this year 54 were added. Seem to me Capitalism works just fine, some drop down in worth while NEW ONES come on board.
Course Bill Gates is the richest in the world. ONLY because he owns so much stock. ON PAPER he is rich.
Many on here have heard of and some even shop at the home improvement center Menards. The owner John Menard is listed 247th on that list of Billionaires.
And That is ONLY because he OWNS those stores and the assets. He owns it and that private company is doing good. 
Does that mean John Menard is a evil person just because he is worth a few billion? Or that he owns over 300 Menard Stores now?
NO IT DOESN'T, he employes 10's of thousands of people. 
And John Menard started by going Door to Door selling poll buildings back in the 50's he Did it all by himself too.

Capitalism at its best~! and BTW I live 18 miles from Menards headquarters. LOL


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would simply tell him to go ahead and finish the job.... and then when he is finished I would pay him the 5 grand as stipulated in the original contract. The plumber would then have every right to spend his 5k suing me for the amount he tried to hijack me for.


What if the law allowed him to legally stop work and legally bound you to have him finish he job? IOW, you had NO legal recourse because the laws were stacked against you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Sorry things were so out of balance in your home town. It isn't that way everywhere. I have friends and family whose jobs are union and they appreciate and respect their employers and don't take advantage of them. Their company doesn't take advantage of them, either, thanks to their unions.


I have NEVER worked in a union shop which was like that and I have worked in several towns in several states. What good is a union if there's no big bad company looking to shaft you? Without that the union can't get people to join, will unless you are not in a right to work state then they can use the law to force you to join.




MO_cows said:


> As far as manufacturers going offshore, plenty of non union companies have taken advantage of the world's cheapest labor pools, too. You are grossly exaggerating to dump the responsibility for outsourcing solely on unions.


I'm talking specifically about what I saw in shoe manufacturing. The company was trying to upgrade its plants and replace workers with machines. The union fought it tooth and nail and eventually told the company if they tried to reduce the workforce by bringing in the new machines they would strike. After about 4 years of this the company said fine and announced the closing it its US plants. Would it have happened if the unions hadn't fought automation? Maybe or maybe not. But its clear that the failure of the union to see the future cost people their jobs.




MO_cows said:


> Yes there needs to be reform so unions can't use their member's dues money to play politics. I have personally called the Teamster's local to complain about political content in their newsletters. But, I refuse to go along with the "all unions are just evil" mentality. I think the union members did exactly what the general population of the US did over the years -- didn't remain vigilant and let too many of the wrong people get elected and into power.


I have said over and over unions are like steam powered equipment. Great in their day and did a lot for making the nation what it is today but they are too inefficient and even obsolete for today. This is shown by the fact that in places where people do not have to join a union to work unions are dying.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> What if the law allowed him to legally stop work and legally bound you to have him finish he job? IOW, you had NO legal recourse because the laws were stacked against you.


OK just to clarify... I would not have hired him to begin with... I do my own plumbing. In your hypothetical situation as I stated pretty clearly that I would have him finish the work. I also stated that I would pay him upon completion of the job. I know of no state that allows for breach of contracts.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This actually describes socialism at its finest.


 Obviously, we don't agree on that.



> I like a free market system so anyone who has the desire and ability can rise to the top. Yes here will be those that never get rich... but many will and a majority will still do much better than the abject poverty they would face in a socialist setting.


Isn't there a "banging head against a wall" smiley here somewhere..?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Kim Jung-un? Of course they did it by making sure no one else has any money rather than accumulating it themselves.
> 
> If you actually want to discuss the evil of money concentrating in few hands, then you should do that rather than pronouncing the evil of capitalism as if that was identical with the problem.


I think many want to believe we have Capitalism, but when the top 1% control the people that make the laws and the people that tell us the news, it doesn't seem so much like Capitalism any more. 

Did you watch the video? Did you read the transcript from the video (it is better if you see the graphs)? Sort of pointless to discuss any of this without that aid. 

Just as we have seen in this thread and as stated in the video, the economy is far worse for the poor and middle class than most folks think. Plus, the very rich are outpacing the rest by leaps and bounds well beyond what most people imagine.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> I think many want to believe we have Capitalism, but when the top 1% control the people that make the laws and the people that tell us the news, it doesn't seem so much like Capitalism any more.
> 
> Did you watch the video? Did you read the transcript from the video (it is better if you see the graphs)? Sort of pointless to discuss any of this without that aid.
> 
> Just as we have seen in this thread and as stated in the video, the economy is far worse for the poor and middle class than most folks think. Plus, the very rich are outpacing the rest by leaps and bounds well beyond what most people imagine.


If your view of capitalism, is that it only works, if one becomes extremely wealthy, then that view is skewed, IMO.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> I have said over and over unions are like steam powered equipment. Great in their day and did a lot for making the nation what it is today but they are too inefficient and even obsolete for today. This is shown by the fact that in places where people do not have to join a union to work unions are dying.


History is already repeating itself.

The unions will come back, because they will need to come back.

As example,

Here are people (who actually teach)- with expensive PHd's, working part time with no benefits - while college tuition and fees continue to skyrocket, while some sports coaches are multi millionaires.

The average pay for adjunct professors, is *$20-25K per year*. They have expensive advanced degrees and qualify for food stamps.

*Adjunct Faculty Increasingly Joining Unions To Push For Better Pay *




> Thousands of part-time college professors are joining labor unions, a growing trend in higher education that's boosting the ranks of organized labor and giving voice to teachers who complain about low pay and a lack of job security at some of the nation's top universities.





> *Adjunct professors now make up more than half of all college faculty nationwide; in the 1970s, about 70 percent of college instructors were tenured professors or on a track to tenure.*
> 
> 
> Unlike full professors, most adjuncts earn just a few thousand dollars per class, with scant benefits and little job security.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/adjunct-faculty-unions_n_4194652.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/adjunct-faculty_n_4255139.html


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Raise food stamp requirements.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> If your view of capitalism, is that it only works, if one becomes extremely wealthy, then that view is skewed, IMO.


Quite the opposite.
I think it works as long as the power is in the hands of the people. In a village economy, those that work smartest and hardest will rise above, while the opportunity for others to work smarter and work harder is equally available. But in a world economy, great opportunities in world trade exist only for the very wealthy. As we move from free Capitalism to an economy controlled by few, we lose control of our elected officials and must chose among a hand picked group that are bought by the rich and voters elect the people that had the best ads and the most ads.
I know many hard working people. I know many smart people. I cannot be convinced that humans exist that are a thousand times smarter or work a thousand times harder.

Is Capitalism suppose to be a system where eventually 1% have all the money? I didn't think so.

Is there an effort to flood this country with third world workers so our great Capitalist truth " Supply and Demand" can suppress wages, enabling the very rich to return jobs to the US at Chinese wages? Really saves on shipping costs. Do the majority of Americans want free trade with Mexico and China? If this is a free country, why is the government, by the people, for the people, making agreements that hurt the people and benefit the most wealthy? Could it be that politicians get 40% of their donations fro the top 1%?

When the Jews in Germany managed to legally own many of the factories, many stores and most of the financial institutions, while having no allegiance to Germany (still waiting for a homeland) they were herded up, assets stripped and eventually killed (mostly because no other countries, including the US, would take them). That was a great evil.

Today, we have an even smaller group that controls an even greater amount of our economy. But they are not accessible. Their assets are off shore or otherwise inaccessible. Running them off to gas chambers is neither reasonable nor fruitful.

The trend is clear, but I have no idea how to get us back to a thriving economy and wrestle the immense political power away from that elite 1%.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Quite the opposite.
> in a world economy, great opportunities in world trade exist only for the very wealthy.
> 
> *not true. Nebraska corn farmers disprove your position every harvest.*
> ...


Why do you have no idea? Term limits, smaller gov't that has less control of our lives, you know...the ideas you keep seeing here in HT are just a couple of ideas.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK just to clarify... I would not have hired him to begin with... I do my own plumbing. In your hypothetical situation as I stated pretty clearly that I would have him finish the work. I also stated that I would pay him upon completion of the job. I know of no state that allows for breach of contracts.


Its called an analogy. In a state where its illegal to replace striking workers the company has no real bargaining power. The state gives unions the ability to shut down a plant and the company has two options. One, shut down the plant or two, capitulate.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Obviously, we don't agree on that.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there a "banging head against a wall" smiley here somewhere..?


OK I will give you a free throw here.... if socialism is so good.. why are there so many fleeing socialist country's... risking life and limb to get to free countries? I don't get out much so may have missed the news about boatloads of people heading TO Cuba from Florida. I am also pretty sure "the wall" was put up by the powers that were in orde to keep their people in.... not to keep free people out.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I think many want to believe we have Capitalism, but when the top 1% control the people that make the laws and the people that tell us the news, it doesn't seem so much like Capitalism any more.
> 
> Did you watch the video? Did you read the transcript from the video (it is better if you see the graphs)? Sort of pointless to discuss any of this without that aid.
> 
> Just as we have seen in this thread and as stated in the video, the economy is far worse for the poor and middle class than most folks think. Plus, the very rich are outpacing the rest by leaps and bounds well beyond what most people imagine.


You have it backwards. Business doesn't control the government, the government controls business. If your theory was true there would be no EPA, no OSHA, no labor laws, no closed shop laws or the like.

How do you explain those items in your theory of business controlling the government?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Its called an analogy. In a state where its illegal to replace striking workers the company has no real bargaining power. The state gives unions the ability to shut down a plant and the company has two options. One, shut down the plant or two, capitulate.


Well there is another option or two.... one would be to have all employees sign a No strike agreement before hiring... something along the lines of not showing up for work without good cause being grounds for firing. Good cause being sickness as or injury. Another option a lot of companies have opted for is simply move the shop to a location where employees are happy to have the job.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK I will give you a free throw here.... if socialism is so good.. why are there so many fleeing socialist country's... risking life and limb to get to free countries? I don't get out much so may have missed the news about boatloads of people heading TO Cuba from Florida. I am also pretty sure "the wall" was put up by the powers that were in orde to keep their people in.... not to keep free people out.


The countries to which I believe you are referring may like to present themselves as socialist (and the US is more than happy to play along with that because it feeds the hatred of the thought of such a system) but what they seem to be for the most part are societies where a select, small group of people benefit from the spoils of the country's resources while scores of people scrape by. (Sounds somewhat familiar in a way...) I'm not sure how, exactly, they should be categorized - nationaizm? totalitarianism? - but not as what I've come to understand as socialism. 

A better example of the socialism to which I am referring would be the cooperatives that were formed by the peasants during the Spanish Civil War (1936). I've heard them called Anarchist Collectives, Libertarian Communism, Libertarian Democracy, etc. Several million people were able to thrive in a system _they_ managed, until they eventually fell to outside forces. That is probably the best large scale socialist society that was acting independent of another government system that I can think of. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are a few smaller socialist societies, but they are operating within larger forms of government.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bloogrssgrl said:


> The countries to which I believe you are referring may like to present themselves as socialist (and the US is more than happy to play along with that because it feeds the hatred of the thought of such a system) but what they seem to be for the most part are societies where a select, small group of people benefit from the spoils of the country's resources while scores of people scrape by. (Sounds somewhat familiar in a way...) I'm not sure how, exactly, they should be categorized - nationaizm? totalitarianism? - but not as what I've come to understand as socialism.
> 
> A better example of the socialism to which I am referring would be the cooperatives that were formed by the peasants during the Spanish Civil War (1936). I've heard them called Anarchist Collectives, Libertarian Communism, Libertarian Democracy, etc. Several million people were able to thrive in a system _they_ managed, until they eventually fell to outside forces. That is probably the best large scale socialist society that was acting independent of another government system that I can think of. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are a few smaller socialist societies, but they are operating within larger forms of government.


OK... I will go along with "socialism" being workable on a small scale. This means everyone in the group is pretty well on a first name basis with every one else in the group. This keeps the deadbeats from sponging a living from the workers. The problem I have with true socialism (where the government owns/controls all means of productivity) is that those in power will reap the rewards of every one else's labor. One needs only to look at those nations that utilize those practices to see the results. Free merkets may not be a whole lot better, but they allow anyone with the gumption drive and wisdom to rise to their level of accomplishment . Bill Gates was not born into wealth.... he simply applied common sense with the right product at the right time. The issue of whether or not he stole the concept of windows from apple can be argued in the courts for ages.... the point is that bill was able to sell windows to the Masses and was able to amass a huge fortune for himself and his heirs to enjoy for years to come... virtually impossible in a socialist economy.


----------



## palm farmer (Jan 3, 2014)

works wonderfully for me. I get to play in the nursery most days and it allows me a comfortable living


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK... I will go along with "socialism" being workable on a small scale. This means everyone in the group is pretty well on a first name basis with every one else in the group. This keeps the deadbeats from sponging a living from the workers. The problem I have with true socialism (where the government owns/controls all means of productivity) is that those in power will reap the rewards of every one else's labor. One needs only to look at those nations that utilize those practices to see the results. Free merkets may not be a whole lot better, but they allow anyone with the gumption drive and wisdom to rise to their level of accomplishment . Bill Gates was not born into wealth.... he simply applied common sense with the right product at the right time. The issue of whether or not he stole the concept of windows from apple can be argued in the courts for ages.... the point is that bill was able to sell windows to the Masses and was able to amass a huge fortune for himself and his heirs to enjoy for years to come... virtually impossible in a socialist economy.


In the case of the Spanish peasants, it was roughly 8 million people - not nearly the size of the US but not exactly village-small either. This, to me, is true socialism - where the people own and control means of productivity - and, therefore are able to reap the rewards. Maybe the difference we are arguing is what is deemed to be state socialism as opposed to worker -owned socialism. That latter is what I believe to be the true form.

I don't think it precludes gumption, hard work, creativity, etc. In fact, in the case I'm referring to, those people were able to create wealth, run utilities and provide services better than the government had previously 
done.

Our social systems are so broken and abused that it is hard to get the idea of the deadbeats - the extreme bad apples - out of one's mind. Our market is also so broken and abused that it is equally as hard to get the folks who cheat the system to gain wealth at the expense of the populace - the other extreme of bad apples - out of one's mind. Funny how in both situations it seems to be that, to change these folks, they need to be convinced that there is worth in work, honesty and personal accountability. I guess it goes to show that doesn't matter what system a country has in place when basic values are skewed. 

Free market is nice but leaves some people in the dust who, maybe with some guidance and a helping hand, can be worthwhile participants in a society. To me, a worker-owned socialist society is more nurturing of community, and I prefer the idea of different members pulling each other up to help all move forward to the benefit of everyone. I honestly don't know if it could ever work on a scale as big as the US as it has never been tried. Hmmm...I wonder what the odds would be of turning Pennsylvania into a worker-owned socialist society...? Excuse me now, I must go sew an anarchy flag. 

(I guess if I wasn't on the watch list before, I sure am now.)


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Is Capitalism suppose to be a system where eventually 1% have all the money? I didn't think so.
> 
> The trend is clear, but I have no idea how to get us back to a thriving economy and wrestle the immense political power away from that elite 1%.


Why would this possibly even matter, concerning capitalism?

If you make a decent living selling hotdogs, on a street corner, or having a plumbing business, what do you care how much money Bill Gates has?

Everyone wringing their hands over the "1%", must not be aware, that this is not even a new phenomenon.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, few had _everything_, while everybody else had _little or nothing_. Farmers were poor, employees were poor, most businesses made a living and not much more.

*Andrew Carnegie*




> Carnegie merged his company into U.S. Steel and sold his share for US$492 million in 1901. Capitalized at US$1.4 billion at the time, U.S. Steel was the first billion dollar company in the world.


*John D. Rockefeller*



> it is estimated that his personal fortune was equal to 1.53% of the total U.S. annual GDP in his day


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures#Wealth_in_the_Americas

FWIW, Capitalism is a system where some have money and some don't.

Socialism the the other one.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

IMHO we have moved to a more fascist form of government. Big business in collusion with government. 

Socialism on paper can sound like perfection but in reality it still has the same problems. There are still the oligarchs in control, they do dole out some crumbs for the lower levels. Most real socialist experiments seem to have failed due to stagnation. They became weak and stronger entities absorbed them. 

Socialism was tried in the 60's by quite a few, it just wasn't what most envisioned.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I guess it goes to show that doesn't matter what system a country has in place when basic values are skewed.


Exactly. And in a representative form of government, the values of the people will be reflected in the officials they elect. If the people are corrupt, their government will be no better.

I've read that just ahead of the last election, the Venezuelan president, to curry favor with voters, sent armed military members to appliance stores to post open the doors, demanding the managers sell their inventory for pennies on the dollar. In some cases, this reportedly devolved into outright looting. 

The populace evidently approved of this strategy -- Maduro was reelected. 

What will the long-term consequences be, though? Who will open or expand a business under those conditions?


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> Exactly. And in a representative form of government, the values of the people will be reflected in the officials they elect. If the people are corrupt, their government will be no better.
> 
> I've read that just ahead of the last election, the Venezuelan president, to curry favor with voters, sent armed military members to appliance stores to post open the doors, demanding the managers sell their inventory for pennies on the dollar. In some cases, this reportedly devolved into outright looting.
> 
> ...


The long term consequences are that you stand in line to buy toilet paper, when you can get it. That's what happens with this stuff every time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well there is another option or two.... one would be to have all employees sign a No strike agreement before hiring... something along the lines of not showing up for work without good cause being grounds for firing. Good cause being sickness as or injury. Another option a lot of companies have opted for is simply move the shop to a location where employees are happy to have the job.


You seem to have no history with unions and especially the 'old school' unions in strong union states.

Pieces of paper work really well in protecting you (look how well the constitution is protecting us today). Even if a company in a union state can find a judge willing to rule a wildcat strike (i.e. forbidden under the terms of the contract) as illegal its going to take a LONG time to do it, even longer to get the workers back and when they do go back to work the odds are there are going to be a lot of "accidents" which damage the product or equipment. Been there, seen that.

Given the choice of going through that or giving into the blackmail most companies just give in. Its faster and cheaper in the short term. Much like a company not taking a case to court when they can settle for a few thousand dollars.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Glade Runner said:


> The long term consequences are that you stand in line to buy toilet paper, when you can get it. That's what happens with this stuff every time.


Walk into any grocery store in America and find 15 brands of toilet paper, priced anywhere form cheap and scratchy, to expensive and luxurious. 

Capitalism at it's finest.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Why would this possibly even matter, concerning capitalism?
> 
> If you make a decent living selling hotdogs, on a street corner, or having a plumbing business, what do you care how much money Bill Gates has?
> 
> ...


And those that study such things would argue that the US President broke up those monopolies, saving capitalism. Those same people might think it is time for another adjustment?

I think it is just fine that I make a living selling hotdogs, until bill gates (or one of the others that will soon control most of the wealth in this country)takes control of my supply of hotdogs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> And those that study such things would argue that the US President broke up those monopolies, saving capitalism. Those same people might think it is time for another adjustment?
> 
> I think it is just fine that I make a living selling hotdogs, until bill gates (or one of the others that will soon control most of the wealth in this country)takes control of my supply of hotdogs.


I was discussing this very issue earlier with my houseguest "brain damage". It was rather interesting that after the government broke standard oil into all those little companies J.D. made even more money than before the "break up". After all he still owned all of those little companies. I think it was probably J.D.s idea in the first place. I wouldn't worry too much about bill messing with yer hotdogs.... he is far too busy maintaining control of your buying habits to worry about how you make yer money.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The breakup of Standard Oil was before my time, but I do remember the breakup of AT & T. It was a nightmare at the business I worked for at the time. We were having phone problems and it turned into a 3-way finger point between the local service, the long distance company and the phone system people. My boss finally made an appointment with all 3 of them the same day/time, put them in a room together and told them to figure it out. 

The closest to a monopoly we have now is probably Microsoft, and I don't think anybody really wants the govt breaking them up into factions. 

There has been too much consolidation in the food suppliers, 4 or 5 giants control almost all the brands. But I don't want the govt to meddle with it, I want people to learn to eat real food and not buy all that processed stuff in a box.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bloogrssgrl said:


> In the case of the Spanish peasants, it was roughly 8 million people - not nearly the size of the US but not exactly village-small either. This, to me, is true socialism - where the people own and control means of productivity - and, therefore are able to reap the rewards. Maybe the difference we are arguing is what is deemed to be state socialism as opposed to worker -owned socialism. That latter is what I believe to be the true form.
> 
> I don't think it precludes gumption, hard work, creativity, etc. In fact, in the case I'm referring to, those people were able to create wealth, run utilities and provide services better than the government had previously
> done.
> ...


What you are describing is capitalism. That's where the people own the resources and the means of production.... and band together pooling those resources to provide goods and services to the public at large. In the USA we often form a corporation which people purchase stock in order to finance factories and distribution systems that would be impossible for a single owner to provide. Those investors receive a share of whatever profits the company earns. Sometimes folks make lots of money... sometimes not so much. I have friends who have made several million bucks in the market... I know others who have lost money. Life is a gamble.... no guarantees of waking up tommorow. That's what keeps it interesting!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Capitalism is like democracy -- it's the worst system, except for all the others.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What you are describing is capitalism. That's where the people own the resources and the means of production.... and band together pooling those resources to provide goods and services to the public at large. In the USA we often form a corporation which people purchase stock in order to finance factories and distribution systems that would be impossible for a single owner to provide. Those investors receive a share of whatever profits the company earns. Sometimes folks make lots of money... sometimes not so much. I have friends who have made several million bucks in the market... I know others who have lost money. Life is a gamble.... no guarantees of waking up tommorow. That's what keeps it interesting!


Not really - with capitalism the single person or group of persons profits from the particular resource they own. In the case I was describing, everyone benefitted as a whole because the resources were owned and administered by the people, as a whole. Capitalism, while it adheres to "from each according to ability", tends to forget about the "to each according to need" part. The aim of the collectives was to produce together and distribute to all - there was no competition among people to "out succeed" one another as they all succeeded (or failed) together. Everyone, whether able to work or not, was provided the basic necessities of life as far as the collective could provide them. 

I'm not aware of any such provision built in to the capitalism system. Which, I'm guessing, is why social programs end up being introduced into a system that doesn't provide for them naturally? The end result - at least what I see as happening in the US - is that there are now multiple systems with different base values that are forced to try to exist together. Each system is encumbered by the others, thereby assuring none of them can achieve the specific successes they were designed to achieve - creating the lovely mess we have now.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Capitalism, while it adheres to "from each according to ability", tends to forget about the "to each according to need" part. The aim of the collectives was to produce together and distribute to all - there was no competition among people to "out succeed" one another as they all succeeded (or failed) together. Everyone, whether able to work or not, was provided the basic necessities of life as far as the collective could provide them.


I find it difficult to believe that anyone signs up for a socialist system with the idea that they are going to work harder than everyone else, only to have some of their rewards taken from them and distributed to others who didn't expend as much effort. 

Nope. I think most people who embrace socialism do so because they think they'll be given more than they would be able or willing to produce on their own. 

The fly in this ointment, of course, is that everything the government gives to someone who didn't earn it first has to be confiscated from someone who did, and who won't get to enjoy the fruits of his labors as a result. And how long will it take before he wises up and ceases to be so productive?

As Margaret Thatcher famously noted (somewhat paraphrased), "Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money."

Reality dictates that when you reward people based on their effort, the outcome won't be equal. Some people will be willing to work harder than others. There also will be variances in intellectual and physical capacity. 

A system that attempts to equalize outcomes, however, removes the incentive that the most gifted have to be as productive as possible. Why should I make an exceptional effort if I won't see the rewards? I might as well coast along and count on the next guy to take up my slack.

Instead of creating wealth, you end up dividing scarcity.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

It does not matter how small the group is- socialism never lasts past the determined efforts of one strong willed person holding that philosophy. And trying to make it work even with that strong willed person in control results in murder, mistakes and brutality much worst than the feeding frenzy of people scrabbling to get their share of the pie.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I'll add that while Bloog purportedly has one example of Spanish peasants living briefly in a socialist paradise (and I'm not familiar enough with that particular chapter of history to comment on it), we have many much larger examples of collectivism failing miserably in places like the Soviet Union and Communist China.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I really believe the wealthy like the Koch brothers are taking this country by a financial coup so that they have a country to play with instead of just playing with their businesses. Having so much of our nations wealth sequestered in tax shelters is why our economy is so anemic. They've hoarded so much wealth that they are slowing the flow of money and that is what is driving down employment and wages for the 99% of Americans who work for a living. This all started when Reagan declared war on the working American and it's accelerating.

How are the money hoarders any different than the hoarder who fills his house with stuff. Neither will ever have enough and are unable to stop?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> The closest to a monopoly we have now is probably Microsoft, and I don't think anybody really wants the govt breaking them up into factions.


We have lots of monopolies now and they are govt created. How many folks like their cable company? Most local gov'ts decide to have a monopoly because it brings in the most tax revenue and freebies that the gov't can control, like local access channels, local gov't that televises the politicians that created the monopoly, etc. 

In areas where cable competition is allowed, a study I read long ago showed a huge benefit to the consumer, many more channels at a much lower price.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This business about the Kochs oh the Kochs are bad oh the Kochs do this and this. So what they have the Know How to do things. And are the biggest and the best at what they do that is why they were involved in Iraq. There are fear worse out there then The Kochs concentrate on them. War on rich is going to fail, as it was never a good idea in the first place.
The Land Of Milk And Honey is getting soured by this ridiculous thinking that being rich is bad.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

fishhead said:


> I really believe the wealthy like the Koch brothers are taking this country by a financial coup so that they have a country to play with instead of just playing with their businesses. Having so much of our nations wealth sequestered in tax shelters is why our economy is so anemic. They've hoarded so much wealth that they are slowing the flow of money and that is what is driving down employment and wages for the 99% of Americans who work for a living. This all started when Reagan declared war on the working American and it's accelerating.
> 
> How are the money hoarders any different than the hoarder who fills his house with stuff. Neither will ever have enough and are unable to stop?


Your message is self contradicting. "money hoarders" who are they? The Koch brothers? The guys who are spending their money to influence politics. The wealthy do not hoard money, they invest money. One definition of rich vs poor is that the poor work for their money and the rich have their money work for them. Money doesn't work for you when it is stuffed under the mattress. It has to be out in the economy creating products and services the public wants to purchase. 

Are Gates, Buffett, Carnegie, Ford, Turner, Rockefeller, et. al., the wealthiest Americans of their time who gave away huge portions of their wealth money hoarders?


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Yes in most of those cases they do qualify as "hoarders".

The only way that I can see regaining control of this country is to have 100% publicly financed elections. One person one vote. Not one person and as much 'free speech' as they can buy.

The conservatives on the Supreme Court just took this country one more step towards oligarchy with their recent decision to put even more of our election process up for sale.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

fishhead said:


> Yes in most of those cases they do qualify as "hoarders".
> 
> The only way that I can see regaining control of this country is to have 100% publicly financed elections. One person one vote. Not one person and as much 'free speech' as they can buy.
> 
> The conservatives on the Supreme Court just took this country one more step towards oligarchy with their recent decision to put even more of our election process up for sale.


Why does the left insists on redefining so many words? And why does the left fear free speech? 

And again, you contradict yourself.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Yes in most of those cases they do qualify as "hoarders".
> 
> The only way that I can see regaining control of this country is to have 100% publicly financed elections. One person one vote. Not one person and as much 'free speech' as they can buy.
> 
> The conservatives on the Supreme Court just took this country one more step towards oligarchy with their recent decision to put even more of our election process up for sale.


One person one vote sounds ok to me.... as long as that person is alive.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I find it difficult to believe that anyone signs up for a socialist system with the idea that they are going to work harder than everyone else, only to have some of their rewards taken from them and distributed to others who didn't expend as much effort.
> 
> Nope. I think most people who embrace socialism do so because they think they'll be given more than they would be able or willing to produce on their own.
> 
> ...






willow_girl said:


> I'll add that while Bloog purportedly has one example of Spanish peasants living briefly in a socialist paradise (and I'm not familiar enough with that particular chapter of history to comment on it), we have many much larger examples of collectivism failing miserably in places like the Soviet Union and Communist China.


Perhaps because the systems of the Soviet Union and Communist China were/are forced as opposed to being voluntary, which was not the case for the Spanish peasants. They are also examples of State Socialism, not true worker-owned socialism. Not the same animal by any means. If the resources were owned by the workers in those countries, they would be the ones benefitting. It is also pretty well known that those governments were/are rife with corruption. (Seems corruption works just as well for the select few in socialism as it does with capitalism.)

When you have some time and/or the inclination, you might want to look into the event I'm referring to. You might be remarkably and pleasantly surprised with what you find. There were several million people involved with this society. By several accounts I have read, there was no unemployment - everyone had _some_ job to do to in order to contribute. They increased their wealth by working together. This whole segment of history is often ignored - most likely on purpose by the powers that be - but there is information out there if you choose to look for it. Be forewarned, you might have to get your fingers dirty looking for socilast and anarchist friendly historians.

You are right that this system removes the incentive that the most gifted have to be as productive as possible - when their highest incentive is excessive personal wealth. And, once again, that all circles back to my comments about the values of society. Doctors Without Borders is remarkably productive and I'm sure the gifted members of that organization feel rewarded for their efforts. It's all in one's views and priorities.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bloogrssgrl said:


> When you have some time and/or the inclination, you might want to look into the event I'm referring to.


I would love to look into it further... can you point me in the correct direction? A link to some articles would be nice.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I don't fear Free Speech. It's a very good thing but what Free Speech isn't is wealthy individuals buying favors and elections so they can become even wealthier.

The supreme court is the one redefining free speech to equate it with money.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

bloogrssgrl said:


> Perhaps because the systems of the Soviet Union and Communist China were/are forced as opposed to being voluntary, which was not the case for the Spanish peasants. They are also examples of State Socialism, not true worker-owned socialism. Not the same animal by any means. If the resources were owned by the workers in those countries, they would be the ones benefitting. It is also pretty well known that those governments were/are rife with corruption. (Seems corruption works just as well for the select few in socialism as it does with capitalism.)
> 
> When you have some time and/or the inclination, you might want to look into the event I'm referring to. You might be remarkably and pleasantly surprised with what you find. There were several million people involved with this society. By several accounts I have read, there was no unemployment - everyone had _some_ job to do to in order to contribute. They increased their wealth by working together. This whole segment of history is often ignored - most likely on purpose by the powers that be - but there is information out there if you choose to look for it. Be forewarned, you might have to get your fingers dirty looking for socilast and anarchist friendly historians.
> 
> You are right that this system removes the incentive that the most gifted have to be as productive as possible - when their highest incentive is excessive personal wealth. And, once again, that all circles back to my comments about the values of society. Doctors Without Borders is remarkably productive and I'm sure the gifted members of that organization feel rewarded for their efforts. It's all in one's views and priorities.


There is nothing wrong with socialism/communism practiced on a voluntary basis. My wife and I practice it at home. The Israeli Kibbutzes are fine and lots of people enjoy being members. If you want to start a Kibbutz or Shaker Village in the US, there is nothing stopping you other than the usual red tape every other corporation faces. 

The problem is that large scale socialism always ends up being enforced with prisons and guns. It requires a large, powerful gov't to keep it in place and those with the power inevitably fall to the allure of power and the conceit of the elite that the ideas of a few chosen ones are superior to chaos of free markets.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

fishhead said:


> I really believe the wealthy like the Koch brothers are taking this country by a financial coup so that they have a country to play with instead of just playing with their businesses. Having so much of our nations wealth sequestered in tax shelters is why our economy is so anemic. They've hoarded so much wealth that they are slowing the flow of money and that is what is driving down employment and wages for the 99% of Americans who work for a living. This all started when Reagan declared war on the working American and it's accelerating.
> 
> How are the money hoarders any different than the hoarder who fills his house with stuff. Neither will ever have enough and are unable to stop?


Koch brother give away hundreds of million$ to charity.

What are the supposed to do with the rest of it?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

fishhead said:


> I don't fear Free Speech. It's a very good thing but what Free Speech isn't is wealthy individuals buying favors and elections so they can become even wealthier.
> 
> The supreme court is the one redefining free speech to equate it with money.


If you can't buy a commercial with your own money to counter the commercial of a union, or the bias of a newspaper, you don't have free speech. If you and I and the rest of the HT crowd can't combine our money to buy ad space to counter Monsanto or ADM, we don't have free speech. 

Term limits and a less powerful gov't would make it much more difficult for the wealthy to buy favors or elections.


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> There is nothing wrong with socialism/communism practiced on a voluntary basis. My wife and I practice it at home. The Israeli Kibbutzes are fine and lots of people enjoy being members. If you want to start a Kibbutz or Shaker Village in the US, there is nothing stopping you other than the usual red tape every other corporation faces.
> 
> The problem is that large scale socialism always ends up being enforced with prisons and guns. It requires a large, powerful gov't to keep it in place and those with the power inevitably fall to the allure of power and the conceit of the elite that the ideas of a few chosen ones are superior to chaos of free markets.


Being that the Spanish Revolutionaries' was the largest system _of this type_ (please remember, worker-owned as opposed to state owned) to exist, and did so without violence and force, it is hard to say whether it could have gone further or not as it was never given the chance. 

Also a point that might be interesting, this society was existing in a state of anarchy and not only supplying their own needs but supporting anti-fascist militias as well. (Maybe that will earn them some points with some folks here.  )


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

By the way, I just wanted to remark on the general course of the discussion. 

I haven't really participated in GC for a few years because there were some folks here that just could not carry on a civil discussion with someone who held an opposing point of view. It was with some trepidation that I decided to "out" myself as an anarchist-libertarian-socialist (or whatever category I fall into) as I expected an onslaught of attacks. Just wanted to thank you all for keeping it a lively yet enjoyable exchange of opinions.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Perhaps because the systems of the Soviet Union and Communist China were/are forced as opposed to being voluntary, which was not the case for the Spanish peasants.


What did they do with the peasants who weren't willing to get with the program? Because I find it difficult to believe the philosophy was universally embraced by the population. If it was, that would certainly be a first in human history. 


> They are also examples of State Socialism, not true worker-owned socialism. Not the same animal by any means. If the resources were owned by the workers in those countries, they would be the ones benefitting.


As Deke already pointed out, there is nothing stopping people from forming collectives within a capitalist system. :shrug:



> It is also pretty well known that those governments were/are rife with corruption. (Seems corruption works just as well for the select few in socialism as it does with capitalism.)


All governments tend to be rife with corruption; it's the nature of the beast. Politics attracts people who want to wield power. The best societies -- ones made up primarily of honest people -- put checks and balances, and "sunshine laws," in place to create accountability and curb bad behavior.



> When you have some time and/or the inclination, you might want to look into the event I'm referring to. You might be remarkably and pleasantly surprised with what you find. There were several million people involved with this society. By several accounts I have read, there was no unemployment - everyone had _some_ job to do to in order to contribute. They increased their wealth by working together. This whole segment of history is often ignored - most likely on purpose by the powers that be - but there is information out there if you choose to look for it. Be forewarned, you might have to get your fingers dirty looking for socilast and anarchist friendly historians.


I'd prefer an objective account, but I'd certainly be willing to look at any sources you'd care to provide. I'm a pragmatist ... there is much value in looking at, and adopting, best practices that have been successful elsewhere. 

I'm a little skeptical that one can profoundly revamp human nature, however. I think societies fare best when practicality trumps ideology. Read somewhere recently that Chinese government has adopted this strategy, summed up in the phrase âSeeking truth from factsâ -- that is, basing ideology upon what works in the real world, rather than trying to get the world to conform to ideology.



> You are right that this system removes the incentive that the most gifted have to be as productive as possible - when their highest incentive is excessive personal wealth. And, once again, that all circles back to my comments about the values of society. Doctors Without Borders is remarkably productive and I'm sure the gifted members of that organization feel rewarded for their efforts. It's all in one's views and priorities.


But there is no _compulsion_ to hold wealth as one's highest value! It's a free country. If making money is your thing, you're welcome to pursue it, but for another person, the goal might be painting a perfect picture, or playing a difficult piece of music, or winning an Olympic gold medal. Or (as you point out in the Doctors Without Borders example), saving lives. 

In a free market economy, everyone can set his or her goals, and some naturally will be higher or lower than others. The person who works hard and creates something of value likely will be rewarded for his efforts; the slacker, not so much. But isn't that how it should be?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The only way that I can see regaining control of this country is to have 100% publicly financed elections. One person one vote. Not one person and as much 'free speech' as they can buy.


I understand the motivation to publicly-finance elections is so that each candidate has the same pool of money to work with, and no one can buy more advertising than another. 

But does this really make sense? Because it would seem natural to me that the candidate who is most appealing probably would garner more support, and more donations, and, in the end, more votes. It isn't necessarily money buying the election; it's money (and votes) flowing to the most desirable candidate. 

Trying to alter this process by way of artificial constraints seems at best useless, and at worst, counterproductive. 

And how far are you willing to take this? Are you going to set limits on the number of volunteers who can make phone calls or canvass on behalf of candidates, in order to make things equal? And isn't this interfering with free speech?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

We currently have at least one political party that buys votes with billions of dollars of taxpayers money... and it appears to be an unlimited supply. Why should other parties be denied the right to spend their own money to get their message out?


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I understand the motivation to publicly-finance elections is so that each candidate has the same pool of money to work with, and no one can buy more advertising than another.
> 
> But does this really make sense? Because it would seem natural to me that the candidate who is most appealing probably would garner more support, and more donations, and, in the end, more votes. It isn't necessarily money buying the election; it's money (and votes) flowing to the most desirable candidate.
> 
> ...


The candidates with the most appeal would be able to garner the most "volunteers". That wouldn't hinder free speech in any way. The goal is to take the unfair advantage away from the wealthy that is corrupting our economy and political system.

Generally speaking the candidate with the most access to money whether it's their own or people looking for political favors in the future have the advantage whether they have a large number of volunteers or not. Money is replacing individual support with advertising with carefully crafted messages.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> What did they do with the peasants who weren't willing to get with the program? Because I find it difficult to believe the philosophy was universally embraced by the population. If it was, that would certainly be a first in human history.
> 
> 
> As Deke already pointed out, there is nothing stopping people from forming collectives within a capitalist system. :shrug:
> ...


Marry me. I want you NOW!


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

DEKE01 said:


> We have lots of monopolies now and they are govt created. How many folks like their cable company? Most local gov'ts decide to have a monopoly because it brings in the most tax revenue and freebies that the gov't can control, like local access channels, local gov't that televises the politicians that created the monopoly, etc.
> 
> In areas where cable competition is allowed, a study I read long ago showed a huge benefit to the consumer, many more channels at a much lower price.


Following that logic I guess you consider your local providers of electricity and natural gas to have a monopoly, too??

I really can't comment on the cable tv specifically because we moved out to the boonies before the suburbs were "wired". I don't recall we have ever had cable tv, just satellite, and there isn't a plethora of choices for that either.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> Following that logic I guess you consider your local providers of electricity and natural gas to have a monopoly, too??
> 
> I really can't comment on the cable tv specifically because we moved out to the boonies before the suburbs were "wired". I don't recall we have ever had cable tv, just satellite, and there isn't a plethora of choices for that either.


Not only do I consider local electric and nat gas to have monopolies, but economists and dictionaries do as well. Google "natural monopoly" and you'll see railroads and gas, electric, and water utilities as examples.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The candidates with the most appeal would be able to garner the most "volunteers". That wouldn't hinder free speech in any way. The goal is to take the unfair advantage away from the wealthy that is corrupting our economy and political system.
> 
> Generally speaking the candidate with the most access to money whether it's their own or people looking for political favors in the future have the advantage whether they have a large number of volunteers or not. Money is replacing individual support with advertising with carefully crafted messages.


What is advertising, if not speech?

This isn't 1850 or even 1950. We now have the Internet at our disposal. Any candidate can get their message out very economically in the form of a Web site. Of course, the success of that vehicle depends on having an electorate engaged enough to research the candidates. THAT is where the real problem lies.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> If you can't buy a commercial with your own money to counter the commercial of a union, or the bias of a newspaper, you don't have free speech. If you and I and the rest of the HT crowd can't combine our money to buy ad space to counter Monsanto or ADM, we don't have free speech.


BUZZ. . .sorry wrong answer. Just because you can't get anyone to listen to it doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to say it.

BTW, what would be your solution to this 'problem'. Do you limit the free speech of others or do you force others to listen to you?




DEKE01 said:


> Term limits and a less powerful gov't would make it much more difficult for the wealthy to buy favors or elections.


With a less powerful government there would be less need for companies to pay it off.

And again I ask if companies have so much power why is there an EPA, an OSHA, child labor laws, non-right to work laws, and all the other things which limit the amount of profit companies could make?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> BUZZ. . .sorry wrong answer. Just because you can't get anyone to listen to it doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to say it.
> 
> BTW, what would be your solution to this 'problem'. Do you limit the free speech of others or do you force others to listen to you?
> 
> ...


Ask someone else. You have confused my position entirely. I think EPA, OSHA, labor law is WAY too oppressive.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

fishhead said:


> The only way that I can see regaining control of this country is to have 100% publicly financed elections.


Unfortunately, you are right. It would gain control. 

It would gain control for the gov't even more so than it has now. You want to gov't to create rules as to who is a valid candidate that can get public funding and deny the right of anyone else to have funding to run for office. Isn't that what they do/did in the USSR, N Korea, China, Nazi Germany, and a whole lot of other totalitarian regimes? 

The answer to too much gov't is not more gov't.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> BUZZ. . .sorry wrong answer. Just because you can't get anyone to listen to it doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to say it.
> 
> BTW, what would be your solution to this 'problem'. Do you limit the free speech of others or do you force others to listen to you?
> 
> *You need to reread my msg. You're does not seem to follow. I'm talking about being free to buy ads, not forcing someone to watch/read/listen to them. So your Q to me is irrelevant.*


You are free to buy all the ads you want. You are free to publish flyers, bulletins or even your own newspapers. You seem to be saying that because you want to get your message out someone should provide you the ability to do so. After all you seem to be implying your freedom is taken because someone can pay to have 10,000 ads printed when you can only afford 1. If that's your stand what's your solution?




DEKE01 said:


> And again I ask if companies have so much power why is there an EPA, an OSHA, child labor laws, non-right to work laws, and all the other things which limit the amount of profit companies could make?
> 
> Ask someone else. You have confused my position entirely. I think EPA, OSHA, labor law is WAY too oppressive.


I'm asking you a very simple question based on what you seem to be saying. If I'm wrong then just say you don't think the government is being ran/controlled by big business. But if you do think companies control the government then why would they allow the government to have all of these taxes, laws, rules and regs which cost them billions upon billions of dollars?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

[FONT=&quot]I have come to the temporary conclusion that.
The enemy is not "wealth speaking" 
The enemy is "false thinking"
offgridcooker

[/FONT]


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> You are free to buy all the ads you want. You are free to publish flyers, bulletins or even your own newspapers. You seem to be saying that because you want to get your message out someone should provide you the ability to do so. After all you seem to be implying your freedom is taken because someone can pay to have 10,000 ads printed when you can only afford 1. If that's your stand what's your solution?
> 
> *
> Nope, you missed the point entirely and have somehow twisted your interpretation to the opposite of what I'm saying.
> ...


Since you completely misunderstand my position, the question still makes no sense in the convo. But just to make you happy, I think pols run the gov't. I don't think there is some mystery cabal or trilateral commission or secret society that decides who the candidates are and fixes the elections. I think big biz does buy some candidates off, but as you cite with EPA etc, big biz obviously does not have full control of the gov't. Do I think they are often in an unholy alliance, yes.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Marry me. I want you NOW!


You do realize you'd be my fifth husband, right? :hysterical:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> You do realize you'd be my fifth husband, right? :hysterical:


And you would be my second wife...concurrently. Are you up for moving to Utah? :happy2:


Its been 30 years, as of Sept 29, with DW, best decision I ever made. But if things haven't improved in another 30 to 40 years, it's you and me, Babe. I'll give you a call in 2044.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Koch brother give away hundreds of million$ to charity.
> 
> What are the supposed to do with the rest of it?


They not only give to charity.... they also have hundreds of millions confiscated in taxes. The bulk of their (and everyone elses) tax money gets spent buying the votes of the poor. Are they not entitled to spend just a little bit of their own money advertising for fairness in government?


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> What did they do with the peasants who weren't willing to get with the program? Because I find it difficult to believe the philosophy was universally embraced by the population. If it was, that would certainly be a first in human history.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'd prefer an objective account, but I'd certainly be willing to look at any sources you'd care to provide. I'm a pragmatist ... there is much value in looking at, and adopting, best practices that have been successful elsewhere.


Here is an article with a brief descriptive run down of the society. I believe this one addresses the peasants who chose to remain in the area but not participate directly in the collective.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/ws56_spain.html

The main page seems to have links that you can go to for more information and, I guess, to read more on the events of the war as it happened.

One thing I will point out that I don't agree with was the somewhat lesser role of women in the societies, however considering the time and culture, it's not surprising.

As far as objective accounts - do they even exist for tumultuous historical periods?  Again, a lot of the story of these people is being told by parties sympathetic to that view point. The old belief that history is written by the winners certainly holds true here as their story is largely ignored. I remember first reading about it several years ago it in a book that was a collection of Noam Chomsky's essays (I'm sorry - I don't recall the name of the book or the essay but you can find his views readily online if you Google his name and Spanish Civil War) and since then I would run across it periodically on various websites, however, as I never really intended to be in a spot of having to provide the information, I didn't really collect links. (If I get some time to dig some more links up, I'll post them, but I'm getting ready for bed now.)



willow_girl said:


> I'm a little skeptical that one can profoundly revamp human nature, however. I think societies fare best when practicality trumps ideology. Read somewhere recently that Chinese government has adopted this strategy, summed up in the phrase âSeeking truth from factsâ -- that is, basing ideology upon what works in the real world, rather than trying to get the world to conform to ideology.


Technically, yes, I agree with this. But...reality can be created - the advertising industry makes billions upon billions of dollars doing just that. Humans are so easily swayed to accept the realities different industries want to sell. I don't necessarily believe greed and sloth are the default characterizations of humans which, I suppose, is why it is easier for me to accept the idea of a socialist society as a possibility.



willow_girl said:


> But there is no _compulsion_ to hold wealth as one's highest value! It's a free country. If making money is your thing, you're welcome to pursue it, but for another person, the goal might be painting a perfect picture, or playing a difficult piece of music, or winning an Olympic gold medal. Or (as you point out in the Doctors Without Borders example), saving lives.
> 
> In a free market economy, everyone can set his or her goals, and some naturally will be higher or lower than others. The person who works hard and creates something of value likely will be rewarded for his efforts; the slacker, not so much. But isn't that how it should be?


My main problem with the free market economy, as I've said, is that there will always be people that cannot make it, let alone thrive. What would a free market economy do with, say, a disabled veteran? What if the things s/he could still do did not have a high enough value in the market to allow for eking out a life?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bloogrssgrl said:


> What would a free market economy do with, say, a disabled veteran? What if the things s/he could still do did not have a high enough value in the market to allow for eking out a life?


The VA should provide for those needs. Sadly enough in our country that is not the case.... we spend billions taking care of useless parasites while thousands of our vets remain destitute and all too often do without the most basic of care.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

bloogrssgrl said:


> I don't necessarily believe greed and sloth are the default characterizations of humans which, I suppose, is why it is easier for me to accept the idea of a socialist society as a possibility.
> *
> Greed means a selfish and excessive desire for more than one needs. Greed has an ugly connotation. But what word do we use for a poor man who works 2 jobs to improve his lot in life and give his children more than they need for a simple life? We admire that man, his greed, or whatever word you want to substitute, is good and is a natural state of man. We think it is an aberration when we see a man who does not have a desire to take care of himself and his family by improving their lives in some way.
> 
> ...


I tell you what. Why don't we stop giving money to people who can work but choose not to, and take LOTS better care of our disabled vets. A free market economy does not mean we have to butcher everyone who is truly in need of assistance. Gov't and charity are not counter to free markets. Why do you think they are?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I don't necessarily believe greed and sloth are the default characterizations of humans which, I suppose, is why it is easier for me to accept the idea of a socialist society as a possibility.


Here's what I think: I think humans naturally want things. Food, shelter, clothing. In some cases, bling. 

I don't think it's necessarily evil to want things. I think the best societies -- the ones made up primarily of honest people -- create a clear path for people to get the things they want. That is, they require people to work for them -- to produce something of value (either goods or services) which they can trade with other individuals (directly or indirectly via currency) for the fruits of _their_ labors. 

When that is the only path to Getting What You Want, people will largely be productive, and the society will thrive. Most everyone will be working and producing things of value, so there will be abundance. 

Problems will arise because there are always criminals and lazy people who will look for ways to get out of working to get what they want. Whether the society fails or flourishes depends largely on whether the honest people let them get away with it. Get away with what, you ask? Why, stealing, for example. Or electing crooked officials who impose a tax on the productive and give the money to those who would choose to do nothing. 

When this is allowed to happen, it damages the fabric of the society. When a man is excused from productive labor, and allowed to live off the efforts of others, a little less abundance is created. The lazy man works not at all, while the productive one eventually becomes discouraged as his reward is repeatedly confiscated.

When this is taken to the extreme, the whole society will collapse upon itself. A good example is what is currently happening in Venezuela, where people have largely ceased being productive, and have turned to looting at every level. The government steals the assets of companies by nationalizing them, and private citizens steal from one another. When there is nothing left to steal, famine will set in, unless the people reverse course at some point. That doesn't seem likely. But I digress ...



> My main problem with the free market economy, as I've said, is that there will always be people that cannot make it, let alone thrive. What would a free market economy do with, say, a disabled veteran? What if the things s/he could still do did not have a high enough value in the market to allow for eking out a life?


Most "disabled" people actually are much more "abled" than they appear; the problem is that they currently are functioning within a system that requires them to be either entirely self-sufficient or totally helpless. To qualify for benefits, many slightly disabled people are required to act much worse off than they truly are. For instance, the fellow who might be capable of working 10 hours a week is precluded from working at all, if he desires assistance. Since he can't survive on what he might be able to earn, he'll probably choose not to work at all._ (And thus a little less abundance is created.)_

The solution? Eliminate welfare, and let every man strive to be productive. I have no doubt that good-hearted individuals and private charities would step in to help those who, despite making a good-faith effort, were unable to totally meet their needs. After all, that's the way it worked for thousands of years before government welfare programs were instituted, right? 

Of course, that would eliminate the ability of certain political factions to attract voters by promising to give them things if elected. Oh what a shame. Not! :grump:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Here's what I think: I think humans naturally want things. Food, shelter, clothing. In some cases, bling.
> 
> I don't think it's necessarily evil to want things. I think the best societies -- the ones made up primarily of honest people -- create a clear path for people to get the things they want. That is, they require people to work for them -- to produce something of value (either goods or services) which they can trade with other individuals (directly or indirectly via currency) for the fruits of _their_ labors.
> 
> ...


I wish I could like this repeatedly!! Excellent.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Here is an article with a brief descriptive run down of the society. I believe this one addresses the peasants who chose to remain in the area but not participate directly in the collective.


I took a look at your link, and will read some additional sources as well as I'm interested. However, something jumped out at me in the first paragraph:



> For a glimpse of how such a society would function it is useful to look to the social revolution that took place in Spain in 1936, when, over a period of two years, people took power into their own hands and started to construct a completely different society based on anarchist principles.


This idyllic socialist paradise lasted for only two years ... hardly long enough to determine whether the principles upon which it was founded were truly practical. Remember the Thatcher quote I mentioned earlier? Perhaps they simply hadn't run out of other people's money yet. LOL 

As noted earlier, there is nothing stopping people from establishing collectives within a capitalist economy. It seems that a lack of interest, and not oppression, is the obstacle. In fact, there were a number of collective societies in the U.S. in the 19th century -- the Oneida and Amana colonies, and the Shakers, are a couple of examples. Some did very well and persisted for decades. It should be noted that most were rather small and held together by religious beliefs, which probably provided accountability, and a doctrine that discouraged sloth. Absent that kind of cohesion, I suspect they would have been in trouble. :teehee:


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> The solution? Eliminate welfare, and let every man strive to be productive. I have no doubt that good-hearted individuals and private charities would step in to help those who, despite making a good-faith effort, were unable to totally meet their needs. After all, that's the way it worked for thousands of years before government welfare programs were instituted, right?
> 
> Of course, that would eliminate the ability of certain political factions to attract voters by promising to give them things if elected. Oh what a shame. Not! :grump:


I agree with this. Charity should come from the benevolent heart of the giver, not the legislative authority of a government.

This is the biggest misconception that gets portrayed. If I argue against government provided food stamps I'm immediately labelled as "wanting to starve the poor" or selfish. It doesn't matter if the truth is the complete opposite. I could give 80% of my income to feed the poor through non-profit organizations, or better yet, through my own labor. But the fact I didn't support the _mandated law_ that provides for government welfare it is portrayed differently.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Since you completely misunderstand my position, the question still makes no sense in the convo. But just to make you happy, I think pols run the gov't. I don't think there is some mystery cabal or trilateral commission or secret society that decides who the candidates are and fixes the elections. I think big biz does buy some candidates off, but as you cite with EPA etc, big biz obviously does not have full control of the gov't. Do I think they are often in an unholy alliance, yes.


Ok, working graveyards messes with my brain.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bloogrssgrl said:


> My main problem with the free market economy, as I've said, is that there will always be people that cannot make it, let alone thrive.


My main problem with socialism is that no one (other than those few elite who run things) has a chance to improve their lot in life. It makes little difference if one works hard, uses their talents to the max..... he gets the same bowl of gruel for supper as the putz who does nothing all day.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> In fact, there were a number of collective societies in the U.S. in the 19th century -- the Oneida and Amana colonies, and the Shakers, are a couple of examples. Some did very well and persisted for decades. It should be noted that most were rather small and held together by religious beliefs, which probably provided accountability, and a doctrine that discouraged sloth. Absent that kind of cohesion, I suspect they would have been in trouble. :teehee:


An earlier example that is often forgot...

http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/Colonial-Communism.html

The first set of rules agreed upon after the Mayflower Covenant was to share equally in work and in produce. Each was assigned a plot to till, and they all brought their produce to be portioned out equally. It was the same with livestock, milk, wild game, fish, fur and whatever the land and the sea would provide. Each worked according to his ability, each was rewarded according to his need; sound familiar? Karl Marx could have been in charge.

But it simply wasnât working. They were still starving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you look at the link, skip down to where it says "POOF". After the communism ended and the pilgrims all selfishly did their own thing as best they could, the colony prospered.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Capitalism works great for corrupt politicians and their masters. It doesn't work so great for the out of work whose job went to a foreign country. There still are a few drawbacks that need fine tuning if all men are created equal...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Rocky Fields said:


> Capitalism works great for corrupt politicians and their masters. It doesn't work so great for the out of work whose job went to a foreign country. There still are a few drawbacks that need fine tuning if all men are created equal...


Socialism does not work in that case either. In fact, the very best that the best socialism can do is drag everyone down together.

BTW men may have been created equal but what they do after their creation is pretty much up to them.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Socialism does not work in that case either. In fact, the very best that the best socialism can do is drag everyone down together.
> 
> BTW men may have been created equal but what they do after their creation is pretty much up to them.


Approximately 6% of the people own 94% of the wealth in the US. Everyone else gets a few crumbs. So, doesn't that resemble more of an aristocracy than a democracy? I am a patriot, but I believe the American capitalistic ideal needs some adjustments.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> Approximately 6% of the people own 94% of the wealth in the US. Everyone else gets a few crumbs. So, doesn't that resemble more of an aristocracy than a democracy? I am a patriot, but I believe the American capitalistic ideal needs some adjustments.


So how does any one individual you count in that 6% have any more say in the government of this nation than you?


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Nate_in_IN said:


> So how does any one individual you count in that 6% have any more say in the government of this nation than you?


The very rich and corrupt use money to buy influence through backhanders or large donations to politicians.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

If I had my druthers, I'd take private monopolies over the State's monopoly any old day.... I can choose to avoid commerce if I wish.... harder to avoid the State, which can confiscate your wealth and imprison you if you displease them.....

as far as aristocracy is concerned, we still have to vote for our 'leaders'.... alas, many vote the same way the 1% do...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> Approximately 6% of the people own 94% of the wealth in the US. Everyone else gets a few crumbs. So, doesn't that resemble more of an aristocracy than a democracy? I am a patriot, but I believe the American capitalistic ideal needs some adjustments.


How does the 6% or 1% having great wealth limit you? Yes, they have advantages, but that isn't stopping you from working two jobs, starting you own biz, or whatever else you deem necessary to attain some measure of success. 

No, it doesn't resemble an aristocracy. In the USA, wealth is largely a passing thing. I've seen stats where it shows that usually a family goes from dead poor to great wealth and back to poor or middle class in just a few generations. That isn't how aristocracy works.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

texican said:


> If I had my druthers, I'd take private monopolies over the State's monopoly any old day.... I can choose to avoid commerce if I wish.... harder to avoid the State, which can confiscate your wealth and imprison you if you displease them.....
> 
> as far as aristocracy is concerned, we still have to vote for our 'leaders'.... alas, many vote the same way the 1% do...


If I had my druthers, I'd vote for abolishing property taxes for retirees ;-)

Since the early 1900's, the presidential candidate with the most money in their political warchest has won the presidency.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> The very rich and corrupt use money to buy influence through backhanders or large donations to politicians.


OK. So the answer then is to limit the size / power of government to the smallest required to secure an individual of their assets. That provides the least possibilities for a corrupt government to have influence over you. I like this.

Here's the rub. Limited laws would also be limited when applied to that 6%. It seems you are against this, in fact arguing that further regulation and larger government is needed.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> How does the 6% or 1% having great wealth limit you? Yes, they have advantages, but that isn't stopping you from working two jobs, starting you own biz, or whatever else you deem necessary to attain some measure of success.
> 
> No, it doesn't resemble an aristocracy. In the USA, wealth is largely a passing thing. I've seen stats where it shows that usually a family goes from dead poor to great wealth and back to poor or middle class in just a few generations. That isn't how aristocracy works.


Personally, through the years, I sometimes worked 3 jobs at the same time. I had a wife and children counting on me to provide for them. For many years, I worked as a stone mason and farmer both. For the sick and the elderly, working a job or jobs isn't always possible.

I keep waiting for a great leader to clean up the graft and corruption in our government. About 46 million are on food stamps. It's apparent that there are problems growing by leaps and bounds in our country. I'd like to see changes for the greater good. Politicians telling us lies doesn't make it better.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Nate_in_IN said:


> OK. So the answer then is to limit the size / power of government to the smallest required to secure an individual of their assets. That provides the least possibilities for a corrupt government to have influence over you. I like this.
> 
> Here's the rub. Limited laws would also be limited when applied to that 6%. It seems you are against this, in fact arguing that further regulation and larger government is needed.


I would do away with personal or corporate political donations. A government fund would disperse equal amounts to politicians who are qualified to run for office. For example, if there were 3 candidates for the presidency, each would get 20 million. This would help to even the playing field and curb some of the ill effects of nefarious wealthy parties.

I am a compassionate person. I like the concept of being able to get ahead. However, I'm finding it hard to accept when I see one person is worth 6 billion dollars when so many people are suffering. I don't think any individual needs super excessive amounts of money. We need to place limits on how wealthy sunkings can be in our country.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There are fewer Billionaires then yu may think.
Only 1200 to 1400 World+Wide.
400 or so are in the USA.
That is it.
And just because some have their worth because of the stock they own like Bill Gates that is ONLY on paper.
And one in my backyard is because he owns over 300 home improvement Centers.
Does that nmake him also a bad guy then?
Even if it s a Private Company and he employees 1,000s? Hard working Americans? 
That that make him a bad oh so terrible guy just because HIS Worth is HIS Stores and the assets therein? And Oh ya he started in a Garage, back in the 50's he went door to door selling Poll Buildings~! 
And now he is worth around 7 Billion. Ya that makes him a bad guy I guess in some eyes. Too bad so sad really that so many have this fear and hateful feeling toward those that have made it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Per http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


In 1922, the share of wealth for the bottom 99% was. 63.3 % and the wealth at the top 1% was 36.7%.
In 2010, the share of wealth for the bottom 99% was 64.6 % and the wealth at the top 1% was 35.4%.

And in almost all the interim, it was remarkable close to those figures.

The thing that the rich have lots more of is income from financial intruments, although that is tempered by the investment on pension funds by the government employees and the fewer private pensions funds.

And that difference is directly related to the Congress for its tax laws. And the current administration for their support of the Fed freezing interest rates. The stock player is really advantaged while the saver is really disadvantaged.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> I would do away with personal or corporate political donations. A government fund would disperse equal amounts to politicians who are qualified to run for office. For example, if there were 3 candidates for the presidency, each would get 20 million. This would help to even the playing field and curb some of the ill effects of nefarious wealthy parties.
> 
> I am a compassionate person. I like the concept of being able to get ahead. However, I'm finding it hard to accept when I see one person is worth 6 billion dollars when so many people are suffering. I don't think any individual needs super excessive amounts of money. We need to place limits on how wealthy sunkings can be in our country.


if you have the gov't fund "eligible" candidates, then you will get only gov't approved candidates. 

Right now we seem to be stuck with only Repubs and Dem as possible winning candidates. The Repubs and Dems have conspired to fix political funding so that they are favored by gov't largess. Do you remember seeing a 3 or 4 day Libertarian convention on prime time TV? Nope, because the gov't pays only for the R and D conventions. Do you really want to give the gov't even more control over who gets elected?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> Capitalism works great for corrupt politicians and their masters. It doesn't work so great for the out of work whose job went to a foreign country. There still are a few drawbacks that need fine tuning if all men are created equal...


So you can hit a 90mph fastball, run 40 yrds in 4.5 seconds, write something equal to the Harry Potter books and/or run a company with holdings around the world which bring in billions of dollars a year? If not than you are were not created equal to the people who can and do not deserve to be paid millions of dollars a year like those who can.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> Approximately 6% of the people own 94% of the wealth in the US. Everyone else gets a few crumbs. So, doesn't that resemble more of an aristocracy than a democracy? I am a patriot, but I believe the American capitalistic ideal needs some adjustments.


So whats your plan? Are you going to take wealth from those who have it and give it to those who don't? Are you going to assign yourself god and give yourself power to say how much "wealth" a person "needs" and forbid anyone from getting more than that limit?

Or maybe you want to work from the other end. You can force everyone to educate themselves to the point they can do jobs which pay very well. Or you can force them to work 60-80 hours a week not a measly 40. Or you can demand people stop working for some evil company and risk everything they have to start their own business.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> The very rich and corrupt use money to buy influence through backhanders or large donations to politicians.


Again you have it backwards. Business doesn't control government, government controls business.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> I would do away with personal or corporate political donations. A government fund would disperse equal amounts to politicians who are qualified to run for office. For example, if there were 3 candidates for the presidency, each would get 20 million. This would help to even the playing field and curb some of the ill effects of nefarious wealthy parties.


If you owned a bar would you hire alcoholic bartenders and a gambling addict as your manager? If not why in the world would you put politicians in charge of running elections?




Rocky Fields said:


> I am a compassionate person. I like the concept of being able to get ahead. However, I'm finding it hard to accept when I see one person is worth 6 billion dollars when so many people are suffering. I don't think any individual needs super excessive amounts of money. We need to place limits on how wealthy sunkings can be in our country.


Sigh. . . read what you wrote. . .do you REALLY want the government to have the power to tell you what you "need" and to "place limits" on you if it things you have too much?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> Ok, working graveyards messes with my brain.


Step away from the bong, sir. :happy2:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> If you owned a bar would you hire alcoholic bartenders and a gambling addict as your manager? If not why in the world would you put politicians in charge of running elections?


well said :goodjob:


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Wow, remind me to never vote for Rocky should he run for office.

You seriously think the gooberment should limit how wealthy a person is? Seriously?
Think about money as love. I love both my kids equally, if a third kid were to come along (God forbid), I would love that kid just as much, yet wouldn't love the first two any less than before.

Money is the same way, just because one person gains wealth, it doesn't mean someone else loses it.
If you are that bitter about wealthy people being wealthier than you are, then get off your butt and do something about it. Build a better mouse trap, invent the next world changing contraption, design a software system better than Microsoft, etc, etc.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Changes have to be made or our country will sink into a financial collapse. Every person in this country owes $100,000+ if we were to divide up the national debt evenly. The system isn't working. I'm sorry you don't like my ideas. Covering your eyes, covering your ears, and covering your mouth will not make things better! I said my piece. After listening to all the naysayers, I remember my mules need water...


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

watcher said:


> If you owned a bar would you hire alcoholic bartenders and a gambling addict as your manager? If not why in the world would you put politicians in charge of running elections?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You voted for actors, wrestlers etc. Does their private life matter if they do a good job in office?


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> There are fewer Billionaires then yu may think.
> Only 1200 to 1400 World+Wide.
> 400 or so are in the USA.
> That is it.
> ...


It depends on your definition of having made it. Climbing the ladder to get what you want at the expense of others may factor in on Judgement Day...

I agree. Menard has created lots of jobs for Western WI and Chinese mfg. companies. Do you think tariffs would bring back more manufacturing jobs to the USA?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> Changes have to be made or our country will sink into a financial collapse. Every person in this country owes $100,000+ if we were to divide up the national debt evenly. The system isn't working. I'm sorry you don't like my ideas. Covering your eyes, covering your ears, and covering your mouth will not make things better! I said my piece. After listening to all the naysayers, I remember my mules need water...


How does capitalism correlate to the national debt? I bet the vast majority who support capitalism are also strongly in favor of reducing the national debt. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

watcher said:


> Again you have it backwards. Business doesn't control government, government controls business.


You have it backwards. Megacorps control this country's government. Our country's government controls the rest of us.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Nate_in_IN said:


> How does capitalism correlate to the national debt? I bet the vast majority who support capitalism are also strongly in favor of reducing the national debt. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.


We need to quit living beyond our means by using extensive credit. Pull in our belts and trim waste and corruption from government, so our country can be managed more efficiently.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> Again you have it backwards. Business doesn't control government, government controls business.


Boy isn;t that the truth. Way too many controls on companies. Way too many. Time to trim the fat and get the Government OFF businesses backs and let companies grow and get their products made. This recovery would be taking off.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> Changes have to be made or our country will sink into a financial collapse. Every person in this country owes $100,000+ if we were to divide up the national debt evenly. The system isn't working. I'm sorry you don't like my ideas. Covering your eyes, covering your ears, and covering your mouth will not make things better! I said my piece. After listening to all the naysayers, I remember my mules need water...


Why do you want to punish successful people when it is the pols running up the debt?

I agree changes need to be made. How about we agree to a 1% reduction in true total gov't spending each year until the budget is balanced.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Agreed, just because elected officials try to constantly outspend each other, and tack up our national debt, why should someone who had nothing to do with that be punished? Why limit their wealth? They are wealthy from their hard work, why take away their rewards from their hard work?

Rocky, you may have some honestly good oppinions, but when you start mixing unrelated topics and confusing the two, it looks bad.

But, just for an example, let's say you start a company with a revolutionary idea or product. You put in 90+ hours a week building the company up. You are doing great! Now, according to your ideals, the government should be able to step in and say, hey, you have made enough money this year, our national debt is too high, so we need to limit your income, sorry, no more money for you this year.

I'm sorry, but that is one of the most ignorant ideas I have ever heard.


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Why do you want to punish successful people when it is the pols running up the debt?
> 
> I agree changes need to be made. How about we agree to a 1% reduction in true total gov't spending each year until the budget is balanced.


Again, I don't think anyone needs billions or 100's of thousands of acres of land. Most of these wealthy are fighting raising the minimum wage in their investments/businesses. Putting a cap, perhaps 100 million should free up wealth/assets. If nothing is done, the excessively wealthy won't be content until they own everything. It is a game/sickness depending on how you look at it.

It would be nice to reduce government spending. Do you think government spending is fueling the economy?


----------



## Rocky Fields (Jan 24, 2007)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Agreed, just because elected officials try to constantly outspend each other, and tack up our national debt, why should someone who had nothing to do with that be punished? Why limit their wealth? They are wealthy from their hard work, why take away their rewards from their hard work?
> 
> Rocky, you may have some honestly good oppinions, but when you start mixing unrelated topics and confusing the two, it looks bad.
> 
> ...


Some thought the concept of a vaccine was ignorant idea...injecting someone with a disease to prevent it. I am well educated and learned to read and write at an early age, so be wary of calling me ignorant. If you are to successfully debate/discuss a topic with me, please skip the fallacy of name calling. "It looks bad".


----------



## NC_hobbyfarmer (Dec 31, 2013)

Who is John Galt?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> Again, I don't think anyone needs billions or 100's of thousands of acres of land. Most of these wealthy are fighting raising the minimum wage in their investments/businesses. Putting a cap, perhaps 100 million should free up wealth/assets. If nothing is done, the excessively wealthy won't be content until they own everything. It is a game/sickness depending on how you look at it.
> 
> It would be nice to reduce government spending. Do you think government spending is fueling the economy?


Why do you think you are qualified to determine what others need or should have?

I don't know that it is true that the 1% or 6% are fighting min wage law. The 3 richest Americans, Gates, Buffett, Ellison (CEO of Oracle) as well as Sec State Kerry, the CEOs of GE, Tesla Motors, American Express, and many others are all dem supporting libs. And you assume that a higher min wage is good for the poor even though it has done little to help them over the last 4 decades. It is, at least, debatable. 

I saw somewhere on HT today that the 1% own basically the same ~35% of total US assets as they did in 1922 and that while it has fluctuated, it remains close to that number. Wiki confirms this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Capitalism/free markets is the default system of economic distribution. In one form or another, it has been going on since Eve decided to trade an apple. If all the wealth in capitalism goes to the few, why hasn't it already happened? People die. Their heirs are seldom as smart or motivated. Fortunes get spent. 

DO I think gov't spending is fueling the economy? Yes and No. Gov't spending fuels, while high taxes, inflation, and gov't debt, act as a brake. Gov't destroys wealth. The more gov't you have, the faster and more wealth is destroyed...see USSR, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, El Salvador, Venezuela, Cuba,...need more?

There is a greed problem in the US today. It is greedy people who want to steal from and demonize one small segment of society by using gov't force.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Rocky, if you can read so well, read my post again, I never said you, or anyone else is ignorant, i said the idea of limiting a persons ability to grow their personal wealth because of government overspending is ignorant.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Rocky Fields said:


> We need to quit living beyond our means by using extensive credit. Pull in our belts and trim waste and corruption from government, so our country can be managed more efficiently.


I agree...but I don't get how that translates into limiting how much money any individual can have.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

fishinshawn said:


> I haven't attacked anyone. Many/most Christian right leaners can't even see the point bloogrssgrl has eloquently stated over and over again. *They look at socialism through a heavily biased right leaning filter*, that doesn't even allow them to acknowledge what she has said.


I think they are looking at it through the eyes of experience and saying, "next".

I agree that in theory, socialism could work wonderfully. All you have to do is remove the humans.

The analogy to Christianity fails in that God knows that no Christian can live up to even the two laws of Christ, let alone the 10 Commandments that are summed up by them.

That is why Christ came and died.

Humans will never make socialism work for long. They cannot rise above the laziness and greed that will naturally destroy it.

At least Capitalism has no such pretense as does Socialism. Capitalistic theory affirms that self-interest is one human trait that can be counted on to endure.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Another question, Mr. Rocky, under your idea, pray tell, who gets to decide who is allowed to keep their money? And, in your opinion, what amount of money should be the maximum a person is allowed to earn per year?
How about this one, if people knew, no matter what they did, they would only be allowed to keep $XXXXXX.XX of their earnings each year, 99.999% of the population that earns that much $$, would quit working each year as soon as they reached that level. Thats simple human nature, right or wrong, it is human nature, if a person isn't going to be rewarded for their labors, they won't want to provide those labors.
So, how would you, in your perfect ideals, deal with that?


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Rocky Fields said:


> Some thought the concept of a vaccine was ignorant idea...injecting someone with a disease to prevent it. I am well educated and learned to read and write at an early age, so be wary of calling me ignorant. If you are to successfully debate/discuss a topic with me, please skip the fallacy of name calling. "It looks bad".


I think it is not the same thing...calling a person ignorant and calling an idea ignorant?

By the way, I too am educated (and rather "experienced"). Yet I am still ignorant of many things.

I would not take the comment so personally.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Another question, Mr. Rocky, under your idea, pray tell, who gets to decide who is allowed to keep their money? And, in your opinion, what amount of money should be the maximum a person is allowed to earn per year?
> How about this one, if people knew, no matter what they did, they would only be allowed to keep $XXXXXX.XX of their earnings each year, 99.999% of the population that earns that much $$, would quit working each year as soon as they reached that level. Thats simple human nature, right or wrong, it is human nature, if a person isn't going to be rewarded for their labors, they won't want to provide those labors.
> So, how would you, in your perfect ideals, deal with that?


Agreed. And as an extension...if you owned a factory and had reached the annual limit on income, what would you do? Keep the factory open and all those jobs going knowing that you can't make more money, or would you shut it down and lay off the workers because keeping that factory open exposes you to losses but no profits. 

A worker could get killed in an accident, your Tylenol might get poisoned in a store and expose you to lawsuits, your McD's coffee might get spilled in the lap of a drive thru customer, your swine CAFO might flood the nearest river with pollution. The only logical choice would be to shut down. So people would lose their jobs, get headaches, go thru caffeine withdrawal, have less meat to eat, but Americans could take satisfaction knowing that no one was getting too rich.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> Changes have to be made or our country will sink into a financial collapse. Every person in this country owes $100,000+ if we were to divide up the national debt evenly. The system isn't working. I'm sorry you don't like my ideas. Covering your eyes, covering your ears, and covering your mouth will not make things better! I said my piece. After listening to all the naysayers, I remember my mules need water...


Sorry but I have to tell you its probably too late. There's no way the nation can pay off what it already owes much less all the debt we will have to acquire to meet the upcoming bills.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> You voted for actors, wrestlers etc. Does their private life matter if they do a good job in office?


You didn't answer the question. If you owned a bar and a non-recovering alcoholic came in looking to tend the bar at the times you were not there would you hire him?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> You have it backwards. Megacorps control this country's government. Our country's government controls the rest of us.


Then how do you explain the existent of the EPA? OSHA? NLRB? FLSA? FECA? BLBA? FMLA? The Davis-Bacon Act? McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act? Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Rocky Fields said:


> Again, I don't think anyone needs billions or 100's of thousands of acres of land. Most of these wealthy are fighting raising the minimum wage in their investments/businesses. Putting a cap, perhaps 100 million should free up wealth/assets. If nothing is done, the excessively wealthy won't be content until they own everything. It is a game/sickness depending on how you look at it.


Who needs more than $10 million? Who needs more than $1 million? Who in the US can't live on $500,000? 

I have a better idea. Why not just have everyone work for the government and it can give each subject. . .ah I mean citizen, $50,000 a year to live on.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

NC_hobbyfarmer said:


> Who is John Galt?


The hero of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Regarding placing limits on the amount any man is allowed to earn, I like what William Graham Sumner had to say on the subject:



> I have before me a newspaper slip on which a writer expresses the opinion that no one should be allowed to possess more than one million dollars' worth of property. Alongside of it is another slip, on which another writer expresses the opinion that the limit should be five million. I do not know what the comparative wealth of the two writers is, but it is interesting to notice that there is a wide margin between their ideas of how rich they would allow their fellow citizens to become, and of the point at which they ("the State," of course) would step in to rob a man of his earnings.
> 
> 
> These two writers only represent a great deal of crude thinking and declaiming which is in fashion. I never have known a man of ordinary common-sense who did not urge upon his sons, from earliest childhood, doctrines of economy and the practice of accumulation. A good father believes that he does wisely to encourage enterprise, productive skill, prudent self-denial, and judicious expenditure on the part of his son. The object is to teach the boy to accumulate capital.
> ...


More here: mises.org/daily/2397/What-the-Social-Classes-Owe-to-Each-Other


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Who needs more than $10 million? Who needs more than $1 million? Who in the US can't live on $500,000?
> 
> I have a better idea. Why not just have everyone work for the government and it can give each subject. . .ah I mean citizen, $50,000 a year to live on.


Who needs more than a million?? Or ten million???? Your average mom n pop hardware store or most any automobile dealership. For a great number of folks its not just about earning a living.... its about accomplishing something with their lives. Far more than just earning a living for themselves but creating a base for future generations to build upon. This is not greed or evil.... it is normal healthy enthusiasm for LIFE! Those wishing to limit a persons income, or the amount of wealth anyone is allowed to accrue obviously have very limited understanding of the word legacy. The founders of this great country were farmers primarily... but they were men of vision who understood what building fortunes was all about. Most of them had already done so... in spite of outrageous taxes and regulations imposed upon them by the king. Most farmers today need somewhere between one and fifty million dollars worth of land and equipment to operate on. Your average grocery will be setting on a minimum of a million bucks worth of real estate and inventory on any given day. Limiting folks ability to own and hold property and assets is an absurd notion at best.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

I've read with some interest the information in this thread on the Anarcho Socialists in Spain and how great things were for them. When I tried to do a little research on this I quickly discovered that almost all the glowing favorable comments come from Anarchists. That sort of thing tends to make me suspicious, it's just like the glorious history of Communism in the Soviet Union which turned out not to be so glorious after all.

A little digging did turn up alternative points of view. Apparently these folks weren't Pol Pot but it wasn't all sweetness and light either.

http://jim.com/cat/terror.htm


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That sort of thing tends to make me suspicious,


Whenever I hear of large numbers of people acting in a way people generally do not behave, it makes me suspicious.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

_"It depends on your definition of having made it. Climbing the ladder to get what you want at the expense of others may factor in on Judgement Day..."
_
One of the fallacies that the left uses as a weapon, is that the rich get rich by taking wealth away from the poor.
Just the opposite it true. Most wealth was gained from a profit in the 5% range. 

*Do you think 5% is living at the expense of others in a bad way?*

The rich are just people controlling more commerce than others. With more resources they are able to produce product at a much lower cost. They lower their cost to make a profit. They make a profit by being competitive, in the market, with the best deal.

The "greedy desire" to make a profit saves you 50% of what it would cost if they had not driven the price down. 

*Would you pay twice as much to prevent the rich from earning 5% ?
*
It is not your fault the left has been working hard to poison the spirit of everyone with wealth envy. They know once you are divided, and angry, and stop thinking critically, it will be easier to fool you in to giving them control, control to make things fair of course.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I wish somebody more eloquent than me would come along and explain how there isn't just the one pie and the rich got a bigger piece of it, making the poor get less. That is a misconception. 

There will be more pies made, and everyone has a chance to get their slice of them, too. There isn't some finite amount of wealth in the world that gets passed around, like in a monopoly game. New wealth is created all the time in the real world.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> I wish somebody more eloquent than me would come along and explain how there isn't just the one pie and the rich got a bigger piece of it, making the poor get less. That is a misconception.
> 
> There will be more pies made, and everyone has a chance to get their slice of them, too. There isn't some finite amount of wealth in the world that gets passed around, like in a monopoly game. New wealth is created all the time in the real world.


Simple truth is as eloquent as it gets.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> I wish somebody more eloquent than me would come along and explain how there isn't just the one pie and the rich got a bigger piece of it, making the poor get less. That is a misconception.
> 
> There will be more pies made, and everyone has a chance to get their slice of them, too. There isn't some finite amount of wealth in the world that gets passed around, like in a monopoly game. New wealth is created all the time in the real world.


I tried to, post #269, previous page.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> I wish somebody more eloquent than me would come along and explain how there isn't just the one pie and the rich got a bigger piece of it, making the poor get less. That is a misconception.
> 
> There will be more pies made, and everyone has a chance to get their slice of them, too. There isn't some finite amount of wealth in the world that gets passed around, like in a monopoly game. New wealth is created all the time in the real world.


I doubt if I'm more eloquent, but here goes. 

"the rich getting richer" is just an excuse for a life situation created mostly by our own actions (or inaction) Mine inlcuded, in some cases so i'll never be envious of the wealthy.

We all have a choice whether to start our own business and make as much money as we want, or just sign up for a paycheck, from someone else (probably already wealthy) and simply hope they take care of us (they usually don't).

When the stock market crashed, most, not understanding economics, panicked and sold, while the "rich", who probably read the _wall street journal_, more often than_ sports illustrated, or _watching_ dancing with the stars,_ purchased up as much stock (at rock bottom prices) as they could get, verses buying up overpriced gold and gun ammunition.

Andrew Carnegie came from limited means. Bill Gates family was upper middle class. Sam Walton was a depression-era farmboy.

People are lamenting that the "usual" path to middle class - for the last 50 years - get a high paying easy job (working for someone else, of course), great benefits and lifetime job security, is likely gone for good.

We have to blame _somebody_. 

FWIW, the poor probably have better benefits today, than anytime in U.S. history.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And besides the rich Billionaires are not the same ones that were 20 years ago, not the same 10 years ago, not even the same as One Year ago.
Rich also lose out and go under the billionaire title and some others come on in. It is not the same ones all the time. Some do lose, while others gain. It is always a vicious circle to make it to the top and remain on top.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> And besides the rich Billionaires are not the same ones that were 20 years ago, not the same 10 years ago, not even the same as One Year ago.
> Rich also lose out and go under the billionaire title and some others come on in. It is not the same ones all the time. Some do lose, while others gain. It is always a vicious circle to make it to the top and remain on top.


I never had any delusions nor desire to be on top.... just so I was far enough up to be above the waves when they stirred the pot. :buds:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

When a person is worth so much, if things do not work out well you can Lose Big Also.
How about this.
Jeff Bezos Lost 2.8 BILLION in One Day~!
Yes that is correct the shares of Amazon fell so much, that He LOST that much in one day.
You see a lot of the Billionaires are worth that much ON PAPER. In this case, Stock Value is their worth.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> When a person is worth so much, if things do not work out well you can Lose Big Also.
> How about this.
> Jeff Bezos Lost 2.8 BILLION in One Day~!
> Yes that is correct the shares of Amazon fell so much, that He LOST that much in one day.
> You see a lot of the Billionaires are worth that much ON PAPER. In this case, Stock Value is their worth.


The whiners don't seem to care when the working successes go broke... in fact they seem to relish in the fact that someone who worked their way up and out of poverty goes broke again. I reckon misery does indeed love company.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Jeff suffered a huge loss of $2.8 Billion. But his fortune grew $13 Billion last year. If the average hard worker in this country earned $50,000, then Jeff simply worked two hundred sixty thousand times harder/smarter? Think he paid two hundred sixty thousand times as much taxes as the average hard worker?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Jeff suffered a huge loss of $2.8 Billion. But his fortune grew $13 Billion last year. If the average hard worker in this country earned $50,000, then Jeff simply worked two hundred sixty thousand times harder/smarter? Think he paid two hundred sixty thousand times as much taxes as the average hard worker?


Taxes are collected on income not net worth.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Jeff suffered a huge loss of $2.8 Billion. But his fortune grew $13 Billion last year. If the average hard worker in this country earned $50,000, then Jeff simply worked two hundred sixty thousand times harder/smarter? Think he paid two hundred sixty thousand times as much taxes as the average hard worker?


If he died, he sure would! The guy with $50k is exempt from the death tax. I think the rate is 50%, so *poof* Jeff's $13billion becomes Unkle Sam's $6.5billion.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Jeff suffered a huge loss of $2.8 Billion. But his fortune grew $13 Billion last year. If the average hard worker in this country earned $50,000, then Jeff simply worked two hundred sixty thousand times harder/smarter? Think he paid two hundred sixty thousand times as much taxes as the average hard worker?


 I just read that by 2039 the world could have its Trillionaire~!
Right here in the USA

And it is thought to be Bill Gates. And just look how much he donates through The Bill Gates Foundation.
*
World's first trillionaire just a matter of time*


> The world&#8217;s first trillionaire could emerge within just 25 years, financial forecasters have claimed.
> Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder and world's richest person, is expected by many to be the first to reach trillionaire status.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...ter-of-time-20140506-37tjo.html#ixzz314JB1Mgt


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Jeff suffered a huge loss of $2.8 Billion. But his fortune grew $13 Billion last year. If the average hard worker in this country earned $50,000, then Jeff simply worked two hundred sixty thousand times harder/smarter? Think he paid two hundred sixty thousand times as much taxes as the average hard worker?


He risked a huge percentage of his personal net worth that Amazon would double in value and he won the bet. You had the same opportunity but did you take the risk? Why not? 

It is far easier to sit back and whine about the winners than to take a risk to be one. 

Over the last 5 years, Blackberry stock owners have lost 90% of their stock value. Sometimes you bet and lose. Jeff B could suffer those same loses if someone else comes out with a better idea.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You bet he could Billionaires come and go every year but you never here about those that have lost it all, or nearly all. You just hear about the very rich from those whine and cry about those that have finally made it in America, forgetting that ANY of those rich people could go broke the next day.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Jeff suffered a huge loss of $2.8 Billion. But his fortune grew $13 Billion last year. If the average hard worker in this country earned $50,000, then Jeff simply worked two hundred sixty thousand times harder/smarter? Think he paid two hundred sixty thousand times as much taxes as the average hard worker?


I am quite sure he paid at least 260k times as much income taxes as the average wage slave...... concidering the bottom half pay ZERO income tax and many actually get paid just for filing!


----------

