Controlled Capitalism - A maximum wage

Why we need a maximum wage.

Before trickle down economics starting trickling down B.S. on the heads of the American worker, America was the most efficient machine the world had ever seen.

When I was 16 fast food companies were begging kids to work in my city through ROP programs. There were plenty of low income jobs and room for advancement.

Then a wonderful man but horrible president, Ronald Regan, convinced a nation to give more money to the wealthy with the promise of prosperity for the Middle class.

What was once a thriving market of small businesses completing for your dollars, became a few oil companies and a handful of bankers owning nearly 50% of the world.

What was once a thriving supply and demand marketplace has become a controlled supply, maximum profit machine. The corporations controll the supply of basic commodities to maximize profit without any concern for those who do without.

This is the problem with uncontrolled capitalism. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or makes, his corporation always has to make more money this year than it did last year.

For an established business there are only a limited number of ways to make more money.

The easiest and most effective ways to grow profits are to raise prices or cut labor. If a man has no limit set on how much he can make, he will continue to feel the need to increase profits indefinitely.

The world doesn't need billionaires with enough money to buy governments. This is absurd.

We need to return to the controlled capitalist system we had in place before Regan. And make the following changes; implement a maximum wage, eliminate the FED, eliminate all private banking, eliminate the IRS and move to a flat tax.

The wealthy didn't care about us in the 80's and they still don't give a crap about the people.

If we had a maximum wage and maximum amount of monetary wealth this could never happen.

We don't need billionaires!

a reply to: Isurrender73

Maximum ratio.

It sucks that we have to do this now because people are abusing the system so much now we have to take away their power.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Isurrender73

Maximum ratio.

It sucks that we have to do this now because people are abusing the system so much now we have to take away their power.

Yes,

Personally I am for 10X minimum wage, with a wealth cap between 10 and 20 million. And corporate accounts that reflect a percentage of the companies Gross Profits.

Even the most motivated person can't be worth more than 10 people who need to be motivated.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The monopolists had been waiting and working quietly behind the scenes for the right face to appear, a face familiar to the American public, a face it would trust. Reagan, as a familiar hollywood star and a backlash governor in California was trusted as a spokesman for a soap company that presented a weekly 'cowboy' show. He was promoted as a down home kinda guy, a guy who could be trusted.

Of course no one knew at that time that his wife was heavy into tarot cards or some such stuff and that he by his second term was well into Alzheimer. Never mattered. All he did was parrot his monopolists handlers.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I've never seen such pure bunk in a thread in all my life.

Pre Ronald Reagan was zero different than post Ronald Reagan as far as economics is concerned.

There was however, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment with those stuck on a fixed income, pensioners, etc. suffering the worst.. Thank you, Nixon, Carter and the rest of the incompetents prior to Reagan.

Trickle down economics is nothing more than a political catch phrase invented by the left-as was "Reagan will start WWIII'- just garbage.

There has been zero change in our economic system- capitalism- since the start of this nation.

He did lower the base income tax rate, citing JFK's reduction and resulting surge in economic growth, however, which gave us the largest period of prosperity in recent memory.

If one wants to buy into the overpaid, extravagant CEOs that Obama pushed in the early days of his first term, just look at how many vacations, trips and indugences he's allotted himself ever since...

My contempt.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Sarcasm

I suppose we didn't, lower cooperate taxes, deregulate the banks or sign trade agreements that destroyed our economy either? - End Sarcasm

In my previous life I was an executive business consultant in the retail oil industry. I watched it all first hand.

I was there, it happened just like I said. No bunk needed.

There are so many "skilled professions" that literally are only skilled because they come with a shiny degree. A kid I work with is going to college for "hotel management". That is a freaking degree now apparently.

The biggest issue with business owners is the failure to realize that without labor they could not be in business. That is also always their biggest complaint, while usually hiring illegal labor at slave wages (at least in the US) and easily keeping minimum wage low through politics. Democrats want the votes, Republicans want the cheap labor. Neither has ANY plan ANYTIME soon to handle the illegal immigration issue.

The suckers that go through the education system, well plan on looking for a job in your field that pays well for 5-10 years. the whole time you are not making the wage your "degree" qualifies you for, you are extending your debt, and increasing it. Congrats!

Oh and before anyone chimes in with a "free market" speech. The free market is corrupt. It is wrong. It has allowed people to become more powerful than countries. The free market was intended to make life easy for you, not miserable for others.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I hate to agree with you because I love Ronald Regan as a man. He was a beautiful man, but I think he was manipulated like you say.

Wouldn't quit opening your wallet, and quit giving them money, be a more viable solution than getting the state involved?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Wouldn't quit opening your wallet, and quit giving them money, be a more viable solution than getting the state involved?

No, that wouldn't do anything. They own a significant portion of the FOOD supply!

Uncontrolled wealth has made us slaves to those who took advantage of it.

I am not asking anything of the state. I am asking the people to do what is best for 99% of the world's population.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No because a business can go to the state for funding. They can blame it on excessive labor while they themselves do not work a single day. Oh the joys of having money...

a reply to: Isurrender73

No, that wouldn't do anything. They own a significant portion of the food supply! Uncontrolled wealth has made us slaves to those who took advantage of it. I am not asking anything of the state. I am asking the people to do what is best for 99% of the world's population.

Because you see yourself as a slave does not make you a slave. No one is ordering you to open your wallet, take out your money, and give it to them. If you want money, you have to go make it, not take it from others.

a reply to: Vector99

You're not self-employed, I wager.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Vector99

Apparently you are ok with homelessness and poverty, as long as you can live the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

I am not taking anything from anyone. I am returning to the people what belongs to them.

You cannot become rich without a society. You cannot become a billionaire without exploiting it.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Non-sequitur and ad hominem. I'll forget about your statement of how I regard the homeless as useless.

What is it that belongs to them?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They deserve to be a part of society. And the minimum wage earners are due their share of the corporate profits.

Arguing in favor of the type of income inequity we have currently means you are either part of the 1% or have no idea what you are talking about.

It's not possible to leave the system the way it is and still provide food and shelter for everyone, everywhere on the planet we share.

This is why I wonder if you care about the homeless?

Why is that only the wealthy are existentialist? It justifies inequity.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hehe, you wager correct and incorrect, I'm both.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Again, ad hominem, and poor logic. I'm trying to remember where I said I am in favor of income inequality. Of course, I didn't, and you're making stuff up.

No one is ordering anyone to give these guys money, or to work for them, but you want to order them to give you their money, and work for you.

a reply to: Vector99

Do you sit around all day smoking Cubans and collecting cash?