3.5 Million Homeless - Uncontrolled Capitalism at its Finest

a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly, and that would be solved by a wage and wealth cap, no loopholes needed.

Flat tax and corporate spending accounts limited to a percentage of their gross sales. They will either pay more workers or forfeit profits to taxes.

Either way more taxes are generated for the Federal Government to implement needed environmental programs.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The treaties are major authoritarianism.

So is the Federal Reserve and the taxation set in the 16th Amendment. Both put into law in 1913.

All big government laws and policies are authoritarian.

"Capitalism" would be happier with full employment and zero homeless.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Won't work.

Authoritarian government policies have not worked anywhere have they.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Isurrender73

But deregulation of banking...

Banking deregulation was the result of a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. What does that tell you?

Our leaders have been bought through campaign contributions. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, if you can't beat them join them.

Something like that.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly, and that would be solved by a wage and wealth cap, no loopholes needed.

Flat tax and corporate spending accounts limited to a percentage of their gross sales. They will either pay more workers or forfeit profits to taxes.

Either way more taxes are generated for the Federal Government to implement needed environmental programs.

If the issue is revenues to the government via tax ... why the need to cap wages? After all, those same wages also get taxed, especially if you create a flat tax.

You can't force a business to hire. They do not exist to be jobs programs.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Big governments have created treaties and agreements like NAFTA and GATT.

NAFTA has cost American jobs.

Perhaps GATT also.

WTO came to be in 1995.

I protested against NAFTA and GATT back when they were being considered. And yes, you are correct in that government created these agreements and yes, they have cost American jobs. And WTO? I was in Seattle to bring its unjust ramifications to the American public.

But here is the thing XUE,,, why did government do all of this. Because it was then as now controlled by big money.
By the capitalists who run the big corps and want more freedom to run the world in their own image.

All those international agreements you cite were brought about by capitalists to improve their own lot by getting the government of the people to leave them alone.

Government is the tool. TOOL. It should be our government. but mostly it is not. Mostly it belongs to the capitalist.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Isurrender73

Won't work.

Authoritarian government policies have not worked anywhere have they.

It has NEVER been tried, so to say it won't work, you will have to give detailed reasons why.

And the economy was far BETTER off before Regan, when things were MUCH MORE CONTROLLED.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I said they exist to control capitalism. In and of itself that isn't always bad. However, today they have allowed the existence of crony capitalism which IS bad because it creates the issues outlined above, and the popular perception is that THIS is "uncontrolled" capitalism.

Are you claiming that we have completely unfettered markets and business?

These regulations exist to "control capitalism" ... but not to protect the public from unsafe/unfair practices?

All regulations create "crony capitalism"?

Nope, I am NOT claiming that have completely unfettered markets and business.

I am asking you about your claims and their logical implications in light of this topic.

The United States has (and HAS ALWAYS HAD) a "mixed economy" as does every other successful Western economy.

Government regulations work to protect the People against the unscrupulous, the unprincipled and the unethical.

Are you saying that your version of capitalism would allow the unscrupulous, the unprincipled and the unethical?

Is that the only kind of "unbridled" capitalism you can imagine?

The point of the original post was to note a connection between rampant corporate greed placing profit above ALL ELSE and the homeless rate in this country.

Your response was to refute any such connection because ... regulations.

Any reasonable discussion is a lot more complicated, in my opinion.

a reply to: Isurrender73

so the alternative is what? Communism? Looks great on paper... Fails in reality...

Capitalism, is capitalism, we live in a free society, socialism does not work, and in the places it gets by, the population and diversity is not on the same scale as it is in the United States.

Last I checked and do not take this to heart, but their seems to be plenty of work in construction, I see more Latin migrants on roofs building roofs on new homes in the United states... The problem is, PEOPLE do not want to WORK...

IT IS NOT what the government can do for you.... Its what you can do for yourself...

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

But that is NOT capitalism. What you believe we have is corporatocracy. It's not free market. If it was, the little guys wouldn't be squashed by the government regulatory system anytime they crop up and look like they might compete.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Seeing all that money generated Post Reagan deregulations, then how, pray tell did the revenues to the federal gov't soar, I can't recall the percentile, but it was massive, If the big guys didn't pay that increase, as you assert, then it must have been the 'little guy'...

If it was the little guy, then that Democrat spin "trickle down economics" actually occurred....

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

The treaties are major authoritarianism.

So is the Federal Reserve and the taxation set in the 16th Amendment. Both put into law in 1913.

All big government laws and policies are authoritarian.

"Capitalism" would be happier with full employment and zero homeless.

So ... your examples are "major" authoritarianism, but not 100%?

I'm asking you to consider that your absolute statements don't really reflect reality.

The Federal Reserve (which I am no fan of) doesn't force people to put their money into banks.

You're claiming that any government law or policy is authoritarian???

So the only truly "free" economy would be something like what ... Somalia?

Are you presenting Somalia as the poster-child for capitalism???

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are making a discussion up and more or less having it with yourself at this point. All these things you say I said are more or less inventions and assumptions/extrapolations.

But please continue to argue with yourself.

a reply to: Isurrender73

To me it means that if you rely on the government you are a cretin because they government could not give two s***s about you. Both parties are the same side of a worthless coin and are available to the highest bidder.

a reply to: ketsuko

What is the problem with a $250,000 wage cap? Unless you are making over $250,000 I have no idea what your point is.

No one needs to make more than $250,000 per year. Only 2% do, and the rest of us have almost no chance of joining that 2%.

Anything over $250,000 per year is the exploitation of society.

You know society, that thing that generates wealth, since you can't make $250,000 and become asininely wealthy in a world of 1.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are making a discussion up and more or less having it with yourself at this point. All these things you say I said are more or less inventions and assumptions/extrapolations.

But please continue to argue with yourself.

I'm quoting your comments back to you. If they make no sense, is that my fault?

Okay.

EDIT: You can't explain the logical repercussions of your comments, or even justify your comments. Good enough.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Isurrender73

To me it means that if you rely on the government you are a cretin because they government could not give two s***s about you. Both parties are the same side of a worthless coin and are available to the highest bidder.

That is why our founding fathers envisioned a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Only our government has been hijacked by the insanely wealthy exploiters of society.

a reply to: Bicent76

We have a mixed economy in the United States, including fairly free capitalism, limited socialism, in a system that tries to strike a balance between the two possibilities.

Some economies are more socialistic than ours but not total socialist systems. The Soviet Union was not purely socialist.

However, what OP is pointing to is an unbalancing of the capitalism side of the mixture in the last 20 years or so.

Are you saying you can't see any of that trend in the actions and reactions of Big Business?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

What is the problem with a $250,000 wage cap? Unless you are making over $250,000 I have no idea what your point is.

No one needs to make more than $250,000 per year. Only 2% do, and the rest of us have almost no chance of joining that 2%.

Anything over $250,000 per year is the exploitation of society.

You know society, that thing that generates wealth, since you can't make $250,000 and become asininely wealthy in a world of 1.

A wage cap?

Hell NO!!!

This thread, is just getting more and more stupid... Some of these replies are are getting funny in a sad way... I do not think the ancient Greeks meant for "cracy" to be added to root words that were derived from hippies in a smokey room.. LOL

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Only our government has been hijacked by the insanely wealthy exploiters of society.

There are plenty of average people who are part of SuperPacs and special interest groups that bend over our elected representatives daily to the detriment of us all.