3.5 Million Homeless - Uncontrolled Capitalism at its Finest

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

No more so than yours.

Why don't you just go all in on fascism? Or socialism?

Because those systems have proven to fail.

WE HAVE NEVER TRIED WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED.

The closest was before Regan when local business were recruiting from the HIGH SCHOOL ROP programs.

Almost no one hires a 16 year old anymore, but when I was 16 I had many CHOICES where I could work.

a reply to: 727Sky

Min wage increases will do nothing. As wages go up retails go up to consume the extra income.

Because the ones at the top have no cap on their income they will keep raising prices until your wage increases end up having a negative impact.

This has been proven, time and time again.

"Modern" Governments (the U.S. in particular) have been fighting poverty and homelessness since the 1930s.

How come all the problems are not solved yet and seem to be worse?

Maybe because they caused the problems to begin with and think adding more restrictions will solve the problems they created.

Hmmm.

Can somebody get to the actual real numbers that all this wage cap & higher taxes supposedly will solve homelessness?

How much extra money will all these regulations bring in?

a reply to: ketsuko

Because 1% makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

But 3.5 million leaves one with a bitter taste.

Unless you think 3.5 million homeless is ok.

And to your point about 20 million jobs, that number had nothing to do with the homeless number.

We have 20 million who want jobs who are either actively looking, or the 4 million who have just given up, because their are simply not enough jobs.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

No more so than yours.

Why don't you just go all in on fascism? Or socialism?

Because those systems have proven to fail.

WE HAVE NEVER TRIED WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED.

The closest was before Regan when local business were recruiting from the HIGH SCHOOL ROP programs.

Almost no one hires a 16 year old anymore, but when I was 16 I had many CHOICES where I could work.

What you describe is a form of command economy. It's fascism in that the government allows the business to own the property, but more or less tells it how to be run.

If fascism was a failed system before, what makes you think it will work better now?

I will say this: I do not come here trying to defend the wealthy. That happens by default. I genuinely could care less if they are wealthy. Whatever, it's their money.

However, this idea that it's somehow wrong for a business to be started and become prosperous is crazy. Why else would someone start a business if not to be successful and prosperous? To make a profit which means to make money and maybe lots of it. If you stop someone from having that potential ... then what incentive is there to start a business?

a reply to: xuenchen

You don't have to agree, but what is your better idea, since you don't like mine?

We have NEVER had a wage cap and flat tax.

This would actually make the government smaller, because it would be simple and have no loopholes.

a reply to: Isurrender73

1% gives you an accurate description of the size of the population of homeless. It's no less flattering than comparing 3.5 million directly to 350 million which also paints a clear picture.

As for the jobs for those of us (yes, I'd like to not be stuck in part-time hell) who would like a better one, you can't force a company to create one if they don't want to. If you try, they will find ways around it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Your 'right', as usual...

Now add in the citizenry willnever put up with wage controls without corresponding price controls....LMAO.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Show me all the numbers and analytics.

And show how this will be enforced.

Don't derail your own topic with opposite questions and references.

If you believe this would work, show everybody HOW.

I say big government is a failure on all counts.

So don't ask anybody to cite another form of government.

All governments in history have failed economically and socially.

a reply to: ketsuko

How is regulating the income of 2% of the economy fascist.

I am in no way telling them how to run their business. I am not telling anyone what they can and cannot sell. Nor am I regulating the number of employees.

I am allowing suply and demand to set prices.

You are turning a wage cap that only negatively effects those whose insane greed is exploiting society into something it is not.

This is far from Fascist or Communism.

The system that I am asking for allows for one man to make nearly 20 times as much as the lowest wage earners.

No one is 20 times more important than the employees that work below them.

I was 4 positions from the top at my last job, and the ones pushing products were working harder then the ones at the top. And they are no where near as intelligent as you might think.

Several of the higher ups got their jobs doing things that I believe were federal violations.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Isurrender73

All governments in history have failed economically and socially.

Which is why we need to try something NEW and SUSTAINABLE.

Thank you for proving my point that we must try something NEW.

I could provide extensive spreadsheets, which would be needed, but I have no reason to unless somehow the world is actually listening to me.

The day you see me in front of the world, I will make sure to include the numbers in the debate.

a reply to: xuenchen

Bravo!!!!!!! we all know the answer by the government when it comes to tackle the unemployment and poverty issue, to give amnesty to millions of illegals because is plenty of jobs to go around, plus the free ride on the Medicaid and welfare merry go around.

I guess is plenty of parks and bridges for homeless Americans to live on, we can afford to add some more.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Somehow you fixate on controlling corporations and yet, think supply and demand can function in that scenario?

If you control wages, you need to control prices as well. It won't work otherwise....What am I saying??...it won't work period.

Light, selective control can work, such as import tariffs, at least to create jobs. Wage controls...an arbitrary, loses jobs, removes funds from savings and investment institutions which, in turn stifles new investment, loans for purchases such as houses and cars drop.

An unmitigated disaster. All because of some sort of hate or jealousy for the rich?

Let it go, my man, let it go.

originally posted by: ketsuko

However, this idea that it's somehow wrong for a business to be started and become prosperous is crazy. Why else would someone start a business if not to be successful and prosperous? To make a profit which means to make money and maybe lots of it. If you stop someone from having that potential ... then what incentive is there to start a business?

You don't think $250,000 a year is enough Incintive to open a small business?

The reality is almost all small business owners make much less than $250,000 and would be ecstatic if they were ever to earn that much.

You don't know enough about the small business model to debate small business with me.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Yes, you are. You are looking at the total profit of a business and setting a wealth cap on it. By setting a limit on gross profit, you control everything that a business has to do with it which is much more than just pay out to the CEO with his Snidely Whiplash mustache or the poor benighted floor workers. It covers everything else a business has to pay money for which ends up looking a lot like what you have to pay out to run your household in a lot of ways plus some.

But by capping that amount, you are limiting that available pool of money for every expenditure a business needs to cover, not just evil CEO wages.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: ketsuko

However, this idea that it's somehow wrong for a business to be started and become prosperous is crazy. Why else would someone start a business if not to be successful and prosperous? To make a profit which means to make money and maybe lots of it. If you stop someone from having that potential ... then what incentive is there to start a business?

You don't think $250,000 a year is enough Incintive to open a small business?

The reality is almost all small business owners make much less than $250,000 and would be ecstatic if they were ever to earn that much.

You don't know enough about the small business model to debate small business with me.

Tell me ... does a small business owner open his or her business with the aspiration to only and ever stay small or do they all hope they will somehow make it big?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Isurrender73

If you control wages, you need to control prices as well. It won't work otherwise....What am I saying??...it won't work period.

Limiting wages to WHAT 98% already make will not require price controls. You are simply wrong.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Which is why we need to try something NEW and SUSTAINABLE.

Thank you for proving my point that we must try something NEW.

I could provide extensive spreadsheets, which would be needed, but I have no reason to unless somehow the world is actually listening to me.

The day you see me in front of the world, I will make sure to include the numbers in the debate.

Please post a little at a time.

I WILL listen.

If I listen, many others will too !!

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't care about greed. I prefer the policies set forth in the Sherman Act, that intentionally kept business small.

More competition is better for society. More competition creates more aggressive pricing.

The current model is CONTROLLED SUPPLY AND DEMAND, and CORPORATE CONTROLLED PRICING.

Trust me retail prices are pretty much fixed by the large corporations. Small business owners have very little say what retail price they can sell products such as Pepsi and Coke for.

The contracts with Pepsi and Coke ensue the retailer set a specific price, if they go above that price they loose discounts that make it impossible. So they simply let the large cooperations set your prices if they want to even be in businessess.

I am well educated in business, and how your final street price is determined. And it is not decided by the small business owner for the most part.

Smaller business will create a true supply and demand system, which was the entire purpose of the Sherman Act.

I don't care if someone wants to make over $250,000, nor do I imagine I will ever care. And I don't think that 98% of us should imagine we will ever be impacted by a wage cap of $250,000.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Which is why we need to try something NEW and SUSTAINABLE.

Thank you for proving my point that we must try something NEW.

I could provide extensive spreadsheets, which would be needed, but I have no reason to unless somehow the world is actually listening to me.

The day you see me in front of the world, I will make sure to include the numbers in the debate.

Please post a little at a time.

I WILL listen.

If I listen, many others will too !!

It would take me months. Sorry I don't have that kind of time to explore my whims. And it is possible I would need numbers that are not available to the general public.