A Question For Supporters of Uncontrolled Free Markets

I agree, but the great ideas we need are in the areas of green energy and environmental management.

Unfortunately there isn't enough money to made in humanity for these things to progress.

To think we need to tax carbon to make solar cheaper than carbon as the only way to transition to solar shows how sad the world we live in has become.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I asked 3 questions, is anyone going to actually try to answer them?

1. Who deserves to make the most money?

2. Do you still believe Uncontrolled Free Markets are the way to advance in the technological age? Why?

3. And what benefit does uncontrolled wage and wealth disparity have for mankind?

originally posted by: yeahright
So where is this magic land of uncontrolled free markets? Surely, one wouldn't suggest the corporatocracy in place currently in the USA is an example?

You are correct we don't exactly have a true Freemarket.

But an Uncontrolled Freemarket will always end in a Corporatocracy. Someone will always end up on top and assume control of all power structures.

This is the way I think Our Economy works now.

Investors invest in what will be there biggest return, if their goals are not met they take their money elsewhere. The Corporation knows this and to satisfy Investors must either, cut employee pay, or employees, cut the quality of the product, cut Benefits and other perks. Even a highly profitable Business can be run into the ground this way. Mitt called it Harvesting. It is no matter the Company goes down, there is a new one that will start up and be drained like the last, workers will never have better Salaries because it doesn't fit into the "Competitive" Game to give all the money to the Investors, Quality of Life Suffers, fewer people have money to buy the goods and more Companies buckle.

At least how it looks from where I sit.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I realize you don't care. But this is not about class warfare it is about humanity, and the right for the 17 million jobless who are actively seeking to be employed, have access to housing and a living wage that does not include welfare.

Not caring does not fix the problem. Not caring is the problem.

So what is your proposal? How do you get 17,000,000 people employed and what did any of it do with your erroneous statement regarding businessmen mentioned in your Original Post?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
But an Uncontrolled Freemarket will always end in a Corporatocracy. Someone will always end up on top and assume control of all power structures.

Show me where this occurred.

originally posted by: ugmold
This is the way I think Our Economy works now.

Investors invest in what will be there biggest return, if their goals are not met they take their money elsewhere. The Corporation knows this and to satisfy Investors must either, cut employee pay, or employees, cut the quality of the product, cut Benefits and other perks. Even a highly profitable Business can be run into the ground this way. Mitt called it Harvesting. It is no matter the Company goes down, there is a new one that will start up and be drained like the last, workers will never have better Salaries because it doesn't fit into the "Competitive" Game to give all the money to the Investors, Quality of Life Suffers, fewer people have money to buy the goods and more Companies buckle.

At least how it looks from where I sit.

I watched BP buy 3 American companies, merge them into 1, while outsourcing to India most of the call centres and accounting jobs because of the cheaper labor.

They turned 3 companies of thousands of middle class American Jobs into 1 company with a few hundred middle class American Jobs.

Then posted a quarterly profit of 42 billion. All for the almighty shareholders. Screw the middle class, we have to make the shareholders who do nothing but let money make money, become even wealthier.

originally posted by: johnwick
a reply to: Isurrender73


Just make it so one has to spend at least 75 percent of their money every year, anything over 25 percent gets seized ,and used to pay for welfare.

That alone would fix it immediately.

Because hoarding money restricts the economy.

It only works correctly when money is changing hands.

I agree but what is someone worth 10 billion supposed to spend 7.5 billion dollars on?

Except buying smaller companies and eliminating competition, which only ensures them even greater future profits?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Isurrender73

I asked 3 questions, is anyone going to actually try to answer them?

1. Who deserves to make the most money?

2. Do you still believe Uncontrolled Free Markets are the way to advance in the technological age? Why?

3. And what benefit does uncontrolled wage and wealth disparity have for mankind?

1. Whoever can get it without breaking the law.

2. We do not have an uncontrolled free market, we have thousands of pages of regulations for businesses to comply with. That I believe stifles advancements.

3. Are you referring to "mankind" as a whole or just Americans? Cuz Americans in poverty live better than most people around the world.

I was speaking about humanity as a whole.

Uncontrolled wealth allows one to buy the law. I know we don't have completely uncontrolled capitalism, the corporations and banks have done everything they can to create power for themselves.

How do you prevent a Corporatocracy with uncontrolled wealth?

Can't you look in the future and see that someone will always end up on top with uncontrolled wealth?

A true Freemarket would also eliminate a minimum wage. Which is why so many jobs have gone overseas.

Maybe 100 years, Maybe 1000 years. But eventually there will only be one corporation standing if everything is uncontrolled.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Isurrender73
But an Uncontrolled Freemarket will always end in a Corporatocracy. Someone will always end up on top and assume control of all power structures.

Show me where this occurred.

It has never occurred, because up until recently most nations have had military dictatorships, or ruling through heritage, Kings and Queens.

America is the closest and we are failing miserably. We are rapidly declining into a welfare state with 18 trillion in debt.

How is giving the banks and corporations even more freedom going to make it better for the middle and lower class American?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
It has never occurred...

So it never occurred yet somehow you feel you can legitimately make the claim that what you said is accurate.

How is giving the banks and corporations even more freedom going to make it better for the middle and lower class American?

We are so overburdened with regulations that the small business owner, the true engine of the economy, has to jump through flaming hoops to be successful.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Edumakated

And why should someone who is a specialist, just because it is scarce, not have a wealth cap?

Why should a boxer make 250,000 million when the boxing trainers at the local gym makes 50K?

Why should the Entertainer make millions while the high school educators of Music and the Arts make thousands.

Why not tax the entertainment industry and reinvest that money in our children? So that all children have access to sports and the various arts.

1) why should anyone have a wealth cap? Who are you to tell someone they've made too much money? What you fail to realize is that when someone has made say $1 billion, they have created many times more than that in value. Do you really think their wealth just materialized out of thin air? Take for example some hedge fund billionaire. They make their money by beating the broader market. If you are an investor and putting your money in say an index fund could net you say 10% or putting it with a rockstar hedge fund manager nets you 30%, why wouldn't you put your money with the hedge fund manager? If this hedge fund manager raises $10 billion for his hedge fund from investors and his contract calls for him to get 20% of profits generated and he generates say $3 billion in profit, who cares that he made $600 million? The investors in the fund think it is good deal. What business of yours is it?

2) People pay to see the boxer, not the trainers at the local gym. Again, Floyd Mayweather making $250 million is just a pittance relative to the entire amount of revenue he generated. This is why movie stars and entertainers can make a lot of money. If I am a movie producer, I can hire Will Smith for $20 million and hopefully make $100 million or I can hire someone you've never heard of and may not make anything.

Most educators and artists are not revenue generators. But to even prove your ignorance, there are artist and educators who do make a lot of money when they embrace free market ideals. Why do you think a Van Gogh or other great artist can sell for $100 million? Scarcity! Some university professors can make several hundred thousand if not more per year. I had professors in business school who made $1 million or more because they were leaders in their field and in high demand, so the school had to pay them high salaries to keep them on staff because their presence was considered a selling point over competing schools.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

By creating a wealth and wage cap.

With a wealth and wage cap billionaires will do one or more of the following.

1. They will buy stuff
2. The will hire more people
3. They will invest in new businesses
4. They will pay current employees more
5. They will loose the money to taxes which can fund programs like the one's FDR created to employ people in the environmental segments, which are much needed.

All 5 things that they can do with their money would create more jobs. Even paying their employees better will lead to more spending and job creation.

We also need to eliminate the ability to hide money overseas for this to work correctly.

FDR believed it is the governments responsibility to fill the gaps left by the private sector. Something I fully agree with. A job should be available for anyone willing to work hard. Not just show up and stand around, but actually willing to work.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

We also need to eliminate the ability to hide money overseas for this to work correctly.

You need to start there. Who knows, once that's done, the rest could be irrelevant.

a reply to: Edumakated

I realize there are many among the self-entitled crowd. I call it greed at the expense of humanity.

I prefer to see humanity evolve, I have had enough of the evolving Ego.

Just because someone is born with a higher aptitude at something does not make them more important than the rest of the society they rely on.

Is Floyd Mayweather, the business owner, the banker, or the hedge fund manager going to provide his own school for his children, his own police force, build his own roads, create his own infrastructure to broadcast his fights?

Unless one can do all of these things, one needs humanity much more than humanity needs the one individual.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

We are so overburdened with regulations that the small business owner, the true engine of the economy, has to jump through flaming hoops to be successful.

If we end all regulations who will stop the billionaire from undercutting small businesses until the small business owner is forced out of business?

The billionaire simply needs to increase prices once his competition is bankrupt to recover the money lost when he put the small business out of business.

How do you stop this from happening?

Eventually the large corporations will control both supply and price. They will decide what you buy and how much of your paycheck it costs.

How do you prevent this without regulations?

a reply to: Isurrender73

You make it sound like all these 'billionaires' are the ones running the company and making billion dollar salaries, they are typically investors. Do you now propose to confiscate their shares in the particular companies or mutual funds they own?

a reply to: Isurrender73

First off, no one said they are more "important". I personally don't care how wealthy someone may or may not be. I also don't care if someone is poor. I treat everyone the same. However, this does not change the reality that some people's skills / jobs are worth more or less than others. Flight attendants don't make the same as Pilots just like nurses don't make the same as Doctors. Both flight attendants and nurses are important, but only a fool thinks their jobs are worth the same amount of money.

Rich people pay a ton of taxes that pay for all that stuff you mentioned. And please don't bring out that tripe about rich people paying lower rates, etc. The rich pay the vast majority of taxes in the US. Many of these people also voluntarily fund a lot of good causes. Many of the hospitals, museums, arts, culture, parks, universities, etc where entirely funded by rich people.

Being envious of people who have more money than you is just as big of a sin as greed. Just because these may not spend their money how you might spend it, is no reason to bash them.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
If we end all regulations who will stop the billionaire from undercutting small businesses until the small business owner is forced out of business?

Pure speculation again on your part.

Even at the height of the Standard Oil trust they were losing market share to competitors prior to the government break up.

Eventually the large corporations will control both supply and price. They will decide what you buy and how much of your paycheck it costs.

How do you prevent this without regulations?

All of your policy decision are based on fear, none of what you said has ever transpired.