How to end homelessness/corporate greed in america while simultaniously making the dollar bill far m

EDIT: in hindsight this belongs in the BTS forum, as its not a consipracy theory.

Before I continue, if the administrators would not mind, I would like this topic moved to RATS, I do not need access to the forum or any of the topics posted in it, just this one so I can see the responses. the reason for me wanting this to be put on RATS is because of the nature of this subject, what I am telling you will work (albiet it needs to be implimented on a global scale simultaniously) so without further ado here goes:



Basically, my idea is that everything has to be sold at cost. the cost is calculated as the actual cost of buying the materials+labor+advertising+R&D+any other expenses that might occur (including projected growth for the year + or minus 10 %) plus 5% for un-forseen expenses that might arise. any profit goes twards a "rainy day fund" as described above. companies are forced to give a detailed monthly statement to the government (via a representative in every company) of the costs associated with the product, additionaly to prevent fraud each detailed statement is indipendently verified by the government via other companies and a series of dummy companies. CEO's can't be paid more than 3 times what the lowest paid member of the companies work force is paid. (also verified via the detailed cost analasys) It can be implimented wordwide gradually however the profit margin of every foreign corporation will be repeated back to them via the same percentage markup that they give to us. To prevent Bribing of the representative officals/government each report is verified by other officals as well.

So, as a result, the dollar bill will climb because every dollar is worth more product. there will be less homeless people (if any) beacuse everything is cheaper. people will be happy yay us.

Comments/Questions are welcomed.

(PS, please do not plagerize this I would not like that at all

[edit on 28-12-2006 by fnord]

I just have one comment to make: Communism never worked before, so it won't solve our problems. Case closed.

Do me a favor, READ MY POST before you make such a silly comment.

Originally posted by fnord

Basically, my idea is that everything has to be sold at cost.

Well, take me as an example. Late every summer, the kids and I take a pickup-load of water melons to the farmer's market. They are allowed to keep half the profits, and use the money as they see fit. If we have to sell at cost, then I'm basically FINISHED growing melons for other people.

Why ON EARTH would I work hard hoeing and turning melons all Summer, if I have to sell them at cost. The seed packets cost like, four bucks. I'm not ABOUT to sell a pickup full of melons for four bucks!

the cost is calculated as the actual cost of buying the materials+labor+advertising+R&D+any other expenses that might occur (including projected growth for the year + or minus 10 %) plus 5% for un-forseen expenses that might arise.

There are enough "fudge factors in your formula so as to be meaningless. For instance, "labor" I think I should pay my kids a nickel an hour. No, wait; If I can justify a high market price, I've just decided that they are all executives, and are worth $25 an hour. So, ANY price for my melons is now justified, merely by fiddling with the numbers I turn in each year . . .

any profit goes twards a "rainy day fund" as described above. companies are forced to give a detailed monthly statement to the government (via a representative in every company) of the costs associated with the product, additionaly to prevent fraud each detailed statement is indipendently verified by the government via other companies and a series of dummy companies.

So, you've got at least 4 bureacrats "overseeing" my company now, and all we do is raise a bunch of melons! And is there an appeals process? Or are the decisions of your bureacrats final? One of my kids wants a job as your bureaucrat in charge of oversight for my company. He wont cheat for me, honest.

CEO's can't be paid more than 3 times what the lowest paid member of the companies work force is paid. (also verified via the detailed cost analasys)

Fine, I'll just FIRE most of the employees, and have a small company that MAKES LESS PROFIT for you to tax, and less paperwork for me to fill out. Even though I make less, it'll be less heartache than cutting through your red tape . . . But wait a second, what about musicians? A rockstar doesn't work for a company, so there's no cap on what HE can make, right? Same with a lawyer in private practice. So, professionals like doctors and lawyers keep right on making millions, along with celebrities and sports stars, but people doing manual labor make only pennies.

And this is different from real life, how?

So, as a result, the dollar bill will climb because every dollar is worth more product.

The dollar increasing in purchasing power is called "deflation." With respect to fiat currency, it is usually considered the hallmark of a recession/depression. But don't worry. You've failed to link it in ANY WAY to your new economic program. WHY will the dollar magically increase?

Second, an increasing dollar will CAUSE a recession if you don't have one already. If a candy bar costs a dollar today, and only 90 cents next week, then I'll just put off buying it for a month, and then it will cost only 66 cents! Why buy a car, or a TV, or a college education. I don't have to work, I just need to bury my money in the garden: it'll be worth more next year, without me having to do any work or take any risks!

Watch me not plant a garden next year. The kids and I will just bury the money, and dig it up when it's worth more next year. And we won't have to pay you any taxes or do any of your dratted paperwork. (I'm not joking, by the way, this is EXACTLY how the depressions of 1822 and 1857 happened. It's also why, although the Great Depression was over by 1933, consumer spending was stagnant until about 1937: the appreciating dollar discouraged spending.)

there will be less homeless people (if any) beacuse everything is cheaper. people will be happy yay us.

I disagree. There will be LOT FEWER jobs, because executives won't want to hire employees they'll have to pay too much. There will be fewer goods for sale, as I've demonstrated above. Fewer jobs and less product equals MORE HOMELESS.

People will be outraged, and storming the Ministry of Economics, burning you in effigy. They only way to put down the rebellion will be for you to set up a "secret police" to maintain order.

.

well, you seem to have got me there, I was not thinking about the little people. (as in people who set-up fruit stands out on their own lonesome)

It appears I still have to refine my theories a bit more, thank you.

I'm not putting you down for trying, believe me.

While I have a reputation around PTS for being a raging capitalist, my real interest is free enterprise. capitalism is sort of a necessary evil that enables the prosperity of enterprise. I certainly understand the effort to limit the evil.

Here's my counter-suggestion:

bias the system in favor of small business.

Small business is actually responsible for most of the technical and economic innovation in the USA. They are the first to hire new people during an economic upturn, and they are the first to try new forms of business, i.e., online business, etc. Microsoft, Amazon and Ebay began as garage-based businesses.

I'll give you another example: The oil industry. Many of the actual owners of pump sites are family-sized farms and ranches, a large portion of whom own 5 or fewer wells. But the legislation congress always passes ends up punishing these owners, and driving them out of the industry, further consolidating big oil.

Or consider the corner grocery, what was once the mainstay of American enterprise. These days, for every employee, you need proof of employability, calculation of Social Security and withholding taxes. Now, small stores don't have to provide benefits, but that just means the workers for a mom & pop grocery are less qualified, and willing to work for less---probably because they are family. But even family members would be better off working for the supermarket down the street.

See, a supercenter just has a "human resources" department at the coporate offices in Arkansas. They have enough employees that the insurance companies will give them cheaper coverage, and likewise their pension benefits will be cheaper, too. And because pop grocer is figuring his own taxes, he takes time away from his work at the store, and increases the odds that he'll be sued or audited, since he's an amatuer.

Now, what if we add an "large business tax" of a percentage point or two, if you own more that three physical stores. What if we force insurance and pension funds to provide each worker with comperable benefits, regardless of his employer's size (get rid of collective bargaining for the employers).

Suppose we waive some taxes for companies that are progressively smaller? What if we let them charge a lower sales tax or something?

What if we enforced the laws against hiring illegals? This would put a serious dent in most multi-state coporations. The feds have proceeded against Wal-mart, to the point where wally-world is considering a counter-suit, because the feds are not targeting small companies to the same extent. . . .

What if we reduced property tax on stores below a certain square footage?

See, just a few of those, and then suddenly mom & pop companies are cheaper than the megaboxes. . . .

What does it matter for the consumer? Well, a store within walking distance of your home, with no long lines at checkout; a store where you can write a check, or even buy on interest-free credit, and competitive prices, as the three corner stores near you compete for your business. A store where, when you gripe about the quality of the produce, the store owner responds.

Or goes out of business.


Now THAT'S free enterprise. And a better quality of life for the consumer.

.