The Capitalist System

[edgray]

There was a book written, nearly 100 years ago, that explained the flaws of capitalism, and gave a great example of how it affected the working man.

A good review on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA_jy9P_mko

 

[Minor Axis]

Well when you narrow it down to fiscal conservatives who liked McCain/Palin .....
I can speak only for myself, not being of the McCain/Palin variety of fiscal conservative. I was flat-out confused. 9/11 terrorist screaming spotted in Afghanistan. Attack Afghanistan. Okay. Bin Laden reported to have fled to Syria, attack .......... Iraq?!? :wtf:
Then the logical follow-up question: where were they when Bush & Co were shoving nearly a trillion down the gullet of Big Finance & buying AIG? I for one was screaming bloody murder.

Y'know, Minor, most of your complaints aren't really against capitalism, but against big corporations paying for legislation to manipulate and control the market, formerly know as the free market. Returning to real free market capitalism would naturally balance things out.

At least you did not drink the Bush foreign policy Koolaid.

I'm speaking on strictly a philosophical level. My definition of excesses are when the wealth of a nation gets accumulated in a small percentage of the populace something like the U.S. in the 1800's when tycoons ruled. It goes back to my point of how much money can you earn and still be moral? I think the system you envision allows for fortunes to be amassed by the smartest with the sky as the limit. But does this benefit society has a whole? I say it does not. I don't believe in the benefit of trickle down economics. And I don't like every man for himself, but I believe in individual responsibility. And I acknowledge that any system must not be corrupt to survive long term.

Years ago, a reasonable CEO salary was around 500k per year. In the last 30 years, it's now up in the 10s of millions or higher. What happened? Did CEO's suddenly become incredibly intelligent and productive? Or has the system become corrupt? As far as I can see, free market capitalism ensures nothing would be fixed. Look at the 1800's, tycoons and trusts. With the corporate board room ego zone as it exists today, do you actually think free markets without government regulation would be an improvement? I don't.

 

[Tim]

Here is what deregulation brought us over the last 30 plus years

The top 1% received 6% of the nations wages in the 70's
Today the top 1% receive 23% of the nations wages.

 

[All Else Failed]

The top 1% pay 50% of the taxes

 

[Minor Axis]

The top 1% pay 50% of the taxes

Redistribution of wealth should allow for redistribution of taxation.

 

[Tim]

The top 1% pay 50% of the taxes

First you need to get your facts straight. The top 1% pay 40.4% of the taxes and the top 0.1% pay 20% while earning over 12% of all wages. So what?

That's how a progressive tax system works. As you earn more, you contribute more. Those making $7 million a year pay the same rate I do on their first $100,000. Hell they don't pay any taxes on their first few thousand. The top 0.1% of all income earners paid an effective tax rate of 21.5% which is less than they would pay if we went to a flat tax which would be around 22% for everyone.

 

[Tim]

Redistribution of wealth should allow for redistribution of taxation.

For the past 30 years there has been a massive redistribution of wealth from the working class to the top 1% thanks to special interest groups and lobbyists.

It's time to change the laws to bring the money back to the working class. It's time to end the slave labor that big business has enjoyed over the last few decades.

 

[Accountable]

At least you did not drink the Bush foreign policy Koolaid.

I'm speaking on strictly a philosophical level. My definition of excesses are when the wealth of a nation gets accumulated in a small percentage of the populace something like the U.S. in the 1800's when tycoons ruled. It goes back to my point of how much money can you earn and still be moral? I think the system you envision allows for fortunes to be amassed by the smartest with the sky as the limit. But does this benefit society has a whole? I say it does not. I don't believe in the benefit of trickle down economics. And I don't like every man for himself, but I believe in individual responsibility. And I acknowledge that any system must not be corrupt to survive long term.

Years ago, a reasonable CEO salary was around 500k per year. In the last 30 years, it's now up in the 10s of millions or higher. What happened? Did CEO's suddenly become incredibly intelligent and productive? Or has the system become corrupt? As far as I can see, free market capitalism ensures nothing would be fixed. Look at the 1800's, tycoons and trusts. With the corporate board room ego zone as it exists today, do you actually think free markets without government regulation would be an improvement? I don't.

Once again, you talk as if we have a free market now, today. We don't. In the last 30 years (that's the new term for 40 days & 40 nights, innit? ) our legislators crawled deeper into corporate pockets and enacted legislation to protect their benefactors from the natural consequences of risky behavior.

Here is what deregulation brought us over the last 30 plus years

The top 1% received 6% of the nations wages in the 70's
Today the top 1% receive 23% of the nations wages.

Both you & Minor seem to miss the second factor in this. It's not simply deregulation that created the housing bubbles & all the other bubbles. Regulation restricts activity, deregulation relieves those restrictions. What has happened is legislatively turbo-charging activity. Gov't intervention has taken away the natural consequences of bad business. Who can blame them for their reckless behavior when the gov't guarantees to rescue them from failure?

Government intervention in the free market (beyond enforcing commonsense rules that keep honest people honest) is bad for America, bad for liberty.

 

[Tim]

Once again, you talk as if we have a free market now, today. We don't. In the last 30 years (that's the new term for 40 days & 40 nights, innit? ) our legislators crawled deeper into corporate pockets and enacted legislation to protect their benefactors from the natural consequences of risky behavior.Both you & Minor seem to miss the second factor in this. It's not simply deregulation that created the housing bubbles & all the other bubbles. Regulation restricts activity, deregulation relieves those restrictions. What has happened is legislatively turbo-charging activity. Gov't intervention has taken away the natural consequences of bad business. Who can blame them for their reckless behavior when the gov't guarantees to rescue them from failure?

Government intervention in the free market (beyond enforcing commonsense rules that keep honest people honest) is bad for America, bad for liberty.

You and I are on the same page on this subject. We should not be subsidizing or bailing out big business and I think every dollar given to bail out their risky behavior should be paid back with interest.

 

[All Else Failed]

First you need to get your facts straight. The top 1% pay 40.4% of the taxes and the top 0.1% pay 20% while earning over 12% of all wages. So what?

That's how a progressive tax system works. As you earn more, you contribute more. Those making $7 million a year pay the same rate I do on their first $100,000. Hell they don't pay any taxes on their first few thousand. The top 0.1% of all income earners paid an effective tax rate of 21.5% which is less than they would pay if we went to a flat tax which would be around 22% for everyone.

I'd say it is an equal trade off.


Yeah, we contribute more. We actually work for a living and create small businesses and hire people. We pay most of the taxes and make the system function. We contribute a whole lot.


The top 1% and the upper middle class pay for everyone. We pay for you to ride. Be thankful we are here. For if we pulled up stakes and went elsewhere......then?

 

[Tim]

I'd say it is an equal trade off.


Yeah, we contribute more. We actually work for a living and create small businesses and hire people. We pay most of the taxes and make the system function. We contribute a whole lot.


The top 1% and the upper middle class pay for everyone. We pay for you to ride. Be thankful we are here. For if we pulled up stakes and went elsewhere......then?

What's all this we stuff? Aren't you still in school? How many jobs have you created?
I'll guarantee that over the years I have paid more in taxes than you have earned. Maybe when you say "we" you are talking about mommy and daddy's money.

 

[All Else Failed]

What's all this we stuff? Aren't you still in school? How many jobs have you created?
I'll guarantee that over the years I have paid more in taxes than you have earned. Maybe when you say "we" you are talking about mommy and daddy's money.

yeah I'm going to school and I'm paying for all of it with my two jobs. I will no doubt be successful. I have full confidence in my abilities.


But, there is a clear "we". The 1% and upper middle pays for everything. If they were not here, America would be where?

 

[Tim]

yeah I'm going to school and I'm paying for all of it with my two jobs. I will no doubt be successful. I have full confidence in my abilities.


But, there is a clear "we". The 1% and upper middle pays for everything. If they were not here, America would be where?

I guess you just confused me when you said "We contribute more" That would imply that you are including yourself in the top 1% of wage earners. And you sir, are no where near the top 1%

 

[All Else Failed]

No, but I will be part of the percent that pays for a ton of it one day.

 

[Minor Axis]

Once again, you talk as if we have a free market now, today. We don't. In the last 30 years (that's the new term for 40 days & 40 nights, innit? ) our legislators crawled deeper into corporate pockets and enacted legislation to protect their benefactors from the natural consequences of risky behavior.

I've never implied we live in a free market. I agree with you about legislators getting involved with corporate good deals. Most of the business oriented posters in the forum who happen to be Republican don't seem to have a problem with it. If it's good for business, go for it. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may and do huge damage to the economy, it would be better to keep the regulations in place that would have prevented the blow up in the first place based on said risky behavior.

Both you & Minor seem to miss the second factor in this. It's not simply deregulation that created the housing bubbles & all the other bubbles. Regulation restricts activity, deregulation relieves those restrictions. What has happened is legislatively turbo-charging activity. Gov't intervention has taken away the natural consequences of bad business. Who can blame them for their reckless behavior when the gov't guarantees to rescue them from failure?

Government intervention in the free market (beyond enforcing commonsense rules that keep honest people honest) is bad for America, bad for liberty.

Business cries regulations cost them profits. Sure it does, but it would have kept banks out of risky derivatives. Business oriented Administrations with close ties to big business want to remove the road blocks and the protections. What you seem to be proposing is to take away the regulations and when big business crashes and burn, let them burn taking down segments of the economy. In the end after all the little people have lost their jobs, the fat cats will have learned their lessons. If so I disagree. Capitalism today seems to appeal to greed more than ever. Regulations keep greed in check. It's a no brainer.

 

[Accountable]

You and I are on the same page on this subject. We should not be subsidizing or bailing out big business and I think every dollar given to bail out their risky behavior should be paid back with interest.

Yay! :clap
Do you also see the link between that subsidization and the pay gap? If gov't subsidies and bailouts stop, I believe businesses will naturally become more cautious with their ventures. They will stop paying reckless people reckless sums for reckless behavior, which will naturally shrink the income gap. They will be forced to pay attention to the foundation of their business rather than letting the gov't take care of benefits, raising real incomes of their workers and further naturally shrinking the income gap. It's government intervention, not inaction that's created this situation.

I've never implied we live in a free market. I agree with you about legislators getting involved with corporate good deals. Most of the business oriented posters in the forum who happen to be Republican don't seem to have a problem with it. If it's good for business, go for it. Instead of letting the chips fall where they may and do huge damage to the economy, it would be better to keep the regulations in place that would have prevented the blow up in the first place based on said risky behavior.

Business cries regulations cost them profits. Sure it does, but it would have kept banks out of risky derivatives. Business oriented Administrations with close ties to big business want to remove the road blocks and the protections. What you seem to be proposing is to take away the regulations and when big business crashes and burn, let them burn taking down segments of the economy. In the end after all the little people have lost their jobs, the fat cats will have learned their lessons. If so I disagree. Capitalism today seems to appeal to greed more than ever. Regulations keep greed in check. It's a no brainer.

You implied (or okay I inferred) the free market thing by only complaining about deregulation and not addressing legislative protections at all, as if they don't exist.

You seem to want it both ways here. I am absolutely saying that when big business crashes and burns, let them burn. If gov't weren't propping them up in the first place they wouldn't get big enough to take down segments of the economy. Our economy is built on lies, promises, dreams, and good wishes. We can't take that away and keep the economy; it's simply not logical. As with any bad habit, there's going to be pain in dropping it. But it is better in the long term than trying to continue.

Capitalism today is not capitalism, it is corporate socialism, and I agree it appeals to greed more than ever. Who doesn't want free money? The regulations needed are those that bring secret practices and lies out into the open (truth in lending, sanitary food, etc) to keep honest people honest. Regulations keeping greed in check is not a no brainer by a mile, because our regulations are written by greedy people. Greedy people don't keep greed in check; that's the no brainer. Truly free-market capitalism keeps greed in check by having to watch out for the competition. Getting greedy leaves an opening for competition to undercut and gain market share.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yay! :clap
You seem to want it both ways here. I am absolutely saying that when big business crashes and burns, let them burn. If gov't weren't propping them up in the first place they wouldn't get big enough to take down segments of the economy. Our economy is built on lies, promises, dreams, and good wishes. We can't take that away and keep the economy; it's simply not logical. As with any bad habit, there's going to be pain in dropping it. But it is better in the long term than trying to continue.

Capitalism today is not capitalism, it is corporate socialism, and I agree it appeals to greed more than ever. Who doesn't want free money? The regulations needed are those that bring secret practices and lies out into the open (truth in lending, sanitary food, etc) to keep honest people honest. Regulations keeping greed in check is not a no brainer by a mile, because our regulations are written by greedy people. Greedy people don't keep greed in check; that's the no brainer. Truly free-market capitalism keeps greed in check by having to watch out for the competition. Getting greedy leaves an opening for competition to undercut and gain market share.

I think we agree that greed is a fact. Greed hurts the working class, taking money out of their pockets and going into the pockets of those in charge. But you must be ok with that because the only accountability I hear coming from you is let business do what it will until it crashes and burns. In an ideal world (which I admit does not exist) from a workers standpoint, it would be better to stop the excesses before they happen. Yep, it cuts into profits just like paying workers higher wages. Strategic bankruptsies should be illegal, but they are used on a regular basis to kick the shit out of employees. I realize I'm preaching to the deaf as your attitude towards worker's rights is que sera sera.

 

[Accountable]

I think we agree that greed is a fact. Greed hurts the working class, taking money out of their pockets and going into the pockets of those in charge. But you must be ok with that because the only accountability I hear coming from you is let business do what it will until it crashes and burns. In an ideal world (which I admit does not exist) from a workers standpoint, it would be better to stop the excesses before they happen. Yep, it cuts into profits just like paying workers higher wages. Strategic bankruptsies should be illegal, but they are used on a regular basis to kick the shit out of employees. I realize I'm preaching to the deaf as your attitude towards worker's rights is que sera sera.

You just can't resist, can you? My opinions don't align parallel with yours, so you're compelled to twist them and restate them as something they're not. You & I aren't communicating so I'll resist restating myself once again.

 

[Minor Axis]

You just can't resist, can you? My opinions don't align parallel with yours, so you're compelled to twist them and restate them as something they're not. You & I aren't communicating so I'll resist restating myself once again.

Resist what? No more than you can resist with your opinions on the subject. Twist what? You don't like my deaf comment? If you think that workers have rights and should have protections, I'll apologize. What do you think about unions?

Maybe it is me, but it seems like you are just saying remove government interference and big business will straighten itself out. Personally I think they will continue to kick the shit out of their workers. I'm not here to antagonize you. Hang in there!

 

[Accountable]

Resist what? No more than you can resist with your opinions on the subject. Twist what? You don't like my deaf comment? If you think that workers have rights and should have protections, I'll apologize. What do you think about unions?

This is what I mean when I say you & I aren't communicating.

A union is great weapons when at war with an employer. When war is no longer necessary, you don't throw the weapon away, but you do put it back in storage. Union reps and government reps (politicians) have the same natural problem: they have to show that they have value or they'll lose the job. So they do more than is necessary, continuing the fight long after the war is won. That's when both become destructive.

Unions have become destructive, government has become destructive, but we can't totally get rid of either. I don't know how to rectify the situation.

dt3, likely your company treats you fairly because of what unions did in other companies, both good and bad, and they don't want unions taking over your company. As a result, the employees don't need a union to get fair treatment.

I wasn't kidding in any way. The larger the organization - corporation, union, government, or 4H club - the easier it is to forget you're dealing with real human beings.

Crap I can't remember the name & can't find it in a search. I'm sure Ed'll read this soon & will chime in. When you said the employees had no choice but to quit, it seemed to imply they should've had a union even though things were going well. Actually I agree with you that unions arise as needed. Those employees had the choice of pulling together rather than allowing the company to lay people off. What it would take is someone whose job is secure risking his job to support those in a more precarious position.

Historically, yes. Today treatment is better because of union actions of the past. The threat of unions keep things honest today. There's no need to unionize unless there's a need to unionize, and so long as an employer makes sure that conditions stay good enough, employees won't unionize.

I would imagine that more venture capitalists would be interested in investing in a new venture where the employee base would not be union at first (but very quickly could unionize if management screwed them over) rather than where they would have to enter into an adversarial arrangement with a union before the first employee is hired. Not having the cash or cajones to be a venture capitalist, I could easily be wrong.

Just like the right to bear arms does not necessitate actually bearing arms, the right to unionize does not necessitate actually unionizing. Let's not forget that as powerful and effective as unions can be, union organizers have a tendency to fuck up a good thing by continually trying to justify their paycheck and pushing things too far.

A union is like a gun. Very useful in the right circumstances, but very harmful if overused or abused. It would be great if you could lock unions away in a safe until they were needed again. Unfortunately they involve people who are compelled to show that they deserve their position ... kinda like congressmen. They start changing shit just to show that they can, and end up screwing things up.

Of course the British gov't won't allow market forces to work because it would be portrayed as cowardly inaction by political enemies. That's how unions get politicians by the short hairs. People will pay anything rather than experience an unknown pain.

Untrue. It wasn't a socialist government that force fair labor practices, it was the action of citizens themselves organizing into unions. Where the unions went too far was when they started paying for legislation. That was unnecessary and harmful.

We definitely owe better working conditions to unions and the changes they brought about, but they went too far when they started buying politicians and purchasing socialist laws. Unions proved that they can control corporate abuses without the gov't.

Limited government is moderation. You need to re-read your history. proactive government had nothing to do with changing the national work environment. The politicians then, as now, were perfectly content to let their biggest campaign contributors to do whatever they wanted to. It wasn't until the people revolted (formed unions and protested) that things changed. And since when does the New Deal fall under the category of limited government??

Insuring small depositors and separating personal and commercial banks were good things that came out of the Big Government takeover, but the cost is proving to be too high.

NOOOOOOO!!!!! That's where you need employees forming unions and looking out for themselves. Government just fucks things up and tries to make one size fit all. When there are laws barring the way you just hire lawyers to find a way around them. When there are people barring the way you have to truly justify your actions - be accountable.

The sad thing is that almost every one of these posts were in direct conversation with YOU.

Maybe it is me, but it seems like you are just saying remove government interference and big business will straighten itself out. Personally I think they will continue to kick the shit out of their workers. I'm not here to antagonize you. Hang in there!

I'm not antagonized, I'm tired from endlessly repeating myself just to find you paying zero attention.