TL;DR - Why do we allow corruption to continue?
So /b/ ...I watched Inside Job... I watched the Big Short, I watched Money Monster... ALL these films talk about the absolutely appalling state of the economic system we all live under (in the 1st World at least)...and yet we just sit by and don't demand change. We just keep taking it up the ass, allowing politicians to keep spinning in the wind, allowing the "power" of the rich to maintain the status quo - allowing the greedy mega-rich and powerful to dodge accountability for their wrong doing because they can afford the legal representation that will throw up enough ambiguity and find enough loopholes so that justice is never served...
Don't get me wrong - I'm not calling for a radical revolution, the system isn't THAT broken, just some controls...some equity....
Force companies to treat employees as share holders? Prevent the fat cat's from earning more than 10x the lowest paid employee? Insist on transparency in the money markets and company accounts... and forbid "investements" that are actually gambles, rather make sure that "spare" money from investors is put to building and creating infrastructure for public benefit, rather than investment funds that actually do nothing....?
Why isn't there more hunger for a change to the better?
I know Reddit is.....well....I mean it's Reddit.
I get comments deleted, I get banned, I get shadow banned.....
But r/conspiracy and r/holofractal are the only subreddits I visit.
Good, good stuff. Really.
Because a revolution wouldnt change anything. Its not worth trying. Our best hopes are that mars gets colonized ASAP and all the rich folks and stuff leave and set up a new goverment there, while plebians live in the now less crowded, and slightly less manipulated earth.
(Not really, we are fucked.)
Sent from my Iphone.
OP here - yeah...I get it... and fair point, depressingly enough
I hear you! and yeah - communism is clearly not the answer!! - but REGULATED capitalism? No?
I'll take a look! Although I don;t think it's any great conspiracy - just people playing the system with impunity.
Yeah...but then -Elysseum styllee? I'd rather go for the Icelandic model...taxes on wealth (rather than income), transparency, and a strong intolerance to anything too complicated to undertand - science is hard...economics needn't be, it's a human creation - we could insist that it was simple?
- there, you gottit - now spill..
Yeah - I did think that after posting here
Also- here's a naked girl i saw on here, just to say thanks for responding!
1: We've been pacified and people like it. Those who do notice have no inclination to change because they're too busy enjoying their breads and circuses.
2: The System won't let you. You aren't the first person who thinks things should change and you won't be the last. But it takes an uncommon person to change The System without being subsumed by it. Newsflash: you aren't one of those persons.
You can never go against the goverment even the BLM that are a bunch of people cannot fuck up the goverment, you get whacked in an accident, etc.
something like this
I agree, so you'd say it's a lack of leadership...
Which leads on to...
...So does this mean that "the System" is actually worse than just failures in economics, but rather it's a full on power struggle that will destroy anyone that threatens it? Hence..revolutions don't work, and progress is always doomed to fall short of meaningful change?
Weirdly - I'm not that young anymore, just surprised that things seem to be so crazy without anything being done - or is it that I am only just getting old enough (wise enough) to see through the veneer of bullshit now?
Is there really no way to change it? Social media seems pretty powerful, wouldn't there be an appetite for meaningful change?
It's more than just a lack of leadership. People don't want to change the world. Most people are lazy. Even if you get their attention they'll cheer for you and then go home and watch TV. Even if you manage to gain real supporters who are behind you making the change they believe in the real uphill battle will begin: dealing with people who have played the system to the top and will do anything to stay there.
Well let`s try to find a country that did a revolution and succeded with economics on this modern age.
Yeah they are too powerful unless you probably get rid of them the system is rigged to be what they want you to be, and to earn what they want you to earn, we all know the U.S it is one of the biggest money launder in the world but nobody says anything because of the consequences that could bring.
In this probably country and world you need connections to aspire to something good.
Right wing propaganda has brainwashed people into thinking one day they'll be rich and then they'll be able to benefit from that corrupt rigged system. So you end up with people voting against their own interests and rabidly defending an economic system that is fucking them.
Also the religion of capitalism states all regulation is bad, so the fact that we have laws which prevent multinational oil corporations from putting lead in gasoline is viewed as blasphemy. The idea of any amount of common sense regulation is met with fanatical resistance from these zealots. How do you have a reasonable discussion with this type of fanatic? Modern capitalists display an ISIS level of fanaticism and zealotry.
Furthermore, those same people have pushed a warped morality that makes greed into a virtue -- employers fucking over their employees, and businesses fucking over their customers is a good thing if it means you can turn a profit in the process.
Perhaps worst of all is the right wing war on science, which has created a base of conservatives who are so ill-equipped to fact check anything that they can be duped en masse as long as the lie plays into their political quasi-religion.
If you want something changed, then go fucking change it.
Begging for someone else to step in and take control, pathetic.
Got scumbags that won't listen to reason? There's an app for that.
It's called dox and a gun.
>Why isn't there more hunger for a change to the better?
Because when the platform is:
>Force companies to treat employees as share holders.
>Prevent the fat cat's from earning more than 10x the lowest paid employee.
Basically amounts to: "The government is so corrupt maybe if we just throw more power at it, it won't be so corrupt."
Social media were created to occupy the young plebsters with meaningless shit like farming likes on facebook and searching for pokemons. Between sending snaps and watching HBO they are essentialy braindead.
If they ever wake up, they are already wage slaves concerned only with making the ends meet and sending their little brats to school instead of looking at the full picture and thinking where did it all go so wrong for the society.
>Prevent the fat cat's from earning more than 10x the lowest paid employee?
That's a pretty fucking radical revolution, considering janitors are sometimes paid ~10% what top employees (non-CEO) make.
Personally, I want my CEO paid well so that the position attracts a top talent. That one person is in charge of keeping everybody else employed for a long time. Pretty goddamn important if you ask me.
The sad thing is that you Americans still think that you have any choice in your retarded 'democratic' system.
Just because one supports feminists and the other hates gay people doesn't change the fact that for the last 30 years you've been getting cucked by the top 1% into the oblivion.
Wall street is very much conservative financially but they find the social bullshit that comes with the republicans to be silly, which is why they do what they do. If you pull the social bullshit out of political parties and they focus on actual policies that matter, things would be a lot different, but idiots like social issues cause they are easy to mindlessly argue and have a lot of emotion charged into them.
> and forbid "investements" that are actually gambles
The problem is that insurance essentially amounts to gambling. From one perspective all these insane financial products amount to buying new and selling insurance against various outcomes. You can't get rid of it.
It's because both parties want to expand government power in some directions, and reduce it in other directions.
It never actually gets reduced, so we just end up with an ever-expanding government; and It's idiots like you and OP who want the government to have even more power, y'all're the problem.
Anarcho-Capitalism is the correct answer.
Spot the jidf kike
>pic related, the cause of all world problems
I see this - but even still... what about the Arab spring, what about the "velet revolution" in the Czech republic, what about the Icelandic revolution? All these things (ok..maybe not the Arab spring) seem to have been possible... creating sustainable change...or is the point that, it's not THAT bad, not affecting THAT many people badly enough? And like you say - wage slaves - raising kinds = zero imagination or appetite for risk...I'm kinda losing hope...Your plan is working!
It's a good point..I'm a britbong, but thinking about the US is scary (especially with >>700551051 to think about)...but smaller countries? With the UK voting to leave the EU I felt like that mght be the kind of message to the politicians that might spark change, but I'm wondering now if my first question was hopelessly naive.
Again - yeah, but what about the open-source software movement, bitcoins, groups of people that rally together to challenge loopholes...not everyone is brainwashed - you aren't for a start - nor is anyone who is posting in this thread as far as I can tell...so...do we just throw our arms up and give up? Feeling clever about how well we can argue that nothing will ever change?
Nice trips! Also - don't remember asking anyone to fix it - just wondering WHY...but thanks for the contrib..it was worth it for the trips!
This is interesting...so - even though the people in government (in the UK at least) change every few years, you think that they are incapable of introducing legislation that genuinely benefits people? I'm not so sure, I think stuff like the Human Rights act (as shit as it is in some ways) and Environmental acts have sought to improve things without there being a major economic (or power) gain for those individuals...It can't be ALL bad.
Yeah - I've heard that argument before, along with the idea that high taxes will drive all the talent out of a country - but i don't think it washes - we all know CEOs that are thick as shit (I've met quite a few prior to getting the fuck out of the rat race), so it's not "talent" that they have, it's ambition, and thirst for power, that doesn't necessarily make them good leaders of companies.
There was a big study done on the fortune 500 companies that showed there was no correlation between CEO pay and company performance, which makes sense. I mean, obviously they need to get paid for doing well, but the outlandish sums many get does not correlate to better performance.
Yeah, let's lead to creating endless monopolies and the richest doing whatever the fuck they want without the society having any control over them. Starving your employees to death? No problem. No safety regulations? Great! Not having to pay any insurance for the people you employ? Sounds like a deal! Your product caused cancer in massive amounts of people or completely ruined the enviroment and it was easily preventable if someone actually had checked it first? What a beautiful world!
I feel sorry that you are that delusional.
Protip: Selling your WoW account won't amount to starting a great business and getting to eat the cake with the other greedlords.
And even better tip is for you undereducated drone to learn some history and see how well lack of any regulations worked for society during the industrial revolution.
Government is the only entity strong enough to resist corporate power.
Anarcho capitalism is a de facto oligarchy.
Government sucks but it is by far the lesser evil compared to corporations and oligarchs.
I guess that's true to a point, but again, IF (I know..big fucking if) financial instituations were properly regulated, then you could cash in premiums against unclaimed insurance policies (i.e. the insurance fund set up by all the participants wasn't depleted) and if the payouts exceed the fund, company reserves would be used, and replenished by a second tier insurance system (between banks) that would increase the follwoing year's premiums across the board...I'm no expert - but if I can come up with ideas like this then I'm sure there would be a way..if there were a will - I still think it's POSSIBLE, IF there was an appetite.
Hey you stupid faget Trump supporters.
He FLIP FLOPPED on immigration and deportation today.
>This is interesting...so - even though the people in government (in the UK at least) change every few years, you think that they are incapable of introducing legislation that genuinely benefits people?
The scope of this conversation is about Banking and Business regulations.
>I'm not so sure, I think stuff like the Human Rights act (as shit as it is in some ways) and Environmental acts have sought to improve things without there being a major economic (or power) gain for those individuals...It can't be ALL bad.
Environmental protections are all written by corporations anyway. They basically amount to "We'll let you pollute a little, because we enjoy all the jobs your business creates."
Humans are just smart animals. The majority of people are basically only slightly smarter than a chimpanzee that understands language.
Intelligence is not linear, it comes in the form of levels of awareness and the accuracy of your internal simulations of the world.
With those points in mind, most people are not aware of the corruption and instead rely on others for their awareness.
There is no true solution right now, greed will have to viewed as a mental illness akin to psychopathy.
>Humans can become more than animals but it won't happen till the age of abundance.
>so...do we just throw our arms up and give up?
This is a start. The government doesn't work because it represents business interests when it's supposed to represent your interests. People do seem to be waking up to it though somewhat.
Still not clear when I said I wanted to expand government, or it's power, rather to REDUCE government, by increasing regulation...the reason we don't have to each have voltage regulators in our hoses is because it makes sense to REGULATE the voltage across the distrubtion grid, voluntarily - because it makes sense- yeah, you have to police it, but we're at a point where technology can assist in alot of that - so no expansion, or throwing more power to government, just application of regulation for the purpose of equity.
alt-right trump-sjw detected
The problem is even when we acknowledge the problem we can't seem to agree on what the problem is. Mostly this comes from absurd levels of stupidity or a lack of education.
Its important to remember that solving the problem relies on identifying the true source first. If you're kitchen sink is leaking, the only real solution is to plug the leak, any talk about buying more buckets to catch the water, or change the fixture or shut off the water are nothing but a waste of time.
An example of the stupidity I see from my perspective makes me want to slam my head through a brick wall. The last time I heard anyone in politics talking about increasing taxes on people who make more than $500K/yr and suddenly the MSM is filled with a bunch of 3rd gen buck tooth trailer park pot bellies screaming for their right to be free of government burden. The MSM knows not to get the 1% on the news belly aching about tax increases. So instead they find your typical American against tax increases and put them on wall to wall coverage. The average American who is CONVINCED that they will some day earn $500k/yr and don't want some hippie LIberal fucking up their future for them before it happens. Never mind the fact that they are the equivalent of 3rd gen trailer park rat. Literally everyone I know has such out of blown grandiose ideas of what they will earn in 5,10,15,20 years.
And nobody is smart enough to recognize that if that were even remotely true then everyone ever 30-40 you be a millionaire. But they fight tax hikes like its life and death and all tell you about how the business they just started will make them boat loads of money... Visit these people in 10 years and their still less than broke with the same irrational dreams...
Its not even funny even more its so fucking sad it makes me sick...
We are past the point of fixing Capitalism. Look to something like the Venus Project.
1 way to end a lot of corruption will be when guns are banned.
thankfully, in about 20 years, our liberal govt will repeal the 2nd amendment, ban guns, and confiscate them.
Virtually all corruption in the US is perpetrated by conservative fascists (and they reside in both political parties).
open up the internal markets, and abolish democracies. They are the root of all evil. The monarchies of old did well because it is in the interest of the Kangz n sheit to not mistreat the land.
Hehe! I'm still here, and the fact that this little post has managed to spark such an interesting and articulate discussion (for the most part)... on /b/... makes me wonder if there might not be *something* to be done...the question is ...What,,,and How?
no regulations = massive corruption.
I see you don't understand the problem.
Look at healthcare costs in America for example. It's one truly free market system. And the corruption is palpable. It's the most expensive healthcare market on earth.
so again. more regulations = less corruption.
less/no regulations = massive corruption.
Rich people are just a drain on society, they provide nothing but debt to others while not doing any of the work.
>If all multimillionaires died nothing would happen, every business would still operate like nothing happened.
Hmmm - not sure it is...check out the OP, it's certainly at the core of the conversation, but legislation is still clearly relevant. And as for "pollute a little" evolution rather than revolution is reasonable, as long as the evolution is ongoing, and so far, it seems to be, I'm still optimisitc, sorry!
where were you when trump flip flopped on Mexicans and muslims?
>wake up, trump-supportin', eating pancakes
>turn on fox news
>"and now some breaking news. trump has decided not to deport the 11 million Mexicans who are in the US illegally."
>drop fork with pancake
>"HOW COULD U LIE TO US TRUMP!!!1"
>end the day.... Hillary-supportin'.
no regulations = no corruption
when there are no regulations there is nothing to corrupt.
This is the fundamental problem: you believe a power can exist without being corrupted.
but why do Americans travel to south America for surgery.... if murca has "the best healthcare on earth"
why do they go to Canada to get prescriptions filled.
and why do you rape children?
Very few people understand the problems well enough to even begin debating a solution.
Ask any idiot off the street and their first idea will probably be something retarded that would tank the whole economy.
>give everyone equal money, perfect communism
>no laws at all, lynch all bankers
>switch over to bitcoin
>make government responsible for all major industry
And then you have a whole sector of industry (the financial sector) devoted to understanding the rules very well, and exploiting whatever circumstances to minmax their returns, even if it means destroying useful companies, ruining lives, etc.
Personally, I think a good first step would banning corporate donations to political campaigns (let the wealthy decide between making a donation and buying a new yacht). Instead of slapping a company on the wrist for massive, destructive fuckups (like the BP oil spill), auction off their assets and don't be afraid to throw executives in jail when malice or criminal negligence can be proven.
well who knows, he's flip flopped on muslims and Mexicans so many times now, who knows what the fuck he wants to do.
but what kind of a dumb asshole... would vote for him? that's the question.
What party was it that backed Citizens United? The GOP? Yeah, that party. And you're a trump-voter?
You've lost all credibility, and you are blocked. Don't bother responding, I literally won't be able to see any more of your posts.
lobbying should be ILLEGAL.
>college helps, just saying
liberal arts graduate detected.
What about regulatory capture? Bureacrats picking winners and blocking competitors from entering the market?
Why not have the government regulate everything if regulation is always better than letting market forces determine outcomes?
btw, I'll have a tall latte, with a little cinnamon on top.
The problem with modern economics is that at one point they just generate money from having money. There is a line where upon crossing you become a whale that cannot sink but only grow. And they just drain the money from the system because there's no way to spend it all unless literally giving it away.
But like I said it's not just awareness, its also ones ability to understand and reason, which I referred to as ones accuracy in their internal simulations.
Leadership is a work around to the problem, as in you are still relying on anothers level of awareness and not your own.
>The only fix is to force high education on everyone.
you shut your fag mouth. the rich create jobs! we're responsible for all of the jobs in AMERICA.
without us, the USA and every other country would devolve into 3rd world anarchist shitholes.
we're the heroes you don't deserve. and yes you chastise and lambaste us at every turn. shame on you.
woahoho, I'm not muslim. My guess is the fact that overseas its less expensive. An example of capitalism. Btw ""surgeries"" could be counted as nose jobs, something that's not a necessity for health.
Can't speak on the prescription filling in Canada.
This post confuses me.
>lobbying should be illegal
So congressmen will have to be locked in solitary confinement for their entire term, lest someone breathe a word that might change their opinion on an issue?
lol you free-market amateurs are always amusing.
but seriously, get a degree in economics, then get a job working in economics, in any capacity.
your eyes will open, and you'll see just how blind, ignorant and myopic you've been. yes, breitbart has led you down a dark, narrow pathway of stupidity, racism and utter ignorance.
If you think that jumping from one extreme to another is a way to prove your point, then it's no wonder that you get triggered so hard when someone mentions your probable lack of education.
You know who supports anarcho-capitalism? The stupidly rich and the stupid. Make a guess where you belong.
Because thinking is hard.
And because we're too busy binge watching the first 8 seasons of "People doing retarded things (A netflix original)," texting fuck buddies and playing Pokemon while complaining about how life sucks waiting for weed to show up in exchange for the cash we earned working 39 hours in retail + unpaid OT.
OP here, and yeah, I agree, politics *should* be personally finded, not corporate funded, but this relates to my idea of forcing companies to treat employees as shareholders (of some kind) it would potentially dilute the corporations political agendas as well as sharing economic success more fairly.
I was probably watching some crap on the dvr from the 50's or 70's.
Trump's stooges are actually getting more entertaining. I just watched some fatty laughing at another fatty over her support while a blond bimbo looked on in dismay on cnn.
If i recall correctly, she put forth the idea that hillary hitting her head was comparable to nfl players getting concussed.
>people who demand product create the rich
Let me explain:
People demand a product.
I spend money to make this product.
They then give me money for providing them this product.
I am now rich.
I now pay people to make the product exactly the way I would have if I were making it myself.
Now, people have jobs.
Somehow I'm the asshole.
If the rich didn't exist everyone would have more money and several people could come together to start a business that they help operate by actually working hands on at the business.
And without loans from the rich it would just take a lot of saving to start a business, not impossible and in fact if it wasn't for the rich taking far more than their fair share, the average person would make enough to start their own business.
>TL;DR Without the rich the world be a better place.
mishmash of facts and bullshit that you just made up while typing them out.
Intelligence comes in the form of levels of awareness? What are those levels?
Animals have systems of simulation that are for motion and have nothing to do with intelligence. What simulations are you talking about?
it is what humanity has been conditioned into for the most part, it will likely take a several events to realize how foolish we've become developed to undeveloped nation states it doesnt matter...we are headed the same course. also, at any given moment the vast majority are shitty, self absorbed and petty.
lel yeah, and then there was this gem:
He's not going to release his tax returns at all now.
He's THAT corrupt lol. I mean Hillary's bad. Corrupt, too. But Donald... well at least she can release tax returns.
oh isn't America great. 10% control 87% of the wealth.
>I am now rich
You skipped over the part where you got rich by stealing the profits of your employees' labor. They do all the work, you take all the money, nice little scam huh?
If you outsource the production to the poor countries and make a 2000% profit of the shirt someone else made while paying them just enough for them to not starve, then you are the asshole.
If you pay off politicians so they lower the taxes for the richest while the society's debt skyrockets, then you are the asshole.
If you lead to economical crisis because you don't know when to stop inflating a bubble then you are the asshole.
I hope you catch my drift.
>The only fix is to force high education on everyone.
Haha! I like that idea! ..but yes, see your point, and also the circular nature of the problem, once I have a high level of awareness (lets sy for argument, the highest achievable) and I then lead other's less imbued with wisdom than I... I have to manipulate them to my vision (by definition, they can't share my vision - I'm the smartest in this model)..and thus the corruption begins...so collaboration, not leadership?
Parents havent had to work for the last 20 years of my life and i probably wont have to work for the rest of my life, check
Part of a massively priviliged minority, check
People demand a product
A poor person makes, ships, stocks, and sells the product.
Where does the rich person fit in?, They take the money others earn just because they are rich.
The levels of awareness are things like understanding the seasons, time, physics, chemistry, biology, and so on.
And an example of a simulation is how well a mechanic can simulate a car in their head.
Umm...I think you might be the dumb-dumb there friend.. that post was pretty clear, for levels of awareness read Spiral Dynamics, it's taught on MBA courses... and the simulations (I believe) refer to how accurately you can model the world, so how accurate your ability to predict outcomes based on what you sense the situation to be
If by "reap the benefits" you mean paying your employees the lowest possible wages you can manage while selling the product to consumers at the highest possible price you can manage, then no they are not your benefits to reap.
At best you are a middleman and at worst you're a parasite.
They make sure the ones who produce produce the right ammount, they make sure the ones who distribute distribute according to demand and on time, they make sure the people who sell have the wares when and where they are needed
Oh stop complaining you twat. People in the first world have never had it better than now.
But because people can't whine anymore about food, housing and other base necessities, and most even have all the luxuries like smartphones and tablets, we now start looking for new shit to whine about.
Politics is an obvious one.
>muh lying politicians
Shut up and drink your starbucks coffee while you play pokemon go on your smartphone faggot
The world has always been corrupt. People have just been too preoccupied with more important shit.
...and despite the "overeducation", financial means, lack of risk, your answer is to brag and strut...interesting...I wondedr if life really is that great if you feel the need to post those kinds of attitudes here..why are you here anyway? Wouldn't your rather be racing ferraris or playing on your monster gaming rig, or boning your daddy's secretary...maybe you should seek enlightenment you poor child.
If you mean making the process as effective as possible, then yes, noone pays people less vecause they want to see them suffer, they pay them less because the workers will accept it, increasing profits and allowing faster expansion, more jobs and more profits
Yeah, CEOs are famous for having their priorities as making new jobs and not sending their profits to tax havens or spending ridiculous amounts of money on themselves and storing even more away offshore.
You're right of course, we have never had it better...and again, like a few other's I wasn't whining, just wondering...and the posts here have utterly exceeded my expectations, I now have a much clearer idea of WHY...and even have some ideas of how things might improve (and, thanks to posts like yours) what the problems with moving forwards might be...:)
>they pay them less because the workers will accept it, increasing profits and allowing faster expansion, more jobs and more profits
Increased profits do not mean more jobs. At all.
Nah, im here because you people are always so entertaining to watch and see. Racing cars and playing on computers gets uniform whereas you /b/tards always have something new and exciting going on
Yeah, and we invented fire when wolves attacked our caves.
Seems like you are the nigger here, happy that your watermelon is growing and you have the spare change for grape soda while your dawg is fucking your mom in the ass.
The "not as bad as" argument, also known as the fallacy of relative privation, is a form of the moral equivalence fallacy that takes note of the existence of things that are worse than what is actually under discussion—for different purposes, as outlined below.
It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong; being fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other (usually worse) actions.
You pay jack shit because the amount you give them is enough for them to not starve and be able to come to work the next day, while you drive your ass around in your new Bentley.
Sorry Mr Shitman, I'm not buying your crap.
Who are you to determine the value of a mans labor?
And you stupid goverment idea simply wouldnt fly, either they are too small to handle it or they are so large that they can which would end up with the world even more skewed, with the political and economic power resided in the same seat
>If they settle for less then why the fuck not
That's what this thread is about - people saying they aren't going to settle for less anymore. This arrangement is allowed to continue only as long as the people who are settling for less aren't united. The minute every working person stops settling for less is when shit will hit the fan.
>Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
I say the value of labor should be a percentage of the profits.
And the government is supposed to be ran by the people thus it's everyone who determines the value of labor.
>Greed is a mental illness akin to psychopathy.
Not at all the case.
Profits go into the pockets of owners and nowhere else. In the past 30 years corporate profits have exploded but job creation (and the wages of those jobs) hasn't expanded at anywhere near that same rate.
You're just repeating talking points mate. They don't hold up to scrutiny.
It's the demand that creates jobs, not CEOs sucking up the profits for themselves.
There are tens of TRILLIONS of dollars being stored offshore in tax havens. I bet they earned those with their own hard labor at a sewing machine.
And I don't see that money creating any jobs when being stored there, except from a few bankers.
I just discovered Thom Hartmann and he has some pretty interesting viewpoints. One thing he talks about is how there has never been a concentration of wealth and power like this before in history and that these powerful people have taken over the media, government, and developed think tanks to manipulate the public opinion; and this happens on both sides.
Educate yourself and get involved OP, this isn't going to stop until smart moral people run for office and fight back.
And so the blind lead the deaf. "the people" cant run shit.
"the people" arnt qualified to run shit, and for the most part not capable either
"The people" as a whole dont uderstand the value either, how would a car mechanic determine the value of an hours work by a mathematician
>Force companies to treat employees as share holders? Prevent the fat cat's from earning more than 10x the lowest paid employee? Insist on transparency in the money markets and company accounts... and forbid "investements" that are actually gambles, rather make sure that "spare" money from investors is put to building and creating infrastructure for public benefit
In order to force these things you will have to give even more power to the government, the corrupt government that either rips us off for its own benefit or that has been co-opted by the rich and powerful, who use the power and force of law to reinforce themselves. The only answer is to go the opposite direction, and greatly reduce the power and control the government has. The power and control has been increasing over the last 100 years, and the economic problems get worse. We need to move in the direction of freedom instead, and turn things over to market forces which are impartial.
We had the opposite, it produced giant monopolies, literal kill squads that would take out strikers and union groups, rampant exploitation of kids, hugely dangerous working conditions, paying people in fun bucks that were only redeemable in the company store, thereby tying them to the company forever by control of their livelihood, etc. I don't understand why people have such a hard time looking back a few decades to see how shitty things were before basic regulation.
The fuck are you even talking about anymore?
Should poor become some sort of common consciousness and tell you to go fuck yourself at the same time so you won't afford to fire them?
Let me tell you, it once happened, it was called the communist revolution. The rich didn't like being hanged on the trees. So I suggest you get your head out of your ass before people actually stand up, because you won't like the results.
Then why do the boards of directors and shareholders pay such huge salaries, if they are greedy capitalists who want to maximize company profits? If they are supposedly paying their workers as little as possible to exploit them, why aren't they paying mid-level managers and upper managers, as little as possible? Or are they?
Why does a professional basketball team pay an athlete $10m a year, when the owner of the team wants to make as much money as possible?
>greatly reduce the power and control the government has
That will create a power vacuum which will be filled by corporations. As bad as things currently are, a full blown oligarchy would be even worse.
> The power and control has been increasing over the last 100 years, and the economic problems get worse.
Things have been getting worse as we've been deregulating markets and allowing corporate influence in government. The Taft Heartly Act, Federal Corrupt Practices Act, Citizens United decision, and Glass Steigal are a few examples.
Cause they don't know better, the study was fairly recent and people have always assumed more pay equals more performance, the study showed otherwise. Markets aren't rational, they never have been, this is why you have giant swings in the market, fear and greed drive the market, both irrational. The fact that you even ask this shows how ridiculous people are when faced with facts that go against their beliefs.
So you were vaguely referencing spiral dynamics and another anon caught that. Why not explicitly explain that spiral dynamics give scientific grounds for corruption. Maybe because again you are taking some general topics about behavioral science and assuming that they answer an extremely complex and nebulous topic.
But it sounds like you guys have it figured out, so when you become adults you can further the theory and fix it all up there.
Just in case anyone is interested in an unbiased analysis of the economy, rather than another Hollywood dramatization.
This is available on Netflix right now.
trump can't fix this
hillary can't fix this
Sport is mostly about prestige, not making profit. Sometimes the prestige however results in generating a lot of profit. Arabs don't buy football clubs because they expect returns though. It's just rich waving their dicks at each other.
Boards pay CEOs well because they hope the be the CEO next turn.
I never professed to know anything - only asking questions... explain why it would crash the economy? - I stated I wasn't proposing revolution, just asking why a managed shifted to equity... of some kind wasn't being pursued in light of all the blatant corruption and abuses of power and wealth.
Generally speaking, employers pay their employees as little as they believe they can get away with.
Run for office in local politics, you would be amazed at how many incumbents go unopposed and keep fucking over their constituents. There are also energy companies that are publicly owned and run buy a board but people don't know about this so they just keep on doing what they do to make money and fuck everyone else.
Like I said educate yourself you'll find something that you can fight for.
"The System" has evolved itself forever, and people are just interchangeable cogs to do its' bidding. The "free market" economy has spawned many different versions of currency that most people accept as real. When enough people believe in something you might as well consider it real. Is this piece of paper that says $20 actually worth $20? No - it cost pennies to make. And yet we all chase after it.
Giant systems got that way because they were the best at doing things for the people that use them. That's why regulation is so contentious - it risks breaking the system that so many value. The stock market is rigged in favor of the hugely wealthy, and that's why they invest in it. I work with trading firms, and anyone who thinks the stock market is "free market" is a rube. It's designed to take your grandma's pension and hand it to someone who has far too much money already.
Unfortunately any time the gov't tries to regulate something, they just add another layer of bureaucracy and make it worse. And there's enough $$$ in finance to tell the gov't what to do!
Pretty serious shilling right now. What is your proposal of change? Go back to gold? Then we can all go to war to stockpile gold, a resource that is subject to the same market forces as any other commodity and has no inherent value. For example, in 50 years, we could find gold to be fairly useless due to revolutions in chemistry or less need in electronics, etc, then its only value would be as jewelry, which is very unstable and when you need to eat, useless.
You're right, fiat dollars coming off the Fed's printing press have far more inherent value. lol
Weird since they regulated emissions and those have been continuing to go down in this country. They regulated working conditions and those have gotten exponentially better. They regulated health and safety standards and if you want a good example of what happens when you don't have that, go eat food from a few vendors in India and enjoy the inside explosion. Pretty simple to completely blow your premise out of the water.
You didn't address the original statement, what is your proposed change? If we use gold, you have to stockpile it and each time you have to use it for something, you take money away from your stockpile. Also, like I said, you could suddenly find gold useless due to a major breakthrough, much like oil will be soon and then it tanks, leaving your economy in ruin. At least with fiat you can plan and control it through production in general rather than your ability to stockpile some arbitrary resource that is still subject to market forces.
So, rather than being a child about it, how about you actually propose a solution to the glaring issues there. Any fucktard can criticize, requires some actual thought to propose an alternative that isn't a joke.
>Yeah, let's lead to creating endless monopolies
The only true monopolies are created by the state. Such as all the utilities, the phone company before it was deregulated, the airlines before they were partly deregulated, etc.
>Starving your employees to death? No problem.
That is not what was happening before the minimum wage.
>No safety regulations? Great!
Assuming that safety regulations are effective, or well crafted by the legislators and bureaucrats. Better to allow employees to sue if they are injured due to company negligence, to motivate companies to have a safe environment, rather than a top-down set of rules, from bureaucrats who know little about that industry.
>Not having to pay any insurance for the people you employ? Sounds like a deal!
Government never forced companies to buy health insurance until a few years ago. And the history of employer paid health insurance only began in the 60s, during the period of wage and price controls. That's when companies began offering benefits like insurance to compete for hiring the best employees, because they were prohibited from offering higher salaries. Then ironically, the rise of health insurance has been one of the main causes of healthcare prices spiraling out of control. And the more prices are out of control, the more you need insurance. It is a trap.
>Your product caused cancer in massive amounts of people or completely ruined the enviroment and it was easily preventable if someone actually had checked it first?
Almost no capitalist would support "completely ruining" the environment. I doubt that any company wants to create cancer either, especially if it was easily checkable first. Better to allow lawsuits if anyone is affected. The other way is the precautionary principle, where you get things like the FDA which takes 15 years to approve a medicine and leads companies to spend tens of millions of dollars to go through the process.
>I feel sorry that I am that delusional.
The present course spells disaster. The US can hardly afford to pay the interest alone on the national debt. Federal Reserve interest rate controls are effectively broken and stuck at or near zero for many years now. Inevitably, the rest of the world will realize we have no choice but to default on our obligations. The government can only keep printing money hoping to stave off complete disaster. Assets are continuously inflating, giving people a false sense of wealth. Government inflation measures such as CPI have been repeatedly changed to understate inflation. Likewise, methods of measuring employment have been changed to hide unemployment.
During a boom, the economy creates inefficiencies - we are drunk on cheap money and low interest rates. Instead of endlessly trying to prevent a recession, we need one now to allow the economy to cure its inefficiencies and return to equilibrium. The Federal Reserve needs to stop printing money and allow interest rates to naturally rise, this will cause alot of short term pain BUT it will discourage borrowing and spending, and it will encourage savings and long term capital investment. Refer to the Fed Reserve under the Volcker years for a similar situation and correct actions that need to be taken.
Are you fucking dense? Answer the god damn question. You just keep pointing to shit that is already well known by economists and is basically elementary economics but you still haven't proposed a reasonable alternative. The reason of course is cause even economists have a hard time with a reasonable alternative, cause it isn't as simple as you want to make it sound.
Again, any dipshit can criticize, come up with a viable alternative and go collect your Nobel.
You must be living in an alternate reality where the Gilded Age never happened. that's the only way someone could write something this divorced from reality and still expect to be taken seriously.
Different person, but hitting points by numbers rather than quoting them:
1. There were tons of monopolies, you don't actually read history if you believe that was a government creation.
2. Agreed, but they did like to lock them into a job, threaten them and basically hold them under their thumb with various underhanded tactics. Paying them in money only redeemable at the company store was an example, then they gave them just enough to afford to live, but not to save anything so they could never leave
3. If you think safety isn't better now than it was, I am not sure you have looked into history before things like OSHA.
4. Agreed, company being involved in health insurance is retarded and just a crony tactic to force it.
5. They don't have to support it, they just are disconnected from it and their drive is just more money and investor returns at any cost. If they don't see it/know about it, they can pretend it doesn't happen. This is a well known factor in any killing, whether it be on the battlefield or in atrocities committed, the more separated you are from the act, the easier it is to do. There are many well documented cases of companies destroying water supplies, lakes, etc. due to dumping of chemicals. Without basic laws in place, they couldn't even be held liable for this.
Did you bother to reading second paragraph?
The proposed change is that the Fed needs to stop printing money and allow interest rates to naturally rise. It will be a huge amount of short term pain but is the only real solution to restore faith in the Dollar and preserve what little value there is left in it.
The Fed is engaged in a futile effort to prevent a recession the only way it has left, by pure psychology, and by quantitative easing (printing money) resulting in endless asset inflation will end in tears.
Once other countries decide to stop using the US dollar as their reserve currency, it's game over. If the rest of the world stops buying our bonds, it's game over. If the US government stops printing money (the only thing propping up our fake economy), it's game over.
>The last time I heard anyone in politics talking about increasing taxes on people who make more than $500K/yr and suddenly the MSM is filled with a bunch of 3rd gen buck tooth trailer park
Tell me how increasing the taxes on those people will raise the salaries or better the careers of any middle class people? How will it improve the lot of any of the trailer park trash, will it improve their job or there prospects? I guess the only thing you can do with the greater tax money is give them some food stamps or quality government medical care (such as provided by the VA)?
You might say education, but the US already spends more per pupil than anywhere and the results are shit.
The other thing is, people don't necessarily support lower taxes on the wealthy because they have the belief that they will someday be millionaires. It's that overall their life and living standards are better in a free economy than a socialized one. All the people in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe desperately wanted capitalism, not because they all thought they would be millionaires, but because even the middle and lower classes in capitalism were better off than they were.
Every time they propose to raise the rates or let them rise naturally, they are met with huge opposition by companies and wall street investors saying it will kill the economy, so they are basically forced out of doing it. Again, the market is irrational, driven only by fear and greed. So, with this in mind, what is your actual proposal?
They will never stop buying our bonds, they will never stop using our currency. If we go down, most of the world comes with us, that is just a reality of a global economy and they all know it.
They can't raise the rates, the Fed already lost the ability to do that. Yes, that means the interest rate control system is effectively broken. They have to stop printing money. The two are essentially the same thing, but one is politically doable the other is not.
Again, reference the Fed under the Volcker years for the correct actions that need to be taken. Or watch the documentary on Netflix and learn the bigger picture.
Raising those top tier brackets pulls some of the top end money that will just sit in a bank account or in an IRA back into the economy through either spending on roads, schools, etc. or by giving refunds for lower income, which they then use to buy basic goods. Money naturally pools to the top and in a commodity based economy, when the money flow stops and pools to the top, the economy tanks.
I hope you aren't foolish enough to think that taxing over 500k taxes their entire wage at that rate, because a lot of people don't understand progressive taxes. They do need more brackets as well, adjust the rates of each to keep up with inflation, etc., but a progressive system is considered by most economists to be the best for everyone and keeps the economy moving, assuming the money is dealt with properly. Our oligarchy government though isn't helping that.
>Look at healthcare costs in America for example. It's one truly free market system.
Healthcare is not even remotely a free market system. It is one of the heaviest regulated sectors of the economy by far, severely distorted by the insurance companies and by the fact that the customer is not the person paying for the service. And now you have the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which was supposed to bring down prices, but has not and only screwed things up more. American healthcare is only "market" in the loosest sense, in that it isn't 100% run by the government like in other places.
It's no accident that it is the sector of our economy that is the least free market and also the most fucked up.
True monopoly is hard to achieve, but practical monopoly not so much. Not so hard to imagine one company holding the vast majority of the market to the point where they can freely fuck around with it without any possible repercussions.
Starving to death is what is going to happen with the current automatization of work rates. If you are less efficient worker you will be welcome to fuck off, because there will be another 200 people to take your place and provide for themselves.
Sure, great idea to lose your leg and then also lose at the court, because from your shit wage you can't afford a good lawyer and the company will have all of the resources in the world to fuck you over. Because rich people don't get away with shit on a ridiculous manner even now.
I'm not talking about health insurance, which again, seeing how bullshit the healthcare in US is, should be regulated by the state. I'm talking about insurance for accidents, not like it was back in the day where losing your fingers meant being homeless because fuck you, I'm not going to employ a cripple.
>Almost no capitalist would support "completely ruining" the environment.
It won't take an army to fuck shit up for a long time for everyone. Want even more fuckheads dumping waste into rivers, companies mowing forests down and freons to destroy the ozone layer? Great fucking idea.
And if you think that it's acceptable to poison tens of thousands of people and risk their death, so you can say 'shit happens' and work your way through the court to avoid responsibility then basically go fuck yourself.
They could raise the rate, they keep saying they will and are stonewalled. They don't literally print money, this is a misnomer, they sell bonds. The bond market has still been very strong and only recently was there a sell off cause they needed some liquid money to support their local economies but the world still looks to US bonds for safe investment, this is just reality and no economist worth a damn will say otherwise.
If there wasn't a market for our bonds, they wouldn't get sold, so clearly the demand is there, so not like the demand side is a problem. They can't literally just stop selling bonds, that would be insane and would cause issues for people looking for a safe space to invest, which would cause huge issues and economic turmoil as well. Your answers are very set in stone, you should be able to reason your way through these questions but you just keep regurgitating from one documentary you saw and a few stupid charts.
Like I said, easy to criticize, hard to come up with a real solution. If you could, you would have a Nobel and be universally lauded.
If you think Rand Paul has anything to do with Trump, you are ignorant. Trump is a Progressive, borderline fascist, as well as a moron. A man who in large part used government power and influence, crony "capitalism", to make his fortune.
Trump is not in any way a freedom candidate.
>get a degree in economics
I for one do have a degree in economics, as a matter of fact.
The insurance market is fucked up because insurance is literally a ponzi scheme. It only works because not everyone who pays actually needs it. It's a legalized scam.
Take the profit out of it and it will be fixable, but as long as people can make heaps of money off the sick and injured, they will.
>but this relates to my idea of forcing companies to treat employees as shareholders (of some kind)
Why don't the employees just buy shares of their company, and actually become shareholders?
>what is a private corporation?
>what is majority control shares?
>what are non-voting shares?
You should probably look into a few things before you make such a silly statement. Having some shares without majority control is more or less useless from an employee standpoint as you would have no real control, even as a group.
True story, I used to make about $15k a year. Then I started a business, 10 years later I have 8 employees. Many of them I pay between $75k and $100k, because I need competent and motivated people to run the business well and compete. We are doing things much better and more efficiently than our competitors, I am having to turn business away as I try to grow to catch up. I do make more than my employees, but I have created a business, several high paying jobs, and I am not ripping off my customer, they are beating down my door. And our greater efficiency, in a small way benefits the broader economy.
My existence disproves your narrative.
>I'll post some anecdotal evidence and preface it by saying it's a true story, that will convince everyone!
I wasn't aware this thread had already proven the inevitable failure of free-maket capitalism. Too bad Smith, Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek died before getting a chance to read this thread. They'd feel awfully stupid for writing all those books!
The thing is, some small businesses can and do work like that. People are getting paid their fair share and don't have to park next to their boss's Ferrari in their 20 year old Ford Focus.
Unfortunately the reality is that most of the people running their companies are just greedy assholes. I understand low wages when you are starting your business, as the begginings are almost always tough, but more often than not the company grows, the boss's salary grows but employees are still being paid fuckall, just enough so they don't go search for another job. There's where the anger towards 'the rich' begins and is understandable.
Both employees and fair employers are getting fucked over by greedy assholes. That's the problem we need to solve if we want to progress as a society anywhere but a twisted oligarchy with self-imposed slavery.
>this thread had already proven the inevitable failure of free-maket capitalism
Actually it's the past 30 or so years which have done that tbh
It produced great leaps of technological innovation, and more social mobility between the classes than ever before, especially compared to Europe.
Technological advancement is mostly responsible for the improvement of the conditions of the average man, not the government regulations of Progressivism and the New Deal, et al. And this technological progress comes from capitalism, it is stymied under socialism, and doesn't exist under communism.
And all of you seem to fail to quote their miraculous pieces of work to prove us wrong. Some things remain fairy tales, Anon. And so do your wet dreams about top 1% giving a single shit about your existance or well-being in a world where they can do whatever they want.
Like what? Our current technological advancement far outshines what was done in the past, so clearly you can't say one caused the other, innovation was merely a function of need and means.
The Industrial revolution proves you wrong. People went from toiling in fields to toiling in factories but their lot in life didn't change. In fact you could argue it worsened.
Technological advancements were exploited so the rich could get richer.
And here I thought that the last 50 years were the biggest leaps or technological advancement.
Silly me, it was the Industrial Revolution all along. Damn those socialists for slowing us down.
And if that is paying a low level manager $50,000 a year? Or someone higher up $100,00 a year? Is that the lowest the greedy capitalist can get away with to maximize his profits, and is he exploiting those people?
here's the jet I was flying in 2008 under the worst work rules, flying 13 hour days after sleeping for 4 and a half hours because I had 6 hours at the hotel for $20,000 a year.
They pay their employees as little as they can until they calculate the consequences for paying them any less would be too much of a gamble.
You don't think they are running charities do you?
50 seats, as a first year FO I grossed $20,700 because of large scale corporate greed and a war against labor that compromised the safety of myself and passengers. It's cheaper to pay nothing and offer promises and rely on our own self preservation to not kill everybody no matter how fatigued or sick we are, than to pay out the millions to families when they are obliterated in a smoking hole.
It could be gold. The reason for gold is not that it has inherent value. It's value is mostly subjective, like a paper dollar. The main value as a money is that it is completely outside the control of man. Meaning, we can't wave a magic wand and create billions more out of thin air. More can be dug out of the ground, but that is at least a slow and laborious process compared to the Fed deciding to create a few billion more dollars by making an accounting entry on their books.
>At least with fiat you can plan and control it through production in general
You have way more faith in the planners than I do. And even if they wanted to the right thing, could they? Planning usually fails due to imperfect information and human errors. Such as what happened in the "planned" economies of the soviets and eastern Europe.
The main problem is the lack of knowledge. And that is fundamentally what markets do, they synthesize information through the process of price discovery.
Oh and now that there's a "pilot shortage" guess who is offering up every excuse possible other than the compensation for the job is not commensurate of the training and lifestyle required with the job? I promise you, they will have inexperienced 21 year olds flying your jets before you know it, people who have never flown in real instrument conditions, real icing, real thunderstorms or they will allow H1B Visas from Mexico (they already are by the way) to fly your jets, guys that have no verifiable experience, who pencil whip their logbooks. Nobody at the top cares about you or your family.
Also, the root cause of all our economic instability is fractional-reserve banking. A fraudulent practice which has been with us since the dawn of modern banking in the late middle ages. But this is way off of everybody's radar.
Jesus, and here I'm considering becoming a pilot for a living as it is the only thing that would actually interest me anymore.
I heard about some pilots getting the shit end of the stick when it comes to certain airlines, but damn, your story is the worst I heard so far.
Hang in there, bro.
Except it is still subject to things like demand, supply issues and you have to collect it, which would cause major conflicts to gain more of it. Then as I stated, let's say we figure out how to manipulate elements and basically print gold? There is research into doing it and it is very likely to happen at some point, let's say that breakthrough happens and we barely have time to react, then the world economy collapses as people rush to ditch gold, causing a similar failure to what is happening in Venezuela with oil and that isn't even a huge failure, imagine if everyone had the same economic backing, the results would be catastrophic.
Been happening for that long but somehow horrible for the world? We have continued progressing in spite of this supposed worst practice. Economic instability is just a reality, you will never stop it.
>some of the top end money that will just sit in a bank account or in an IRA back into the economy through either spending on roads, schools, etc. or by giving refunds for lower income, which they then use to buy basic goods.
But money doesn't really just sit in a bank account ot in an IRA. Money deposited in a bank is lent out. When you put money into an IRA, the money is used to buy a share of stock, which you own. But the money itself goes to whoever sold you that stock. Money is always circulating, if it is in the system. It's not like it is cash under a mattress.
Americans don't give a fuck about politics that's why.
There are 5 private parties backing the federal reserve. Two of whom are British, and one of them is the Royal Family. The other is some old office of the commonwealth, since most of the$ that the U.S. "has" came from the amassed fortune of the British empire, itself the combined loot of the old old world lands rolled through several empires and conquests, turned over to the US over the course of the war in exchange for first arms and military intervention. That money is co-opted between the US and England. Both nations create it as needed and (though rare) destroy it as needed, from each other. On our end, we see this via the Feds adjustments.
The lions share of U.S. wealth is not owned by the Rothschilds, regardless of how many hippies
Very little money of the rich sits in a bank, most of the IRA accounts sit in a fund, the fund is usually spread out among stocks. That money being lent out isn't helping the economy, money is being lent at extremely low rates cause there is a glut of it and their rates are basically nothing. It is much more effective being pushed back down and run through the economy to buy tangible goods, which literally run right back to the people running businesses anyway, so not like it hurts them much.
We don't have a lending problem, we have a slow economy which cannot be fixed by supply side economics, that is a long debunked hypothesis that still gets parroted for some reason. You can't force demand with supply, it never works and only people who benefit from the stockpile of money push for it even in the face of evidence showing it doesn't benefit the majority of the people.
You're fucking retarded.
Social security is a ponzi scheme, mostly because it never kept the money it took in. Now when current young payers pay in, the money isn't kept for their future, it goes directly to pay the old. It is a classic ponzi, that you need money from new investors to pay the original investors.
Insurance is different, it is meant to spread the risk. Not everyone needs fire insurance on their house, but you buy it because it is better to pay a little money to cover you in case you lose your house, which is an enormous loss. And in insurance, the total paid out in claims shouldn't exceed the amount paid in as premiums, which is why it is not a a ponzi.
Health insurance could be the same, if it was mainly about covering catastrophic events only. But what has happened, and with Obamacare, is that insurance pays for everything. And there are people who feel they don't want or need to buy health insurance, and that was the main idea of Obamacare, the mandate that companies must buy insurance for everyone, and that all individuals must buy insurance, or otherwise pay a fine.
And the theory went, if they could force everyone to buy insurance, then there would be enough money to pay all claims, including those with pre-existing conditions.
But it really has stopped being insurance at this point. It is no longer car "insurance" if you can buy it after your car has been in a wreck.
In most companies no one owns 51% of the shares.
Secondly, share ownership would at least in some way enable people to "own the means of production". Much more so, than having the government own the means of production in the name of the "people" at any rate.
Yea, they usually just stack it with certain people on the board that own controlling shares, then sell either non-controlling or less control shares to the rest of people, this is how they retain major control of a company. Even then, if they don't, the only people who can afford a hostile takeover are large corporations.
I am not against employee ownership, but the statement I responded to was silly cause there are so many situations currently that would stop it and that is by design.
Technically SS had plenty of money collected, but they robbed the accounts to pay for services people wouldn't give up while still voting to cut taxes. The money for these things has to come somewhere but people want to cut taxes and get services, which obviously doesn't work.
It is true, take it ot leave it. Short of you coming to visit my office, I can not prove it to you here.
But you were making the claim I must be a parasite, stealing all my employees' labor, doing no work, and ripping off my customers. Where is the evidence of your assertions?
>innovation was merely a function of need and means.
Then why was innovation so horribly lacking in the communist countries? What little they had, they got by copying advancements in the west, and doing that quite poorly.
They certainly had the need, big time. And the means? They had control over the entirety of production.
You need more than just needs to bring this about. You need a system that can provide the environment and the means for it to occur, that system is capitalism.
As a country, the US can borrow money at very low interest rates and we can continue doing that for some time. But we cannot continue doing it forever. At a certain point, the currency itself loses value.
You sorta missed the point chief, we are comparing regulated vs non-regulated america and the innovation is higher here now. Literally had no reference to communism in anything I posted, just basic regulation. This is what is known as a strawman argument.
It already means shit, it only exists so other countries have something to base their money on
We nee to atleast go to a silver standard and make companies pay what they fucking own;
The downward trajectory was happening long before decoupling from gold, which is the supposed major horrible act that broke the camels back. If you look at the trend line, it clearly slowed down considerably.
Correlation does not equal causation and all that. More likely the glut of cheap labor, global economics, high population and losing those higher paying jobs due to mechanization is what helped fuel those problems.
Actually they are producing more supply due to demand, ie the bond market. People want our bonds, otherwise they would just sit and not get purchased, then we couldn't produce more capital.
Communism failed because of the bureucratic clusterfuck that was decided mainly by the military needs. USSR wanted to rival the US while being at least 50 years behind when it comes to industrial development. They made tanks at the cost of toilet paper because that was the demand from the state.
And their space program was pretty fucking successful.
By the way, the research definitely slows down when you kill off almost all of your upper class and promote farm men as the 'ruling class', forcing them to be higher-ups just for the sake of your ideology.
Communism failed due to many reasons, not because it was not capitalism. I actually come from an ex-communist European country.
Communism is not viable anyway as long as there will be need for extensive human labour.
At least the silver standard? The fuck are you talking about? Do you think the gold or silver standard are somehow different? They are still just a commodity, you could do it with fucking marble or diamonds or anything else, they all fluctuate with supply and demand. This is basic economics, nothing has inherent value and you can't know for sure they will forever hold value. No one used to give a fuck about diamonds and they are stupid abundant, there is an artificial limitation on them to keep their value high, but they could tank the market at any time. Gold is thought to be extremely abundant now, they just have to figure out how to get to it. Let's say we get on the gold standard and someone figures out how to get tons of it quickly, then floods the market. Yes, our economy crashes, which is why decoupling from commodities has to happen in a global economy.
>And their space program was pretty fucking successful.
Only within the narrow confines of first successful attempts. Once you start comparing things like success to failure ratio, number of missions, mission longevity, and data returned the USSR drops off pretty significantly.
Not really a strawman. Just using a more extreme example to clearly demonstrate a point. And that is, that need and means isn't enough by itself to generate innovation.
It is also a matter of degrees. In heavily regulated capitalism or socialism, you will probably still have some innovation, but less than under a freer capitalism. That would be a scale, where at one end you have freer capitalism and more innovation, and at the other end communism and almost no innovation. And then the question would be, which way do you want to move on that scale.
It is exactly a strawman, we were talking about american changes from unregulated to regulated very specifically, which is a good comparison cause the major background economy didn't change, just the regulation then you come in with some communism crap about russia, which has shit to do with what we are talking about.
Degrees of regulation can be argued, but you can't pinpoint exactly what will happen with each regulation but you can make fairly smart decisions on each regulation based on analysis. If they prove to be bad based on analysis after, you can roll them back.
>regulated vs non-regulated america and the innovation is higher here now
You have to walk before you can run. You can't go from directly plowing dirt with an ox to an iphone. Technology builds upon itself. That's why I don't think it's fair to compare innovation now to innovation in the 19th century, to determine if more regulation of the economy = more advancement. Better to compare things that were happening at the the same time period, like what was happening in the US, USSR, China, and Europe in the 20th century.
Or even looking at the 19th century, and asking in what area of the world did most innovation and advancement come from?
They cared mostly about propaganda values. Get to the space before US, send something to the space before the US, send someone to the space before the US, etc. Not to do much of a research.
They also didn't care how many rockets could blow up along with the crew. Life and fuel were pretty cheap in the USSR.
The rebelions come in waves.. the next one will hopefully be big enough to entertain and accomplish some shit. Your generation will live to see the next Berlin wall come down. Our generation tried and failed but I have hope for you guys because we've been educating the fuck out of you with internets.
> Let's say we get on the gold standard and someone figures out how to get tons of it quickly, then floods the market.
Kinda like how the Fed is already flooding the world with printed dollars to prop up our fake US economy?
> Yes, our economy crashes, which is why decoupling from commodities has to happen in a global economy.
No, decoupling happens because in all the recorded history of humanity, governments still haven't found a way to print gold and spend it.
>want our bonds, otherwise they would just sit and not get purchased,
Our bonds would always get purchased, it is just a matter at what price. Markets always clear.
The price of our bonds would just drop until they were sold (meaning the effective interest rates on those bonds would rise).
But that doesn't happen now, because when demand for our bonds gets too low, the Fed steps in and buys the bonds with newly created money, keeping the interest rates low.
Not sure if you know, but that is how the Fed gets its new money into circulation and controls interest rates, by buying government bonds.
This is also how the government has a nearly inexhaustible source of funding...
>but you can make fairly smart decisions on each regulation based on analysis. If they prove to be bad based on analysis after, you can roll them back.
Is this what government does??
Technological advancement is nice, but not at a cost of human lives or societal stability.
>hey, check out this big ass lazer we built when you lost your limbs at our factory, btw we are still paying you jack shit
>Bankers =/= Jews
More importantly, bankers =/= capitalism. The bankers are corrupt and apart, and the fractional reserve system is a fraud that exacerbates the business cycle and causes collapse. And yet people keep lopping bankers in with capitalism and giving capitalism the bad name.
Yes, the bond market will continue to be "strong" as long as we keep lending ourselves the money to buy our own debt.
I think it's silly to think that either Hillary or Trump is a solution to this problem. The Fed is running the economy by the seat of their pants. Quantitative easing is really the last desperate tool they can use to keep things running.
That's true, but most innovation should benefit people in a market economy. This new tractor helps me boost agricultural output by 20%, now we have more food. That's good because I want to boost my revenue, that's good because the world has more food.
Not sure what company would be making the laser, because what profit is there in that? A military contract maybe?
Exactly. The corruption runs deep and is systemic through out. I'm sure not all bankers are bad, but the global bankers pulling the real strings are definitely bad. It's funny how every country always gets these insanely big loans from them when its for war. Some real satanic shit if you ask me.
I don't think that anyone in this thread ever intended to stop tractors from being developed.
But without regulations we are back at the Gilded Age, where's it's a playground for the rich and a nightmare for the poor.
Wild capitalism is just as bad as communism, they just have their own pathologies.
Because we're collectively a bunch of dumbfucks, and we deserve it.
We had a chance for a while. The occupy movement could have been great. Fucking pissy people tired of bullshit, take over the fucking park. And then they organized and disrupted their businesses and brought the bankers to justice.
Oh wait, no. They got commandeered by chunky rimmed glasses hipsters who sat in resolution committees, wiggling their fucking fingers up if they liked it, down if they didn't. Like the Peoples Front off Judea in Life of Brian
Then a bunch of dreadlocked retards came out and started fucking drum circles, and played hacky sack, and did stick juggling.
But they brought out a bunch of awareness right? So many hashtags. So many signs! And people were aware, and nothing was accomplished. They said the movement didn't need leaders. The results seem to beg the difference.
They could have bumrushed the guards at Goldman Sachs and beaten the shit out of every executive they could get their hands on. Instead of DDoS and dumping the dox of the execs, with data everyone already knew, Anonymous could have broken in and found the names of the actual top investors of the company, and THEIR addresses, and the names of THEIR children and where they went to school.
But no. I suppose a diggeridoo concert from "activists" made everything better. There were quite a lot of fingers wiggling upward.
Social stability is a bigger determining factor in that, we can see that in many societies. That stability was achieved mainly by not having to worry about whether you will die in a shop or in a mine, worry about your wife dying in child birth, etc. These were brought about by regulation. If you look in the past, major societal advancements were had by civilizations that had that stability, see the greeks, romans, etc. for example. Many of them had things like running water, basic social nets and safety, etc.
Just nail both, they get purchased sometimes for near 0 return (sometimes even a loss) because they are considered safe investments in major turndowns. You will notice retards are the ones that invest in gold and the ones that basically steal it from people in a turndown, then sell it back to them as a "safe" investment are the ones profiting on it, but they still buy bonds by the shit ton.
Gold isn't safe and has very little return while the US economy has an approximate 10% return from a major index over a standard investment period, higher than inflation. This is why no reasonable money manager would toss your money in gold, they just use it as a place to rob rubes and tell them it is safe. It works too, watch the sale and buy of gold and the economic correlation.
>But without regulations we are back at the Gilded Age, where's it's a playground for the rich
Do you think it is more or less a playground for the rich now, compared to the gilded age?
Don't listen to too much Alex Jones and a lot of the nut cases out there that are trying to make money off the rebels and are doing more harm than good. Educate yourself and talk about it with everybody you can. For us to take back our world we need to be well informed and wise. We need to defeat the scum behind the curtains, pic related.
>They could have bumrushed the guards at Goldman Sachs and beaten the shit out of every executive they could get their hands on.
How would that have helped matters more than finger wiggling? You could burn down all the banks in the country, and storm the whitehouse. Then what do you do?
>lending yourself money
Yea, no. You are selling bonds to private citizens in most cases. They are taking on your debt in hopes that you use that debt to produce more. Obviously it can't go on to perpetuity but there isn't really a reasonable alternative until populations decline so you can have a natural contraction and correction.
The smartest people in the country called it a while ago. Nasa is scared for our country. Our sciences are already dying off. If we don't rise up and fight them it will all be lost. We're entering a new era and it could go the way of A Brave New World or even worse 1984 is we're not careful... so far it's not looking too good.
I didn't say burn the banks. I said attack the executives. Go for the top. They were the ones we were pissed at.
It worked for the french revolution. It can work again. Then the next batch thinks "Oh, maybe we shouldn't be a bunch of cocks, just in case people get tired of our irresponsible bullshit and drag us into the park and beat us to death"
I would say that people just tend to let the rich and powerful off the hook all the time. People will sell out their neighbor or best friend for money or any tiny perceived gain. Keep abundant resources scarce and you control people.
Ironically, there is probably more freedom in communist China today than in the USA. Taxes are sky high, regulations in some industries fill entire bookshelves. We are chasing away investors and making it harder to do business in America. Companies go through extraordinary lengths to avoid opening offices or hiring here, because they don't want to deal with the regulations.
At least in China, you know that the government is your business partner whether you like it or not, but they pretty much leave you alone to run your business. As for the nightmare for the poor? Their standard of living is rising faster than ever. While for the last decade here in the US we have had no net jobs created. Let's add more regulations and more taxes and when there isn't enough of a base to support those taxes, we can just print more money to fill the gap and keep spending!
Current system is a terrible mixture of broken economics and few people having way too much wealth. With that they can work around almost anything, but if they tried to pull off something truly insane the turmoil would happen and even the most sellout politicians would have to step in unless they wanted to land on a pitchfork.
But getting rid of those barriers altogether to make it easier for them to abuse the capitalist system is definitely not going to improve jack shit. Because when angry people won't be able to turn to their government what are they going to do? Search for the rich bastards that fuck them over one by one and tell them that it's not nice of them to pollute water and exploit their workers?
Honestly they should just let those people solve their own problems Palestinians, Israel,
Syria can`t Mossad the Assad with Russia helping him just leave those continents alone.
fix stuff here in the United States
Trump was on the right track of trying to ask for protection from other countries then he fucked up by saying combating ISIS who the hell cares what happens in europe.
That is why we are Building the ANTI DEFIMINATION FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
where you can call someone a faggot, a nigger a kike, a spic, a honkey, or sand nigger.
aboloshing the hate crime law that is just senseless.
You can Join Now
I bought gold in the early 2000s, at a much lower price. Gold was $35/oz in the early 70s. Buying gold with your fiat money isn't always a bad idea. But gold isn't primarily about making money as an investment, it is about keeping the wealth and value you already have.
Over time the markets have made a return as you point out, but I think it is closer to 8%. So that works better over the long term, as long as you have a growing economy and inflation doesn't get out of control. But I think economic stagnation is growing, and inflation will not stay at 2-3%.
Even at the 8% historical returns people like to point out, it isn't that great a deal. First, say you pay income taxes on your return, lowering real return to 5%. With inflation, real return lowers further to 2%? And if you are in a mutual fund that charges a management fee of 1%, what is your real return??