Controlled Capitalism - A maximum wage

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: notmyrealname

Destroy WallStreet somehow and you will literally destroy the world economy. I'm game with it being destroyed, 90% of the people invested in markets use money as a form of labor, something SERIOUSLY wrong there. I wish all global markets would crash, and by crash I mean crash and burn, never ever exist again.

The suits in the business of the market would be the first to go.

Maybe I'm sadistic, but i want to see that happen. Suits trying to survive is an amusing concept to me.

I have a lot of money saved up and some invested and would have no problem seeing the corrupt system crash
The financial sector at one time, well, I hope was fuel for the economy, and now it has turned into a rich mans game where it is more important than the economy and has to be propped up at all costs.

a reply to: jacobe001

If you have money invested you wouldn't like the crash, that money would become zero dollars..

Many people nowadays do not get that in an absolute crash only people with life skills will survive. And people with lots of friends

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: jacobe001

If you have money invested you wouldn't like the crash, that money would become zero dollars..

Many people nowadays do not get that in an absolute crash only people with life skills will survive. And people with lots of friends

I understand that and am well aware that would happen.
We would become closer as a species where we work together again to survive as it was in the past.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I've always thought that was one of the main problems w capitalism.

After a certain amount of money has been made, its not about acquiring it because you need it, not even for luxury. It seems like it becomes a game they play.

Perhaps even exploring such a suggestion is an indication of not knowing how things are run.

a reply to: jacobe001
Why do you say that? Since when was a public company more or less inclined to give the public a break in price? Are you saying that Mobile Exon is a more reasonable company because it is publicly traded? Which publicly traded company provides the best housing prices? Prisons are the last companies that should be public companies in my opinion as their profit margin is based upon the justice department putting more people behind bars.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: Isurrender73

I've always thought that was one of the main problems w capitalism.

After a certain amount of money has been made, its not about acquiring it because you need it, not even for luxury. It seems like it becomes a game they play.

Perhaps even exploring such a suggestion is an indication of not knowing how things are run.

Nah, don't worry most people that are actually making a living of of dealing with public companies' stock transactions do not have a clue as to how the system works; they do not care either as long as they can get some more cash in their bonus and sell some lucrative annuities to bump the o'le salary, everything is just dandy.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: jacobe001

If you have money invested you wouldn't like the crash, that money would become zero dollars..

Many people nowadays do not get that in an absolute crash only people with life skills will survive. And people with lots of friends

I understand that and am well aware that would happen.
We would become closer as a species where we work together again to survive as it was in the past.

We can't even seem to do that here in this microcosm of ATS. We all have some animal desire to separate, divide conquer for personal satisfaction of a job well done. How do we expect to be able to work together as a species when we can't even agree in a place like this?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Why we need a maximum wage.

Before trickle down economics starting trickling down B.S. on the heads of the American worker, America was the most efficient machine the world had ever seen.

When I was 16 fast food companies were begging kids to work in my city through ROP programs. There were plenty of low income jobs and room for advancement.

Then a wonderful man but horrible president, Ronald Regan, convinced a nation to give more money to the wealthy with the promise of prosperity for the Middle class.


I have a different view. The consensus of the masses be the government instated of placing so much power into the hand of one person, or a few for that matter.

What was once a thriving market of small businesses completing for your dollars, became a few oil companies and a handful of bankers owning nearly 50% of the world.

What was once a thriving supply and demand marketplace has become a controlled supply, maximum profit machine. The corporations controll the supply of basic commodities to maximize profit without any concern for those who do without.

This is the problem with uncontrolled capitalism. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or makes, his corporation always has to make more money this year than it did last year.

For an established business there are only a limited number of ways to make more money.

The easiest and most effective ways to grow profits are to raise prices or cut labor. If a man has no limit set on how much he can make, he will continue to feel the need to increase profits indefinitely.

The world doesn't need billionaires with enough money to buy governments. This is absurd.

We need to return to the controlled capitalist system we had in place before Regan. And make the following changes; implement a maximum wage, eliminate the FED, eliminate all private banking, eliminate the IRS and move to a flat tax.

The wealthy didn't care about us in the 80's and they still don't give a crap about the people.

If we had a maximum wage and maximum amount of monetary wealth this could never happen.

We don't need billionaires!

My vision of the governemnt of the future is one where:

My vision of a society where 'we the people rule' is one where 'we the people' are the "Upper House' where the power of govt to make laws and take unilateral action that reduces peoples rights, privacy and choices and imposes death, destruction and misery on others, is severely limited.

My vision is where all important laws could not become law until 'we the people' had given our approval to it through a referendum.

It is not impossible to establish a criteria or a set of rules for determining which laws and international agreements cannot become law until they have been passed by 'we the people' in a referendum. All such laws would also be sunset laws which means that no law would remain law unless it was ratified by 'we the people' every 5, 7, 10 whatever, years. This would enable we the people to change a law by allowing it to expire, after having some experience with the effects of the law or the downside of it.

The current arrangements whereby a few hundred people rule the millions, suites TPTB extremely well as they only have to gain control over a few hundred people by various means, over time in order to control the millions.

In a referendum driven society we the people are the executive, we make the rules, we own and control the government in power.

a reply to: Vector99
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating complete anarchy, I am just floating a premise (i.e. forming a postulation) of how it may be possible to deregulate and potentially reign in the abuses that we see now. My postulate needs a lot of work before it can even attempt to become a theory by a long shot. If there were to be a chance, private companies would have to show that they can be economically viable on a large scale with their own money. Then they would have to control personal greed and pay proper wages with bonuses based upon corporate profits. Then they would have to be able to endure the demonization of media, withstand the onslaught of public opinion, threats from governments and become a company that others strive to emulate.

Let's call this venture Fantasey layand as it is going to take a miracle to get there.

a reply to: notmyrealname

The only problem with deregulating is you will have corporations run amok, then blame the government for any "losses" and be bailed out, always.

a reply to: Vector99
Sure however without the monstrous lobby power of the public corporations, the market retractions would be smaller, more localized and manageable; which is why we have the system that is in place and being perpetuated. Centralized Control.

a reply to: notmyrealname

Im not sure, weren't you advocating non-regulation? Because that is why we are where we are currently.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: notmyrealname

Im not sure, weren't you advocating non-regulation? Because that is why we are where we are currently.

No, that is not my point at all:
I postulated the benefits for private companies over public ones as a potential method to solve some problems. It is most definitely 180 from where we are at right now and nothing to do with non-regulation. I do not really understand what you are responding to.

a reply to: notmyrealname

I don't think you get it actually. The public/private sector merged long ago in the sense you mean. Apparantly they already did a 180 on you because you think they are different

originally posted by: Azureblue
It is not impossible to establish a criteria or a set of rules for determining which laws and international agreements cannot become law until they have been passed by 'we the people' in a referendum. All such laws would also be sunset laws which means that no law would remain law unless it was ratified by 'we the people' every 5, 7, 10 whatever, years. This would enable we the people to change a law by allowing it to expire, after having some experience with the effects of the law or the downside of it.
...
In a referendum driven society we the people are the executive, we make the rules, we own and control the government in power.

While I think there is a lot of merit in the theory, in practice this would lead to consequences that, while unintended, are entirely forseeable.

First of all, it would result in heavy incentivising - in other words, laws would be built around some kind of (most likely financial) incentive. Fail to ratify the law, lose the incentive. You would end up with lots of things like the "Unrestricted Access To All Personal Communications Without Warrant And Free Ice Cream Trucks In The Ghetto Act 2016". I mean, seriously, who isn't going to vote for free ice cream?

Secondly, saturation. I bet there's a whole collection of laws that are important enough to meet your criteria. There would also be a healthy amount of legal challenges whenever a law was/wasn't put on the list. People would eventually grow bored of voting every week on the latest issue. Suddenly there's the risk of no laws getting ratified - which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

Thirdly, target audience. Do you know who largely won't end up voting? The people working most normal jobs, who can't keep taking time off work every week to vote on the latest issue. So who's left? The unemployed, the unemployable, the retired. Remember the first comment about incentives? Well, if your target audience ends up being those who rely most heavily on the government to give them money, exactly what kind of incentives do you think these laws will use the most?

The problem with any and every suggestion, is that it ultimately relies on human nature. Humans as a group are nowhere near as nice, idealistic, or altruistic as some of you seem to think.

a reply to: Vector99

Okay, here goes:

Private company = shares held privately
Public company = shares openly sold to public via markets, Wall St. etc….

When have these merged and why has nobody told my company?!

a reply to: notmyrealname

apparently you don't know the rich people that own both. sorry your company hasn't privately reached the real private investor market. you should maybe google it and see how many of those privately owned businesses exist btw.

a reply to: Vector99
Are you a street cleaner by any chance?
Seriously though, what do you do for a living?
I cannot actually believe that some people think that you must trade your equity for public money while your company is profitable…

where do you come from?

a reply to: notmyrealname

I sweep my driveway if that's what you meant. I run my own small business and manage a high volume restaurant. What do you do?

a reply to: Isurrender73

I agee.. there is a minimum wage so there should be a maximum wage too!