3.5 Million Homeless - Uncontrolled Capitalism at its Finest

a reply to: Isurrender73

What? When have wage controls ever been a fabric of "what worked best"?

The real 2% already have made their money. This merely hits the upward moving producers.

Oh, by the way here an a Reagan hater who disagrees with the "it's Reagan's fault" mantra.

www.thomhartmann.com...

Bottom line is all a wage control does is protect that 2% from any up and coming/new money competition...imagine the control/power/money effectively secured from here on out by and for TPTB..

originally posted by: greencmp

Yes, very much like the effect socialism and all forms of legal plunder have on individuals.

I borrowed this from another member.

"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally"

-- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

Fire
Paramedics
Police
Garbage Pickup
Street Cleaning
Snow Removal
Public Tree Pruning
Public Grass Mowing
Sewer
Water
Electricity
Streets
Sidewalks
Streetlights
Street Repair
Infrastructure Building and Maintenance
Local Parks
National Parks
Public Garbage Cans
Public Telephone Booths
Public Water Drinking Fountains
Public Street Benches
Public Transit Bus Shelters
Local Hockey Rinks and Arenas
Community Centres
Community Gardens
Public Schools
Public Libraries
Public Museums


... and so on and so forth. Each and every one publicly funded via pooling taxpayers' monies.

Socialism is part of society, you can't have a society without some form of social cooperation. Socialism is not evil, and in it's truest form has NEVER been tried.

I am a democratic socialist with similar, albiet more radical, ideas to Bernie Sanders.

Marx wrote that Capitalism would evolve into Socialism (or something like that).

What if he had it backwards?

Or what if he published those ideas backwards on purpose?

Today's world system seems to be evolving towards total capitalism.

All the big governments all have big central banks and the big multi-national corporations are getting bigger.

And many governments (and corporations) are using a lot of the "Ten Planks" ideas.

The Communism and Socialism of the failed Soviet Union and aligned governments along with China are, and have been evolving into Capitalism.

Now what?

a reply to: nwtrucker

And I answered that by also saying we need a weath cap. The Elitist will have to give back the majority of OUR money, since they can't possibly spend it anyway.

It can be done. The 98% can beat the 2%. They stole the money by stealing the government. When we take it back we are merely taking back what belongs to the People.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Those are all local, there is no need to make any of that federal.

It is probably time to think about giving Americans back their land or at least give it back to the states.

a reply to: Isurrender73

And many of those examples are failed government policies aren't they.

a reply to: xuenchen

They have never tried true socialism. They have always had Elitist at the top and the Elitist want Capitalism. This is not hard to understand.

The 1% keep getting wealthier and you will keep defending THEIR POLICIES until you have bread, water and an 8×10 room you call home.

They will eventually own everything. That is why the nations are switching to Capitalism. Because all nations are being run by Elitist who want to own everything.

You are afraid of control, yet you defend the system that has given control to a privileged few.

a reply to: Isurrender73

In general, I don't disagree with that. Even that one gets accidental supply and demand kicking in. Witness the Fracking and shale developments. They've kicked the crap out of big oil's returns on established well production....

a reply to: Isurrender73

Looks like the Marxist/Corporatist agenda will in fact evolve into pure 100% Capitalism.



You really need to get those spreadsheets published before it's too late.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think a prime example of capitalism at its finest is Standard Oil pre 1911.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Large cooperations would actually loose money in certain locations just to undercut small business owners.

Once upon a time, small businesses were protected from this.

Ah, you mean like Walmart in the late eighties and ninties?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Seeing all that money generated Post Reagan deregulations, then how, pray tell did the revenues to the federal gov't soar, I can't recall the percentile, but it was massive, If the big guys didn't pay that increase, as you assert, then it must have been the 'little guy'...

If it was the little guy, then that Democrat spin "trickle down economics" actually occurred....

Reagan increased taxes 10 times. The deficit was completely out of control because revenues cratered by the time his tax cuts were fully phased in. That resulted in him passing 10 tax increases, and corrected for inflation his revenues were actually below those of Carters. His 1982 and 1984 tax increases alone constituted a bigger tax increase combined than any other peacetime tax increase in the countries history.

a reply to: Aazadan

Who controls the money? The President or Congress?

Amazing how the left fixates on Reagan and virtually ignores Obama.

The economy under Carter was a disaster. Any one who denies that fact either wasn't around then or is in outright denial.

Putting this back on thread, wage controls do exist. The supply and demand market control them.

Worry about jobs, not what other people make...

originally posted by: Aazadan

Reagan increased taxes 10 times. The deficit was completely out of control because revenues cratered by the time his tax cuts were fully phased in. That resulted in him passing 10 tax increases, and corrected for inflation his revenues were actually below those of Carters. His 1982 and 1984 tax increases alone constituted a bigger tax increase combined than any other peacetime tax increase in the countries history.

All with the help and guidance of a Democrat House of Representatives for all 8 years.

If you think the US is "uncontrolled capitalism" then I just don't know what to say. With the infinite number of rules and regulations and government interference on the US economy and businesses I'm not even sure it qualifies as "capitalism" anymore.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It would be interesting to see, but we'll never know. There is no profit in Washington for it.

The theory is that a business can only really reach a certain size before it starts to break down and get taken apart by competitors who are fresher, younger, more directly responsive to customer needs.

This is, of course, without factoring in the possibility that someone could actually corner the market on a critical resource and block all competition that way.

I'm sure we are in agreement on the nature of those in Washington. And I think that what you say next hits the nail on the head. In theory this idea that the invisible hand will control the system, that the younger more responsive and innovative will thrive through competition is beautiful and I think much of the successes of capitalism demonstrates the strength of this axiom.

However you then point out what appears to be a major weakness in the theory that someone could end up 'too big' and kill the competition. I imagine that in the infancy of this system there were people who recognized this potential and who sought to strengthen it with human oversight. To better protect the whole system which when looked from the idea you present above really has no protection for the little guy other than competition.

And who is there for this oversight but, unfortunately, government.
Now I would say that depending on the big guy to oversee the sanctity of competition is futile. This leaves the little guy and the consumer to keep the big guy in check. It seems to me that relying on the consumer for this oversight is in line with your earlier statement about consumer needs might work. But I don't think that the consumer has lived up to this responsibility. Consumers are notoriously short sighted, seeking mostly the immediate with little concern for the larger picture. And in general,the little guy, the innovator will only strive to rectify this weakness in the system as it benefits his own future seeing how if he is successful, he can get to be the big guy.

So as much as I don't like it, and I am sure you don't like it that leaves government and we both see that government is also failing in keeping the big guy in check. Because the government was won away from the people by the big guy.

So yes, what we have today is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism, it is corporatocracy, whatever it is called it is not that pristine dream of the early practitioners, (and those of us who wish it were so). That one weakness in the theory is one we have not yet come to grips with and which may be the death of the whole system.

a reply to: greencmp

The United States of America is the oldest government on the planet so this experiment is not over.

Our founders warned us of the dangers of central power and we have been dismissing their remonstrations. We must correct that error.

I think the delusion in all of this is the very idea that any "system" could possibly be successful in solving all (or even some) of humanities problems. It is the absence of a system, the free market, that allows for the best possible outcomes simply by allowing all outcomes.

Indeed, the experiment is not over yet. However I need to point out that among those founders were also men who were in favor of centralized power. Were they called Federalists? I'm not sure. And wasn't this the crux of much of the early debates and power struggles among them? And duels?

And as much as I recognize the dangers of centralized power I also recognize that 'human systems' of power are only that, human systems and hence are products of our own scattered nature. However, I think that relying on 'no system' is not the answer either. Because from the way I see it, the free market is also a human construct and having more faith in that chimera is no more sound that having faith in any other human designed theory. Trusting in that free market might have been the best way to go for a while, but as time moves along and people change and the dynamics of technology and all the rest progress, I think that holding to and defending that system that worked for a while is no longer a valid approach. We have seen how that system morphs and know bloody well that it is now firmly in the hands of the 'big guy'.

Why blame government only when you can truly blame the market system? You see when China was in Mao's control or Europe in Imperialism everyone had homes. It is British style Imperialism that failed the whole of humanity making everyone homeless. Don't you see the Spanish with a load of abandoned homes?

www.youtube.com...

Large land taxation. House marketing. This is Capitalism in full effect losing a lot of competitors. The Old people are richer than the young. Compare that to 1940's. The middle class is non-existent because big companies/corporations had already won the market of Capitalism. It is harder than ever to make your own shop unless you are living in an area that has no competition what so ever. As soon as a big company like Walmart comes along, no small shops can survive.

This is most Western people wanted Capitalism. Gov has no control ever of the market. If Gov do try that they would be called bad and a dictatorship while no one looks inside. Americans can keep blaming Obama if they want, but, in truth Obama isn't truly in control/full control. All he is there for is talks based on the American constitution and law. Now if the Army decides to do something stupid like invade Iran/China after president says no. It proves US is in military dictatorship rather than government or the military has decided to become a puppet army of one hiding behind for example Corporations.

That is what leads to a Corporate military if the military decides to follow a Corporations order. It is far worst the any warlord in the past as a mad scientist can easily rise from corporations.

Not saying Communism was great or Imperialism was best. But, it depends on the leader. US Capitalist system just divides and divides and divides. Only thing is the constitution that many don't care about or know much that had united US in the past. Even villages get bought out by the rich and replaced.

www.huffingtonpost.ca...

blog.chron.com...

www.wealthx.com...

www.mirror.co.uk...

And you wonder why it cost so much just to live. Tell me who really owns the US? Land lord? Gov? or Companies?

"Greed has no boundaries."

a reply to: makemap

All governments fail.

Most big corporations don't.

Not easy to fight success !!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: makemap

All governments fail.

Most big corporations don't.

Not easy to fight success !!

Corporations don't because they make products that people need unlike Governments. Like today bought out all the farmlands and now selling the food. Government interference is the only thing stopping them from taking over. Without watching them. They can easily takeover. Just because you have people who were owners of corporations doesn't mean they are bad like Bill Gates. But, do know the rich young kids can be spoiled like always. Should equally be jailed if done something bad. If they don't it is the start sign of Corporate takeover. Original owners can be replaced by evil ones just like the Governments.

Corporations are the main player of science and land buying.
Government is only a player of regulation and fighting evil(which they aren't doing a very good job in US since the invitation of Nazi scientists after WW2).