It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

page: 13
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Willingly

I love the idea of a free market. I don't see the reality of it, unfortunately.

Ethics in business?

Compassion before profit?

I don't even have dreams that are so amazing as these concepts.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Flip side. I know a ton of liberals who say we should pay more taxes.

I tell them there is nothing stopping them right now. The Federal Government will happily take any money you sent them.

Oddly, they don't take me up on the offer.

Here you go, guys: www.treasurydirect.gov...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You could elaborate, you know.

The only part that might be exaggerated is making the generalized statement that capitalists support trillionaires, while this is not the most common case - someone else said if socialism leads to communism, capitalism leads to oligarchy. Something like that, and that is more the point I am making.

Rather than wanting to make any differences that could actually benefit the average person, some apologists and defenders of capitalism prefer we back off of businesses, that we lessen restrictions for the Giants, that we praise the job creators.. Such thinking is something I can't understand, as the result of billionaires... Is people like the Koch brothers and Rothschilds.

And if you don't think such men to be evil... You're a minority here on Ats.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Bad argument.

A lot of liberals would happily pay more taxes if said taxes were efficiently allocated towards helping the lower classes. None simply want to throw more money into the toilet that is our current system.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

There is only 1 way for any government to work: to situate it so that people are able to maximize impact on their lives through local decisions. Larger scale population groupings should have decision making abilities that are very limited, and are designed to facilitate the daily lives of the smaller population groupings. For example, federal laws being restricted to managing the economy, the currency, the diplomacy, and the national defense paid for through corporate income tax, import taxes, and federal permitting fees. State laws to facilitate commerce, felony crime, and manage administrative duties associated with the people (any social medicine, public assistance, etc). They would be funded through sales, beverage, road, hotel, etc taxes.

Then you have local government that does what it already does.

This isn't me proposing a system. Its me giving an example of the concept im talking about. But there are 2 key points:

- the federal government only facilitates, it doesn't enforce unless you are a corporation. Basically, it acts as the board you play checkers on, and provides the checkers to use along with the rules for play when it comes to banks and securities exchange. It doesn't make any laws pertaining to the individuals day to day life outside of establishing a currency and then regulating how that currency is routed into and out of the system.
- there is no income tax. It is unconscionable that a man would have his income taxed. That is slavery. Taxes should be raised through commercial transactions, supplemented with regulatory fees (i.e., it should still cost you the $20 to renew your drivers license).

Im going to be honest: 12 pages of average joe's waxing economics just sounds like the kind of thing you'd only do if you were a masochist. So i likely won't read back a whole lot.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I should add: a 3rd key point is decentralizing power structures. If you have no federal apparatus beyond a lean/mean legislative, a diplomatic executive, and a judicial that only really deals with rulings related to the limited business of "The Facilitative Fed", you kill a huge portion of the source of power for the crooks in DC.

If corporatism is to have a chance to really develop in a system where power is located more on states and counties, they would have to pay off and manipulate exponentially more people. People who are more directly accountable to their neighbors for being crooked.
edit on 4/7/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No problem. You just said it took you 12 pages to find something, so I assumed you read through it, all good.

I agree with you though. Extremely limit and deny the ability of the federal government to make any rules or laws or regulate a citizens every day life, give states, counties, and cities a lot more power to govern themselves. This would solve a lot of problems, and make cities unique in my opinion. Different cities would have different ideas, taxation might still exist but only based on the desire of the local people - Park and recreation funding, sidewalk and agriculture maintenance and the like - could be diverse and chosen by local citizens.

I agree taxes should be brought in more from commercial transactions. Taxes don't make me feel like a slave, though. Working forty hours and never being able to get ahead does - by the end of the year, I get all the taxes back, but it's not enough to help me get ahead. Just put a bit more money towards payments, or catch up on debt. If I was a sole example it would be one thing, but I'm becoming much less of a minority these days.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Bad argument.

A lot of liberals would happily pay more taxes if said taxes were efficiently allocated towards helping the lower classes. None simply want to throw more money into the toilet that is our current system.


Bad rebuttal.

Your hypothetical 'if' depends on the idea that government can ever be efficient and not be corrupt. No such animal.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Agreed. A much smaller federal government which has much less power would be good for everyone.

I'd even personally argue that states and cities could adopt what social programs they care for. Food stamps, unemployment and the like - a lot of experimenting could happen to see what results in the most employment percentages, least people on long term aid, etc. States and cities could collaborate and come up with ideas that most benefit their citizens.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Don't know how old you are....but im in my early 40's and am just barely able to start coming up for air from time to time. Its a hard world, thats for sure. And "making it", even if you aren't "getting ahead", is something to be proud of. A whole lot of folks can't keep their crap together to even get that far.


I'd like to say it'll get better as you get older. But I don't know how old you are. Or if it'll stay "better" for me, either. LOL, "This, too, shall pass."



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

25. I got plenty of life ahead of me, I'm not extremely worried for myself to be honest. I've lined things up to where I actually see a decent future regardless of our next president, regardless of new laws or taxes or whatever. Most arguments I have on Ats are what I believe to be the best for others. Whether I am misguided or not in this intention is a whole other argument.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope



huge amount of wealth in the hands of few people.


So what? This isn't Duck Tales and there is no Scrooge McDuck money vault. A person that sits on their money is losing money. Those 'few people' know that to make more money they have to invest. Investing means risk of loss. Investing also means passing that wealth into the hands of people who are creating jobs and other opportunities.



[two people single-handedly] fund wars in the middle east.


No, they don't.



Big [x] literally]/b] dictate what you will [do, regardless of your own free will]


No, they don't.



these are now jobs people are having to work


No, they aren't.



yet they are continuously degraded for being in that job..


No, they aren't.



what it comes down to is this is the type of thing that happens in a money-centric nation (capitalistic)


'this type of thing' happens when government gets too involved in a free market.



those trillionaires need you to [blah blah blah]


There are no trillionaires. There are however a lot of leftist billionaires who bankroll and profit from 'this type of thing'

www.mrc.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Most arguments I have on Ats are what I believe to be the best for others.


How noble of you.



Whether I am misguided or not in this intention is a whole other argument.


There is an argument?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Think a little bigger now. Don't think about the few hundred billionaires. Go even bigger.

At the top, there is certainly a Scrooge McDuck.

You mention that the wealthy person who sits on his money loses money. This is very true. Now ask yourself who gets it. Its not like that value just goes *poof*. "Inflation" is just a bankers word for "skim".

"McDuck" goes by a few names. But most often its Rothchild.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Thank you for giving me a source for a corrupt billionaire, and the impact they can have on policy. You beautifully illustrated the main points I am making in this thread. Again, thank you.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Some people don't believe in unlimited wealth bankers.

One question I have for you.. I've heard the reserve loans a bank money, then the bank loans it out and such.. And charges interest. Interest that literally does not exist within the system? I've heard defaults are inevitable because of this fact.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Altruism is inherently a good thing.

My specific flavor of altruism.. Can be debated, but it's not like I'll simply stop. When I have excess money, I donate it. When I have excess time, I discuss things. It's not like I believe I'm some blessing to others or anything, I'm not assuming some position of superiority because I am certainly flawed... Hence discussion. I haven't written a book and insisted others follow my advice. I've written a thread to see what others think about an opinion or thought process.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Typically, the Federal Reserve does't loan out money. The QE was kind of an exception to the rule of the Fed loaning money without having significant markup. Typically, loans from the Fed are at a higher than market cost (to discourage using them as a short term cash liquidity source).

The Fed DOES establish interest rates (although banks are free to charge whatever they want irrespective). The rate that the Fed "establishes" is the overnight lending interest rate on interbank loans. The aforementioned short term cash liquidity source....is often times going to be another bank as a stop gap measure. And the Fed loans money to banks for this need at a rate above the rate they establish, to encourage banks to work it out amongst themselves to utilize the economies liquid capital efficiently.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I think assuming that billionaires by nature invest their money into jobs locally or nationally is a stretch and part of capitalist idealism. There is very little proof of this on a large scale. And yes many do sit on their money they get outed from time to time.

Capitalism has the possibility of being a working healthy system but by human nature without regulation turns to oligarchy. It also maximizes efficiency and profit which brings about a social dilema. If you don't protect a labour market you run a major risk of a slow decay or an all out collapse. Without jobs consumption is slowed which in turn slows the market profit effects retirement investments and so on. Some intervention in terms of market valued wages and steady growth is necessary which is where the dilema is.

Can you do as little as possible to maintain a proper Ballance. There is no evidence of a self correcting market. The lowest points of market regulations yielded the largest social injustices. Such as child labour. The market will not correct this without oversight by Congress.

We still don't do it. We just moved it out of sight. Ethics is an important societal value and should be weighed with the free market.

The dilema again is who gets to decide and how much.

The whole trickle down policy is only a philosophy its real world tendency does not occur at a rate that is suggested.

The biggest thing to remember is as we create systems out of reason they are essentially philosophical expirements. Our forefathers in the US under the guidance of enlightenment philosophy created an expirement very well though out and very much evolutionary. However it has stagnated on partisan divide and conquer politics. The system was supposed to have the ability to change through introspective guidance of real world emperical data. We can correct mistakes.

Politics however has divided us. It has made left right paradoxes everywhere. The only choice is a totally free unregulated market or socialism. The tuning of the system rarely gets discussed.

Here we have people defending capitalism without expressing the understanding it needs adjustments from time to time especially concerning ethics and the opposite idealism of socialism. Well there are concerns socialists have that are real problems and vice versa. Unfortunately people won't get together to find aolutions.

We just argue about the negatives of the left right paradigms.
edit on 8-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: gpols

That's not what capitalism is at all. Capitalism is about profit, period. It's about paying workers as little as you can, while maximizing your profit, irregardless of what the worker is actually worth.


I think Free Market Capitalism could work if it was put into practice but like all other systems, it is something that looks good only on paper because of the corrupt nature of human beings. It is why all other systems fail as well.

I get a kick out of the Corporate Media that use terms like Job Creators or Consumer Driven Markets.
I have yet to meet a business owner that said he opened a business to provide jobs or to serve the citizens of America

It is all about profit and independence - Full Stop -
That is why, when it comes profits employing overseas slave labor vs this country, this country should come first as laid out in the Constitution.




top topics



 
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join