3.5 Million Homeless - Uncontrolled Capitalism at its Finest

a reply to: Isurrender73

OK, the thread talks about the 20+ million jobs that Capitalism has failed to provide.

Now please explain how a wage control...O.K. income control, will provide 20 million jobs?

Of course, we will need a corporate profit control to go along with that, otherwise we face huge corporate profits resulting from the 'wage controls' For that to work we'll need to control the prices that those corporations charge for their product or service....

Get the idea here?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are mis-interpreting my references to "Big" government.

Do you know of any "Big" governments that are successful without poverty and homelessness?

Or some with super high tax rates and salary caps that have eliminated poverty and homelessness?

And why didn't the old "90%" tax rates solve all these problems?



Maybe all world governments are under corporate rule by now. Maybe that's why no big government is working.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You forgot wealth control. A business grows and expands by first saving up its wealth/capital. If it's not allowed to do that, then it can't grow, and if it can't grow, it has no reason to employ more people.

His proposal is trying to force companies to employ more before they have reason to do so and punishes them for attempting to grow and expand to have a reason to employ those employees.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Isurrender73

OK, the thread talks about the 20+ million jobs that Capitalism has failed to provide.

Now please explain how a wage control...O.K. income control, will provide 20 million jobs?

Of course, we will need a corporate profit control to go along with that, otherwise we face huge corporate profits resulting from the 'wage controls' For that to work we'll need to control the prices that those corporations charge for their product or service....

Get the idea here?

If you don't control wages, what would the point be in controlling corporate profits.

Whether my corporation makes a billion dollars or I pay myself a billion dollars, do I still not have a billion dollars?

To control one without controlling the other is simply shifting how the money moves, without doing much of anything to fix the problem.

We don't need billionaires.


There is no reason to fix prices, let supply and demand work. Not the current controlled supply and demand model that guarantees some will be homeless and without food.

a reply to: Isurrender73

There are a lot of things in life we technically don't need, but does it actually hurt you if we have them?

I'm sitting here eating the last of an excellent homemade lasagna, but there are plenty of vegetarians and vegans who say I don't really NEED to have the meat I used to cook it.

Why does it bother you how that billion is used? If you want a billion dollars used differently, make your own and then you can distribute it as you see fit.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nwtrucker

You forgot wealth control. A business grows and expands by first saving up its wealth/capital. If it's not allowed to do that, then it can't grow, and if it can't grow, it has no reason to employ more people.

His proposal is trying to force companies to employ more before they have reason to do so and punishes them for attempting to grow and expand to have a reason to employ those employees.

And somewhere in the thread I have acknowledged that corporations will need spending accounts fixed on a percentage of their gross sales. Thus ensuring they maintain enough untaxed revenue to grow and maintain their business.

a reply to: Isurrender73

In my very humble opinion....it's not capitalism that has caused jobless rates to soar but technology. You see, at one time it took people to build things and the required people needed to be both skilled and unskilled. Now you have machines replacing humans and this takes away jobs. Take away technology and you increase jobs...simple.

That said, the price of goods would naturally go up but that's okay because people are earning money to pay for it.

Capitalism is only as greedy as the consumers so stop blaming it and blame the people consuming cheap crap! Also, do away with technology and bring back the craftsmen.

a reply to: ketsuko

Granted. Corporatocracy or whatever we wish to call it is what we have now. But have we, here in the US, ever had pure capitalism. An honest free market? Were not the founding fathers in favor of restrictions on trade to protect the little guy?
Tariffs and stuff?

But I guess my real question is this. As a defender of the free market (as I would be if I thought it would work), how do you think that the 'little guy' would find protection from the bigger guy" once the bigger guy got to be the bigger guy. Back in the day, when the railroad barons were threatening to run everyone else out of business because they had grown so big, how would a free market have kept them in check?

Would the better product always prevail, the better price, the better service. Would not the 'bigger guy' always put the scrunch on the little guy?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

There are a lot of things in life we technically don't need, but does it actually hurt you if we have them?

I'm sitting here eating the last of an excellent homemade lasagna, but there are plenty of vegetarians and vegans who say I don't really NEED to have the meat I used to cook it.

Why does it bother you how that billion is used? If you want a billion dollars used differently, make your own and then you can distribute it as you see fit.

Because massive inequality is why we have 3.5 million homeless in the first place.

Do you not understand the point of the OP?

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.

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: Isurrender73

In my very humble opinion....it's not capitalism that has caused jobless rates to soar but technology. You see, at one time it took people to build things and the required people needed to be both skilled and unskilled. Now you have machines replacing humans and this takes away jobs. Take away technology and you increase jobs...simple.

That said, the price of goods would naturally go up but that's okay because people are earning money to pay for it.

Capitalism is only as greedy as the consumers so stop blaming it and blame the people consuming cheap crap! Also, do away with technology and bring back the craftsmen.

If we had a wage cap technology would shift most people into different roles, or increase the earnings of those still employed.

Currently technology only increase the wealth at the top because their is no cap. And the Elitist are not going to cap themselves.

A max wage limits the greed to something that society can maintain.

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.

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.

If I have a billion dollars and you have a million dollars, I could simply give away the items you sell until you have 0 dollars.

The customer would have no choice but to return to me.

Now that I have increased the retail to recover the profits I lost putting you out of business. I will still end up with a billion dollars, and now you have 0.

Your ideas are highly flawed.

a reply to: xuenchen


Capitalism is Corporate is Governmental is the Just Us Club that writes the narrative

The delusion is that it is all separate

3.5 million is just over 1%.

While the real number is very high, in real terms it's not actually that many.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73

There are a lot of things in life we technically don't need, but does it actually hurt you if we have them?

I'm sitting here eating the last of an excellent homemade lasagna, but there are plenty of vegetarians and vegans who say I don't really NEED to have the meat I used to cook it.

Why does it bother you how that billion is used? If you want a billion dollars used differently, make your own and then you can distribute it as you see fit.

Because massive inequality is why we have 3.5 million homeless in the first place.

Do you not understand the point of the OP?

The point of the OP is that 1% of our population is homeless. About 1/4th of that 1% is homeless due to mental illness which means they are unemployable in all likelihood and not through any direct fault of their own, but the help they need is not a job.

As for the families with children, children do not need jobs either.

So the real amount of jobs needed is much less.

And you haven't actually addressed how it is that forcing companies to provide jobs will solve this problem? Are you assuming that the homeless will magically be skilled enough to hold those jobs? What happens if you force corporations to hire more and they create positions for H1B Visas instead of for the homeless?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Big governments have created treaties and agreements like NAFTA and GATT.

NAFTA has cost American jobs.

Perhaps GATT also.

WTO came to be in 1995.


Yep just like Ross Perot said but they ignored him (you will hear a big sucking sound as our business leave) .. Everyone wants to point fingers as to the why; yet the government policies and taxes have allowed or driven companies out of the USA to more tax friendly and lower wage environments.. People can cry all they want but no jobs mean no work.. Also the minimum wage of 15$ in Seattle has certainly not worked out like it was once thought.

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan.

Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.

Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.

“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.

The twist is just one apparent side effect of the controversial -- yet trendsetting -- minimum wage law in Seattle, which is being copied in several other cities despite concerns over prices rising and businesses struggling to keep up.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Isurrender73

No more so than yours.

Why don't you just go all in on fascism? Or socialism?

originally posted by: babybunnies
3.5 million is just over 1%.

While the real number is very high, in real terms it's not actually that many.

This is precisely while using % to determine who has a job, who has a home, and who has food, is complete BS.

I am sorry but I don't except your rose colored outlook that turns human beings into percentages.

ONE homeless person who is willing to work is ONE too many.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: babybunnies
3.5 million is just over 1%.

While the real number is very high, in real terms it's not actually that many.

Rgis is precisely while using % to determine who has a job, who has a home, and who has food, is complete BS.

I am sorry but I don't except your rose colored outlook, that turns human beings into percentages.

In what world do you live in where simple math is "rose colored outlook?" Numbers are numbers, and in this case, it's a simple percentage calculation. (3.5 x 100)/350 = 1 ... where 3.5 is the original number of homeless and 350 is the total population. The millions cancel out.