The realities, lies, and hypocrisy of compensation and wages.

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: pexx421
How exactly do you think a nation with a deregulated market would look? What then would keep companies from controlling the market? How would businesses compete with monopoly powers? The market is not a natural thing. It’s man made, and at all times is either controlled by the government (which is controlled by the people in actual representative or democratic nations) or the wealthy businesses and business owners (which are usually he government in corrupt nations and oligarchies). Which of those do you think describe us? You want to deregulate the very people that cause all the problems and push all the legislation and regulation you say is the problem. Big business supports all the regulation that keeps small business from being competitive. And you want to free them to form the monopolies they’ve been drooling to be. The first thing they would do is buy out or price fix their competition out of existence.

The market is a natural thing in the sense that it arises naturally from people engaged in exchange of goods and services.

Any institution with the ability to regulate the market will inevitably engage in regulatory capture, or crony capitalism. Deregulation would theoretically do the opposite.

Except that businesses are very much institutions with the ability to regulate the market, in the absence of government regulations. And they, in absence of government regulation, will inevitably engage in regulatory capture and crony capitalism.

In earlier times before the federal govt became powerful the robber barons controlled all business. You don’t think they engaged in market controls? In brutal suppression of competition? In total domination and exploitation of their controlled market areas? To the death, destruction, and enslavement of generations?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: pexx421

Then perhaps you should start your own company offering the same service.

Or move to an area where you are making more with the same cost of living.

You have options that you are not addressing but instead are unhappy with the business owner.

So change it... you are not a slave to a single company.

What does that have to do with my description of the inequities of the system? Sadly you miss the point.

As a business owner who was once a worker bee, I don't feel I missed the point at all.

You are complaining about the inequalities of a system that you can fix yourself.

So no, it isn't about the system.

It is about your seeming inability to work within the system for your own personal gain.

An opinion from someone who has been there.

Take it for what's it's worth.

This is reassuring. Worker bees who apply themselves and aspire higher can start businesses and free themselves of this perpetual, unfortunate cycle, just like he did.

There's no excuse to be a worker, and there's no point in complaining about a system if you can climb higher on the ladder. It's you who isn't fixing your own personal experience. Nevermind the fact that the system may or may not be unfair, wrong, exploitative, or anything else. Let's dodge the issue and say from experience that we used to be where you are and that you can be where we are. See my stuff? It's nice. See my bank statement? I have no sympathy for anyone citing inequality or unfairness. It's because they aren't doing more to better their situation.

We can all sell products and services. We don't need a massive workforce that stays as a workforce or is replenished as they all eventually become businessmen. No telling where the customers will come from but at the rate we've been going, you can start a shoe shining business for all of the new businessmen.

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: pexx421
How exactly do you think a nation with a deregulated market would look? What then would keep companies from controlling the market? How would businesses compete with monopoly powers? The market is not a natural thing. It’s man made, and at all times is either controlled by the government (which is controlled by the people in actual representative or democratic nations) or the wealthy businesses and business owners (which are usually he government in corrupt nations and oligarchies). Which of those do you think describe us? You want to deregulate the very people that cause all the problems and push all the legislation and regulation you say is the problem. Big business supports all the regulation that keeps small business from being competitive. And you want to free them to form the monopolies they’ve been drooling to be. The first thing they would do is buy out or price fix their competition out of existence.

The market is a natural thing in the sense that it arises naturally from people engaged in exchange of goods and services.

Any institution with the ability to regulate the market will inevitably engage in regulatory capture, or crony capitalism. Deregulation would theoretically do the opposite.

Except that businesses are very much institutions with the ability to regulate the market, in the absence of government regulations. And they, in absence of government regulation, will inevitably engage in regulatory capture and crony capitalism.

In earlier times before the federal govt became powerful the robber barons controlled all business. You don’t think they engaged in market controls? In brutal suppression of competition? In total domination and exploitation of their controlled market areas? To the death, destruction, and enslavement of generations?

Yes, I don't think they engaged in market controls. They did not regulate the market in the way proponents of deregulation talk about.

a reply to: pexx421

You think that banks actually have deposits in vaults that they use to lend people? That’s how you think banks work???

They have a certain amount of cash, to cover withdrawals. Most of the money deposited in banks is not in the form of cash, however.

They have a mortgage on the books. Say a $200k home. That’s an asset for them. So the fed sees that and gives them leave to lend out $2 million more with that mortgage as the holding asset. That’s leveraging. The fed let’s them leverage at 10x the value. So they take that 2 million of created money, that only exists in the digital world, and go lend it out to other people, each time leveraging it again from the fed.

I know what leveraging is. I wasn't aware of the actual multiplier, but I'll take your word for 10x. Sounds close to right.

Here's your mistake: Yes, a mortgage is an asset... a future asset. The house that is mortgaged is not an asset because it does not belong to the bank until it is repossessed. A mortgage is like any other loan with the exception that it is backed by actual real estate.

Banks do not leverage based on future assets, but on present assets. Present assets are money in the bank, be it money that the bank gets from mortgage payments or from deposits. Another Federal regulation specifies how much of those deposits must be kept on hand to satisfy withdrawal requests. The rest can be leveraged. So if I have, say, $5000 in the bank and the regulations say 20% of deposits must be kept on hand, and I get an auto loan for $40,000 when the leverage multliplier is 10x, the bank has simply leveraged 80% of my own deposits to loan me the money. Now, using round figures, if I pay that $40,000 back in 60 payments (5 years) of $800 per month, then the bank will have collected $48,000 instead of the $40,000 they loaned and will have made $8000 off of my $5000 deposit.

Those are rough round figures, and likely not close to accurate, but they should suffice as an illustration.

The problem comes in when banks use that leveraging to make questionable loans. If I default on my car loan used as an example above, the bank will make enough off the dozen or so people who don't default to not get hurt. But if 8 out of 10 people start defaulting, the bank is in trouble because of leveraging. A common practice then is to sell the future assets to cut losses. They do this by bundling bad assets with good assets to get a better price, and when a few of the good assets start to default, suddenly no one wants the assets at all.

That, in a nutshell, is what caused the 2008 recession. Ironically, one major reason for the large number of questionable loans was government insistence that banks loan more money for homes to people who could not afford them in the name of "helping the poor." In the end, the housing market was flooded with repossessions, the poor were homeless, and investors lost so much money it caused the entire economy to grind to a halt. So what does the government do? Pass another regulation on the banks who were doing as they were told.

Now we have you telling us that yes, regulation is bad, but deregulation is worse, and we have to have more regulation on the banks because they might actually do as they're told! And you say it in the name of helping the poor... again...

Someday, perhaps mankind will once again be given sight to see...

Perhaps...

TheRedneck

Seems to me that banks stayed in business just fine during the glass steagall times. Also seems to me that we don’t need private banks anyhow. North Dakota is the only state that has a public bank, and if you care to check you can see how their bank and their state held up during the crash of 08. Hey, nice explanation by the way!

originally posted by: pexx421
Seems to me that banks stayed in business just fine during the glass steagall times. Also seems to me that we don’t need private banks anyhow. North Dakota is the only state that has a public bank, and if you care to check you can see how their bank and their state held up during the crash of 08. Hey, nice explanation by the way!

So you don't want more government or big government ... but you do want government to control all banking in this country?

Talk about contradiction. Let me guess, you also want socialized medicine too?

Crying 'It's not fair is a childs argument.
Feeling undervalued take your skills to their competitor.
The company you are at not has no motivation to pay you more if the see that you would rather sit around and complain rather than doing something productive.

The real need for human working creating goods will probably be 10% 40 hours of week soon.

Administration and the monetary system is more a waste of time than creating something real. Most people today do something that can be automated away if we created a system that was not based on debt enslavement.

The power pyramid is a Ponzi scheme. And the free market will always be manipulated to become the crony capitalist market controlled by a few. Free market will never happen since there are profits to be made controlling the free market.


Venezuela is the example what happens when crony capitalism is set to a very unequal setting and the people revolt against the cronies. Then it gets replaced by a state market economy with a lesser power pyramid call socialism. Still do not fairly compensate work.

US middle class is going to lose buying power and end up experiencing the crony capitalism levels Venezuela was experiencing. Another "poster country" will chosen as the capitalism success story.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: pexx421
Seems to me that banks stayed in business just fine during the glass steagall times. Also seems to me that we don’t need private banks anyhow. North Dakota is the only state that has a public bank, and if you care to check you can see how their bank and their state held up during the crash of 08. Hey, nice explanation by the way!

So you don't want more government or big government ... but you do want government to control all banking in this country?

Talk about contradiction. Let me guess, you also want socialized medicine too?

I want what works best. And the public bank of North Dakota is considered more successful than Sachs or Morgan. And they are also more successful at facilitating the economy, and growing new business, whereas regular banks generally loan to corporate takeovers where the goal is to liquidate assets of business like the pensions, for profit.

And yes, I support single payer medicine. I’ve been working in medicine for 15 years, and can see where it’s headed under our current system.

a reply to: r0xor

We can all sell products and services. We don't need a massive workforce that stays as a workforce or is replenished as they all eventually become businessmen. No telling where the customers will come from but at the rate we've been going, you can start a shoe shining business for all of the new businessmen.

Most demands like your example will be cornered by AI and robots in the future. Supply will greatly outnumber demand.

a reply to: pexx421

Seems to me that banks stayed in business just fine during the glass steagall times. Also seems to me that we don’t need private banks anyhow. North Dakota is the only state that has a public bank, and if you care to check you can see how their bank and their state held up during the crash of 08. Hey, nice explanation by the way!

I'm not going to debate Glass-Stegall with you, because to be honest I haven't read it. I was responding to your statement of not allowing banks to consider total present assets in their loan process. That would be a disaster in the making and I am certain is quite beyond the scope of Glass-Stegall.

Could it be that North Dakota (traditionally a low-population conservative state) simply was more self-sustaining and therefore not as dependent on the banking system? I don't know the answer, but we should look at all contributing factors before making such a decision.

Thank you for the compliment.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Venezuela is the example what happens when crony capitalism is set to a very unequal setting and the people revolt against the cronies. Then it gets replaced by a state market economy with a lesser power pyramid call socialism.

Actually, no. Venezuela is what happens when social programs bankrupt a country under a corrupt administration.

Venezuela put all their eggs in one basket when they held a large chunk of the planet's oil supplies. They chose to spend all that excess wealth instituting social programs, instead of promoting an even larger and more diverse economy. When oil was discovered in Russia and the US became a net exporter, the oil market collapsed and suddenly Venezuela had no money to run their social programs. The government collapsed into something resembling a dictatorship and the people starting eating their zoos and pets to stay alive.

Nice fiction, though. Do you write?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: pexx421
Seems to me that banks stayed in business just fine during the glass steagall times. Also seems to me that we don’t need private banks anyhow. North Dakota is the only state that has a public bank, and if you care to check you can see how their bank and their state held up during the crash of 08. Hey, nice explanation by the way!

So you don't want more government or big government ... but you do want government to control all banking in this country?

Talk about contradiction. Let me guess, you also want socialized medicine too?

I want what works best. And the public bank of North Dakota is considered more successful than Sachs or Morgan. And they are also more successful at facilitating the economy, and growing new business, whereas regular banks generally loan to corporate takeovers where the goal is to liquidate assets of business like the pensions, for profit.

And yes, I support single payer medicine. I’ve been working in medicine for 15 years, and can see where it’s headed under our current system.

In other words, "nobody" wants more government.

Who is this nobody? I'd like to meet him and chat. You definitely do want more government. Has it also occurred to you that just because North Dakota has a state bank that works doesn't mean the idea is workable or practical in other states or on a national level?

In the end during the financial crisis, it was the biggest banks who had the most to leverage who tended to get in the most trouble during the financial crisis. The smaller, more local banks who had to be much more careful with their money and could not get into as many bad loans did much better and stayed more stable.

Also, I am highly skeptical that an institution that runs such a massive debt and annually adds much more in deficit is a sound basis for a bank. And I certainly don't want my financial assets forcibly tied up into it with it controlling all my funds. I'd like to have some chance of scraping something out when the government goes belly up and finally fails.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: pexx421
Seems to me that banks stayed in business just fine during the glass steagall times. Also seems to me that we don’t need private banks anyhow. North Dakota is the only state that has a public bank, and if you care to check you can see how their bank and their state held up during the crash of 08. Hey, nice explanation by the way!

So you don't want more government or big government ... but you do want government to control all banking in this country?

Talk about contradiction. Let me guess, you also want socialized medicine too?

I want what works best. And the public bank of North Dakota is considered more successful than Sachs or Morgan. And they are also more successful at facilitating the economy, and growing new business, whereas regular banks generally loan to corporate takeovers where the goal is to liquidate assets of business like the pensions, for profit.

And yes, I support single payer medicine. I’ve been working in medicine for 15 years, and can see where it’s headed under our current system.

In other words, "nobody" wants more government.

Who is this nobody? I'd like to meet him and chat. You definitely do want more government. Has it also occurred to you that just because North Dakota has a state bank that works doesn't mean the idea is workable or practical in other states or on a national level?

In the end during the financial crisis, it was the biggest banks who had the most to leverage who tended to get in the most trouble during the financial crisis. The smaller, more local banks who had to be much more careful with their money and could not get into as many bad loans did much better and stayed more stable.

Also, I am highly skeptical that an institution that runs such a massive debt and annually adds much more in deficit is a sound basis for a bank. And I certainly don't want my financial assets forcibly tied up into it with it controlling all my funds. I'd like to have some chance of scraping something out when the government goes belly up and finally fails.

The banks got in trouble?? They got bailed out with trillions of dollars! And got let off of the biggest fraud ever perpetrated with no jail time. They should have been nationalized. And they’re doing the exact same things now. And when it implodes they’re planning to do a bail in where they seize everyone’s deposits. Hope you stay with them though.

a reply to: pexx421

Everything you said is the truth.

There are 2 types of people who can't see what's really going on.

1. Those who have found a decent amount or moderate amount of success and justify the system based on the idea "If I can do it so can you". Which is quite honestly a bunch of BS. It takes a very special skill set that many people don't have.

2. Those who are moderately successful and maybe would like more income but are afraid to change anything out of fear of ending up with less.

The situation you describe is what Marx was explaining many years ago. Marx predicted that the people would push for Socialism the more the system disproportionately favored the unskilled owners verse the highly skilled laborer.

However Marx version of Socialism was a system where the workers as a collective are considered equal to the owners in determining pay and structure of the business. Marx's Socialism had absolutely nothing to do with state ownership or government control.

The modern definition of Socialism is actually just a cover for the same BS Facism that gets overthrown in every nation it's ever been implemented. State ownership is opposite of Marx's Socialism. Unfortunately most people are very uneducated when it comes to Marx, and have no idea what he actually saw and what he predicted would happen.

DP