if 95% of wealth is controlled by 5% of the people

[Foglght]

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

You can't say that I made and assumption that has occured. This makes it a fact, not an assumption. Socialism dictates the wage and the standards of things such as safety. It is not as simple as simply setting a wage that everybody lives by.

For either possibility to exist, you HAVE to assume that people are doing the right thing.....i.e. what I've been saying about responsibility.

A fault on either end, which is inevitable, will cause corruption of the system, and rendering it dysfunctional.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

'thus the creation of unions' sounds an awful lot like an acknowledgment that at least a modicum of socialism must exist.

In my mind, a corporation that saw the uprising of the union would seek to set wages properly so the union never develops and becomes the lumbering, 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

I keep saying it, but maybe you haven't read it yet:

A commitment to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of our workforce and their families as well as the local community at large.

^this is what business is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

Actually, this is your strategy at work. You allow the pretty much open market to exist which allows china to deflate the value of your wage and currency by not abiding by the same standards of human rights as you do. I personally think that we have the best thing going so we should be trying to elevate the rest of the world to our standard living, not be dumbing ourselves down to the lowest common denominator. I mean it is a matter of perspective but your perspective leads us into a race to the bottom whereas mine enables us to race for the top.

We obviously don't have the best thing going at the moment, considering China owns a large portion of our debt, and their own economy is booming.

What I didn't say was that this is a cycle. China is where the US was in the late 1800's. While I don't think you will see the formation of labor unions, there WILL be a worker revolt at some point. And btw, the Chinese set wages for the people. This is a great example of what can happen if the government is in control. In the same sense that I don't think the politicians in washington give a damn about the people, neither does china.

We outsource because the bottom line says its cheaper to do business over there right now. Wages in China are on the rise to quell the public. How far will it go? Probably high enough to make doing business over there not such a great idea, other than the fact that their economy will eclipse ours in less than 10 years. It will come back around, and as long as we don't shoot ourselves in the foot by converting to a "chinese" type government, we will win that battle.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

You are arguing for exactly what I said pure capitalists would argue for. You want to lower our wages and standard of living to become more in line with china, thus becoming more competitive globally. Well, in order to have their wages set at such a low point the chinese have to have brutal stances on human and worker rights along with a brutal quality of life enjoyed by all but the uppermost tier of their society. If this what an open market provides for then I simply can't understand why you advocate for it.

There's no choice now. The US can't implement severe protectionist policies when the Chinese OWN us. Many of those markets are keeping American companies in business. Especially the car companies, who saw a huge uptick in profit from Chinese markets as of recent. You do that, and we'll see a HUGE backlash from across the pond.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

We can also keep work here by taxing the living shit out of importers (such as china) who deflate the value of our labor by selling their dirty products in our free market.

We have a pseudo free market. Many industries are subsidized and the government controls the production and distribution. Example:

1. Airline manufacturers
2. Corn production

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

Not at all, socialism could be as simple as a fair tax and a standardized labor code. States would set their own labor payment structure and their funds would be based on their percentage of contribution to the collective. I can't think of a more fair system.

I'm in for the fair tax...everyone pays the same, regardless of income level. THAT is fair. The problem is that what you are saying is Jhonny should pay more than Sally because he is smarter and makes more money. That is called theft, also illegal.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

So your argument is essentially that in order for capitalism to exist there must be freedom to exploit workers.. gotcha.

I am not advocating for exploitation of workers. I believe in the education of the workers, and getting them to understand the situation, especially with China. If the workers are informed, they can make better decisions.

Example:

Company A says that Company B is outsourcing to China and Company A can't compete unless they lower wages here, or outsource the work. Show them the money trail. If the workers knew the ins and outs, they could probably stage a decent boycot of all company B products, because company B is more concerned with profit than the well being of its own people. Lost sales would cause company B to reconsider.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

This might be partly true however this leaves no responsibility for the problem to the capitalists... many of whom obtained those loans for their unqualified clients on a fraudulent basis. How many stories have you heard of inflated income numbers on loan applications? Yeah, perhaps the liberals opened the door to loaning money to those who perhaps couldn't afford it, but the capitalists ran right through that door with reckless abandon.

oh no, this shit was across the board. The people you are labeling capitalists are not really so. They are an embarassment to the system, on both ends.

Many of these loans didn't require income statements, or verification. Though, it was up to the citizen to ensure the numbers were correct. You can't put that on any company, that is the work of the people themselves.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

Neither do your antiquated and extreme positions on capitalism... as proven by history as it exists today. If your system worked so well 100 years ago why did it need to be changed? The answer is, because it didn't work. You had your chance to run with your idea in a pure sense and it failed. Now we have what we have now, and our ideas have failed because we have tried to include the ideals of the capitalist. Which is nice and all however it has left us with a bastardized system with no identity and as such no accountability.

It didn't need to be changed, but the American idea of "instant gratification" took over long ago. It did work, and was what propelled us ahead of everyone else, by a large margin.

It is bastardized because the system has not been ammended properly, and the feds are strongarming states into compliance on policies that are purely illegal. It isn't about having the supreme court decide, its about policy itself.

You can ask any actual constitutional law professor or student. If the Michigan state government decided that it did not wish to participate in medicare or medicaid, it can do so at any time. Though, because of years of illegal policy, the federal government can come in and withold funding for other programs to "compel" Michigan to comply with medicare and medicaid.

[60ndown]

Originally Posted by Foglght

ahead of everyone else, by a large margin.

.

if you believe financial meltdown, medicating your population and warfare is ahead.

[BoostedNihilist]

For either possibility to exist, you HAVE to assume that people are doing the right thing.....i.e. what I've been saying about responsibility.

A fault on either end, which is inevitable, will cause corruption of the system, and rendering it dysfunctional.

Yes, however in my system the oversight would be more than superficial window dressing. This becomes important because of your next point.

Quote:
A commitment to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of our workforce and their families as well as the local community at large.
^this is what business is supposed to be.

I agree however this is a rather utopian view of capitalism. As you have pointed out the inevitable corruption makes the system dysfunctional. However in your model the only commitment to ethically develop economically while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families belongs to those few capiltalists with control of the means of production. This model lends itself to corruption. Without government intervention it has been proven time and time again. You seem to understand this because you pointed out...

In my mind, a corporation that saw the uprising of the union would seek to set wages properly so the union never develops and becomes the lumbering, 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

Yet, they exist. Under your model there would be no need because everybody would be committed to economic development while improving the quality of life of our workforce and their families.. yet this didn't happen.

What about the commitment? well, without any enforcement of this ideal it came to the point where workers had to take matters into their own hands.. which really is free market economy at work. The laborers control the labor not the people who pay them. With solidarity the workers can dictate the terms of their employment.

In other words, without socialism that commitment would be worth the bits it takes up on my screen.

I agree with you that your idea works on paper, but in reality... questionable...

Chinese set wages for the people

Yeah, communism and socialism.. not the same thing.

I'm in for the fair tax...everyone pays the same, regardless of income level. THAT is fair.

How is this fair. If the tax is 300 for everybody, billy makes 300 and ted makes six, this means that everything billy has goes to uncle same and only half of what ted makes gets there... seems pretty unfair to me.

Company A says that Company B is outsourcing to China and Company A can't compete unless they lower wages here, or outsource the work. Show them the money trail. If the workers knew the ins and outs, they could probably stage a decent boycot of all company B products, because company B is more concerned with profit than the well being of its own people. Lost sales would cause company B to reconsider.

This is protectionism, though veiled, and I agree. If we stopped buying Chinese shit and bought american shit it would ultimately have the same impact as governmental protectionist policies. I argued for this concept during the auto bailouts.

I thought the union should have picketed all the asian makers US based factories in a boycott against their sub-standard wages. I mean, whatever you say about skill or education, the car manufacturers signed agreements with the unions and the unions had to make concessions.. how many of your capitalist bankers refused their bonii?

At any rate we are at a chasm. You believe socialism is the problem with capitalism and I believe capitalism is the problem with socialism. Neither of us have a working model to base our contention so how do we judge which system is right or wrong?

[60ndown]

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

At any rate we are at a chasm. You believe socialism is the problem with capitalism and I believe capitalism is the problem with socialism. Neither of us have a working model to base our contention so how do we judge which system is right or wrong?

no need,

just start shootin

[Foglght]

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

How is this fair. If the tax is 300 for everybody, billy makes 300 and ted makes six, this means that everything billy has goes to uncle same and only half of what ted makes gets there... seems pretty unfair to me.

Percentage based fair tax....fairly, everyone gets taxed at 15% or so. And it would be signed as contract into law, so that tax increases could not occur for at least 10 years. Then the feds would have to "make due" with the money they have, instead of slowly taxing us to death.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

This is protectionism, though veiled, and I agree. If we stopped buying Chinese shit and bought american shit it would ultimately have the same impact as governmental protectionist policies. I argued for this concept during the auto bailouts.

See the difference though is that China can't be mad at the government of the US for a decision that the PEOPLE made. That is freedom, and that is capitalism.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

I thought the union should have picketed all the asian makers US based factories in a boycott against their sub-standard wages. I mean, whatever you say about skill or education, the car manufacturers signed agreements with the unions and the unions had to make concessions.. how many of your capitalist bankers refused their bonii?

You seem to put bankers in the capitalist area, and all blue collar people seem to be unionized, broken hearted folk. Both types of people span the range. It is pretty difficult, though, to stay a socialist when the government says 60-70% of your earned money belongs to us. It is pure theft.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

At any rate we are at a chasm. You believe socialism is the problem with capitalism and I believe capitalism is the problem with socialism. Neither of us have a working model to base our contention so how do we judge which system is right or wrong?

A lot of people have made a lot of mistakes to cause the fallout for a capitalist system. Implementing a socialist system, piece by piece, will make it worse.

Our worst enemy is uneducated people.

[OSN]

I would just like to comment that the BoostedNihilist/Foglght debate is the most enjoyable discussion I've read here yet on government/economy/politics. Actual
substance is refreshing.

[JAX]

Originally Posted by 60ndown

he cant read that,

your on ignore

and your calling him stupid

hahaha..........his ego wont let him shut up......

[BoostedNihilist]

Percentage based fair tax....fairly, everyone gets taxed at 15% or so. And it would be signed as contract into law, so that tax increases could not occur for at least 10 years. Then the feds would have to "make due" with the money they have, instead of slowly taxing us to death.

When you said fair as in everybody pays the same I thought you meant a simple unilateral amount that one would pay no matter where they rank on the income hierarchy. I agree thought that a fair xx% tax across the board is a far better system than what we have now.

See the difference though is that China can't be mad at the government of the US for a decision that the PEOPLE made. That is freedom, and that is capitalism.

I totally understand this. and I would stand with you in a protest such as this despite the fact we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. This is an important struggle and no matter which side you reside doing this will help the country. Organizing and pulling this off though.. it's tough to unite the American people. As you said, uneducated people are the enemy and unfortunately that makes up a huge percentage of both wings.. so ignorant and so close minded. Rather than working against each other we should all come together and work towards those issues we can agree on and this is one of them.

You seem to put bankers in the capitalist area, and all blue collar people seem to be unionized, broken hearted folk. Both types of people span the range. It is pretty difficult, though, to stay a socialist when the government says 60-70% of your earned money belongs to us. It is pure theft.

I do generalize bankers into the capitalist demographic. It is probably not the most accurate assumption but when I look at their influence over the system versus mine I pale in capitalist comparison despite the fact that I have never driven my corporation (myself) into the ground.

continuing

Yes, if you assume you cannot have a government model that actually works when it comes to fiscal responsibility... If you were getting a return on that investment in the form of social services or social infrastructure then it wouldn't be pure theft.. however, yeah 60-70%, double, triple, quadruple taxes... not the right solution at any rate.

A lot of people have made a lot of mistakes to cause the fallout for a capitalist system. Implementing a socialist system, piece by piece, will make it worse.

I agree. I personally don't have a problem with your system interpreted literally as you have stated. I am willing to believe that there are enough good people out there to ensure that the commitment to social and economic welfare might be enough to keep a free market economy free from the corruption it has suffered under our current model.

I would say thought that either of our ideas seem to work only in the extreme. And when I say extreme I don't mean the wacked out crazy extreme, I'm talking about the paper extreme of right and left philosophy... and then, only if people can stay ethical.

[schmiddr2]

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

When you said fair as in everybody pays the same I thought you meant a simple unilateral amount that one would pay no matter where they rank on the income hierarchy. I agree thought that a fair xx% tax across the board is a far better system than what we have now.

Sounds like it could work. Although I prefer the flat tax with no income/state tax. Have any of you ever considered is validity?

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

I totally understand this. and I would stand with you in a protest such as this despite the fact we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. This is an important struggle and no matter which side you reside doing this will help the country. Organizing and pulling this off though.. it's tough to unite the American people. As you said, uneducated people are the enemy and unfortunately that makes up a huge percentage of both wings.. so ignorant and so close minded. Rather than working against each other we should all come together and work towards those issues we can agree on and this is one of them.

I agree people are ignorant by their own accord, but for a lot of people just reading and understanding law is like deciphering a cryptic. And there is no easy way to jump into being a government watch dog if you have never done it. The information is just not placed on center stage for all to see. Add that to the fact that most people don't care because they "already have enough to worry about" and you get a normally complacent society. This is ideal for the ones in control.

[SublimeZ]

Originally Posted by OldSchoolNewbie

I would just like to comment that the BoostedNihilist/Foglght debate is the most enjoyable discussion I've read here yet on government/economy/politics. Actual
substance is refreshing.

agreed. civil discussion on a touchy subject.


SublimeZ approves of this thread.

[Foglght]

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

When you said fair as in everybody pays the same I thought you meant a simple unilateral amount that one would pay no matter where they rank on the income hierarchy. I agree thought that a fair xx% tax across the board is a far better system than what we have now.

I was thinking about this earlier, and I would be more in favor of something like a 6% federal tax, and a 14-18% state tax, flat across the board for everyone. Get rid of the IRS while we're at it. Sign into law that tax staying the same for a minimum amount of time, and then can be revisited and renegotiated at that time. Each state could set its own rate, but the fed rate would stay consistent.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

I totally understand this. and I would stand with you in a protest such as this despite the fact we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. This is an important struggle and no matter which side you reside doing this will help the country. Organizing and pulling this off though.. it's tough to unite the American people. As you said, uneducated people are the enemy and unfortunately that makes up a huge percentage of both wings.. so ignorant and so close minded. Rather than working against each other we should all come together and work towards those issues we can agree on and this is one of them.

I think, truly, you are WAY more republican than you think. I don't mean conservative either, I really mean OLD OLD OLD school republican.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

Yes, if you assume you cannot have a government model that actually works when it comes to fiscal responsibility... If you were getting a return on that investment in the form of social services or social infrastructure then it wouldn't be pure theft.. however, yeah 60-70%, double, triple, quadruple taxes... not the right solution at any rate.

Which is why you can start to see why a MASSIVE federal government is not a good idea. Federal programs are lumbering, inefficient, piles of garbage. The founders knew that, and was one of the big reasons for attempting to disallow the federal government to become what it has. If you look into states rights, and state law, what you propose for the federal government is actually legal for the states, and each state has its own form of constitution.

Again, what is good for Michigan is not what is good for Florida. California has been trying out the soclialist mantra for quite some time now. Fail.

Originally Posted by BoostedNihilist

I agree. I personally don't have a problem with your system interpreted literally as you have stated. I am willing to believe that there are enough good people out there to ensure that the commitment to social and economic welfare might be enough to keep a free market economy free from the corruption it has suffered under our current model.

Nothing can ever be perfect, but if the powers are limited, and rules are harsh yet simple, things can be better.

A good example of the two sides is this whole bank thing I was hearing about today. First, you look at the massive screw up on both sides with the lending and the derivatives trading. This mostly causes the meltdown. That is a fault for the caps and the socials. Then the government comes in and socially bails them out. Some didn't even ask for it, and refused the money, yet they were given the funds anyway, and now regulated. These same corporations were making loans to other banks with tarp funds. Along with that, now we are seeing these huge bonuses. Best part is now that the feds are seeing these huge bonuses, they are now going to regulate how much people get paid!

Both sides are wrong, but now its so complicated, nobody will ever be able to figure it all out, and will cost us FAR more money than if the corporations were allowed to go bankrupt. Do I have facts and figures for that? No, but its pretty obvious that the monetary amount is staggering.

[bobduch]

It all goes back to Margaret Thatcher.
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Kinda like we're doing here now.

[TREETOP]

Originally Posted by bobduch

It all goes back to Margaret Thatcher.
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Kinda like we're doing here now.

True. You can only borrow your way out of debt for so long...

[OSN]

Originally Posted by bobduch

It all goes back to Margaret Thatcher.
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Kinda like we're doing here now.

GWB was a socialist?

[slow2.2sonoma]

Without reading all of the other posts I have a few small points to make. If capitalism is so evil why is it that the most succesful countries in the world became so through the practice of capitalism and letting their markets work and countries which have heavily relied on government to either redistribute wealth or create wealth have failed? The only true communist country today is North Korea and half their population is starving to death while their government forces their farmers to grow opium for an export economy. They ignore the market which is it has hurt more people then it ever helped. Had people been able to keep their earnings and put it away for retirement on their own they would have a significant retirement right now, but instead we forced them to give up their wages with a promise they would get them back in the future and now when they come to retire they won't see a dime. Instead like every socialist policy in history they will be left in the streets with nothing, but it's ok because everyone will be left in the streets right along side each other...Go Socialism!

Off Topic:
"Governments are really good at killing people" this is my favorite quote from me .

Have a nice day.

[luvdeftonz]

This country doesn't practice capitalism, unfortunately (more of a mixed system). Our gov't has too much control and regulates, literally, everything. From the water we drink to the air we breathe, they have their hand in it . Prices...from wages, to interest rates, taxes, regulations, etc. are set in some fashion or heavily influenced by the gov't. The continued rise in health care costs is easy to figure out if you follow the governments interference from the 40's on through Medicare, the HMO act, to over-regulated health insurance providers, to over-regulated health care providers. You can find similar governmental interference links in everything from housing costs, the cost of a vehicle, from the price of a plane ticket to the price of a pack of cigarettes. Whenever there is discussions of wealth, the "rich", "evil" corporations, the poor, etc., the gov't always seems to get a free pass. Evidently, (enough) people are too cowardous to call out their gov't for f'in things up, even when the governments screw ups are well documented and easy to find/research.

I could care less how wealth is "distributed", a word that assumes an awful lot. So long as it is done fairly, and we've had laws in place to ensure fairness for well over 200 years (not always enforced, but that's another issue), I'm cool with it. I decide what to spend money on, how much to spend, how much to save/invest, etc. The gov't doesn't need to stick it's head in when there's a mutually beneficial deal taking place between me and some evil corporation/company/rich person. If I'm not benefiting, or the service/good isn't worth the price the seller is asking, I move on. I continue to move on until someone either meets my price or I decide I should meet theirs. If Joe's Market wants to pay me $5/hr and I think I'm being low balled, I'll look for work elsewhere. If Apple wants to sell me an 8gb iPod for $1000, I'll look elsewhere for a portable music player. Etc., etc., etc... Now, if I decide I don't want to buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle, forget the market dictating the next plan of action, we just have Joe Politician give them a shit ton of money so they can continue making vehicles nobody wants.

I'd like my gov't to protect my private property rights and safety, and to get the hell out of the way on everything else.

BTW, that poor 'other' 5% and their wealth would still make this country wealthier than all but 16 other countries.

[BoostedNihilist]

Without reading all of the other posts I have a few small points to make. If capitalism is so evil why is it that the most succesful countries in the world became so through the practice of capitalism and letting their markets work and countries which have heavily relied on government to either redistribute wealth or create wealth have failed? The only true communist country today is North Korea and half their population is starving to death while their government forces their farmers to grow opium for an export economy. They ignore the market which is it has hurt more people then it ever helped. Had people been able to keep their earnings and put it away for retirement on their own they would have a significant retirement right now, but instead we forced them to give up their wages with a promise they would get them back in the future and now when they come to retire they won't see a dime. Instead like every socialist policy in history they will be left in the streets with nothing, but it's ok because everyone will be left in the streets right along side each other...Go Socialism!

you should have read the rest of the posts, because then you would know that socialism and communism are polar opposites on the left/right political spectrum.

[Foglght]

Ever wanted a really good reason to not do business with China?

Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush

[BigRed]

95% of wealth IS controlled by 5% of the people....its already here

[bobduch]

In 1994 there was an article in the Denver Post about the high cost of housing in Aspen. In it a lady in her 30's was quoted several times. She complained about the fact that she made $35,000 per year (remember, this was 1994) and had to commute 45 minutes each way because she could not afford to live in Aspen and that it wasn't FAIR. This lady was a manicurist. She painted friggin nails for a living. And complained that "somebody" should do something so she could afford to live in Aspen. Where the hell is it written that she is entitled to live in Aspen? I'd like to live in Aspen too. But don't want to live in a 600 sq. ft condo with no garage so I don't. But I don't complain about it either. One of the great things about this country is that if you don't like your economic lot in life you are free to go out and improve it. But it can take hard work. Something we Americans are not as good at as we used to be. But there are billions of people in the world who are willing to do the hard work. And many of them will pass us by. And it will be a shame, but it will happen. And it will be our own fault.