Pretty well every 'capitalist' country has progressive taxation and some form of social welfare.
Plz explain.
Plz explain.
Fuck Israel
Actually, I was being sarcastic. I think my BBA requires me to actually know what capitalism is.lowing wrote:
sure, it is supply and demand, it is competition as to who produces the best product for a given price, it is the strong and viable survive and the weak and questionable get dissolved. There are no entitlements ( or there shouldn't be I should say). There should be no govt. interference, in the incompetency of a business. If the business is stupid with its market then it will fail and someone else will back fill their space.DonFck wrote:
Oh wise one, please tell us what capitalism is!
As we all have established, it doesn't work. Or yeah, it works for the select few, but it requires zero compassion to others.
I need around tree fiddy.
Nope, the govts roll is to enforce the laws or change them, in fact the system does work. These guys fly in private jets to beg for money and with the help of the press, congress will deny them ( if they wanna keep their jobs next election)Dilbert_X wrote:
But capitalism leads to money, money leads to power, power corrupts, -> Joe Schmuck has to shell out $25bn to someone who earns $25m/yr and flies around in a free aeroplane.
Pure communism and pure capitalism are fine in theory, but neither work in practice.
Ummmmm look at what the US has done in 200 years. Capitalism does work..........CREDITISM is what does not workDonFck wrote:
Actually, I was being sarcastic. I think my BBA requires me to actually know what capitalism is.lowing wrote:
sure, it is supply and demand, it is competition as to who produces the best product for a given price, it is the strong and viable survive and the weak and questionable get dissolved. There are no entitlements ( or there shouldn't be I should say). There should be no govt. interference, in the incompetency of a business. If the business is stupid with its market then it will fail and someone else will back fill their space.DonFck wrote:
Oh wise one, please tell us what capitalism is!
As we all have established, it doesn't work. Or yeah, it works for the select few, but it requires zero compassion to others.
Eh ... creditism is actually a part of capitalism lowing, and i would say the last two years have shown how die hard capitalism doesn't work, not without compassion and consideration ... a more social approach to capitalism works better ... you can't escape the fact that how it works now have failed miserably ....lowing wrote:
Ummmmm look at what the US has done in 200 years. Capitalism does work..........CREDITISM is what does not workDonFck wrote:
Actually, I was being sarcastic. I think my BBA requires me to actually know what capitalism is.lowing wrote:
sure, it is supply and demand, it is competition as to who produces the best product for a given price, it is the strong and viable survive and the weak and questionable get dissolved. There are no entitlements ( or there shouldn't be I should say). There should be no govt. interference, in the incompetency of a business. If the business is stupid with its market then it will fail and someone else will back fill their space.
As we all have established, it doesn't work. Or yeah, it works for the select few, but it requires zero compassion to others.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
3 major airlines that were on top of the world in the 60's and 70's are all gone now, and the world is still here. and no compensation was extended. Based on your govt. intereference we would still be pumping tax dollars into these companies extending nothing more than life support for a brain dead body.Uzique wrote:
People that define capitalism as 'supply and demand' are fucking primary-school economists.
There have to be entitlements or government interference, or else the entire system would collapse. There has to be competitive regulation and a hold on the entire machinery otherwise this 'supply and demand' relationship would drive half of the population either out of the country or into poverty. It's not realistic Lowing... Jesus, read an actual book or something. Darwinian economics and all this 'survival of the fittest' bullshit doesn't benefit anybody... how do the rich fat cats and the 'predators' carry on reaping profits if their subordinate underclass of peons all die off or fall through the safety net? How would your society even continue to function at a basic level if all the people performing menial (yet necessary) tasks at the bottom of the ladder didn't have support and government injection to keep them afloat every now and then?
Whereas I do agree with "If the business is stupid with its market then it will fail and someone else will back fill their space"- I do not think it's practical to be entirely absolute on this stance. If the 'business' happens to be a huge multinational corporation that is keeping thousands of people employed and many more hundreds of thousands financially afloat, then it shouldn't just disappear off the map without any contigency scheme or compensation for the affected.
How would supply and demand kill off everyone? Build something people want and are willing to pay for and you make money, build more and your company grows, make even more and you need employees to sustain the demand.
Credit is not capital.Varegg wrote:
Eh ... creditism is actually a part of capitalism lowing, and i would say the last two years have shown how die hard capitalism doesn't work, not without compassion and consideration ... a more social approach to capitalism works better ... you can't escape the fact that how it works now have failed miserably ....lowing wrote:
Ummmmm look at what the US has done in 200 years. Capitalism does work..........CREDITISM is what does not workDonFck wrote:
Actually, I was being sarcastic. I think my BBA requires me to actually know what capitalism is.
As we all have established, it doesn't work. Or yeah, it works for the select few, but it requires zero compassion to others.
Extending credit let alone to those that are not responsible enough to have it is not what the system was meant to be. We did just fine before credit cards and shit came to pass, after WW2 wasn't it?
Credit is capital lowing, basic economics 101lowing wrote:
Credit is not capital.Varegg wrote:
Eh ... creditism is actually a part of capitalism lowing, and i would say the last two years have shown how die hard capitalism doesn't work, not without compassion and consideration ... a more social approach to capitalism works better ... you can't escape the fact that how it works now have failed miserably ....lowing wrote:
Ummmmm look at what the US has done in 200 years. Capitalism does work..........CREDITISM is what does not work
Extending credit let alone to those that are not responsible enough to have it is not what the system was meant to be. We did just fine before credit cards and shit came to pass, after WW2 wasn't it?
What it was meant to be and what it have become is irrelevant lowing, credit cards are not to blame for parts of the system not functioning ... it's not the gun that kill but the guy that use it remember ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Google search 'The Great Depression'. Unregulated and uninterfered capitalism at its finest (?)lowing wrote:
Ummmmm look at what the US has done in 200 years. Capitalism does work..........CREDITISM is what does not workDonFck wrote:
Actually, I was being sarcastic. I think my BBA requires me to actually know what capitalism is.lowing wrote:
sure, it is supply and demand, it is competition as to who produces the best product for a given price, it is the strong and viable survive and the weak and questionable get dissolved. There are no entitlements ( or there shouldn't be I should say). There should be no govt. interference, in the incompetency of a business. If the business is stupid with its market then it will fail and someone else will back fill their space.
As we all have established, it doesn't work. Or yeah, it works for the select few, but it requires zero compassion to others.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You mean like snake oil?Build something people want and are willing to pay for and you make money, build more and your company grows, make even more and you need employees to sustain the demand.
Fuck Israel
Yup you are right and the part that broke down was fuckers not paying their promissory notes. The link broke there. Everyone operated on what was accounts recievable and not what was in hand.Varegg wrote:
Credit is capital lowing, basic economics 101lowing wrote:
Credit is not capital.Varegg wrote:
Eh ... creditism is actually a part of capitalism lowing, and i would say the last two years have shown how die hard capitalism doesn't work, not without compassion and consideration ... a more social approach to capitalism works better ... you can't escape the fact that how it works now have failed miserably ....
Extending credit let alone to those that are not responsible enough to have it is not what the system was meant to be. We did just fine before credit cards and shit came to pass, after WW2 wasn't it?
What it was meant to be and what it have become is irrelevant lowing, credit cards are not to blame for parts of the system not functioning ... it's not the gun that kill but the guy that use it remember ?
Yup, or pet rocks or diet pills, or buns of steel videos, if people want it, they will buy it until it comes to light that it sucks, then you go out of business. If your product sustains throughout its scrutiny you are a success.Dilbert_X wrote:
You mean like snake oil?Build something people want and are willing to pay for and you make money, build more and your company grows, make even more and you need employees to sustain the demand.
Wow...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It doesn't matter that it isn't take home pay. It's still a benefit that costs money to the company. In fact, I just read in this morning's paper that half of the money that GM wants is to support retirement benefits. That's right, of that huge chunk of money they want, 1/2 of it is to support people that don't even work there any more.Karbin wrote:
Unfortunately, way to many think that it's "Take home pay".Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
That number isn't just wages, but wages+all benefits. So to figure the true cost an employee has on the company you have to look at insurance, vacation time, pensions and/or 401K contribution matches, plus any of the other bennies that you get.
You have to realize that much of GMs current expenses are retirees that worked for the company when retirement meant pensions and insurance.
To add to that, a 40 hour week will NOT total 70k a year.
Here, the law is over time at 46 hours.
Contract is over time at over 40 hours or over 8 hours a shift.
As well the company can make a Saturday as mandatory.
Miss a day around here and.........
Benefits for me and my family are:
50/50 on meds to 250 a year, then I'm out of pocket.
Glasses are 220 in a two year period, then I'm out of pocket.
Dental is 2500 over 9 months, then out of pocket.
401/k, don't have them here, and what we do have they don't match.
Now about the 1/2 the money being asked for by GM.
2010 (I think) GM's benefits and retirement responsibilities pass to the UAW as per their contract signed last summer.
The money is the last installment on it.
lowing ........and lets not forget what they get when they are laid off.
I get Unemployment Insurance, just like any other worker.
I do get a Supplementary Unemployment Benefit that tops me up to 85% of my 40 hour pay.
SUB is NOT from the company, it's from my union dues. However, the company has topped it up twice in the 20 years I've been working here.
As for your defense of "Unregulated and uninterfered capitalism ", well....we had one BIG crash from a unregulated market. The Government response to it was to emplace controls on the market.
Over the last 30 years business "Leaders" have been busy pushing politicians to repeal them, using the mantra "Let the market control it's self." and "We are capable of self-regulation".
Guess in the last 18 months, we've seen how well that worked.
Ok so you still get paid even though you are not working, ya gotta love that, at least you admit the company had to fund it.Karbin wrote:
Wow...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
It doesn't matter that it isn't take home pay. It's still a benefit that costs money to the company. In fact, I just read in this morning's paper that half of the money that GM wants is to support retirement benefits. That's right, of that huge chunk of money they want, 1/2 of it is to support people that don't even work there any more.Karbin wrote:
Unfortunately, way to many think that it's "Take home pay".
To add to that, a 40 hour week will NOT total 70k a year.
Here, the law is over time at 46 hours.
Contract is over time at over 40 hours or over 8 hours a shift.
As well the company can make a Saturday as mandatory.
Miss a day around here and.........
Benefits for me and my family are:
50/50 on meds to 250 a year, then I'm out of pocket.
Glasses are 220 in a two year period, then I'm out of pocket.
Dental is 2500 over 9 months, then out of pocket.
401/k, don't have them here, and what we do have they don't match.
Now about the 1/2 the money being asked for by GM.
2010 (I think) GM's benefits and retirement responsibilities pass to the UAW as per their contract signed last summer.
The money is the last installment on it.
lowing ........and lets not forget what they get when they are laid off.
I get Unemployment Insurance, just like any other worker.
I do get a Supplementary Unemployment Benefit that tops me up to 85% of my 40 hour pay.
SUB is NOT from the company, it's from my union dues. However, the company has topped it up twice in the 20 years I've been working here.
As for your defense of "Unregulated and uninterfered capitalism ", well....we had one BIG crash from a unregulated market. The Government response to it was to emplace controls on the market.
Over the last 30 years business "Leaders" have been busy pushing politicians to repeal them, using the mantra "Let the market control it's self." and "We are capable of self-regulation".
Guess in the last 18 months, we've seen how well that worked.
and what were the first signs of a "crisis"? People not paying their bills. Until the point where people buried themselves in debt and could no longer pay there were no problems
I will also add that TWA Eastern and Pan Am were a few of the majors that were screaming for de-regulation, and they got it. New players emerged, fresh ideas, fresh marketing etc and newer better airlines thrived. What exactly is the problem?
Last edited by lowing (2008-11-22 05:08:58)
not to be a combo breaker, but havent heard much from jesus.....erm obama on this matter for the most part. why not?
Regulating a market is one thing. Bail outs are another.Uzique wrote:
Real and ungoverned capitalism would collapse and /fail harder than Marxist Communism if it wasn't for government/institutional support and cash injection. It's a backbone that, whilst contrary to the ideals and principles of the economic philosophy, all the more needs to be there to stop you guys from over-investing and shopping yourselves into another obese consumerist Dark Age.
It is true that regulation is necessary to prevent ridiculous behavior on the part of insanely greedy CEOs, but bail outs are a really bad idea.
Generally speaking, the best method of cash injection comes in the form of things like tax cuts and new deductions.
I disagree greed should not be regulated by the govt. It simply isn't their job. Greed should be regulated by the stock holders. Period. They can and should be able to pay their CEO's whatever they decide. The employees can then choose to decide what they want to do about it, either quit or continue to work, and the court of public opinion can decide what they want to do about it, support them by buying their product or boycot them by not buying their product and watch them fold.Turquoise wrote:
Regulating a market is one thing. Bail outs are another.Uzique wrote:
Real and ungoverned capitalism would collapse and /fail harder than Marxist Communism if it wasn't for government/institutional support and cash injection. It's a backbone that, whilst contrary to the ideals and principles of the economic philosophy, all the more needs to be there to stop you guys from over-investing and shopping yourselves into another obese consumerist Dark Age.
It is true that regulation is necessary to prevent ridiculous behavior on the part of insanely greedy CEOs, but bail outs are a really bad idea.
Generally speaking, the best method of cash injection comes in the form of things like tax cuts and new deductions.
Companies should not ask taxpayers for money period. Live and die by their own sword ( greed).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7743571.stmusmarine wrote:
not to be a combo breaker, but havent heard much from jesus.....erm obama on this matter for the most part. why not?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Should be, never is.Lowing wrote:
Greed should be regulated by the stock holders
Large corporations are essentially governed by other large corporations.
They all sit on each others boards, vote down someones pay today he'll vote down theirs tomorrow.
Fuck Israel
That is fine, it is their companies, they should be allowed to pay whatever they want. We can in turn, work for them or not, or buy their product or not. What is the problem?Dilbert_X wrote:
Should be, never is.Lowing wrote:
Greed should be regulated by the stock holders
Large corporations are essentially governed by other large corporations.
They all sit on each others boards, vote down someones pay today he'll vote down theirs tomorrow.
Everyone seems to think being a CEO does not take any effort on the part of the individual, so go out and be a CEO someplace. In fact if success is so god damned easy, go build your own company employ your own workers, pay them like VP's for washing windows ( since that seems to be what is "fair" and "nieghborly" and the "nice thing to do", pay yourself the same and answer to no one, except your own stock holders. Good luck with it.
I definitely agree with your last sentence, but when I was talking about regulation, I was referring more to things like regulating speculative markets and banning things like mortgage derivatives.lowing wrote:
I disagree greed should not be regulated by the govt. It simply isn't their job. Greed should be regulated by the stock holders. Period. They can and should be able to pay their CEO's whatever they decide. The employees can then choose to decide what they want to do about it, either quit or continue to work, and the court of public opinion can decide what they want to do about it, support them by buying their product or boycot them by not buying their product and watch them fold.Turquoise wrote:
Regulating a market is one thing. Bail outs are another.Uzique wrote:
Real and ungoverned capitalism would collapse and /fail harder than Marxist Communism if it wasn't for government/institutional support and cash injection. It's a backbone that, whilst contrary to the ideals and principles of the economic philosophy, all the more needs to be there to stop you guys from over-investing and shopping yourselves into another obese consumerist Dark Age.
It is true that regulation is necessary to prevent ridiculous behavior on the part of insanely greedy CEOs, but bail outs are a really bad idea.
Generally speaking, the best method of cash injection comes in the form of things like tax cuts and new deductions.
Companies should not ask taxpayers for money period. Live and die by their own sword ( greed).
I don't think the government should interfere with payscales, but it should keep companies from doing highly risky speculative actions or from borrowing far more than they should.
and that has what to do with ford bail outs?FatherTed wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7743571.stmusmarine wrote:
not to be a combo breaker, but havent heard much from jesus.....erm obama on this matter for the most part. why not?
All of Ford's unemployed can go work in one of Obama's labour camps.usmarine wrote:
and that has what to do with ford bail outs?FatherTed wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7743571.stmusmarine wrote:
not to be a combo breaker, but havent heard much from jesus.....erm obama on this matter for the most part. why not?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Just a fast one for those bitching about $40 bucks for pulling tape.........
It's the company that decides the job and the work done. We have zero input.
So lowing,at al, please remember that when you state your opinions.
Thanks
It's the company that decides the job and the work done. We have zero input.
So lowing,at al, please remember that when you state your opinions.
Thanks
no. thats not true. they get a bail out by taxpayers, so we should have a say.Karbin wrote:
It's the company that decides the job and the work done. We have zero input.