Capitalism Doesn’t Work

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not once did I say anything about forced employment or a command economy. If putting a microscope on corporate labor-pool manipulation is antithetical to you, then it is not I who has explaining to do. What I propose is short-term economic bandages mixed with empowering the government (and therefore, the people) with the tools to weed out the bad apples. Right now these practices are rampant, unimpeded, and run totally counter to the spirit of US Law and good capitalism for that matter.

Okay. Should there be tighter requirements for the use of contractors? Yes; ie contractors should be free to work for the competition, companies should have reduced rights to direct access of their contractors to discourage the use of contractors to simply skirt wages, retirement and health insurance. This might encourage this relationship to grow fruit. Stricter scrutiny can be paid to overtime hours.

I think it is noble of you to be interested in the plight of hardworking Americans who can't seem to get out of the whole that they live in. I am open to your suggestions and have a similar goal - BUT I am also interested in the experience of the employer. Most of these abusive policies are their attempt to keep their businesses afloat. Most small businesses close because they are run by people who are just not that good at stuff. Wages are a killer, prices are too competitive, etc. These people didn't get into business to create jobs for us, but to control their lives and make money for their families. We don't even factor into it and we only shouldn't if they are outright abusing us. Some employers actually really want to help their employees grow, but these are rare.

Long story short, I just wish that more punitive measure were used on companies with the most abusive track records, with local small businesses getting a free pass for a long time. Maybe requiring a profit sharing requirement? This would probably help if done right.

[Strike For The South]

Middle class white guy sees more of himself in the international poor.

Where is that article...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/6da...ely-cha,35083/

[Fisherking]

There are some flaws in Piketty’s take on the problems with Capitalism. The major one being that it depicts Crony capitalism, which is government intervention on behalf of some companies in the markets. And this more than any other factor is the problem with the system and leads to gross inequities. But governments will hail the book from the rooftops because his fix is to raise taxes.

http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/04/tho...onal-new-book/

[a completely inoffensive name]

Give me a break and go marry one of them already. I like the international poor better. They are just normal people in crappy circumstances. American poor are like morbidly obese people (whom I also just cannot with) - they made themselves that way through addiction, bad lifestyle choices, with a bit of mental illness sprinkled on top. You focus on the ones you feel empathy for, I'll focus on the ones that I feel empathy for.

2/10, just sad really. I weep that there are now possibly over 7,000 posts of this nonsense on the internet.

[Fisherking]

Nah, its the other way around. Crony democracy. I don't really have a take on Piketty, but the notion of Keynsian economics having a positive effect during an economic crisis is not a new one. The argument is older than I am. Raising the minimum wage isn't a tax anyway. The big taxes are going to come from the climate change problem, but really that doesn't bother me. These corporations got fabulously rich and powerful by ruining the global ecosystem. That they should bear the brunt of fixing it (or mitigating the damage, in any case) seems right.

Keynesian economics is a failed proposition. Your love for minimum wage is miss placed. It is a window dressing that looks good but has the opposite effect from your desired outcome.

It is a political “fool the people” trick. It was first proposed to keep blacks from the labor market.

If you really want help for the downtrodden it is better to know these things. Stop being a pawn.

[Fisherking]

Well thats a nice unsupported and horribly biased opinion you have there. What is your exact problem with Keynesian economics? Bearing in mind that its not a system of doing things, but a well established formula for easing the burden on the poor and empowering the middle class during a recession. Your opposition to the minimum wage is equally unconvincing.

It is a supported opinion. Not just mine. Why do you think the mainstream has gone to macroeconomics?

Do your own research. Holding an uninformed opinion is not the best of ideas.

I won’t have time until Monday to point you in any direction.

[Husar]

Nah, its the other way around. Crony democracy. I don't really have a take on Piketty, but the notion of Keynsian economics having a positive effect during an economic crisis is not a new one. The argument is older than I am. Raising the minimum wage isn't a tax anyway. The big taxes are going to come from the climate change problem, but really that doesn't bother me. These corporations got fabulously rich and powerful by ruining the global ecosystem. That they should bear the brunt of fixing it (or mitigating the damage, in any case) seems right.

But can you actually find the money in the corporations? If you force them to sell parts of their business, people may lose their jobs again and the rest of their profits usually goes to investors. The investors who get the most are usually the filthy rich ones who have set up their investments so that their money actually works for them and they can't be blamed for anything. That's where I see the real problem.

How many situations do you know where the money actually flows from a rich well-established investor to someone else where the investor will not get a net return that is higher than at least the rate of inflation? That's also the problem with trickle down, that the people with the money make sure the trickle down is smaller than the trickle up because they are looking out for their own gains only. It doesn't matter how many jobs someone creates if he only creates them with the intention to get a bigger share of the country's entire wealth in the end.
Yes, there are failures, but for a good investor the successes will usually net them more money than they lose in the failures.
I also understand that this is a fun way to live and a logical thing to do for the investor, but that doesn't mean it solves poverty.

[Fisherking]

That's a questionable usage of the word mainstream. Your personal bias doesn't invalidate the body of evidence that supports my position. Neither of us is any more qualified to settle this debate than the actual economists still having it. So, barring that silly idea that we can settle the Growth vs. Austerity argument here in this thread I'll go back to the notion that my position is just. It would improve conditions in the short term, perhaps giving everyone the time to come up with better solutions than "Stop funding everything!" That's the farthest possible thing from a controversial statement, I feel.

Macroeconomics is the mainstream school. It contains many Keynesian elements. The main difference in these and the more free market schools is that they believe that government should manage the economy and take it for granted that that management will have a positive effect. Believe me I was not sharing any personnel bias in saying that Keynesian economics is a failed school. It is one of the main reasons that we have such a crony capitalist elite along with an unresponsive government.

If people, particularly those on the left, bothered to educate themselves in the working of the market they would never have gotten away with it for so long. But when you have the left swallowing the bunk that the Republicans were telling them and only wanted some feel good measures that didn’t work to dress it up as their own, well, what do you expect?

Despite what you may believe, Republicans are not and never were free traders. Hell, when the Democrats were still for the people they were the free traders.

Your biggest mistake, and one you continue to make, is listening to politicians and believing them without looking at what they are actually doing to you.

[Fisherking]

Macro-economics might be the mainstream school, but it acknowledges that keynesian economics can be an effective recipe for fixing a recession. The GOP believes austerity alone is the best recipe for fixing a recession. I don't think Republicans are free traders and I never have. But, the Republicans claim to be. A lot of their supporters believe that claim. The dems have never pretended to be that in any way that I can remember. Consumer rights, sure, but ardent capitalists? Nah. The dems are all about effective government, and the only reason they're so sloppy is because there's no competition. If the Republicans had a real platform to stand on, the entire system would benefit from the competition. The Cantor loss reminds us all that votes still matter more than dollars, for now.

But noo, the answer must be to tear it all down. Silly.

There you go again. Listening to the politicians!

Look into whether you think the government has really had a positive effect in economic intervention.

It didn’t work when FDR did it and it hasn’t worked any other time. The government can’t spend its way out of a recession. Now before you say it always works you had best look again! You are sure to be surprised, but they lied. Don’t they always.

The only thing they want from you is everything you’ve got in return for voting them into office.

What it takes is for people to be informed and to look at what government is doing, not saying.

It doesn’t mean everything has to be trashed, it just means that putting people in office that serve the people not just more government and their corrupt friends.

If people don’t care, don’t know, and don’t pay attention it will never get better, only worse.

[Fisherking]

Learn the difference between HISTOICAL FACT and opinion.

Before you dismiss something as tinfoil it is best to be informed.

What conspiracy? Jerks lying and furthering their self interest? It looks to me like you are the crackpot.

You talk about things with less than a vague idea about how they work but your opinions and biases don’t allow you to look at the facts?

I wouldn’t talk about any group and bigotry in your shoes. It has a broader definition than just racial prejudice.

FDR continued most of the policies of his Republican predecessor. Their goals were to increase prices and inflate their way out of the depression. Unemployment went up. They paid farmers not to plant so food prices would go up. They backed labor unions to increase wages. Wages went up but so did unemployment. They raised taxes and tariffs and unemployment went up.

Politically they used it to revamp the Democratic party. They asked for campaign donations from businesses to get contracts. They required people to register as Democrats to get government jobs. They spent money in areas to influence the vote rather than relive suffering. The hardest hit area of the country was the rural south, where they paid farmers not to plant. What do you think happened to farm workers. But they were already Democrats. No need to spend money there.

The war may have ended the unemployment problem but it didn’t end the depression.


You are spouting dogma. You don’t know if it works or how it works but someone convinced you that you should take it on faith.

Well, your faith is misplaced if you put it in the hands of someone who plans on getting rich off your vote.

You are still being played as a pawn.

[Fisherking]

Read the history.

Read the statistics.

Read! Learn! Become informed!

Not just a mouth that has no idea what it is saying.

[Fisherking]

What you're saying is that FDR carpet-bagged the South in order to get us out of the depression. The numbers could reflect that, or they could simply reflect the fact that the south is and has always been run by corrupt good-old-boys. Nearly a million blacks didn't head west for the jobs alone, you know. Even today, the south runs around with its "right to work" states and its highly "conservative" leaders who talk about being the only sensible solution while presiding over states that just suck. Economically, socially, medically, most of these states are in awful shape. But you'd probably blame that on Obama, huh?

Come back with an argument when you know what you are talking about.

There are book on the topic. I wouldn’t accuse FDR directly in corruption. Congress appropriated the money to who and where they wanted it. Congress has a lot more opportunity and motivation for corruption than most presidents do. Parties you can blame easy enough from the actions of their adherents.

And quit putting words in my mouth. You bring up fallacies, distortions, and falsehoods to color your position at my expense. I just want you to look into the history, statistics, and functional operations.

I am telling you to check the facts. You need not take anyone’s word for it. Look for your self with a critical eye. Look at both sides and find the middle ground to develop your opinions.

We often give politicians too much credit for good intent rather than positive outcome. They don’t deserve it if they make things worse. Most wind up on the negative side of the ledger using such a scale, regardless of party.

[Montmorency]

So has it come to spamming, Spartacus?

[HopAlongBunny]

It's official: "Too big to fail" roughly means "Too big to jail"
It's a crime to collude in the setting of international rates of exchange, but not a crime anyone will go to jail for:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...they_face.html

[Papewaio]

In short the golden rule still applies.

He who has the gold, makes the rules.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In short the golden rule still applies.

He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Which is WHY capitalism is the best approach and works quite well. Capitalism makes this the central TENET of things. Whereas, in most of the other proposed systems and attempted systems this rule STILL applies but under better camouflage.

[Montmorency]

Which is WHY capitalism is the best approach and works quite well.

Best approach for what? Works quite well in what?

Whereas, in most of the other proposed systems and attempted systems this rule STILL applies but under better camouflage.

Interestingly, it's actually in democracies that the camouflage is most dense and active, while in autocracies the oligarchs tend to operate quite openly.

[HopAlongBunny]

In other shocking news!
Trickle down economics might not work (gasp!)
At least according to that left-wing commie outfit, the IMF:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/inco...udes-1.3115232

[HopAlongBunny]

These welfare queens probably do wear Prada and eat caviar:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...oondoggle.html