Agreed. I have friends and family that work on Wall Street. They are disgusted with it, but they have families to support. That said, they welcome higher taxes, tighter regulation, and financial reform.
Wall Street today is a fucked up Sherwood Forest - Take from the Poor and Give to the Rich! The financial services sector and the banking industry were never meant to morph into such a disgusting beast. Their main goal was to help individuals and small businesses get loans and start/expand businesses. And while they still do this, they always have profit and greed on their minds. Always. They play with people's money, use people's debt to their own personal, selfish gain, and ultimately (and consistently) enact unethical (but not illegal due to massive deregulation since FDR) to make money off of the people.
And, you know what would have prevented all of this, and what would have prevented the imbalance of outsourcing - Socialism. Yes, the ideals of Evil Socialism would have made sure that these companies are working for the people; it would have made sure that companies were not allowed to outsource jobs and essentially put so many Americans out of work. This is what Capitalism has done.
Nuke Wall Street. Just tell the few good people to not show up for work that day.
In theory socialism may work, but I don't know of many references in history where socialism has actually worked. Currently, there are only four countries that have declared themselves as socialist republics ... China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos ... and China is getting to be more capitalistic then the US. There are other countries that exhibit socialist patterns such as Venezuela, North Korea, Sweden and a few others, but out of the entire list, Sweden is the only country I would consider be a "lateral move". Every other country would be a downgrade. And Sweden has less then 10 million people living in it with much less diversity to deal with, thus making it easier to govern. (note: I'm ever so thankful to Sweden for supplying the Detroit Red Wings with a plethora of talent :thumbup: )
Capitalism is tarnished by the dog-eat-dog brand of competition it sustains, but compared to the other choices out there, I'll take my chances.
I agree with your points, but what I am advocating is an injection of Socialist ideals into the corporate structure, the banking and financial system, and the healthcare system. In my opinion, this would shift the priority of those industries to realize the goal of helping the people, and not just the self-serving few. I don't advocate a major shift from capitalism to socialism, but maybe if we were a little more socialist, with respect to the industries I mentioned, and maybe more, then we might be better off. I don't feel that healthcare should be a for-profit business. It should be a or the people business.
But, as you say with your example of Finland, it would be difficult in a nation of 301 million. Ultimately, the people of this country are the problem, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
This is not an example, it's an explanation. I want examples of when it's actually worked.
And -- when Reagan cut taxes for the rich, it vanished the Middle Class. Instead of trickle down, it just made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Examples are everywhere. The fact that companies make higher profits year-to-year when there is less government obstructionism is an example. The free-market system is an example.
Yet you haven't given any specific examples... still waiting. Companies making higher profits does not trickle down automatically. It takes a certain kind of CEO who purposely makes it happen, and there's not a lot of that kind of CEO out there. Most of them pocket the profits while continuing to pay employees jack, as well as not showing any sort of social responsibility.
This is not an example, it's an explanation. I want examples of when it's actually worked.
And -- when Reagan cut taxes for the rich, it vanished the Middle Class. Instead of trickle down, it just made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Examples are everywhere. The fact that companies make higher profits year-to-year when there is less government obstructionism is an example. The free-market system is an example.
Yet you haven't given any specific examples... still waiting. Companies making higher profits does not trickle down automatically. It takes a certain kind of CEO who purposely makes it happen, and there's not a lot of that kind of CEO out there. Most of them pocket the profits while continuing to pay employees jack, as well as not showing any sort of social responsibility.
On a microscopic level, the company I work for offers profit sharing and periodic bonuses. In addition, we give to the local community and civic organizations.
The profits trickle down to the help and the community. If the Obamacrats taxed our leadership to the point where they could not afford to be philanthropic, nothing trickles down. This practice is common, it happens all the time.
Examples are everywhere. The fact that companies make higher profits year-to-year when there is less government obstructionism is an example. The free-market system is an example.
Yet you haven't given any specific examples... still waiting. Companies making higher profits does not trickle down automatically. It takes a certain kind of CEO who purposely makes it happen, and there's not a lot of that kind of CEO out there. Most of them pocket the profits while continuing to pay employees jack, as well as not showing any sort of social responsibility.
On a microscopic level, the company I work for offers profit sharing and periodic bonuses. In addition, we give to the local community and civic organizations.
The profits trickle down to the help and the community. If the Obamacrats taxed our leadership to the point where they could not afford to be philanthropic, nothing trickles down. This practice is common, it happens all the time.
Profit sharing is your money, not the company's unless they provide a match. It is up to the company owner as to how profits are managed. It's not universal, and trying to say that govt gets in the way is ridiculous. It's up to the CEO and how he wants to manage company money (as well as the COO).
obama and kissinger won nobel prizes ... for peace of all things so ... i'm sorry if that designation holds no water ...
we cannot judge the success of systems based on theory ... in theory, a whole bunch of things work but in reality it is much different ... this is the same whether you are discussing trickle down economics or socialism ...
what we do know is that the rich are primarily only interested in expanding their wealth ... and that the fundamental approach to improving the quality of life for the poor is education, a social program and one in which the US falls drastically behind ...
when you look at these best places in the world to live surveys - the only reason the US is anywhere near the top is because of the economic opportunity in the country ... their rank there hides the fact, the country does so poor in every other category relatively speaking ...
at the end of the day - one needs to figure out what sort of country/society they want to live in ... do they want to live in a place where everyone is out for themselves or do they want to be part of a society that sees the benefit of the whole benefitting the individual ...
socialist principles are based on that ... and we are tallking about modern-day socialism ... which combines elements of various models ... but the foundation being that what is good for the many is good for the individual ...
obama and kissinger won nobel prizes ... for peace of all things so ... i'm sorry if that designation holds no water ...
we cannot judge the success of systems based on theory ... in theory, a whole bunch of things work but in reality it is much different ... this is the same whether you are discussing trickle down economics or socialism ...
what we do know is that the rich are primarily only interested in expanding their wealth ... and that the fundamental approach to improving the quality of life for the poor is education, a social program and one in which the US falls drastically behind ...
when you look at these best places in the world to live surveys - the only reason the US is anywhere near the top is because of the economic opportunity in the country ... their rank there hides the fact, the country does so poor in every other category relatively speaking ...
at the end of the day - one needs to figure out what sort of country/society they want to live in ... do they want to live in a place where everyone is out for themselves or do they want to be part of a society that sees the benefit of the whole benefitting the individual ...
socialist principles are based on that ... and we are tallking about modern-day socialism ... which combines elements of various models ... but the foundation being that what is good for the many is good for the individual ...
Thank you, Polaris.
I love this: "socialist principles are based on that ... and we are talking about modern-day socialism ... which combines elements of various models ... but the foundation being that what is good for the many is good for the individual .."
I love this: "socialist principles are based on that ... and we are talking about modern-day socialism ... which combines elements of various models ... but the foundation being that what is good for the many is good for the individual .."
your welcome ... to me it goes back to my belief that life is a team game and that in order for the team to survive we need to sometimes sacrifice our own personal wants ... the countries that are on those lists all have that as a fundamental belief ...
I love this: "socialist principles are based on that ... and we are talking about modern-day socialism ... which combines elements of various models ... but the foundation being that what is good for the many is good for the individual .."
your welcome ... to me it goes back to my belief that life is a team game and that in order for the team to survive we need to sometimes sacrifice our own personal wants ... the countries that are on those lists all have that as a fundamental belief ...
Stalin was an extreme example, but any form of socialism will dictate stifling the entrepreneurial spirit through Draconian tax policies.
Why did so many Europeans come here to start businesses?
if you consider ensuring public safety as draconian - so, be it ... you can see the results of unfettered free-corporate will ... if you like it - then you're in the right country ...
i'm not sure what you are getting at with the europeans ... just because the US basically has a regulatory body that favours the corporation doesn't necessarily make it good ...it's like saying why did the fox goto the chicken farm ...
[quote="Jeanwah"
This is not an example, it's an explanation. I want examples of when it's actually worked.
And -- when Reagan cut taxes for the rich, it vanished the Middle Class. Instead of trickle down, it just made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Examples are everywhere. The fact that companies make higher profits year-to-year when there is less government obstructionism is an example. The free-market system is an example.[/quote]
That would be great if the companies making higher profits actually let that money trickle down - but the fact that the gap between rich and poor is growing, coupled with the fact that CEOs and upper management are making exponentially more than regular employees when compared to 30 years ago, seems to suggest that rather than trickling down, for the most part the higher profits are just leading to a great big pool of money for the people at the top. If the wealth really was trickling down, then shouldn't there be more of a middle class, and an ever-decreasing gap between the lower class and the upper class?
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
[quote="Jeanwah"
This is not an example, it's an explanation. I want examples of when it's actually worked.
And -- when Reagan cut taxes for the rich, it vanished the Middle Class. Instead of trickle down, it just made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Examples are everywhere. The fact that companies make higher profits year-to-year when there is less government obstructionism is an example. The free-market system is an example.
That would be great if the companies making higher profits actually let that money trickle down - but the fact that the gap between rich and poor is growing, coupled with the fact that CEOs and upper management are making exponentially more than regular employees when compared to 30 years ago, seems to suggest that rather than trickling down, for the most part the higher profits are just leading to a great big pool of money for the people at the top. If the wealth really was trickling down, then shouldn't there be more of a middle class, and an ever-decreasing gap between the lower class and the upper class?[/quote]
I agree with you, Cajun. I really do. The x-factor in all of this is greed.
I agree with you, Cajun. I really do. The x-factor in all of this is greed.
I just did the cajun / kiwi math My mind had always processed it at ca-junk-iwi.
Haha - I'm a New Zealander (Kiwi) living in Louisiana (Cajun). That made me think of one of those old Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:
"Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind."
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
I just did the cajun / kiwi math My mind had always processed it at ca-junk-iwi.
Haha - I'm a New Zealander (Kiwi) living in Louisiana (Cajun). That made me think of one of those old Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:
"Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind."
Comments
I agree with your points, but what I am advocating is an injection of Socialist ideals into the corporate structure, the banking and financial system, and the healthcare system. In my opinion, this would shift the priority of those industries to realize the goal of helping the people, and not just the self-serving few. I don't advocate a major shift from capitalism to socialism, but maybe if we were a little more socialist, with respect to the industries I mentioned, and maybe more, then we might be better off. I don't feel that healthcare should be a for-profit business. It should be a or the people business.
But, as you say with your example of Finland, it would be difficult in a nation of 301 million. Ultimately, the people of this country are the problem, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
Yet you haven't given any specific examples... still waiting. Companies making higher profits does not trickle down automatically. It takes a certain kind of CEO who purposely makes it happen, and there's not a lot of that kind of CEO out there. Most of them pocket the profits while continuing to pay employees jack, as well as not showing any sort of social responsibility.
On a microscopic level, the company I work for offers profit sharing and periodic bonuses. In addition, we give to the local community and civic organizations.
The profits trickle down to the help and the community. If the Obamacrats taxed our leadership to the point where they could not afford to be philanthropic, nothing trickles down. This practice is common, it happens all the time.
Profit sharing is your money, not the company's unless they provide a match. It is up to the company owner as to how profits are managed. It's not universal, and trying to say that govt gets in the way is ridiculous. It's up to the CEO and how he wants to manage company money (as well as the COO).
we cannot judge the success of systems based on theory ... in theory, a whole bunch of things work but in reality it is much different ... this is the same whether you are discussing trickle down economics or socialism ...
what we do know is that the rich are primarily only interested in expanding their wealth ... and that the fundamental approach to improving the quality of life for the poor is education, a social program and one in which the US falls drastically behind ...
when you look at these best places in the world to live surveys - the only reason the US is anywhere near the top is because of the economic opportunity in the country ... their rank there hides the fact, the country does so poor in every other category relatively speaking ...
at the end of the day - one needs to figure out what sort of country/society they want to live in ... do they want to live in a place where everyone is out for themselves or do they want to be part of a society that sees the benefit of the whole benefitting the individual ...
socialist principles are based on that ... and we are tallking about modern-day socialism ... which combines elements of various models ... but the foundation being that what is good for the many is good for the individual ...
Thank you, Polaris.
I love this: "socialist principles are based on that ... and we are talking about modern-day socialism ... which combines elements of various models ... but the foundation being that what is good for the many is good for the individual .."
your welcome ... to me it goes back to my belief that life is a team game and that in order for the team to survive we need to sometimes sacrifice our own personal wants ... the countries that are on those lists all have that as a fundamental belief ...
Didn't Stalin say that once, too?
modern day socialism believes in a representative democracy ... stalin was a dictator - far from collaborative ...
Stalin was an extreme example, but any form of socialism will dictate stifling the entrepreneurial spirit through Draconian tax policies.
Why did so many Europeans come here to start businesses?
if you consider ensuring public safety as draconian - so, be it ... you can see the results of unfettered free-corporate will ... if you like it - then you're in the right country ...
i'm not sure what you are getting at with the europeans ... just because the US basically has a regulatory body that favours the corporation doesn't necessarily make it good ...it's like saying why did the fox goto the chicken farm ...
Examples are everywhere. The fact that companies make higher profits year-to-year when there is less government obstructionism is an example. The free-market system is an example.[/quote]
That would be great if the companies making higher profits actually let that money trickle down - but the fact that the gap between rich and poor is growing, coupled with the fact that CEOs and upper management are making exponentially more than regular employees when compared to 30 years ago, seems to suggest that rather than trickling down, for the most part the higher profits are just leading to a great big pool of money for the people at the top. If the wealth really was trickling down, then shouldn't there be more of a middle class, and an ever-decreasing gap between the lower class and the upper class?
That would be great if the companies making higher profits actually let that money trickle down - but the fact that the gap between rich and poor is growing, coupled with the fact that CEOs and upper management are making exponentially more than regular employees when compared to 30 years ago, seems to suggest that rather than trickling down, for the most part the higher profits are just leading to a great big pool of money for the people at the top. If the wealth really was trickling down, then shouldn't there be more of a middle class, and an ever-decreasing gap between the lower class and the upper class?[/quote]
I agree with you, Cajun. I really do. The x-factor in all of this is greed.
Haha - I'm a New Zealander (Kiwi) living in Louisiana (Cajun). That made me think of one of those old Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:
"Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind."