13Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksKarl Marx said the fall of capitalism could not prevail in the form that it was presented. There are so many nations that believe socialism or communism is not the answer. Is there another alternative, what could that be?
October 22nd, 2013, 06:41 PM
Karl Marx said the fall of capitalism could not prevail in the form that it was presented. There are so many nations that believe socialism or communism is not the answer. Is there another alternative, what could that be?
extreme capitalism
Yet most, if not all, nations on this planet are either socialist or very much dealing with socialism. As an example look at America, it has more social programs today than it ever had.
How did this come about, what led to it?Originally Posted by cosmictraveler
People voted for represenitives and those people made more and more social programs in Congress to help their constituants get what they needed.
That is not what started capitalism though?
after this crisis is over... the rich people will take even more than ever...
People seem to be under the misconception that the types of governments matters.
Democracy, capitalism, socializm, Autocracy, Technocracy, Aristocracy, business and political systems of all kinds fails not because the ideas fails but because humanity fails. The ideas for all these systems may be benevolent, but humans are malevolent. Greed, hatred... It is the dark nature of man that fails. Not the systems we invent.
Edit: Its like building a house on quicksand. Nomatter the material or shape, it will get swallowed.
till we find a system for humans not for movie fantasys...
In the final analysis is it not inevitable that to follow any organization, it will eventually lead to the capitulation to the ideas of the creator of the idea? Does ego not prevail in the end rather than to the good of all?
I've kinda given up any idea of improving our systems, and attempting to improve our nature instead. We have many good qualities, that could potentially lead to solutions to our awful ones.
So we keep this one or go back to bartering, because that still works.till we find a system for humans not for movie fantasys...
hm who knowsSo we keep this one or go back to bartering, because that still works.till we find a system for humans not for movie fantasys...
Haha, bartering doesn't work, because it limits opportunities for trade. That's why we have currency, to act as a universal medium of exchange, so there's no cases where someone is like 'oh I just don't value what you're trading.' so then the guy doesn't have to go off, find someone that does, trade it for something else, then trade it to the first guy, that's just silly.
Then how do you account for it working in the past? Life was progressing without obstacles as we know them today. Was money created specifically for the purpose of greed?
I would also like to believe that there is never only good or bad in anything, however, don't we have to fully dissect this system and find out specifically why it cannot work?
I can only hope it will fall. Capitalism is enemy number one of democracy. Completely incompatible.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the phrase 'doesn't work' as it obviously worked in the past. However, like I pointed out, it causes difficulties in trade between two people. And why exactly is capitalism an enemy of democracy? Money makes trade easier, trade leads to people increasing their material wellbeing.
I know this will draw a lot of fire, but capitalism is a vertical system; socialism is a horizontal system. Democracy was meant to be a system where the majority rules, however, as it is now it serves the minority, why has capitalism become the enemy of democracy?
?? In what way? One is an economic system; one is a system of government. They are orthogonal and only loosely related.
Except that if you don't have Capitalism, you tend to give up quite a bit of wealth. Why not just have capitalism, with government subsidies and taxes that aim to increase equality a little more?
Please explain, I do not understand what you mean by giving up wealth.
Capitalism, is the best system so far, to generate wealth. If you use another system, you thereby give up wealth. Does anybody have another substitute in mind? The reason capitalism generates wealth like it does, is because it relies upon each person's desire to maximise his/her material well being. Goods most valued are reflected by their price, which a self interested person will buy as much as possible until the benefit he gains from an extra unit, is equal to the cost. Those selling will produce an output also, where their marginal benefit equals marginal cost. There is a constant mechanism in place, where resources are allocated to areas that society values, where the quantity supplied can be equal to the socially desirable quantity.
It took me some time to think over your satement.
I am not so sure I would agree, maybe in some sense. I ascribe wealth to work, even to thought, whereas the wealth I think you are referring to is accumulated by profit. Capitalism is a system built on profit and greed. I would think a system built on fair exchange would be something to think about. This is just a personal view.Capitalism, is the best system so far, to generate wealth. If you use another system, you thereby give up wealth.
capitalism is fair exchange why do you think other way...???It took me some time to think over your satement.
I am not so sure I would agree, maybe in some sense. I ascribe wealth to work, even to thought, whereas the wealth I think you are referring to is accumulated by profit. Capitalism is a system built on profit and greed. I would think a system built on fair exchange would be something to think about. This is just a personal view.Capitalism, is the best system so far, to generate wealth. If you use another system, you thereby give up wealth.
Ideologically, capitalism is a system of dynamic exchange in which value is arrived at largely through availability and desirability or need.
In practice, whenever there is surplus of any commodity or service, the price will drop and whenever there is scarcity, the value will rise.
A true concept of 'fair' exchange would not have 'profit' as it's main objective, in my opinion. The goal would be to provide for the needs of all humans without commodifying everything in such a manner that precludes many from even obtaining the basics for survival or access to health care and education.
The current economic structure enables individuals to amass obscene amounts of personal 'wealth', more than small countries in some cases.
The overview and three minute video at the following link may be of interest to this discussion.
The New (Ab)normal: When 200 People Have More Wealth Than 3,500,000,000 | Zero Hedge
red alert is to get just what you need... and everyone got same... it didn't work...
I would read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Quote: "By pursuing his interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Wow. You said that very eloquently!
Theatre Arts Whore, married to a CPA and we have built a business with blood, sweat, and tears. I am a capitalist with a CAPITAL C!
Just finished a class on principles of economics.
brat!!!
I have gone back to studied Carl Marx and what he said about capitalism and noticed that he mentioned that the system would fail the way it was structured. Not to digress, but I notice the way democracy started was really on the idea of minority rule, although if one does not look closely, it makes you think it’s about the will of the majority. Getting back to the point of capitalism, I too see so many flaws in the way it is structured that I can only at least partially agree with Marx’s assessment. If you forget all the other problems that could be detrimental to its survival, the main one I focus on is the way profit is calculated and above all, human greed. The system itself might not be such a bad one if the masses were considered in the equation of distribution. If some of the countries that provide the raw materials that drive the wealth of the economies were equitable rewarded and the further distribution were balanced, we could maybe have a system that could at least be fixed. The way it is now structured and conducted, I cannot see a fix but a dismantling.
You are right babe, capitalist are corporations, written with capital letters. Coming from sea traders.
what do you mean with sea traders?
All we can really do is provide the greatest number of happiness to the greatest number of people; in its current state capitalism is the best economic system that we have (mixed with various socialist policies) as despite the vast inequalities caused by it many people live much more comfortably under it than any other system and even people at the bottom of society are not fed up enough with it to change it. I cannot speak for all the workers; but my general idea is that although the workers are alienated and exploited they still live much comfortably than they would if they rebelled and the consequences of rebellion are not really known (if they fail they get put in prison, if they succeed then what?). For me social change occurs out of desperation, the workers do not rebel unless the conditions are so bad that they would rather die and happily accept the consequences of their actions than to tolerate it. The best form of government in my opinion would be small workers councils that rule over small groups of people and pass their own laws to please their citizens, as the amount of people increases so does the amount of disagreement.
I do not think communism will ever occur and i'm yet to decide whether or not that is a bad thing.
And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that democracy was started with the idea of minority rule? Are you willing to provide examples of the flaws? Human greed is what capitalism is based on :/ at least it's a constant. Profit goes to those who supply desired goods and services, which make the people supplied better off. What do you call social policies then, if not considering the masses in the equation of distribution? The countries that provide raw materials, get paid the amount above what they're willing to accept, and those that buy, get it at the price below their maximum amount, hence, both are better off. Who said we need to fix capitalism?
What Marx failed to anticipate was that people are adaptable. So they adapted capitalism from the way it was previously structured. Only a bit - and only after the Great Depression made the flaws obvious.I have gone back to studied Carl Marx and what he said about capitalism and noticed that he mentioned that the system would fail the way it was structured.
Lots of them keep on trying to go back to pre-depression approaches in advanced economies. So the employers/ capitalists simply move their activities to countries which don't protect workers or the environment nor do they pay adequate wages. But sooner or later, they'll run out of (enough) impoverished, uneducated populations to exploit in the traditional capitalist fashion and they'll have to rethink it from the ground up.
Does Marx indicate anywhere that he could envisage a political-economic arrangement like China currently operates? I certainly can't think of any relevant idea or passage in his writings.
That made zero sense.You are right babe, capitalist are corporations, written with capital letters. Coming from sea traders.
Adelady, I am not totally in agreement with all of what Marx said, I am in agreement that the way it is now is untenable. The reason I came to that conclusion is mainly the human factor of greed. It has taken poverty to a place where it is not viable, just too many have not’s. It reminds me of the monopoly game, just simply no room to land on for the masses. The inequitable distribution is the main problem.
I was making a comment on the capital letters. I read that the laws governing trade were trade laws of the sea. The signing of contracts was made between corporations and people. The corporations were always in bold letters (Capitalists) and the people in small letters. I am not giving it more credence than that. I might even be wrong in my interpretation.That made zero sense.You are right babe, capitalist are corporations, written with capital letters. Coming from sea traders.
And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that democracy was started with the idea of minority rule? Are you willing to provide examples of the flaws? Human greed is what capitalism is based on :/ at least it's a constant. Profit goes to those who supply desired goods and services, which make the people supplied better off. What do you call social policies then, if not considering the masses in the equation of distribution? The countries that provide raw materials, get paid the amount above what they're willing to accept, and those that buy, get it at the price below their maximum amount, hence, both are better off. Who said we need to fix capitalism?I will start a new tread to explain what I meant with that statement about democracy.And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that democracy was started with the idea of minority rule? Are you willing to provide examples of the flaws?
In response to the statements I made about capitalist. There are always going to be likes and dislikes, and more importantly people are going to defend what works for them. However, from my observation, not just what is written, one has to look at reality and what is said in a different light. If you look at the disparity in terms of development, I cannot see how this will be viable if you look at third world nations. We have a diminishing middle class in most countries and a growing poorer class, where does it end. I can only see problems for the future. It is already here.
You're saying a lot of things Stargate, references please. From the fact that you're simply saying 'capitalism is untenable' and have no good substitute for it, you may as well be complaining about how oxygen kills us, and how it's no good. And please, provide some example of how the middle class is diminishing?
Not really. It's mainly a feature of English speaking countries - USA, UK, Australia being the frontrunners in this undesirable race.We have a diminishing middle class in most countries
If you're really interested in this topic, you should get your hands on a copy of The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Wilkinson and Pickett.
For a bit of a taste, here's Richard Wilkinson's talk on the topic. Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com
Curiosity, you asked me for some references. I went to Google and typed in “The diminishing middle class”. I found a lot of stuff there; you could go on from there. I tried that for other countries and picked up some statistics there. I tried “poor third world nations”, and picked up something there. I tried "bartering systems and modern day bartering, and collected more info.
I just gave you a few so you can look them up and see for yourself what you understand.
To be truthful I was following what Marx said about the capitalistic system not functioning as presented, and started to study the pattern for myself and noticed that the way capitalism has developed considering the human aspect, makes it impossible to continue that way. The question I asked myself was about the value system and the greed factor. Bartering is a bit more complex but offers a better value and very important to note is, the value component is less vulnerable to infiltration.
Thank you for the link Adelady. I think you must do a lot of research; your links are always very informative and covers the right areas most times. I was quite impressed with the data. As you know there are so many studies done and so many different angles, sometimes the data is incorrect and only first world nations are more studies in depth. I have tried to look at some data from other countries and it really is scanty at times. Well my take is still much the same as before on the equitable distribution on all levels. Systems are systems; one cannot base the functioning of a system on anything less than on people. If the system is to function for people, we have to look at the components that make up the system. The developing and underdeveloped nations must be featured into the system. It is not going to work if the system is overburdened with the dead weight of the struggling masses.
In general "I got google hits" is a poor way to support an argument, because you can find anything on Google, no matter how bad/flawed/fictional it is. Some of what you posted does not seem to be supportable (like "capitalists are corporations" and the poor are getting poorer) - thus the request to see if there was any actual support for those statements.
How can one ascribe wealth to thought? That would be a hard thing to quantify.
Capitalism is a system built on fair and free exchange. You are not asked to work more than you want to, or spend more than you want to on a product, or required to sell something at any price other than the price you want to sell it at. That's about as fair (at a very basic level) as it gets.Capitalism is a system built on profit and greed. I would think a system built on fair exchange would be something to think about.
The _results_ of that are not equal, however. If corporation A is selling a bucket of rocks and corporation B is selling a laptop computer, they will not be sold for equal amounts in a capitalistic system - because people value laptops more than they value buckets of rocks. Likewise, if someone wants a car, they are willing to pay more for it than they are willing to pay for a pencil - because they value those things differently.
You can have the government step in and start saying things like "you have to charge the same amount for a car as for a pencil, otherwise it's not fair to pencil manufacturers!" - but every time that's been tried, it has failed. You can't make people value things according to government rule. In the above example, the result would be that no one would use pencils and all those workers would be out of a job.
My goodness man, I did not take the information from one source there is a lot on that topic out there. I was just letting you know how I did it. I am not really quoting anyone special. I was hoping you would just look and see for yourself. However, if you like I will give you some direct links.
Well, if you type "bigfoot is real" into Google you get 10,800,000 hits. In general "I got google hits" is a poor way to support an argument, because you can find anything on Google, no matter how bad/flawed/fictional it is. Some of what you posted does not seem to be supportable (like "capitalists are corporations" and the poor are getting poorer) - thus the request to see if there was any actual support for those statements.
Bv.
Thinking is work, and work brings money, wealth. is that ok with you?How can one ascribe wealth to thought? That would be a hard thing to quantify.
I know the basis of capitalism, I am not saying it’s not good, I am saying the way it was structured is no longer viable if the system does not change the way it distributes wealth. There is a human factor named greed and it has shifted the parameters too far out of reach for the masses, thus creating an imbalance that is causing havoc in many segments of society’s worldwide. Do you get what I am saying? There must be a more equitable way of wealth distribution in the capitalist system.
When do you think "the masses" ever had a reasonable shot at a "more equitable" share of wealth and income compared to the holders of the majority of assets?There is a human factor named greed and it has shifted the parameters too far out of reach for the masses
Feudalism, any system involving monarchy or aristocrats or warlords? Any other kind of authoritarianism? Or perhaps mercantilists, robber barons, union-busting mine and factory owners were more democratic or generous or considerate of others?
The poor are getting poorer in the US and several other places which ought to know better. But that's only compared to recent generations which benefited from the New Deal and especially the boom in economic activity since WW2 - even then one whole segment of US society, black people, was largely excluded from that. For most of history, including the USA, the people who held the most assets held onto them very, very tightly. And they still do today. Greed and selfishness displayed by the wealthy are not new nor a sign of moral decay nor an economic novelty. It's the way people with their hands on most of the money, land, means of production have usually behaved. And the way people without wealth, power or influence have been forced to live with gross disparities in wealth, health and well-being.
They may not now be claiming that it's all "God's plan" or "the march of history" so the masses should just suck it up. Nowadays they make pious gestures to the "invisible hand of the market" or the fantasy that their extraordinary wealth is the result of "hard work" - as though they're the only ones who put in an effort, or that their effort is more valuable and worthy than that of other people.
By and large, the wealthy are who they've always been. The ones who started out with advantages, and made sure to make the most of them while convincing the rest of the populace that their lack of income and wealth was somehow natural or their own fault rather than the wealthy using their power to ensure that the majority of the benefits came to them and no one else.
Adelady.
I have looked at some examples of equitable sharing and have notice that some components could be changed without great distress on the system.By and large, the wealthy are who they've always been. The ones who started out with advantages, and made sure to make the most of them while convincing the rest of the populace that their lack of income and wealth was somehow natural or their own fault rather than the wealthy using their power to ensure that the majority of the benefits came to them and no one else.
Example: A man comes to wealth through an insurance policy, he starts a business and the business is quite successful. Year after year, he expands the business and he is able to put a lot of people to work. He pays the people reasonable well, but after some years the business begins to really take off. The profit margin begins to double, and triples, and even quadruples. The people that worked with him to develop and maintain the business is still with him as he climbs the economic ladder. At this point he begins to measure himself with the business people like himself in showing how much wealth he has accumulated. He has totally forgotten that it was the people who worked with him that helped to create that wealth. He does not share the wealth with them, but stubbornly thrives to make more to prove to his rivals that he is wealthier. One person from his work force tries to remind him that he should share the wealth, he gets fired although he worked many years and very hard to get the business to where it is. The reason he gets fired is that the business man does not want him to make the other workers aware of the problem because they may rebel and ask for more.
I think there should be some measure put in place to distribute the wealth for the people who helped to make the business prosper. It should not be left to the one person to have power over all the wealth of the business at a certain point, after all it was a group effort.
Nothing inherently wrong with the concept of capitalism. It's greed that is the culprit. Unfortunately, it would seem that the two terms go hand in hand these days.
It is sadly so Wegs. The temperature of capitalism is too high, when you consider the amount of people on the planet practicing this system. I agree the system can work, I am not sure if it’s possible to fix it the way it is at the moment. The thing I think Marx is right about is the human factor of greed. As you know every system has a human factor part in it, we are our own problem.
interesting to read topic
If you think about food all day, should that result in wealth for you?
I agree that thought plus implementation can sometimes result in wealth - but thinking alone is insufficient. It takes a combination of thought, talent and hard work (and sometimes a little luck) to result in wealth.
Greed is the basis of capitalism, and indeed is the primary driving force behind it.I know the basis of capitalism, I am not saying it’s not good, I am saying the way it was structured is no longer viable if the system does not change the way it distributes wealth. There is a human factor named greed and it has shifted the parameters too far out of reach for the masses, thus creating an imbalance that is causing havoc in many segments of society’s worldwide.
You'd have to define "equitable" - and then figure out whose money to take. In the US this is done by the progressive taxation system.Do you get what I am saying? There must be a more equitable way of wealth distribution in the capitalist system.
However, I disagree with the idea that the government should choose who is entitled to money and who isn't. You are entitled to whatever you choose to earn. Taxes should go towards supporting the government, not enforcing income mediocrity. The progressive tax system is a good one, but that's because you can tax rich people more heavily without affecting the economy, not because it is some kind of "great leveler."
Indeed, one is based on the other. Remove greed from capitalism and it wouldn't work.
That's not true. There have been plenty of generous capitalists.Indeed, one is based on the other. Remove greed from capitalism and it wouldn't work.
Stargate:
I know the basis of capitalism, I am not saying it’s not good, I am saying the way it was structured is no longer viable if the system does not change the way it distributes wealth. There is a human factor named greed and it has shifted the parameters too far out of reach for the masses, thus creating an imbalance that is causing havoc in many segments of society’s worldwide. Do you get what I am saying? There must be a more equitable way of wealth distribution in the capitalist system.
No one is "entitled". You can talk all you want and think all you want but if you do not work, your talking and thinking amount to zero.
Who donate to many charities.That's not true. There have been plenty of generous capitalists.Indeed, one is based on the other. Remove greed from capitalism and it wouldn't work.
Right. There are plenty of people who are greedy in their corporate life and generous in their private life.
He may not _share_ with them but he does _employ_ them. He gives them money to do a job. If there were more people were like him, more people would have jobs - and jobs benefit people.
Every employee asks for more. In general they don't get fired.One person from his work force tries to remind him that he should share the wealth, he gets fired although he worked many years and very hard to get the business to where it is. The reason he gets fired is that the business man does not want him to make the other workers aware of the problem because they may rebel and ask for more.
There are measures. They are called salaries and benefits.I think there should be some measure put in place to distribute the wealth for the people who helped to make the business prosper.
billvonJobs benefit people? Not the way some people are paid by some employers in some states of the US. I'm horrified at how US employers rely on the government, taxpayers, to subsidise the terrible wages they pay to their workers with food stamps and healthcare assistance. I really con't understand a "modern" industrialised system where someone can work at more than two fulltime jobs equivalent and still be poor enough to need food supplementation.and jobs benefit people ...
Every employee asks for more. In general they don't get fired.
Not get fired? Just try getting together and asking as a group, like a union. I know that employers don't now send in the thugs and the murderers for hire against union organisers and members like they did in the past, but they do go to a lot of trouble lobbying politicians to make sure that any health and safety or minimum pay legislation in their state is as weak as possible, preferably to repeal whatever provisions are there.
We employ a fairly substantial working force for a small (in comparison) company. We offer and always have going back to the start of the company (before us) in the 40's, fair wages, and benefits and always have. Our employees generally retire or die. We have little turnover. We have had retirees ask to come back to work a couple of days a week and have always done what we could to accommodate them.
Not all American companies are equal, nor are all States when it comes to this, I agree, however, there are many more good than bad. It is unfortunate that mostly all you here about is the bad ones.
.
Yes. They are better off than if they were unemployed.
?? Are you claiming that union workers are regularly fired in the US? Based on the number of union workers in the US that's a hard claim to support.Not get fired? Just try getting together and asking as a group, like a union.
And the unions spend hundreds of millions lobbying politicians to pass laws favorable to them, trying to get laws passed that allow them to do as little work as possible while being paid as much as possible. Both sides have access to politicians.but they do go to a lot of trouble lobbying politicians to make sure that any health and safety or minimum pay legislation in their state is as weak as possible, preferably to repeal whatever provisions are there.
And make it near impossible to terminate a bad employee who does NOT do their job.Yes. They are better off than if they were unemployed.
?? Are you claiming that union workers are regularly fired in the US? Based on the number of union workers in the US that's a hard claim to support.Not get fired? Just try getting together and asking as a group, like a union.
And the unions spend hundreds of millions lobbying politicians to pass laws favorable to them, trying to get laws passed that allow them to do as little work as possible while being paid as much as possible. Both sides have access to politicians.but they do go to a lot of trouble lobbying politicians to make sure that any health and safety or minimum pay legislation in their state is as weak as possible, preferably to repeal whatever provisions are there.
Most employers are NOT ever looking to fire a person who does their job, but those who don't do it, their hands are tied.
Kind of a double edged sword. There are many out there who would gratefully have that job and do it to the best of their ability.
the discussion is on... and Im to afraid to get into it still fun reading it
That's not true. There have been plenty of generous capitalists.Indeed, one is based on the other. Remove greed from capitalism and it wouldn't work.I don’t disagree. There’s good/bad in all sectors ofbusiness.Who donate to many charities.That's not true. There have been plenty of generous capitalists.Indeed, one is based on the other. Remove greed from capitalism and it wouldn't work.
I am certainly not refuting your point. My point is not about entitled or hard work. You cannot have an expanding workforce getting poorer, that will eventually begin to weigh the system down. In the end you will have chaos and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.I am certainly not refuting your point. My point is not about entitled or hard work. You cannot have an expanding workforce getting poorer, that will eventually begin to weigh the system down. In the end you will have chaos and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
Ya think? Many Fortune 500 Firms Pay Less in Income Taxes Than You - DailyFinanceThey don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do.
Some juicy quotes.
The 78 companies that enjoyed at least one year of paying no income tax had profits equaling $156 billion. ...
...
Even worse, 134 of the 280 companies examined were content paying foreign taxes at a rate one-third higher than they paid in America.
True to some extent. Ask Warren Buffet. Husband and I have discussed this. His response is, people believe what they read, and they don't know the extent of how these folks assets are placed in tax law. Warren Buffet can bellow all he wants. I find it quite comical. What a magnificent charade.
Definitely agreed. Fortunately in the US at least, the lowest earning segments of the workforce (all segments actually) are making more and more money. I know that's not what it seems like from the popular media, but they don't make their money reporting good news.
Thank you!! SO true. The media is so full of *(#$U&(#@$&#$&@#$B(@*#$&)$ if I were to speak theatre talk I'd upset the Mods! *L*.. They are making more money , and DEPENDING where you live, do fine.Definitely agreed. Fortunately in the US at least, the lowest earning segments of the workforce (all segments actually) are making more and more money. I know that's not what it seems like from the popular media, but they don't make their money reporting good news.
Babe, just think about it. If you make up a system to serve your venture and you want to make a profit, obviously you do not want to make just a onetime profit, you most likely built it to be a conscious cycle. If something goes wrong with it, you cannot base the problem on just a Willy Nilly part, you have to address the problem as a whole. I don't think anyone wants to earn less in terms of lifestyle; however, you might have to accept less and still have enough to maintain the continuity.actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.I am certainly not refuting your point. My point is not about entitled or hard work. You cannot have an expanding workforce getting poorer, that will eventually begin to weigh the system down. In the end you will have chaos and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
Paying taxes should not be a problem, but it is because there are many, many loop holes to crawl through.
You aren't an accountant. Please educate me, as I am married to one, all the "Loop Holes" to crawl through.Babe, just think about it. If you make up a system to serve your venture and you want to make a profit, obviously you do not want to make just a onetime profit, you most likely built it to be a conscious cycle. If something goes wrong with it, you cannot base the problem on just a Willy Nilly part, you have to address the problem as a whole. I don't think anyone wants to earn less in terms of lifestyle; however, you might have to accept less and still have enough to maintain the continuity.actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.I am certainly not refuting your point. My point is not about entitled or hard work. You cannot have an expanding workforce getting poorer, that will eventually begin to weigh the system down. In the end you will have chaos and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
Paying taxes should not be a problem, but it is because there are many, many loop holes to crawl through.
I stand by what I said.
actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.
I think you lost me a bit, I was not exactly talking about individuals, I was addressing the system.You aren't an accountant. Please educate me, as I am married to one, all the "Loop Holes" to crawl through.Babe, just think about it. If you make up a system to serve your venture and you want to make a profit, obviously you do not want to make just a onetime profit, you most likely built it to be a conscious cycle. If something goes wrong with it, you cannot base the problem on just a Willy Nilly part, you have to address the problem as a whole. I don't think anyone wants to earn less in terms of lifestyle; however, you might have to accept less and still have enough to maintain the continuity.actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.I am certainly not refuting your point. My point is not about entitled or hard work. You cannot have an expanding workforce getting poorer, that will eventually begin to weigh the system down. In the end you will have chaos and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
Paying taxes should not be a problem, but it is because there are many, many loop holes to crawl through.
I stand by what I said.
actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.
SO was I. People pay their taxes. Business's pay taxes. WE all pay taxes. They earned their salary, they worked to make their profits, they paid their taxes. You can do the same. You aren't entitled.I think you lost me a bit, I was not exactly talking about individuals, I was addressing the system.You aren't an accountant. Please educate me, as I am married to one, all the "Loop Holes" to crawl through.Babe, just think about it. If you make up a system to serve your venture and you want to make a profit, obviously you do not want to make just a onetime profit, you most likely built it to be a conscious cycle. If something goes wrong with it, you cannot base the problem on just a Willy Nilly part, you have to address the problem as a whole. I don't think anyone wants to earn less in terms of lifestyle; however, you might have to accept less and still have enough to maintain the continuity.actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.I am certainly not refuting your point. My point is not about entitled or hard work. You cannot have an expanding workforce getting poorer, that will eventually begin to weigh the system down. In the end you will have chaos and the whole thing will come crumbling down.
Paying taxes should not be a problem, but it is because there are many, many loop holes to crawl through.
I stand by what I said.
actually I think you are talking entitlement. Someone makes more than you do and so they "owe" you. They don't. They pay their taxes, and make a much larger contribution to them than you do. Therefore, you aren't entitled to any of their money.
I have a small business and I pay taxes, however I think the system needs fixing if we are to continue to make a living. I am not entitled to anything I do not work for, that does not mean the system is not sick.SO was I. People pay their taxes. Business's pay taxes. WE all pay taxes. They earned their salary, they worked to make their profits, they paid their taxes. You can do the same. You aren't entitled.
Part of the problem with the "system" are politicians who can't balance their own checkbook, much less manage the money in this country. The amount of waste is incredible. I could run this freaking country better. I can balance my bank account and be responsible for the amount coming and and budget that as to what is going out. If there was any king of balancing of funds, we might find we have money we didn't even know we had.
Actually that was my point. You run your business and you make sure you stay on top of thing because that is your livelihood. However, there is a system that everything you do is based on and that is flawed and need some serious adjustments.
One of the greatest misconceptions, is thinking that a household budget and a national budget, are somehow the same.
I definitely agree that there's waste inherent in the system. However we're at the point where just "trimming the fat" isn't going to do much for our overall budget problem. If you look at our obligations to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone over the next 20 years - that takes most of our income right now even assuming a 100% efficient system.
They are to some degree. I have managed budged of many entities...*S*...there is a lot similarities, though they are of course more expansive.
Problem is we HAVE NO balanced anything. There isn't a bottom line. There is projection. I have been a business owner and I have had to PROJECT sales, expenses, etc. But you know what you REALLY do have and what is REALLY going out. I do not believe our government has a clue.I definitely agree that there's waste inherent in the system. However we're at the point where just "trimming the fat" isn't going to do much for our overall budget problem. If you look at our obligations to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone over the next 20 years - that takes most of our income right now even assuming a 100% efficient system.
Since you mentioned balance, we are about to see 11 trillionaires in the coming years, approximately 0.7 of the world population owning 40% of worlds wealth, I ask you, is this insane or what? It would seem the economical body is top heavy and the head is threatening to fall off.Problem is we HAVE NO balanced anything. There isn't a bottom line. There is projection. I have been a business owner and I have had to PROJECT sales, expenses, etc. But you know what you REALLY do have and what is REALLY going out. I do not believe our government has a clue.I definitely agree that there's waste inherent in the system. However we're at the point where just "trimming the fat" isn't going to do much for our overall budget problem. If you look at our obligations to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone over the next 20 years - that takes most of our income right now even assuming a 100% efficient system.
Tend to agree. There really isn't that much fat in the system and the real problem is how we've set up our social programs without a good forecast means to pay for them in the long run nor any real discussion as one party ignores the problem completely while the other gets talk media points by dehumanizing people and looking cruel hearted without offering real solutions:
Social security and medicare are the elephants in the room...two programs not in the Constitution threatening our economy's well-being for generations to come. Social security is pretty easy to fix just by adjusting age, or better yet changing it to a federal backed form of minimum income insurance for the elderly (means test it). Medicare is a much tougher nut to crack:
I also think the solution is not the problem, but the political will. If there is going to be corporations that dictate the system to people they help to put in power, change for the masses will be difficult. Too much power in the hands of a few, is too little power in the hands of many.Social security and medicare are the elephants in the room...two programs not in the Constitution threatening our economy's well-being for generations to come. Social security is pretty easy to fix just by adjusting age, or better yet changing it to a federal backed form of minimum income insurance for the elderly (means test it). Medicare is a much tougher nut to crack:
Will be interesting to observe. I doubt it though.Since you mentioned balance, we are about to see 11 trillionaires in the coming years, approximately 0.7 of the world population owning 40% of worlds wealth, I ask you, is this insane or what? It would seem the economical body is top heavy and the head is threatening to fall off.Problem is we HAVE NO balanced anything. There isn't a bottom line. There is projection. I have been a business owner and I have had to PROJECT sales, expenses, etc. But you know what you REALLY do have and what is REALLY going out. I do not believe our government has a clue.I definitely agree that there's waste inherent in the system. However we're at the point where just "trimming the fat" isn't going to do much for our overall budget problem. If you look at our obligations to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone over the next 20 years - that takes most of our income right now even assuming a 100% efficient system.
I think they have a very good clue; they spend millions on projections/estimates/plans and they are usually fairly accurate. They know what the problem is. They just aren't fixing it.There isn't a bottom line. There is projection. I have been a business owner and I have had to PROJECT sales, expenses, etc. But you know what you REALLY do have and what is REALLY going out. I do not believe our government has a clue.
The problem isn't a lack of knowledge. The problem isn't even corrupt politicians. The problem is that the politicians are giving people exactly what they are asking for - more spending and less taxes. And that leads to huge budget deficits.
When's the last time a politician campaigned on "more taxes, fewer jobs" - and won? Never, in my memory. But those are the kind of politicians we have to elect to solve the problem. We have to elect people who are willing to increase taxes on their own constituents, and cut spending in their districts (= fewer jobs) and so far we are simply unwilling to do that. We vote for the guy who promises us more bread and circuses and lower taxes. And if we question how this is going to happen, we hear "well, I'll just trim the fat, make government more efficient, do more with less, end waste" etc etc. And despite being promised that for 200+ years, and always being disappointed, we keep believing it.
Imagine how hard it would be to run your business if every decision you made had to be approved by half the voters in the US - and if they didn't like it they could replace you in short order, no matter what your actual bottom line was. It would be next to impossible. Especially if someone else was saying "give me a chance and I'll give you free stuff! She doesn't know what she's doing; I'll just cut all the waste in her company and make the business twice as efficient. It won't cost anything and you'll get a lot more stuff." To someone who doesn't know anything about your business, that plan might sound much better than your doom-and-gloom "gotta pay the bills" approach.
To paraphrase Pogo, "we have met the problem and he is us."
I respect your view, and in some aspects, I do concur, but I still do not think anyone wants to balance our budget. Too many special interests groups. I do not think our politicians really have a clue about the actual budget, just a general outline. I do agree that no politician is going to win on a raise taxes and cut jobs. Valid point. I however think that our representatives often do not even listen to their constituents as to what they want. When is the last time your Senator came to town and held a town meeting about your concerns and the issues? Then again, in all fairness, if they did, how many people showed up.
Hahahahahahahahahahah, this one was good, he would be more popular than Ronald Reagan.When's the last time a politician campaigned on "more taxes, fewer jobs" - and won?
I hear you Billvon, The game continues.
| « traveling to the moon... | Around the world in . . . 12 days » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
