Capitalism without competition is not capitalism

[sealybobo]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

I’ve heard when republicans lowered taxes on the rich it took away the way we regulated corporate greed. We taxed anyone’s income above a certain amount so much they didn’t bother. So they invested all that money back into the business. Gave employees raises and insurance.

So today CEOs pay themselves like baseball players. They and all their generals get all the money. The shareholders get some and they don’t complain because the coward of directors of your company is a bunch of CEOs of other companies. They are doing it too.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

So you removed the Greed Factor. That is what is forcing the Publicly and privately owned corporation to force growth by any means possible. Once upon a time, it was the return on your dollar, i.e. the dividends. Not today. It's the increase in the stocks worth. Is it going up fast enough. It's pretty bad when you buy a stock that is going to go up 15 bucks for 127 and it only pays a buck and some change dividend.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You need government to eliminate competition.

If your opponent is doing much better than you are, you don't have to compete with them. Just buy them and then have them give the same crappy service your company does. The Public won't be the wiser.

I can see you've never run a business.

I've sold businesses. The way to get a good price for them is to show that you are growing at a rate that you are cutting into the big boys business. You can get many times what the real worth of your business is. So, you would be wrong, cupcake.

 

[fncceo]

You need government to eliminate competition.

If your opponent is doing much better than you are, you don't have to compete with them. Just buy them and then have them give the same crappy service your company does. The Public won't be the wiser.

I can see you've never run a business.

I've sold businesses. The way to get a good price for them is to show that you are growing at a rate that you are cutting into the big boys business. You can get many times what the real worth of your business is. So, you would be wrong, cupcake.

Of course. Everyone on the Internet is an astronaut who dates supermodels too.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Of course. Everyone on the Internet is an astronaut who dates supermodels too.

Oh, come on, now, don't be silly.

Do you actually expect me to abandon my job as an Abercrombie and Fitch model just to become an astronaut?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes, I am a gun Grabber and I can grab my guns with the best of them. .

 

[fncceo]

Of course. Everyone on the Internet is an astronaut who dates supermodels too.

Oh, come on, now, don't be silly.

Do you actually expect me to abandon my job as an Abercrombie and Fitch model just to become an astronaut?

Slacker!

 

[Natural Citizen]

For all you self proclaimed Capitalists, there is something to think about.

There is a problem with the electorate as a collective in definitions and understanding of what kind of policies we actually have.

Personally, I'm a free-markets guy.

But if you say free-market and capitalism together, no, we don't have that. We have economic interventionism. A planned economy. We have central economic planning by a central bank. We have a belief in deficit financing. We have inflationism. And we run a welfare state.

That's so far removed from free-market capitalism that it's silly to label it as such. But people do, mostly opportunistically, and say ''see, capitalism is so bad that what we need is socialism.''

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You need government to eliminate competition.

If your opponent is doing much better than you are, you don't have to compete with them. Just buy them and then have them give the same crappy service your company does. The Public won't be the wiser.

I can see you've never run a business.

I've sold businesses. The way to get a good price for them is to show that you are growing at a rate that you are cutting into the big boys business. You can get many times what the real worth of your business is. So, you would be wrong, cupcake.

Of course. Everyone on the Internet is an astronaut who dates supermodels too.

What's the matter, you jealous at your dismal failures and lack of planning in your life?

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[sparky]

For all you self proclaimed Capitalists, there is something to think about.

There is a problem with the electorate as a collective in definitions and understanding of what kind of policies we actually have.

Personally, I'm a free-markets guy.

But if you say free-market and capitalism together, no, we don't have that. We have economic interventionism. A planned economy. We have central economic planning by a central bank. We have a belief in deficit financing. We have inflationism. And we run a welfare state.

That's so far removed from free-market capitalism that it's silly to label it as such. But people do, mostly opportunistically, and say ''see, capitalism is so bad that what we need is socialism.''

I'm a tad confused, could you expand on this NC?

~S~

 

[Dekster]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

So you removed the Greed Factor. That is what is forcing the Publicly and privately owned corporation to force growth by any means possible. Once upon a time, it was the return on your dollar, i.e. the dividends. Not today. It's the increase in the stocks worth. Is it going up fast enough. It's pretty bad when you buy a stock that is going to go up 15 bucks for 127 and it only pays a buck and some change dividend.

No I did not remove the greed factor. Those retirement plan pressures are all about greed. Everyone thinks they should retire a millionaire.

 

[danielpalos]

For all you self proclaimed Capitalists, there is something to think about.

We simply need to raise the minimum wage until everything is fine and wonderful.

In the 80s, I was stationed at Ellsworth, SD. We hadn't had a raise in military pay for 3 years. So to make it up to us, we got a whopping 12% pay raise that year. We were elated. That's the good news.

Now for the bad news. Food went up 12%, utilities went up 12%, Gasoline went up 12% and so on. And I found myself 3 tax levels higher paying higher taxes. In the end, I lost money. They could have kept that raise and I would have been better off. And the Civilians didn't get that 12% raise but they got nailed for that 12%.

Just raising the Min Wage doesn't accomplish a thing. What happens is, the greed factor kicks in and the Rich want that increase for themselves. If you get a min raise from 10 to 15 bucks, the cost of living will go up about 30% and you are now in a higher tax bracket and actually lose money. And what about that poor fool that is making 16 bucks an hour already that doesn't get any raises? He is now paying 30% more for his cost of living as well. Everyone just got poorer while the Rich just got richer.

Unless you do something about the Greed Factor, just raising the Min Wage just doesn't work. And that's another discussion entirely.

There is no explanation for a twelve percent increase across the board. Labor is seperate from goods and services for the military. Maybe you simply, miscalculated. It seems to be a common right wing misunderstanding of economics.

No miscalculation involved. The question for the 12% increase in cost of living happening exactly at the same time as we received our 12% increase was asked. Their answer was, they had planned on it all along. They assumed that their answer would be accepted and they were right. Everyone in power just blindly accepted it since they also got their cut. The Working class was sent deeper into the abyss. If you think this was a coincidence then you are either in on it or dumber than a box of rocks.

Production for the military has to do with command economics not market economics.

There is no explanation for a twelve percent across the board price increase. It would not happen in any free market.

 

[Dekster]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

I’ve heard when republicans lowered taxes on the rich it took away the way we regulated corporate greed. We taxed anyone’s income above a certain amount so much they didn’t bother. So they invested all that money back into the business. Gave employees raises and insurance.

So today CEOs pay themselves like baseball players. They and all their generals get all the money. The shareholders get some and they don’t complain because the coward of directors of your company is a bunch of CEOs of other companies. They are doing it too.

CEO pay is largely stock related. We saw companies during earnngs seasons recently see their stocks drop after they beat expectations simply because it was done on less revenue. Amazon shares aren't $1600+ a share because they pay dividends.

 

[sealybobo]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

I’ve heard when republicans lowered taxes on the rich it took away the way we regulated corporate greed. We taxed anyone’s income above a certain amount so much they didn’t bother. So they invested all that money back into the business. Gave employees raises and insurance.

So today CEOs pay themselves like baseball players. They and all their generals get all the money. The shareholders get some and they don’t complain because the coward of directors of your company is a bunch of CEOs of other companies. They are doing it too.

CEO pay is largely stock related. We saw companies during earnngs seasons recently see their stocks drop after they beat expectations simply because it was done on less revenue. Amazon shares aren't $1600+ a share because they pay dividends.

The way I understand it is that when taxes were lowered on top earners, it caused greed.

And CEOs stopped worrying about the long term. They only worry about the next 5 years so they can make a fortune. Employees don’t get a cut.

Union employees would have got profit sharing. Today the ceo gets it all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For all you self proclaimed Capitalists, there is something to think about.

We simply need to raise the minimum wage until everything is fine and wonderful.

In the 80s, I was stationed at Ellsworth, SD. We hadn't had a raise in military pay for 3 years. So to make it up to us, we got a whopping 12% pay raise that year. We were elated. That's the good news.

Now for the bad news. Food went up 12%, utilities went up 12%, Gasoline went up 12% and so on. And I found myself 3 tax levels higher paying higher taxes. In the end, I lost money. They could have kept that raise and I would have been better off. And the Civilians didn't get that 12% raise but they got nailed for that 12%.

Just raising the Min Wage doesn't accomplish a thing. What happens is, the greed factor kicks in and the Rich want that increase for themselves. If you get a min raise from 10 to 15 bucks, the cost of living will go up about 30% and you are now in a higher tax bracket and actually lose money. And what about that poor fool that is making 16 bucks an hour already that doesn't get any raises? He is now paying 30% more for his cost of living as well. Everyone just got poorer while the Rich just got richer.

Unless you do something about the Greed Factor, just raising the Min Wage just doesn't work. And that's another discussion entirely.

There is no explanation for a twelve percent increase across the board. Labor is seperate from goods and services for the military. Maybe you simply, miscalculated. It seems to be a common right wing misunderstanding of economics.

No miscalculation involved. The question for the 12% increase in cost of living happening exactly at the same time as we received our 12% increase was asked. Their answer was, they had planned on it all along. They assumed that their answer would be accepted and they were right. Everyone in power just blindly accepted it since they also got their cut. The Working class was sent deeper into the abyss. If you think this was a coincidence then you are either in on it or dumber than a box of rocks.

Production for the military has to do with command economics not market economics.

There is no explanation for a twelve percent across the board price increase. It would not happen in any free market.

In any Free or Fair Market there would not have been a sudden 12% pay increase on the average. The largest employer was the Military in that area who got that raise due to not getting any raises for the last 3 years. The Civilians didn't get anything more than the normal 2 to 3% inflationary raises if any at all. By raising the cost of living to match the militaries 12% pay increase, they just threw the civilian workers under the bus and didn't care. Greed.

 

[danielpalos]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

I’ve heard when republicans lowered taxes on the rich it took away the way we regulated corporate greed. We taxed anyone’s income above a certain amount so much they didn’t bother. So they invested all that money back into the business. Gave employees raises and insurance.

So today CEOs pay themselves like baseball players. They and all their generals get all the money. The shareholders get some and they don’t complain because the coward of directors of your company is a bunch of CEOs of other companies. They are doing it too.

CEO pay is largely stock related. We saw companies during earnngs seasons recently see their stocks drop after they beat expectations simply because it was done on less revenue. Amazon shares aren't $1600+ a share because they pay dividends.

What is your opinion of solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; or, tying the minimum wage to CEO maximum wages.

 

[danielpalos]

We simply need to raise the minimum wage until everything is fine and wonderful.

In the 80s, I was stationed at Ellsworth, SD. We hadn't had a raise in military pay for 3 years. So to make it up to us, we got a whopping 12% pay raise that year. We were elated. That's the good news.

Now for the bad news. Food went up 12%, utilities went up 12%, Gasoline went up 12% and so on. And I found myself 3 tax levels higher paying higher taxes. In the end, I lost money. They could have kept that raise and I would have been better off. And the Civilians didn't get that 12% raise but they got nailed for that 12%.

Just raising the Min Wage doesn't accomplish a thing. What happens is, the greed factor kicks in and the Rich want that increase for themselves. If you get a min raise from 10 to 15 bucks, the cost of living will go up about 30% and you are now in a higher tax bracket and actually lose money. And what about that poor fool that is making 16 bucks an hour already that doesn't get any raises? He is now paying 30% more for his cost of living as well. Everyone just got poorer while the Rich just got richer.

Unless you do something about the Greed Factor, just raising the Min Wage just doesn't work. And that's another discussion entirely.

There is no explanation for a twelve percent increase across the board. Labor is seperate from goods and services for the military. Maybe you simply, miscalculated. It seems to be a common right wing misunderstanding of economics.

No miscalculation involved. The question for the 12% increase in cost of living happening exactly at the same time as we received our 12% increase was asked. Their answer was, they had planned on it all along. They assumed that their answer would be accepted and they were right. Everyone in power just blindly accepted it since they also got their cut. The Working class was sent deeper into the abyss. If you think this was a coincidence then you are either in on it or dumber than a box of rocks.

Production for the military has to do with command economics not market economics.

There is no explanation for a twelve percent across the board price increase. It would not happen in any free market.

In any Free or Fair Market there would not have been a sudden 12% pay increase on the average. The largest employer was the Military in that area who got that raise due to not getting any raises for the last 3 years. The Civilians didn't get anything more than the normal 2 to 3% inflationary raises if any at all. By raising the cost of living to match the militaries 12% pay increase, they just threw the civilian workers under the bus and didn't care. Greed.

it is one reason for the movement for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

I’ve heard when republicans lowered taxes on the rich it took away the way we regulated corporate greed. We taxed anyone’s income above a certain amount so much they didn’t bother. So they invested all that money back into the business. Gave employees raises and insurance.

So today CEOs pay themselves like baseball players. They and all their generals get all the money. The shareholders get some and they don’t complain because the coward of directors of your company is a bunch of CEOs of other companies. They are doing it too.

CEO pay is largely stock related. We saw companies during earnngs seasons recently see their stocks drop after they beat expectations simply because it was done on less revenue. Amazon shares aren't $1600+ a share because they pay dividends.

The way I understand it is that when taxes were lowered on top earners, it caused greed.

And CEOs stopped worrying about the long term. They only worry about the next 5 years so they can make a fortune. Employees don’t get a cut.

Union employees would have got profit sharing. Today the ceo gets it all.

You are correct. The way things are done today, the MBAs think short term only. The old days of Henry Ford the First are gone. In fact, when Henry Ford raised his workers pay to 5 bucks a day and allowed them to buy the Model T on payments, the other Leaders all called him a Traitor to his Class. What Henry did was siphon good workers from other manufacturers giving him the best of the best and the highest production where he could produce the best product the cheapest and the fastest. He broke all the rules for his "Class" and made Ford come from a failed company to the #1 Auto Manufacturer of the World at the time. He was a long range thinker. His lessons have long since been forgotten.

 

[sealybobo]

The video in the OP is one giant Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The driver isn't the relaxing of laws related to mergers and acquisitions. It is because of IRA's, 401K's have added immense pressure on publicly traded companies to force growth by any means possible.

I’ve heard when republicans lowered taxes on the rich it took away the way we regulated corporate greed. We taxed anyone’s income above a certain amount so much they didn’t bother. So they invested all that money back into the business. Gave employees raises and insurance.

So today CEOs pay themselves like baseball players. They and all their generals get all the money. The shareholders get some and they don’t complain because the coward of directors of your company is a bunch of CEOs of other companies. They are doing it too.

CEO pay is largely stock related. We saw companies during earnngs seasons recently see their stocks drop after they beat expectations simply because it was done on less revenue. Amazon shares aren't $1600+ a share because they pay dividends.

What is your opinion of solving for simple poverty via unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; or, tying the minimum wage to CEO maximum wages.

Not many people want to pay people for not working. Bad idea and I’m a liberal