Greed? Capital Idea!!

[AVG-JOE]

Definition of 'Capital'
1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash.

2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business.

Capital Definition | Investopedia

Capital is that part of an economy which decides how resources are harvested, what gets produced, how it's distributed, and who gets how much of the resulting wealth pie.

Capital is the few people who control most of the resources making decisions.

Capital is beginning to face two choices in the internet age: Pay additional taxes to a government so that food stamps can be distributed to their underpaid employees, or pay a living wage. Which I would argue is a wage sufficient to get the percentage of adults in America on food stamps down to a more reasonable <10%.


My argument: Capital is greedy, irresponsible, short-sighted and living proof that survival of the most fit is how we got here, successfully hijacking the American economy using Trickle-down theory their crowning achievement. Capital horded the big tax cuts they got instead of investing their new found capital in, among other things, Americas human resources and their communities.

The free market can NOT be relied upon to invest sufficiently in the greater community, so 'government' is necessary.

Please note - IMHO, the complicated system of governance in the USA, circa the first two decades of the 21st Century is a piss-poor example of how a government should function, and is another subject for another discussion. I'm arguing in favor of the concept of government, in spite of the embarrassment my own brings to the world stage as of the date stamp on this post.

 

[AVG-JOE]

That said, I have a LOT of faith in that beautiful, Liberal document, The US Constitution. I believe that as the country continues current demographic changes and gerrymandered districts are brought back in to line with reality over time, the result will be a reasonable, representative government that will build a middle class economy that will lead humanity to the stars.

The Constitution is a REALLY cool document. Because it's short and simple!

 

[The Rabbi]

Capital is none of those things.
Greed is none of those things.
SO other than being based on total fallacy it was a good post.

 

[AVG-JOE]

O.k....

Inquiring minds want to know - What's your definition of 'Capital' in this context?

 

[The Rabbi]

O.k....

Inquiring minds want to know - What's your definition of 'Capital' in this context?

Capital is money.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I must look at those who champion government as our 'savior' as being somewhat sad. I often ask myself what has happened in their lives that they view themselves so negatively as to assume that they cannot get through life without being told where to stand, what to do, how to think, or what line they must be in.

Government is and always has been obscenely expensive, incredibly inefficient, wholly demoralizing, and completely over-reaching. Examples of this are easily found, especially if you simply obtain Senator Tom Coburns (R-OK) report that he publishes every year regarding the waste and fraud of government. Yet there are those who believe incredulously, that government can somehow magically 'solve' our day-to-day problems, all we need is to give it MORE. Government consumes and its returns are only a fraction of what it costs. Government employees are a drain on the economy, they do not contribute to it.

Admittedly, government does have a necessity. Federal Air Traffic can only be handled by a federal agency. The military, interstate commerce, law and justice, environmental issues, regulations concerning product safety and other requirements are rightfully within the perview of the federal government. Education is a boondoggle that only spends an ever increasing amount of money for an ever decreasing return. Johnny can't read, write and God help you if you give him $2.00 for a $1.57 tab and try to have him make change.

We are rapidly losing the ability to stand on our two legs and as a result, we will fall. To tell me that McDonalds must pay a living wage, completely ignores the fact that a job at McDonalds was NEVER meant to sustain a family of five through one McDonalds paycheck. McDonalds is the job you get in high school and with it you learn how to get to work on time, how to work with customers and what responsibility means. Then you move on. If you cannot move on, then there is an issue. That issue is not a prerequisite for me to pony up more tax money.

The constitution is very simple and in my humble opinion, divinely inspired. You would do well to heed one of it's most intelligent points. The one where it talks about how nothing specifically reserved in this document for the federal government is the perview of the states.

 

[AVG-JOE]

O.k....

Inquiring minds want to know - What's your definition of 'Capital' in this context?

Capital is money.

Money doesn't create jobs. People with money create jobs. Capital is SO much more than just money. Many resources are consicered capital, including human resources.

'Capital' can make decisions, especially in this broad overview context.

 

[The Rabbi]

O.k....

Inquiring minds want to know - What's your definition of 'Capital' in this context?

Capital is money.

Money doesn't create jobs. People with money create jobs. Capital is SO much more than just money. Many resources are consicered capital, including human resources.

'Capital' can make decisions, especially in this broad overview context.

Capital is money. Management is people. Management makes decisions on production and allocation of resources.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I must look at those who champion government as our 'savior' as being somewhat sad. I often ask myself what has happened in their lives that they view themselves so negatively as to assume that they cannot get through life without being told where to stand, what to do, how to think, or what line they must be in.

Government is and always has been obscenely expensive, incredibly inefficient, wholly demoralizing, and completely over-reaching. Examples of this are easily found, especially if you simply obtain Senator Tom Coburns (R-OK) report that he publishes every year regarding the waste and fraud of government. Yet there are those who believe incredulously, that government can somehow magically 'solve' our day-to-day problems, all we need is to give it MORE. Government consumes and its returns are only a fraction of what it costs. Government employees are a drain on the economy, they do not contribute to it.

Admittedly, government does have a necessity. Federal Air Traffic can only be handled by a federal agency. The military, interstate commerce, law and justice, environmental issues, regulations concerning product safety and other requirements are rightfully within the perview of the federal government. Education is a boondoggle that only spends an ever increasing amount of money for an ever decreasing return. Johnny can't read, write and God help you if you give him $2.00 for a $1.57 tab and try to have him make change.

We are rapidly losing the ability to stand on our two legs and as a result, we will fall. To tell me that McDonalds must pay a living wage, completely ignores the fact that a job at McDonalds was NEVER meant to sustain a family of five through one McDonalds paycheck. McDonalds is the job you get in high school and with it you learn how to get to work on time, how to work with customers and what responsibility means. Then you move on. If you cannot move on, then there is an issue. That issue is not a prerequisite for me to pony up more tax money.

The constitution is very simple and in my humble opinion, divinely inspired. You would do well to heed one of it's most intelligent points. The one where it talks about how nothing specifically reserved in this document for the federal government is the perview of the states.

From your third paragraph, it appears that you agree with me - there is a role for government in a functioning society.

The rest is some quality bitching about what happens when a people allow their government to turn in to a self-sustaining Military Industrial Complex with roles never intended for government, and on that aspect of our current situation, I agree.

As I said, in this thread I'm arguing in favor of the concept of 'government'.

 

[FA_Q2]

Definition of 'Capital'
1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash.

2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business.

Capital Definition | Investopedia

Capital is that part of an economy which decides how resources are harvested, what gets produced, how it's distributed, and who gets how much of the resulting wealth pie.

Capital is the few people who control most of the resources making decisions.

Capital is beginning to face two choices in the internet age: Pay additional taxes to a government so that food stamps can be distributed to their underpaid employees, or pay a living wage. Which I would argue is a wage sufficient to get the percentage of adults in America on food stamps down to a more reasonable <10%.


My argument: Capital is greedy, irresponsible, short-sighted and living proof that survival of the most fit is how we got here, successfully hijacking the American economy using Trickle-down theory their crowning achievement. Capital horded the big tax cuts they got instead of investing their new found capital in, among other things, Americas human resources and their communities.

The free market can NOT be relied upon to invest sufficiently in the greater community, so 'government' is necessary.

Please note - IMHO, the complicated system of governance in the USA, circa the first two decades of the 21st Century is a piss-poor example of how a government should function, and is another subject for another discussion. I'm arguing in favor of the concept of government, in spite of the embarrassment my own brings to the world stage as of the date stamp on this post.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed though as the first part does not have the direct connection to the second part that is implied. Let’s get the first thing out of the way: government IS necessary. There are very few her that would contend it is not necessary and only 2 or 3 that I can think of capable of posting on this section of the forums so a ‘debate’ on whether or not the government is necessary, I think, is a nonstarter.

The debate here is about the level of intrusion that the government should have with your ‘capital’ as you were outlining in the OP. If I am getting your argument, because capital is NOT going to ‘invest in the grater community’ government needs to step in and make that happen to overcome the greedy, short sighted and irresponsible behavior of capital. I believe that there is a fundamental flaw with that though. You seem to think that the government is somehow above that greed and corruption. That it is the power above that can and will ensure capital works for us instead of for itself. This is, IMHO, a gross misconception of reality.

The sad truth is those problems that you are attributing to capital actually exist in government in the exact same manner. Government is NOT going to curb that power or ensure that it is for the ‘grater good.’ That has been THOROUGHLY proven with our government today. You speak of displeasure over how our government has managed the economy but I believe that is the inevitable solution 100% of the time as long as you are going to mire the government within the economic entities. By merging the two together, you do NOT reduce the power of capital to take, you INCREASE its power. The key here is getting the government out of the game and ONLY letting it handle the protection of rights against abuses of others to include commercial interests.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So government is an impossible necessity? There's no hope and anarchy is inevitable?

 

[auditor0007]

Definition of 'Capital'
1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash.

2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business.

Capital Definition | Investopedia

Capital is that part of an economy which decides how resources are harvested, what gets produced, how it's distributed, and who gets how much of the resulting wealth pie.

Capital is the few people who control most of the resources making decisions.

Capital is beginning to face two choices in the internet age: Pay additional taxes to a government so that food stamps can be distributed to their underpaid employees, or pay a living wage. Which I would argue is a wage sufficient to get the percentage of adults in America on food stamps down to a more reasonable <10%.


My argument: Capital is greedy, irresponsible, short-sighted and living proof that survival of the most fit is how we got here, successfully hijacking the American economy using Trickle-down theory their crowning achievement. Capital horded the big tax cuts they got instead of investing their new found capital in, among other things, Americas human resources and their communities.

The free market can NOT be relied upon to invest sufficiently in the greater community, so 'government' is necessary.

Please note - IMHO, the complicated system of governance in the USA, circa the first two decades of the 21st Century is a piss-poor example of how a government should function, and is another subject for another discussion. I'm arguing in favor of the concept of government, in spite of the embarrassment my own brings to the world stage as of the date stamp on this post.

Pretty much on the mark. The tax cuts received by the wealthy were used as a savings plan for the wealthy rather than being put back into the economy. Here is the interesting thing; the wealthy were not paying that much less with their tax cuts, but the tax cuts came without stipulations. This is also true of corporate taxes. Corporate taxes over the years have become structured in such a way that it is easy for corporations to get out of paying their taxes. The problem is that the economy, and working people, get nothing in return. It used to be that in order to take advantage of a tax cut, a business had to actually invest their earnings back into the business in order to get the tax write-off. This kept businesses growing and created more opportunity along with higher wages for those working within those businesses. Everyone benefited. Today, only the ones on top are benefiting. What is so puzzling is how so many in the middle class cannot see this and continue to support the same ideas that got us here in the first place. If that mentality can be broken so that these people also begin to demand more, it will not chase businesses away. People who build businesses want to make money. If they need to be forced, to some degree, to put their money in the right places, they will do so, as long as they can see a return in their favor for doing so. It's not about taxing the wealthy more, it's about forcing them to use that money to actually be the job creators that they have been telling us that they are.

 

[auditor0007]

Definition of 'Capital'
1. Financial assets or the financial value of assets, such as cash.

2. The factories, machinery and equipment owned by a business.

Capital Definition | Investopedia

Capital is that part of an economy which decides how resources are harvested, what gets produced, how it's distributed, and who gets how much of the resulting wealth pie.

Capital is the few people who control most of the resources making decisions.

Capital is beginning to face two choices in the internet age: Pay additional taxes to a government so that food stamps can be distributed to their underpaid employees, or pay a living wage. Which I would argue is a wage sufficient to get the percentage of adults in America on food stamps down to a more reasonable <10%.


My argument: Capital is greedy, irresponsible, short-sighted and living proof that survival of the most fit is how we got here, successfully hijacking the American economy using Trickle-down theory their crowning achievement. Capital horded the big tax cuts they got instead of investing their new found capital in, among other things, Americas human resources and their communities.

The free market can NOT be relied upon to invest sufficiently in the greater community, so 'government' is necessary.

Please note - IMHO, the complicated system of governance in the USA, circa the first two decades of the 21st Century is a piss-poor example of how a government should function, and is another subject for another discussion. I'm arguing in favor of the concept of government, in spite of the embarrassment my own brings to the world stage as of the date stamp on this post.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed though as the first part does not have the direct connection to the second part that is implied. Let’s get the first thing out of the way: government IS necessary. There are very few her that would contend it is not necessary and only 2 or 3 that I can think of capable of posting on this section of the forums so a ‘debate’ on whether or not the government is necessary, I think, is a nonstarter.

The debate here is about the level of intrusion that the government should have with your ‘capital’ as you were outlining in the OP. If I am getting your argument, because capital is NOT going to ‘invest in the grater community’ government needs to step in and make that happen to overcome the greedy, short sighted and irresponsible behavior of capital. I believe that there is a fundamental flaw with that though. You seem to think that the government is somehow above that greed and corruption. That it is the power above that can and will ensure capital works for us instead of for itself. This is, IMHO, a gross misconception of reality.

The sad truth is those problems that you are attributing to capital actually exist in government in the exact same manner. Government is NOT going to curb that power or ensure that it is for the ‘grater good.’ That has been THOROUGHLY proven with our government today. You speak of displeasure over how our government has managed the economy but I believe that is the inevitable solution 100% of the time as long as you are going to mire the government within the economic entities. By merging the two together, you do NOT reduce the power of capital to take, you INCREASE its power. The key here is getting the government out of the game and ONLY letting it handle the protection of rights against abuses of others to include commercial interests.

Just getting the government out of the way of private business is a failure. This is what has happened over the past thirty years, and it's been a disaster. The fix is really quite simple. Force business to use their profits for expansion. Use it or lose it. Companies and the wealthy do not have to pay high taxes, but if they just sit on their money, then they will pay higher rates. Given the choice of whether to use it or lose it, they will use it. And no, they all won't go running overseas with all of it either. To do so would mean running away from the largest economy in the world. There is still way too much opportunity to run from. Secondly, while there is opportunity for greater reward in other economies throughout the world, the risk is also greater as in many cases there are less protections.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just getting the government out of the way of private business is a failure. This is what has happened over the past thirty years, and it's been a disaster. The fix is really quite simple. Force business to use their profits for expansion. Use it or lose it. Companies and the wealthy do not have to pay high taxes, but if they just sit on their money, then they will pay higher rates. Given the choice of whether to use it or lose it, they will use it. And no, they all won't go running overseas with all of it either. To do so would mean running away from the largest economy in the world. There is still way too much opportunity to run from. Secondly, while there is opportunity for greater reward in other economies throughout the world, the risk is also greater as in many cases there are less protections.

Do we have more or less regulation now than 30 years ago?
Yeah, I thought so. Fail.

 

[auditor0007]

Just getting the government out of the way of private business is a failure. This is what has happened over the past thirty years, and it's been a disaster. The fix is really quite simple. Force business to use their profits for expansion. Use it or lose it. Companies and the wealthy do not have to pay high taxes, but if they just sit on their money, then they will pay higher rates. Given the choice of whether to use it or lose it, they will use it. And no, they all won't go running overseas with all of it either. To do so would mean running away from the largest economy in the world. There is still way too much opportunity to run from. Secondly, while there is opportunity for greater reward in other economies throughout the world, the risk is also greater as in many cases there are less protections.

Do we have more or less regulation now than 30 years ago?
Yeah, I thought so. Fail.

30 to 40 years ago, American businesses were dumping all types of toxic waste into our air and water, and worker safety was rarely a consideration for most businesses. Don't even go there.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just getting the government out of the way of private business is a failure. This is what has happened over the past thirty years, and it's been a disaster. The fix is really quite simple. Force business to use their profits for expansion. Use it or lose it. Companies and the wealthy do not have to pay high taxes, but if they just sit on their money, then they will pay higher rates. Given the choice of whether to use it or lose it, they will use it. And no, they all won't go running overseas with all of it either. To do so would mean running away from the largest economy in the world. There is still way too much opportunity to run from. Secondly, while there is opportunity for greater reward in other economies throughout the world, the risk is also greater as in many cases there are less protections.

Do we have more or less regulation now than 30 years ago?
Yeah, I thought so. Fail.

30 to 40 years ago, American businesses were dumping all types of toxic waste into our air and water, and worker safety was rarely a consideration for most businesses. Don't even go there.

OK, so you agree we have MORE not LESS regulation now than 30 years ago. Which makes your original statement a lie. Or at best misinfomed.
Got it.

 

[FA_Q2]

So government is an impossible necessity? There's no hope and anarchy is inevitable?

Please re-read what I said. I never implied such a thing. Government is a necessity but it is NOT impossible. Removing the unholy alliance with government and business is what we need.

 

[FA_Q2]

Just getting the government out of the way of private business is a failure. This is what has happened over the past thirty years, and it's been a disaster. The fix is really quite simple. Force business to use their profits for expansion. Use it or lose it. Companies and the wealthy do not have to pay high taxes, but if they just sit on their money, then they will pay higher rates. Given the choice of whether to use it or lose it, they will use it. And no, they all won't go running overseas with all of it either. To do so would mean running away from the largest economy in the world. There is still way too much opportunity to run from. Secondly, while there is opportunity for greater reward in other economies throughout the world, the risk is also greater as in many cases there are less protections.

The rest of your post relies on that falsehood.

Government has not ‘gotten out of the way’ over the last 30 year. As a matter of fact, it has become ever more intrusive. Every year, the government gets MORE entangled in business, not less and that is a simple fact. The last 30 years has seen an EXPLOSION of that practice, not the other way around and you are experiencing what happens when the government and business start to become the same entity. It is not pretty.

What you propose does not fix anything either because it tangles government ever more into the operation of business. The ‘solution’ you propose only works for a VERY short while as the system becomes corrupt and the government is used as a leverage tool in creating more and more wealth for the companies that it is supposedly forcing to ‘invest’ locally.

 

[PaulS1950]

To tell me, as a business owner that I cannot make a profit to improve my lifestyle is akin to you as an employee having to limit your income level to that of your subsistence.

No money for that new car, house, washer and drier, no money for a night out or a vacation.
The government should never have any say in what anyone does with the money they earn.