We must go back to a fairer early 20th century system of doing things

[Wry Catcher]

You're right in the sense that 100% unregulated capitalism isn't good for the workers. We get that; that's not what this thread is about.

And there are things worse than unregulated capitalism. Just take a look at a history book. That's the excuse that communists give when defending their ideologies.

We're not against regulation - because ultimately, competition is what drives progress. What we need is a federal government that promotes personal responsibility, growth, development, and success for everyone. Not one that takes from some that produce to give to others that don't.

Good grief, "We're not against regulation - because ultimately, competition is what drives progress." Care to explain, 'cause this 'sounds' like word salad to me?

Actually please explain this entire post, it makes no sense to anyone but an ideologue?

Fact: Labor needs Capital and Capital needs Labor. When labor is exploited history demonstrates social strive is produced.

If there aren't any regulations, someone somewhere will game the system.

True. And when regulations are written by those who have a specal interests said regulations will benefit the few and not the many.

And if we allowed monopolies to exists, there wouldn't be any competition. If there are two competing corporations, one of them will ultimately have to do something better than the other one if they want to succeed. Hence, when I say competition drives progress. They're forced to innovate or they go out of business. That's a good thing.

Let's look at Wal-Mart as an example. Small town America once had a baker, a butcher and a candle maker; today Wal-Mart puts those entrepreneurs out of business. Though Wal-Mart isn't monopoly it has the impact of one.

And regulation also means that the workers working for said companies are treated fairly and paid adequate salaries. Henry Ford figured out that paying your workers a decent wage and not overworking them is actually good for business.

Wal-Mart again. Have you been following the news?

Can you understand that a little better?

I understand what point you tried to make, I simply reject reactionary thinking.

 

[tooAlive]

Good grief, "We're not against regulation - because ultimately, competition is what drives progress." Care to explain, 'cause this 'sounds' like word salad to me?

Actually please explain this entire post, it makes no sense to anyone but an ideologue?

Fact: Labor needs Capital and Capital needs Labor. When labor is exploited history demonstrates social strive is produced.

If there aren't any regulations, someone somewhere will game the system.

True. And when regulations are written by those who have a specal interests said regulations will benefit the few and not the many.

And if we allowed monopolies to exists, there wouldn't be any competition. If there are two competing corporations, one of them will ultimately have to do something better than the other one if they want to succeed. Hence, when I say competition drives progress. They're forced to innovate or they go out of business. That's a good thing.

Let's look at Wal-Mart as an example. Small town America once had a baker, a butcher and a candle maker; today Wal-Mart puts those entrepreneurs out of business. Though Wal-Mart isn't monopoly it has the impact of one.

And regulation also means that the workers working for said companies are treated fairly and paid adequate salaries. Henry Ford figured out that paying your workers a decent wage and not overworking them is actually good for business.

Wal-Mart again. Have you been following the news?

Can you understand that a little better?

I understand what point you tried to make, I simply reject reactionary thinking.

Hey, I agree with you. We just view things a little differently.

Wal-Mart for example. I don't honestly believe they put all those entrepreneurs you mentioned out of business. I still see local mom-and-pop bakeries and shops doing well. And look at Yankee Candle. There's an independent candle maker that is still doing well.

Why? Because they offer products in a different niche. Wal-Mart offers everything really cheap. Which caters to the vast majority of the population that wants things cheap. The other stores? Well, they have to cater to the people who want more quality and don't mind paying a little more.Granted, some stores were affected and ultimately went out of business because of Wal-Mart. But that's how the game is played, unfortunately.

Could Wal-Mart pay it's workers more? Absolutely. And maybe they should. But you just can't pin it on them just because you're successful. What about Publix? Best Buy? Staples? Why aren't they scrutinized over paying most of their employees minimum wage?

Again, I agree with you. But when you say that the regulations set in place will only ever benefit the top dogs and shit on the poor, what solution do you seek? Complete removal of big players like Wal-Mart from the marketplace?

 

[akelch]

Have you thought that it is not the Federal Governments role but it is the State Government that should address these issues....that way it will decentralize the power while still allowing the people choices.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If there aren't any regulations, someone somewhere will game the system.

True. And when regulations are written by those who have a specal interests said regulations will benefit the few and not the many.

And if we allowed monopolies to exists, there wouldn't be any competition. If there are two competing corporations, one of them will ultimately have to do something better than the other one if they want to succeed. Hence, when I say competition drives progress. They're forced to innovate or they go out of business. That's a good thing.

Let's look at Wal-Mart as an example. Small town America once had a baker, a butcher and a candle maker; today Wal-Mart puts those entrepreneurs out of business. Though Wal-Mart isn't monopoly it has the impact of one.

And regulation also means that the workers working for said companies are treated fairly and paid adequate salaries. Henry Ford figured out that paying your workers a decent wage and not overworking them is actually good for business.

Wal-Mart again. Have you been following the news?

Can you understand that a little better?

I understand what point you tried to make, I simply reject reactionary thinking.

Hey, I agree with you. We just view things a little differently.

Wal-Mart for example. I don't honestly believe they put all those entrepreneurs you mentioned out of business. I still see local mom-and-pop bakeries and shops doing well. And look at Yankee Candle. There's an independent candle maker that is still doing well.

Why? Because they offer products in a different niche. Wal-Mart offers everything really cheap. Which caters to the vast majority of the population that wants things cheap. The other stores? Well, they have to cater to the people who want more quality and don't mind paying a little more.Granted, some stores were affected and ultimately went out of business because of Wal-Mart. But that's how the game is played, unfortunately.

Could Wal-Mart pay it's workers more? Absolutely. And maybe they should. But you just can't pin it on them just because you're successful. What about Publix? Best Buy? Staples? Why aren't they scrutinized over paying most of their employees minimum wage?

Again, I agree with you. But when you say that the regulations set in place will only ever benefit the top dogs and shit on the poor, what solution do you seek? Complete removal of big players like Wal-Mart from the marketplace?

I picked on Wal-Mart because they are in the news for labor exploitation.

My solution is campaign finance reform and the repeal of CU v. FEC.

 

[beagle9]

If there aren't any regulations, someone somewhere will game the system.

True. And when regulations are written by those who have a specal interests said regulations will benefit the few and not the many.

And if we allowed monopolies to exists, there wouldn't be any competition. If there are two competing corporations, one of them will ultimately have to do something better than the other one if they want to succeed. Hence, when I say competition drives progress. They're forced to innovate or they go out of business. That's a good thing.

Let's look at Wal-Mart as an example. Small town America once had a baker, a butcher and a candle maker; today Wal-Mart puts those entrepreneurs out of business. Though Wal-Mart isn't monopoly it has the impact of one.

And regulation also means that the workers working for said companies are treated fairly and paid adequate salaries. Henry Ford figured out that paying your workers a decent wage and not overworking them is actually good for business.

Wal-Mart again. Have you been following the news?

Can you understand that a little better?

I understand what point you tried to make, I simply reject reactionary thinking.

Hey, I agree with you. We just view things a little differently.

Wal-Mart for example. I don't honestly believe they put all those entrepreneurs you mentioned out of business. I still see local mom-and-pop bakeries and shops doing well. And look at Yankee Candle. There's an independent candle maker that is still doing well.

Why? Because they offer products in a different niche. Wal-Mart offers everything really cheap. Which caters to the vast majority of the population that wants things cheap. The other stores? Well, they have to cater to the people who want more quality and don't mind paying a little more.Granted, some stores were affected and ultimately went out of business because of Wal-Mart. But that's how the game is played, unfortunately.

Could Wal-Mart pay it's workers more? Absolutely. And maybe they should. But you just can't pin it on them just because you're successful. What about Publix? Best Buy? Staples? Why aren't they scrutinized over paying most of their employees minimum wage?

Again, I agree with you. But when you say that the regulations set in place will only ever benefit the top dogs and shit on the poor, what solution do you seek? Complete removal of big players like Wal-Mart from the marketplace?

There should be a break up of wal-mart (imho), where as they should be broken up into having to sub out or lease business space upon their entire floor, and this for "independently owned and operated departments", who would occupy space in wal-mart by lease/contract, and would utilize the wal-mart concept/brand and/or it's buying power, in which would make them highly sucessful along with wal-mart to be continually sucessful as well, but in a more balanced and American way for all.

This would be my invisionment for such a huge monopoly as wal-mart, and how it could be re-organized to work better for all involved. Wal-mart would still be the name, but the inside would be made up of many independently owned American businesses, thus occupying the floor, instead of what we have now in that situation where to much power is concentrated and possibly corrupt in many way's as well.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The massive resources of space is the only way we can bring up all of humanity to our standards. This takes massive capital....A system of innovation and great wealth is necessary to get at it.

Not really.

Helium & hydrogen are the two, most-prevalent gases....

....in the entire-Universe.

We're already there.​

 

[Friends]

Beginning with the Progressive Era, which can be dated from the beginning of the administration of Teddy Roosevelt to the end of the administration of Woodrow Wilson (1901 - 1921) the voters have rejected laissez faire capitalism. Efforts by the Republicans to restore it have always run into effective popular resistance as soon as Republican politicians got beyond vague campaign speech generalities about reducing the size of the government, and actually began to reduce the government.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Beginning with the Progressive Era, which can be dated from the beginning of the administration of Teddy Roosevelt to the end of the administration of Woodrow Wilson (1901 - 1921) the voters have rejected laissez faire capitalism. Efforts by the Republicans to restore it have always run into effective popular resistance as soon as Republican politicians got beyond vague campaign speech generalities about reducing the size of the government, and actually began to reduce the government.

.....And, now, GRIDLOCK....compliments o' the Teabaggers....has allowed....​

...FRANCE to start leap-frogging U.S. (lack of) progress!!!​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm watching the Men that built America on the history channel. I'll tell you the model for remaining number one is in the late 19th century and early 20th century when a man could become as powerful as hell pleased.

Why is it good for innovation? Simply because under this system a man would work really fucking hard to come up with new idea's and drive our nation forward. This is why we had electricity, light bulbs, trains, rail-tracks, oil, steel, cars, trucks, trains, etc. Without a strong reason to innovate why would anyone want to invite and create wealth for our nation? Today China is kicking our ass for just this reason! Now I'll admit that workers deserve high working standards and fair pay. Again fair pay is what the market rates it at...This is a law of economics!

If we wish to remain the most powerful economic engine on earth. We're going to have to relearn how and why we became such in the first place. The rich must want to invest not only within our national interest but within theirs. Yes, there's nothing what so ever wrong with a man becoming filthy fucking rich for good idea's.

This is something we learn or die on. I agree that the workers deserves a clean work place with a fair market place wage. We can agree on that?

wtf? You have completely missed the boat. This is what happens when pseudo-intellects watch the History Channel or fact based documentaries.

The money, rule, and power of those men gave wide acceptance to Communism and Socialism because of how bad the 'people' had it in that world.

Most innovations were taken over or stolen by others. Innovation needs no reason but curiosity and the freedom to explore and think freely.

Most inventors and innovators die poor to moderately well off

learn history. maybeeven try to pick up a few critical thinking skills. Oh yeah, and stay off the internet

 

[francoHFW]

Yeah, bring back the 72 hr. work week and no benifits!!

Read "The Good Old Days- They were Terrible!"- You GOP live in a dream world.

 

[regent]

America is one of the nations that had an early industrial revolution, thanks to our British heritage. England had a large market with its mercantilism, China was governed by the war lords, Russia produced nothing but poverty and Japan made trinkets for Cracker Jack boxes. Things change, and now Japan builds automobiles that compete with General Motors and China is becoming an industrial power. Can we compete and maintain our standard of living?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm watching the Men that built America on the history channel. I'll tell you the model for remaining number one is in the late 19th century and early 20th century when a man could become as powerful as hell pleased.

Why is it good for innovation? Simply because under this system a man would work really fucking hard to come up with new idea's and drive our nation forward. This is why we had electricity, light bulbs, trains, rail-tracks, oil, steel, cars, trucks, trains, etc. Without a strong reason to innovate why would anyone want to invite and create wealth for our nation? Today China is kicking our ass for just this reason! Now I'll admit that workers deserve high working standards and fair pay. Again fair pay is what the market rates it at...This is a law of economics!

If we wish to remain the most powerful economic engine on earth. We're going to have to relearn how and why we became such in the first place. The rich must want to invest not only within our national interest but within theirs. Yes, there's nothing what so ever wrong with a man becoming filthy fucking rich for good idea's.

This is something we learn or die on. I agree that the workers deserves a clean work place with a fair market place wage. We can agree on that?

I think it is interesting how two different people can watch the same thing and draw completely different conclusions.

What struck me about the seris were the times entire towns were put out of work and impoverished just because one robber baron wanted to outdo another robber baron. How an entire town was washed away (Johnstown flood) just because a few wealthy men couldn't be bothered with building a proper dam in order to create their private club.
The list goes on and on ...
Doesn't look like the good ol days to me. I feel very blessed to have been born in this time rather than that time.