Myth of Capitalism

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,398
Reaction score
8,201
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
If government regulations weren't so onerous that only the biggest corporations can afford to comply, that would be a huge help.
I agree. The Threat of the regulation should be enough. But it's not. The biggees will push it right over the edge because the fines are less than the glutton amounts they will make ignoring it. If we are going to do something like this, it's going to need real teeth. As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine, second offense company gets a HUGE fine, 3rd offense company gets broken up.
As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine,

First offense for what? Be specific.
When I was in the Military, we didn't get raises for a number of years. Of course, the civilian population and economy plugged along. We received a 12% raise to make up for that fact. All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%. When asked, every supplier, etc. claimed they were forced to do it anyway and our 12% raise had nothing to do with it. I was jumped 2 tax brackets and paid more taxes. In the end, I actually made less money. Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community. It just barely was outside the Sherman Anti Trust act but just far enough to make it legal. It should have never been allowed to happen. The Rich just got richer at the harm of the middle class and poor.

This is Capitalism at it's worst. And it's legal. It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed. Yes, Dorathy, we once had regulations that prevented this left over from the FDR days. But they were removed in the 1980s. This is why the 1970 Cost of Living and Wages left you with more disposable income in comparison than it does today. Had this been done in the 1960s, the company would have had the Federals seeing just how far up the goal posts they could kick their dishonest butts.

Unchecked Capitalism means theft. And saying that the Rich deserve everything they can get, I agree. If they get their money honestly, they deserve the money. But if they cheat the public (i.e. the workers that made that money for them) then they deserve either to lose that money or spend large chunks of time in prison. NO CEO does 600 times more work than the average worker at any company especially when that company is doing layoffs and the Upper Management is getting their Bonuses. Running a company into the ground, receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal. But it was done over and over.

It's time to hold the Rich accountable for their actions. No more free rides. No more Zero taxes. No more Tax free deals just for the rich. No more Tax Free Bank accounts just for the rich. And no more manipulating the markets so they can artificially make more money. Make the second time a company does this pay enough that it will almost bankrupt the company. The 3rd time, start locking people up, not just the sacrificial lambs the CEOs present for slaughter.
All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%.

I don't believe you.

Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community.

They held prices steady, for years and years, and waited, until the precise moment the military got a raise?
And then, for no other reason, raised prices EXACTLY 12%. That's funny.

It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed.

Cool story! Can you post these regulations that used to prevent prices from rising 12% after the military got a raise?

Thanks.

receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal.

The US Treasury made tens of billions in profit on the TARP loans to banks.
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,104
Reaction score
1,231
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
If government regulations weren't so onerous that only the biggest corporations can afford to comply, that would be a huge help.
I agree. The Threat of the regulation should be enough. But it's not. The biggees will push it right over the edge because the fines are less than the glutton amounts they will make ignoring it. If we are going to do something like this, it's going to need real teeth. As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine, second offense company gets a HUGE fine, 3rd offense company gets broken up.
As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine,

First offense for what? Be specific.
When I was in the Military, we didn't get raises for a number of years. Of course, the civilian population and economy plugged along. We received a 12% raise to make up for that fact. All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%. When asked, every supplier, etc. claimed they were forced to do it anyway and our 12% raise had nothing to do with it. I was jumped 2 tax brackets and paid more taxes. In the end, I actually made less money. Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community. It just barely was outside the Sherman Anti Trust act but just far enough to make it legal. It should have never been allowed to happen. The Rich just got richer at the harm of the middle class and poor.

This is Capitalism at it's worst. And it's legal. It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed. Yes, Dorathy, we once had regulations that prevented this left over from the FDR days. But they were removed in the 1980s. This is why the 1970 Cost of Living and Wages left you with more disposable income in comparison than it does today. Had this been done in the 1960s, the company would have had the Federals seeing just how far up the goal posts they could kick their dishonest butts.

Unchecked Capitalism means theft. And saying that the Rich deserve everything they can get, I agree. If they get their money honestly, they deserve the money. But if they cheat the public (i.e. the workers that made that money for them) then they deserve either to lose that money or spend large chunks of time in prison. NO CEO does 600 times more work than the average worker at any company especially when that company is doing layoffs and the Upper Management is getting their Bonuses. Running a company into the ground, receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal. But it was done over and over.

It's time to hold the Rich accountable for their actions. No more free rides. No more Zero taxes. No more Tax free deals just for the rich. No more Tax Free Bank accounts just for the rich. And no more manipulating the markets so they can artificially make more money. Make the second time a company does this pay enough that it will almost bankrupt the company. The 3rd time, start locking people up, not just the sacrificial lambs the CEOs present for slaughter.
All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%.

I don't believe you.

Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community.

They held prices steady, for years and years, and waited, until the precise moment the military got a raise?
And then, for no other reason, raised prices EXACTLY 12%. That's funny.

It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed.

Cool story! Can you post these regulations that used to prevent prices from rising 12% after the military got a raise?

Thanks.

receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal.

The US Treasury made tens of billions in profit on the TARP loans to banks.
1984, Rapid City (a Red Welfare Pit) right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed. What's the matter, you afraid someone will say something bad about Ronnie? Hell I voted for him twice but I know he did quite a lot of long term damage. The nutcases that the Dems ran against him would have have been worse.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,398
Reaction score
8,201
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
If government regulations weren't so onerous that only the biggest corporations can afford to comply, that would be a huge help.
I agree. The Threat of the regulation should be enough. But it's not. The biggees will push it right over the edge because the fines are less than the glutton amounts they will make ignoring it. If we are going to do something like this, it's going to need real teeth. As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine, second offense company gets a HUGE fine, 3rd offense company gets broken up.
As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine,

First offense for what? Be specific.
When I was in the Military, we didn't get raises for a number of years. Of course, the civilian population and economy plugged along. We received a 12% raise to make up for that fact. All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%. When asked, every supplier, etc. claimed they were forced to do it anyway and our 12% raise had nothing to do with it. I was jumped 2 tax brackets and paid more taxes. In the end, I actually made less money. Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community. It just barely was outside the Sherman Anti Trust act but just far enough to make it legal. It should have never been allowed to happen. The Rich just got richer at the harm of the middle class and poor.

This is Capitalism at it's worst. And it's legal. It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed. Yes, Dorathy, we once had regulations that prevented this left over from the FDR days. But they were removed in the 1980s. This is why the 1970 Cost of Living and Wages left you with more disposable income in comparison than it does today. Had this been done in the 1960s, the company would have had the Federals seeing just how far up the goal posts they could kick their dishonest butts.

Unchecked Capitalism means theft. And saying that the Rich deserve everything they can get, I agree. If they get their money honestly, they deserve the money. But if they cheat the public (i.e. the workers that made that money for them) then they deserve either to lose that money or spend large chunks of time in prison. NO CEO does 600 times more work than the average worker at any company especially when that company is doing layoffs and the Upper Management is getting their Bonuses. Running a company into the ground, receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal. But it was done over and over.

It's time to hold the Rich accountable for their actions. No more free rides. No more Zero taxes. No more Tax free deals just for the rich. No more Tax Free Bank accounts just for the rich. And no more manipulating the markets so they can artificially make more money. Make the second time a company does this pay enough that it will almost bankrupt the company. The 3rd time, start locking people up, not just the sacrificial lambs the CEOs present for slaughter.
All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%.

I don't believe you.

Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community.

They held prices steady, for years and years, and waited, until the precise moment the military got a raise?
And then, for no other reason, raised prices EXACTLY 12%. That's funny.

It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed.

Cool story! Can you post these regulations that used to prevent prices from rising 12% after the military got a raise?

Thanks.

receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal.

The US Treasury made tens of billions in profit on the TARP loans to banks.
1984, Rapid City (a Red Welfare Pit) right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed. What's the matter, you afraid someone will say something bad about Ronnie? Hell I voted for him twice but I know he did quite a lot of long term damage. The nutcases that the Dems ran against him would have have been worse.
right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed.

Sounds awful!!!

Can you post those regulations?

You know, to prove you're not full of shit......
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,104
Reaction score
1,231
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
I agree. The Threat of the regulation should be enough. But it's not. The biggees will push it right over the edge because the fines are less than the glutton amounts they will make ignoring it. If we are going to do something like this, it's going to need real teeth. As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine, second offense company gets a HUGE fine, 3rd offense company gets broken up.
As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine,

First offense for what? Be specific.
When I was in the Military, we didn't get raises for a number of years. Of course, the civilian population and economy plugged along. We received a 12% raise to make up for that fact. All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%. When asked, every supplier, etc. claimed they were forced to do it anyway and our 12% raise had nothing to do with it. I was jumped 2 tax brackets and paid more taxes. In the end, I actually made less money. Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community. It just barely was outside the Sherman Anti Trust act but just far enough to make it legal. It should have never been allowed to happen. The Rich just got richer at the harm of the middle class and poor.

This is Capitalism at it's worst. And it's legal. It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed. Yes, Dorathy, we once had regulations that prevented this left over from the FDR days. But they were removed in the 1980s. This is why the 1970 Cost of Living and Wages left you with more disposable income in comparison than it does today. Had this been done in the 1960s, the company would have had the Federals seeing just how far up the goal posts they could kick their dishonest butts.

Unchecked Capitalism means theft. And saying that the Rich deserve everything they can get, I agree. If they get their money honestly, they deserve the money. But if they cheat the public (i.e. the workers that made that money for them) then they deserve either to lose that money or spend large chunks of time in prison. NO CEO does 600 times more work than the average worker at any company especially when that company is doing layoffs and the Upper Management is getting their Bonuses. Running a company into the ground, receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal. But it was done over and over.

It's time to hold the Rich accountable for their actions. No more free rides. No more Zero taxes. No more Tax free deals just for the rich. No more Tax Free Bank accounts just for the rich. And no more manipulating the markets so they can artificially make more money. Make the second time a company does this pay enough that it will almost bankrupt the company. The 3rd time, start locking people up, not just the sacrificial lambs the CEOs present for slaughter.
All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%.

I don't believe you.

Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community.

They held prices steady, for years and years, and waited, until the precise moment the military got a raise?
And then, for no other reason, raised prices EXACTLY 12%. That's funny.

It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed.

Cool story! Can you post these regulations that used to prevent prices from rising 12% after the military got a raise?

Thanks.

receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal.

The US Treasury made tens of billions in profit on the TARP loans to banks.
1984, Rapid City (a Red Welfare Pit) right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed. What's the matter, you afraid someone will say something bad about Ronnie? Hell I voted for him twice but I know he did quite a lot of long term damage. The nutcases that the Dems ran against him would have have been worse.
right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed.

Sounds awful!!!

Can you post those regulations?

You know, to prove you're not full of shit......
Easy answer. You are so brilliant, you should know this.

A Monopoly is not necessarily illegal. It's illegal to act like a monopoly. Microsoft if NOT a monopoly but the are constantly in hot water because they have the power to act like one and do occasionally. Same goes for Google, Facebook and others. Standard Oil and AT&T were not true Monopolies either but they were still broken up under the Sherman Anti Trust Act. The real harm to the Anti Trust acts (all 3 of them) were the nominations that Reagan did to the Supreme Court that watered down the court decisions on that subject. It made it almost impossible to get a ruling against any corporation or individual on any Monopoly case. What came out of this was the true Monopolies that the courts are still trying to clean up decades later. The worst was Microsoft in the 80s and 90s.

Under the Sherman Anti Trust Act, that practice of raising those consumer prices 12% would have been found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act. Again, you don't have to be a monopoly only to have the appearance or action of a monopoly. Before 1980, those few corporations that did that rise in price of exactly 12% would have been found in violation, fined heavily and had to reduce their prices back to where they were. But after 1984, it was well known that this type of case would have gone unheard by the current supreme court or over turned. Today, this issue has not been pressed. Too bad it hasn't. It might be interesting and may very well determine the next President Election.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,398
Reaction score
8,201
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
As in, first offense company gets a hefty fine,

First offense for what? Be specific.
When I was in the Military, we didn't get raises for a number of years. Of course, the civilian population and economy plugged along. We received a 12% raise to make up for that fact. All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%. When asked, every supplier, etc. claimed they were forced to do it anyway and our 12% raise had nothing to do with it. I was jumped 2 tax brackets and paid more taxes. In the end, I actually made less money. Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community. It just barely was outside the Sherman Anti Trust act but just far enough to make it legal. It should have never been allowed to happen. The Rich just got richer at the harm of the middle class and poor.

This is Capitalism at it's worst. And it's legal. It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed. Yes, Dorathy, we once had regulations that prevented this left over from the FDR days. But they were removed in the 1980s. This is why the 1970 Cost of Living and Wages left you with more disposable income in comparison than it does today. Had this been done in the 1960s, the company would have had the Federals seeing just how far up the goal posts they could kick their dishonest butts.

Unchecked Capitalism means theft. And saying that the Rich deserve everything they can get, I agree. If they get their money honestly, they deserve the money. But if they cheat the public (i.e. the workers that made that money for them) then they deserve either to lose that money or spend large chunks of time in prison. NO CEO does 600 times more work than the average worker at any company especially when that company is doing layoffs and the Upper Management is getting their Bonuses. Running a company into the ground, receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal. But it was done over and over.

It's time to hold the Rich accountable for their actions. No more free rides. No more Zero taxes. No more Tax free deals just for the rich. No more Tax Free Bank accounts just for the rich. And no more manipulating the markets so they can artificially make more money. Make the second time a company does this pay enough that it will almost bankrupt the company. The 3rd time, start locking people up, not just the sacrificial lambs the CEOs present for slaughter.
All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%.

I don't believe you.

Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community.

They held prices steady, for years and years, and waited, until the precise moment the military got a raise?
And then, for no other reason, raised prices EXACTLY 12%. That's funny.

It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed.

Cool story! Can you post these regulations that used to prevent prices from rising 12% after the military got a raise?

Thanks.

receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal.

The US Treasury made tens of billions in profit on the TARP loans to banks.
1984, Rapid City (a Red Welfare Pit) right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed. What's the matter, you afraid someone will say something bad about Ronnie? Hell I voted for him twice but I know he did quite a lot of long term damage. The nutcases that the Dems ran against him would have have been worse.
right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed.

Sounds awful!!!

Can you post those regulations?

You know, to prove you're not full of shit......
Easy answer. You are so brilliant, you should know this.

A Monopoly is not necessarily illegal. It's illegal to act like a monopoly. Microsoft if NOT a monopoly but the are constantly in hot water because they have the power to act like one and do occasionally. Same goes for Google, Facebook and others. Standard Oil and AT&T were not true Monopolies either but they were still broken up under the Sherman Anti Trust Act. The real harm to the Anti Trust acts (all 3 of them) were the nominations that Reagan did to the Supreme Court that watered down the court decisions on that subject. It made it almost impossible to get a ruling against any corporation or individual on any Monopoly case. What came out of this was the true Monopolies that the courts are still trying to clean up decades later. The worst was Microsoft in the 80s and 90s.

Under the Sherman Anti Trust Act, that practice of raising those consumer prices 12% would have been found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act. Again, you don't have to be a monopoly only to have the appearance or action of a monopoly. Before 1980, those few corporations that did that rise in price of exactly 12% would have been found in violation, fined heavily and had to reduce their prices back to where they were. But after 1984, it was well known that this type of case would have gone unheard by the current supreme court or over turned. Today, this issue has not been pressed. Too bad it hasn't. It might be interesting and may very well determine the next President Election.
Under the Sherman Anti Trust Act, that practice of raising those consumer prices 12% would have been found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act.

When was the Sherman Anti Trust Act repealed? Link?

Before 1980, those few corporations that did that rise in price of exactly 12% would have been found in violation,

What corporations supposedly did that? Every one? Link?

You are so brilliant, you should know this.

I know it looks like you're making shit up.
 

Beyond

Active Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2019
Messages
237
Reaction score
29
Points
33
A screed about the evils of Capitalism, produced on a computer and published on the Internet. Neither of which would exist without Capitalism.

It's as ironic as a book on the subject of the evils of literacy.
I never understand why people thnk these things wouldn't exist without capitalism. How do you come to that conclusion?
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,104
Reaction score
1,231
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
When I was in the Military, we didn't get raises for a number of years. Of course, the civilian population and economy plugged along. We received a 12% raise to make up for that fact. All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%. When asked, every supplier, etc. claimed they were forced to do it anyway and our 12% raise had nothing to do with it. I was jumped 2 tax brackets and paid more taxes. In the end, I actually made less money. Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community. It just barely was outside the Sherman Anti Trust act but just far enough to make it legal. It should have never been allowed to happen. The Rich just got richer at the harm of the middle class and poor.

This is Capitalism at it's worst. And it's legal. It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed. Yes, Dorathy, we once had regulations that prevented this left over from the FDR days. But they were removed in the 1980s. This is why the 1970 Cost of Living and Wages left you with more disposable income in comparison than it does today. Had this been done in the 1960s, the company would have had the Federals seeing just how far up the goal posts they could kick their dishonest butts.

Unchecked Capitalism means theft. And saying that the Rich deserve everything they can get, I agree. If they get their money honestly, they deserve the money. But if they cheat the public (i.e. the workers that made that money for them) then they deserve either to lose that money or spend large chunks of time in prison. NO CEO does 600 times more work than the average worker at any company especially when that company is doing layoffs and the Upper Management is getting their Bonuses. Running a company into the ground, receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal. But it was done over and over.

It's time to hold the Rich accountable for their actions. No more free rides. No more Zero taxes. No more Tax free deals just for the rich. No more Tax Free Bank accounts just for the rich. And no more manipulating the markets so they can artificially make more money. Make the second time a company does this pay enough that it will almost bankrupt the company. The 3rd time, start locking people up, not just the sacrificial lambs the CEOs present for slaughter.
All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%.

I don't believe you.

Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community.

They held prices steady, for years and years, and waited, until the precise moment the military got a raise?
And then, for no other reason, raised prices EXACTLY 12%. That's funny.

It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed.

Cool story! Can you post these regulations that used to prevent prices from rising 12% after the military got a raise?

Thanks.

receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal.

The US Treasury made tens of billions in profit on the TARP loans to banks.
1984, Rapid City (a Red Welfare Pit) right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed. What's the matter, you afraid someone will say something bad about Ronnie? Hell I voted for him twice but I know he did quite a lot of long term damage. The nutcases that the Dems ran against him would have have been worse.
right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed.

Sounds awful!!!

Can you post those regulations?

You know, to prove you're not full of shit......
Easy answer. You are so brilliant, you should know this.

A Monopoly is not necessarily illegal. It's illegal to act like a monopoly. Microsoft if NOT a monopoly but the are constantly in hot water because they have the power to act like one and do occasionally. Same goes for Google, Facebook and others. Standard Oil and AT&T were not true Monopolies either but they were still broken up under the Sherman Anti Trust Act. The real harm to the Anti Trust acts (all 3 of them) were the nominations that Reagan did to the Supreme Court that watered down the court decisions on that subject. It made it almost impossible to get a ruling against any corporation or individual on any Monopoly case. What came out of this was the true Monopolies that the courts are still trying to clean up decades later. The worst was Microsoft in the 80s and 90s.

Under the Sherman Anti Trust Act, that practice of raising those consumer prices 12% would have been found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act. Again, you don't have to be a monopoly only to have the appearance or action of a monopoly. Before 1980, those few corporations that did that rise in price of exactly 12% would have been found in violation, fined heavily and had to reduce their prices back to where they were. But after 1984, it was well known that this type of case would have gone unheard by the current supreme court or over turned. Today, this issue has not been pressed. Too bad it hasn't. It might be interesting and may very well determine the next President Election.
Under the Sherman Anti Trust Act, that practice of raising those consumer prices 12% would have been found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act.

When was the Sherman Anti Trust Act repealed? Link?

Before 1980, those few corporations that did that rise in price of exactly 12% would have been found in violation,

What corporations supposedly did that? Every one? Link?

You are so brilliant, you should know this.

I know it looks like you're making shit up.
So that is your rebuttal. And that is the best you got. All you did was proved that we have to be very careful on what Justices we allow any one President to get into the Supreme Court. Those Justices can change the face of the Nation for Generations. And no matter the good or bad that Congress may try and do, the Supreme Court has the power to unravel it or repair it. In the case of the 3 Anti Trust Acts, the Supreme Court is supposed to be like a shock absorber. Instead, they are like a brick wall in favor of the Corporations.

Thank you for allowing me the space to show just how screwed up the system really is.
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,104
Reaction score
1,231
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
A screed about the evils of Capitalism, produced on a computer and published on the Internet. Neither of which would exist without Capitalism.

It's as ironic as a book on the subject of the evils of literacy.
I never understand why people thnk these things wouldn't exist without capitalism. How do you come to that conclusion?
And they would also not exist without Socialism either. You seem to only see the Capitalism side of things. The Internet was a Social Invention by a cooperation between the Military and the Universities. Then it expanded to the Military Contractors. Today, it's a little of both Capitalism and Socialism. Like everything else, one cannot exist without the other.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
58,398
Reaction score
8,201
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
All of a sudden, all things jumped up exactly 12%.

I don't believe you.

Plus, the Civilian Economy was severely harmed. This was strictly a pure greed move and harmed the entire community.

They held prices steady, for years and years, and waited, until the precise moment the military got a raise?
And then, for no other reason, raised prices EXACTLY 12%. That's funny.

It's been going on for so long since the Regulations preventing it has all been removed.

Cool story! Can you post these regulations that used to prevent prices from rising 12% after the military got a raise?

Thanks.

receiving a Government Bailout and then using part of that to pay your Executives Bonuses should be criminal.

The US Treasury made tens of billions in profit on the TARP loans to banks.
1984, Rapid City (a Red Welfare Pit) right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed. What's the matter, you afraid someone will say something bad about Ronnie? Hell I voted for him twice but I know he did quite a lot of long term damage. The nutcases that the Dems ran against him would have have been worse.
right after the regulations preventing this from happening were removed.

Sounds awful!!!

Can you post those regulations?

You know, to prove you're not full of shit......
Easy answer. You are so brilliant, you should know this.

A Monopoly is not necessarily illegal. It's illegal to act like a monopoly. Microsoft if NOT a monopoly but the are constantly in hot water because they have the power to act like one and do occasionally. Same goes for Google, Facebook and others. Standard Oil and AT&T were not true Monopolies either but they were still broken up under the Sherman Anti Trust Act. The real harm to the Anti Trust acts (all 3 of them) were the nominations that Reagan did to the Supreme Court that watered down the court decisions on that subject. It made it almost impossible to get a ruling against any corporation or individual on any Monopoly case. What came out of this was the true Monopolies that the courts are still trying to clean up decades later. The worst was Microsoft in the 80s and 90s.

Under the Sherman Anti Trust Act, that practice of raising those consumer prices 12% would have been found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act. Again, you don't have to be a monopoly only to have the appearance or action of a monopoly. Before 1980, those few corporations that did that rise in price of exactly 12% would have been found in violation, fined heavily and had to reduce their prices back to where they were. But after 1984, it was well known that this type of case would have gone unheard by the current supreme court or over turned. Today, this issue has not been pressed. Too bad it hasn't. It might be interesting and may very well determine the next President Election.
Under the Sherman Anti Trust Act, that practice of raising those consumer prices 12% would have been found to be in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act.

When was the Sherman Anti Trust Act repealed? Link?

Before 1980, those few corporations that did that rise in price of exactly 12% would have been found in violation,

What corporations supposedly did that? Every one? Link?

You are so brilliant, you should know this.

I know it looks like you're making shit up.
So that is your rebuttal. And that is the best you got. All you did was proved that we have to be very careful on what Justices we allow any one President to get into the Supreme Court. Those Justices can change the face of the Nation for Generations. And no matter the good or bad that Congress may try and do, the Supreme Court has the power to unravel it or repair it. In the case of the 3 Anti Trust Acts, the Supreme Court is supposed to be like a shock absorber. Instead, they are like a brick wall in favor of the Corporations.

Thank you for allowing me the space to show just how screwed up the system really is.
So that is your rebuttal. And that is the best you got.

Yes, my rebuttal is you're full of shit, as shown by your failure to post actual proof, instead of just anecdotes.
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,104
Reaction score
1,231
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Once again, misrepresented. You need both. Capitalism works on a small level. At some point, it's going to need social programs to expand past a certain point. We can call that social programs or socialism if you will. But in order to expand, it's going to need the social programs. You can't get around that. And when capitalism fails (and it does fail) you need the social programs to buy you enough time to allow Capitalism enough time to recover. When Capitalism gets too greedy, you need social programs to bring it back into focus. And you need Capitalism to afford those social programs. One cannot exist without the other on a large scale.
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
27,133
Reaction score
3,771
Points
280
Location
Sty
I hope Daryl gets the Microsoft sales force job. He earned it.
 

Deplorable Yankee

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
6,888
Reaction score
2,418
Points
360
Location
DIXIE
I have been dancing around this issue. Here is a very good video that hits it pretty well on the head. And it lists the things both the Reps and the Dems are trying to do about it. The problem is, the Lobbyists are spending billions to attempt to stop any of this since it would heavily affect the companies that pay their wages.

Even the open border libertarian cronys will tell ya how/ where we've gone wrong oh so wrong .


"To end cronyism we must end government's ability to dole out favors and rig the market.

Charles Koch"

Competition breeds real progress ,innovation ,and better living standards.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
25,000
Reaction score
4,845
Points
290
Once again, misrepresented. You need both. Capitalism works on a small level. At some point, it's going to need social programs to expand past a certain point. We can call that social programs or socialism if you will. But in order to expand, it's going to need the social programs. You can't get around that. And when capitalism fails (and it does fail) you need the social programs to buy you enough time to allow Capitalism enough time to recover. When Capitalism gets too greedy, you need social programs to bring it back into focus. And you need Capitalism to afford those social programs. One cannot exist without the other on a large scale.
It no more misrepresents the information than the opinion piece you posted in your OP.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top