Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

[jc456]

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law

When and where do you believe capitalism began?

East India Company - Wikipedia

"On 22 September 1599, a group of merchants met and stated their intention 'to venture in the pretended voyage to the East Indies (the which it may please the Lord to prosper), and the sums that they will adventure', committing £30,133 (over £4,000,000 in today's money).[19][20]

"Two days later, 'the Adventurers' reconvened and resolved to apply to the Queen for support of the project.[20]

"Although their first attempt had not been completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval to continue.

"They bought ships for their venture and increased their capital to £68,373.

"The Adventurers convened again a year later, on 31 December, and this time they succeeded; the Queen granted a Royal Charter[13] to 'George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses'[citation needed] under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies."

I mentioned this company in a different post. Government chartered companies like this one were the predecessors of corporations and wielded comparable power, although they also had certain liabilities that modern corporations usually don't.

The East India Company still had to act in the interests of the governments it worked with. Today, the process is often in the reverse. Corporations often have the power to get governments to do their bidding.

Name some other profitable system?

 

[Utilitarian]

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law

When and where do you believe capitalism began?

East India Company - Wikipedia

"On 22 September 1599, a group of merchants met and stated their intention 'to venture in the pretended voyage to the East Indies (the which it may please the Lord to prosper), and the sums that they will adventure', committing £30,133 (over £4,000,000 in today's money).[19][20]

"Two days later, 'the Adventurers' reconvened and resolved to apply to the Queen for support of the project.[20]

"Although their first attempt had not been completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval to continue.

"They bought ships for their venture and increased their capital to £68,373.

"The Adventurers convened again a year later, on 31 December, and this time they succeeded; the Queen granted a Royal Charter[13] to 'George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses'[citation needed] under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies."

I mentioned this company in a different post. Government chartered companies like this one were the predecessors of corporations and wielded comparable power, although they also had certain liabilities that modern corporations usually don't.

The East India Company still had to act in the interests of the governments it worked with. Today, the process is often in the reverse. Corporations often have the power to get governments to do their bidding.

Name some other profitable system?

You can have capitalism without corporations. It just requires negating various things like the corporate veil. Granted, it would require this to be done internationally, which isn't going to happen.

 

[jc456]

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law

When and where do you believe capitalism began?

East India Company - Wikipedia

"On 22 September 1599, a group of merchants met and stated their intention 'to venture in the pretended voyage to the East Indies (the which it may please the Lord to prosper), and the sums that they will adventure', committing £30,133 (over £4,000,000 in today's money).[19][20]

"Two days later, 'the Adventurers' reconvened and resolved to apply to the Queen for support of the project.[20]

"Although their first attempt had not been completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval to continue.

"They bought ships for their venture and increased their capital to £68,373.

"The Adventurers convened again a year later, on 31 December, and this time they succeeded; the Queen granted a Royal Charter[13] to 'George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses'[citation needed] under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies."

I mentioned this company in a different post. Government chartered companies like this one were the predecessors of corporations and wielded comparable power, although they also had certain liabilities that modern corporations usually don't.

The East India Company still had to act in the interests of the governments it worked with. Today, the process is often in the reverse. Corporations often have the power to get governments to do their bidding.

Name some other profitable system?

You can have capitalism without corporations. It just requires negating various things like the corporate veil. Granted, it would require this to be done internationally, which isn't going to happen.

Nothing huh?

 

[Utilitarian]

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law

When and where do you believe capitalism began?

East India Company - Wikipedia

"On 22 September 1599, a group of merchants met and stated their intention 'to venture in the pretended voyage to the East Indies (the which it may please the Lord to prosper), and the sums that they will adventure', committing £30,133 (over £4,000,000 in today's money).[19][20]

"Two days later, 'the Adventurers' reconvened and resolved to apply to the Queen for support of the project.[20]

"Although their first attempt had not been completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval to continue.

"They bought ships for their venture and increased their capital to £68,373.

"The Adventurers convened again a year later, on 31 December, and this time they succeeded; the Queen granted a Royal Charter[13] to 'George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses'[citation needed] under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies."

I mentioned this company in a different post. Government chartered companies like this one were the predecessors of corporations and wielded comparable power, although they also had certain liabilities that modern corporations usually don't.

The East India Company still had to act in the interests of the governments it worked with. Today, the process is often in the reverse. Corporations often have the power to get governments to do their bidding.

Name some other profitable system?

You can have capitalism without corporations. It just requires negating various things like the corporate veil. Granted, it would require this to be done internationally, which isn't going to happen.

Nothing huh?

Nothing that the powers that be would allow.

 

[jc456]

Capitalism does not require corporations. For most of its existence, capitalism did not have corporations. Corporations themselves are an invention of the state through corporate law

When and where do you believe capitalism began?

East India Company - Wikipedia

"On 22 September 1599, a group of merchants met and stated their intention 'to venture in the pretended voyage to the East Indies (the which it may please the Lord to prosper), and the sums that they will adventure', committing £30,133 (over £4,000,000 in today's money).[19][20]

"Two days later, 'the Adventurers' reconvened and resolved to apply to the Queen for support of the project.[20]

"Although their first attempt had not been completely successful, they nonetheless sought the Queen's unofficial approval to continue.

"They bought ships for their venture and increased their capital to £68,373.

"The Adventurers convened again a year later, on 31 December, and this time they succeeded; the Queen granted a Royal Charter[13] to 'George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses'[citation needed] under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies."

I mentioned this company in a different post. Government chartered companies like this one were the predecessors of corporations and wielded comparable power, although they also had certain liabilities that modern corporations usually don't.

The East India Company still had to act in the interests of the governments it worked with. Today, the process is often in the reverse. Corporations often have the power to get governments to do their bidding.

Name some other profitable system?

You can have capitalism without corporations. It just requires negating various things like the corporate veil. Granted, it would require this to be done internationally, which isn't going to happen.

Nothing huh?

Nothing that the powers that be would allow.

That’s what I’d say when I ain’t got nothing like you.

 

[Utilitarian]

Nothing that the powers that be would allow.

That’s what I’d say when I ain’t got nothing like you.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend a system that is corrupt, but to each their own.

I accept that the system is the way that it is, but I still call it out for its flaws. It doesn't mean that better systems can't exist. They just aren't allowed to exist.

If you like the concept of free markets, you should find the collusion between government and corporations abhorrent.

 

[jc456]

Nothing that the powers that be would allow.

That’s what I’d say when I ain’t got nothing like you.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend a system that is corrupt, but to each their own.

I accept that the system is the way that it is, but I still call it out for its flaws. It doesn't mean that better systems can't exist. They just aren't allowed to exist.

If you like the concept of free markets, you should find the collusion between government and corporations abhorrent.

Sure, all you needed to do was point out a better one. You couldn’t. People around the globe come here for that system. It is reality.

i want the government shut down

 

[Utilitarian]

Nothing that the powers that be would allow.

That’s what I’d say when I ain’t got nothing like you.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend a system that is corrupt, but to each their own.

I accept that the system is the way that it is, but I still call it out for its flaws. It doesn't mean that better systems can't exist. They just aren't allowed to exist.

If you like the concept of free markets, you should find the collusion between government and corporations abhorrent.

Sure, all you needed to do was point out a better one. You couldn’t. People around the globe come here for that system. It is reality.

i want the government shut down

I did point out a better one. A system where the government doesn't collude with big business, and corporations don't have additional protections.

It would still be capitalism but just not as corrupt.

 

[jc456]

Nothing that the powers that be would allow.

That’s what I’d say when I ain’t got nothing like you.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend a system that is corrupt, but to each their own.

I accept that the system is the way that it is, but I still call it out for its flaws. It doesn't mean that better systems can't exist. They just aren't allowed to exist.

If you like the concept of free markets, you should find the collusion between government and corporations abhorrent.

Sure, all you needed to do was point out a better one. You couldn’t. People around the globe come here for that system. It is reality.

i want the government shut down

I did point out a better one. A system where the government doesn't collude with big business, and corporations don't have additional protections.

It would still be capitalism but just not as corrupt.

Capitalism is the corporation, government is corrupt stomping on the corporations.

pandemic is my evidence

 

[Utilitarian]

Capitalism is the corporation, government is corrupt stomping on the corporations.

pandemic is my evidence

Actually, the pandemic showed us that big corporations could stay open more often than small businesses. It's no different from how Nevada kept casinos open but wouldn't allow church services.

Big business gets preferential treatment from government, while small business gets crushed.

 

[jc456]

Capitalism is the corporation, government is corrupt stomping on the corporations.

pandemic is my evidence

Actually, the pandemic showed us that big corporations could stay open more often than small businesses. It's no different from how Nevada kept casinos open but wouldn't allow church services.

Big business gets preferential treatment from government, while small business gets crushed.

All government controlled every statement you made. Small businesses shut down by government fk that, that’s socialism

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism is the corporation, government is corrupt stomping on the corporations.

pandemic is my evidence

Actually, the pandemic showed us that big corporations could stay open more often than small businesses. It's no different from how Nevada kept casinos open but wouldn't allow church services.

Big business gets preferential treatment from government, while small business gets crushed.

All government controlled every statement you made. Small businesses shut down by government fk that, that’s socialism

This is our form of Socialism: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This is what we know about Capitalism: Caveat Emptor.

 

[georgephillip]

Why haven’t you answered my question on wealth?

Still confused?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The average annual earnings of the bottom 20 percent, however, fell from $9,376 to $8,800..."

Bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How government creates millionaires

Digital History

"In 1981, the year Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president, ABC television introduced the smash hit 'Dynasty,' a show celebrating glamour and greed.

"It was, in the eyes of many social commentators, an appropriate beginning for the 1980s--a decade of selfishness and an anything goes attitude.

"Wall Street enthusiastically took part in the new celebration of wealth, as the Reagan years witnessed a corporate merger and takeover boom of unprecedented proportions.

"By using low-grade, risky 'junk bonds' to finance corporate acquisitions, corporate raiders such as Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham Lambert purchased and then dismantled companies for huge profits.

"In 1987, Milken earned $550 million by financing acquisitions.

"During the 1980s, 100,000 Americans became millionaires every year.

"The average annual earnings of the bottom 20 percent, however, fell from $9,376 to $8,800. In addition, many of the new jobs created during the Reagan years were in the low-wage service industries."

Historical Income Tables: Households (census.gov)

Table H3 All Races

 

[georgephillip]

You’re rambling with no evidence of your point

Capitalism depends on fraud:

The Rise Of Crony Capitalism

"Economists have long documented that government corruption is higher in poor countries than in rich countries.

"The ten least corrupt countries have, on average, a GDP per capita of around $40,000.

"They include Singapore, Denmark New Zealand, and Switzerland.

"Meanwhile, the GDP per capita in the ten most corrupt countries—including Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—hovers at around $5,000.

"Among the 177 countries evaluated for corruption, the United States is currently number 19 on the list prepared by the NGO Transparency International."

 

[dblack]

Capitalism depends on fraud:

 

[danielpalos]

Price action is also a form of technical analysis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism depends on fraud:

That's why he never made over $8/hour his entire life......fraud.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You’re rambling with no evidence of your point

Capitalism depends on fraud:

The Rise Of Crony Capitalism

"Economists have long documented that government corruption is higher in poor countries than in rich countries.

"The ten least corrupt countries have, on average, a GDP per capita of around $40,000.

"They include Singapore, Denmark New Zealand, and Switzerland.

"Meanwhile, the GDP per capita in the ten most corrupt countries—including Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—hovers at around $5,000.

"Among the 177 countries evaluated for corruption, the United States is currently number 19 on the list prepared by the NGO Transparency International."

Facts are hard for you.
Math makes you cry, eh comrade?