Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

So opt out and let the upcoming 2014 plan kick in. Takes you off the hook and saves you money by not having to provide insurance. All you really care about is profit so, take the cash and run.

 

Why do you call production looting? and why would production have long term consequences? Do you think banrupting the country with all the government programs will have no long term consequences?

 

Because the looting you call production isn't production at all in my opinion. If we continue on this pace of smash and grab like we are, there will be no future for anybody (other than maybe the fattest cats). The disconnect between what the corporation demands and the employees it continually outsources, reduces and increases work loads (this whole 'more for less' nonsense) just keeps growing and growing. You call that production? I call it DEstruction.

 

I am not worry about the sky is the limit because it is a lot harder to stay big then you think. In a free market the only way you can gain if you serve the public with the product they want or need. Whats wrong with that? The problem is that when corporations grow to big they have a hard time maintain the overhead under the recession, small companies with less over head able to put them out of business. What the big corporations do is they pay of the government to bring in regulations. The Government doesn't have experts they have to get someone from the private sector and that person usually comes from a Large Corp who has his politician in place. They write the regulation on a such away that it makes harder for smaller companies to cut in to they business. Even if the regulation would be able to help the economy they mostly written to favore large corporations. It's better to have no regulations then having bad regulations. We all know that we are not going to get rid of greed. What we want is to greed to work for the public. To curb greed you need to get Government out of the economy so the consumer can punish bad business and let small business compete.

 

Complete poppycock.

Greed is greed is greed, and our corporate structure guarantees it will continue. Let's just eliminate regulations and "trust" the fat cats to do the right thing by its workers.

Poppycock. If left to their unfettered devices and whims, labor would consist of a 95 hour work week and a salary of 16 dollars monthly.

 

If you see the smash and grab jobs all flows through the government. There is no government envolved in the Internet and the Electronic market, look at the speed they are evolving and how many jobs they are creating not even connected to the production but just by software, blog, app, IT, video companies making money. Millions without unions and government involvement.. Some places the workers getting bigger paychecks then the Union workers get at the GM plant. All problems comes from the most regulated market and those are the Health, Housing, Insurance and the Banking industries. (Banking is a separate industry they need to be regulated as long as we have a monopoly on the central bank)

 

You are basing your judgement on how you feel about thinks and not how the world functions.You have to just open you eyes and see it your self. Just compare Hong Kong Vs India. India used to be one of the most regulated economies and Hong Kong is the most unregulated economy. India used to be very poor under the strong regulated conditions and Hong Kong rosen over night. Since India got rid of most of its regulations they economy is booming. If you are ignoring science and prove you are just choosing to stay in the state of ignorance.

 

The best employees demand health insurance and for tax reasons it is better then just paying them that cash they would otherwise have to spend on health insurance. Better employees means more profits.

 

I disagree; socialism is more like Palmolive, your soaking in it. Income transfers are implied by providing for the general welfare and the common defense. The Socialism you are referring to is brought to us courtesy of the central planning of a warfare-state, not a welfare-state.

Unemployment on an at-will basis is what I am referring to; people who have never worked may only qualify for the minimum amount while people who have worked should be able to pay half of the unemployment tax and even purchase better products from the private sector.

 

Where does the right come up with their soothsayings, for free? Did you know that liberals may believe we should be charging the wealthiest, doomsday tax rates for it.

In case you missed it, more developed economies are only that way due to socialism, not capitalism.

 

I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, unless you prefer to resort to straw man arguments as a form of fallacy.

Why would we not be able to expect, persons who have recourse to an income and can no longer claim official poverty as an excuse, to stay poor on an at-will basis? And, if they did, why should we care if they can no longer claim to be in official poverty?

Only the Right prefers to put the cart before the horse while trying to convince us they have morals.

 

If you knew anything about capitalism and the drive to success you would know that these corporate CEOs do not operate out of greed. But lets assume they are greedy just to make your point; wouldn't the poor and or the lower class workers of our society benefit by adopting the greed habits of the successful CEOs?

 

India has raw sewage running down the middle of their streets too. You need to compare apples to apples.

 

Why not just pay a higher wage in lieu of healthcare? Oh..."for tax reasons". In other words, to get that money back versus actually having to pay a higher wage. I got it.

 

The fruits of decades of socialism. Thankfully, they recognized the error of their ways in the nineties and have been improving ever since.

 

Corporations don't "operate out of greed"? ROFL Oye vay....

So, greed is good, is what you seem to convey. We should all be very greedy would have to be the next logical progression to your logic. Okay. Bank robbers are greedy so, they must be a good thing. Drug dealers are greedy so they have to be a good thing. You might argue that the difference is one activity is legal and one isn't. I'd argue that since the system itself is rigged outright against the little guy, no matter how greedy they were, they'd only get so much. My point is greed ISN'T good, no matter how you try to dress it up. MORE is not always better, despite our corporate Pharohs like to profess.

 

In 2014, they'll get their health insurance and you coverage won't be required. So, discontinue it, and pay a healthier wage. Oh...that's right. You want it back at the end of the year. GREED. Nobody should thrive except for the business owners, fat cats and a select few (so say the business owners, fat cats and the select few).

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah? How's that happening? Private "investors" caring enough to care, paying for it?

 

Personal property is not the same thing with private property , owning capital can never be personal given how money is created in the first place.
I am very sorry that after so many posts you can not get what i am saying, it must be my poor English.
All this talk about freedom is hot air , hypothetically trailer park people are "free" to make corporate profit yet all we see are the same families dominating the market sometimes for the last 350 years .

Great now i have to be whipped with the ballooning American ego , yeah "you know better" than the peasants do and no serfs should not have a say because "they don't know" . Keep on preaching about freedom sir while capitalism kills everything.

 

Hey genius. I have Mr Rayburn in my connections list on LinkedIn. He was simply the middle man. What do you expect him to say at this point? Do you think he is actually stupid enough to publicly blame someone for closing the plant?

I worked there 30 years. Rayburn was the last guy standing pal. Our problems go back at least 30 years. Everyone was to blame. We had department heads selling company equipment, supervisors padding their time cards, employees going out to drink on OT then coming back in to punch out, regional transport bosses selling old trailers, route sales reps padding their returns to get credit for product not brought back, production supervisors lying about their waste in order to make their bonuses, route men having to pay a kickback to their supers to keep their stores...................that's just the tip of the iceberg buddy. You have no clue. Trust me.

The deal was rejected with relish by 'the workers'. Accept it. Now? They have squat. They went from having a five year deal with a 8% cut with 4% given back over five years, health insurance, vacation, pension, seniority and a job.......to nothing. The cake plant near me will reopen at $14.50 an hour via a temp agency. No union. They would have been making $17.00 per hour with benes and kept the union had they taken the deal. But as someone once said to me, some people are "ignorant sheeple that are so busy blindly following talking points they are too stupid to look at facts." I know of 3 people out of the 25 I deal with from my former job who have found work. I know of no one who went on strike that supports the decision to walk in retrospect. But you cling to your vast 'knowledge' of what happened if it makes you comfortable.

 

Taxes on investors are not an expense of the enterprise and do not get passed down to consumers. Only business taxes get passed down to the consumers in the form of higher product and services costs. Of course they also indirectly drive even higher prices, more that the taxes themselves, in the supply chain. While I've lost the link the estimated cost of adminstration of taxes on a small business is 3.84-times the cost of the tax itself so for one dollar in tax sent to the government it increases the cost to the enterprise by roughly five dollars and the five dollar cost is passed on to the consumer.

Always remember that "investors" are overwhelmingly involved in the secondary stock market that has absolutely nothing to do with the enterprise. It doesn't fund the enterprise, doesn't create wealth, and doesn't create jobs. The secondary stock market is a necessary but parasitic component of capitalism that produces nothing. Virtually all of the income of very high income individuals is related to the secondary stock market and increasing taxation on this investment income doesn't adversely effect the ecomony and doesn't increase the costs of goods or services. That's why the Capital Gains tax loophole where investors pay less than 1/2 the tax rates of those working in American and rates on enterprise makes no logical sense at all.

 

I see you sidestepped my point. Tell me if you think the poor and or lower class workers would benefit or not by copying the economic prowess of these capitalists/CEOs, regardless if they're greedy or not. In other words, I'm asking you to give me an economic plan for these poor and or lower class people to succeed in life that doesn't involve these greedy capitalist pigs.

 

You are keep ingoring the currency problem... Just because someone getting payed doesn't mean they can buy stuff with they money. What do you think why is that socialist states in Europe always facing currency issues? First of all it's morally wrong to destroy someone saving who behaved responsible on market and saved up for hard times just to help out the inept temporarily..

 

So what you gonna do about people are naturally greedy? Are you gonna give them the power of the State the ultimate monopoly of greed where you don't even have to be productive to be greedy just have the barrel of a gun serve your greed.. Good choice.. you gonna have a hard time under that system...

 

I really liked this statement up to the last point made in the last sentence. The expansion of the money supply dwarfs the amount of "welfare" expendatures to mitigate the effects of poverty in the United States. Expansion of the money supply, that causes inflation (which is actually the discounting of a promissory note in the free market) has overwhelmingly been to benefit the banking industry, the military-industrial complex, and wealthy individuals. The belief that the expansion of the money supply was ever about mitigating the effects of poverty is not supported by the facts.

It is also incorrect to believe that "poverty" is predominately related to individuals that are "inept" because overwhelmingly it relates to prejudice that creates discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity (a violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person) in America. Excluding retirees when we look at provery for those of working age it overwhelmingly relates to minorities and women were discrimination in the workforce against them is highly documented. They aren't "inept" but instead they are discriminated against according to all studies.

 

Oh yes it is.. Is personal property belong to you or the public?
Talking about freedom is hypothetical? People like you are the cause of the 260 million death Join the. last century all those killing were done under great of the good, the bashing the individual and worshipping the tribe, the collective.. Let me ask you a question do you own your body or the public owes your body?