Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much of that is exactly what got Greece in problems it has. Its what has continued the decline in US since the mid 60's started the whatever turns you on thing. Free stuff is what turns so many on and a huge per centage don't have any skill worth much now days.In time we will see cuts coming in government funding just like Greece. Its also made the providers richer because the bottom is always the bottom no matter the amount.The scary part is this the world of the 1950's and many countries have recovered from WWII and prospered outside the western world. The top 10% can easily leave but the same countries do not want people below that.More and more we are likely to see western countries offer deals to attract wealth providers more and more.
I'm with you on this one. We already started attracting wealth, through foreigners buying homes, paying for their education, vacationing in the US, etc.
We need to attract the global middle and upper to come here to spend money, contribute to our service economy, and create jobs. The 1960s is a long time ago. Countries are now competing for wealthy corporations and individuals. Cities that have these will be prosperous.
It's laughable when middle class Americans talk about going to canada, as if canada wants them. Canada wants you if you are independently wealthy. Otherwise, don't even think about it. If you are middle or below, you will be stuck in the US.
I'd like to start a thread about "moral economics," as it doesn't seem to be very prominent in economic circles. Standard economic theory states that the "invisible hand" controls the market, and we should just stand back and let it do its thing.
Yeah, perhaps in a perfect world that might work, like communism would work just fine in a perfect world too. But we all know humans are flawed, and there is no "perfect system" out there that can be be dropped into place and allowed to function on its own.
For this reason, most developed countries today have hybrid economic systems, often referred to as social democracies. The market forces of capitalism is allowed to perform the "heavy lifting" while the opposing forces of government counteracts the negative side effects of the free market system. Some countries seem to do a much better job of this than others, like Denmark compared to the United States.
What I'd like to do is explore ideas of how to reduce economic inequality as it pertains to the US, which is a growing problem in recent years (actually, not so recent, as it's been going on for about 40 years, but it's worsened considerably since 2008.)
Some ideas I have that I'd love to see implemented: Eliminate all corporate subsidies. Period. All this talk of people living off the government, well, let's end corporate welfare before we touch things like WIC and food stamps. The banking bail-out of 2008 is an excellent example of what I'd love to see outlawed. If capitalists are so enamored of their system, let them reap the rewards, and the losses as well.
Going along this line, all lobbying associated with any sort of private enterprise needs to be prohibited. Our government exists for the benefit of all, that means individual citizens, NOT corporate interests. Therefore, there is no reason to allow corporate interests to sway how our representatives vote.
The above two would go a long way to reduce the pugnacious influences Big Business has on our government today, but this wouldn't go far enough in my opinion. In order to have a truly just and moral economic system, we need to reform how labor operates in this country, which greatly favors the employer compared to the employee.
Simply put, we need to shift the power dynamic to employees, as opposed to the people that employ them, much like unions were able to do in the 20th Century. Some examples include:
Better working conditions, such as allowing cashiers to sit down on the job like they do in Europe, and to allow frequent breaks and so forth. Taking a step further, they should prohibit things like forcing cashiers to meet sales quotas, as that's patently unfair to both the employee and the customer. (No more being pestered to get a store card, yay!) Same thing with call centers, no more quotas. If a call center can't profit under such a system, then it doesn't exist - no skin off my back.
Wages. Not only do we need high minimum wages, we need to require employers to index wages to inflation, yearly if it's below 5%, quarterly if it's over 5% (or something along those lines.)
Lay-offs. If a company is making a profit, then lay-offs should be prohibited, or at least heavily sanctioned. What right does a company have to inflict misery and hardship upon American families just so they can save a buck by shipping jobs out of the country? That's right, none.
Preservation of free speech by employees. No firing due to having opinions the boss doesn't like, both on and off the job. This includes looking for other jobs. If an employee tells his or her boss she doesn't like working there, that person can't be fired for stating that, same with looking for other jobs. I would go so far as to prohibit employers from disallowing time off to go look for other jobs. This way, anyone stuck in a crappy job can constantly look for better work without fear of sanctions and/or getting fired. Hey, isn't that what free enterprise is all about, the freedom to perform whatever job or occupation one wishes? This would codify this right into law.
Democracy in the workplace. This belongs in the "advanced" column, as it'd take a while to get the bugs out of it, but I think it'd be a great system to have, especially in larger corporations. This would allow workers to vote in, or out their bosses, as well as dictating working conditions, hours, work amenities, etc. Limits would be needed to prevent workers from voting their companies into bankruptcy, but otherwise, workers should be allowed to decide how to perform their jobs, not some back-office bean counter.
The public sector. Naturally, the above conditions would probably reduce the number of private-sector jobs, probably to a great degree. So, to counteract that, we'd need a greatly expanded public workforce so that we can maintain full employment. Another variation to that would be to just have a minimum income, so people don't need a job in order to live. The revenue needed for this could be collected in a number of ways, such as trading fees for stocks and other securities, higher taxes on imports (which would bolster domestic production,) and one I've never seen anyone propose before, a tax on advertising. Since advertising is an utterly useless activity, which induces unnecessary consumption, why not tax it, much like we do with "sin taxes" on alcohol and cigarettes. Another tax would be a wealth tax, for those folks who have wayyy too much money. Make 'em toss some of that back into the pot for the common good.
Operating a business for the public good. In order to launch a business, that person or persons should be required to demonstrate how it'll benefit the public good, as opposed to harming it. This would be in effect for existing publicly-owned corporations as well, in that they would be required to serve the public good first, and then make money for shareholders secondly. Not good for profits? Probably not. But good for the environment and consumers, yes.
I could go on, but I figure this is a good start for now. Let the big snowball fight begin.
First of all, I don't find anything moral about this. This seems like an authoritarian system that destroys economic freedom and liberty. It will lead to economic decline and long term economic problems. It doesn't work at all. This would be suicide.
Until you can get a consensus on what morality is, forget it. Supposing a system of anything can be created to adhere to a standard when the standard can't be defined except by those defining it isn't worth the effort to imagine it.
Somewhere in the process, the few will want to decide for the many how things should work because they know better than everyone else.
Rather than having the nanny state tell you can't sell extended warranties and reward cards, I find it much easier to just not shop at those places. I don't go into BestBuy much partly for that reason. That's probably the best idea though. I mean, it's not a serious one but everyone gets annoyed by salesman. That doesn't mean we should have a rule prohibiting them.
Not in Geonomics. It allows all to keep what they productively worked for.
The productive keep all their the fruits of their labours - no Income Tax (a tax on production) and no Sales Tax (a tax on trade).
This is so naive it is laughable. The problem is not taxes, it is the role of government. If costs money to have a government. The whole debate between liberals and republicans is how big that government should be. If they can ever agree on that, it is almost an afterthought how it is paid for. Does it really matter whether you pay with a VAT, GET, excise, income, property, or a sex tax? It just a matter of picking your poison. The end result is the same - you pay one way or another.
There is no magic tax that is painless. We all have to pay for the services we get from government. Get over it. It is funny when people say "Make corporations pay more tax". OK, let's do that. They will simply pass the cost on to us by raising the price for the products they produce and we buy. Government has to be paid for and ultimately it is all of us who do that.
First of all, I don't find anything moral about this. This seems like an authoritarian system that destroys economic freedom and liberty. It will lead to economic decline and long term economic problems. It doesn't work at all. This would be suicide.
The system we have now is destroying economic freedom and liberty, except for the top 1% of income earners, perhaps. How is it that a corporation can dictate to an employee what they can say and cannot say both on and off the job? Or a company requiring that a salaried employee work 60 hours a week, when the standard workweek is only 40 hours? Or a company not allowing a part-time worker to work another job to make ends meet? How is that being free?
My system would be oppressive and stifling for the 1% - I will agree with that. But for the rest of us, 99 people out of a 100, it would be the most free system we could possibly have, as it would take power away from corporations and give it back to the people, where it belongs.
I just fail to see why so many people don't see it this way...
Why else do conservative leaders take pride in austerity?
Austerity has no economic benefit whatsoever, other than punishing the poor. The 1% are perceived as morally superior in capitalism, due to their wealth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let the big snowball fight begin. 
