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.
Frankly government regulations are the root cause. Get the government out of life and we will flourish.
For example, why can I start my own bank? People who trust me can deposit their money with me and I in return give them interest. Except the amount of government regulations for operating a bank is so burdensome that only the rich can afford.
I've read your comments along these lines before, and I know there is no changing your mind any more likely than changing anyone's mind in this forum, but surely you have a better understanding of the other side of these arguments. Right?
Seems you assume a perfect world, in which all people who might trust someone asking for their money are intelligent, not gullible. Ever talked to an old person who has been swindled out of their savings because they weren't as bright as you?
You don't even get specific about which government regulations you would eliminate. Would you do away with the regulations that require oil companies to use double-walled underground tanks to keep gasoline from leaking into the ground like the old single walled tanks used to do? Just FYI, the single walled tanks were cheaper of course, so many gas station owners used them. Couldn't afford to replace them with double-walled tanks as the new regulations required. Those who couldn't afford to replace the single walled tanks with double walled were forced to sell or go out of business, due to these regulations, in some ways like you just can't start your own bank.
How about considering the other sides of these issues in an objective manner for a change?
And of course, everything you source is free of bias and agenda. And Wiki? Really? It's not like you are trying to sell us democratic socialism or anything. We see where you were going with all this. Which begs the larger question:
Which of you Americans out there want to subjugate yourself and your productivity to the state in exchange for enough rationed services to provide an adequate life? Once you accept this offer, your life will no longer be driven by self interest, and your self-determination will be limited to state approved goals. Your choice. Choose wisely.
What's worse: getting little because the money is given to managers and stockholders instead, or getting little because the money goes to the state, which at least gives something back to you via the services it provides you with?
I think this topic is full of ideology. Even if an independent body came up with a clear recommendation on how to do it, many people would refuse it for ideological reasons. It seems there is no more effort to try and find the best solution, regardless of who comes up with it.
America could adopt a socialist government like Venezuela, the type of government Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez have been advocating.
By Correo del Orinoco International
Jul 31st 2011 at 8.33am
Venezuela: Lowest Percentage of Social Inequality in Latin America
Venezuela has the lowest percentage (0.38 percent) of social inequality in Latin America, according a report released by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
The President of the National Institute of Statistics, Elias Eljuri, said on Monday that the ECLAC report shows that extreme poverty in Venezuela was reduced from 21 percent in 1999, when the Bolivarian Revolution began, to 6.9 percent, with a tendency to continue decreasing.
Of course, after adopting socialism, the citizens are starving in Venezuela 8 years later and the government has recently been taken over by a violent dictator.....but, there is no income inequality! everyone is living in poverty in Venezuela now.
I don't advocate socialism as generally defined, but pointing at Venezuela as example of socialism is like pointing at Enron as example of capitalism, or Flint, Michigan as example of America's water quality...
Bingo! Neither society nor taxpayers are to blame for the poor ill-advisedly bearing children they cannot afford to support, thereby dooming those children to a lifetime of hardship and struggle, as well.
Not so fast. Not bingo! More than a few numbers missing here before we get to bingo!
Again, the issue is not one of blame in the first place...
I don't advocate socialism as generally defined, but pointing at Venezuela as example of socialism is like pointing at Enron as example of capitalism, or Flint, Michigan as example of America's water quality...
Yep. Socialism (I don't even like the word as it has such a bad connotation) is a complex idea. Just like with veganism you have to know what you are doing, else it can go seriously wrong.
Venezuela failed because Maduro is simply incompetent and authoritarian, regardless of his political orientation.
Explain how businesses are started or expanded, both of which provide more jobs, without capital investments. Go!
I started, owned and operated my own business, and I used other people's money to do so, successfully. Fortunate to put a lot of people to work while doing so as well, so I well understand what you are explaining, but there is no reason to alter the fundamental dynamics of how a business works, how investors play a part, or whatever profits and losses might result in order to address the question posed by this thread!
That too. If a bank wants to give a high risk loan, let them. But when they go upside down, uncle sam shouldn't bail them out.
It takes very exceptional circumstances for the government to "bail out" any failing banks or businesses for that matter, though the FDIC does protect people who park their savings in those banks. Even during the Great Recession, many of those "bail outs" were actually loans that were paid back in full plus some...
If I had my own company, every full-time employee would get exactly the same, no matter what their job is.
And I like the idea of employees owning the company they are working for. That is a positive motivation in my view.
Lo and behold, when those loans started defaulting en masse, The Federal Reserve had to create $2 trillion out of thin air to bail out Fannie and Freddie, as even though they were hemorrhaging money, because they were US Government-sponsored enterprises, they still owed the investors who held their MBS.
How do we know that happened?
There were no F&F MBS on the Federal Reserve's H.4.1 in 2008:
But it seems the rich are getting richer, a lot richer.....sometimes at the expense of everyone else.
Sports stars, movie stars, TV stars ...always made much more than the average person...
but these days it is getting a little crazy....
Kelly Ripa, for example, I don’t want to pick on Kelly ...but she’s a good example,
she earns $20 million a year to co-host an hour long talk show...she’s entertaining,
and should be paid well....like $2 million a year...still a lot of money but not ten times that,
that she making now. I was also flabbergasted buy Matt Lauer’s giant $25 million a year
salary from NBC....when they fire him thet saved a ton of money, more than enough
to give Roker, Hoda, and the gang all a big raise.
There was a time, not that many years ago, when a sports star would sign a $1 million contract
and that was a big deal, nowadays even a “bench warmer” makes close to million.
These stars make more money other people make in ten lifetimes, same with big company CEOs,
it’s gotten out out of hand. And we the little people pay for it buying tickets, products advertised, etc...
I’m not saying people with extradordinary talent shouldn’t big well compensated,
certainly they deserve more but it is getting a bit too extreme.
I agree people should be well compensated for whatever it seems they do well and/or as our society might provide in terms of "voting dollars." This really should not be the focus or argument when instead the question is what rates of taxes should those in these uber categories of income and wealth pay all considered?
In other words, no need to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs," but it also doesn't make much sense that 1 out of 100 people end up with 99 out of 100 golden eggs!
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.
