Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[Guest]

No, we do NOT live in a representative democracy. Your ignorance regarding our system has just become extremely apparent. Out system is a democratic republic. It amazes me how many people do not know this. I agree that we have systemic problems, however, I disagree about what is causing those problems. And I disagree that violent revolt is our only solution to solve our problems, and I agree that there are no simple solutions. However, expanding regulation and government control over our system is only going to do more harm than good. Have you seen how many regulations we have? Have you seen how complicated our tax code is? We need to simplify our regulations, get rid of ones that do not work. We need to simplify our tax code- get rid of loopholes for the rich. We need to build businesses, innovate, and create jobs- we do that, private individuals do that, not government.

Just to clarify - you believe that a Democratic republic is not a representative democracy ?

I live in a republic and it certainly is a representative democracy.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Once again your are wrong. I work for a publicly traded company in the US and we have an extensive program for giving to charity, scholarships for students, and giving back to the community in many different ways. We helped finance a local zoo in a public park that is free for everyone in the community. If we only wanted profit, why would we spend money on all those things? Why would the company I work for donate to cancer research and give employees paid days off for volunteer work? A greedy company that only wants profit would not do those things, yet we do. And we are a publicly traded company with a board and shareholders and the works.

Your characterization that all private corporations in the US only care about profit is simply just wrong.

Public relations is what its called. Public relations is profitable otherwise companies wouldn't do it.

You seem to be under the false impression that I dislike companies, I don't , but neither am I under any illusions that companies are intrinsically superior to correctly run organs of the state or charities or coops. Companies are tools for society to get things done - nothing more or less.

i don't even believe that its necessary to expand government - but i believe its critical to understand the function of government and respect its role in organizing society. At the moment the regulatory framework is not working so it needs to be modified, and that doesn't necessarily mean shrank. Most regulations forfill a real need in society, but some were not well conceived, corrupted or clash with other regulations. If thats the problem then take an evidence based approach to making them achieve their objectives - but be clear about what those objectives are and set them out at the begin. Simply saying - regulations BAD, do away with them is just plain wrong headed, and listening to industry, rather than considering societies needs, because they want more profits is wrong as well.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 22, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

Once a company becomes bigger than a sole trader it is its legal duty to maximize profits otherwise the board can be fired. This defines the culture in all large corporations - they are obliged to favour profits over a social conscience. Hence we get the CEO of Shell been a very nice man - but the company killing activists if they interfere with their operations in the Nigar delta.

Br Cornelius

No, its duty is to offer continuing value to stakeholders which is usually in tension with maximizing its profits.

As opposed to what, the "social conscience" of building a better kind of gun, a bigger bomb, a longer ranged rocket. Those are what great societies are made of huh? And you think Microsoft makes your case.

[Einsteinium]

Public relations is what its called. Public relations is profitable otherwise companies wouldn't do it.

Br Cornelius

You say that politicians are held accountable, but private companies are not. That is not true. Private companies are held accountable by consumers, consumers vote with their money, just like constituents vote at the polls. The two are in in many ways one and the same. You need informed and educated voters in both respects. Politicians use advertising (propaganda) to convince people to vote for them, just like businesses use advertising to entice consumers to spend their money on their products. Either way of doing things can be manipulated, voters who are not educated and easily influenced will vote for politicians that do not have their best interest at heart, just as consumers who are not educated and easily manipulated will spend money on things they otherwise would not because of the advertising.

Both are susceptible to corruption. You seem to think government is somehow less susceptible to corruption? I disagree. Pick your poison, at least with a private business i can always choose to not buy their product if I don't like them. With politicians they will force everyone by rule of law. Politicians are more dangerous than businessmen for this reason, but the US system has sadly become a system where businessmen and politicians are in bed together. They have learned that by working together they can both benefit. This is very dangerous for everyone.

The state is not the answer, unregulated capitalism is not the answer. We need balance, and we need educated, informed consumers and voters.

[Einsteinium]

Just to clarify - you believe that a Democratic republic is not a representative democracy ?

I live in a republic and it certainly is a representative democracy.

Br Cornelius

The US system is a type of representative democracy yes, but not a pure democracy.

[Guest]

The US system is a type of representative democracy yes, but not a pure democracy.

The last pure democracy was Greece 3000years ago. None of us live in a pure democracy.

Br Cornelius

[pbarosso]

the wealthy will always find ways to be wealthy. trickle down or no. what should be done is require corporations to be disconnected to politics, make ZERO profit. all bottom line profit should go to paying its employees and growth with a cap on growth.

[acidhead]

the wealthy will always find ways to be wealthy. trickle down or no. what should be done is require corporations to be disconnected to politics, make ZERO profit. all bottom line profit should go to paying its employees and growth with a cap on growth.

Nice logic

[Einsteinium]

the wealthy will always find ways to be wealthy. trickle down or no. what should be done is require corporations to be disconnected to politics, make ZERO profit. all bottom line profit should go to paying its employees and growth with a cap on growth.

If you did what you just described the economy would collapse overnight.

[acidhead]

lol

[F3SS]

Public relations is what its called. Public relations is profitable otherwise companies wouldn't do it.

I knew you'd spin that in a negative light. Einsteinium's company is doing all the things you ask for, 'paying back', and you scowl because it sheds a positive light on the company which can lead to profit. You give and you get. Just what is a successful business supposed to do for your approval? Do things on the down low? Of course not. That's shady. Out in the open? No way. They'll gain more business. The company could do none of the above and focus all that positive energy and company time into selling whatever they sell. Now that would just be horrible.

Companies are tools for society to get things done - nothing more or less.

In this modern world they are much more. They are the source of each and every working persons livelihood and all those whom rely on them. In fact, they are source of every non-working person who receives government benefits. They are the initial source of nearly every dollar spent and tax collected in the country. Your view is minimalist and negative.

i don't even believe that its necessary to expand government - but i believe its critical to understand the function of government and respect its role in organizing society. At the moment the regulatory framework is not working so it needs to be modified, and that doesn't necessarily mean shrank. Most regulations forfill a real need in society, but some were not well conceived, corrupted or clash with other regulations. If thats the problem then take an evidence based approach to making them achieve their objectives - but be clear about what those objectives are and set them out at the begin. Simply saying - regulations BAD, do away with them is just plain wrong headed, and listening to industry, rather than considering societies needs, because they want more profits is wrong as well.

Br Cornelius

You certainly do want more. Obviously, what we have is not enough to you. Our governments role is not to organize US.

[Yamato]

So Tom's Shoes is giving a pair away for every pair they sell because their sole interest is maximizing profit, and meanwhile NASA and Raytheon are the upright moral social conscience in the world. What a ruse, Br! People are all the same in their essence and it's a dangerous game to be trusting in the ones who aspire to control you more than the ones who do not.

[Yamato]

the wealthy will always find ways to be wealthy. trickle down or no. what should be done is require corporations to be disconnected to politics, make ZERO profit. all bottom line profit should go to paying its employees and growth with a cap on growth.

[Bavarian Raven]

The last pure democracy was Greece 3000years ago. None of us live in a pure democracy.

Br Cornelius

[Bavarian Raven]

Not really.

Iceland 1000 AD ish was the closest to a real democracy with the Icelandic Thing where every free man could vote and had a chance to be heard. Not a full democracy but its the closest things you'll get IMHO.

[Frank Merton]

The last pure democracy was Greece 3000years ago. None of us live in a pure democracy.

Br Cornelius

Yea and look at what a brutal regime that turned out to be, both to its enemies and its subservient cities.

[Frank Merton]

I think economically the difference between a socialist market economy like Vietnam and a social democratic capitalist economy is tweedle dum and tweedle dee. There are slight differences legally but not as a practical matter that matters.

[spartan max2]

the wealthy will always find ways to be wealthy. trickle down or no. what should be done is require corporations to be disconnected to politics, make ZERO profit. all bottom line profit should go to paying its employees and growth with a cap on growth.

who is going to go in business if the goal is to pay employees and make zero profit? Making a business is hard as is.

You just took away the motive. Your economy would crumble

[+DieChecker]

the rich built their wealth off the infrastructure of the State and the public capitol of the educated people. Allowing the wealthy to keep all of their earnings is directly sponging off the investment the country has made in itself.

That very much is the core of Obama's "you didn't build that" speech. And it is wrong to try to claim that government infrastructure should be an excuse to overtax the rich. Since everyone, even the homeless, use that infrastructure. It is there to BE USED. That is why the government built it.

If the government wants to raise taxes of the Rich, just grow a pair and tax them. Don't look for wimpy reasons and excuses. Just do it.

[+DieChecker]

I get that there is a problem with wealth disparity in the United States that is getting worse. I just disagree that it is a problem for the state to solve. It is a problem that we all must work to solve, the state included, but caps on wealth, insanely high tax rates, redistributionism- those are not the way to solve the problem in the US, not if the US wants to stay at the top of the innovation and entrepreneurship game worldwide.

Perhaps the US should do a macro scale research experiment and simply allow the wealth distribution to proceed with even greater disparity. Then in 20 or 50 years we'll go down as the classic example in textbooks.

Seriously though. Rather then actually helping the underprivileged, and improving poverty rates, and malnutrition rates, and poor education rates.... Let's just tax the rich and call it good. Isn't going to work, I am afraid.

This is like blaming autism on vaccines, when it isn't the vaccines that are the problem, it is autism that is the problem. Blaming the rich for being rich and saying that if those dang evil rich people could just be brought low, then poverty and hunger and education would somehow be magically fixed.

[Frank Merton]

The problem is to try to get the benefits of a market economy in ambition and initiative and hard work without the problems of greed and poverty and corruption. I don't think it is possible, but we can still try to approximate that.

[Guest]

Perhaps the US should do a macro scale research experiment and simply allow the wealth distribution to proceed with even greater disparity. Then in 20 or 50 years we'll go down as the classic example in textbooks.

Seriously though. Rather then actually helping the underprivileged, and improving poverty rates, and malnutrition rates, and poor education rates.... Let's just tax the rich and call it good. Isn't going to work, I am afraid.

This is like blaming autism on vaccines, when it isn't the vaccines that are the problem, it is autism that is the problem. Blaming the rich for being rich and saying that if those dang evil rich people could just be brought low, then poverty and hunger and education would somehow be magically fixed.

The proof of the lie of your statement will play out, and the belief that your is the best and only way is easy to disprove by simply looking around and seeing that things can work in other ways.

There are many ways of achieving the objective of a balanced healthy society. Taxing is just one tool in a regulatory armoury. I would heavily regulate all of the "gambling" out of the stock exchange - all those trades producing no value but massive profits for people with capitol. The Market as represented by the stock exchange should be made to serve its intended purpose - the efficient allocation of resources and anything other than that should be regulated out of existence. Make trades take hours not seconds so that real value is created rather than speculative margins on things that are pure fantasy assets. Since its the stock market, and its casino ways, which are at the root of almost all of Americas wealth disparity - that would be the place to start.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 23, 2014 by Guest

[Space Commander Travis]

Microsoft and Google are giants for sure but all someone has to do is do what they do in a better and innovative way and they'll fall by the wayside. You were using the word monopolistic earlier. You're either a monopoly or you're not. Google has plenty of competition but for now they're the best. Microsoft Windows and the PC go hand in hand but don't think for a second that PC manufacturers wouldn't ditch them if someone develops and properly markets another better product. There are other PC compatible OS's and word processors out there but Microsoft still does it best.

That's simply not true, on either count. They're not the best, they're both lousy, but people believe that they are best, that they must be best, simply because they're so gigantic and dominant. It seems like a religious belief. It must be only the best companies that get to the top, because that's what the belief system insists.

[Space Commander Travis]

That depends on your definition of doing very well. I would not want to live in China right now, the wealth disparity in China makes the US wealth disparity look tiny by comparison. Their poor make most of our poor look like middle class, and their middle class resembles our moderate poor. If that is your definition of doing well, then your definition is not at all the same as mine.

Britain during WW2? Really? You think they were doing well during WW2? They were being bombed by the Germans and their imperial empire was falling apart, the United States literally saved them. You call that doing well?

Britain saved itself by preventing the Luftwaffe getting air superiority to make an invasion feasible, then Hitler effectively removed the pressure by invading Russia, and then, a year and a half after Dunkirk, America finally entered the war, when Hitler declared war on it. The bombing campaign to any serious extent had stopped by the time Hitler switched his attention to Russia. And it was late into 1942 before America had the capability to go over to the offensive.

Yes, I think Britain was doing remarkably well before America saved its ass.

[Guest]

The British Empire crumbled not because of the second world war, it crumbled because the state was picking up the administrative bill for running it - but not getting enough revenues from the private companies it was allowing to prosper in the colonial countries. It was becoming a drain on Britain as a country who was gaining far to little financially to justify the expense of administration.

There is a lesson to be learned by America there.

Br Cornelius