Does Capitalism have any business in a New World Order?

[Zythryn]

Capitalism creates nothing!

Seems like rather a blanket statement. How about the businessman that buys a small 3 employee company. Helps the business grow over 20 years, then retires creating 15 millionaires (the current employees of the business)?

Also during that time, lots of secondary jobs were created as much equipment and many services were used by that business supporting other businesses along the way.

 

The capitalism I criticize is not the ones that treat the workers with the respect they deserve and there are a few like that.

 

You may as well say: 'The socialism I criticize is not the ones that treat the workers with the respect they deserve...'

In every system there is going to be corruption. What happens in a socialist system if the worker is mistreated? Can he easily move to another job where he is treated better? Can he complain to anyone or is he just 'stuck'? Is there any encouragement for success?

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Encouragement for success...what success are you speaking of? Social, intellectual, emotional, economical?

 

And what is more important; the success of the individual or the success of our species as a whole?

 

The job you speak of is a good example, though. But what kind of businesses are being created in a capitalist society? How many products are we creating that actually matter to our survival?

 

Also, the pure capitalist society is doomed to fail. The money that is created in a society has to be distributed somewhere. That money is going to go to the luckiest, hard working people. These people deserve this, of course. The problem is that the money keeps getting distributed amongst a smaller and smaller portion of the population.

 

Small businesses can no longer survive in this society. They can not compete with the big businesses that have the resources to compete unfairly and push these small businesses out of the way. The only way to get a business going is to already have a lot of resources to squander, and that still doesn't guarantee that the business will be successful.

 

Medium size businesses that show some potential get bought out by bigger businesses. Bigger businesses that show potential get eaten up by even larger corporations. This has created the new mega-corporations that are appearing all the time. Every other day the Wall Street Journal posts articles about multi-billion dollar deals that are combining businesses that already have an unfair advantage in the market.

 

How will new businesses be able to compete in this capitalist society? What options will workers have when these corporations completely swallow all their competition?

 

And in the US, the government only focuses on how to grow economically in terms of quantity of wealth rather than quality of wealth. This causes them to focus primarily on the needs of the richest in the society, due to the fact that they have the most to offer the country.

 

Humans are easily corruptable. But a socialist society at least instills values that focus on the good of the whole rather than the individual.

 

Your success is based on advancing us in directions that we don't need to be moving as a species. Again, money isn't the answer.

[Mike C]

Seems like rather a blanket statement. How about the businessman that buys a small 3 employee company. Helps the business grow over 20 years, then retires creating 15 millionaires (the current employees of the business)?

Also during that time, lots of secondary jobs were created as much equipment and many services were used by that business supporting other businesses along the way.

 

Sounds like Walmart.

I think they got started in the small towns and as they took over the market, they moved up the financial ladder to the bigger cities.

With their employee wage cuts and no benefits for their employees, they than could cut prices.

 

You may as well say: 'The socialism I criticize is not the ones that treat the workers with the respect they deserve...'

In every system there is going to be corruption. What happens in a socialist system if the worker is mistreated? Can he easily move to another job where he is treated better? Can he complain to anyone or is he just 'stuck'? Is there any encouragement for success?

 

Yes.

Also, their would be more freedom of press to expose any corruption.

No cenmsorship unless they are false allegations.

 

My intentions here is to promote HONESTY among the politicians and anywhere else.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Inter

 

My system would still be open to inventers and other individuals. I would just put limits on how much wealth can be acquired through this means.

 

Forcing all employers to give workers healthcare benefits and pensions would be one method of controlling their accumulation of wealth.

 

Another is to eliminate the 'sales' tax that is really a consumer tax placed on the spenders.

Taxing the hoarders by raising the taxes on 'surplus UNneeded' income is another way to limit their wealth accumulation.

 

These taxes would NOT reduce the living lifestyles of the wealthy.

Since this spending in not taxible, they could still deduct these expenses.

Spent dollars create demand for goods and services so this contributes to a thriving economy.

Its the 'hoarded dollars we have to go after.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

The job you speak of is a good example, though. But what kind of businesses are being created in a capitalist society? How many products are we creating that actually matter to our survival?

 

So the only businesses allowed should be those that create food and shelter?

I believe the term for that is 'dark ages'.

 

Small businesses can no longer survive in this society. They can not compete with the big businesses that have the resources to compete unfairly and push these small businesses out of the way. The only way to get a business going is to already have a lot of resources to squander, and that still doesn't guarantee that the business will be successful.

...

How will new businesses be able to compete in this capitalist society? What options will workers have when these corporations completely swallow all their competition?

 

I disagree and can prove your statement wrong (thanks for making it an absolute;)). The very business in my earlier post is a small business. Starting with 3 people, very small amount of funds and a small client list. This business grew and changed. Individuals learned and trained others. The business grew and is now composed of 15 people, each of which owns a share in the company. They are well compensated and their wealth is spread to others (family, grocery stores, home builders, appliance suppliers, etc).

 

As for how new businesses compete, they come up with new innovative ideas, or just plain do it better than the competition (better quality or lower price or both).

 

Yes, the things you mention do happen, but the things I mention also happen. Neither is an absolute. You seem to be ignoring the success stories in order to paint with a very wide brush.

 

Sounds like Walmart.

Maybe on the sole aspect of starting from humble begginings. We aren't nearly as large as Walmart and unlike Walmart Employees, each employee of the company has a stake in the company.

[Zythryn]

Another is to eliminate the 'sales' tax that is really a consumer tax placed on the spenders.

 

It occurs to me that you would be removing the very tax that taxes the wealthy more heavily than the poor?

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I will agree that we should eliminate the tax on food, shelter, clothes, and the other necessities. But don't you agree that items that are not essential to life should be highly taxed? This would only affect those who could afford the luxuries. I do agree with a higher income tax for the wealthy, but also no income tax for the poor.

[BEAKER]

I will agree that we should eliminate the tax on food, shelter, clothes, and the other necessities. But don't you agree that items that are not essential to life should be highly taxed? This would only affect those who could afford the luxuries. I do agree with a higher income tax for the wealthy, but also no income tax for the poor.

 

Sounds like class envy to me.

[Mike C]

Maybe on the sole aspect of starting from humble begginings. We aren't nearly as large as Walmart and unlike Walmart Employees, each employee of the company has a stake in the company.

 

Of course, your scheme is just speculation, right?

Companies do not expand like you say unless they have a patent or copyright that creates a monopoly for them.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

No, this is real life, first person experience.

BTW, WalMart has no patent or copyrights that created a monopoly for themselves.

I am not saying the abuses and corruption you mention never happen. They certainly do happen and those are the stories you see in the news. You DON'T see the stories about the little start up companies that make good. So it is only natural to get a one-sided impression as you have.

[Zythryn]

I will agree that we should eliminate the tax on food, shelter, clothes, and the other necessities. But don't you agree that items that are not essential to life should be highly taxed? This would only affect those who could afford the luxuries. I do agree with a higher income tax for the wealthy, but also no income tax for the poor.

 

Such a system is currently in place.

Sales taxes are not charged on food (groceries), and renters get any fraction of their rent that went towards property taxes refunded.

The poor aren't subject to the income tax, and low income earners are only subject to a very small percentage as compared to higher income earners.

As people with more money buy more stuff, they pay more sales taxes, so I don't see the point in raising sales taxes even more, as this will simply discourage consuming (which is what our entire economy is based on).

[Mike C]

It occurs to me that you would be removing the very tax that taxes the wealthy more heavily than the poor?

 

The wealthy do not spend all their dollars on living expenses. Only a very small percentage. As I said, spent dollars are circulated to contribute to economic prosperity.

 

The top rate for income taxes in the US is around 35-38%. 60% of the corporations do not pay any income taxes. Some evade taxes by establishing their business addresses outside the US. This should be stopped.

They shoukd be forced to pay 'pollution' taxes.

 

A 'surplus' income tax of about 95% for the highest earners can AFFORD to pay taxes at that level. It would still leave them millions for 'pocket' money.

 

My motto for a thriving economy is:

SHARE THE WEALTH'.

The workers create it all anyway and deserve better.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

The wealthy do not spend all their dollars on living expenses. Only a very small percentage. As I said, spent dollars are circulated to contribute to economic prosperity.

 

Sorry, I think I missed something. Are you suggestion removing the sales tax on essentials, and leaving the sales tax on non-essentials?

If so, I agree with you. However, that is basically what our current system does. Unless you wish to 'tweak' what you consider essential and non-essential I don't see any changes proposed.

 

60% of the corporations do not pay any income taxes.

 

May I ask you where you got that information? I am sure there are some that dodge taxes, but 60%?

 

Some evade taxes by establishing their business addresses outside the US. This should be stopped.

 

I agree whole heartedly:)

 

They shoukd be forced to pay 'pollution' taxes.

 

Different topic I think, deserving its own thread.

 

A 'surplus' income tax of about 95% for the highest earners can AFFORD to pay taxes at that level. It would still leave them millions for 'pocket' money.

 

Hmmm, just what do you consider 'the highest earners'? Someone that makes $1,000,000 a year? That is pretty high if you ask me. Ah, but after your 95% tax that would be $50,000 a year. Seems rather drastic and I am pretty sure I picked an income to low for your definition. Please clarify this by providing a number for the bottom of 'the highest earners'.

 

My motto for a thriving economy is:

SHARE THE WEALTH'.

The workers create it all anyway and deserve better.

 

Any system that evens out wealth by not allowing people to earn more than average through their own hard work, innovation and skill is doomed to mediocrity, lazyness and then failure (in that order).

[OldBill]

Interesting...It would seem, though, that 100,000 generations of evolutionary development has only honed our primal instinct for self-preservation, which in turn will always manifest itself in any social construct as priority self-interest. And this focus on our own personal priorities has been the very antitesist of communal movements such as communism, socialism, custodianship-ism, you-name-it-ism.

 

Capitalism addresses this primal behavior by simutaneously rewarding it and conjoining it with the kinds of mass consumer-based needs/demands that have elevated the standard of living in every economy that subscribes to it.

 

This eventually brings about an affordable social consciousness which addresses the more immediate goals of global stewardship (think Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and has the best chance of becoming the true dynamic for supporting social change.

 

Characterizing capitalism as greedy and corrupt borders on kneejerk polemics, out of sync with several centuries of remarkable progressive ascent.

[Mike C]

Sorry, I think I missed something. Are you suggestion removing the sales tax on essentials, and leaving the sales tax on non-essentials?

If so, I agree with you. However, that is basically what our current system does. Unless you wish to 'tweak' what you consider essential and non-essential I don't see any changes proposed.

 

The 'sales tax' is a consumer tax. Eliminate it completely. As I have said, people that spend their dollars are buying the goods that we (workers) create. This is good for the economy.

Unspent dollars (hoarded) do not contribute to a prosperous economy.

These HUGE surplus incomes that the wealthy individuals have, do not contribute to the mass purchasing power of the public and therefore should be taxed as I have said. At a graduated scale of from 95% for the TOP earners to 5% for the bottom earners.

Billionaires have incomes that add up to 500,000,000 million a year.

Even with their luxurious lifestyles, they would NOT spend more than 2-3 million a year. So the 497 millions could be taxed at 95%. That would still leave them with 25 million as 'pocket' money.

You see? They can afford to pay that large of a tax.

The less they have for 'foreign' investments, the better, because these investments DO NOT contribute to our (US) economy.

 

May I ask you where you got that information? I am sure there are some that dodge taxes, but 60%?

 

That information popped up on the interet occasionally. I cannot recall the sources but believe me, that is true.

 

Hmmm, just what do you consider 'the highest earners'? Someone that makes $1,000,000 a year? That is pretty high if you ask me. Ah, but after your 95% tax that would be $50,000 a year. Seems rather drastic and I am pretty sure I picked an income to low for your definition. Please clarify this by providing a number for the bottom of 'the highest earners'.

 

That figure you quote above is 'peanuts' to the billionaires. Review the 1st pragraph again.

 

Any system that evens out wealth by not allowing people to earn more than average through their own hard work, innovation and skill is doomed to mediocrity, lazyness and then failure (in that order).

 

I just said that the earnings of the corporation should be divided equally between workers and management. Management (capitalism) outnumber the workers by about 5-10 to one. So management woulld get from 5-10 times as much as the workers even though they do not create the REAL TANGIBLE WEALTH that the workers produce as the final product that the consumer wants.

 

Mike C

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Rich business owners not only get enough tax loops to put them into an unreasonable tax bracket, they also put all that money they are saving back into profitable investments. Most of the world's most profitable investments are not US based, and not only that, they aren't productive to human existance. Their investments are absolutely worthless to the advancement of the human race, and only feed on it to create a profit out of the work of another. How can a person get more resources out of a situation than the person creating the resources?

 

And I FULLY support discouraging consumerism. Its the basis for capitalism, that and competition. Consumerism is not required to create an economy. Only a goal and the resources to make that goal a reality.

[OldBill]

Nothing happens in ANY economy until someone sells something to somebody else - period. The only "resource" in an economy is its continuous circulation of wealth. When that stops, the economy ceases to exist - and any lofty goals will die along with it.

 

Consumerism isn't just some necessary evil, it is the be-all and end-all of our mutual pact to keep each other housed, fed, clothed and set up with a decent computer & internet access, so that one can rail against the system that provides all that.