Most Americans Think Government Does Not Work 4 Them

True, but if you asked her if she was happy she'd very quickly say no. That's my whole point

We go out of our way to be unhappy. Conservatives think it's positively immoral and liberals guilt us about it all the time

Huxley's people couldn't deal with the "Savage" because he was unhappy, yet it's them whom Huxley presents as perverted in the end. I have a problem with that and it gets into why I have a problem with conservatism. A lot of times conservatives seem to want life to be HARDER on everybody and I really object there. We're all going to die, after all, not just ourselves but all our friends, everyone we know and ever will. and I'm sorry, but I think that fundamental fact of existence makes life every bit as hard it can or ought to be, and more.

 

Imagine if Canada had these instead of capitalist corporations. Workplace democracy is capitalism's successor.

 

Bull feces too. You profoundly underestimate the effect of the roads you take for granted in this country. You couldn't get most of those cheaply available utilities for any price if we didn't have the Interstates tying this country together

In Ethiopia during the 1980's famine desperately needed and largely abundant food rotted in the cities because the transport infrastructure simply wasn't there. The USA has always had a really great transport system, first canals, then railroads and finally our Interstates, which we see duplicated the world over. There is a reason why we can go to Kazakhstan and travel on giant highways which make us think we have never left home

 

We have them in America too

 

Yes but few have heard of it. The end goal is to democratize the economy. The corporation would be replaced with worker co-ops.

 

Oh, so you what Socialism? Interesting

 

Yes, we do have companies organized as you like, along with more common structure that includes varius features in that direction such as profit sharing, employee stock opions, etc.

Are you suggesting that the government should force that kind of organization?

One advantage Canada has is that individuals are more free to select how they earn income, because healthcare is not part of that equation. If someone wants to leave the company and strike out on their own, the first thing they encounter in the USA is that they lose healthcare coverage for themselves and their families. Plus, moving to a startup will also cause one to lose that coverage.

And if they start being successul at their new business, they then have to take on healthcare responsibilities for their employees.

 

But would that work all the time, or even most of it? A lot of businesses are much more about the thing being made or service delivered than just making money and providing jobs, at least that is the myth and the situation that obtains until the company goes public and becomes fiduciary

 

Just as feudalism and slavery were outlawed so should capitalism. It would have to be a gradual transition with and without government aid. Corporations are subsidized by the state now anyways. Capitalism would have to be abolished for this project to succeed:



Moreover, few worker co-ops would succeed in a capitalist market since they'll need to match the rate of exploitation of their competitors to survive. As Rosa Luxemburg put it. "As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital—that is, pitiless exploitation—becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise."

https://books.google.com/books/about/Reform_or_Revolution_and_Other_Writings.html?id=04u832PcSPsC

 

Having companies organized such that employees take part more fully does not require the end of capitalism. We can do that right now - and some do. Our system is not pure - there is real latitude.

I'm totally unconvinced that some more significant change is required in our model of capitalism, which is working in most first world nations around the world. Even China has moved in that direction.

 

And?? You haven't explained anything about how that would be fixed by trashing capitalism.

The thing is, for years the American people have worked for the good of those who are fabulously wealthy.

That would be a disaster regardless of what sysetm we use.

Today, we allow corporations to have rights that were intended for human beings, NOT corporations.

Today, we have those with hight incomes paying FAR less taxes than did those with hight incomes during past administrations, allowing for middle class success.

Today, we allow those with huge wealth to avoide paying taxes by the fact that they can choose how to take compensation - choosing methods that are significantly tax advantaged.

Today, we charge STUDENTS incredible sums of money for the education that allows entry to the economic sectors that offer jobs that can sustain what we think of as a middle class lifestyle.

Today, we allow SuperPACS to take STUPENDOUS political donations, allowing the wealthy to totally swamp the voice of working Americans.

Today, we destroy unions - one of the only organizations that actually DOES care about working America.


The list goes on and on and on.

These are not exclusive to capitalism. As long as America WORKS FOR this kind of inequality, that inequality will exist.

America voted for Reagan, beginning an era that has done no more than pick up momentum in the protection of the wealth of the ultra wealthy while fanning the flames of hate against those who aren't.

Somehow, Americans got duped into thinking that if the wealthy are hugely advantaged, THEY will experience that advantage when THEY get there. But, they are NOT going to get there.

I would argue that no single economic model will succeed in some pure form. We need the creativity, flexibility and energy of capitalism. We just need to be ending the practices above that directly lead to total disenfranchisement for MILLIONS of Americans - and will do so regardless of the primary economic model we choose.

 

It's astonishing that I would have to explain how wealth concentration is linked to capitalism. Productivity rises as wages are stagnant. Productivity is the value produced by workers. A small group of people at the top decide how the surplus is distributed. Unsurprisingly, most of it goes to enriching themselves.

In a worker co-op, what to do with the surplus is decided democratically by the workers/owners. There wouldn't be such inequality that capitalism produces.

Capitalism isn't 'broken'. It's working all too well - and we're the worse for it - The Guardian

 

The US government doesn't work for most of the people. Politicians need lots of money to keep their jobs and most working class people don't have money to donate to politicians. As such, what is good for the "regular guy and gal" is irrelevant.

A perfect example: In the 1990s, seniors started to buy their prescription medications from Canada because Canada regulates prices and seniors could purchase their meds far cheaper from Canada than from the US. The Bush administration outlawed the practice under the pretext that the medications may not be safe. Recently, laws allowing people to get prescription medications from Canada (and elsewhere) have been opposed by members of both parties in supplication to the powerful pharma lobby.

 

So you want the government bigger and more powerful than it is now? Wealthy people already pay way more than their fair share. Its not like they use more roads and government services than anyone else, they are just overcharged simply because they have more.

Speaking about having more, using a global scale, you are extremely wealthy. Can we count on you to give your money away like you are asking others to do?

 

I don't want the government to be bigger and more powerful than it is right now, but I would love to see the government spend my tax dollars on public health, education and infrastructure INSTEAD of spending it on military aggression and the overthrow of legitimate governments around the world.

 

Social networking? Community togetherness? Utopian goodness? Economic democracy? OK. A couple questions?
1. Who puts up the money to start the company? Who owns the company?
2. Who's the boss? What percentage does he get?
3. What percentage are the peons paid? Who sets the wages?
4. Who is supplying my Health Care? Dental? Eye Care? Life Insurance? My retirement?
5. Who's responsible if the company fails or gets sued?

 

Exactly. The government should provide the economic infrastructure within which people can prosper on their own. The USA pioneered this idea among nations and our present status as the globe's pre-eminent economy is the best illustration of its success anyone can ask for, yet now we lag badly in its continued and necessary application.

 

1. The workers buy back the company as part of their wages buy shares of stock. The ones who put up the original money get the return on that, and their own stock ownership.
2. The most competent employee who wants the job. He gets higher wages as compensation for increased responsibility but no more percentage than anyone else, unless he buys it as anyone can.
3. The workers set their own wages democratically.
4. The same insurance plans that do so now.
5. Any company can fail and this is why just about all retirement plans are funded through investments in the overall economy, and all cos. carry liability insurance

This is done all the time. While not exactly like this I think it's a big part of how all IPOs have to be structured nowadays

The US needs a return to the ideas and concepts that made us great. Ideas and concepts based on the Democratic Capitalism championed by the Democrat Party and President Biden. What we have to eschew is the Institutionalized Corruption being promulgated by the Plutocracy Party and Donald Trump. Remember this in November

 

Actually fifty years ago, women were quite a bit happier than they are now:

 

Corporatism has taken over our government, it's no longer run by the people

it's only gonna get worse folks, jobs going overseas and products being imported and Artificial Intelligence on the horizon

for a Capitalist society to survive, we have to have enough good jobs, just the reality of it... unless we want Socialism

the last 3 Presidents have been adding about a trillion a year to the debt, may as well have socialism for that price tag

ask yourselves, for our 30 Trillion in debt, what did we get, did trickle down work as well as trickle up would of?

 

In a very real way, ownership and healthcare tie employees to a specific company.

They present barriers to the movement of people toward their best contribution - in terms of productivity and satisfaction. They are barriers to the creation of new companies, as leaving a company to start ones own business carries major healthcare ramifications. And, healthcare is a barrier to the growth of small companies, as taking on that requirement is almost never in line with the reason for the existence of the company. So, fairly early on in the growth of a startup the company must start managing healthcare - an expensive proposition.

Looking at it from the point of view of citizens, health becomes tied to employment status. So, changing jobs, layoffs due to economic downturn or company decline, health/injury, age, etc. end up having a huge impact on what kind of care is even available.

A friend of my family just got laid off of a mid range management position due to the recent economy. She's pregnant, actively looking for a job in this time of downturn while she faces not just unemployment, but also losing healthcare. How can anyone suggest that makes any remote kind of sense? What is it about our society that we should decide that her health became LESS important at this time in her life?

Today, bankruptcies and abortion are strongly tied to healthcare. And, we perpetuate that by making full healthcare really no more than a "benefit" - a benefit that evaporates due to factors outside the control of such a significant percent of America?

 

Bull, the exact and precise OPPOSITE is usually the case. The major percentage of government services is devoted almost solely to protecting the wealth of the wealthy. Just as one example look at how much of the courts work tirelessly to collect the debts owed to them and/or help them to swindle others even more. They should pay a MUCH higher percentage of their incomes into taxes, yet most of them pay NOTHING and Plutocrats like Trump praise their, and his, cleverness in doing so. This has to stop. The rich should pay their fair share, the savings should be passed on to the non-wealthy.

Nobody is asking anyone to give away anything. We're asking the wealthy to stop freeloading off people who have much less than they do. We're tired of paying for well-off moochers.

 

Exactly. EVERYBODY needs healthcare and they ALL need about the same amount, that is to say, they need it when they are sick and don't need when they are not (except for a smaller "maintenance" amount, eating well, exercising, etc). It is the PERFECT commodity to be provided by the government because very few people are going to be "cheating" by faking sickness or injury to get more of it, (though lots of conservatives seem to think everybody that's sick is malingering all the time, but that gets into the conservative mindset and may be just me)

 

I'm not at all sure how much I'd trust any poll done by a "women's" cigaret company

Also, both men and women were declining precipitately accord to this poll, What were they asking anyway? Most of life was getting better in those times going by knowledge of other things