Fat Cat greed headline just in time for the election

If your regulations are so effective why do mountains of them have no effect whatsoever? Most of these abuses arose after the establishment of your regulatory regimes. Instead of talking about the dozens that happen every year despite mountains of paperwork, lets talk about the economy crushing abuses that happened before regulation. Anyone?

 

Greed is only a bad thing when you want someone's property and are trying to get it by force or theft, or when you tax other groups while feeling super important about yourself and protecting your own tax rate etc...You know, liberal stuff.

 

You are correct.

But if one has posted on this forum for a few months, it is easy to see that for some Americans... greed is almost a religious doctrine; that they somehow see it as a 'good' thing. In the minds of those people, making money is MORE important than the well-being of people in-general.

I say that is very much like DISEASED thinking (because of what carrying the 1-5% does to millions of people below them); but as usual, we Americans will likely wait to 'react' to what HUMAN nature has led to... before we proactively gather the will to place controls/regulations upon what wealthy HUMANS would do.

Hopping AND hoping from crisis-to-crisis, is what we seem to be about.

 

How is the world working for the 1%? Except to the extent we are working to send all of our money to government who gives it to themselves, their friends, their institutions and their parties. How else are we working for them? Specifics, I dont care how much money they have, that is relative to the value they produced through their work or investment. I want to know how I am working for Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Michael Moore, the Waltons, George Soros etc..., except to the extent that government forces me to give them money so they can buy favor with these people.

If you make money through voluntary means it is because you are bringing value to people's lives. That is why they spend money. Therefore, making money is a good thing, because it helps bring value, measured in what they are willing to spend for it, to people who are willing to give some of the value they produced for someone else in exchange for it. When it is a voluntary, it is a win/win relationship. Both parties prefer what they got for what they gave up. So you see, by making money you are adding value to more peoples lives in general. You all hate oil companies but love the freedom your car gives you right? How about Gates, Jobs, Dell...super rich, has your life improved because of their products? Economics is not a zero sum game, economies can grow and everyone can become richer. One man's wealth does not come from another.

Well, unless government takes the value and effort a person earns and gives it away to someone. They will naturally give it to people who are loyal to them, it is the first place they always look. They will tie strings to the money, because they want to make sure it is spent "wisely", to ensure the strings are attached they will hire people to watch it. Those people will be forced to join an organization that is loyal to the politicians and takes dues from their pay and spends on keeping the politicians in office and out of real job, earning millions in dollars from the taxpayer. If any cuts are made it will have to come from the most vital sectors that a limited government should be rightly involved in, because that is what will make the workers who are not a part of the system capitulate fastest and send them more money; and you do this all in the name of their "well being"?

 

That's a BIG question, whether we realize it or not.

But I think that we need to mitigate that concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy; in some manner. Or, figure out a way to keep money more 'separate' from power in Government. If we don't, our problems will persist and only get worse.

In essence, more money should NOT necessarily equal more political 'voice'. Having the few rule over the lives of the many won't lead to much good in the end.

 

Yes, limited government and free market capitalism with a no strings attached safety net is the way to go. Checkout the negative income tax in the search box, I have a thread, I would like your opinion. Limit it all by Constitution, slice and chop that government beast down.

Education trumps campaign propaganda. Fix the schools, fix the nation. Start with getting government out of it as much as possible, except to issue vouchers.

 

No, it isn't... IMO. Even so, I'm willing to consider what you mean by "free market capitalism"?

And as far as "government", if we continue to live within a society... the actual limits will likely be determined by the needs of the people. So, that will always be a rather complex and proprietary thing.

 

About as free as you can get, zero corporate income tax, or any business tax for that matter. No taxes on employment etc... breakfast calls.

I agree it will always be a complex thing, but the answer isn't to always make it more complex, but to deal with the very limited things it has to do, rather then those it wants to do.

 

We know HISTORICALLY that will not work; and human nature itself virtually guarantees that laissez-faire capitalism (unmitigated) WILL destroy any society which embraces it.

That is not hard to discern/figure out.

 

When did the free market without the meddling of government destroy the economy? I want to hear this. Because historically the biggest economic failures have come from government involvement in the economy. Sherman Act, Great Depression, Great Recession etc.. We know that government for sure can create economic disasters, why not let the free market run it for awhile? Ever hear about the great recessions and depressions during the time the government didn't meddle with interest rates and the like? Of course not! Free markets have self correcting mechanisms that would not let it go that far. I think the Huffington Post and you confuse laissez faire free market systems ideals with socialist ones in all fairness.