The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

Studies have shown that most people on public assistance or unemployment would rather work because they want to participate and contribute meaningfully.

A simple solution: raise the minimum wage and immediately tie it to inflation to make future increases automatic.

And you're probably not a rich CEO making $10-50 million a year. This is the problem. The big employers like Walmart and McDonalds can afford the raise but it is very damaging to the small corporation or small business. And a solution to this needs to be found.

Sounds like you dislike the poor.

 

But when given the opertunity they don't. There are so many programs out there now in the civilan sector that allow people to better themselves. But they don't. Hell. Burgerking has reimbursement programs for college as long as the person taking advantage of the program chooses a field that can be used with the company. I offer a similar program to my employees. Of the 52 people under my employ 3 have chosen to do so.

All of the companies I build for offer the same incentives. They all report the same. A very small fraction of their employees take them up on that offer. Because they are comfortable.

Doing so will only cause inflation to rise at a faster rate. The poor will continue to be poor.

Lets assume that I'm what is defined as a small business owner.

The numbers are still the same. To break it down Barney style, company has 2 million employees and a majority make minimum wage (this is a fictitious scenario seeings as less than 10% of adults make minimum wage) and they suddenly see an increase of six bucks an hour for the majority of their employees. We are talking a huge increase in labor costs not only from taking the minimum wage workers up. But bumping every other employee up. Which means less return for investors.

Do you have a 401k? Would you still invest that money in a company that offers a pittance of a return? Let me guess you dont know where your 401k goes.

Sounds like you haven't been paying attention. Or you're using the typical anti rich argument. Turn the "poor" against the "Mister" That dog don't hunt here.

After I got hurt my wife and our four children spent six months living out of a 99 extended cab Silverado.

Like I said. I know poor. I know poverty. If I can do it even with all the government intrusions anyone can. All it takes is a strong desire to succeed.

Under your proposed plan the only way things work is if the government mandates how much people can recieve from their labor. How much they can recieve from their money and how much they can recieve from their investment.

Doing that does not encourage anyone to sacrafice for their own wellbeing.

 

You don't know that.

I want control of my money, so when I retired I rolled it into my IRA.

"Where it goes"??? It "goes" where I put it.

My "proposed plan"? Tell me about my "proposed plan". Tell me what it is and what it looks like.

 

I know that because its what happened every time minimum wage has gone up. In the exact order I stated. Study history man.

and how much money did you loose between then and there becaue of intervention?

and what happens to it when you put it there? Answer. Depending on what guidance youve given your broker (or more likely the guidance the company you work for gave your broker) they invested that money in companies that would be likely to offer the return you were looking for the money in your 401k didnt just sit stagnant for a decade or three making money. It was handled by hundreds of different agents in dozens or hundreds of different companies (maybe thousand depending on how diverse the agents decided to be) to make sure you saw a return. So. If you invested in a 401k and didnt maintain complete control, and think thst the free market is he problem. Then you directly contributed to the problem.

I believe that I did in the text that you decided not to quote and the previous text thst did not show up here.

 

You've finally touched on the problem. Reduce the size and control of government and all will be much better. Downsize government and reestablish the free market.

 

You've finally touched on the problem. Reduce the size and control of government and all will be much better. Downsize government and reestablish the free market.

 

Socialists kill people due to the unintended consequences of their policies. All is forgiven however because those policies were well intentioned.

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao used the authoritarian basis of communism/socialism to purposely kill tens of millions of people.

 

There are some interesting hard left types in the UK, especially Ireland, that are very economic socialists, but that is underpinned by what would be very conservative libertarian notions of rights. Richard Boyd Barrett is one that comes to mind who rather pointedly went after the Israeli Ambassador on the issue of rights.

 

This is a personal judgement on your part, and certainly not founded in fact or experience.

I would suggest you compare the high crime-rates* in the US to that of Europe, where poverty is alleviated by means of state-provided (national) minimum sustenance revenues.

Start here: Crime and Incarceration statistics by country ...

 

You fail to include in your observations that we've just passed through the worst recession since the Great Depression in the 1930s. From which we are recovering rather well.

Capitalism works as it has worked for centuries - badly, when it comes to the share-out of economic results. But that share-out is not due to capitalism but by unfair taxation that was instituted by Reckless Ronnie in the 1980s, which resulted in ridiculously low taxation-levels (flat-rate taxation for upper-incomes in the effective range of 15/20%).

It was this patent inequity that brought about the acute disparity of effective incomes that still plagues the US, along with a ridiculously low minimum-wage throughout the nation. The curative would be to increase the Minimum Wage - but that is stymied in a Congress that is owned by the Replicants.

And why? Because that is what the American voter has wanted - and it is what they get. Until the poor wake-up and start voting*, there is not much that can be done to change the horrible unfairness that exists in America today.

So, live with it ...

From FACT CHECK: Bernie Sanders And Whether Poor Americans Vote, excerpt:

 

I would suggest that you look at the history of crime over there.

See their rates have always been lower. Even before they had programs for the poor.

The interesting thing you will notice is that their crimerates continue to increase even though they keep throwing more and more programs at the problem.

Would you care to address the rest of my post? Or are you going to contiue to cherry pick?

 

Rather well ?? The Obama recovery is the worst since the GD.

And again the myth that the most important metric by which an economic system is judged is the distribution of income or wealth ?? The median household income as a proxy for the standard of living is the true standard. Capitalism is responsible for improving the standard of living of the most people than any other system.

 

I did, you didn't look at the crime rates on the site I posted.

And I shall do as I damn well please ...

 

Leftists work with theories and feelings. The people who live in realville understand food doesn't get on the table by demanding someone else put it there.

 

Yes there is. It's just false. Development costs are largely shouldered by the taxpayer, and the patent holders just take as much as they can. There is no relation between them because economic rents do not relate to cost, only to what the market will bear. As the recent Epipen fiasco proves so very conclusively.

It's borne by taxpayers. The pharma companies spend more on marketing then they do on development of new drugs, because that is how rent seeking works. That really IS beyond dispute.

Like thalidomide....?

It's also irrelevant to the point.

No, the ones that will maximize pharma corp rents.

Nope. As long as the patent holders own the system, their rent seeking will be the only consideration.

Because there are social costs to the result when they are deceived by greedy, evil rent seekers.

Nope. And what is invested will produce far more benefits.

Cost recovery is completely irrelevant, as the Epipen fiasco proved to you.

Research grants, especially to university scientists.

Lots of countries have worse per capita traffic fatalities and smoking than the USA -- though you are right about the guns.

And a lot more.

 

That's ridiculous. The FDA requirements to bring a drug to market are in the billions. Research grants to universities are insignificant.

Epipen has nothing to do with this. And thalidomide was a European problem.

Drugs should be available as soon as possible to those who could benefit from them and take the risk. If no patent protection is available there will be no investment in millions of dollars of research into NME's which will eventually result in cures for cancer.

No developed country has greater traffic deaths and violence deaths than the US. And the residual effects from smoking are still being felt in the elderly. Take out the preceding two factors and the US is at the top tier of life expectancy. You should know that and a lot more.

 

The total primary markets for new drug are the paying-customers of 320 million Americans and the 740 million in the EU and Canada at 35 million. That makes for total Market Size of more than a billion people (and I am not counting the Far East). More than enough to recuperate costs and rather quickly.

Moreover, the total Market Value of pharmaceutical drugs is about $1 Trillion (from here bellow) - which is a rich payoff more than worth the effort, time and investment.

As indicated at these sites:
*Revenue of the worldwide pharmaceutical market from 2001 to 2015 (in billion U.S. dollars), constituted by only 25 top pharmaceutical companies listed here.
*And guess who were amongst the first-guests of Donald Dork at the White House? See here: Trump talks pricing and manufacturing with pharma. So, now we'll see how US drug prices - some of the highest in the world - come down in cost, wont we?
*From the horse's mouth, the Business Insider, Why the price of prescription drugs in the US is out of control - excerpt (read the report!):

Which mean "suckers" like you and me who probably can afford them. If you can't good luck - because unlike European National Health Services drug-prices are lower because they are negotiated on a country population basis. And Canada is no different, see here - excerpt:

The Drug Companies have created a "cartel" in both the US and Canada ... !

 

I certainly did. They simply are inaccurate.

You are certainly free to do as you please. But why? It appears dishonest.

 

ROAD KILL

As usual, you are wrong.

The Obama Great Recession was handed to him on a platter by Dubya - under which the 2007/8 SubPrime Mess had nearly destroyed American banking and put hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes.

Obama, along with a DEM-Congress, in 2009 spiked an exploding unemployment rate at 10% with his $830B ARRA-bill. Within a year of his entering office it started diminishing.

But, in 2011, when American voters had foolishly voted the HofR into the hands of the Replicants, he asked for more stimulus-spending and it was refused. So an under-employed America had to wait another four-lonnng-years for jobs to be created.

See that fact (for the umpteenth time on this forum) shown here. From 2010 to 2014 the Replicants were peddling their "Austerity-Budgeting" gibberish in hopes of prying Obama out of office in 2012.

Forgot already, have you? (Refresh your memory here:  Congress Chooses Austerity Over Job Creation and Economic Growth)

It's amazing how some people forget/overlook so whimsically the truth that proves their ignorance of historical facts - moreover, the facts also underline again how the Replicant Party has no concern whatsoever for the lower classes who were obliged to endure the brunt of the Great Recession.

After all, for them the poor in America are just road-kill on the highway of life ...

 

Pharma companies in the US negotiate lower prices because US consumers pay their development costs. The prices negotiated with other countries at later dates are based more on production costs. If the development costs were not paid by the US consumers these drugs would not come to market and people would lose the benefits of these medications.

 

Obama - 1% per capita. Supply side - 3% per capita. Obama recovery - worst since GD. Prediction by Obama on ARRA - unemployment would not exceed 8% - reality unemployment exceeded 10%.

 

Piffle, and you know it ...

 

Completely accurate.

 

BALDERDASH COMMENTARY

The US has some of the highest pharmaceutical costs on this planet, and you refuse this truth?

Incredible - referenced public commentary:
*Why pharmaceuticals are cheaper abroad (CNN) - excerpt:

* This chart reveals the inhumanity of US drug prices compared to other countries - excerpt:

*Reuters: Exclusive - Transatlantic divide: how U.S. pays three times more for drugs - excerpt:

 

We pay high prices in the US because US consumers are paying for development costs. Drug companies sell medications in other countries at later dates at lower prices because they only consider the costs of production in those countries. Because US consumers pay for the development consumers in other countries pay lower prices. If US consumers did not pay for development costs however these medications would not come to market.