Is Capitalism Working?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Fur

House hold debt is rising, government debt is rising, wages are stagnant/decreasing (obviously I do not speak about politician jobs), and taxes are increasing.

Buying power is going down. Corporations are flexible and have ways of cutting costs, but eventually they will run out of ideas (quality). The average consumer is still spending, but not their money; they are spending borrowed money. Eventually something will give.

What that give is I do not know.

However.
Socialism is driving up debt...not capitalism.

[gunluvr]

My parents complained about most of the same things that we complain about today.
In times like these, it helps to remember that there have always been times like these.

[dodger]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

However.
Socialism is driving up debt...not capitalism.

I feel the line is becoming blurry between the two?

Dodger.

[Fur]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

However.
Socialism is driving up debt...not capitalism.

Socialism might be more responsible for increasing government debt, but I think household debt is more of a capitalist driver rather than socialism.

To further it a bit more, the socialist government spending is so lower income individuals have more purchasing power, which again is capitalism.

As Dodger said, mix of both.

[The Elkster]

To paint debt as a socialist problem is just silly. Companies and consumers are every bit as responsible as anyone for todays debts. Its the capitalist that came out with the idea of extending never ending debt for everything from houses to toasters and capitalist consumers that jump all over that deal. Gotta love them monthly payments. If capitalist companies were so responsible they would have said cash or nothing. That would have kept everything grounded to real incomes...but no we had to create a façade of greater wealth through debt for everyone! Leverage our future wages to keep todays capitalist system flourishing and everyone happy TODAY....cause your richer than you think...until tomorrow comes.

[79ford]

I dont think capitalism is working very well. Capitalism is all about doing more for less with less people.

A good example would be where i work, they used to have six people in my department but now there is 4, we produce more than ever before and the price for the end product is waaaaaay higher.

Two jobs were lost, the company makes more money and the end product is more expensive.

There is two less people buying the end product..... as the economy stagnates governments seem to be stepping in to prop up demand with stimulus programs which is just borrowing future money to make up for lack of current money to sustain capitalism.

In my opinion capitalism probably failed about 8 years ago with the global finacial crises. Ever since then the economy has been proped up with trillions and trillions of dollars of money printing and government borrowing to keep everything afloat.

Japan prints 13.5% of its gdp every year, europe prints over a trillion euros per year to buy up debt etc. The united states was pri ti g trillions and borrowing trillions to provide stimulus and mop up mortgage securities and bonds etc. There are negative interest rates or zero interest rates all around the world.

Capitalism runs on credit and weeeeellllll..... credit is down at 0% or less in many contries or very close to it.

The fact credit is worth nothing probably means the system has failed, people/institutions are willing to lend money in order to get it back just to keep the wheels on the bus turning vs blowing off and skidding into the ditch.

Look at the oil crash.... hardly any mergers and aquisitions, hardly any cheap houses or land up for sale. There is just sooo much debt out there and stagnation no one can do anything. The few aquisitions that have happened like cenovus or shell/cnrl arent really good deals, more just transfers of debt service and assets. Not like either got a rock bottom price and going to make a killing from the deal they got,lol

The fact everyone is just swishing debt around and moving it down the road or borrowing money to stimulate the economy probably means the system is on life support.

[dodger]

Originally Posted by 79ford

I dont think capitalism is working very well. Capitalism is all about doing more for less with less people.

A good example would be where i work, they used to have six people in my department but now there is 4, we produce more than ever before and the price for the end product is waaaaaay higher.

Two jobs were lost, the company makes more money and the end product is more expensive.

There is two less people buying the end product..... as the economy stagnates governments seem to be stepping in to prop up demand with stimulus programs which is just borrowing future money to make up for lack of current money to sustain capitalism.

In my opinion capitalism probably failed about 8 years ago with the global finacial crises. Ever since then the economy has been proped up with trillions and trillions of dollars of money printing and government borrowing to keep everything afloat.

Japan prints 13.5% of its gdp every year, europe prints over a trillion euros per year to buy up debt etc. The united states was pri ti g trillions and borrowing trillions to provide stimulus and mop up mortgage securities and bonds etc. There are negative interest rates or zero interest rates all around the world.

Capitalism runs on credit and weeeeellllll..... credit is down at 0% or less in many contries or very close to it.

The fact credit is worth nothing probably means the system has failed, people/institutions are willing to lend money in order to get it back just to keep the wheels on the bus turning vs blowing off and skidding into the ditch.

Look at the oil crash.... hardly any mergers and aquisitions, hardly any cheap houses or land up for sale. There is just sooo much debt out there and stagnation no one can do anything. The few aquisitions that have happened like cenovus or shell/cnrl arent really good deals, more just transfers of debt service and assets. Not like either got a rock bottom price and going to make a killing from the deal they got,lol

The fact everyone is just swishing debt around and moving it down the road or borrowing money to stimulate the economy probably means the system is on life support.

I always felt that we peeked about 12 years ago and have started the downhill side of a captalistic society. But what will it be replaced with - socialism?

Dodger.

[Fur]

Originally Posted by dodger

I always felt that we peeked about 12 years ago and have started the downhill side of a captalistic society. But what will it be replaced with - socialism?

Dodger.

Pandemonium!

[dodger]

Originally Posted by Fur

Pandemonium!

Ha!

Dodger.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Fur

Socialism might be more responsible for increasing government debt, but I think household debt is more of a capitalist driver rather than socialism.

To further it a bit more, the socialist government spending is so lower income individuals have more purchasing power, which again is capitalism.

As Dodger said, mix of both.

Household debt is a factor of education and self control. Can't blame capitalism on that.

School is becoming more and more of a socialist training ground. Not being responsible with your own money and wanting to use others is a socialist driver.

I don't see the mix.

Government spending is saying government knows better how to spend your money.

[pikergolf]

I see gas prices took a large jump today, capitalism at work.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by 79ford

I dont think capitalism is working very well. Capitalism is all about doing more for less with less people.

A good example would be where i work, they used to have six people in my department but now there is 4, we produce more than ever before and the price for the end product is waaaaaay higher.

Two jobs were lost, the company makes more money and the end product is more expensive.

There is two less people buying the end product..... as the economy stagnates governments seem to be stepping in to prop up demand with stimulus programs which is just borrowing future money to make up for lack of current money to sustain capitalism.

In my opinion capitalism probably failed about 8 years ago with the global finacial crises. Ever since then the economy has been proped up with trillions and trillions of dollars of money printing and government borrowing to keep everything afloat.

Japan prints 13.5% of its gdp every year, europe prints over a trillion euros per year to buy up debt etc. The united states was pri ti g trillions and borrowing trillions to provide stimulus and mop up mortgage securities and bonds etc. There are negative interest rates or zero interest rates all around the world.

Capitalism runs on credit and weeeeellllll..... credit is down at 0% or less in many contries or very close to it.

The fact credit is worth nothing probably means the system has failed, people/institutions are willing to lend money in order to get it back just to keep the wheels on the bus turning vs blowing off and skidding into the ditch.

Look at the oil crash.... hardly any mergers and aquisitions, hardly any cheap houses or land up for sale. There is just sooo much debt out there and stagnation no one can do anything. The few aquisitions that have happened like cenovus or shell/cnrl arent really good deals, more just transfers of debt service and assets. Not like either got a rock bottom price and going to make a killing from the deal they got,lol

The fact everyone is just swishing debt around and moving it down the road or borrowing money to stimulate the economy probably means the system is on life support.

So two weren't working and were made and example of. The remaining 4 went crap...the man is onto us freeloading. We should start working. Productivity increased.

All the while cost of goods increased because of increasing NDP taxes and carbon tax and liberal tax and increasing min wage so the price of goods went up.

[79ford]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So two weren't working and were made and example of. The remaining 4 went crap...the man is onto us freeloading. We should start working. Productivity increased.

All the while cost of goods increased because of increasing NDP taxes and carbon tax and liberal tax and increasing min wage so the price of goods went up.

They measure jobs by a people power number, apperantly if you say had an area that requires 3.9 people to manage in an effective manner they interpret that as 3 people....or two people.

So when the company axes two people, (this was years ago) where does that demand go? If you lay off a couple thousand people in north america, sub something out to china how does that help?

Yeah it might help assuming some other company still has well paid employees in canada to buy the expensive products said company that fired/subbed all the work out is trying to sell.

Eventually if everyones jobs get taken by lower paid tfw's or subbed out to third world countries or just fired and replaced by robots who is going to be buying the products?

The economy is people with jobs, if people dont have jobs they drag on the social system which drags on the people still working and hoping they dont get canned for a machine or some cut rate scabby contractor labour outfit.


The cut jobs and wages to drive profit, do more with less but try and sell for more ideology of capitalism is loading up the social system with burden.

Not saying capitalism is worse than other systems but it isnt the bees knees either,

[michaelmicallef]

People ask me "What's the best furnace or what's the best AC" I tell them the
One that you own company shares in. Stuff is made for the shareholders bottom line not the consumers best interest. That's the reality of life nowadays !

[hunting4?]

We are not in a state of capitalism. It has definitely left the building!

Corporatocracy /ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in The Price of Civilization (2011).[16] He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, big corporate money financing election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance away from workers.[16]

This collective is what author C Wright Mills in 1956 called the 'power elite', wealthy individuals who hold prominent positions in corporatocracies. They control the process of determining a society's economic and political policies.[17]

The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.[18] It has been used by critics of globalization,[19] sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank[20] or unfair lending practices,[18] as well as criticism of "free trade agreements".[19]

Edmund Phelps published an analysis in 2010 theorizing that the cause of income inequality is not free market capitalism, but instead is the result of the rise of corporatization.[21] Corporatization, in his view, is the antithesis of free market capitalism. It is characterized by semi-monopolistic organizations and banks, big employer confederations, often acting with complicit state institutions in ways that discourage (or block) the natural workings of a free economy. The primary effects of corporatization are the consolidation of economic power and wealth with end results being the attrition of entrepreneurial and free market dynamism.

His follow-up book, Mass Flourishing, further defines corporatization by the following attributes: power-sharing between government and large corporations (exemplified in the U.S. by widening government power in areas such as financial services, healthcare, and energy through regulation), an expansion of corporate lobbying and campaign support in exchange for government reciprocity, escalation in the growth and influence of financial and banking sectors, increased consolidation of the corporate landscape through merger and acquisition (with ensuing increases in corporate executive compensation), increased potential for corporate/government corruption and malfeasance, and a lack of entrepreneurial and small business development leading to lethargic and stagnant economic conditions.[22][23]

Stock buybacks versus wage increases

One indication of increasing corporate power was the removal of restrictions on their ability to buy back stock, contributing to increased income inequality. Writing in the Harvard Business Review in September 2014, William Lazonick blamed record corporate stock buybacks for reduced investment in the economy and a corresponding impact on prosperity and income inequality. Between 2003 and 2012, the 449 companies in the S&P 500 used 54% of their earnings ($2.4 trillion) to buy back their own stock. An additional 37% was paid to stockholders as dividends. Together, these were 91% of profits. This left little for investment in productive capabilities or higher income for employees, shifting more income to capital rather than labor. He blamed executive compensation arrangements, which are heavily based on stock options, stock awards and bonuses for meeting earnings per share (EPS) targets. EPS increases as the number of outstanding shares decreases. Legal restrictions on buybacks were greatly eased in the early 1980s. He advocates changing these incentives to limit buybacks.[36][37]

In the 12 months to March 31, 2014, S&P 500 companies increased their stock buyback payouts by 29% year on year, to $534.9 billion.[38] U.S. companies are projected to increase buybacks to $701 billion in 2015 according to Goldman Sachs, an 18% increase over 2014. For scale, annual non-residential fixed investment (a proxy for business investment and a major GDP component) was estimated to be about $2.1 trillion for 2014.

whole argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy#Canada

[junkdude]

Capitalism worked well for us when we moved from an agrarian society to an industrial one. I fear the greed and materialism that fuels it will eventually destroy this planet for habitation, we seem to be well on or way to accomplishing this. The math simply does not work out well for humans, infinite expansion and consumption given finite resources.

[dodger]

Originally Posted by junkdude

Capitalism worked well for us when we moved from an agrarian society to an industrial one. I fear the greed and materialism that fuels it will eventually destroy this planet for habitation, we seem to be well on or way to accomplishing this. The math simply does not work out well for humans, infinite expansion and consumption given finite resources.

All of this is true. But will we be travelling the " final frontier "?

Dodger.

[dodger]

[QUOTE=hunting4?;3517017]We are not in a state of capitalism. It has definitely left the building!

Corporatocracy /ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in The Price of Civilization (2011).[16] He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, big corporate money financing election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance away from workers.[16]

This collective is what author C Wright Mills in 1956 called the 'power elite', wealthy individuals who hold prominent positions in corporatocracies. They control the process of determining a society's economic and political policies.[17]

The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.[18] It has been used by critics of globalization,[19] sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank[20] or unfair lending practices,[18] as well as criticism of "free trade agreements".[19]

Edmund Phelps published an analysis in 2010 theorizing that the cause of income inequality is not free market capitalism, but instead is the result of the rise of corporatization.[21] Corporatization, in his view, is the antithesis of free market capitalism. It is characterized by semi-monopolistic organizations and banks, big employer confederations, often acting with complicit state institutions in ways that discourage (or block) the natural workings of a free economy. The primary effects of corporatization are the consolidation of economic power and wealth with end results being the attrition of entrepreneurial and free market dynamism.

His follow-up book, Mass Flourishing, further defines corporatization by the following attributes: power-sharing between government and large corporations (exemplified in the U.S. by widening government power in areas such as financial services, healthcare, and energy through regulation), an expansion of corporate lobbying and campaign support in exchange for government reciprocity, escalation in the growth and influence of financial and banking sectors, increased consolidation of the corporate landscape through merger and acquisition (with ensuing increases in corporate executive compensation), increased potential for corporate/government corruption and malfeasance, and a lack of entrepreneurial and small business development leading to lethargic and stagnant economic conditions.[22][23]

Stock buybacks versus wage increases

One indication of increasing corporate power was the removal of restrictions on their ability to buy back stock, contributing to increased income inequality. Writing in the Harvard Business Review in September 2014, William Lazonick blamed record corporate stock buybacks for reduced investment in the economy and a corresponding impact on prosperity and income inequality. Between 2003 and 2012, the 449 companies in the S&P 500 used 54% of their earnings ($2.4 trillion) to buy back their own stock. An additional 37% was paid to stockholders as dividends. Together, these were 91% of profits. This left little for investment in productive capabilities or higher income for employees, shifting more income to capital rather than labor. He blamed executive compensation arrangements, which are heavily based on stock options, stock awards and bonuses for meeting earnings per share (EPS) targets. EPS increases as the number of outstanding shares decreases. Legal restrictions on buybacks were greatly eased in the early 1980s. He advocates changing these incentives to limit buybacks.[36][37]

In the 12 months to March 31, 2014, S&P 500 companies increased their stock buyback payouts by 29% year on year, to $534.9 billion.[38] U.S. companies are projected to increase buybacks to $701 billion in 2015 according to Goldman Sachs, an 18% increase over 2014. For scale, annual non-residential fixed investment (a proxy for business investment and a major GDP component) was estimated to be about $2.1 trillion for 2014.

whole argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy#Canada[/

I need time to digest this !?

Dodger.

[rugatika]

Capitalism began fading well over 40 maybe 50 years ago.

Capitalism, the people control where money is spent. Socialism, the government does. If capitalism isn't giving you the results you want, it's because of the people. Of course, the same could be said of socialism.

You don't want CocaCola controlling the world...don't buy CocaCola. You don't want government controlling the world...don't vote for bigger and bigger governments.

It's really all up to us, and apparently we want giant corporations that are too big to fail, and government that has it's finger in everyone's pie.

[Newview01]

Older article, but still applies. I believe Canada would have the same results.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major...igarchy-2014-4

The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."


Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

The positions of powerful interest groups are "not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens," but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10%.

The theory of "biased pluralism" that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the U.S. system fits holds that policy outcomes "tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations."

The study comes after McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial piece of legislation passed in the Supreme Court that abolished campaign-contribution limits, and record low approval ratings for the U.S. Congress.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by dodger

First off I believe in capitalism and what it based off. But is the system imploding?

Just look at where we are now. Remember when appliance manufacturers took pride in having the longest lasting best built appliance. Now, you don't want this to happen as you need the consumer to keep buying your product. Think Maytag! So like everything it's made cheaper with a shorter life cycle.

Food, how much water can they pump into our chicken, beef, and pork to keep an artificial weight up for pricing? How much filler can go into a Big Mac, Subway chicken, before IRS not beef or chicken? How small of a box of Fruit Loops can they sell you and only fill it half way before it's negligible to buy? Anyone notice the size of a package of bacon now? It use to feed a family and then you could save the leftovers for a snack, now you got to think should I grab 2 packages to cover supper for the family.

Some recent purchases - A electric frying pan made by GE, the same model as my old one that died but the newer pan has thinner metal walls, shorter plug in cord, no rubber pad on legs to prevent sliding on the counter, no washer on the screws to hold the legs snug, the plastic legs are so thin they have cracked because there is no washer on the screws to keep them snug. All this on a stupid frying pan. Remember when a roll of thread tape was a full roll, then a 3/4 roll, then a 1/2 roll. Went to the food court at the mall. Grabbed a quick plate of fake food and a pop, the straw is so small and thin I darn near had a stroke trying to suck back my drink, plus the straw is so short I'm kissing the top of my cup. Then I go and spike my fake food with the plastic fork and it's so thin the fork breaks, same happens to my wife's fork. Plus I'm a "bigger" guy and my utensils are the size of baby utensils. Buy a loaf of bread and the loaf is smaller but the bread is cut thin as paper so it appears you have plenty of slices, you literally have to peel the bread apart from each other.

Anywhoo, how small, how cheap, how fake (food), can we go. Companies need to show growth or no more investors. But when do they hit a wall of to small, to cheap, etc before there is nothing left to sell.

I have done well and live comfortable. I do see a large shift with the middle class slowly being reduced. The more this happens the more government steps in to save the people. A larger lower class of earners does not help our society. But our capitalistic economy is strangling the middle class as the money that is left after brutal taxes buys less. Me thinks this is a double kick to the boys and we know 2 kicks is a bit harder to recover from than one kick

Just some ramblings from:

Dodger.

What about pop, they shrink the cans to reduce calories but then change you just as much. How about potatoe chips, the bag /or box is only ever half full if it hasn't been shaken down and crushed. Yesterday I bought a new frying pan to replace an old favourite. The pan in 25% thinner, the rubber handle has been replaced with hard plastic and the handle has a rivit holding it in place.
I have an old clothes dryer ( from the 70s that my grandmother gave me), I've had it since 1998 and from then till now it still works like a charm. 2kids and a family of four and it won't stop. My sister in law always buys top end appliances and she has gone through 3 in the same amount of time.
I'm afraid the days of good quality items that last are long gone!

Here is what I say; if you find something that is good quality and you like it, buy two because the next time you have to replace it the quality will have dropped since they had a successful sell off on the first batch and therefore can cheapen the product since the consumers are buying the name and not the actual product.

That's my 2 cents

[rugatika]

Peter Schiff on the street

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeYweq2L1bU

[ReconWilly]

Sitting Bull was a wise man.

[purgatory.sv]

Originally Posted by ReconWilly

Sitting Bull was a wise man.

I like your posts.

This one hits home.

But it's inaccurate.

Fire is the answer?


When consumption takes all ,then resolution can be obtained.

But that is just my obsevation.

Thank you.

Play safe?

[bigskinner]

SURE its working , just ask TRUMP, and the banks , and the people that own the credit card companys , and insurance companys

[Badgerbadger]

Capitalism's working just fine.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...s-remain-stuck

[Heyupduck]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

Its our fault

When the company decided to make cereal box contents smaller, it was an experiment to see if we would still buy it. And we accepted it and kept buying.

When they designed your fridge/stove/washer etc to croak after 5-7 yrs, it was an experiment. And we accepted it and kept buying.

The water soaked chicken, overly fat bacon, tasteless bananas. Same crap. And we accepted it and kept buying.

New Coke. The 80's lead balloon. People started saying "rum and Pepsi"....and like magic, Coke Classic was born.

When people start doing something about it things usually change. Problem now is, many citizens are now just mindless consumers, spending $ they dont have on sh...t they dont need. Willing to go into debt just to have what they are told to buy........

It wont correct itself. Its too far gone. Nothing will change because you will never convince enough of these zombie like consumers to make a stand.

Its a lot like trying to get a consensus here. Good luck. Guys cant even decide whether or not u can shoot a handgun on private property 🙄

X2

In 2003 I got mad at the cheap chinese can openers $4 that kept breaking - I went out and bought a made in the USA one ($20) we still use it. Had a hell of a time finding a non made in china one back then.



What irks me is like huntinstuff says is other people put up with crap that goes to the landfill.
Give me less, but give me quality.

Incidently I wrote this on a 3 year old Lenovo chromebook that I use daily - it was designed for schools - I figured if it was designed for schools it could probably take general use, cost a little more, but still going strong.

Given up on homemade pesto - the only pine nuts I can find now sourced in China - I figure if quality control there is so bad they can put melamine in thier own babies food, there isn't much chance for a middle aged Canadian half way round the world.

AND place of origin isn't always on food now...costco pine nuts...made in china

rant over

[79ford]

Capitalism has more turned to financial engineering vs the hard work thing too. Move production of something from a rich cou try to a poor country but still sell the product to the rich countries hoping there are enough people who can still afford to buy the things.

Buy another company and fire all the duplicate positions and make more money.... also referred to as 'finding synergies'.


Henry Ford way back said something like he wanted to have workers making things that theycould afford too.... now it is poor workers making things americans can barely afford unless they go on a 7 year payment plan,lol

Capitalism is running mostly on credit these days, whther it is overly indebted consumers or governments overly indebted from trying to stimulate the economy after bailing everyone out after the finacial crisis.

All the stuff that creates jobs on a mass scale is basically just a pile of junk people are 'paying for' with money that they dont have..... 5% down on houses, 8 year car loans, quads, campers, furniture, home equity credit splurges.


If you see a half million house and a new pickup in the driveway with a car for wifey, that could be started with 35 000$ of actual earned money and the rest is debt. Only 35 000$ of earned money turned into over half a million in economic activity.

The company that employs said debt loaded person is looking to ways to get rid of this guy for a cheaper worker or sub his job out or just fire him alltogether and have someone else do all his work on top of his own job.

[JimPS]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

However.
Socialism is driving up debt...not capitalism.

Crony Capitalism worked pretty good for for these corrupt old boys and their friends in the day.

Crony Capitalism stole from our future and apparently put us so far in debt that the same gangsters that put us there said Health, Education, Social Services and Advanced Education needed slashing and burning.

In many ways, I'm kind of happy the socialists finally clearcut this bunch of criminal bottom feeders and put them out of our misery - for a while.

[Fur]

Originally Posted by JimPS

Crony Capitalism worked pretty good for for these corrupt old boys and their friends in the day.

Crony Capitalism stole from our future and apparently put us so far in debt that the same gangsters that put us there said Health, Education, Social Services and Advanced Education needed slashing and burning.

In many ways, I'm kind of happy the socialists finally clearcut this bunch of criminal bottom feeders and put them out of our misery - for a while.

I think once a company is publicly traded or making say over 5 million in revenue, I think they should not get ANY money from the government. By that time if they are still in need of funding, they are most likely uncompetitive or too top heavy IMO.

What the government really needs to start doing is focusing on small businesses. Small businesses get the short end of the stick but are the back bone of the Canadian economy.

The support for small business is poor. Help companies when they are standing on new legs; not when they are top heavy and stealing what they can of PUBLIC money.