all 35 comments

[–]JasonCarswell 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You mean the corporatocracy of the military industrial complex and the bankers?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

the military industrial complex and the bankers?

The hoarders of the living wage.

[–]Optimus85 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Welfare is just a drop in the ocean compared to the corporate hand-outs we've seen in the past. GM, Bombardier and a couple of US banks come to mind.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

The current system is already socialist... For the wealthy..

Tax breaks, handouts, bailouts, giveaways, subsidies, etc... Risks for the wealthy are socialized. They get bailed out.

Everyone else lives in a rigged free-for-all jungle; where we are allowed to fight for the crumbs.

[–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Everyone got tax breaks- especially the poor. Also I’m pretty sure the ‘wealthy’ dont take welfare.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Everyone got tax breaks- especially the poor.

Tax brackets differ.

Earned income tax credits are low-income giveaways, however they also produce significant economic gains. They were scheduled to be phased out in the 90's, but the economic return exceeded the actual give away amount. The Republican party was on board and made them permanent.

The economy grows when the poor spend their money, and they have to spend all of theirs.

The wealthy rarely spend their money on actual goods, but instead save or invest in the Wall St finance vampire. This shrinks the economy; to the detriment of the taxpayers.

Also I’m pretty sure the ‘wealthy’ dont take welfare.

"Welfare", huh? Well you can have the word. Either way, the wealthy and the corporations are being given free taxpayer money that the rest of the public doesn't have access to.
The wealthy hoard their money, rather than spend it (which shrinks the economy).

Trump is trying to MAGA to the good old days; when people earned a living wage, and the rich paid their fair share of taxes.
There should be a flat tax, but the wealthy pay less taxes as it is, so it's not "politically feasible".

The economy hasn't shrunk since the 70's. The workers living wage is being hoarded by the wealthy.

[–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

This is mumbo jumbo. Invested money serves as equity in companies and creates jobs. Nobody sits on cash because that doesn’t make a return. Calling wall street ‘vampires’ or whatever is a cop out and an excuse to ignore whats really happening. Capital is something I’d research if I was you. I agree with the flat tax (if any at all:) and subsidies are garbage. I think we agree on a lot- I just dont like generalizing the wealthy because a lot of entrepreneurs make their fortune fairly- not off politicking the laws into their favor

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Invested money serves as equity in companies and creates jobs. Nobody sits on cash because that doesn’t make a return. Calling wall street ‘vampires’ or whatever is a cop out and an excuse to ignore whats really happening.

U.S. companies are rolling in cash, and they're growing increasingly fearful to spend it

Capital is something I’d research if I was you.

Ditto

[–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Do you even know what investing is? NOBODY sits on cash! You lose money to inflation by holding in cash and ‘rolling in it’. Money is invested so companies can grow and in turn pay more people!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Did you read the article?

The pool of 3,000 companies held about $2.7 trillion in cash as of their latest financial filings, off about $100 million from the year-earlier period. The analysis included publicly traded U.S. companies with a market capitalization of at least $100 million.

Corporations are hoarding cash. This is a fact.

What you think they should do is irrelevant.

Feel free to produce some evidence to prove me wrong.

Edit:.

Money is invested so companies can grow and in turn pay more people!

This is a myth. Money is invested to make more money. Not to help the working class public.

The accumulations and hoarding of money is the goal.

[–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Those are banks man. The GOVERNMENT requires banks to hold 10% capital at all times. Otherwise a run on banks would occur and the working peoples savings would be gone. Id love to debate thag with you if you want but the it comes down to the cash being working peoples money or equity required to be on the balance sheet.

Money is INVESTED in OTHER PEOPLE to make money! Not a myth at all!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The pool of 3,000 companies held about $2.7 trillion in cash as of their latest financial filings, off about $100 million from the year-earlier period. The analysis included publicly traded U.S. companies with a market capitalization of at least $100 million. The Business Journals excluded the banking sector due to its unique cash-holding requirements.

[–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Fair is fair. Does it exclude the mezzanine financing sector or other companies that hold onto other peoples money? That doesn’t answer WHY a company would hold onto cash. What return does one make on cash?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, they buy up assets and hoard property?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not all invested money. Lots goes to offshore hedge funds.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    Yup, this will compensate for the declining purchasing power of the dollar too. It's not like this is secret, they, the UN, SOros, even David Rockefeller have said that because of the lower birth rates, immigration is needed.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I think it is a little more in depth than, that and I think a lot of it is economic as well as internationalist. THe scheme is to erase soverignty through economic collapse and subversion of culture and tradition. Trump is a faux-nationalist. I would read the book Judas Goats, and you'll come to understand the plan of using the right hand way.

      The goal has always been a one world government udner regional unions, with a one world court in Jurusalem and a one world religion, and national currencies all based off of teh SDR which can not be exchanged for SDR or converted into gold or silver.

      [–]magnora7 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

      LOL billionaires don't work hard. The richer you get, the less hard you work. That's why they're so rich. They steal everyone else's labor value.

      No one cares about millionaires. Billionaires are the real thieves of the system writ large

      [–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

      They take risks by investing their capital. ‘Steal’ is shortsighted and frankly childish.

      [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

      Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

      The love of money is the root of all evil.

      Billionaires don't come to own entire cities and countries by being nice to others.

      [–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

      Great crime by what? Creating new things? Being innovators? Improving quality pf life? Seems like a weak argument to me

      [–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      By taking credit for the efforts and ideas of thousands of others beneath them, in the form of disproportionate monetary payment.

      I guess you think Kings and Queens were all benevolent rulers and feudalism was entirely fine as a system of government too?

      If things are so great, why is the middle class smaller than ever? Why is CEO to worker pay 450x to 1, when in most European countries it's limited to 70x by law?

      The consolidation of capital to billionaires, at the cost of millions of everyday people, is hard to construe as beneficial in the long-run.

      [–]LancerCaptain_Rooney 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Theres no problem with consolidation of capital. A problem arises when the government steps in and controls our lives. I agree fuedalism is bad because people were held hostage to a government. The free market holds nobody hostage. People have choice on what they can do. Its beautiful really.

      Billionaires dont cost millions of everyday people anything.

      [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Does a free market include monopolies. And many billionaires do owe the lower classes money when they scheme off of predatory financialization. Plus, money buys congress and our government who is in bed with many of these wlite billionaires, not all though.

      [–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The free market holds nobody hostage.

      That's the thing though, it does, in a way. It's not truly free when there are so many monopolies that use dirty tactics to shut down rivals.

      [–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The idea that the business-owner is a thief is one of many odd things that people seem to believe despite that belief having little or no basis in reality. In reality, anyone who starts a business is more akin to a philanthropist than a thief.

      Before any capitalist can make money, he must first spend money to reward people for their labour, whether intellectual, physical or otherwise. This labour will not necessarily bear good fruit. In fact, depending on where you live, it may bear rotten fruit more often than not, and even in the best circumstances it's not unusual for prudent, sensible business ventures to die out due to unprofitability over time. And yet in spite of that the business owner spends money to keep the people working for him fed, clothed, sheltered, and otherwise capable of maintaining what we might call expected living standards.

      The people who work for a capitalist are being unfairly rewarded for labour that may or may not be producing valuable goods, yet. The capitalist is the one who pays them for essentially nothing in return, hoping that he will recoup his losses in the future.

      The argument that the capitalist exploits the worker seems absurd to me. Reality points us in precisely the opposite direction: The capitalist is essentially an occasionally profitable philanthropist, someone who gives away money and is sometimes (if he is smart and lucky) rewarded for his bets.

      But on a philosophical level rather than an argument about the reality of business ownership, the argument that you make of "disproportionate monetary payment" fundamentally assumes that everyone deserves equal income. That is an unqualified assumption, and once we look past that assumption the whole spiel you're spouting just falls apart.

      [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      fundamentally assumes that everyone deserves equal income

      What I assume is that, for working 40 hours a week, people should be able to afford a reasonable life. And people shouldn't be making billions off the backs of people who can barely afford rent.

      Democratically-owned businesses are the future. The era of corporations as mini-fiefdoms is beginning to come to an end

      [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Predatory Monopolies inhibit competition. That's why many of the so called neoliberalists state that they love the free market but in reality it is nothing like the classical form of a free market as laid out by Adam Smith. Government intervention and regulation/protections in thr economy should be at a minimum and its function should to promote freedom and competition with regulations of monopolies. And there ahould be no revolving doors with the regulators and lobbyists of corporations.

      I have a good friend who works close to 100 hours a week and although he has a small house he has to work a constant 14 hour day. He lives pay check to pay check.

      [–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      And I'm telling you, your assumption is grounded in neither reality nor morality.

      [–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I have personally never found slogans to be a great way to convince anyone of anything. Especially when the slogans can at best make intuitive, narrative sense and don't really map on to reality.

      [–]Optimus85 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      That's a pretty narrow view of socialism.

      [–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Better than giving it to the corporatocracy of the military industrial complex and the bankers.