Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 12:13pm PT
|
I know it goes against the grain of this thread, and I am but one person, but capitalism, and trickle down economics, do work for me and my team at work.
My small company competes with other companies by innovating to provide clients with more value. We work like hell, and smartly, to grow and when we do we hire more people. And I make more money. Everyone that works for me has full medical coverage, matching 401k, and profit sharing. And four weeks paid vacation a year. Some of them get company vehicles. Priae we call them. Team members (employees) buy houses, have families, and send their kids to college. And save money for retirement.
I feel very fortunate in this regard, as do my employees. So it kinda cracks me up when someone suggests I've been sold a bill of goods believing in capitalism.
Wishing you all good fortune. May you live long and prosper.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 03:49pm PT
|
Hi Dropline,
When I say you've been sold a bill of goods I don't mean that capitalism does not work. I mean that we do not have capitalism. Examine the way we create money in the US (and the global economy)- it's by creating debt. Examine the tax structure and who writes the tax code. See some of the references I've posted up thread. Our economy is not functioning by capitalist principles.
You've given an excellent example with how your company operates. But it is not an example of trickle down economics. Your example doesn't address the theory of trickle down economics.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 03:56pm PT
|
So it kinda cracks me up when someone suggests I've been sold a bill of goods believing in capitalism.
If a system works for a few people, does that mean it works for everyone? Or even the majority of people?
I'm sure dictators think their system is great because it works for them.
I know that is an extreme example, but your statement is overly simplistic.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
|
Your very post is overwhelming proof that capitalism exists on a large scale, and that it is working.
Another silly post. Communism made all sorts of things many many people used. Does that mean its a good system? Or that it works well for the majority of people?
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
|
I say trickle down only because most of our clients, by any measure, are wealthy.
And I didn't say our current system works for everyone, but rather that I am just one person. But it does work for me and many I know whom I collaborate with.
Regarding tax policy, there are things in the tax code that motivate me and people like me, in ways that stimulate economic activity. Accelerated depreciation for example. Really, that's probably the single biggest tax policy that motivates me to grow the company, and my income.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:07pm PT
|
John M, communism, for the most part, made a lot of crap. When was the last time you owned a Lada, or flew on an Aeroflot?
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:12pm PT
|
Its just that your argument that it works for you isn't a very good defense if it doesn't work for the majority.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:15pm PT
|
I agree dropline that communism made a lot of crap. But that wasn't the argument given. The argument was that capitlaism made a lot of things people use, as though that somehow made capitalism good. Well, communism made a lot of things people used. Maybe not very many good things, but it did make a lot of things people used.
Sure capitalism makes a lot of things we use, even good things. But that still isn't a very good defense if it fails lots of people. Are you saying that we can't do better?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:21pm PT
|
This is such a ridiculous discussion when terms like 'trickle down' and
socialism are bandied about ad nauseum as if there is some ironclad definition
of socialism or even capitalism for that matter. It is all a matter of
degree and the extent to which you would like to see government muck up
markets and 're-distribute' wealth. It should be patently obvious by now
that the Great Social Experiment as practiced by Italy, Spain, and France
is teetering on the edge and would go quickly but for the 'capitalist'
Germans' belay. Even the vaunted Socialist Swedes have pulled back from
their excesses of the past when it bacame apparent they were going the way
of the French and Italians. Thank heavens for Nordic practicality.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
|
If capitalism was so perfect, then we wouldn't need laws against monopolies. Yet we do. The markets need to be regulated. What most people are really arguing about is how much regulation.
And sometimes, the profit factor of capitalism isn't necessarily the best way to provide something for the majority. Such as health care.
There doesn't exist a single system that works perfectly because people aren't perfect nor is the supply of information perfect.
Monopolies are a good example of why its not good to have the vast majority of wealth/power held by the few.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
|
It is all a matter of
degree and the extent to which you would like to see government muck up
markets and 're-distribute' wealth.
The other way to say that is to say its all a matter of how much you want to allow the greedy to muck up the markets and re-distirbute wealth to the few.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
|
Stuff that was never created in any other economic system.
The communist put a man in space before we did.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:29pm PT
|
Fine Dave, capitalism is the best system going. In fact everything is perfect just as it is. Lets leave it all alone.
Let them eat cake..
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:31pm PT
|
John M, what do you think would work for the majority?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
|
John M, get a subscription to The Economist for a year and check back with us.
Argentina and Venezuela have 'mucked up' markets. We have regulated markets.
Some are better than others but at least here we have a certain amount of
say in the matter. Europe also has mucked up markets that ironically favor
the big corporations that keep the Great Socialist Experiment afloat.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:41pm PT
|
I still believe that capitalism is for the most part the best system. I just think that profit should be taken out of the health care system and a single payer system investigated. I also think that we have had too big of a push lately to deregulate and we shouldn't have lowered the taxes in the wealthiest as much as we have. I also think that capital gains should have a tiered system rather then a flat tax. The flat tax of capital gains favors by a great margin those with vast amounts of money.
We have spent the last 20 or 30 years demonizing goverment, when we need government and its regulations. We have to find a way to get honest politiciains into office and give them enough support to get some change done, but I have little faith that we will be able to do that.
We also have given too much power to corporations.
When you demonize government, you need to remember that before their were governments, the land was lawless. The powerful simply took what they wanted. I don't want to go back to that anymore then I want to go to an all powerful government.
Its about balance.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:43pm PT
|
I will repeat this statement Reilly..
Your wrote,
It is all a matter of
degree and the extent to which you would like to see government muck up
markets and 're-distribute' wealth.
I responded..
The other way to say that is to say its all a matter of how much you want to allow the greedy to muck up the markets and re-distirbute wealth to the few.
You were the one demonizing government.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:53pm PT
|
Our economy is not functioning by capitalist principles.
If you mean that the assumptions of a "perfect market" aren't met, well, perfectly, I agree, but so what? As many are trying to point out, we're comparing relative imperfections.
In John M's comment above (that I hope is still above when I'm finished typing), we have, at least, a basis for discussion. Specifically:
1. Have we had too much (de)regulation during the last [fill in the blank] years?
2. Do corporations have too much power in today's economy?
3. Should health care be rationed by price, or should the government decide who gets what?
4. Are income tax rates for the highest income earners too high?
I realize I'm re-phrasing what the issues you raise, John, so I am assuming you'll correct me if I've strayed too far from your intent. As just one example of why I did so, though, I substituted "highest income" for "wealthy" because we tax income, not wealth.
I'll give my thoughts on these questions once I've actually thought, and not reacted.
John
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 04:58pm PT
|
Your restatements are generally correct John. Though I notice your reworded some of it with a slant towards the wealthy. Its subtle but its there.
I'm having a bit of trouble with my health today.. nothing new there. so my statements probably aren't that clear.
I fully believe that we are out of balance right now and that the little guy is getting hosed pretty thoroughly. I include the middle class as the little guy. Though I realize that many in this group are still doing just fine. But the middle class is shrinking while the wealthy have made great gains.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
|
John M,
I've taken on the health care issue in the "Republicans are wrong" thread enough that what follows should qualify as "thought." Besides, I have just enough time to take this one on again before I need to get back to doing what gets me paid.
When you say we should take "profit" out of health care, my immediate reaction is to ask why we should reward people less for providing vitally-needed goods and services than we do for more frivolous things. Most docs make a lot of money, and I don't begrudge them that. First, they've delayed gratification for a long time, through med school, internship and residency, fellowships, etc. Second, they've chosen fields of study and work where there is a tremendous need and demand. In addition, through native intelligence, drive, ambition and a willingness to work hard, they've demonstrated the sorts of personal traits that would tend to get rewarded highly in any capitalist society. Frankly, I want someone like that to be my doctor.
Similarly, those who have developed medical devices, drugs and all of the other things that would make modern medicine seem nothing short of miraculous when my father was born in 1901 deserve, to my mind, a richer reward than those who came up with the Pet Rock.
The real problem that I see in the economics of modern medicine is that this is a market rationed by price, but the price-setters and payers are not, by and large, the doctor and patient. I've posted my proposed changes to deal with this elsewhere, and I need to get back to paying work, so I won't repeat them, except to add this: We have the quality and quantity of resources devoted to medical care in our economy precisely because of the profits people make there. Eliminating profit there will change those services both quantitatively and, in my opinion, qualitatively because the sorts of lock-step compensation typical of governmental enterprise would be odious to most of the sorts of people who currently pursue a medical career.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!