Oh My, What To Do?

[kaz]

Proving what? Speaking truth is not saying what you falsely claim.

You said the United States isn't capitalist at all or as you put it we are capitalist "in name only."

Then you said we don't have to be all or nothing capitalist or socialist and you never said we did. You did say that, I just quoted you.

It is interesting to learn that you're with me in one way. You can't follow your stupid crap either

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I really have to laugh when fools like you pretend to even know what you are speaking of. One of the main reasons why American corporations moved out of the country was to avoid the regulations (workmans comp, minimum wages, pensions, environmental regulations, child labor regulations, etc.) that have been passed in this country. However, being the fool you are, you espouse American regulations in a ass backward attempt to prove that the global system is somehow regulated as the American system is.

In the real world, you posted nothing that would persuade a rational person to believe that the American system is over-regulated. Corporate profits continue to grow while wages remain stagnant, corporations continue to spew garbage into rivers, ponds, and the environment in general, CEO salaries continue to rise while the worker sees none of the benefits, etc. And even though these practices continue regulations are being dismantled under Trump.

Why you think you even have a basic knowledge of what capitalism stands for is amusing:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/adam-smith-and-inequality/

What I find exceptionally humorous is how you denigrate my argument while completely misinterpreting it. It's ironic that you think I am the "fool" here who is "pretending" to know this subject matter.

Where did I say anything that suggests businesses didn't move to avoid regulation? Where did I even mention foreign regulation? What's absurd is that you make that observation, while at the same time maintaining the fiction that the US economy has been woefully "un" regulated. Why would these businesses move their operations overseas if, as you have stated, US markets were in fact "unfettered?" Is it rational to hold two competing views on the same issue? How is any of this indicative of the notion that you have a better handle on this material than I do?

Corporate profits continue to grow while wages remain stagnant - which is to be entirely expected when over-regulation keeps competition at bay.

Corporations continue to spew garbage into rivers, ponds, and the environment in general - Yet the environment is cleaner now than it has been in 50 years.

From 1970 to 2017, the six major pollutants monitored by the EPA plunged by 73%. By comparison, during that time the U.S.' economy grew 262% and its population by 60%.

The decline in pollution is steep. Carbon monoxide, down 77%. Lead, 80%. Nitrogen oxide, 56%. Ozone, 22%. Particle pollution, off an average 38%. Sulfur dioxide, 88%.

Not included in the report, but equally if not more significant, is the fact that CO2 — the main greenhouse gas — overall has plunged 29% since peaking in 2007.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/environment-cleaner-global-warming/

CEO salaries continue to rise while the worker sees none of the benefits, etc. - which again, is precisely what one would expect in an economic environment that discourages competition and encourages corporate growth (through regulation).

 

[kaz]

What I find exceptionally humorous is how you denigrate my argument while completely misinterpreting it. It's ironic that you think I am the "fool" here who is "pretending" to know this subject matter.

Where did I say anything that suggests businesses didn't move to avoid regulation? Where did I even mention foreign regulation? What's absurd is that you make that observation, while at the same time maintaining the fiction that the US economy has been woefully "un" regulated. Why would these businesses move their operations overseas if, as you have stated, US markets were in fact "unfettered?" Is it rational to hold two competing views on the same issue? How is any of this indicative of the notion that you have a better handle on this material than I do?

Corporate profits continue to grow while wages remain stagnant - which is to be entirely expected when over-regulation keeps competition at bay.

Corporations continue to spew garbage into rivers, ponds, and the environment in general - Yet the environment is cleaner now than it has been in 50 years.

From 1970 to 2017, the six major pollutants monitored by the EPA plunged by 73%. By comparison, during that time the U.S.' economy grew 262% and its population by 60%.

The decline in pollution is steep. Carbon monoxide, down 77%. Lead, 80%. Nitrogen oxide, 56%. Ozone, 22%. Particle pollution, off an average 38%. Sulfur dioxide, 88%.

Not included in the report, but equally if not more significant, is the fact that CO2 — the main greenhouse gas — overall has plunged 29% since peaking in 2007.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/environment-cleaner-global-warming/

CEO salaries continue to rise while the worker sees none of the benefits, etc. - which again, is precisely what one would expect in an economic environment that discourages competition and encourages corporate growth (through regulation).

I like how he considers government wage controls over private companies to simply be a "regulation" issue.

Then there's how he's still fighting the environment battle, which is like the March of Dimes. We won. The environment is cleaner than it's been in a long time. But Democrats can't give up a good talking point.

But the best is, you believe in "regulation," right? So now we can do socialism, just call it "regulation!"

Regulation means things like how much pollution is coming out of their smoke stacks. Wage controls, redistributing money, mandating employee medical and other benefits is socialism, not "regulation"

 

[OldTrapper]

Interestingly, most of the folks on this forum have been debating each other for twenty years. We've moved, together, from forum to forum. But I disagree that the arguments are the same. Most folks flip and flop on the issues based on what party is in power. Only a very few of us hold the same positions regardless of which party is doing the shit.

I haven't heard of any different arguments for, or against, abortion, gun control wages, healthcare, etc.

As for the effects of regulation, you obviously don't understand how it works. The more regulation an industry or market has, the less competition there is, and the bigger the corporations tend to become. Regulations serve as a "moat" that prevents smaller competitors from being able to scale up and take business away from the behemoths. The large companies can defray the cost of regulation easier, and in fact, have the wherewithal to shape it (in a self-serving way, of course). This is what is known as "regulatory capture." It is not a coincidence, for instance, that as government has gotten bigger and bigger, so too have the corporations. None of that is the result of "free" markets, or deregulation for that matter. The truth, in fact, is quite the opposite.

If yu actually paid attention to what I said, that would be one thing. However, you obviously have not. We have a mixed economy. Part of it is capitalist, part crony capitalism, socialist, corporatism, etc. I know the right loves to speak of "regulatory capture" as an excuse to eliminate regulations, and thus allow them to further increase their profits while paying cheaper wages, polluting the atmosphere, etc. In fact, it was their actions that brought about the regulations to begin with. If they would act responsibly the would be no need for the regulation.

As to small businesses, one of the major reasons they fail is due to lack of financing. Another is that they cannot afford to buy a product at a price lower then a major corporation can buy the same product for. That makes if hard for one to compete.

https://www.businessknowhow.com/startup/business-failure.htm

 

[OldTrapper]

What I find exceptionally humorous is how you denigrate my argument while completely misinterpreting it. It's ironic that you think I am the "fool" here who is "pretending" to know this subject matter.

Where did I say anything that suggests businesses didn't move to avoid regulation? Where did I even mention foreign regulation?

"Neoliberal policies of global free trade and unregulated markets were embraced, and the US was suddenly facing competition from all over the globe."

Corporate profits continue to grow while wages remain stagnant -

which is to be entirely expected when over-regulation keeps competition at bay.

And yet small businesses are exempt from most of those regulations.

Corporations continue to spew garbage into rivers, ponds, and the environment in general

- Yet the environment is cleaner now than it has been in 50 years.

From 1970 to 2017, the six major pollutants monitored by the EPA plunged by 73%. By comparison, during that time the U.S.' economy grew 262% and its population by 60%.

The decline in pollution is steep. Carbon monoxide, down 77%. Lead, 80%. Nitrogen oxide, 56%. Ozone, 22%. Particle pollution, off an average 38%. Sulfur dioxide, 88%.

Not included in the report, but equally if not more significant, is the fact that CO2 — the main greenhouse gas — overall has plunged 29% since peaking in 2007.

All the benefits of laws such as the Clean Air Act which made it illegal to pollute the atmosphere. Then there were the actions of activists such as Erin Blokovitch (sic), and the resultant legislation. Corporate America still pollutes on every ocassion it finds it can get away with. And Trump appointed a director for the EPA that eliminated many of the Obama regulations that allowed corporate America to then continue its pollution.

CEO salaries continue to rise while the worker sees none of the benefits, etc. -

which again, is precisely what one would expect in an economic environment that discourages competition and encourages corporate growth (through regulation).

Cite a regulation that says the corporation cannot pay a living wage?

 

[OldTrapper]

You said the United States isn't capitalist at all or as you put it we are capitalist "in name only."

Then you said we don't have to be all or nothing capitalist or socialist and you never said we did. You did say that, I just quoted you.

It is interesting to learn that you're with me in one way. You can't follow your stupid crap either

Irrational, lacking in comprehensible content, and a lie.

 

[OldTrapper]

I like how he considers government wage controls over private companies to simply be a "regulation" issue.

Then there's how he's still fighting the environment battle, which is like the March of Dimes. We won. The environment is cleaner than it's been in a long time. But Democrats can't give up a good talking point.

But the best is, you believe in "regulation," right? So now we can do socialism, just call it "regulation!"

Regulation means things like how much pollution is coming out of their smoke stacks. Wage controls, redistributing money, mandating employee medical and other benefits is socialism, not "regulation"

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/various-pollution-facts.php

 

[kaz]

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/various-pollution-facts.php

Obviously I was talking about the United States, Sport

 

[Raoul_Luke]

"Neoliberal policies of global free trade and unregulated markets were embraced, and the US was suddenly facing competition from all over the globe."



And yet small businesses are exempt from most of those regulations.



All the benefits of laws such as the Clean Air Act which made it illegal to pollute the atmosphere. Then there were the actions of activists such as Erin Blokovitch (sic), and the resultant legislation. Corporate America still pollutes on every ocassion it finds it can get away with. And Trump appointed a director for the EPA that eliminated many of the Obama regulations that allowed corporate America to then continue its pollution.



Cite a regulation that says the corporation cannot pay a living wage?

Again, if US markets were so "unregulated," why weren't foreign companies flocking here to take advantage of them? And why would US companies want to leave after working so hard to "unfetter" them?

And as soon as they want to scale up, the regulations kick in and they suddenly need a phalanx of lawyers on retainer - so they stay small.

And yet the environment is the cleanest its been in 50 years.

Where did I ever suggest there was a regulation against paying a "living wage?"

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I haven't heard of any different arguments for, or against, abortion, gun control wages, healthcare, etc.



If yu actually paid attention to what I said, that would be one thing. However, you obviously have not. We have a mixed economy. Part of it is capitalist, part crony capitalism, socialist, corporatism, etc. I know the right loves to speak of "regulatory capture" as an excuse to eliminate regulations, and thus allow them to further increase their profits while paying cheaper wages, polluting the atmosphere, etc. In fact, it was their actions that brought about the regulations to begin with. If they would act responsibly the would be no need for the regulation.

As to small businesses, one of the major reasons they fail is due to lack of financing. Another is that they cannot afford to buy a product at a price lower then a major corporation can buy the same product for. That makes if hard for one to compete.

https://www.businessknowhow.com/startup/business-failure.htm

I'm paying attention to what you say - it's just not making sense. Of course, since you have a communist glitterati quote in your sig, I guess we shouldn't really expect any honest assessments of capitalism out of you.

 

[OldTrapper]

I'm paying attention to what you say - it's just not making sense. Of course, since you have a communist glitterati quote in your sig, I guess we shouldn't really expect any honest assessments of capitalism out of you.

No your not, and your ignorance is once again the predominant feature of your feigned "intelligence". Tolsoy, while a socialist, was defamed by the Communist Party.

But liars like you who pretend to know so much do not know the difference between socialism, and communism. Never have, never will. To you this is socialism:

"For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened. But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality. As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack."

 

[OldTrapper]

Again, if US markets were so "unregulated," why weren't foreign companies flocking here to take advantage of them? And why would US companies want to leave after working so hard to "unfetter" them?

America is the most coveted country for investors. With the new tariffs, and a President that cannot be depended on to keep his word, or even know what his intentions are from one minute to the next, that is changing.

And as soon as they want to scale up, the regulations kick in and they suddenly need a phalanx of lawyers on retainer - so they stay small.

And yet the environment is the cleanest its been in 50 years.

As long as they follow the regulations like the Clean Air Act, CAFTA, and numerous others that made it illegal to dump their garbage in the waterways. LA used to be so filled with smog one could not go outside, then the Clean Air Act was passed.

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/2017-major-criminal-cases

Where did I ever suggest there was a regulation against paying a "living wage?"

Your support for the corporations lack of doing so implies such which is why I asked. Without minimum wage laws the corporations would be paying even lower slave wages.

 

[OldTrapper]

Obviously I was talking about the United States, Sport

So was the article dudette, if you had read it. For example:


Fact 7: Approximately 46% of the lakes in America are extremely polluted and hence risky for swimming, fishing, and aquatic life.

Fact 9: The United States produces 30% of the world’s waste and uses 25 % of the worlds natural resources

Fact 10: The Mississippi River dumps 1.5 million metric tonnes of nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico every year.

Fact 11: Every year around one trillion gallons of untreated sewage and industrial waste is dumped in the U.S water.

You can find the rest of the examples.

 

[Dawg]

America is the most coveted country for investors. With the new tariffs, and a President that cannot be depended on to keep his word, or even know what his intentions are from one minute to the next, that is changing.

What's changing is the demise of the DNC in both Europe and America:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/faced-with-their-own-demise-europes-social-democrats-are-moving-left/ar-AABA39Q?ocid=spartandhp

 

[Boca]

,.and the destruction of the working class

Okay... so you're old...me too. But I haven't been trapped, or herded into a state of dementia.

Do you not know there are more people working than forever in this country, inclusive of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women?

 

[OldTrapper]

Okay... so you're old...me too. But I haven't been trapped, or herded into a state of dementia.

Do you not know there are more people working than forever in this country, inclusive of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women?

Do you know that the wages being paid to those working are not keeping up with inflation?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2018/10/31/why-arent-wages-keeping-up-its-not-the-economy-its-management/#5232f78e397e

You may not be in a state of dementia, but you are trapped in a state of stupidity.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

America is the most coveted country for investors. With the new tariffs, and a President that cannot be depended on to keep his word, or even know what his intentions are from one minute to the next, that is changing.

And as soon as they want to scale up, the regulations kick in and they suddenly need a phalanx of lawyers on retainer - so they stay small.



As long as they follow the regulations like the Clean Air Act, CAFTA, and numerous others that made it illegal to dump their garbage in the waterways. LA used to be so filled with smog one could not go outside, then the Clean Air Act was passed.

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/2017-major-criminal-cases



Your support for the corporations lack of doing so implies such which is why I asked. Without minimum wage laws the corporations would be paying even lower slave wages.

So US companies have been relocating overseas because they don't want to be in the "most coveted country for investors?" The tariffs are the opposite of the "free trade" you have suggested you oppose, yet you oppose them.

And yes, that was my point (that the air and waterways are clean) while you suggested the evil corporations were continuing to pollute at every opportunity

Large corporations overwhelmingly pay above the minimum wage. Mostly it is small businesses and non-profits that pay minimum wage. So why would they suddenly change and start paying lower wages if the minimum wage laws were repealed?

Are you starting to see how ridiculous your circular reasoning is?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

No your not, and your ignorance is once again the predominant feature of your feigned "intelligence". Tolsoy, while a socialist, was defamed by the Communist Party.

But liars like you who pretend to know so much do not know the difference between socialism, and communism. Never have, never will. To you this is socialism:

"For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened. But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality. As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack."

Socialism and communism are two sides of the same (bad) coin. Socialism is but a way station on the road to a communist society.

And your quote is a perfect illustration of your circular logic. "For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened" sounds very reasonable. Then it morphs into "He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack." What the hell is that BS? How is giving one that "gathered little" an equal share of what has been gathered anything BUT easing his burden (since he can lounge around all day watching TV and then take half of what you made while you went to work all day) and in fact burdening the "gatherer?" This isn't rocket science and those two supposedly complimentary concepts are actually quite impossible to reconcile. And this is precisely why socialism/communism always fails - the person supposedly not burdened who ends up in fact burdened by the person who decides to eschew earning his keep catches on quickly and decides to join his leisurely comrade by eschewing production himself.

 

[OldTrapper]

So US companies have been relocating overseas because they don't want to be in the "most coveted country for investors?" The tariffs are the opposite of the "free trade" you have suggested you oppose, yet you oppose them.

Are you really that dense? I know you aren't pretending to be stupid, you are too good at it:

https://www.bea.gov/news/2018/direct-investment-country-and-industry-2017

Tariffs are a tax on the consumer.

And yes, that was my point (that the air and waterways are clean) while you suggested the evil corporations were continuing to pollute at every opportunity

Didn't read the link I posted as usual. If not for the regulations there would be even more pollution by corporate America.

Large corporations overwhelmingly pay above the minimum wage. Mostly it is small businesses and non-profits that pay minimum wage. So why would they suddenly change and start paying lower wages if the minimum wage laws were repealed?

The reason why they pay the minimum wage is due to the law requiring it. And while some corporations do pay above minimum wage that is to a small percentage of the workers, not the ones that do the actual labor. According to you Walmart, Amazon, and others are "small businesses".

Are you starting to see how ridiculous your circular reasoning is?

Not at all, just your stupidity is becoming more apparent.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/amazon-walmart-costco-target-highest-minimum-wage

And here is one reason why:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/minimum-wages-set-to-increase-in-these-20-states-in-2019

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Are you really that dense? I know you aren't pretending to be stupid, you are too good at it:

https://www.bea.gov/news/2018/direct-investment-country-and-industry-2017

Tariffs are a tax on the consumer.



Didn't read the link I posted as usual. If not for the regulations there would be even more pollution by corporate America.



The reason why they pay the minimum wage is due to the law requiring it. And while some corporations do pay above minimum wage that is to a small percentage of the workers, not the ones that do the actual labor. According to you Walmart, Amazon, and others are "small businesses".



Not at all, just your stupidity is becoming more apparent.

"Stupidity" is posting something that is completely factually incorrect while suggesting the person who actually knows the facts is "stupid."