Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 9 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 5:35 p.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement




Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Edgewaters (912) 9 years ago

Capitalism actually was more regulated not that long ago, and we didn't need to go so far as price controls etc to do it. A couple of generations ago, when it was regulated, markets were stable, employment was high, education was cheap, and even those on minimum wage could think about buying a home and paying for their kids to go to school, with some hard work and a frugal attitude.

All this talk of everyone kicking back and not having to work much, is a uniquely First World perspective. We, who produce nothing tangible, seem to have this idea that t-shirts and ballpoint pens grow on trees or just make themselves or something. They don't, they come from Third World sweatshops. We will always need to work and be productive, and that's actually the problem now, we call it work but we produce nothing tangible, we just push numbers around, make video games and music and so on. In a fair system, more of us, not less, will have to earn our keep with sweat.

I do not really know what is so bad about work anyway. I've been unemployed for some good long stretches, and sitting around at home, being leisurely, is really not relaxing at all after a while! In fact it's downright stressful. Work is good for you. It grounds you, keeps you in touch with your fellows, keeps you mentally and physically fit. One of the worst things about capitalism, to my mind, is that it makes work demeaning and negative and chooses to glorify leisure and consumerism.

[-] 2 points by hyarborough (121) 9 years ago

Completely agree. We need to change our behavior regarding consumerism, and what we consider a necessity. We embrace behavior and products that are not only not good for us, but actually bad for us, and think nothing of it.

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 9 years ago

I know. I do it every day, in some way, I can't freaking help it. But it's no mystery when I look at the advertising that I grew up on. It's all the same, and still the same, it promotes this idea you'll feel better (psychologically, physically) if you get this and if you don't, you'll feel like crap (despite the fact lots of this stuff is actually unhealthy). No wonder I always feel like I need something or other to make me feel whole, like I'm always lacking something. I'm an addict and I can see that, and I'm hardly even that bad, most people that I know are much worse than I am and they don't even realize how addicted they are.

Consumerism reminds me of the old Greek myth about Tantalus. He is sentenced to punishment in Tartarus, where he stands in a pool of water below a fruit tree. When he reaches for a fruit, the branches lift beyond his reach, when he stoops down to get water for a drink, the water recedes before he can. Consumerism is sort of like that, you keep shovelling stuff into an empty space that can never be filled, but satisfaction is ever elusive even so.

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 9 years ago

My wife is the same way. She's managed to pile up a lot of credit card debt, and had nothing but junk to show for it. We'll still be in the black, but our assets amount to a lot less than I thought. If it was at least useful junk it wouldn't be so bad. She doesn't seem to get away from buying name brands either. I'll buy off brands when it doesn't matter. IMO oatmeal is oatmeal, no matter who's name is on the box. If I buy an item, I rely on specifications and reviews. I love her anyway though. :)

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 9 years ago

Oh hell I'm not even that bad, not even close. I don't spend much money, I don't go for name brands, it might be a bit of a stretch even calling myself much of a consumer. But I do find myself feeling not whole and wanting to eat something or have a coffee, anything, to just consume something to make me feel whole. And it isn't because I'm hungry (and no I'm not a big fat bastard stuffing my face all the time, I'm actually rather thin, because it doesn't need to be food, it can be anything at all) I get it more strongly in social situations when I'm a bit nervous, or when I want to unwind I just feel like I need something, anything, to relax. Just like any other sort of addiction.

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 9 years ago

I think I understand. You actually sound more like me. I experience stress in social situations. Even up to a mild anxiety attack in extremely crowded environments. In myself, I chalk it up to negative feedback in social situations during the early part of my life. I've been generally treated as an outsider primarily because I didn't/don't look like mainstream society. I don't have any problem w/ one on one encounters, but avoid gathering like the plague, if possible. In those types of situations any distraction helps keep me from focusing on being uncomfortable.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 9 years ago

Here are some ideas about how to be "better" consumers: http://freeindependentsun.com/permanomics/occupy-the-market-how-to-vote-with-your-dollar/

The thing is, we do consume. We eat, we heat, we play. It's not a bad thing. It is the attachment to it, and the detachment from where our resources come from that turns into negatives. If we would take some time to research companies, research options, and make the "more expensive" choice from time to time, we could make a huge positive impact. Once you realize there are many things you don't "need" you can free up the money needed to make sure the thing you do need come from good sources (fair trade, organic, sustainable, etc.).

In lo of complete systematic reform, we have the ability to "regulate capitalism" through our choices as consumers, our ability to form groups (unions), and our ability to spread information. It would be nice if products were cheaper, but look at some technology such as "Open Source Ecology" "Open Source Software" "3D Printing" and "Permaculture" to see that we can actually produce many goods without a market or economy if we continue to work together and move forward.

If we get to caught up in fighting with those in power we will never have time to use the power we have to remove ourselves from their control. If that makes sense.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

I'm not sure about capitalism making work demeaning, but I agree with all the rest of what you've said, so add the following to it:

Price caps (profit controls) are a bad and un-American idea. They stand against the right of another to make as much off his labor as he can. Because you have the freedom to work or not work as you please, you should also have the freedom to charge for your work as you please. What amount you assign as the value for your labor when you make a product and sell it (adding the value of your labor to your cost of manufacturing) should be up to you. Only YOU know how much your time is worth to you. What difference does it make if it is just one person making something and selling it and marking it up 50% over his or her costs or a whole factory of people doing it? As you're not obligated to make anything for anyone, you should be able to charge what you wish.

What we need in the way of regulations is laws that prevent people from doing dishonest things or from taking bad risks with OTHER people's money as banks have recently done. If you run an operation that openly declares the risks, bad risks are fine; but banks do not openly admit to ANY risk. They maintain that your money is COMPLETELY safe with them, so it is fraudulent for them to take gambles that endanger your money. If the U.S. is going to insure depositors in order to give banks those safe bragging rights, then the U.S. has the right to regulate the banks for its own protection. For a long time it did just that. Then, starting with Reagan, it removed the regulations. As a result, it paid the high price of insuring them after it let the risk run wild.

The real problem right now is that we have socialized the cost of all those private failures:


--Knave Dave

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 9 years ago


As far as the messages that work is demeaning, they're there, its a base assumption. The idea of success that's promoted is to retire early; you're a big success if you retire at 40 and kick back on a beach somewhere, to live a life of leisure and conspicuous consumption. It's just an assumption that work has to suck, its a necessary evil, and the goal of life is leisurely consumption. Yet most people who do retire early (or win the lottery and quit their jobs) become depressed because they no longer have any purpose in life.

If you look at the old "Protestant work ethic", for all its flaws, this assumption was absent. Leisure was not a goal - it was a vice. Work was good for you, material advantages aside.

[-] 1 points by KnaveDave (357) 9 years ago

Work certainly can be good for you. May all who do it get fairly paid for their efforts and find their work meaningful or enjoyable as much as possible. Life requires work. It is not a free gift. Civilization and peace enable much more free time for personal enjoyments of other kinds than work, many of which are equally worthwhile, such as time spent with one's children, etc. As you say, work has often been treated as if it is some sort of punishment with people howling because some government's choose to make prisoner's work. Heck. They get food, heat, shelter, exercise facilities, free medical, etc. Why shouldn't they work like everyone else just to pay society back for the cost of keeping them there?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

I accomplish more when I'm not working

[-] 4 points by ScrewyL (809) 9 years ago

You would stifle innovation and competition, and you would suppress the salaries of the workers producing value.

The person who runs this website is named "Justine Alexandra Roberts Tunney", and they have published the source code for the website on github.com here:


The headline, or "motto" for the project there reads as follows:

"Stomping out capitalism, one line of code at a time"

You can verify this is true by scrolling down to the bottom of this page and looking to the right. You will see a link which reads 'github'. Click it. At the top of that page, underneath the smiley face, underneath the word 'Code' with an orange underline, you will see the project headline.

NOTE: I am fully aware that I am discussing the views of J.A. Robert Tunney, and NOT the OWS as a whole. -- However, it is time for the schizophrenia within the OWS movement to cease and for them to actually discuss, debate, and come to consensus on, what is their purpose and a sane solution to the majority's complaints.

The doubletalk about "we are not really socialist but yeah we are but not really but DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!" is being used as cover for the co-opting of a huge mass of genuinely concerned people.

Since the ideology which most vociferously speaks out against "Capitalism" is Socialism, it is quite likely that the maintainer of this website is a Socialist.

I would be quick to point out that Capitalism is not an "ism" at all, rather an unavoidable result of the consequence of possessing things.

Note also that "possessing" is not a legal construct which can be debated -- but a physical fact having to do with who's hands an object is within or controlled by.

Wether an individual capitalizes upon his own labor, the state capitalizes upon it, or a wealthy entrepreneur does, they are all forms of capitalism -- and have quite blurred lines.

Consider this:

If you have a broken car, and you employ my expertise in fixing cars, trading me two ears of corn for my labor... Then I have 'capitalized' on my labor.

If you then turn around, and trade that newly repaired car for two fat pigs... Then, lo and behold, you have capitalized on my labor, in much the same way that I did.

The difference being, you possessed the car itself, which repsresents a much greater amount of labor input than my repair, and were therefore able to obtain a higher price for it.

Question is this: Did you ''exploit" me?!

And, another question:

How could you, OWS, the Socialist Party, or ANYone, ever successfully prohibit this transaction, or everything like it? If you outlaw money then only outlaws will have money!

Isn't opposing and "stomping out" capitalism futile?

Socialism is not neccessary, nor even preferred. Simply return to sound money, and prosecute fraud.

End the Federal Reserve and the Fractional Banking System.

They have devalued our currency and widened the gap between the 1% and the 99%. They are the cause of the problems Occupy Wall Street is in protest of. They have empowered the political system which conspires with Wall Street to commit banking fraud and rob the people of their wealth.

The original American system, if enforced by its people, is capable of that. Enforcement may require revolution, but do not seek to bring down capitalism. That is futile and impossible.

Bring down corruption, conspiracy and political deception -- and your goals will have been met.

Do not chastize open debate and ridicule your strongest political support while pretending that you do not wish to alienate anyone and disingenously claiming that mockery is the same as moderation.


[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 9 years ago

No, I apologize, but flattenning markets with a scalar coefficient would utterly remove all incentive to capitalize.

And BTW, JoeTheFarmer was criticizing the notion of taking "100% from the 1%" -- not suggesting it.

[-] 3 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

Markets are not "free markets" when they are left to the predatory avarice of organized criminal gangs of MBA's and lawyers colluding to unfairly rob unprotected individuals.

Markets that are not free of these criminal organizations are not free.


[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago


It is part of the lexicon of American political and economic discourse and must be confronted as such. Simply denying its validity does nothing to debunk its inherent victimizing characteristics.


[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

This is not capitalism, its facsism.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

The history of capitalism is a history of regulation. Despite what thoughtless fundamentalists would say, the Child Labor Committee that pushed for the elimination of child labor in the American economy were not anti-Capitalist or anti-American.


[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

i don't think capping the upside of potential is the way to go about solving the problems.


[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

maybe if you're capping beyond marginal utility. i don't know. politically, i think capping upside is not the way to go.


[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

you can slow the upside without being so literal with defined caps. defined caps strike me as too top-down, too authoritarian. and many others will, too.


[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

The problems that you are looking to solve with Profit Cap can be solved other ways and solving the problems is what's important. I don't think it is a good strategy to try and solve those problems by getting up and stating that "entrepreneurs can only make so much money". In America, a statement like that deserves to be and should be challenged.


[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

not necessarily. everybody has an economic theory that can "turn this economic recession around OVERNIGHT !"


[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 9 years ago

have many, and "many" is what I value.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 9 years ago

Just does not seem fair to a guy who has a great idea on a cool product. He would not make very much money. He could not be a success. The problem with your idea is that it would not spark ideas. Why would people want to really try. Or create. It would hold the nation back. Would never fly.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 9 years ago

That would be ideal if we also take responsibility for our reproductive system in limiting the number of children you have since your idea would cause populations to increase to where natural resources could not support.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

Who gets the extra money? Not people? animals? some alien? Who gets all this money?

of course, PEOPLE, HUMANS, own ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD. No one else owns the money.

So when idiotic ideas come about, that "caps" on profits should be made, it sounds like I am conversing with a 12 year old child about Economics. People own all the trillions of dollars in the world. Who else owns this money?

Monkeys? Pandas? Bears? Is is the fish under the sea that we will give this money to? Of course not not.


No one else does.

What needs to be done:

1) Take the THEFT out of the current Capitalist environment

2) Put Justice back in the Court sytstem

3) recognize where collective ownership exists, like in the Airlines and energy.

4) recognize private property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5) above all, recognize that FREEDOM without RESPONSIBILITY brings ruin


[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

Not me - I have not been the bully - you assume too much. i guess it may be difficult for you to think from the OUTSIDE, like OUTSIDE the earth and look in, and develop a fair system.

You, mistakenly, think, because my philosophy seems to "favor" a side, that I must be on that side! Not true - just letting you know what scientific economics will work and not work.

Your comments about "spoiled brat" usually doesn't got to the guy with sports trophies, and who was top of the class, repeatedly. No, I am not a spoiled brat. And I am sure I have worked harder than you in your life.

Take YOURSELF out of the picture and create a good economic system for EVERYONE without worrying about YOU!. That's the task.

Your system would never work. Try again. And again, it's OK to call an IDEA idiotic, but its not appropriate to call the PERSON an idiot. Everyone has good and bad ideas. Your saying the person is wrong instead of the idea is wrong just brings impoliteness to the table.

That's the kind of thing you do. Maybe because you are a spoiled brat, but how you are, or me, is not the discussion that is appropriate. The discussion of ideas without name calling may be a little too mature for you. Grow up son.


[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

i like you already!!!! There are ways - but like i told people 10 years ago - want to stop spam? There are two choices - try to build walls and dams and stop the spam and I told everyone 10 years ago that would never work, because there is a force out there that must be dealt with, and the idea was correct. building dams and walls to stop spam has limited use. Instead CREATE new path for this SPAM energy, and let the emails flow in a way that is not SPAM, and the idea was correct -

Creating acceptable ways for email marketing to work, like Direct Email systems, which is a three way certified email system, reduces spam.

Capping profits is like the wall. Stop the stopping. instead, let the water flow in a natural way, back to the people. Caps aint it. But I like how you are getting to your solution. Don't get stuck on your ideas, there are many and you have genius ideas in you, just do the work to get them out.

I would really like you to come with something, where everyone says, WOW - that is a good idea!

You can do it! i have faith in you!

[-] 1 points by YoungPhilosopher89 (19) 9 years ago

Hi im darren check out my blog http://youngphilosopher89.wordpress.com its left wing reflecting my anarcho-syndicalist views


[-] 1 points by YoungPhilosopher89 (19) 9 years ago

Tell me what Anarchism is ? We belive in government just not a centralized corrupt un-accountable one as we have now, instead we believe in community governance each legislating for itself. And how dare you try to call me a capitalist, if you know anything you will know capitalism has never existed, I am a classical libertarian of the enlightenment era


[-] 1 points by YoungPhilosopher89 (19) 9 years ago

No nonsense crony-capitalism needs government to survive, capitalist traditionally are supporters of free market economics which means no political involvement the the economy, but this is an impossible idea so capitalism needs interventionist politics to survive, Yes big business says big government is bad but that's because their fascists in its truest sense and they just want big corporate government similar to the current american system . So you mean to tell me humanity is so stupid that they cant build roads, schools, technology and so on without government ? that is a ridiculous argument and an insult to your intelligence, No anarchism comes from the Latin for no governance or limited governance, it is a school of political taught that requires society to be highly organized and democratically involved

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

You can't "cap" profits - very unAmerican - and Un-constitutuiona. You can move to another country. You can tax people and give some of the money but you can't cap profits. No offense, but you do not have a college degree in economics and it shows. THERE Is a way to regulate capitalism while allowed free and fair markets to flourish, but not that way. And trying to increase jobs will never work. See other posts about technology replacing jobs.


[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

Let me assist you: 1) to rid the world of excessive VOTING fraud, have PAPER VOTING RECEIPTS, with bar code and text information, and serialized, and the vote prior count.

2) you suggest abolishing Private Property, which means ALLOW THEFT. Private property was create LONG before humans. CRABS and animals UNDERSTAND property rights. Animals win 70% of the fights that are on their own property.

3) if you want the best solution or the answer for some physics problem in a classroom, and there are 25 students, and everyone knows 3 of them are physics experts, the best way to arrive at the answer is to let the 3 physics expert decide in their little group. Democracy, by nature, always gets a "C" in the class, and rarely do they get an "A".

3) The best way to choose LEADERSHIP nor DIRECT ACTIONS is NOT DEMOCRACY. The best way to choose leaders is through competition, not a popularity contest. In other cultures, for centuries, the most TALENTED and SPIRITUAL and those with the most proven integrity would be leaders. They were not chosen because they were taught how to "kiss a--", so to speak. 4) the best way to choose DETAILS of a plan when rapid decisions are involved is NOT THROUGH DEMOCRACY, but THROUGH specialized decision making, which is what happens in the military and in large corporations.

Democracy is not that great a thing. CONSENSUS BY 100% - THAT IS A HUGELY GREAT THING. But Democracy is ridden with crime and other problems.

So the plan is to use CONSENSUS for BIG THINGS - like GOALS and DIRECTIONS, and for rapid decision making in the fields...... need the leadership / follower scenarios in small work groups.

Unless you are a civil engineer, I don't care what you think about the structure of the next new bridge.

Unless you are involved in the school system some how, as parent, grandparent, teacher, volunteer, etc., your vote about school issues should be less...

There is nothing magic about democracy. The idea is the NON-SUPRESSION of MINORITIES and not having the MAJORITY telling the MINORITY what to do. Of course, this is exactly what democracy does.

And of course, PEOPLE, HUMANS, own ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD. No one else owns the money. So when idiotic ideas come about, that "caps" on profits should be made, it sounds like I am conversing with a 12 year old child about Economics. People own all the trillions of dollars in the world. Who else owns this money? Monkeys? Pandas? Bears? Is is the fish under the sea that we will give this money to? Of course not not. PEOPLE OWN ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD. No one else does. 1) Take the THEFT out of the current Capitalist environment 2) Put Justice back in the Court sytstem 3) recognize where collective ownership exists, like in the Airlines and energy. 4) recognize private property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 5) above all, recognize that FREEDOM without RESPONSIBILITY brings ruin

Without private enterprise you have governments and gangsters stealing everyone's private property. My guess is you do NOT have a college degree in Economics? (idiotic ideas are born by everyone including geniuses and avg intelligence people) That's why I am here.... to help folks get rid of bad ideas, and replace them with ideas that will work. And remember, when idea is WRONG, it is not the PERSON that is wrong or idiotic, it's just the idea. And all people think of GREAT ideas and idiotic ideas. Just don't forget, when we attack in this medium, we should attack ideas, and not the individual. By the way, this comes directly from corporate training. 1% + 99% = 100% (we have to change the 1% to!)


[-] 2 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

Who does the extra money go to? The tyranny of capitalism can EASILY be FOUGHT and WON with the fair and responsible capitalism of OCCUPY, OCCUPY has the unity, and therefore to power, to create its own banks, its own communication satellites, its own OccupyVideo.org website, and fight back. Don't forget, whenever the govt give money to someone, the govt must take the money from somebody else. Sales profits caps are impossible to orchestrate.

BUT you have GIVEN me a CHALLENGING QUESTION - Without requiring the student to read up on economics and accounting and experience the world a bit, giving a short answer as to why a sales cap would not work, is, well, difficult. But I will try.

1) Impossible to regulate - every sale would have to be governed by govt, and we would live in even MORE a police state than we do.

2) Incorrect 'sales caps' - suppose a business was losing money in its environment division which cleans water, but was making great profits in building houses. Should the sales cap be changed to offset the environment division?

3) such a system would take away ALL of our liberties. It would allow the govt to have complete control over everyone's move. It would be worse than the cameras.

4) Such a sales cap would BE WIDE OPEN TO FRAUD AND ABUSE.

5) There is no correct philosophical basis for such caps. Taking away one's freedom because someone else is poor doesn't make sense. It's ok to do SOMETHING to give the poor guy money, but it's not OK to limit everyone's freedom and depend on GOVT to decide who gets money.

In fact, such a cap, would widen the gap more. The police and the accountants would all see a new areas of life with which to add corruption.

I grant you, it is hard to explain. but it's like this in economics with billions of people on earth: Pretend you have to fly a rocket to to Mars or Saturn, and you need a direct hit. ANY SMALL DEVIATION in the beginning, will result IN A HUGE MISS at the end. The cap is a bit off.

And you don't seem to understand what "fair distribution" means to most economists. It means "fair fight". It does not mean if one person wins all the time, they have to give up their winnings. So what you are suggesting is not, economically speaking, a "fair distribution" of wealth. It is a re-distribution of peoples wealth, against their will, by the govt, which leaves abuse wide open. It's like Russia was before Russia fell.

Such a cap would make things worse, not better. There are many other solutions, like taxes, etc., but caps are not realistic. They will never happen in the USA, because of the Constitution, and the many other laws that limit govt power. Granting more govt power is not the answer. There are answers, but caps aint it. Thanks for your politeness.


[-] 2 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

No offense, but I have taught economic Internet infrastructure classes at Harvard Law School. I have a college degree from a top 20 school, in economics, and math/computer science. I have done a lot of law work in my life, and my knowledge base on law is like a lawyer's knowledge base.

it's illegal to run people's businesses and lives like you suggesting. You sound like a 14 year old kid who has no experience and no education. You can't just have a law that says, "the govt is now running all businesses" which is pretty much what you are suggesting. Maybe in old world Russia you could have tried this, not here, not in any country that has some freedom left, and some privacy laws left.

How old are you? Have you ever worked in corporate america in management? (obviously not) Are all corporations bad? the answer is no. Are some really bad? yes.

No, you can't control people's businesses. You can tax them, which will get you the same money you are suggesting, but you can't run their businesses and demand information, and demand they tell you how much they pay for stuff. That is confidential and private information not available to govt or anyone. If govt tried to do this, their representatives would be met with lethal force by US citizens. Your "solution" would create new protests.

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make you drink. that's all I can say... good luck and read about 5 books on economics, and corporations and businesses. You need to study. No offense, just telling it like it is...


[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

I guarantee you it will never pass and never work and it can only make matters worse!!!! How old are you?


[-] 2 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

EXACTLY - promote GENERAL welfare- for the store, the store's owners, the stores suppliers, the store's landload. All these people are part of the General Welfare. You have no right to take money which would degrade the general welfare. And you would be violating "blessings of liberty".

The stores, their employees, their owners, their customers, their suppliers, all of them are part of the General Welfare.

In law the General Welfare means EVERYONE, not the majority. Go to law school, work in retail, work in a corporation. Do all this over the next 6 years and you will understand. i cant replace education and experience in a blog.

i can try... but that's about it....


[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 9 years ago

The cap does help EVERYONE like the stores owners, store suppliers, store employees. It steals their money. You don't understand the EVERYONE statement. It clearly does not help EVERYONE. Do you understand? Do you get As and Bs in school? Or u just like to be stubborn?

[-] 1 points by PepperGirl (13) 9 years ago

didn't Obamas "Cap n Trade" plan send us deeper into world debt and poverty?

im confused on CAP

is it TAX employers until they have to hire foreign workers to survive?


[-] 1 points by PepperGirl (13) 9 years ago

i was confused with CAP. I was thinking the Cap and Trade. Our lights power bill is so high, I know they say the TAX is on the power company but the people pay for it. I don't understand how they tax businesses emissions without businesses passing cost to us. and tax falls on the people in the end. ANY tax.

this is what my father told me but I do not know for sure

[-] 1 points by simi34103 (14) from Lake Placid, FL 9 years ago

show me where this has worked and I'll be on board

[-] 1 points by cskarlupka (13) from Annapolis, MD 9 years ago

At this juncture, we and our government need the dominoes to fall. Milestones:

  1. Occupation of cities around the world, protesting their governments. 2011
  2. U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011, August 2, 2011.
  3. Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace, "Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority". On world monetary system proposal. October 24, 2010
  4. U.S. Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, aka Super Committee, impasse in deficit spending and balancing the budget. November 21, 2010.
  5. The collapse of the Eurozone economies (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain). Which will restructure the worlds economic financial base, the richest countries. <June 2012.
  6. The Group of Twenty (G20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Summit Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico. Restructuring of world economic powers and adoption of one world monetary system. June 2012.
  7. U.S. Presidential Election, November 6, 2012.

To be continued.

[-] 1 points by kodanon (5) 9 years ago

Hey I have an idea why don't we act like a community and help each other out instead of having the government force our hands to do it?
& I fear not any corporation, as long as that corporation does not have the power to lobby for government regulations. A corporation separate from government is one boycott away from failure as long as the free market is truly free. Government meddling is why we have problems with Monsanto and Big Pharma... both are in bed with the FDA, which was created with the goal of preserving our health but now prevents us from preserving our own health! Just the same with any more government regulations and agencies! Throw them all out and please, register to vote and examine the candidates! You don't want to miss a diamond hiding amongst the rocks!

;#LibertarianGovernment, #SocialistCommunity

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 9 years ago

No we don't. Our government allowed this:


[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 9 years ago

I agree & believe capitalism can work as long as its VERY well regulated to protect the people! If the businesses are just in it for profit & don't care about their workers (which the business wouldn't exist W/O them) something is VERY wrong with that! This Libertarian's & Ayn Rand's selfish beliefs system that support totally support free unregulated market, less government & everyone is out for themselves & f-k anyone else is BS & a horrid f-ken joke! The American people are not like that! I would like to ask them Ron P-aul supporters WHERE in this world has this system ever worked other than Somalia? Which, I hope you idiots know isn't really working very well!
I'm sure most DECENT, loving, caring, moral human beings would never endorse or support that kind of system! Because, if they did then MANKIND should just flush its f-n self down the f-n toilet!

[-] 1 points by jiradog (92) 9 years ago

It has worked pretty well on the internet. I am a farmer. In the years when I lose 20% and then have a year when I make 30% are you advocating that the government come take the extra 20%. I don't want to live in your world. I want freedom to be what I can be without anyone telling me what to do.

[-] 0 points by RockyJ (208) 9 years ago

Go eat donkey turds & I trust you will be happy!


[-] 1 points by RockyJ (208) 9 years ago



[-] 0 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

Why farmer is an exempt? By which criteria?


[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

Basically, you want to cap the retailers? That's easy, ether retailers will charge the manufacturers for retail or manufacturers themselves will go into retail business as long as they can set any price they want.


[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

What exactly does it solve? The corporations would get even more profit and government will decide what products to sell and what products to ban. Less freedom and more profit to CEOs.


[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

Right...That's why you can't come up with an argument... It's more likely that my level of learning is beyond your comprehension.

The predator(capitalism) you are trying to pet, cannot be domesticated and it will never work for everybody. It's sole purpose is to exploit the majority to the benefit of the few.

Shoot your next "solution" so I can debunk it too.


[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

Black Friday is a scam on a national level fueled by the media. You think you are getting deal on the Friday? Then you are being scammed. They do two times of scams:

1) They just printing price tags with fake original price.

2) They raising prices on all products with the previous 2 months and then they lowering them back on the items that sales the worst.

3) Stocking a lot more supply, expecting the black Friday.

Now people coming to the stores with money set aside and expecting some great deals, blindly buying whatever looks like a good deal without any research, not even looking at the original price tag that, most of the time is still under the "new", "promotional" price and they won't leave without buying at least something.

Black Friday is a great idea to make people spend money they don't have on stuff they don't need.


[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

You seem to think that capping retail will benefit the 99% somehow. Maybe you think it will lower prices? In this case you completely misunderstand how prices are being set in capitalistic system. The prices are set as high as consumer is willing to pay for them aka equilibrium of supply and demand. The prices will not change, you are just shifting the profit from sellers to manufacturing CEOs. Considering that manufacturing of most goods happen in china, you are going to cut GDP more then in half. If prices are not what you targeting, then please tell me what that mysterious thing that going to help us?

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

How are you proposing to do it?

About your last paragraph: I don't know how you managed to imaging it, but it's impossible in capitalism even in theory.


[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

"even in theory"


[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

You seem to ignore the main question: "How are you proposing to do it?"

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 9 years ago

I wasn't ignoring the question , I just felt it was insincere.

[-] 1 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

Well, it is a question, directly related to your topic. The second paragraph is with assumption that you will not give a comprehensive answer to the question.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 9 years ago

The Soviet Union uses this model.

oh wait... They don't use it anymore.


[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 9 years ago

I actually said - "If we take 100% frrm the 1%"


we would have about $1.3 trillion which is less than 1/10 of the national debt.

[-] 1 points by smartguy2 (17) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 9 years ago

You're on the right track


[-] 0 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 9 years ago

This is not about that, everyone was a billionaire. It is about a decent standard of the majority.

[-] 0 points by SupremeOccupyLeader (17) 9 years ago

We need a cap on what people can make.


[-] 0 points by seeker (242) 9 years ago

If government exists the first things it should protect from capitalism is basic human rights like housing and food.

[-] 0 points by smartguy2 (17) 9 years ago

"I have studied the inner workings and outcomes of capitalism a number of years. "

No you haven't. Don't lie.


[-] 1 points by smartguy2 (17) 9 years ago


And I know I am.


[-] -1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 9 years ago

We need to overthrow capitalism.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 9 years ago

Just curious. How do you define capitalism and why would it be better to get rid of it instead of just fixing it?

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production (like land, machinery, etc.) The notion of private property is fundamentally oppressive towards human beings and the rest of nature. There are ways to have capitalism be somewhat less horrible through regulation/welfare/etc. but I've never heard of any plausible solution to make capitalism compatible with the principles of egalitarianism, freedom of association and sustainability.

More Info: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB4.html

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 9 years ago

Thanks, very nice article, the more I read about anarchism the more I like it. :) The more I understood capitalism the more I...dislike it.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 9 years ago

Thanks for the reply and the link. I've noticed different opinions as to definitions of the various -isms being discussed and was curious about someone who is one of the original OWSers. As one of the millions that opted out of politics years ago due to disgust and frustration over what we've perceived as a corrupt system, I'm having to do a bit of catching up. I found this site by accident almost a month ago and have been hooked ever since. And if OWS can get a politically jaded individual like me back into the game, it is indeed a positive force. Now, let's go make history!

[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I'm glad you found my comment informative! I hope this movement helps you feel less jaded; I know it did for many of my friends. Also if I can ever do more to help, feel free to private message me :)

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 9 years ago

I'm only politically jaded, jart. Only politically (heh heh heh).


[-] 2 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 9 years ago

you would have to compare capitalism with another system to relate some form of understanding.

That's just the textbook definition. The opposite is socialism where land, factories, etc. are collectively owned.

socialism is where business is state owned

Not necessarily. You don't need to have the government own everything to ensure collective ownership. There's a thing called stateless socialism a.k.a. anarchism that advocates socialism without a state. This means factories would be owned by the people who work there, houses would be owned by the people who live there, and local communities would be run by their residents.

Government gives us our human rights and freedoms .. gives us dignity.

The government doesn't give us anything. All it really does is maintain the status quo. The American government has the added bonus of spreading the status quo to other nations through imperialism. Rights don't exist in nature. They aren't granted by government but rather achieved and held through force. The few rights we have in this society were only achieved after years of fighting, oftentimes granted on the cusp of outright rebellion. Anyone who thinks the government represents the people, or that voting changes anything in this society can keep dreaming.


[-] 1 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 9 years ago

This video will educate you on the truth.


[+] -4 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

I would suggest another way of looking at this. There are 2 types of profits:

  1. Profit made on the free market by selling people things they want/need.

  2. Profit made by political pull either by directly receiving govt money or using the govt's force to gain an advantage in the market.

The first kind of profit is beneficial to everybody.

The second harms most people. Everything you complain about was caused by regulation, not the free market. The thing to bear in mind is that profit by political pull is obtained through the special interests' control of the regulators & legilators. This is why regulation always fails, it will always serve the interests of the industry it regulates:

The Truth About the "Robber Barons"

As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.


So, FriendlyObserverA, we may not be entirely on opposite sides of the issue, just looking at it differently.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 9 years ago

Well I can see your determination to support the ows agenda .. by all means go right ahead .

The idea though that profit on a free market benefits everyone .. I have no idea how you could support such a statement ?

[-] 2 points by smartguy2 (17) 9 years ago


It's sad that you hate voluntary exchange so much.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 9 years ago

It is the love for fairness and equality that drives me; not hate .

[-] 1 points by smartguy2 (17) 9 years ago

You hate the idea of people voluntarily exchanging without coercion. You believe in the initiation of force against peaceful individuals. You believe in the ends justifying the means. Your lack of morals is pretty disgusting.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 9 years ago

I feel sad for those who work hard and suffer in deplorable conditions of inequality and unfairness.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 9 years ago

"The idea though that profit on a free market benefits everyone .. I have no idea how you could support such a statement ?"

Profit is how businesses that supply us with what we need stay in business. What's wrong with that? Without profits we'd have nothing. No business would exist to produce anything.

Profits & losses are also how a business knows whether it is producing the right things at the right price. This is why socialism & govt intervention fail. They have no balance sheet to guide them:

  1. The Consequences of the Abolition of Profit

The idea to abolish profit for the advantage of the consumers involves that the entrepreneur should be forced to sell the products at prices not exceeding the costs of production expended. As such prices are, for all articles the sale of which would have brought profit, below the potential market price, the available supply is not sufficient to make it possible for all those who want to buy at these prices to acquire the articles. The market is paralyzed by the maximum price decree. It can no longer allocate the products to the consumers. A system of rationing must be adopted.


The joint effect of the application of these policies is already today rising chaos. The final effect will be the full realization of socialism by smoking out the entrepreneurs. Capitalism cannot survive the abolition of profit. It is profit and loss that force the capitalists to employ their capital for the best possible service to the consumers. It is profit and loss that make those people supreme in the conduct of business who are best fit to satisfy the public. If profit is abolished, chaos results.


Limiting profits might limit the damage done, but damage to the economy, & therefore the people, there would be.