The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[Kfox]

I'm wasting my time trying to correct your errors as you simply have no clue what you're talking about, plus you frequently twist what I actually post to suit your own bigotry, such as with the above.

If you would actually respond to what I say instead of making stuff up, perhaps we would be able to have a fruitful conversation. If you can't do that, perhaps it's best that you run away with your tail between your legs. Good day sir!

 

[Kfox]

So here is a factor you have overlooked. I can't work. So please tell me, what comes next?

Most people can work. Those who can't are the exception; not the rule. In the USA there are plenty of Safety-Nets in place for those who can't work.

 

[Audie]

The investors control is restricted by the law. But sometimes he did do it by himself; but if he did not, what difference does it make?

Other than taxes, who else should they be required to share the profits with?

When this happens, the money generated is always shared with the many people involved; but the money they get is not considered profit; it’s called wages, labor costs, material costs, etc. it’s put under the category of the cost of doing business. Profit is defined as what is left over after you’ve paid all the other people who helped you generate revenue.

Excess wealth is almost always invested. Do you think rich people are fat guys sitting on top of a pile of money smoking cigars? No reasonable rich guy is going to exchange all of his assets for money so it can be eaten up by inflation! Nobody does that!

We have all the reason in the world to presume people with excess wealth will invest it! It’s either growing or shrinking; when it’s invested it grows, when it sits idle it shrinks. Nobody wants their wealth to shrink

True! In this case, the commercial enterprise is able to create wealth due to their investment

What happens when the commercial enterprise fails to make a profit? Should the people involved not get paid? Do you really think someone is going to take a job at such a place knowing they may not get paid?

No it’s not. Socialism is Government control of wealth being generated. Under Capitalism, there are countless examples of a group of people starting an LLC, they work the Business and they share the profits between themselves. Socialist governments are greed, and they want ALL the generated wealth for themselves. And the more they are allowed to get it, the more unstable the whole system becomes, until it will finally and inevitably collapse. Look at what happened to Russia, East Germany vs West Germany, North Vietnam vs South Vietnam, North Korea vs South Korea. Unfortunately too many people still haven’t learned the lesson.

Gross ignorance x extreme ideology sure is a toxic mix.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As far as government is concerned I would love to see a stop on lobbying, on trading in the stock market while serving in Congress.
More programs directed to educating towards skilled trades etc.

Or using ones spouse to do all the nsider trading. and making mandates to artificially raise the value of stocks. Like Nancy P.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gross ignorance x extreme ideology sure is a toxic mix.

True believers must close their eyes to the
reality of what they believe so fervently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Most people can work. Those who can't are the exception; not the rule. In the USA there are plenty of Safety-Nets in place for those who can't work.

So how come I get money from the government, when I can't work?

 

[pearl]

Or using ones spouse to do all the nsider trading. and making mandates to artificially raise the value of stocks. Like Nancy P.

She is only one of the many.

 

[Kfox]

So how come I get money from the government, when I can't work?

Because as I mentioned before, even though the United States has a capitalist economic system, there are plenty of Socialist programs in place; even for exceptions to the rule like your case.

 

[Audie]

If you would actually respond to what I say instead of making stuff up, perhaps we would be able to have a fruitful conversation. If you can't do that, perhaps it's best that you run away with your tail between your legs. Good day sir!

I've had much the same experience and said about the same
things..

It's too bad, but.

Because as I mentioned before, even though the United States has a capitalist economic system, there are plenty of Socialist programs in place; even for exceptions to the rule like your case.

And it would be inhumane and insane not to.

 

[PureX]

Sorta, the Government has to make up laws that prevent greedy capitalists from causing unfair harm to others.

But capitalism is already giving the greedy capitalists a huge unfair advantage by giving them complete control over the commercial enterprise that they are investing in. If we shared that control among all those involved in and those effected by that enterprise (this is called socialism) then the government would not have to constantly oversee and step in to mitigate the damaging effects of the capitalist's greed. So why not just do away with capitalism all together, and adopt a socialist system wherein everyone involved in and effected by a commercial enterprise gets some say in how that enterprise is being conducted. Thus ensuring that the wealth generated by that enterprise gets shared among all those responsible for generating it. The investors will still invest, as they will still receive a profit on their investment (so long as the enterprise generates a profit) but they will no longer be able to maximize their profit by minimizing their costs (and responsibilities) to everyone else involved and effected by the commercial enterprise. And by everyone else involved and effected I mean labor, consumers, vendors, community and environment.

If that were to happen it would be a huge problem.

It has already happened. Corporate and individual wealth now owns and controls every senator and congressmen in the legislature through the legalized bribery of corporate lobbying. And for the Supreme Court to have approved this legalized bribery the court had to have been corrupted it as well.

We don’t allow that, we have laws in place to prevent that from happening

Capitalism is defined as an economic system by it's giving control of commercial enterprise to the capital investor through the myth of the investor's "total ownership". And our laws are intended to protect that control, not prevent it.

Yes. And there are laws in place that allows them to be greedy in a way that helps the poor.

Greed never helps the poor. Greed poisons everything and everyone it touches. Greed is why we have so many people living in poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth. If we were to simply spread that wealth around better, and not allow the greedy to pile it up under their exclusive control, we could eliminate poverty completely. And still everyone would be living very well. Ending poverty is an issue of sharing control so as to better share the wealth. It's quite simple. But greed poisons our minds, and makes us not want to ever share any control with anyone else. And having money makes it easier to make sure that we won't have to. The problem of poverty is the problem of greed (i.e., control through the accumulation and exploitation of wealth).

True! That’s why there are laws in place preventing them from getting complete control of commercial enterprise

The laws exist to protect, enable, and ensure that control, not to limit it.

Suppose I own land with fruit trees on the land. I pick the fruit from my trees to sell to the public. Then I offer you $100 to sit on the side of the road and sell my fruit to people who drive by till the sun goes down. I come back when the sun goes down and you have exchanged all my fruit for $1,000. I take the $1000 and give you $100 as agreed and we part our separate ways. Do you consider what I did to be fair?

No. For one thing you never owned those trees and you never owned the land they grew on. You simply used the claim of your "ownership" to impose your control over them, and thereby over any increased value that can be generated from them. "Ownership" is an illusion used to confer control. None of us "owns" anything. We simply confer control over the things around us by agreeing to bestow "ownership" upon each other. Remember that capitalism is all about gaining complete control through the illusion of "ownership". The capital investors claim complete control over whatever enterprise they invest in because they claim their investment gives them "ownership". And ownership is control. And all our laws are designed to protect that "right of control". A right they can then use to exploit everyone involved in the enterprise they claim to "own".

This is what needs to stop: this foolish illusion that "ownership" confers complete control. Because that control will always be abused for the sake of greed if we allow it. We need to develop a system that untethers ownership from total control, and gives some of that control to all those being effected by it. We can argue til the cows come home about how to achieve that. But there is no argument about it needing to be achieved. The disastrous result of our not doing so is all around us. Not just in terms of increasing poverty, but increasing lawlessness, increasing environmental destruction, increasing governmental corruption, increasing disunity among nations and among people within nations. This is not going to end well. And the only way to stop it is to start giving more control over the production and dissemination of wealth to the people being effected by it. Capitalist greed is destroying everything we've built and it's on track to destroy us all in the end.

 

[Audie]

And

But capitalism is already giving the greedy capitalists an huge unfair advantage by giving them complete control over the commercial enterprise that they are investing in. If we shared that control among all those involved in and those fected by that enterprise (this is called socialism) then the government would not have to constantly oversee and step in to mitigate the damaging effects of the capitalist's greed. So why not just so away with capitalism all together, and adopt a socialist system wherein everyone involved in and effected by a commercial enterprise gets some say in how that enterprise is being conducted. Thus ensuring that the wealth generated by that enterprise gets shared among all those responsible for generating it. The investors will still invest, as they will still receive a profit on their investment (so long as the enterprise generates a profit) but they will no longer be able to maximize their profit by minimizing their costs (and responsibilities) to everyone else involved and effected by the commercial enterprise. And by everyone else involved and effected I mean labor, consumers, vendors, community and environment.

It has already happened. Corporate and individual wealth now owns and controls every senator and congressmen in the legislature through the legalized bribery of corporate lobbying. And for the Supreme Court to have approved this legalized bribery the court had to have been corrupted it as well.

Capitalism is defined as an ecnomic system by it's giving control of commercial enterprise to the capital investor through the myth of the investor's "total ownership". Our laws are intended to protect that control, not prevent it.

Greed never helps the poor. Greed poisons everything and everyone it touches. Greed is why we have so many poeple living in poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth. If we were to simply spread that wealth around better, and not allow the greedy to pile it up under their exclusive control, we could eliminate poverty completely. And still everyone would be living very well. Ending poverty is an issue of sharing control so as to better share the wealth. It's quite simple. But greed poisons our minds, and makes us no want to ever share any control with anyone else. And having money make it easier to make sure that we won't have to. The problem of poverty is the problem of greed (i.e., control through the accumulation and exploitation of wealth).

The laws exist to protect, enable, and ensure that control, not to limit it.

No. For one thing you never owned those trees and you never owned the land they grew on. You simply used the claim of your "ownership" to impose your control over them, and thereby over any increased value that can be generated from them. "Ownership" is an illusion used to confer control. None of us "owns" anything. We simply confer control over the things around us by agreeing to bestow "ownership" upon each other. Remember that capitalism is all about gaining complete control through the illusion of "ownership". The capital investors claim conplete control over whatever enterprise they invest in because they claim their investment gives them "ownership". And ownership is control. And all our laws are designed to protect that "right of control". A right they can then use to exploit everyone involved in the enterprise they claim to "own".

This is what needs to stop: this foolish illusion that "ownership" confers complete control. Because that control will always be abused for the sake of greed if we allow it. We need to develop a system that untethers ownership from total control, and gives some of that control to all those being effected by it. We can argue til the cows come home about how to achieve that. But there is no argument about it needing to be achieved. The disastrous result of our not doing so is all around us. Not just in terms of increasing poverty, but increasing lawlessness, increasing environmental destruction, increasing governmental corruption, increasing disunity among nations and among people within nations. This is not going to end well. And the only way to stop it is to start giving more control over the production and dissemination of wealth to the people being effected by it. Capitalist greed is destroying everything we've built and it's on track to destroy us all in the end.

My family starts a new enterprise.
That is unfair to the guy with a street cart?

We control the enterprise.
It's unfair that we don't give conttol to other people?

Starting a new business that provides jobs and services
is done for reasons of greed?

The successful business people like say Wsrren Buffdt or Sam
Walton who lived very simple lives were motivated by greed?

You've zero idea.

Scientists are not motivated by greed the way creationists think.
They are curious people who like what they are doing.

Entrepreneurs like what they do. It's interesting, fun, exciting.
Money is a sort of marker, but it's not the motive.

I personally have far more than I need.
I don't lead a flashy life .

In business, I'm a duffer, dilettante,
way casual or lazy a out investing. But it's fun. And the
money goes back into business growth.

That benefits everyone else more than it does me.
I get zero benefit from ew flats except some entertsinment.


All this is incomprehensible to you.

But on you go ranting about greed and proposing
utterly unworkable " solutions" .

 

[Revoltingest]

Because as I mentioned before, even though the United States has a capitalist economic system, there are plenty of Socialist programs in place; even for exceptions to the rule like your case.

They're "social welfare" programs.
Not "socialist" which is government owning the means of production.

 

[Revoltingest]

And

But capitalism is already giving the greedy capitalists an huge unfair advantage...

This still offers better results than giving greedy socialists a
huge unfair advantage, ie, they run not only the government,
but the whole economy. This has never turned out well,
eg, USSR, PRC, N Korea, Khmer Rouge, Cuba.
At least capitalism has many success stories.

 

[Kfox]

And

But capitalism is already giving the greedy capitalists an huge unfair advantage by giving them complete control over the commercial enterprise that they are investing in.

Complete control? There are plenty of capitalists who are in prison right now who will disagree with you. Investments must remain within the law of the land.

If we shared that control among all those involved in and those fected by that enterprise (this is called socialism) then the government would not have to constantly oversee and step in to mitigate the damaging effects of the capitalist's greed.

That’s because under Socialism it is the Government that is causing the damaging effects of socialist greed.

Thus ensuring that the wealth generated by that enterprise gets shared among all those responsible for generating it.

Again; under Capitalism, the wealth generated by the enterprise is always shared among those responsible for generating it. If you disagree, provide an example of your claim actually happening in the real world.

It has already happened. Corporate and individual wealth now owns and controls every senator and congressmen in the legislature through the legalized bribery of corporate lobbying. And for the Supreme Court to have approved this legalized bribery the court had to have been corrupted it as well.

Then why do so many senators and congressmen enact laws that make it more difficult for corporations to acquire wealth? Example; When our current President was running for office, he said publicly and made it very clear that Big Oil has no place in a Biden administration. Upon entering office, he immediately enacted policies making it much more difficult for Energy Companies to produce Oil, and guess what happened? The price of oil went through the roof! IOW if what you said were true, why is there case after case when politicians do things against corporations acquiring wealth?

Capitalism is defined as an ecnomic system by it's giving control of commercial enterprise to the capital investor through the myth of the investor's "total ownership". Our laws are intended to protect that control, not prevent it.

Total ownership does not equal total control.

Greed never helps the poor. Greed poisons everything and everyone it touches. Greed is why we have so many poeple living in poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth. If we were to simply spread that wealth around better, and not allow the greedy to pile it up under their exclusive control, we could eliminate poverty completely. And still everyone would be living very well. Ending poverty is an issue of sharing control so as to better share the wealth. It's quite simple. But greed poisons our minds, and makes us no want to ever share any control with anyone else. And having money make it easier to make sure that we won't have to. The problem of poverty is the problem of greed (i.e., control through the accumulation and exploitation of wealth).

If that is your definition of greed, I will say under capitalism, greed does not always motivate investment, and for those who are motivated by greed, the law does not allow it, and for those who try to invest using greed anyway, those are usually the investors who end up in prison. Such is not the case under socialism because the Government owns everything

The laws exist to protect, enable, and ensure that control, not to limit it.

If that’s the case, I challenge you to provide a single law in the USA that allows investors 100% complete control over commercial enterprise.

No. For one thing you never owned those trees and you never owned the land they grew on.

In my scenario, legally I owned the land and trees.

You simply used the claim of your "ownership" to impose your control over them, and thereby over any increased value that can be generated from them. "Ownership" is an illusion used to confer control. None of us "owns" anything. We simply confer control over the things around us by agreeing to bestow "ownership" upon each other.

Would you find it morally preferable if I neglected to harvest the fruit, allowed it to fall to the ground and become waste feeding no one, and preventing you the opportunity to make money?

 

[Audie]

Complete control? There are plenty of capitalists who are in prison right now who will disagree with you. Investments must remain within the law of the land.

That’s because under Socialism it is the Government that is causing the damaging effects of socialist greed.

Again; under Capitalism, the wealth generated by the enterprise is always shared among those responsible for generating it. If you disagree, provide an example of your claim actually happening in the real world.

Then why do so many senators and congressmen enact laws that make it more difficult for corporations to acquire wealth? Example; When our current President was running for office, he said publicly and made it very clear that Big Oil has no place in a Biden administration. Upon entering office, he immediately enacted policies making it much more difficult for Energy Companies to produce Oil, and guess what happened? The price of oil went through the roof! IOW if what you said were true, why is there case after case when politicians do things against corporations acquiring wealth?

Total ownership does not equal total control.

If that is your definition of greed, I will say under capitalism, greed does not always motivate investment, and for those who are motivated by greed, the law does not allow it, and for those who try to invest using greed anyway, those are usually the investors who end up in prison. Such is not the case under socialism because the Government owns everything

If that’s the case, I challenge you to provide a single law in the USA that allows investors 100% complete control over commercial enterprise.

In my scenario, legally I owned the land and trees.

Would you find it morally preferable if I neglected to harvest the fruit, allowed it to fall to the ground and become waste feeding no one, and preventing you the opportunity to make money?

Your friend missed his calling. In the Red Guard.

 

[Kfox]

They're "social welfare" programs.
Not "socialist" which is government owning the means of production.

Who owns the Social Security Administration? The Government or private enterprise

 

[Audie]

Who owns the Post Office and the public School systems? The Government or private enterprise

Those are hardly " means of production".

 

[Kfox]

Those are hardly " means of production".

I wasn't the one who said "means of production" I said "programs in place;".

 

[Audie]

I wasn't the one who said "means of production" I said "programs in place;".

We can settle for a mutual " whatevs"

 

[PureX]

My family starts a new enterprise.
That is unfair to the guy with a street cart?

We control the enterprise.
It's unfair that we don't give conttol to other people?

Starting a new business that provides jobs and services
is done for reasons of greed?

When that business enterprise begins to effect other people's well-being, those people need to have some control over it to protect their own well-being. And every business enterprise effects the well being of those who are engaged in it.

The successful business people like say Wsrren Buffdt or Sam
Walton who lived very simple lives were motivated by greed?

And ego. Greed is motivated by fear and ago. And they are both responsible for a great deal of human suffering because they used the poison of capitalism to exploit everything and everyone involved in commerce with them for their own gain.

Entrepreneurs like what they do. It's interesting, fun, exciting.
Money is a sort of marker, but it's not the motive.

Serial killers also like what they do. They consider it fun and exciting. And they also measure their superiority by the number of dead bodies they can claim.

I personally have far more than I need.
I don't lead a flashy life .

And yet it's still not enough, is it. You still use all that extra wealth to capture yet even more wealth. Because capturing other people's wealth is what the 'big money game' is all about. And the more of it you manage to amass the more superior you feel about yourself. Isn't that right?

In business, I'm a duffer, dilettante,
way casual or lazy a out investing. But it's fun. And the
money goes back into business growth.

Which you own and therefor control.

That benefits everyone else more than it does me.
I get zero benefit from ew flats except some entertsinment.

You control their well-being for your own entertainment. How nice.