# The Stock Market...



## Windship

...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.



Where does it take it? How?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it take it? How?
Click to expand...


I've taken plenty from the markets...the home we live in was paid for by them and they keep our children in private schools


----------



## saveliberty

Windship said:


> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.



Really?  Is that why the Dow Index is up to 18,000+?

It redistributes profits through an ownership program.  Some morons just expect the government to do that.


----------



## Windship

saveliberty said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Is that why the Dow Index is up to 18,000+?
> 
> It redistributes profits through an ownership program.  Some morons just expect the government to do that.
Click to expand...


Lol, you dont think I can answer that do you? Do you really want me to?


----------



## Windship

All I expect the government to do is perpetuate Democracy.


----------



## Windship

Can Anything Prevent a U.S. Stock Market Crash in 2016?


----------



## Windship

Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.


----------



## saveliberty

People make money in the stock market for any given twenty year time frame.  Take your excess labor rewards and benefit from the labor of others.


----------



## saveliberty

Windship said:


> Lol, you dont think I can answer that do you? Do you really want me to?



I am sure you will try and fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.



Unfettered socialism has failed time and time again ...


----------



## Picaro

When they drop the limits on shorts, get rid of 'corporate personhood' scam and limited liability, and shareholders have to eat losses out of their own pockets and pay damages and criminal fines for the actions of the companies they pretend to own like real business owners, then they can snivel and whine all about how 'valuable' it is when they have to subject themselves to the 'free market'; until then, stocks are just lottery tickets and food stamps for the rich. In the mean time, they need to pay taxes on their unearned income at the same rates gamblers pay on their winnings. They are getting a lot for nothing and do nothing to produce for the companies they own shares in, it's just another game of trying to get something for nothing.


----------



## Picaro

Windship said:


> Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.



Exactly; privatizing the profits while socializing the costs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Picaro said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; privatizing the profits while socializing the costs.
Click to expand...


You have any examples where this occurred?


----------



## Windship

Let me ask: how much is oil stock and how much do I need to invest to make it worth while?


----------



## Windship

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; privatizing the profits while socializing the costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have any examples where this occurred?
Click to expand...


The entire system of unfettered capitalism is inherently flawed and without gov money, is impossible. And every time it has to be bailed out is a failure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; privatizing the profits while socializing the costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have any examples where this occurred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire system of unfettered capitalism is inherently flawed and without gov money, is impossible. And every time it has to be bailed out is a failure.
Click to expand...


So you can't provide any examples. Interesting.


----------



## Windship

No, whats interesting is you denial. Im not surprised.


----------



## Windship

Lmao...the entirecorporate world knows its going to fail but  you....you say all's well. THATS the problem. You.


----------



## Windship

Now, will someone tell me the price of oil stocks?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> No, whats interesting is you denial. Im not surprised.



Denial? I just want proof of the claim.
Convince me.
And where is this unfettered capitalism? Besides your imagination.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> Now, will someone tell me the price of oil stocks?



$87.44
$35.93
$92.92


Glad to help.


----------



## Windship

You pay no fed income tax but push that responsibility to the do nothing shareholders, huh?


----------



## Windship

ty


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dude, a little early for shrooms, eh?


----------



## Windship

is that 35.93 royal dutch oil?


----------



## Windship

Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.


----------



## Windship

*10 Moral Crises That Have Resulted From Unfettered, Free Market Capitalism*
On the free market it is legal and customary to violate the dignity of our fellow human beings.
_By_ _Christian Felber_ / Zed Books
_December 2, 2015_
Print
106 COMMENTS






Photo Credit: Olivier Le Moal/Shutterstock.com

_The following is an excerpt from Change Everything: Creating an Economy for the Common Good by Christian Felber (Zed Books, 2015): _

When I ask students attending my lectures at the Vienna University of Economics and Business what they understand human dignity to be, I frequently encounter a general, awkward silence. The students do not appear to have heard or learned anything about it in the course of their studies. This is all the more alarming considering the fact that dignity is the highest value: it is the first-named value in countless constitutions and it forms the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dignity signifies value: the same, unconditional, unalienable value of all human beings. Dignity requires no “achievement” other than existence. It is from the equal value of all human beings that our equality derives – in the sense that all human beings living in a democracy should have the same liberties, rights and opportunities. And only if everyone really does have the same liberties is the condition fulfilled for enabling everyone to be really free.

Immanuel Kant wrote that human dignity can only be preserved in daily life and interactions if we deem and treat each other as being of equal value: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [emphasis Kant’s]

 By contrast, on the free market it is legal and customary to instrumentalize our fellow human beings, violating their dignity because our goal is not to protect it. Our goal is to gain personal advantage, and in many cases this can be achieved more easily if we take advantage of others and violate their dignity. What is decisive is my attitude and my priority: am I interested in the greatest good and the preservation of the dignity of all, which is something which affects me automatically and which I benefit from as well, or am I primarily interested in my own welfare and my own advantage, which others might, but will not necessarily draw benefit from? If we pursue our own advantage as our supreme goal, the customary practice is to use others as means to achieve this goal and to take advantage of them accordingly. For this reason, Smith’s perversion of goal and by-product leads to widespread violations of human dignity and the systematic restriction of the liberty of many.

*Trust Is More Important than Efficiency*

If we must constantly fear that our fellow human beings will take advantage of us in the market as soon as they are in a position to do so, something else will be systematically destroyed: trust. Some economists say this doesn’t matter because the economy focuses completely on efficiency. But such a view must be disputed, for trust is the highest social and cultural good we know. Trust is what holds societies together from the inside – not efficiency! Imagine a society in which you can trust every person completely – would that not be the society with the highest quality of life? And imagine the opposite, a society in which you had to mistrust everyone – would that not be the society with the lowest quality of life?

The interim conclusion to be drawn is radical: so long as a market economy is based on pursuit of profit and competition and the mutual exploitation that results from it, it is reconcilable with neither human dignity nor liberty. It systematically destroys societal trust in the hope that the efficiency it yields will surpass that achieved by any other form of economy. When such matters are pointed out to mainstream economists three familiar responses are commonly elicited:

1. There is no alternative to the market economy; this is common knowledge and thus all further discussion is unnecessary.

2. Whoever does not acknowledge this wants to catapult society back into poverty and the nineteenth century or drive it straight to communism, and we all know how that ended.

3. The market economy is the most productive form of economy there is; history has proved this. Competition spurs human beings to the highest levels of performance – this is in addition to the fact that it is rooted in human nature and is thus unavoidable.

We need to take a closer look at this last fundamental myth of the market economy: “Competition is in most cases the most efficient method we know,” writes Nobel Prize laureate for economics Friedrich August von Hayek.6 If a “Nobel Prize laureate” says this, it must be true – although there is no Nobel Prize for economics. I have tried to find the empirical studies which led Hayek to this insight but I have found none.

I explored other economists as well, for in the scientific community it is customary for colleagues to cite each other. And yet I found nothing here either. None of the economists who have won a Nobel Prize have ever proved through a study that “competition is the most efficient method we know”. This cornerstone of economics is a mere claim which is believed by the large majority of economists. And capitalism and free enterprise, the world’s dominant economic model for the past 250 years, is based on this belief. Regarding the crucial question, does competition create stronger motivation than any other method? a plethora of studies have been conducted in numerous disciplines (educational science, social psychology, game theory, neurobiology) 369 of which studies were evaluated in a meta-study. And of those with a clear result an amazing majority of 87 percent found that competition is not the most efficient method we know; cooperation is. 

... If honest economists actually wanted to build the market economy on the basis of “the most efficient method” there is and they took notice of the current state of scientific research, they would have to base it on structural cooperation and intrinsic motivation. The fact that mainstream economists do not do this is an indication that science and insight play no role here but rather what dominates is the desire to underpin existing hegemonic structures ideologically.

Those with power are served very well by competition: if we, as human beings, do not learn to cooperate and act in the spirit of solidarity we will not call power relations into question but rather will attempt, instead, to elbow our way into the realm of power and the social elite. In doing so, the majority will fall by the wayside. And the social climate will be poisoned to ever-increasing degrees because we will constantly take advantage of others, exploit and debase them in the pursuit of our own advantage, weakening and destroying trust and social bonds.

*The Consequences of the Pursuit of Profit and Competition: The 10 Crises of Capitalism *

Contrary to the prognoses and promises held out by the theory of free enterprise, the pursuit of “self-interest” as the supreme goal of competition leads to the following:

*1. The concentration and misuse of power*. The system-immanent pressure for growth – the pressure to become ever larger and more powerful and to ultimately obtain the status of a “global player” – leads to the emergence of gigantic corporations which misuse market power, close off markets, block innovation, and devour competitors or push them out of the market. In using such phrases as “brimming war chests”, “hostile takeovers” or “kill your competitors”,9 the market idiom reveals what is ultimately at stake when it comes to the pursuit of one’s own advantage.

*2. Suppression of competition and the building of cartels.*Once only a few players are left, adversarial conflict can suddenly turn into tactical, but not intrinsic cooperation. For the objective remains the same: maximum profit. If power allows the formation of cartels and oligopolies then preference will be given to this strategy because it is more effective than competition. Competition produces losers; cooperation produces only winners. This is why branch enterprises cooperate as soon as they can (this being inadvertent and unappealing proof of the superiority of cooperation – unappealing because in this case cooperation is not a goal but rather a means of achieving a wrong purpose, namely to take advantage of others). The recent bank bailouts show that the present economic model is not a matter of competition and free enterprise at all but rather of (governments) securing profits and power: this is the reason why the business and political elite cooperate and eliminate the competition – competition evidently not being the objective after all.

*3. Competition between locations*. States systematically try to attract enterprises and improve conditions for the pursuit of profit; the consequences are wage dumping, social dumping, fiscal dumping and environmental dumping, preferential treatment of global corporations over small local companies, and enticing special offers such as banking secrecy and removal of banking supervision because these are viewed as “locational advantages”. If the egoism of enterprises infects states, nationalism will flourish in the midst of alleged “globalization”.

*4. Inefficient pricing.* Prices are often not the rational result of the activities of rational market participants but rather the expression of power relations. The power created by supply and demand is often very unequally distributed, which is why prices often reflect the interests of the powerful rather than actual costs or values. The care of children, sick persons, the elderly and gardens often is not rewarded financially at all, for example, whereas the maintenance of hedge funds is often astronomically expensive even though they have a negative impact on society.

*5. Social polarization and fear.* The market economy is a power economy. The larger – the more global – “free competition” is, the greater will be the imbalance of power between the protagonists, and with it the inequalities and the gap between the rich and the poor. In the USA the best-paid manager now earns 350,000 times the legal minimum wage.10 This has nothing to do with “rational pricing” or with efficiency or justice: it is exclusively a matter of power. As a result, trust in society is declining and fear is rising. In the USA, trust among people has declined from 60 percent in 1960 to less than 40 percent in 2004.11 The German Anxiety Index has risen from 24 percent in 1991 to 45 percent in the past few years.

*6. Failure to satisfy basic needs and reduce hunger.*The explosion in the numbers of the famine-stricken shows how little globalized market capitalism is capable of satisfying even basic needs and thus protecting human rights. In the early 1990s hunger affected fewer than 800 million people, but in 2009, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported that 1.023 billion were affected; between 2011 and 2013 the figure dropped to 843 million.13 Satisfaction of basic needs is not the goal of capitalism; maximizing profit is. In many cases this leads to a situation in which basic needs that have no purchasing power are not met (with nutrition coming first, followed by medical care, housing and education), whereas purchasing power for which no need exists requires the “invention” of new needs (for example addictive foods, cosmetic surgery, SUVs). Capitalism systematically misdirects creativity and investments.

*7. Ecological destruction.* Since the supreme goal of capitalism is to increase financial capital (and not the common good), other goals such as environmental protection slide down the list of priorities. In its Millennium Synthesis Report the UNO ascertained that the health condition of almost all planetary ecosystems (oceans, fields, rivers, mountains, forests) deteriorated between 1950 and 2000. They are approaching their breaking point and sooner or later they will collapse. Then the “performance” of those ecosystems which are necessary to sustain human life will be in danger, impacting on climate stability, the regulation of humidity and temperature, the control of diseases and vermin, soil fertility and absorptive capacity. Capitalism is destructive because it strives blindly to increase financial capital rather than the natural foundations of human life and the economy.

*8. Loss of meaning*. Since the objective of capitalism is to accumulate material values, it quickly overshoots the side effect of satisfying basic material needs, subjugating all other values – quality of relationships and environment, time prosperity, creativity, autonomy – in the process. In the EU, working hours increased again by 8 percent between 1995 and 2005.14 According to a poll conducted by Gallup, in the USA 70 percent of American employees are unengaged with their workplaces or even actively disengaged.15 More and more people become increasingly alienated from their true desires and ideals and instead become addicted to consumption. With 24 million individuals affected, the compulsion to shop has become a pandemic in the USA.16 In Austria, almost half of young people aged between 14 and 24 years are “significantly at risk of becoming shopping-addicted”, with 10 percent “strongly endangered”.17 This is a kind of success in capitalist terms: the US economy invests more than $11 billion in its publicity attack on children.

*9. Erosion of values*. In today’s business world the most antisocial people make it to the top because what counts is optimization of monetary targets: people who are “more able” to filter out all other human, social and ecological goals are culturally “selected”. Today egoists are particularly able to be “successful”. If the business world systematically rewards egoism and competitive behaviour and people are viewed as successful if they work their way up in this dynamic of incentives, these values will rub off on all realms of society, starting with politics and the media and ultimately affecting our interpersonal relationships as well. As the German social psychologist Erich Fromm put it, “The capitalistic character shapes the societal character”.

*10. Shutdown of democracy.*When pursuit of profit and self-interest are the highest goals, business protagonists do their utmost to reach these goals. Not only interpersonal relationships, personal talents and natural resources are used as means to this end: needless to say, democracy is used as well. Since the times of Adam Smith the ethics of “self-interest” have placed this above the common good, the hope being that benefit to the common good will result as a by-product. The reality looks very different, however. Global enterprises, banks and investment funds become so powerful that they succeed in using lobbying, media ownership, political party financing and public–private partnerships to make parliaments and governments serve their particular interests rather than those of the common good. Thus democracy becomes the last and most prominent victim of “free markets”.


----------



## Windship

To say that unfettered corporate free market capitalism is a healthy practice for our world, is ludicrous. Ask goldman sachs why millions of people starve every year.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Windship said:


> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.



^ Why Progressive economies have a 100% Fail rate no matter the size or scope


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Windship said:


> To say that unfettered corporate free market capitalism is a healthy practice for our world, is ludicrous. Ask goldman sachs why millions of people starve every year.



Please give us one (1) example in the US of "unfettered corporate free market capitalism"


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Windship said:


> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.



The idea of the stock market is to provide a clearing house for buying and selling ownership in publicly traded companies. At best, it provides an efficient market for this purpose, and is beneficial because it allows for efficient capital allocation/distribution to companies who can raise money for growth.

People who are anti-capitalist will neither  understand this concept nor accept it. They will highlight the various problems which inevitably arise from any system when some unscrupulously well informed and connected participants take advantage of some of the poorly informed. That is not a valid reason to reject capitalism, because bad people will take advantage of uninformed people in any Econnomic system.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> is that 35.93 royal dutch oil?



No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.



 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Windship said:


> *10 Moral Crises That Have Resulted From Unfettered, Free Market Capitalism*
> On the free market it is legal and customary to violate the dignity of our fellow human beings.
> _By_ _Christian Felber_ / Zed Books
> _December 2, 2015_
> Print
> 106 COMMENTS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo Credit: Olivier Le Moal/Shutterstock.com
> 
> _The following is an excerpt from Change Everything: Creating an Economy for the Common Good by Christian Felber (Zed Books, 2015): _
> 
> When I ask students attending my lectures at the Vienna University of Economics and Business what they understand human dignity to be, I frequently encounter a general, awkward silence. The students do not appear to have heard or learned anything about it in the course of their studies. This is all the more alarming considering the fact that dignity is the highest value: it is the first-named value in countless constitutions and it forms the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dignity signifies value: the same, unconditional, unalienable value of all human beings. Dignity requires no “achievement” other than existence. It is from the equal value of all human beings that our equality derives – in the sense that all human beings living in a democracy should have the same liberties, rights and opportunities. And only if everyone really does have the same liberties is the condition fulfilled for enabling everyone to be really free.
> 
> Immanuel Kant wrote that human dignity can only be preserved in daily life and interactions if we deem and treat each other as being of equal value: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [emphasis Kant’s]
> 
> By contrast, on the free market it is legal and customary to instrumentalize our fellow human beings, violating their dignity because our goal is not to protect it. Our goal is to gain personal advantage, and in many cases this can be achieved more easily if we take advantage of others and violate their dignity. What is decisive is my attitude and my priority: am I interested in the greatest good and the preservation of the dignity of all, which is something which affects me automatically and which I benefit from as well, or am I primarily interested in my own welfare and my own advantage, which others might, but will not necessarily draw benefit from? If we pursue our own advantage as our supreme goal, the customary practice is to use others as means to achieve this goal and to take advantage of them accordingly. For this reason, Smith’s perversion of goal and by-product leads to widespread violations of human dignity and the systematic restriction of the liberty of many.
> 
> *Trust Is More Important than Efficiency*
> 
> If we must constantly fear that our fellow human beings will take advantage of us in the market as soon as they are in a position to do so, something else will be systematically destroyed: trust. Some economists say this doesn’t matter because the economy focuses completely on efficiency. But such a view must be disputed, for trust is the highest social and cultural good we know. Trust is what holds societies together from the inside – not efficiency! Imagine a society in which you can trust every person completely – would that not be the society with the highest quality of life? And imagine the opposite, a society in which you had to mistrust everyone – would that not be the society with the lowest quality of life?
> 
> The interim conclusion to be drawn is radical: so long as a market economy is based on pursuit of profit and competition and the mutual exploitation that results from it, it is reconcilable with neither human dignity nor liberty. It systematically destroys societal trust in the hope that the efficiency it yields will surpass that achieved by any other form of economy. When such matters are pointed out to mainstream economists three familiar responses are commonly elicited:
> 
> 1. There is no alternative to the market economy; this is common knowledge and thus all further discussion is unnecessary.
> 
> 2. Whoever does not acknowledge this wants to catapult society back into poverty and the nineteenth century or drive it straight to communism, and we all know how that ended.
> 
> 3. The market economy is the most productive form of economy there is; history has proved this. Competition spurs human beings to the highest levels of performance – this is in addition to the fact that it is rooted in human nature and is thus unavoidable.
> 
> We need to take a closer look at this last fundamental myth of the market economy: “Competition is in most cases the most efficient method we know,” writes Nobel Prize laureate for economics Friedrich August von Hayek.6 If a “Nobel Prize laureate” says this, it must be true – although there is no Nobel Prize for economics. I have tried to find the empirical studies which led Hayek to this insight but I have found none.
> 
> I explored other economists as well, for in the scientific community it is customary for colleagues to cite each other. And yet I found nothing here either. None of the economists who have won a Nobel Prize have ever proved through a study that “competition is the most efficient method we know”. This cornerstone of economics is a mere claim which is believed by the large majority of economists. And capitalism and free enterprise, the world’s dominant economic model for the past 250 years, is based on this belief. Regarding the crucial question, does competition create stronger motivation than any other method? a plethora of studies have been conducted in numerous disciplines (educational science, social psychology, game theory, neurobiology) 369 of which studies were evaluated in a meta-study. And of those with a clear result an amazing majority of 87 percent found that competition is not the most efficient method we know; cooperation is.
> 
> ... If honest economists actually wanted to build the market economy on the basis of “the most efficient method” there is and they took notice of the current state of scientific research, they would have to base it on structural cooperation and intrinsic motivation. The fact that mainstream economists do not do this is an indication that science and insight play no role here but rather what dominates is the desire to underpin existing hegemonic structures ideologically.
> 
> Those with power are served very well by competition: if we, as human beings, do not learn to cooperate and act in the spirit of solidarity we will not call power relations into question but rather will attempt, instead, to elbow our way into the realm of power and the social elite. In doing so, the majority will fall by the wayside. And the social climate will be poisoned to ever-increasing degrees because we will constantly take advantage of others, exploit and debase them in the pursuit of our own advantage, weakening and destroying trust and social bonds.
> 
> *The Consequences of the Pursuit of Profit and Competition: The 10 Crises of Capitalism *
> 
> Contrary to the prognoses and promises held out by the theory of free enterprise, the pursuit of “self-interest” as the supreme goal of competition leads to the following:
> 
> *1. The concentration and misuse of power*. The system-immanent pressure for growth – the pressure to become ever larger and more powerful and to ultimately obtain the status of a “global player” – leads to the emergence of gigantic corporations which misuse market power, close off markets, block innovation, and devour competitors or push them out of the market. In using such phrases as “brimming war chests”, “hostile takeovers” or “kill your competitors”,9 the market idiom reveals what is ultimately at stake when it comes to the pursuit of one’s own advantage.
> 
> *2. Suppression of competition and the building of cartels.*Once only a few players are left, adversarial conflict can suddenly turn into tactical, but not intrinsic cooperation. For the objective remains the same: maximum profit. If power allows the formation of cartels and oligopolies then preference will be given to this strategy because it is more effective than competition. Competition produces losers; cooperation produces only winners. This is why branch enterprises cooperate as soon as they can (this being inadvertent and unappealing proof of the superiority of cooperation – unappealing because in this case cooperation is not a goal but rather a means of achieving a wrong purpose, namely to take advantage of others). The recent bank bailouts show that the present economic model is not a matter of competition and free enterprise at all but rather of (governments) securing profits and power: this is the reason why the business and political elite cooperate and eliminate the competition – competition evidently not being the objective after all.
> 
> *3. Competition between locations*. States systematically try to attract enterprises and improve conditions for the pursuit of profit; the consequences are wage dumping, social dumping, fiscal dumping and environmental dumping, preferential treatment of global corporations over small local companies, and enticing special offers such as banking secrecy and removal of banking supervision because these are viewed as “locational advantages”. If the egoism of enterprises infects states, nationalism will flourish in the midst of alleged “globalization”.
> 
> *4. Inefficient pricing.* Prices are often not the rational result of the activities of rational market participants but rather the expression of power relations. The power created by supply and demand is often very unequally distributed, which is why prices often reflect the interests of the powerful rather than actual costs or values. The care of children, sick persons, the elderly and gardens often is not rewarded financially at all, for example, whereas the maintenance of hedge funds is often astronomically expensive even though they have a negative impact on society.
> 
> *5. Social polarization and fear.* The market economy is a power economy. The larger – the more global – “free competition” is, the greater will be the imbalance of power between the protagonists, and with it the inequalities and the gap between the rich and the poor. In the USA the best-paid manager now earns 350,000 times the legal minimum wage.10 This has nothing to do with “rational pricing” or with efficiency or justice: it is exclusively a matter of power. As a result, trust in society is declining and fear is rising. In the USA, trust among people has declined from 60 percent in 1960 to less than 40 percent in 2004.11 The German Anxiety Index has risen from 24 percent in 1991 to 45 percent in the past few years.
> 
> *6. Failure to satisfy basic needs and reduce hunger.*The explosion in the numbers of the famine-stricken shows how little globalized market capitalism is capable of satisfying even basic needs and thus protecting human rights. In the early 1990s hunger affected fewer than 800 million people, but in 2009, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported that 1.023 billion were affected; between 2011 and 2013 the figure dropped to 843 million.13 Satisfaction of basic needs is not the goal of capitalism; maximizing profit is. In many cases this leads to a situation in which basic needs that have no purchasing power are not met (with nutrition coming first, followed by medical care, housing and education), whereas purchasing power for which no need exists requires the “invention” of new needs (for example addictive foods, cosmetic surgery, SUVs). Capitalism systematically misdirects creativity and investments.
> 
> *7. Ecological destruction.* Since the supreme goal of capitalism is to increase financial capital (and not the common good), other goals such as environmental protection slide down the list of priorities. In its Millennium Synthesis Report the UNO ascertained that the health condition of almost all planetary ecosystems (oceans, fields, rivers, mountains, forests) deteriorated between 1950 and 2000. They are approaching their breaking point and sooner or later they will collapse. Then the “performance” of those ecosystems which are necessary to sustain human life will be in danger, impacting on climate stability, the regulation of humidity and temperature, the control of diseases and vermin, soil fertility and absorptive capacity. Capitalism is destructive because it strives blindly to increase financial capital rather than the natural foundations of human life and the economy.
> 
> *8. Loss of meaning*. Since the objective of capitalism is to accumulate material values, it quickly overshoots the side effect of satisfying basic material needs, subjugating all other values – quality of relationships and environment, time prosperity, creativity, autonomy – in the process. In the EU, working hours increased again by 8 percent between 1995 and 2005.14 According to a poll conducted by Gallup, in the USA 70 percent of American employees are unengaged with their workplaces or even actively disengaged.15 More and more people become increasingly alienated from their true desires and ideals and instead become addicted to consumption. With 24 million individuals affected, the compulsion to shop has become a pandemic in the USA.16 In Austria, almost half of young people aged between 14 and 24 years are “significantly at risk of becoming shopping-addicted”, with 10 percent “strongly endangered”.17 This is a kind of success in capitalist terms: the US economy invests more than $11 billion in its publicity attack on children.
> 
> *9. Erosion of values*. In today’s business world the most antisocial people make it to the top because what counts is optimization of monetary targets: people who are “more able” to filter out all other human, social and ecological goals are culturally “selected”. Today egoists are particularly able to be “successful”. If the business world systematically rewards egoism and competitive behaviour and people are viewed as successful if they work their way up in this dynamic of incentives, these values will rub off on all realms of society, starting with politics and the media and ultimately affecting our interpersonal relationships as well. As the German social psychologist Erich Fromm put it, “The capitalistic character shapes the societal character”.
> 
> *10. Shutdown of democracy.*When pursuit of profit and self-interest are the highest goals, business protagonists do their utmost to reach these goals. Not only interpersonal relationships, personal talents and natural resources are used as means to this end: needless to say, democracy is used as well. Since the times of Adam Smith the ethics of “self-interest” have placed this above the common good, the hope being that benefit to the common good will result as a by-product. The reality looks very different, however. Global enterprises, banks and investment funds become so powerful that they succeed in using lobbying, media ownership, political party financing and public–private partnerships to make parliaments and governments serve their particular interests rather than those of the common good. Thus democracy becomes the last and most prominent victim of “free markets”.



This is just a friendly warning dude- keep reading that shit and you are doomed to unhappiness, low to middle class life style at best, and constant frustration. But hey, it's your life. I know a few people like you who can't comprehend economics, and try to overcome this lack of comprehension with emotionally based logic, which of course is somewhat of an oxymoronic approach. I mean really, emotionally based logic?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Windship said:


> To say that unfettered corporate free market capitalism is a healthy practice for our world, is ludicrous. Ask goldman sachs why millions of people starve every year.



You are real hip on that term "unfettered capitalism". Please provide examples in this country where it exist at all, and I am sure the reasonable people on this thread will blow you to smithereens. I don't expect you to do this, because from reading your post on this thread, I believe you to be a mindless troll.


----------



## boedicca

Windship said:


> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.



How economically illiterate.


----------



## Windship

CrusaderFrank said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Why Progressive economies have a 100% Fail rate no matter the size or scope
Click to expand...


Yeah?...like Finland, iceland, sweden, norway??


----------



## Windship

BuckToothMoron said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that unfettered corporate free market capitalism is a healthy practice for our world, is ludicrous. Ask goldman sachs why millions of people starve every year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are real hip on that term "unfettered capitalism". Please provide examples in this country where it exist at all, and I am sure the reasonable people on this thread will blow you to smithereens. I don't expect you to do this, because from reading your post on this thread, I believe you to be a mindless troll.
Click to expand...


What a stupid question. Lmao. No. Your here because Im NOT  a mindless troll.


----------



## Windship

boedicca said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How economically illiterate.
Click to expand...


The stock market manufactures nothing. It reflects profit made or lost by publicly traded corporations and biz from all over the world.


----------



## boedicca

Windship said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How economically illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stock market manufactures nothing. It reflects profit made or lost by publicly traded corporations and biz.
Click to expand...



You sad little booby.   Stocks are shares of ownership.  Without capital, most companies would not exist:  no products, no jobs, no taxes.   Many average people are invested in stocks for their retirement, either through 401Ks, IRAs, or pension systems.  Take away stocks, and their retirement prospects dim considerably.

If you want to focus on an issue, learn something about ZIRP and how it has caused massive asset inflation and punished savers. That's Big Government Cronyism - and a far bigger threat than your grandma having some shares of IBM.


----------



## Windship

BuckToothMoron said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of the stock market is to provide a clearing house for buying and selling ownership in publicly traded companies. At best, it provides an efficient market for this purpose, and is beneficial because it allows for efficient capital allocation/distribution to companies who can raise money for growth.
> 
> People who are anti-capitalist will neither  understand this concept nor accept it. They will highlight the various problems which inevitably arise from any system when some unscrupulously well informed and connected participants take advantage of some of the poorly informed. That is not a valid reason to reject capitalism, because bad people will take advantage of uninformed people in any Econnomic system.
Click to expand...


Lmao. No. Youve got it all wrong...unfettered capitalism has no allegiance to any country(even their own)anything or anyone but profit.Growth, lol, define "growth" for me ok? Your hoping that by repeating the same thing over and over again people will believe you. I understand capitalism and unfettered capitalism. Capitalism is what we had between 1945 and 1970. What we hqave now, in UNFETTERED capitalism is a bunch of criminal swindlers and cheats running the world. Thats what we have now. People like you. An example?....ok..
The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Windship said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Why Progressive economies have a 100% Fail rate no matter the size or scope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah?...like Finland, iceland, sweden, norway??
Click to expand...


They're not Progressive, you fuckers just keep lying about them

Think: Detroit, Illinois, Newark, Baltimore


----------



## Windship

boedicca said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How economically illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stock market manufactures nothing. It reflects profit made or lost by publicly traded corporations and biz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sad little booby.   Stocks are shares of ownership.  Without capital, most companies would not exist:  no products, no jobs, no taxes.   Many average people are invested in stocks for their retirement, either through 401Ks, IRAs, or pension systems.  Take away stocks, and their retirement prospects dim considerably.
> 
> If you want to focus on an issue, learn something about ZIRP and how it has caused massive asset inflation and punished savers. That's Big Government Cronyism - and a far bigger threat than your grandma having some shares of IBM.
Click to expand...


Lol. You guys are desperate, huh? You have changed the topic?...ok no problem.
Punishing savers? Its ok that banks can gamble with people's savings moneys though, right?
Let me tell you something...show mw a biz that makes a profit without it workers.
Another traitor capitalist that shits on the same people that made them what they have. Scumbags.
ZIRP?  Makes more profit for the banks. Blame your fucking financial lobbyists for that. Ummm, arent the banks making more profit because of that?
And...what do you think CAUSES low interest rates? The population has lost its buying power because of low wages so now the only way to live is on credit. Unfettered capitalism caused that by allowing themselves to be bought off by the same corporations. The average income for a working stiff is 32,000 per year. ..the same as in 1980.


----------



## boedicca

Windship said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...builds nothing. The stock market only takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How economically illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stock market manufactures nothing. It reflects profit made or lost by publicly traded corporations and biz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sad little booby.   Stocks are shares of ownership.  Without capital, most companies would not exist:  no products, no jobs, no taxes.   Many average people are invested in stocks for their retirement, either through 401Ks, IRAs, or pension systems.  Take away stocks, and their retirement prospects dim considerably.
> 
> If you want to focus on an issue, learn something about ZIRP and how it has caused massive asset inflation and punished savers. That's Big Government Cronyism - and a far bigger threat than your grandma having some shares of IBM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You guys are desperate, huh? You have changed the topic?...ok no problem.
> Punishing savers? Its ok that banks can gamble with people's savings moneys though, right?
> Let me tell you something...show mw a biz that makes a profit without it workers.
> Another traitor capitalist that shits on the same people that made them what they have. Scumbags.
> ZIRP?  Makes more profit for the banks. Blame your fucking financial lobbyists for that. Ummm, arent the banks making more profit because of that?
> And...what do you think CAUSES low interest rates? The population has lost its buying power because of low wages so now the only way to live is on credit. Unfettered capitalism caused that by allowing themselves to be bought off by the same corporations.
Click to expand...


Oh Puh-leeze.  The U.S. hasn't had unfettered Capitalism in over a century, perhaps longer.


----------



## Windship

The modern day min wage is said to should be at 27usd hr to be equal to 1980.


----------



## boedicca

And if you have enough intellectual curiosity, cognitive ability and reading comprehension, how about attempting to GROK just how FETTERED we are:

Federal Laws, Policy & Regulations


----------



## Windship

*The Risks of Unfettered Capitalism*


Another View

By JEFF SOVERN AUG. 15, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

cigarettes, predatory lenders, Volkswagen diesel emissions, Takata airbags, General Motors ignition switches, Trump University, Vioxx, asbestos or other products.

With some of those examples, providers knew of problems long before they were disclosed but kept selling their wares, sometimes even covering up problems, all for profit.

Our economic system uses three main mechanisms to rein in misbehaving companies. One is that businesses themselves may eschew dangerous choices, either because of their decision-makers’ consciences or out of self-interest, because they fear that their reputation — and therefore, sales — would be injured by damaging disclosures. But businesses also face countervailing pressure to generate profits. If competitors get away with cutting corners, more ethical companies that incur higher costs and so must charge higher prices may lose market share. As a result, companies may feel pushed to make choices that impose risks on consumers.

Another check on business misconduct is consumers themselves. Consumers can choose not to buy dangerous products, and declining cigarette sales indicate that many have.

But while consumer decision-making can be a potent restraint on matters consumers pay attention to — like price — consumers can’t protect themselves against hazards they don’t know about. Sometimes consumers can’t understand the risks of their conduct, which may help explain why so many consumers lost their homes in the subprime crisis. Other times companies conceal their misconduct, as Volkswagen did with diesel emissions. Or companies may create enough doubt that consumers can’t determine the truth, as tobacco companies did with the health dangers of smoking. Consumers who want to continue enjoying a product may choose to believe the company so they can continue doing so. Many smokers didjust that.

The third protection is regulation. Lawmakers can study problems and require businesses to protect consumers against risks that ordinary people might not anticipate. For example, consumers getting credit cards need not master the meaning of universal default or double-cycle billing because Congress has forbidden credit card companies from employing those methods.

But regulation is under constant attack. The Republican Party platformproposes a “regulatory budget” that would limit the costs regulation can impose on the economy. Many of the attacks take place outside consumers’ view, in arcane congressional bills or when bank lobbyists are named to head government agencies. But though out of sight might mean out of mind, it doesn’t mean nonexistent.

One problem with regulation is that often the people who benefit from it — consumers — are not the people who feel most keenly the burdens it imposes. The businesses that must comply with regulations no longer make the money they once made from selling injurious products. Even if their products did not cause problems, they may now have to spend money complying with regulations. Consequently, many businesses and their lobbyists fight hard against regulation. They argue that regulation raises prices and restricts access to things consumers would otherwise have. Sometimes, that is so. But other times it isn’t, and even when it is, society is sometimes better off as a result.

Critics of regulation don’t just attack its costs. They also ask who is better able to protect your family: you or a government employee. Perhaps the people who lost their homes because of predatory lending would have been better off if policy makers had decided earlier that sometimes the answer is a bureaucrat.

The more we discard regulation, the more consumers must depend on companies to protect us from risks from their products that consumers cannot readily understand or don’t have time to study. And as the examples above indicate, companies sometimes succumb to the incentive to dispense with that protection.

Many voters will base their decision in this year’s election on the character of the candidates, or other issues, like immigration or foreign policy. But how we protect people though regulation is also very much on the ballot. When you hear complaints about too much regulation, don’t forget to ask what harm that regulation may prevent. Capitalism lifts standards of living — but regulated capitalism keeps us well enough to enjoy a higher standard of living.

Jeff Sovern is a professor of law at St. John’s University School of Law and co-coordinator of the Consumer Law and Policy Blog.

Continue reading the main story


----------



## boedicca

Windship said:


> The modern day min wage is said to should be at 27usd hr to be equal to 1980.




Tell that to your UberMaster Prog Elites and the Federal Reserve.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> The modern day min wage is said to should be at 27usd hr to be equal to 1980.



Only by idiots who can't do math.


----------



## Windship

Lol, wtf are you talking about? Im talking about corporate capitalism, not regional or national, jeeze! But you want to change the subject again?....ok...


----------



## Windship

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day min wage is said to should be at 27usd hr to be equal to 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only by idiots who can't do math.
Click to expand...


In 1971, I payed rent, ran a car and fed myself on min wage. Min wage was designed to keep you paying bills while out of work which may last, then, a month. I could go out any day of the week and get a job and start tomorrow. Now? Corporations want every penny I have and will stop at NOTHING to get it.
Ok, so, YOU do the math then big mouth. What should an adjusted min wage be? So....you tell me what happened?


----------



## Windship

Oh, and, Im not an idiot. The fact that you bastards are talking to me is proof of that.


----------



## Windship

You bastards always want more. Ya got money, houses boats, planes etc and I dont have a problem with that. I have a prblem with you pissing down my back and then tellin' me its rainin'.....when I fucking know that it isnt.


----------



## Windship

And ya got more than you could spend in generations but you want more, more, more, more....even to the point of killing people and children.
You fuckers are evil. Remember. Whats coming was caused by you. I suggest that you cocksuckers arm yourselves cause what you are causing to happen will happen as sure as the sun will rise. You cant fuck over people and expect to get away with it forever. Sooner or later the populations will have had enough. There will be another civil war here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day min wage is said to should be at 27usd hr to be equal to 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only by idiots who can't do math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1971, I payed rent, ran a car and fed myself on min wage. Min wage was designed to keep you paying bills while out of work which may last, then, a month. I could go out any day of the week and get a job and start tomorrow. Now? Corporations want every penny I have and will stop at NOTHING to get it.
> Ok, so, YOU do the math then big mouth. What should an adjusted min wage be? So....you tell me what happened?
Click to expand...

*
What should an adjusted min wage be? So....you tell me what happened?*

Minimum wage in 1971 was $1.60.
$1.60 in 1971 adjusted for CPI is $9.54 in 2016.

Minimum Wage - U.S. Department of Labor - Chart1

CPI Inflation Calculator

$9.54 is about 35% of your silly claim of $27.

See what I mean about your idiocy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> Oh, and, Im not an idiot. The fact that you bastards are talking to me is proof of that.



We're not talking to you, we're pointing and laughing. Idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Windship said:


> And ya got more than you could spend in generations but you want more, more, more, more....even to the point of killing people and children.
> You fuckers are evil. Remember. Whats coming was caused by you. I suggest that you cocksuckers arm yourselves cause what you are causing to happen will happen as sure as the sun will rise. You cant fuck over people and expect to get away with it forever. Sooner or later the populations will have had enough. There will be another civil war here.


*
Whats coming was caused by you.*

What's coming? The uprising of the fry cooks?


----------



## saveliberty

Windship said:


> And ya got more than you could spend in generations but you want more, more, more, more....even to the point of killing people and children.
> You fuckers are evil. Remember. Whats coming was caused by you. I suggest that you cocksuckers arm yourselves cause what you are causing to happen will happen as sure as the sun will rise. You cant fuck over people and expect to get away with it forever. Sooner or later the populations will have had enough. There will be another civil war here.



Yep, that's us, rich guys laughing at you....


----------



## saveliberty

Windship said:


> In 1971, I payed rent, ran a car and fed myself on min wage. Min wage was designed to keep you paying bills while out of work which may last, then, a month. I could go out any day of the week and get a job and start tomorrow. Now? Corporations want every penny I have and will stop at NOTHING to get it.
> Ok, so, YOU do the math then big mouth. What should an adjusted min wage be? So....you tell me what happened?



You were suppose to gain skills and get off minimum wage idiot.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.
Click to expand...

Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction

Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction
> 
> Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.
Click to expand...


If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction
> 
> Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.
Click to expand...

Let's see...
Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
or...
TP, the Idiot

Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction
> 
> Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
> or...
> TP, the Idiot
> 
> Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.
Click to expand...



Lou Dobbs, the Idiot

Glad I could help.


----------



## Picaro

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; privatizing the profits while socializing the costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have any examples where this occurred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire system of unfettered capitalism is inherently flawed and without gov money, is impossible. And every time it has to be bailed out is a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't provide any examples. Interesting.
Click to expand...


Non-responses merely mean I don't take your requests seriously, but since you asked I'll give a much shorter answer; here's a  comprehensive and detailed list of industries and companies and businesses that haven't enjoyed profits while benefiting from socialized costs and government protections and subsidies:






















































End of list.


----------



## Picaro

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction
> 
> Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
> or...
> TP, the Idiot
> 
> Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.
Click to expand...


Indeed. The financial sector routinely bubbles and crashes itself like clockwork, and has since the founding of our republic, and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out along with alleviating the consequences of its failures in the interim until it 'recovers'. That's because few of them can get ahead on their own merits and skills any more, there is no 'meritocracy' on Wall Street as there was in earlier eras; most couldn't manage a snow cone stand in a real laissez faire economy, so it's no surprise they fail. Of course nowadays they will make millions off of failing and managing companies into bankruptcy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Picaro said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism has failed time and time again ...then tax payer dollars bail them out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly; privatizing the profits while socializing the costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have any examples where this occurred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire system of unfettered capitalism is inherently flawed and without gov money, is impossible. And every time it has to be bailed out is a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't provide any examples. Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-responses merely mean I don't take your requests seriously, but since you asked I'll give a much shorter answer; here's a  comprehensive and detailed list of industries and companies and businesses that haven't enjoyed profits while benefiting from socialized costs and government protections and subsidies:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of list.
Click to expand...


No examples of privatizing the profits while socializing the costs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Picaro said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfettered capitalism is constantly failing and has to be propped up by the working and middle class. The most obvious was the 2008 scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction
> 
> Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
> or...
> TP, the Idiot
> 
> Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. The financial sector routinely bubbles and crashes itself like clockwork, and has since the founding of our republic, and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out along with alleviating the consequences of its failures in the interim until it 'recovers'. That's because few of them can get ahead on their own merits and skills any more, there is no 'meritocracy' on Wall Street as there was in earlier eras; most couldn't manage a snow cone stand in a real laissez faire economy, so it's no surprise they fail. Of course nowadays they will make millions off of failing and managing companies into bankruptcy.
Click to expand...


*and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out*

Sounds awful!
How much did the most recent bailout cost the government?


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 wasn't unfettered capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction
> 
> Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
> or...
> TP, the Idiot
> 
> Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. The financial sector routinely bubbles and crashes itself like clockwork, and has since the founding of our republic, and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out along with alleviating the consequences of its failures in the interim until it 'recovers'. That's because few of them can get ahead on their own merits and skills any more, there is no 'meritocracy' on Wall Street as there was in earlier eras; most couldn't manage a snow cone stand in a real laissez faire economy, so it's no surprise they fail. Of course nowadays they will make millions off of failing and managing companies into bankruptcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out*
> 
> Sounds awful!
> How much did the most recent bailout cost the government?
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell everyone since you seem to know everything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lou Dobbs - War on the Middle Class - Book Introduction
> 
> Lou Dobbs disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see...
> Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
> or...
> TP, the Idiot
> 
> Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. The financial sector routinely bubbles and crashes itself like clockwork, and has since the founding of our republic, and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out along with alleviating the consequences of its failures in the interim until it 'recovers'. That's because few of them can get ahead on their own merits and skills any more, there is no 'meritocracy' on Wall Street as there was in earlier eras; most couldn't manage a snow cone stand in a real laissez faire economy, so it's no surprise they fail. Of course nowadays they will make millions off of failing and managing companies into bankruptcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out*
> 
> Sounds awful!
> How much did the most recent bailout cost the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you tell everyone since you seem to know everything.
Click to expand...


It made money for the government. Shhhhhhhhhh.....


----------



## Indeependent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he thinks 2008 was unfettered capitalism, he's an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
> or...
> TP, the Idiot
> 
> Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. The financial sector routinely bubbles and crashes itself like clockwork, and has since the founding of our republic, and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out along with alleviating the consequences of its failures in the interim until it 'recovers'. That's because few of them can get ahead on their own merits and skills any more, there is no 'meritocracy' on Wall Street as there was in earlier eras; most couldn't manage a snow cone stand in a real laissez faire economy, so it's no surprise they fail. Of course nowadays they will make millions off of failing and managing companies into bankruptcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out*
> 
> Sounds awful!
> How much did the most recent bailout cost the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you tell everyone since you seem to know everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made money for the government. Shhhhhhhhhh.....
Click to expand...


And only 7 CEOs got the boot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Indeependent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> Lou Dobbs, the Idiot
> or...
> TP, the Idiot
> 
> Considering you think everyone who runs a business is angelic, I'll pick...TP, the Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. The financial sector routinely bubbles and crashes itself like clockwork, and has since the founding of our republic, and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out along with alleviating the consequences of its failures in the interim until it 'recovers'. That's because few of them can get ahead on their own merits and skills any more, there is no 'meritocracy' on Wall Street as there was in earlier eras; most couldn't manage a snow cone stand in a real laissez faire economy, so it's no surprise they fail. Of course nowadays they will make millions off of failing and managing companies into bankruptcy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and then cries and bribes the government to bail it out*
> 
> Sounds awful!
> How much did the most recent bailout cost the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you tell everyone since you seem to know everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It made money for the government. Shhhhhhhhhh.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only 7 CEOs got the boot.
Click to expand...


Out of the hundreds of thousands in the country? Your number is probably low.


----------

