What Economic Governmental Sytem Works Best and How?

We need a Social Democracy, not a Democratic Socialism system, and not an ideological one a practical one,
Step One Nationalize the Fed, its a bullshit system that has the government paying interest for permission to use and have it's own currency giving the bank ultimate power financially which accounts for way too much. We need to be able to control our own money supply without having to pay back the Fed that also loans massive amounts of capitol to the coorporate sector at ridiculously low interest. Part of the reason for the debt crisis was that the fed had the prime rate set around 1%. We need to reinstate Glass Steagal, If you don't know what that is here's a summary, it allows investment banks to use private banks money to invest in the stock market, its gambling with the nations economy when you put it together. First Step Financial Regulation.
Step Two Stop fighting people and offending them on issues that matter to them, ill rip this (Atlas Shrugged) apart as much as I would rip up mein comf, but when it comes to issues like gun control we ridicule each other and make fun of each other on personal levels as well as being politically antagonistic. We need to be the better "men" and just let what someone says that is ignorant (used correctly) to current policies and are obviously less intellegent let them escalate while you stay calm, don't try to make him look stupid, you don't have to compromise on your view of the issue but no one on either side of the issue talks to the other side of the issue with anything that can be viewed as respect. You need to use tact, if your smart enough to make someone look foolish you should be smart enough to make them see the error of their ways, you need to be patient kind of like teaching special ed math or an autistic child social skills, you need to accept indoctrination as a disease and treat the disease as a legitamate disease and not the person infected as the disease, granted their ringleaders are litterally the disease but on a personal basis you need to appeal to the natural curiousity of man rather than the fucking alpha opinion debate conflict bullshit satire thing. I draw the line when it comes to genocide insiting material by total hypocrites though idk maybe that makes me a hypocrit but I have got my very conservative families to change many of there own views this way ( not the one when I go on captain cynic with my need to vent I mean metting a protester on the street, reason with them if they can't be reasoned with write down an article reference give it to them and wish them luck show them you aren't a threat to ameerika.)
Step Three Demolishing Coorporations, do this by passing laws that limit the amount of money that you can sue people for, coorporations origanlly exist to protect a company from litigation, econ 101. The are now overly powerful and are starting to attack whatever threat is made to their shareholders. These things are Monsters absolute Monsters. You need to make it so a company can grow without the need to worry about going bankrupt because of it, if you burn your tongue on hot coffe you shouldn't get a million dollars for it, frivolous law suits need to be able to be prosecuted there needs to be consequences for what I believe is at the heart of the problem, manipulative law making and legislature as well as shady private legal practices. It is mind boggling the danger to a small business that is starting to get big, it only takes one thing going wrong to one person and they destroy the entire company. The government needs to treat things like a worker dying from unsafe equipment that wasn't to code as criminal negligence, the BP oil spill as Crimminal negligence not something to be sued over, when people are accountable for there own actions and arent allowed to gamble and if they fuck up pay their way out. If you are liable to go to jail if you aren't taking the precautions in your job or industry and someone gets hurt because of your negligence than thats own you. Allow business owners a spotlight in society make owning a business something that people are proud of you for like we are proud of doctors that volunteer at free clinics, most of all reward them for it , but not with a pay thats 4000% more than there average worker but 1000% and you solve the rest of the problems, the government should control insurances of all sorts this way we insure for what we know we need in society and let outliers fall, utilitarianism. we can pay for this by....
Step Four, Increase taxes to late 60's early 70's tax rates, people should have to be apart of the social contract in a real way, An Economy is about Providing food and services to a People, reward the top earners you can scale a tax system better than the bs increments of the 60's and 70's you can scale them and split them further apart so the maximum that we tax falls to people who make over 100 milion instead of h tt p :/ / w ww.b usinessi nsider . co m/ histo ry-of-tax- rates ?op =1 these increments which is unfair to people who have earned it a person who makes 1 million should not have to pay the same abount in taxes as someone who makes 100 million thats unfair to our entrapranors (i can't spell sue me ) with a minimum starting at 14% scaling from having little to no income up to 100 million dollars, this is fair as the top 20% controls more than 2 thirds the wealth of the country and they are all in the highest taxable braket while keeping fairness among the population.
Once we finally get through fixing our financial system we can focus on the last step
Step Five, Fixing socio - economic problems such as EDUCATION and POVERTY eliminate for profit schools they are not in our interest, what is in our interest is allowing education to stay private as long as they are non profit, you can still set a high price but as long as all the money goes back into education then thats not a problem, we need to invest heavily in college education make public college education free to everyone and allow heavy subsidizing for college loans, all to students that qualify for college education, first you will need to fix highschool level and elementary level education but with a massive influx of funds and the repeal of this assinine tenure law in this country that doesn't hold teachers accountable. Have IQ tests for people who want to run for government office, the higher the office the harder the test but overal it should be relatively easy to pass, something that a dedicated community college student could pass basically, Majority rule would not work in a MENTAL INSTITUTION.
This is all opinion and this is not a research paper alot of this was of the top of my head if you need clarification on anything I have said or disagree with any part of this then please ask away and I will make the effort to provide credablity to my claims. This is how I see it if you have a better Idea please let me know because I LOVE BEING WRONG so prove me wrong please. and hobbes thanks for clarifying adam smiths position on slave labor and wage labor I wasn't sure and didnt check I am just glad I wasn't that far off I read it, that section, in highschool. I haven't edited this much so grammar Nazis fire away. I had to chop up the link because they won't let me post it as I am a noob

This is from another thread that I made but I wanted to start it in another thread as it should send off some big ideas. Try to be civil...

I admit that the present economic system is not working for the majority of people very well. I have read other's comments on the matter: objectivism, the zeitgeist movement, the call for governmental oversight – but none of these hold what I would call a workable solution. A workable solution must be possible to implement. It must delve into the source of the problem. The source of the problem may not be the system, but those in it.

For example, you mention demolishing corporations. Is that even possible? Corporations do serve a purpose. They secure capitol that individual owned businesses could never do. If you want to transport people across the town, no problem, secure a car, and make a sign that says “taxi.” If you want to transport people across great distances you have to secure a boat, train or plane that will cost millions. Corporations gather the capitol that individuals cannot.

But, they have overgrown that purpose. The one aim of any corporation is to produce profit for the shareholder. Therein lies the rub.

But, back to my point. Can you even do that? Corporations seek to survive. And they have power. Corporations use that power to further their cause. So much so, that now, they wield political influence, both domestically and abroad.

Limiting litigation will not end the corporation. It will not be just that simple. And you still have to pool capitol to embark on most endeavors.

I cannot see how it is possible to take down corporations right now with the overwhelming amount of power they wield. You have a point in the whole people need capitol thing though that's a big hole in my argument, we could at least repeal the legislature that treats corporations as people though. Limit campaign contributions maybe try to get lobbying out of Washington I don't know but people need to start throwing out ideas, if you put in the work sure you should earn more than others, if you create jobs and drive the economy then you should be way more celebrated than kim friggin kardashien but the only way this world is gunna survive is if we develop as a species of farmers not a species of isolated competitive hunter gatherers with no ethical compass.

You touched on two things that I think need more development: 1) campaign contributions, 2) ethical behavior.

Nail hit on head! How much of the problems we lament in the economic system would be less of a monster if we could get the money motive out of legislation? This would decrease the influence of corporations in the political realm significantly.

Ethics are the key, as I think you would agree. I do not think that the people who run corporations are necessarily bad. The problem lies in that we have made corporations people, and removed the executives of those corporations from any liability of those corporations' actions. Corporations are not people, and people should be held responsible.

That said, it is those who love money most that will work toward that executive position, just has the one who wants power will seek political office. (The one you would want as President wouldn't run for such a political office.)

To add one more thing: Any institution that is 'too big to fail,' is too big to exist.

Sorry to triple post, but I have another idea. What if the compensation of the the top executives was limited to a percentage of the lowest wage paid? This would force the corporations to share the wealth with those doing the work. Motivation to share the profit.

Say if you limited the top salary to be no more than twenty times what the lowest wage was, then if you ran a company that only paid an employee 20K per year, the executives at the top could earn only 400K per year. Certainly still a decent compensation. Equatable, though not equal. But now, I have heard of executives earning 500 times the lowest wage. Is it just me, or is that insane? Are they (executives) really earning that amount of difference? Or are they suppressing wages to increase their own wealth?

I know that the argument would be that the corporation could not attract the best talent. But if every corporation had the rule, there would be no place where the compensation would have a greater percentage.

Pipe dream.

Ya but that's the thing I think that issue is addressed in my tax idea with scalable income, I think 100 million a year is a good cap for a maximum, but lets face it people who start and run major companies and organization contribute way more to society than the lowliest assembly factory worker that didn't pay attention in high school. It's not a bad idea but the cap should be more like idk 3000 times the amount paid to the lowest paid worker among them this means that if the lowest paid worker makes 40000 dollars a year then their ceo can make 120 million a year, 3000 might be a little too high but 15 times is just too low,

the problem with setting these limits is that its unfair to the people who gamble everything to start a company or suffer crippling set backs to their own life an personal time to further the cause of their company should be well compensated for doing so I just think that our current system is too unstable to accurately reward people for there efforts

people with million dollar pensions losing everything because of the investment banking system, stock market, or just plain old healthcare problems is just wrong and the whole system is as unfair as life is on the whole, but really is that fine? to just let God sort it all out

Aren't we better than that?

I think we should have around a 75 percent maximum income tax rate that scales from 14 % of 10000 or less all the way up to 100 million dollars which might be too high but a 400,000 maximum tax bracket for a 39.66 maximum tax is too low if that same tax bracket was ramped up to a maximum of 75%, since the top 20% would be in the maximum tax bracket and they already pay out the majority of our taxes since they control the vast majority of wealth in the country the math would pan out leaving everyone more equally compensated and leaving no single entity that could be a financial god like a short list of billionares and massive multi millionares that have more money and or makes more money a year than the majority of countries on the planet.

With this policy in place we could have a much more even and fair economy that would pave the way for everyone to create a more even and fair society that properly encourages people through incentives and treats innovators and mavericks in industry (Not Donald Trump Folks) to the limelight that jersey shore and kim kardashian get, which would be awesome if we had a culture that could reward that incentive as well as having the compassion to understand why social safety nets for the unemployed, retired and disabled and the intelligence to understand that education is more important than a strong military well then I think we would all be much better off

On the compensation percentage: That's the rub. What is the number? It is hard to pin down isn't it? Many would say my number far to low, yours way too high. How would we determine the very right amount to weigh risk over work? I must admit I am clueless.

I think we both agree that sizable reward should exist -- simultaneously we see the inherent danger of letting all the wealth pool in the hands of a few.

It is easy to point at a problem. Its harder to solve it.

Hey at least we are taking some stabs at the thing, I want the max tax rate to apply to the top 15% while scaling down throught the rest going from 75% at the highest bracket to 14% at the lowest bracket leving about 70% of the population paying less then about 30% which is a fair way of doing things, If rich people wanna leave the country, sepoena their offshore accounts first then slap them with tax evasion and givem the fine to pay send them on their way and if they don't wanna pay lock their asses up.

Let's back up a bit, and forget the numbers for a second. I think we are reaching a consensus that:

Corporate power should be limited (politically and retain some sort of liability to those that run them).

Recompense within a corporation should have some 'pegging' to the contributions that the individual makes to that corporation.

As long as there are necessary taxes, they should be progressive, not regressive.

Concentrated wealth can be damaging.

The Kardashians did not come into their money simply by the virtue of their own intrinsic value to society.

Agreed so far?

I think you guys are living in a dream. nobody is ever going to give you money based on your intrinsic value to society... I always find it comical when i hear people say they cant be happy because that other guy has too much. you know, it does not automatically follow that robbing other people will result in YOU getting any of it when you work through agents to do the dirty work ( like the obama regime)

LittleJohn, good to see you back. Changed your avatar I see.

Sure, it is a dream. No, none is unhappy on a personal level (that i know of...) This discussion is not about micro economics on a personal level. It is about the fact that the present system is not sustainable. The recent (2008) fall we have had is but a harbinger of what is to come if we do not change our system somehow.

So we are trying to see if we can imagine a solution, scrutinized by debate, that might work because we are interested.

Now if you want to talk about robbing, that would be a different thread. Some say the government is robbing, some say the corporations, some say it is the poor on entitlements. But we are not trying to address that here.

Little John I am talking about saving the world here, economic greed of the ubermench and the general lack of concern for the rest of the world that thinks things are preordained and that people cant change there stripes. I love who small minded zeitgeist morons like you think your contributing to society in any meaningful fucking way

"Well if you look at the anarchist Spanish revolution."

What the fuck do you think happened? At least I am fucking trying littlejohn, did you even read robin hood?

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU its not about people being jealous like life is some dark suburban hell open you fucking eyes you pathetic little fuck

Look at the problems we are causing in the world

WHATS YOUR ANSWER non - Participation? really that's gunna work? The HAND OF FUCKNG GOD

your just gunna LET THEM TAKE THE WORLD AND DESTROY IT

USHER IN AN AGE OF FUCKING MOB RULE SO PEOPLE CAN BUY THEIR OWN FUCKING ARMIES JUST LIKE THEY ARE BUYING THE GOVERNMENT


YOUR STICKING IN MY FUCKING EYE

I am proposing a solution based on the last 100 years of economy, Keynesian economics saved this country along with war profiteering but who was spending that money? At least I am FUCKING TRYING

What have you done little john? ever sign a petition? do you care about human trafficking organized sale of rape Stalinist dictatorships, RUSSIA WHICH WAS RUN BY THE RUSSIAN MOB FOR YEARS which was PRETTY MUCH FUCKING ANARCHY

Your a punk just a little fucking ant a bitch who doesn't care about anyone but yourself I really hope your alone in this world because that's the only way to justify how cruel you are.


WHATS YOUR FUCKING SOLUTION

I am being a dick because your not fucking offering any solution to the worlds problems

I DON"T CARE THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE MORE THAN ME

read my fucking argument I want a balanced system where the top 5 % doesn't control 40% of FUCKING EVERYTHING

OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES

I am personally attacking you because your not adding to this debate at all.

[b][i][u]

quote:

---

THE WORLD IS AN ENIGMA A HARMLESS FUCKING ENIGMA THAT IS MADE TERRIBLE AND HELLISH IN TRYING TO FIND AN UNDERLYING TRUTH, IT'S A HEADLESS BLUNDER OPERATING UNDER THE ILLUSION OF A MASTER PLAN, BIG BROTHER FOR THE MOST PART IS NOT FUCKING WATCHING YOU

---

Can you grasp that?

no you can't because your either a zeitgeist fucking zealot of non participation or a Ron Paul zealot
or a Chomskian Anarchist

YOUR CANCER is what you are, and if you believe in religion I hope you think the devil is upon you and die thinking your going to heaven and wake up to a stream of consciousness in an afterlife were everyone is yelling at you saying WHAT HAVE YOU FUCKING DONE.


So I ask you What is YOUR solution to our world problems because for me this is at the root.

FUCKING INTERNET FUCKING BULLY THAT WOULDN"T SAY THAT SHIT TO SOMEONES FUCKING FACE GO FUCK YOURSELF

Obama regime? Money is behind it, UNRESTRAINED MONEY is behind it, SOMEONE HAS TO PLAY THE GAME OR NO ONE WINS,

baby steps at least Obama is passive world destruction instead of Bush who was Actively destroying it

So what is your plan your ideas, because when people just add snarky comments to make them look cool, IT MAKES YOU LOOK FUCKING

PATHETIC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRP6egIEABk

^ YOU

That said, I think I should share some of my past. I left a corporation because could not do it anymore, and live with myself.

My job was to increase corporate profits by performing a reduction in wages while increasing productivity. If I could get the workers to produce more (increased efficiency) while simultaneously reducing wage cost I would get a bonus.

A normal and accepted way to do this was to get rid of as many long term (higher wage) workers as possible and replace them with low wage part time workers (and so not only a lower wage, but no benefit costs were incurred). Another was union concessions each contract.

Every year I had a bonus review. If I met my goal in wage cost (7.5%) reduction, increased productivity (4,1%) I would get my full bonus of 20% of my annual income. Just my bonus usually exceed the annual income of the people I 'supervised.' , Plain and simple, that was my job.

[BTW, when I started the average regional wage per worker was 16.58 per hour and 96% were full time; when I left the average regional wage was 8.52 per hour and only 48% were full time. The company is doing very well. I still have my stock benefits, and receive dividends every quarter.]