A 50 year mortgage..

[AKIron]

And in practice to suceed you need to do quite an opposite, which is why we have regulators and government agencies making sure your food is at least safe to eat...

With obesity being the new norm here in the US I'm thinking we/they failed miserably somewhere along the way.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

And in practice to suceed you need to do quite an opposite, which is why we have regulators and government agencies making sure your food is at least safe to eat...

Actually, the most successful people I know, and they're very successful, are quite honest.

And government regulation, like government controlled education, has proven to be an expensive and massive failure for the most part, especially concerning food.

[fd ski]

Actually, the most successful people I know, and they're very successful, are quite honest.

And government regulation, like government controlled education, has proven to be an expensive and massive failure for the most part, especially concerning food.

I deal daily with c level types in multinatonal corporations. I wouldn't describe them same way. In one to one setting they can appear human, gather them into a group that washes away responsibility, and all resemblance of concience disappears quickly.

As for second example, you're absolutelly right. This is because US government is a best government that corporate money can buy. It stopped working for people long time ago, it works for companies and lobbists. First ammendment, company = human stuff.... that ship has sailed long time ago. And billionaire owners of those companies ain't about to fix it.

[Busher]

I deal daily with c level types in multinatonal corporations. I wouldn't describe them same way. In one to one setting they can appear human, gather them into a group that washes away responsibility, and all resemblance of concience disappears quickly.

As for second example, you're absolutelly right. This is because US government is a best government that corporate money can buy. It stopped working for people long time ago, it works for companies and lobbists. First ammendment, company = human stuff.... that ship has sailed long time ago. And billionaire owners of those companies ain't about to fix it.

When considering Corporate integrity, I will start with the Ford Pinto and the DC-10. OF course, no criminal charges were filed. Care to add to the list?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I deal daily with c level types in multinational corporations. I wouldn't describe them same way. In one to one setting they can appear human, gather them into a group that washes away responsibility, and all resemblance of conscience disappears quickly.

As for second example, you're absolutely right. This is because US government is a best government that corporate money can buy. It stopped working for people long time ago, it works for companies and lobbyists. First amendment, company = human stuff.... that ship has sailed long time ago. And billionaire owners of those companies ain't about to fix it.

Oh, I work in a multinational corporation. I have little, if any, use for most at mid level management and up. They're not people I consider truly successful, they're just turds that float up high in the bowl.

Successful to me is the guy (or gal) who builds a business, or at least is part of one, that is truly successful, on their own.

The government is a perfect example of both Bastiat, who warned what would happen when people discovered they could vote themselves largesse from the public coffers, as well as the politicians that learned to buy their votes, and the theory of democracy, that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard.

[Spikes]

When considering Corporate integrity, I will start with the Ford Pinto and the DC-10. OF course, no criminal charges were filed. Care to add to the list?

Boeing in general (well, McDonnell Douglas management).

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Boeing in general (well, McDonnell Douglas management).

Yeah, ain't it a damned shame how far they've fallen? Sickening. But all too common these days.

[DmonSlyr]

Capitalism should be regulated of course. Business gangs are very dangerous after all. Just like any gang. There should be working standard regulations. Problem comes when labor and manufacturing is allowed to be allocated to countries with poorer standards, cheaper regulations, and cheaper currency, making your local workforce disadvantaged and thus out of work.

As I've always noted, a government is always way stronger than any individual business. A government can crush any rich person in a snap and destroy their business. IMO allowing as many people as you can to get wealthy and prosperous through capitalism is the most successful way to benefit the population and government alike. Governments that stranglehold business, over tax them and their populations, and then demand strict social handouts for an increasingly unable population including migrants who dont work. They are going to eventually fail and depend on the capitalist nations to bail them out. There seems to be this major misconception that taxing rich people more is going to make everything better for you as an individual, but in reality you arent going to see any of that as it goes into the largest gang in the state, the government...creating a massive government from over taxation that controls everything, everyone, and all business economy so no one can get rich is far worse than 100 organizations of super wealthy folks who have a representative government that isnt trying to dictate the economy, but regulating it for fairness of the 100 businesses to operate fairly and ethically.

[perdue3]

Capitalism should be regulated of course.

IMO allowing as many people as you can to get wealthy and prosperous through capitalism is the most successful way to benefit the population and government alike.

This is a very difficult post to consume. I could respond in a number of ways, but I will just ask you some questions.

What is the effect of a person becoming wealthy and prosperous in a capitalist system? What is the process of accumulating that wealth and prosperity? Who suffers, if anyone, because of this growth and rise to prosperity?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

This is a very difficult post to consume. I could respond in a number of ways, but I will just ask you some questions.

What is the effect of a person becoming wealthy and prosperous in a capitalist system? What is the process of accumulating that wealth and prosperity? Who suffers, if anyone, because of this growth and rise to prosperity?

I'll give you an example. My former boss, and very good friend, bought a business in receivership, 46 years ago. He rescued that business, keeping some 40-50 people employed. He hired a couple dozen young men out of high school, allowing them to learn a trade, and make a good living. Today, that business employs some 250 people, many of them working there 20, 30, even 40 years. Over the years, he, who is also a close friend, accumulated $3,000,000 or more of personal wealth. He's spent $250,000 with me on his hobby. He recently sold his company, as his son did not want to carry forward. So he accumulated another $6,000,000. Over the years, he's employed at least 500 people. He's extremely generous charity wise, I can assure you well over $1,000,000 in donations, probably far more, he'd never say, himself.

I have another friend, owns a drywall supply company, started off running drywall cress in high school. He now employs over 50 people, having employed hundreds when he was still running drywall crews. He also employs a couple of guys, over the years, maintaining and transporting his fleet of race cars. He's loaned a dozen of those cars to other racers, even funding those racers, and splitting the winnings. Not sure how many people made a good living over the years working for him.

Another has owned a shop for more than 50 years. Employed a couple dozen people, taught several the trade, paying them quite well.

There's this really stupid idea going around that we have a zero sum economy, and that for someone to become wealthy, means someone else becomes poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Good people accumulate wealth, and the tide that raises their boat raises the boats of everyone around them. Capitalism is the only system that is fair and offers opportunity to all. Like any system, it can and will be abused. Unlike most others, it tends to self regulate over time.

The problem is government. As government grows, individual liberty and individual wealth growth shrinks. The government has long since, about 100 years ago, outgrown its proper size and scope. As it has, the economy and the citizens have suffered.

[Busher]

Capitalism should be regulated of course. Business gangs are very dangerous after all. Just like any gang. There should be working standard regulations. Problem comes when labor and manufacturing is allowed to be allocated to countries with poorer standards, cheaper regulations, and cheaper currency, making your local workforce disadvantaged and thus out of work.

As I've always noted, a government is always way stronger than any individual business. A government can crush any rich person in a snap and destroy their business. IMO allowing as many people as you can to get wealthy and prosperous through capitalism is the most successful way to benefit the population and government alike. Governments that stranglehold business, over tax them and their populations, and then demand strict social handouts for an increasingly unable population including migrants who dont work. They are going to eventually fail and depend on the capitalist nations to bail them out. There seems to be this major misconception that taxing rich people more is going to make everything better for you as an individual, but in reality you arent going to see any of that as it goes into the largest gang in the state, the government...creating a massive government from over taxation that controls everything, everyone, and all business economy so no one can get rich is far worse than 100 organizations of super wealthy folks who have a representative government that isnt trying to dictate the economy, but regulating it for fairness of the 100 businesses to operate fairly and ethically.

As to your first paragraph, who should be assigned to tell a corporation (auto company for example) that it cannot move it's production to Mexico? Don't get me wrong.. I do not support that.. I just don't know how you limit it's constitutional rights.

As to the second paragraph, the argument in support of trickle-down economics has been beaten to death since the start of the industrial revolution. I think the success of that economic model is self evident.

[Busher]

This is a very difficult post to consume. I could respond in a number of ways, but I will just ask you some questions.

What is the effect of a person becoming wealthy and prosperous in a capitalist system? What is the process of accumulating that wealth and prosperity? Who suffers, if anyone, because of this growth and rise to prosperity?

If persons who in the process of accumulating wealth do so honestly, and with integrity in their business dealings, I support and admire their success. But as I said before the countless numbers of charlatans that taint the system throw the capitalist model in the trash. Problem is, which oligarchs are the good guys?