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?

[DmonSlyr]

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 think ole capt Virgil had a pretty solid explanation, it bascislly gives people an opportunity to get out of what is called poverty. It allows people to start building a life for themselves. If a person is able to open their own business and sell a good or service, they can now spend more money in the economy, buy more products in the economy, and save and invest more in the economy. This leads to more taxes being paid as one becomes more economically advantaged. Surely some folks with suffer, there is no perfect solution. But how many people suffering vs succeeding is the real metric. How many are living in a 3 bed room house "suffering" because they dont live like a multi millionaire. Those are psychological issues, not issues of capitalism, and while certainly not all businesses run the same or compensate the same, and some can treat others worse than other companies, the person is still allowed to A. Leave the company for something different, B. Change career path. C. Open their own business and try to get rich. Ive done both A and B to change my life situation. My father wasnt really treated that great by large businesses, but he still got compensated better in America and got to keep more money in his pocket compared to the other countries he lived in. Theres always folks who cant physically or mentally work, and they should be helped through churches, hospitals, and other organizations. I think many wealthy people have non profits that help needy children and adults. What we dont want though is a shift in thinking where normal folks decide they dont want to work because they can feed off the organizations and "get by" but then complain that capitalism didn't make them rich and is therefore a bad economic plan because of that. No one ever said getting rich would be easy. However if your family has been in America for generations longer than other families, chances are your family has been able to save up wealth over the generations to provide their future families with wealth. That is the key concept. Bending to newer generations of families who havent "gone through the grind" yet, isnt viable and isnt far to the generations of families before them who worked tirelessly to put food on the table, then finally saved to open their own business. Government owned housing is usually way less nice than private housing or apartments for a reason. Any population living in government owned housing are usually less well off, less happy, have less to do, and have poor thinking that keeps them there. So shifting a nation towards government owned housing isnt going to increase the quality of life generation over generation like capitalism has. Far more would suffer by not being able to get ahead with their ideas and inventions because the state would take it all and say, "but we gave you a home to live in and you don't have to work". This does not advance society or increase intelligence evolution in humans.

I look at it like this, if Hitler owned a business and tried to take over the government, he wouldn't have been able to do it and they would have crushed him, just as they did to put him in prison. He was no rich billionaire either... but the second he was able to take over government, he was able to completely change the entire country and all of the businesses, then go after and attack other countries. Now that is power.

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.

The first one is a good question and is debated a lot, that being said, the government could easily find incentives or decentives for moving out. Thats up for debate. Thats why the threat of tariffs may work, to say, we are going to tariff that countrys product now since their business regulations and taxes undermine ours and are losing employment because of it. This may prevent companies from leaving, or moving back into america to invest. To just let them go with no tax penalty or or any incentive to stay, is going to have a negative impact. Sure products are cheaper, but less people working in your economy to buy those products is a worse offset, and not only that, dont get the tax revenue from all the employees labor either. Thats a huge loss to the government.

"Trickle down economics" is just a buzzword. If a company were to budget less in employee taxes next year, they would be able to use that budgeted expense in other expense categories non government related, thus helping the economy much greater by spending it on labor and services in businesses in the economy, or they  might be able to afford a yearly salary for an AP admin they desperately need because their only accountant has too much going on. That provides a job who can now benefit the local economy.

[Shuffler]

The total interest on a $300,000, 30-year mortgage at 6% is approximately $281,378.13. The total interest on a $300,000, 50-year mortgage at 6% APR is approximately $559,221.32. Top it off, on the 50, you are creating almost zero equity.
Wonder if these "geniuses" have any other ideas... maybe indentured slavery?

The slavery today is free handouts. Those on that train are doomed to stay in their place and do as they are told... or lose their handouts.
With that said, I am not for a 50 year mortgage on a home. People do have a choice though.... just so many choose poorly.

[Animl-AW]

I just want to be around for when the too young to retire say the same things when they do, or worse if they become disabled.

Forethought seems to be vacant in some replies.

People who think in blanket answers are escaping thinking.