Should there be restrictions put on private enterprise(s)? If so what kind? If not, why so?
Options
LUClEN
Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
People are idiots. Not constantly, just in bouts. We are prone to making stupid decisions.
One of these decisions, in my opinion, is allowing power to be limitless. A long time ago, humans realized that power corrupts. This led to the amount of power monarchs and political figures had being reduced through various means, from the charter of rights which ensures human rights are respected by monarchs and politicians, to internal affairs agencies that attempt to minimize corruption within governments. However, we forgot to limit the amount of power one can gain through money. In the 21st century money is power, and that is pretty undeniable. Despite this being true, we have put zero restrictions on the amount of power people can have. It is seemingly a huge problem, as corporations keep flexing their might in ways that are ultimately extremely detrimental to the rest of the world. I personally think that there should be restrictions on how much power individuals can have to minimize corruption and better protect the interests of the species, rather than the individual.
I think that when income reaches a certain point, mandatory donations BACK INTO THE COUNTRIES THAT HELPED THEM MAKE THAT WEALTH, NOT PRIVATE CHARITIES should be enforced, by military might if necessary.
I also think that participatory democracy rather than representative democracy should be put into place, as having a small group of representatives makes bribing much much easier. If someone only has to bribe 60 senators it is much easier than bribing all 400 million American citizens, and would prevent corruption.
Have I gone off the deep end here or does this make sense?
One of these decisions, in my opinion, is allowing power to be limitless. A long time ago, humans realized that power corrupts. This led to the amount of power monarchs and political figures had being reduced through various means, from the charter of rights which ensures human rights are respected by monarchs and politicians, to internal affairs agencies that attempt to minimize corruption within governments. However, we forgot to limit the amount of power one can gain through money. In the 21st century money is power, and that is pretty undeniable. Despite this being true, we have put zero restrictions on the amount of power people can have. It is seemingly a huge problem, as corporations keep flexing their might in ways that are ultimately extremely detrimental to the rest of the world. I personally think that there should be restrictions on how much power individuals can have to minimize corruption and better protect the interests of the species, rather than the individual.
I think that when income reaches a certain point, mandatory donations BACK INTO THE COUNTRIES THAT HELPED THEM MAKE THAT WEALTH, NOT PRIVATE CHARITIES should be enforced, by military might if necessary.
I also think that participatory democracy rather than representative democracy should be put into place, as having a small group of representatives makes bribing much much easier. If someone only has to bribe 60 senators it is much easier than bribing all 400 million American citizens, and would prevent corruption.
Have I gone off the deep end here or does this make sense?
Comments
-
I agree with most of what you said.......
And I would say that every citizen should be required to serve the military for at least 2 years............
-
What did you not agree with?
And I assume that mandatory service would be intended to help the masses if violent revolution ever be necessary? Or did you have another intention with that idea? -
Nothing..... I actually agree with everything in the post..........
I think that mandatory military service will help foster national pride and cut-down on things like drop-outs & for lack of a better term "bums"...........
(One must complete high school in order to serve & one must serve)
Seems like a cure all to me.......
If the entire population has served the country at some point in their lives......
I think it improves the overall well-being of the nation.......
As well as being able to defend against internal & external threats..........
-
Money has always equaled power, I don't think a poor man has ever ran a damn thing in the history of the world.
We traditionally have been afraid of titles: King, Czar, President..because supposedly with a title comes power...but its not the title one should fear, its the power behind it. We of course don't have Kings in this country, well traditionally speaking that is. Surely while they push this "private citizen" rhetoric a billionaire is essentially a King in today's world. He is also a Kingmaker, with the power of having his will done through other people. He has the ability to make his ideas law, he becomes the ? for smaller dictators and this should not be so.
That leaves us with 2 options:
1. Limiting the amount of money one can accrue. a few of those ideas are floating around (Thom Hartmann's "No Billionaires" for instance). Despite the fact that i am as liberal as they come, the concept of raiding someone's coffers isn't the most prudent measure in my book. Which leads me to:
2. Limit what one can do with the money/power they have accrued. this idea is far more to my liking. I don't see any reason why bribing politicians should be taking place, I don't see why monopolization of any sectors should be possible, I don't see why the natural rights of human beings to land, air & water should be compromised the way it has been. But all this is made possible through our royal billionaires feeding money to politicians.
Everyone should agree on the problem, the solution is the great divide. -
I think Wal-Mart should have restrictions. They have basically unlimited power and do whatever they want whenever they want. They destroy small business and entire towns with their low prices that they achieve through cutting costs by forcing their own employees onto welfare buy not giving them the hours they need to earn a livable wage or give them semi adequate healthcare. This means that since Wal-Mart refuses to look out for it's own employees the taxpayers will have to. Annually we pay $1,557,000,000,00 to support it's employees. Meanwhile all the labor that goes into their merchandise is outsourced to Asia where working conditions are deplorable.
-
Squidward Tentacles wrote: »I think Wal-Mart should have restrictions. They have basically unlimited power and do whatever they want whenever they want. They destroy small business and entire towns with their low prices that they achieve through cutting costs by forcing their own employees onto welfare buy not giving them the hours they need to earn a livable wage or give them semi adequate healthcare. This means that since Wal-Mart refuses to look out for it's own employees the taxpayers will have to. Annually we pay $1,557,000,000,00 to support it's employees. Meanwhile all the labor that goes into their merchandise is outsourced to Asia where working conditions are deplorable.
LOL so customers are forced to shop at Wal-Mart?
-
obviously not. people can decide for themselves if they want to support that machine. the point is walmart has more than enough money to provide for it's employees who run the stores, and they choose not to. just so they can save money they don't need for their corporate jets, they have 18 by the way.
-
Squidward Tentacles wrote: »obviously not. people can decide for themselves if they want to support that machine. the point is walmart has more than enough money to provide for it's employees who run the stores, and they choose not to. just so they can save money they don't need for their corporate jets, they have 18 by the way.
apparently people have decided for themselves if they continue to support a business that they got beef with
makes no sense at all -
blakfyahking wrote: »Squidward Tentacles wrote: »obviously not. people can decide for themselves if they want to support that machine. the point is walmart has more than enough money to provide for it's employees who run the stores, and they choose not to. just so they can save money they don't need for their corporate jets, they have 18 by the way.
apparently people have decided for themselves if they continue to support a business that they got beef with
makes no sense at all
We have to keep in mind, Walmart appeals to people looking to save money. Most often these people are rather poor. Walmart finds success in the fact that the desperation of the impoverished to make ends meet and live comfortably on a small budget can be easily exploited.
If there were no poor people I am confident there would be far less people supporting Walmart. However, in the system we have now there is no limit on the amount of money one can amass, so hypothetically speaking, one single person could have all the money in the world and it would be legal. Fortunately we are not there yet... we just have 1% of the people controlling all the money. However it would follow that Walmart's success is at least partially due to the fact that the 1% has so much of the wealth. If they did not hoard it as they do, then we could distribute it better among the people, and they would not be coerced through financial weakness to shop at such a ruthless establishment. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »blakfyahking wrote: »Squidward Tentacles wrote: »obviously not. people can decide for themselves if they want to support that machine. the point is walmart has more than enough money to provide for it's employees who run the stores, and they choose not to. just so they can save money they don't need for their corporate jets, they have 18 by the way.
apparently people have decided for themselves if they continue to support a business that they got beef with
makes no sense at all
We have to keep in mind, Walmart appeals to people looking to save money. Most often these people are rather poor. Walmart finds success in the fact that the desperation of the impoverished to make ends meet and live comfortably on a small budget can be easily exploited.
If there were no poor people I am confident there would be far less people supporting Walmart. However, in the system we have now there is no limit on the amount of money one can amass, so hypothetically speaking, one single person could have all the money in the world and it would be legal. Fortunately we are not there yet... we just have 1% of the people controlling all the money. However it would follow that Walmart's success is at least partially due to the fact that the 1% has so much of the wealth. If they did not hoard it as they do, then we could distribute it better among the people, and they would not be coerced through financial weakness to shop at such a ruthless establishment.
you really believe this ? ?
then explain why Kmarts are going out of business when they sell even cheaper ?
you trying to tell me majority of Wal-Mart's customers are poor? c'mon fam you gotta be smarter than that -
You can't tell me the people in those "People of walmart" photos are very high up on the socioeconomic ladder.
As for Kmart, this is what wiki has to sayIn 1994, Kmart closed 110 stores. Unlike its competitors Walmart and Target, it had failed to invest in computer technology to manage its supply chain. Furthermore, Kmart maintained a high dividend, which reduced the amount of money available for improving its stores. Many business analysts also faulted the corporation for failing to create a coherent brand image. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »You can't tell me the people in those "People of walmart" photos are very high up on the socioeconomic ladder.
As for Kmart, this is what wiki has to sayIn 1994, Kmart closed 110 stores. Unlike its competitors Walmart and Target, it had failed to invest in computer technology to manage its supply chain. Furthermore, Kmart maintained a high dividend, which reduced the amount of money available for improving its stores. Many business analysts also faulted the corporation for failing to create a coherent brand image.
so you saying you never shop at Wal-Mart?
I know plenty of cats with money who love going to Wal-Mart.........those people of Wal-Mart photos could apply to any store where Americans shop
you think only handsome, semi-wealthy, attractive people shop at Target? cut the ? fam
and please explain how Kmart failing to create a "coherent brand image" has anything on where a poor person shopping out of necessity decides to spend their money
-
You asked why Kmart is closing shop, so I posted what I could find. It is clear that selling cheap ? was not all they needed for success as it did not work out for them, but that certainly does not mean selling cheap ? does not help Walmart prosper.
I don't shop at walmart cause I hate them. I did before, but I'm a broke ass college student so I think I qualify as someone who really is not in the best position to spend dollars elsewhere as I don't have many dollars and doing so will mean I will need to spend more of them to receive what I need. Hence I reduced my needs.
That is neither here nor there though. I agree that it is not solely the impoverished shopping at walmart. But it is largely the impoverished shopping at walmart, because, low and behold, Americans as a whole are relatively poor. Basically I'm saying I can't really show a direct causation at this present time, but there is a clear correlation that should be kept in mind.
If everyone had Louis Vuitton money I doubt Walmart would have the same popularity. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »You asked why Kmart is closing shop, so I posted what I could find. It is clear that selling cheap ? was not all they needed for success as it did not work out for them, but that certainly does not mean selling cheap ? does not help Walmart prosper.
I don't shop at walmart cause I hate them. I did before, but I'm a broke ass college student so I think I qualify as someone who really is not in the best position to spend dollars elsewhere as I don't have many dollars and doing so will mean I will need to spend more of them to receive what I need. Hence I reduced my needs.
That is neither here nor there though. I agree that it is not solely the impoverished shopping at walmart. But it is largely the impoverished shopping at walmart, because, low and behold, Americans as a whole are relatively poor. Basically I'm saying I can't really show a direct causation at this present time, but there is a clear correlation that should be kept in mind.
If everyone had Louis Vuitton money I doubt Walmart would have the same popularity.
bruh your correlation is weak tho haha
there are plenty of broke mofos walking around wearing LV so I don't get your logic
customers both rich and poor patronize Wal-Mart and it's not because they "have" to
it's because consumers are too shallow to care about where they buy their stuff from
? would have been stopped buying expensive Nikes a long time ago if they really cared about the poor folks overseas who get exploited to make them shoes
-
people don't only go there to save money though, people go to wal-mart because they have everything in one place. that's the huge appeal. All kinds of people go there, rich, poor, middle class. Wal-Mart knows this, that's why there's a story almost everywhere. Other stores like Kmart can't compete with that, they don't have the money, that's why their going nowhere. I'm not telling people to boycott Wal-Mart, I'm saying Wal-Mart needs to start running things a little more humanely.
-
Of course. Poor people can afford 1,500 USD for a belt. I forgot about that.
-
I hate Walmart...
-
how did this turn into the walmart thread
-
my bad.
-
Squidward Tentacles wrote: »people don't only go there to save money though, people go to wal-mart because they have everything in one place. that's the huge appeal. All kinds of people go there, rich, poor, middle class. Wal-Mart knows this, that's why there's a story almost everywhere. Other stores like Kmart can't compete with that, they don't have the money, that's why their going nowhere. I'm not telling people to boycott Wal-Mart, I'm saying Wal-Mart needs to start running things a little more humanely.
^^^all of this is true
Kmart however was the same business model that Wal-Mart is currently using
the problem is Kmart has poor execution and susbsequently couldn't achieve the same economy of scale as Wal-Mart to really compete
ironically Kmart sells a lot of cheap ? in one place, but Kmart ignored the power of branding and execution......which is why they are losing out to Wal-Mart and Target nowRodrigueZz wrote: »Of course. Poor people can afford 1,500 USD for a belt. I forgot about that.
you being sarcastic? you think there aren't poor mofos in the club rocking LV accessories to try to stunt? -
I was being sarcastic. I don't think they are wearing real LV. Mind you with everyone and their mother having a line of credit now I suppose they really could be buying high end gear on credit.
While Walmart may not only be patronized by poorer Americans it is pretty common for people with low income to shop where they will get a good deal so they can stretch their money, and by exploiting their employees and cutting costs Walmart can provide cheaper products and take advantage of these people's ? for bargains. A lot of why these mom and pop shops go out of business is because they can't price match walmart, so to say that their low pricing does not appeal to the impoverished in ways local retailers can not does not appear to be true. -
I agree with most of what you said.......
And I would say that every citizen should be required to serve the military for at least 2 years............
-
I agree with most of what you said.......
And I would say that every citizen should be required to serve the military for at least 2 years............
That's really what they're getting paid for their military services?? Are their purchases at least subsidized by government? -
RodrigueZz wrote: »I agree with most of what you said.......
And I would say that every citizen should be required to serve the military for at least 2 years............
That's really what they're getting paid for their military services?? Are their purchases at least subsidized by government?
Well I'm a South Korean so I been thru those ? ...and yes it's around 100bucks later on in the last months...and befo that, it's even less.Well we are fed 3meals a day for free and provided with military neeeds such as
clothes and boots and thangs like that.But it still ? sucks tho, close to impossible saving even a cent when we are done with the 2years duty. -
And I almost forgot to mention, only the men serve the military mandatorily.