Bella

Do you know how much it costs to live on the West Coast? There is a reason most of the Bay Area municipalities have passed their own minimum wage laws years ago. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Wooden-Shack-in-San-Francisco-Sells-For-408000-336400291.html Zerohedge had this story also...

You keep quoting/linking to zerohedge, what's up with that? Now if that robot will drop it in an autonomus vehicle and deliver it to your door you will really have something. I do? I guess the article was relevant to this topic. Besides, 4 posts up from yours is a link to a different site. I linked that one because it was relevant to what Oldtimer had posted. And I think you should keep your idea quiet lest someone steal it and make it a reality. Google or Amazon comes to mind. DRONEBURGER.

I'm not sure. With technology poking along, I think the challenge is to re-tool the economy to function in such a way as to not be reliant on workers, since machines will ever increasingly replace them. Then who will tend the machines? (sensing a sci-fi scenario developing in the conversation) Science Fiction? Maybe not... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/self-healing-technology-one-step-closer-after-scientists-produce-aircraft-wings-which-fix-themselves-10302249.html

I'm not sure. With technology poking along, I think the challenge is to re-tool the economy to function in such a way as to not be reliant on workers, since machines will ever increasingly replace them.

"According to a recent BofA reported on how robotics will reshape the world, San Francisco start up Momentum Machines are out to fully automate the production of burgers with the aim of replacing a human fast food worker. The machine can shape burgers from ground meat, grill them to order with the specified amount of char, toast buns, add tomatoes, onions, pickles, and finally place it on a conveyor belt. The robot is shown below. It occupies 24 square feet, and is much smaller and efficient than most assembly-line fast-food operations. It provides "gourmet cooking methods never before used in a fast food restaurant" and will deposit the completed burger into a bag. It does all of this without a trace of attitude." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-10/dear-striking-fast-food-workers-meet-machine-just-put-all-you-out-job I like it! And I don't have to worry about any nefarious activity against my burger while it was being made.

Then this might really get you upset: http://www.abc10.com/story/news/investigations/2015/11/04/75112994/ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-08/officials-secretly-added-cancer-causing-chemicals-city%E2%80%99s-water-supply http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article25119970.html http://fox40.com/2015/07/16/study-shows-rio-linda-water-contains-carcinogen/ Nice work, California.

Excellent! Something we agree on. A great place to leave the thread. I enjoyed the conversation.

Hmm. I'm trying to see your point of view. But again, you seem fixated that capitalism will be the demise of the U.S. yet you can't cite any references to substantiate your assertion. One must take a leap of faith to agree with you. Of course it is because, as you say, capitalism has never been tried in the past, so there are no examples to reference. Okay, well, we disagree on the fine details of what capitalism truly is. Variants have been present in past great civilizations, and I would hold even the U.S. does not exhibit true capitalism today. I've given references to historical examples of how great civilizations fall. And I'm not talking about one or two civilizations, I'm talking about nearly all of them. You seem to discount them out of hand, which is interesting in and of itself. In my post earlier about Alexander Tyler. Here's a little more: "The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From Bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." Notice he said 'always.' He didn't say sometimes or occasionally. And nothing in that cycle hints that greedy men destroyed any of the civilizations he studied. In fact, the cycle is very clear that it is too much dependence that causes civilizations to collapse. Alexander Tyler was a history professor so it's not like he's pulling theories from thin air. Then there is Alexis de Tocqueville, another historian from France, who studied the American system. Neither of these men seem to share your vision that it is capitalism that will destroy us. De Tocqueville is quoted as saying that the American democracy will exist up until the point the public realizes it can vote itself largess from the public treasury. Hmm, combine that with what Tyler says about dependency and...well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they are talking about. And it isn't a few greedy men gathering the most resources. It's not to say you are wrong. You are completely entitled to your opinion. I just happen to believe your position isn't based on fact and seem diametrically opposed to the works of others who have spent their lives studying past great civilizations and what brings them down. I say we collapse from debt. In the end, I think we have to look back to see what the future might hold. Again, nothing is new under the sun. It's all been tried before. As I said, those who choose to ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. You say we collapse from capitalism. But have no historical reference to substantiate your position. Good enough. One of us is right, the other is wrong. Or perhaps we are both wrong!

Assuming I agree with this, define for me what is money? then, can you identify another word for the exploitation of labor? then, give me an example of what is meant by private ownership over a productive resource. Now, put them altogether. Are you saying none of these things have existed in past history at the same time, under a single civilization?

The U.S. cannot be compared to a 3W country on any level. But I'm interested. Have there been any dynastic level civilizations that failed in the manner you describe? The USA can be compared to a 3W country at the level of GINI Coefficient, indicated a a wealth distribution out of balance. To your second question, your phrasing transcends my hypothesis about the effects in a winner take all economy. First, we are not a reflection of history. This is a new condition, with new rules, new circumstances unfolding. Capitalism is an almost brand new phenomena in the history of mankind. Its realization or end point has never been seen. We are not in a replay of Rome, Spain, or Egypt. This is new and unique. There is an explicit logic to capitalism that leads directly to a winner takes all conclusion. For a look at the process, see the consolidation of airlines, banks, autos, fast foods, retail drugs, brokerage, utilities, oil, insurance, and the internet. This is happening globally, and the effect is accelerating. It's inarguable. As it accelerates, global wealth is moving upward steadily - consolidating. At some point in that process there is not enough wealth at the bottom to drive the nominal 3% growth that is mandatory in a debt based economic system. At that point, with severe concentration of wealth, deflation and collapse occurs. A healthy economy must feature growth at the bottom masses which drive growth in demand. Tom, Dick and Sally, have to have more money each year, not less, which is the trajectory of the last 35 years. The growth which should be organic by wages, has been replaced by offering every higher credit. Interest rates are already at zero. So the debt expansion is nearing the end. The only opportunities remaining for the largest corporations is more consolidation. So, sooner or later, as we near winner takes all, collapse of the US economy occurs. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Well if your premise is that we are in uncharted territory then I'll leave that debate because it's all conjecture. Nobody can say with certainty that we are going to collapse because too few took too much because you have no basis for your assertions as a reference. Conversely, I can't argue against your premise for the same reasons. It all becomes voodoo and witchcraft. Soothsaying. But, there are fewer phrases that stand up under scrutiny than this one: "Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it." To that end, capitalism isn't a new concept and has been around since man discovered trade and sought advantages through those transactions. The term capitalism might be relatively young, but not the concept. Perhaps that is what you meant. With that cleared up, nothing on the face of the Earth is new especially in terms of the types of government. It's all been done at some point and time in the past. We just may call it something different today. My point being, that while the concept of capitalism has been practiced in previous civilizations it has never been cited as the cause their collapse. It's usually some sort of perverted form of government that supplants capitalism that begins their slide. Such as stretching their resources too thinly; taking on too much debt; debasing their currencies. (sound familiar?) Coin clipping was a method used by the Romans to debase their currencies. They actually clipped the edges of their coins in an effort to debase. Romans also reduced the content of precious metals in their coins as another method to debase. We've done this in the U.S. when we stopped using copper in our pennies and replaced it with other less valuable metals. This is a telltale sign that a civilization has reached its apex. You see, nothing is new under the sun. As I said those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. We, as a nation, are ignorant as hell. A good read if you have some time: https://mises.org/library/currency-debasement-and-social-collapse There is some tell-tale mentions of why the populations look for ways to supplant what government (not capitalism), is eroding from them.

The research of how empires rise and what ultimately causes their demise can be found in numerous sources. It's not disputed that every great civilization has a beginning and end. Why they end should be of great interest so as to possibly avoid the same pitfalls. However, it seems nobody ever learns from history. The conceptual theories used to describe those rises and falls are more colorful and in fact, quite confrontational and not suitable for these forums. I chose the bunnies and wolves version as I had read about it and it seemed the least confrontational here. The identities could be substituted through any number of descriptive properties I suppose. Such as type A and type B personalities in place of wolves and bunnies. Although I can't relate to any negative connotations to either of the caricatures as both have their redeeming qualities, and therefor appropriate. Ultimately, the question isn't who the bunnies are, and who the wolves are. The question is WHY great civilizations follow these paths that always result in their collapse. Rome didn't fall as the result of outside forces, contrary to popular belief that they were conquered by the barbarians. Rome fell from within and this allowed the barbarians to finish them off, if you will. Rome was well on its way before the barbarians came around. Spain of the middle millennia is the same story. The Greeks of ancient. The Egyptians. They all became great civilizations from an adherence to a certain set of values. Then at some point that all changes and they begin their inevitable slide. For our own precarious situation I think Alexander Tyler described it best with his 8 phases of democracy: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage Personally, I see us between 7 and 8. Interesting. At what point do you believe the U.S. slipped into 7? Here is a chronological list of fairly significant events that many should be aware of that starts with the industrial revolution. Are there any correlations that can be made here or is something else the determining factor? Industrial Revolution Alexander Graham Bell invents the telephone General Electric founded Spanish American War U.S. Steel founded Airplane invented Automobile invented Federal Reserve created World War I Great Depression New Deal programs implemented by FDR Golden Gate Bridge completed World War II Holocaust Atomic bomb used to end war with Japan Marshall Plan rebuilds Europe & Japan US emerges from the war as the only great economic power Cold War Korean War Interstate highway system built Civil Rights Movement John F. Kennedy assassinated Vietnam War Great Society programs implemented Civil Rights Act of 1964 Martin Luther King assassinated Neil Armstrong walks on the moon Roe vs Wade Oil embargo Military buildup and tax cuts Fall of the Soviet Union Gulf War Stock market boom Gridlock between Congress & President leads to budget surpluses NASDAQ stock bubble bursts 9/11 attack Alan Greenspan lowers rates to 1% Invasion of Afghanistan Department of Homeland security created Invasion of Iraq Hurricane Katrina Home prices double Financial derivatives grow to over $100 trillion Housing prices collapse Financial firms collapse Government and Federal Reserve intervene to prop up the worldwide financial system Government bailouts of financial firms and auto manufacturers Federal Reserve & U.S. Treasury commit over $8 trillion of taxpayer funds Immediate borrowing & stimulus packages exceeding $1 trillion are discussed Federal Reserve lowers rates to below 1% Without a doubt, in my mind, we entered 7 with the new deal.

I don't get this example, mainly because consumer loans are stupid cheap and easy to get right now. There was a period of time between 2008-2011 (give or take) where banks were cautious to lend. You are right, loans are returning to their ridiculously 'can you fog a mirror' low level of scrutiny.

The U.S. cannot be compared to a 3W country on any level. But I'm interested. Have there been any dynastic level civilizations that failed in the manner you describe?

The 'hidden subsidies' are billions of dollars that were available at discount windows opened by the Federal Reserve to the banks at zero interest rates. The thinking was that the government would make these funds available at no cost and then the banks would loan it out to kick start the economy again. It didn't work. The banks took that free money and gambled it in the markets and didn't loan it out since they calculated they could make more on investments than they could providing Joe Dirt a loan for a motorcycle. They were right. That's why the bonuses are high; that's why the DJI is pushing into 18,000. And that's why mainstreet America and the elderly are getting screwed with this 'recovery.' Interesting. I fully realize that corporations function to make a profit; however, where is the line drawn regarding the duty and responsibility toward society (read about the Ford Pinto)? In some respects it would appear from your posts that Wall Street was worth the bonus because they were paid it so they must have been worth it, although from the last part, it would seem at the expense of the tax payers since Wall Street used the subsidies for purposes other than intended, and at the expense of mainstreet America and at the expense of the elderly? Where is the ethics in that or is this just another disparate situation we should just accept since we are not as smart as they are? I make a distinction between Wall Street/banks and corporations that produce products that are useful or desired. Banks are predatory and get away with their antics because they have the politicians in their pockets. I consider them outright fraudulent. I do not consider McDonald's fraudulent (I personally would not and have not eaten there in probably a decade) as they provide a product and service that is in demand. Apple provides a product that is in demand. That demand requires management and that management is entitled to whatever compensation it and the board and the shareholders agree is fair. To be clear, I do not consider these people smarter than me, or you, or anybody else for that matter. What they have that most do not, is the gene that drives them for success, no matter the cost. Their talent, their focus, their drive, their ability to get things done...do you know any CEOs? If so then you know what I am trying to make clear. These people are rare and have gifts and frankly deserve every dime they are paid for the most part (there are some bad ones and they are quickly dealt with by their boards and the ship is quickly righted). The only people that do not think they are worth that much are the people that haven't a clue of what they do or what they are or what running a fortune 500 company requires. It really is simple. Corporate boards do not throw darts at a dart board to determine who they are going to hire to lead their company. The process is arduous and very detailed. Likewise, a CEO's compensation package is carefully crafted to both reflect the value of the individual being offered the position AND so that the company can recruit the top talent in a competitive market. To me, it is comical that a certain percentage of the population vehemently disagrees and thinks that somehow they have the wisdom to declare it unfair.

The 'hidden subsidies' are billions of dollars that were available at discount windows opened by the Federal Reserve to the banks at zero interest rates. The thinking was that the government would make these funds available at no cost and then the banks would loan it out to kick start the economy again. It didn't work. The banks took that free money and gambled it in the markets and didn't loan it out since they calculated they could make more on investments than they could providing Joe Dirt a loan for a motorcycle. They were right. That's why the bonuses are high; that's why the DJI is pushing into 18,000. And that's why mainstreet America and the elderly are getting screwed with this 'recovery.'

I realize that in most of these situations the lowest employees will not be getting rich and may not even feel a significant impact; however, I'm not certain on where you obtained the numbers in your post. Although, I think you may be looking at the total employees in McDonald's corporation and all of the franchise operations (not owned by McDonald's corp) combined. I'm reading the annual report on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2014 and the "number of employees" disclosure indicates that "the Company's number of employees worldwide, including Company-operated restaurant employees, was approximately 420,000 as of year-end 2014." http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/000006390815000016/mcd-12312014x10k.htm The year the CEO made the $8.75 million, McDonald’s also spent $6 billion on share repurchases and dividends that year and was instrumental in forming the lobbying efforts industrywide to freeze the minimum wage. Also, I think you may be looking at old CEO salary information from 2011. Here is the public disclosure of the last three years since public companies are required to disclose the top five highest paid. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/000119312515125315/d853131ddef14a.htm Paid compensation: Donald Thompson CEO 2014: $7,288,578 2013: $9,496,664 2012: $13,751,919 Peter J. Bensen CFO 2014: $2,794,296 2013: $3,599,644 2012: $7,331,690 Douglas Goare President McDonald's Europe 2014: $2,905,321 2013: $3,919,408 2012: $4,508,723 The CEO of a global brand responsible for ensuring that hundreds of thousands of employees across the globe are paid every two weeks. Ensuring the company is compliant with requirements of a multitude of jurisdictional municipalities; coordinating the transport of goods and services from distribution centers in dozens of countries; appeasing shareholders; growing the brand by opening new markets in new countries; protecting the image; ensuring the product appeals to the billions of people that expect a certain product and who is responsible for making changes when it doesn't - across the globe? Overseeing multi-language and jurisdictional marketing campaigns? And on and on and on and on and ...oh, still meeting the needs of his family. And some people are complaining that he makes a few million dollars a year? Would anyone argue that a sizable percentage of those people would not include those whose most difficult task includes filling out the appropriate paperwork to ensure their EBT cards are refilled every month. And can't remember whose house their daughter Cindy spent the night at last night, or where she is right now? Yet still has time to watch Monday Night Football? Cry me a river.

The research of how empires rise and what ultimately causes their demise can be found in numerous sources. It's not disputed that every great civilization has a beginning and end. Why they end should be of great interest so as to possibly avoid the same pitfalls. However, it seems nobody ever learns from history. The conceptual theories used to describe those rises and falls are more colorful and in fact, quite confrontational and not suitable for these forums. I chose the bunnies and wolves version as I had read about it and it seemed the least confrontational here. The identities could be substituted through any number of descriptive properties I suppose. Such as type A and type B personalities in place of wolves and bunnies. Although I can't relate to any negative connotations to either of the caricatures as both have their redeeming qualities, and therefor appropriate. Ultimately, the question isn't who the bunnies are, and who the wolves are. The question is WHY great civilizations follow these paths that always result in their collapse. Rome didn't fall as the result of outside forces, contrary to popular belief that they were conquered by the barbarians. Rome fell from within and this allowed the barbarians to finish them off, if you will. Rome was well on its way before the barbarians came around. Spain of the middle millennia is the same story. The Greeks of ancient. The Egyptians. They all became great civilizations from an adherence to a certain set of values. Then at some point that all changes and they begin their inevitable slide. For our own precarious situation I think Alexander Tyler described it best with his 8 phases of democracy: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage Personally, I see us between 7 and 8.

There is some very good research being done about how societies rise and fall throughout history using a very simple analogy of bunnies and wolves. In the early stages of society everyone is a wolf, working, hunting, surviving with a social structure with widely accepted and solid set of values and morals. It kind of fits with the subject matter here. Because the society is young and vulnerable much emphasis is placed on rules that promote survival. The pack is first and foremost concerned with survival. Food is hard to come by so waste is not tolerated. Not just waste of food, but waste of resources – including unnecessary mouths to feed. The pack must cull its own in order to save itself. Therefore, unproductive pack members of any sort are frowned upon and abandoned – the pack has no resources to spare on them. But also, the pack knows that it must procreate to survive; to raise more wolves inside of the same social structure. Families, with a mother and father that mate for life, are considered paramount to raise and teach the young wolves how this all works. After following these methods for a time the pack becomes more and more successful and can expand. Multiply. Life becomes easier; better. Soon the unproductive pack members, those that are unproductive for various reasons not of their own accord, are tolerated and cared for since resources are more abundant and easier to come by. Charity can be introduced. Now there is more time to focus on things that entertain and not just things that need to be done to survive. Time goes by. Because of the hard work and dedication of the wolves the pack can afford more charity. Values and social structure within the pack become less restrictive. More of the unproductive types are tolerated. Times are good and food is abundant – the storehouses are full. There is time for the finer things in life. Eventually, the pack is now not only supporting and tolerating unproductive members, it is supporting laziness. Rabbits have been bread into the pack. These are wolves that never had to work for a meal. Never knew what it was like to have to go hungry, they just went to the storehouse and ate to their fill. Rabbits see no need for the old structure. Families become less important and the young are not taught about the old way. There is no need for the rabbits to take a mate for protection or to provide what they need to survive or to raise young. They multiply quickly with multiple partners because the storehouse is endless. The storehouse does it all for them. Thus, they take the previous hard work and social structure of their early ancestors for granted. The pack has reached its apex. Because it has forgotten about social structure and its solid set of values it begins the inevitable decent into decay and collapse. Just as all the packs throughout history have done. None of the rabbits care about social structure or the importance of family – the storehouse is still full from the sacrifices of earlier generations, but most of the wolves have been bred out. Only a few who were taught what the pack had to go through when it was young are around, but the rabbits outnumber them and ridicule them for their beliefs. Who is going to re-fill the storehouse when it becomes empty after the rabbits have taken all they can take? The moral as it relates to this topic, I think, is that nobody is entitled to anything. And so nobody can demand to be paid more than what they are worth just because society wants all the bunnies to be more equal.

I only watched the first few minutes because I've known about this for almost two decades. Perhaps someone could tell me, does the video go on to explain what is used as collateral for the debt? And does it further explain how, when you apply for and receive a mortgage loan from a bank, that you are actually funding the loan through signing the promissory note, which the bank then deposits into its accounts, and that the bank is simply charging an interest fee their services?

This is a very telling statement about how you perceive the rich. I notice you made no reference to dedication. I know many very rich people who work 'round the clock. Whether it's on the phone, in a boardroom, on a private jet, or from their bed. Sure, they aren't digging a ditch, but that's because their too smart for that. But also, it isn't because they are more devious or crooked.

Interesting. What would you say the average person, given a healthy sum of cash, would do with it? How many lottery winners still have most of their winnings? How many rich businessmen reinvest their capital into new or existing businesses? Lottery winners are not significant. What we know about accumulated wealth is that it resides in very few hands. Let's say 10,000. Those people keep accumulating more. Have you ever looked at a Fortune Magazine wealthiest list? The same people with say, $50B show up year after year on the list. So, it should be obvious they aren't spending that money. Today, the corporations in America are sitting on $3 Trillion dollars in uninvested wealth. They have no place to put this money to use. They can't employ this capital at all. So, what do they do? They buy back their OWN STOCK! That's THREE TRILLION BUCKS with no where to go. This is a far more complicated subject than you portray it to be. Those that are showing up the wealthiest list aren't sitting on $50 billion is cash. That might be their net worth, but it's tied up in all sorts of business ventures, bonds, stockholdings, etc... And that is, I might add, how they got onto that list to begin with: by taking the money they earned and putting it to work for them, and then taking those profits and putting those to work to make even more. And to address your assertion that corps are sitting on piles of cash. Yes. They are. But for reasons far different than you believe. It certainly has very little to do with not having a place to put it to make it useful and more to do with being uncertain about global outlooks and therefore, they would rather keep their powder dry than expose it to risk. I'm sure you've noticed, things are not as healthy as they are portrayed. Corporations know this better than anyone.

"Like it or not, the primary role of government is to manage the creation of, and DISTRIBUTE WEALTH by making rules. " Like it or not, the primary role of a SOCIALIST government is to manage the creation of, and DISTRIBUTE WEALTH by making rules." Fixed it for you.

Interesting. What would you say the average person, given a healthy sum of cash, would do with it? How many lottery winners still have most of their winnings? How many rich businessmen reinvest their capital into new or existing businesses?

And this is immoral and nothing but greed run amuck. I don't care who you is you ain't worth $100 million a year, sorry your job is not 2 thousand times harder than mine. Just my $.02 There are boardrooms full of very smart people all around the world, and stock holders also, that would disagree with you. And I'm sure some of them might agree, but explain it is necessary to compete in the global marketplace.

Essentially, we are victims of our own success. Our economy far outperforms most others and our wage structure, while some here think it was too low, was/is comparatively very high. Now we're opening up all the economies and importing these lower-waged workers and our existing workforce is crying foul. It's like opening the locks on a lake that once contained two bodies of water at different levels. Ours, being the higher level economy, is being drained into the lower level economies and it will continue that way until both lakes (economies) are at equal levels. The key to profiting from it is to understand it and then figure out how to take advantage of it. Those that can't or don't want to see it will be the ones who will continue to complain 'it isn't fair.'