This is why unregulated capitalism is something only a brainless fool (or a thief) could support

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This is why unregulated capitalism is something only a brainless fool (or a thief) could support

Employees from all five of Canada's big banks have flooded Go Public with stories of how they feel pressured to upsell, trick and even lie to customers to meet unrealistic sales targets and keep their jobs.

The deluge is fuelling multiple calls for a parliamentary inquiry, even as the banks claim they're acting in customers' best interests.

In nearly 1,000 emails, employees from RBC, BMO, CIBC, TD and Scotiabank locations across Canada describe the pressures to hit targets that are monitored weekly, daily and in some cases hourly.

"Management is down your throat all the time," said a Scotiabank financial adviser. "They want you to hit your numbers and it doesn't matter how."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banks-upselling-go-public-1.4023575?cmp=googleeditorspick&google_editors_picks=true

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Not news to me-but

it's rightful news to any that aren'y familiar with this deal. Being retired and travel a bit, I camp out at Quartzsites Az for the winter  (but not every year--some partially). This gives all the retired campers there to get to gether in an evening bondfire sit around. The thing is--- they,re all retired from jobs and their experiences come to the front. In a few of these convesations I've heard that phone companies and banks are real culprits. Here's the deal. Employees are put in cubicals and given a certain number of accounts ti handle (oversee) Their job was to mine every buck they could get from customers by closely scrtinizing each account for any mistakes made---and of course---attach fees to those mistakes. We Retired floks ended up paying overdraft fees on re-overdraft fees. In other words, a fee on an over draft was applied again after the fee was paid, but if late-another over draft fee was applied making to fees on one over draft. One overdraft could cause an 80 dollar overdraft fee. So, we all agreed to write our congess person and bitch---and---the practices stopped in less then 2 months. This was when congress began regulating bank fees about 6 years ago.

The cell phone companies were doing the same. They would overcharge the kids and it was supposed to look like the kids actually made the calls--but Nada. nd the parents would pay blaming the kids. We stopped that too, I think, because we bitched to congress about that too, and that stopped shortly after.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
They need to be hung, keel

They need to be hung, keel hauled and then shot in to the Sun


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Employees from

Vastet wrote:
Employees from all five of Canada's big banks have flooded Go Public with stories of how they feel pressured to upsell, trick and even lie to customers to meet unrealistic sales targets and keep their jobs. The deluge is fuelling multiple calls for a parliamentary inquiry, even as the banks claim they're acting in customers' best interests. In nearly 1,000 emails, employees from RBC, BMO, CIBC, TD and Scotiabank locations across Canada describe the pressures to hit targets that are monitored weekly, daily and in some cases hourly. "Management is down your throat all the time," said a Scotiabank financial adviser. "They want you to hit your numbers and it doesn't matter how." http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banks-upselling-go-public-1.4023575?cmp=googleeditorspick&google_editors_picks=true

Vastet I really think most of our differences are about personality, not substence. I don't always get everything right. But what you just posted here is something lots of people, not just me have been screaming about for not just years, but decades.

In America our decline started with Reagan's deregulation. And we have had a bubble burst every decade since. Even though the 88 one day crash under Reagan was small, it was a symptom of lack of enforcement of regulation or not having the right or enough regulation. Clinton had the dot com bubble, and then Bush with his tripple whammy housing, car, bank crash. 

I have been screaming for years that it is NOT the fault of democrats. When you look from 1980 to today and the balance of power between the Executive Branch, House, Senate, and Supreme Court, the majority average in that time has been lopsided and mostly GOP. The White House has only been occupied 16 of those 36 years and dems have only had majority as an entire congress a fraction of that time too. Dems have never held enough of a majority for a long enough time to stop the "no rules" market you are discribing here. 

Regulations are not bad things. They are there to not only protect consumers, but to prevent long term disasters like what you discribe here. It actually costs society MORE to chase a short term quick buck, than it would if we would promote an honest sale in the first place. Regulations also long term are meant to promote innovation which they do. Car companies railed against taking lead out of gas. They railed against seat belts and air bags. But those regulations did not destroy them and they adapted and as a result created seat belt and air bag factories and the car companies learned to sell those as advantages.

It isn't the private sector the left hates. It is the shallow short term thinking. Trump and GOP are simply going to repeat a long term bubble for the same reasons you talk about with Canada. 

 

We need the top and the rich regulated not to end the private sector, but just like any aspect of society, be it class, political party or religion. Anything left to it's own divices can and will go off the rails with no oversight. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It wasn't long

digitalbeachbum wrote:

They need to be hung, keel hauled and then shot in to the Sun

after we complained that it became required that cellphone companies notify their customers when they have a certain number of minutes left. They were also double timeing the accounts to make callers pay sooner. This way anyone that got shortsheeted would know it. I'm not sure but I think that's when the monthly plans started also. I know I got dillegently screwed by T Mobile big time.

The thing is--you always have to pay the bill no matter what. If you rebel and not pay becasue you think you've been cheated you have only so much time to take court action---past that time you can't make a claim because you surrended you right to. So, after a certain time you can't rectify the account---you loose no matter how much the bill was-- you have to pay.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

They need to be hung, keel hauled and then shot in to the Sun

after we complained that it became required that cellphone companies notify their customers when they have a certain number of minutes left. They were also double timeing the accounts to make callers pay sooner. This way anyone that got shortsheeted would know it. I'm not sure but I think that's when the monthly plans started also. I know I got dillegently screwed by T Mobile big time.

The thing is--you always have to pay the bill no matter what. If you rebel and not pay becasue you think you've been cheated you have only so much time to take court action---past that time you can't make a claim because you surrended you right to. So, after a certain time you can't rectify the account---you loose no matter how much the bill was-- you have to pay.

 

I've been bothered by the real estate market, specifically in the rental market. If a tenant decides not to pay rent they just don't and it takes a long time to get rid of them. It costs money too.

I had a renter ruin a house and the security deposit was kept to cover the expenses. They took me to court.

The judge asked them for the pictures, they said the phone was lost. The judge asked for invoices, they said they didn't have them. They had no witnesses.

I had pictures, I had invoices, I had witnesses. In the end the judge gave him back almost all the security deposit.

I'll never understand why phone companies, cable companies and the electric company can shut off those services with out question but when it comes time to evict a tenant you have to pull out your teeth to get it done.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Because of the flip side.

Because of the flip side. The side where a landlord doesn't provide services or features required by law, and/or constantly attempts to evict you without just cause. As one who has been in the position of the tenant you mentioned (with the significant difference being that I paid the rent, sometimes late but always paid; and that I had pics and wasn't responsible for damage), I was quite pleased when I turned the umpteenth attempt at eviction into 3 months free rent + electrical costs.

Fact is, one bad tenant only hurts the landlord. Someone who is already making an absurd amount of profit. One bad landlord can effect thousands or millions of tenants. Without some protection for tenants, homeless rates would multiply exponentially in no time at all.

It sucks for those few landlords who are doing a good job, but good landlords are few and far between. The cost of rent is ludicrous these days, hundreds of times higher rate of inflation than wages have seen for decades. So I can't be sympathetic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Because of the

Vastet wrote:
Because of the flip side. The side where a landlord doesn't provide services or features required by law, and/or constantly attempts to evict you without just cause. As one who has been in the position of the tenant you mentioned (with the significant difference being that I paid the rent, sometimes late but always paid; and that I had pics and wasn't responsible for damage), I was quite pleased when I turned the umpteenth attempt at eviction into 3 months free rent + electrical costs. Fact is, one bad tenant only hurts the landlord. Someone who is already making an absurd amount of profit. One bad landlord can effect thousands or millions of tenants. Without some protection for tenants, homeless rates would multiply exponentially in no time at all. It sucks for those few landlords who are doing a good job, but good landlords are few and far between. The cost of rent is ludicrous these days, hundreds of times higher rate of inflation than wages have seen for decades. So I can't be sympathetic.

Absurd profit? Not for the common home owner. They do not make a lot of money. There is a lot of overhead. Repairs. General maintenance. Commission for the brokerage.

One bad tenant makes us stricter. It effects billions of people, the owners, the future tenants, the court system, the state regulators, in every county, in every state.

For every bad tenant:

1 - Management of properties have to make things stricter, like raising the rent to keep out undesirables

2 - Asking for double security deposit, because previous tenants trash the house

3 - Asking for the last month of rent in advance, because tenants tend to skip out on the month before the lease ends

4 - Having to get lawyers involved which cost an arm and a leg because some tenant knows a loophole or knows how to file paperwork and create frivolous complaints

5 - Bad tenants not only drag down the court system, but it often involves the state regulators and governing body of real estate for frivolous complaints

6 - Cause managers to spend more time driving out to properties to inspect them, only to find tenants are subletting a room (illegal here in Florida and others).

7 - Asking for more money for pet deposits and forcing all tenants to carry renter insurance because too many tenants will lie about if they have a pet

8 - Causing us to charge more for a more in-dept background check.

Are their bad owners? Sure. They do exist and the tenants should haven't to stay if the rental sucks. Laws should stop 'slum lords'


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Because of the

Vastet wrote:
Because of the flip side. The side where a landlord doesn't provide services or features required by law, and/or constantly attempts to evict you without just cause. As one who has been in the position of the tenant you mentioned (with the significant difference being that I paid the rent, sometimes late but always paid; and that I had pics and wasn't responsible for damage), I was quite pleased when I turned the umpteenth attempt at eviction into 3 months free rent + electrical costs. Fact is, one bad tenant only hurts the landlord. Someone who is already making an absurd amount of profit. One bad landlord can effect thousands or millions of tenants. Without some protection for tenants, homeless rates would multiply exponentially in no time at all. It sucks for those few landlords who are doing a good job, but good landlords are few and far between. The cost of rent is ludicrous these days, hundreds of times higher rate of inflation than wages have seen for decades. So I can't be sympathetic.

 

Yep that is true. But the same can be said for any business. Right now as a average climate, far too much of the top 1% is bent on exploiting to get profits and shareholders. There most certainly are decent businesses, both big and mom and pop shops. But we cant continue with this giant global casino. 

I live out here in the sticks, but even here, unless you are single and have middle class job, cost even here of rent is high too. The rich in the west need to understand they cant simply keep raising the price of everything without having wages keep up with that cost. It isn't the difference in pay the left objects to, but the size of the gap between the top and bottem and if that keeps expanding, it will collapse everything and will effect even the rich. I am lucky because I have no kids or rent to pay, but even I live on a budget and cant afford any major sudden expenses. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Since when are banks

 Since when are banks unregulated? Seems to me is that extreme regulation has failed to prevent dishonesty. Why do you think the next round of regulation will have different results?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Because of the flip side. The side where a landlord doesn't provide services or features required by law, and/or constantly attempts to evict you without just cause. As one who has been in the position of the tenant you mentioned (with the significant difference being that I paid the rent, sometimes late but always paid; and that I had pics and wasn't responsible for damage), I was quite pleased when I turned the umpteenth attempt at eviction into 3 months free rent + electrical costs. Fact is, one bad tenant only hurts the landlord. Someone who is already making an absurd amount of profit. One bad landlord can effect thousands or millions of tenants. Without some protection for tenants, homeless rates would multiply exponentially in no time at all. It sucks for those few landlords who are doing a good job, but good landlords are few and far between. The cost of rent is ludicrous these days, hundreds of times higher rate of inflation than wages have seen for decades. So I can't be sympathetic.

Absurd profit? Not for the common home owner. They do not make a lot of money. There is a lot of overhead. Repairs. General maintenance. Commission for the brokerage.

One bad tenant makes us stricter. It effects billions of people, the owners, the future tenants, the court system, the state regulators, in every county, in every state.

For every bad tenant:

1 - Management of properties have to make things stricter, like raising the rent to keep out undesirables

2 - Asking for double security deposit, because previous tenants trash the house

3 - Asking for the last month of rent in advance, because tenants tend to skip out on the month before the lease ends

4 - Having to get lawyers involved which cost an arm and a leg because some tenant knows a loophole or knows how to file paperwork and create frivolous complaints

5 - Bad tenants not only drag down the court system, but it often involves the state regulators and governing body of real estate for frivolous complaints

6 - Cause managers to spend more time driving out to properties to inspect them, only to find tenants are subletting a room (illegal here in Florida and others).

7 - Asking for more money for pet deposits and forcing all tenants to carry renter insurance because too many tenants will lie about if they have a pet

8 - Causing us to charge more for a more in-dept background check.

Are their bad owners? Sure. They do exist and the tenants should haven't to stay if the rental sucks. Laws should stop 'slum lords'

I can't speak for Canada, but throughout most of the US, being a residential landlord is unprofitable unless you do it large scale. I would never consider diving into that money pit, leasing to a local business is far more stable, profitable and your property will be returned in decent condition.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbumAbsurd

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Absurd profit? Not for the common home owner. They do not make a lot of money. There is a lot of overhead. Repairs. General maintenance. Commission for the brokerage.

And you get someone paying your mortgage & bills for you. Most of those costs you eat whether you rent or not, it's part of being a home owner. The added expense to renting is covered dozens of times over by rent. Also, the majority of property owned by landlords is not individuals renting a single apartment out of their home. They are property groups who own hundreds of apartment buildings and townhouses.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
One bad tenant makes us stricter. It effects billions of people, the owners, the future tenants, the court system, the state regulators, in every county, in every state.

No. One bad tenant affects one landlord. It takes thousands of bad tenants to have the impact you describe.

1: The vast majority of landlords increase rent by the maximum allotted amount every year to increase profits. It has absolutely no impact on undesireables, as the rich and comfortable are much more likely to skip a bill or cause damage than the poor and desperate.

2: Irrelevant impact. The security deposit is a one time deposit, not a monthly fee. A deposit is easy to get a hold of.

3: Has been a standard for decades. You will never convince me that it would end if all tenants paid as they were supposed to.

4: If you need a lawyer to defeat a highschool dropout then you have no business renting in the first place. If a tenant beats you, then you're a shitty landlord.

5: Bad landlords have MUCH greater impact than bad tenants.

6 You should be doing that anyway. It's your property. I'd be inspecting monthly, because it is my job to ensure the tenant is living in acceptable conditions and because my investment is on the line. If you don't inspect monthly, you're a shitty landlord.

7: Pets can't cause as much damage as people. Denying people pets is just asking for trouble.

8: Oh no a whole extra 1 time cost of maybe a couple hundred bucks. Nothing compared to one months rent, let alone a year or two. If you increase rent for that, then you made your money back in no time and you're gouging.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Absurd profit? Not for the common home owner. They do not make a lot of money. There is a lot of overhead. Repairs. General maintenance. Commission for the brokerage.

One bad tenant makes us stricter. It effects billions of people, the owners, the future tenants, the court system, the state regulators, in every county, in every state.

For every bad tenant:

1 - Management of properties have to make things stricter, like raising the rent to keep out undesirables

2 - Asking for double security deposit, because previous tenants trash the house

3 - Asking for the last month of rent in advance, because tenants tend to skip out on the month before the lease ends

4 - Having to get lawyers involved which cost an arm and a leg because some tenant knows a loophole or knows how to file paperwork and create frivolous complaints

5 - Bad tenants not only drag down the court system, but it often involves the state regulators and governing body of real estate for frivolous complaints

6 - Cause managers to spend more time driving out to properties to inspect them, only to find tenants are subletting a room (illegal here in Florida and others).

7 - Asking for more money for pet deposits and forcing all tenants to carry renter insurance because too many tenants will lie about if they have a pet

8 - Causing us to charge more for a more in-dept background check.

Are their bad owners? Sure. They do exist and the tenants should haven't to stay if the rental sucks. Laws should stop 'slum lords'

I can't speak for Canada, but throughout most of the US, being a residential landlord is unprofitable unless you do it large scale. I would never consider diving into that money pit, leasing to a local business is far more stable, profitable and your property will be returned in decent condition.

I can speak as not only a property manager for 20+ years, but being a property owner for 20 years. I have had 7 tenants and only 1 of them were worth my time. I put in a new AC, new water filter system, new appliances, etc. I spent over 45k fixing things in 20 years and yet spent half that amount fixing things tenants trashed, dealing with stolen property, unpaid rent, unpaid late fees, pet damages and more.

It can be profitable but only in areas where property is highly desirable. I have houses which are barely 1200 sqft of living space and the cost per sqft is $1.50 while on the other side of town a house with 2500 sqft is half that amount. Schools usually play a part but also communities which are golf, self contained communities, usually gated and guarded/patrolled.

We are now considering options to handle all the fraud from tenants. We have a new lawyer looking in to re-writing all of our legal documents.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:absolutely

Vastet wrote:
absolutely nothing worth while

You speak about Canada? OK. Fine, but not here, not in America. Do you speak from experience from all sides of the coin? Well I do.

I speak with 20 years experience as a licensed manager and 20 years as a landlord. I also have another 10 years of experience working for a variety of entity's who work in the field of law enforcement, courts and properties. I have also been a renter for 10 years.

And as for your comments about ownership of properties that is untrue in the USA and in Florida. Florida is only second to Nevada in the number of rentals. The highest source of those rentals are either SFH or smaller duplexes or townhomes.

SFH account for 43% of all rentals in the United States (higher in Florida), plus 17% of townhomes and duplexes, 5% for mobile homes and less than 1% for "other". Large group apartment and condos account for 35%.

Your comments are too limited and lacking a broader view of the subject.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Since

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Since when are banks unregulated? Seems to me is that extreme regulation has failed to prevent dishonesty. Why do you think the next round of regulation will have different results?

They are certainly, regulated to benifit the wealthy. See, this is what you keep missing.

 

You "It works"

Me, "Yes, it does, but for who?"

 

Our current regulations are not regulations, they are rigged laws that are written with the express intented to protect those who can afford fleets of lawers, not the middle class and most certainly not the poor. 

And I still never have gotten a good answer from any economic right supporter when they argue how economies work.

If the rich always got everytyhing right then why do we have market crashes?

If the rich always new what was best for everyone else then why have voting at all?

You are not making any valid arguments, you are simply justifying living in your own bubble becuase it suits your own desires.

In countless threads here, and mind you, I have the very same arguments with other economic conservatives on other pages, not just this website. I have pointed out economists who agree with me, not you. I have pointed to billionaires who agree with me, not you.

Our pay gap us unsustainable long term. Our errosion of the middle class started with Reagan and his age of deregulation and union busting. Since then the cost of living has skyrocketed and the pay gap has exploded and not kept up with the cost of living.

If it is over regulated and that is your position, fine, it is over regulated with the WRONG regulations that protect the rich and bad gamblers. Our current laws do not do anywhere close to enough to protect consumers. Our current regulations protect power and wealth at the top. Pointing that out does not make one anti private sector, merely anti abuse and anti monopoly.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I have experience with twice

I have experience with twice as many landlords as you have tenants (not all of them were my landlords). I never met a good landlord who did his or her job. I fought all of them in the rental housing tribunal, and never once did I lose. To be fair, it sounds like you're a step up from the landlords I've dealt with. But the fact is that I beat all these assholes and did it soley based on experience working security in a tribunal for a few months. I have 0 formal education in law. I roflstomped them. Most often the landlord I was battling left 'court' (it's not really a court) in a blistering rage, and never bothered fixing anything. Which made the next battle even easier.

Bad landlords outnumber bad tenants, and have a significantly higher impact on everything. That is why tenants get the benefit of doubt. It isn't a tenants' responsibility to know the system and the industry, it is the landlords responsibility. Most of them shirk that responsibility, and prey on the ignorance of tenants. Most tenants won't even bother fighting an eviction, they don't know how to. The tenants who know what they're doing can game the system very well, but that is one tenant in a thousand. They simply stand out more.

Come back when you've actually got experience watching dozens of cases a day for months. Right now your experience is of decidedly small sample size and bias.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I have

Vastet wrote:
I have experience with twice as many landlords as you have tenants (not all of them were my landlords).

HAHAHAHAHA You are truly are a vile troll Vas. I deal with 100's of tenants every year. I have dealt with 2,000 tenants during my tenure in this field. Stop bullshitting, you are better than that crap.

(edit)

And just as many home owner's.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Then you're a liar, and

Then you're a liar, and nothing you say on this subject has any weight to it.

". I have had 7 tenants and only 1 of them were worth my time."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Then you're a

Vastet wrote:
Then you're a liar, and nothing you say on this subject has any weight to it. ". I have had 7 tenants and only 1 of them were worth my time."

I'm a property manager. I work in the field of real estate. I also own personal property which I rent out to tenants.

I had 7 tenants live at my personal property, but I've managed over 2,000 tenants in other properties which I do not own.

I was straight forward about what I did for a living and that I owned personal property which I rented out. The two subjects are completely independent of each other.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
My comment was directly

My comment was directly based on your comment, that you'd only had 7 tenants.

I STILL have more experience with landlord vs tenant disputes in adjudication. So it doesn't matter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Didgital, Vastet is right

 Didgital, Vastet is right in that the business owner no matter the business, including rentals has much more an advantage when it comes to resources and law. I would not agree however that all business owners are bad including those who rent. I would agree with Vastet because of our greedy climate, there are far too many.

But in most western law, when the claimant in a court is suing a business or even a rentor when it comes to signed documents, the courts should, not that they always do, should side with the consumer when there are disputes about the service or product, and especially when the language is not clear cut. 

The economic right far too much has written language to surve profits basically "sucks to be you". Vastet has every right to use the courts to prevent any business from abusing him or denying service. If you own a business, and that includes renting an apartment or house, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the maintanence and upkeep of that property. It is the rentor's responsibility too. But when something is beyond the renter's ownership that they didn't cause, like a broken pipe or leaky roof that is the owner's responsibility.

I can tell you having rented an apartment in an old house, the bank I rented from DID NOT fix a  leaky roof/wall which neither my wife or I at the time were responsible for. I am with Vastet, we should have taken that bank to court.

Suing a landlord for lack of upkeep is no different than suing a food joint for getting food posioning. You have every right to do that. Vastet may be wrong about every landlord being bad, but there really are tons of slumlords not only where he lives but in America too.

This isn't an either or situation here. It is a case by case basis so you are both right and both wrong. I lean to Vastet's position because I see what our growing pay gap has done in 36 years. Perfect example was that Oakland fire recently. Cost of living is so bad people looking for an apartment will take sub standard living in a big city because they would not have a place to live. It can be that the owners of that wearhouse, while they should not have rented it did so, because it was not up to code, did it because they don't like seeing people homeless. The fix is to reduce the pay gap, and increase worker pay. 

The pay gap between the top and the bottom causes this. 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Because of the flip side. The side where a landlord doesn't provide services or features required by law, and/or constantly attempts to evict you without just cause. As one who has been in the position of the tenant you mentioned (with the significant difference being that I paid the rent, sometimes late but always paid; and that I had pics and wasn't responsible for damage), I was quite pleased when I turned the umpteenth attempt at eviction into 3 months free rent + electrical costs. Fact is, one bad tenant only hurts the landlord. Someone who is already making an absurd amount of profit. One bad landlord can effect thousands or millions of tenants. Without some protection for tenants, homeless rates would multiply exponentially in no time at all. It sucks for those few landlords who are doing a good job, but good landlords are few and far between. The cost of rent is ludicrous these days, hundreds of times higher rate of inflation than wages have seen for decades. So I can't be sympathetic.

Absurd profit? Not for the common home owner. They do not make a lot of money. There is a lot of overhead. Repairs. General maintenance. Commission for the brokerage.

One bad tenant makes us stricter. It effects billions of people, the owners, the future tenants, the court system, the state regulators, in every county, in every state.

For every bad tenant:

1 - Management of properties have to make things stricter, like raising the rent to keep out undesirables

2 - Asking for double security deposit, because previous tenants trash the house

3 - Asking for the last month of rent in advance, because tenants tend to skip out on the month before the lease ends

4 - Having to get lawyers involved which cost an arm and a leg because some tenant knows a loophole or knows how to file paperwork and create frivolous complaints

5 - Bad tenants not only drag down the court system, but it often involves the state regulators and governing body of real estate for frivolous complaints

6 - Cause managers to spend more time driving out to properties to inspect them, only to find tenants are subletting a room (illegal here in Florida and others).

7 - Asking for more money for pet deposits and forcing all tenants to carry renter insurance because too many tenants will lie about if they have a pet

8 - Causing us to charge more for a more in-dept background check.

Are their bad owners? Sure. They do exist and the tenants should haven't to stay if the rental sucks. Laws should stop 'slum lords'

I can't speak for Canada, but throughout most of the US, being a residential landlord is unprofitable unless you do it large scale. I would never consider diving into that money pit, leasing to a local business is far more stable, profitable and your property will be returned in decent condition.

I agree it isn't profitable unless large scale. But not because it has to be that way, but just like every mega corperation has done they have convinced small businesses that "business owner" puts them in the same class and it does not. Small business owners are ALSO hurt by big busness because they are not in the same weight class. This is anti competition because the big businesses can run over anyone, becuase they don't get broken up as much like they used to. It is why we have only 1 cable company per county/region and even only 1 health insurance company per county/region. 

Not really different than how the NFL works. Big housing rentals work because when one property isn't doing so well the others compensate for those other properties, just like in the 1980s the Saints sucked but the rest of the league gave them part of the profits to keep them afloat despite sucking so bad year after year.

The truth of the top, not all businesses, but most of the climate of big businesses is about socializing the profits in the private sector when they win, and dumping the losses on the tax payers when they lose.

The left is not anti private sector, but America has gotten away from the anti trust laws that protected consumers and the GOP is pro monopoly not anti monopoly. The GOP economic policies ARE NOT pro competition like they claim. Only pro profit for the CEOs and Shareholders. 

If we got back to the post WW2 attitude of investment and livable wages and higher taxes on the rich that would create a long lasting economy. What the GOP is doing is short term and will only set us up for another future bubble because their lack of paying taxes is not only something the rest of us have to compinsate for, it adds up over time and that will cause another crash.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't think all landlords

I don't think all landlords are bad. I just haven't known one who isn't. I've heard of good landlords. I've probably even met good landlords. But every landlord I have had any kind of relationship with has been a self absorbed greedy son of a bitch. It was a pleasure putting them in their place.

As far as profits go, you can make a decent profit off a single property very easily. Even if you live in that property and only rent out a portion of it. Average rent for a single bedroom is more than half the monthly mortgage payment on a million dollar house with a minimum down payment. Rent out two rooms, and your million dollar house only costs you 200,000. Until the mortgage is paid, at which point even that 200,000 starts to drop by 3k a month. 5.5 years of that and your million dollar house is free, and starts making you money.

For these calculations I used prices in Toronto in Canadian currency. But this translates well to any jurisdiction. In fact, you can start making money much faster if you just buy a 200,000 dollar house in a small town. Average rent drops from 1500/mo to approximately 800 or so, but mortgage payments and necessary down payment is reduced 5 times over. So you start making money in half the time.

If you want to make millions in renting, then yes you have to go large scale. But that is true in most industries. You definitely don't need to go large scale to make a decent profit. You just need to be patient.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I agree it

Brian37 wrote:

I agree it isn't profitable unless large scale. But not because it has to be that way, but just like every mega corperation has done they have convinced small businesses that "business owner" puts them in the same class and it does not. Small business owners are ALSO hurt by big busness because they are not in the same weight class. This is anti competition because the big businesses can run over anyone, becuase they don't get broken up as much like they used to. It is why we have only 1 cable company per county/region and even only 1 health insurance company per county/region. 

There is 1 cable company because it is illegal for you to just create a cable company and there is 1 health insurance company because it is illegal to just start one. Yes, government creates and protects monopolies. The main PURPOSE of most regulations is to block out new competition. 

[

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I agree it isn't profitable unless large scale. But not because it has to be that way, but just like every mega corperation has done they have convinced small businesses that "business owner" puts them in the same class and it does not. Small business owners are ALSO hurt by big busness because they are not in the same weight class. This is anti competition because the big businesses can run over anyone, becuase they don't get broken up as much like they used to. It is why we have only 1 cable company per county/region and even only 1 health insurance company per county/region. 

There is 1 cable company because it is illegal for you to just create a cable company and there is 1 health insurance company because it is illegal to just start one. Yes, government creates and protects monopolies. The main PURPOSE of most regulations is to block out new competition. 

No, regulations depend on lawmakers. Anti trust laws are just like speed limits, they are not anti car, just anti speed. The purpose of regulations are not to favor, or more in the point they should not favor. Currently because of the asshole GOP the purpose is to create monopolies. Laws are only as good as the society that allows them and right now the public has been bullied by the top.

Dont fucking confuse purpose of a party with the entent of neutrality. The purpose of the GOP since Reagan has been to fuck over everyone else.

You have a very old bullshit view of Ayn Rand economics. "Fuck you I got mine" is what led to the great depression and what to Bush's great recession that was triggered by Reagan' failed trickle up economics. 

Taxes are NOT robbery. Voting is NOT tyranny. Now please shut the fuck up. If you value a free society then one class nor one party have a monopoly on how OUR laws get written. We have done the "don't tax the rich" crap for 36 years. We have done the "less regulation" crap for 36 years. And in that time the GOP has had an average of the majority of power in those 3 branches. And all it has done is make the rich richer and explode the pay gap.

Regulations are not designed to punish anyone. Regulations are laws we agree on. The problem in that 36 years has not been that speed limits exist, but in that one party, the GOP has been better at marketing to protect the rich by selling the bullshit idea that the left are anti private sector. We are not. I'd only admit we let the right control the narrative and we keep losing because we suck at marketing.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No,

Brian37 wrote:

No, regulations depend on lawmakers. Anti trust laws are just like speed limits, they are not anti car, just anti speed. The purpose of regulations are not to favor, or more in the point they should not favor. Currently because of the asshole GOP the purpose is to create monopolies. Laws are only as good as the society that allows them and right now the public has been bullied by the top.

How do you think proposed laws are written? Do you think that enlightened members of Congress take a pen to paper? Hell no. People who have a significant interest in a law write a draft and give it to their representative. Once a representative is encouraged to actually try to push the law through the churn, everyone else who has a strong interest pays lawyers thousands of dollars to suggest modifications- those lawyers are called lobbyists. In most cases, the lobbyists don't give a fuck what party is in power, they just change their sales pitch. For example, Romney Care is a "private sector" solution,  while Obamacare is "controlling big health" despite being extremely similar at the core. 

Laws will ALWAYS be strongly biased towards the largest company. They have the most money to spend on lobbyists, who are the ones offering proposed legislation and amendments. But beyond that is the simple fact that elected officials cannot possibly be experts on every topic they vote on. So what do they do? They contact experts to ask their opinion, they hold hearings where experts testify, they talk to supporters who are experts. On any given issue, who is the expert? Naturally, the person who has worked in the industry for 40+ years and now holds an executive position in the field being regulated. Nobody is going to come ask Brian37 about his expertise in the restaraunt industry. Everyone is going to want to ask a high level executive of McDonalds, Burger King, Darden or any other major restaurant.

Then AFTER a law is passed, it goes through a process of regulation writing, where more lobbyists spend countless hours interpreting the law and suggesting regulations to be enacted by the regulating agency. The agency posts the proposed regulations, has a period of feeback, again mostly from lobbyists, and then finally approves them. And that is what is ultimately enforced.

Quote:

Taxes are NOT robbery. Voting is NOT tyranny. Now please shut the fuck up. If you value a free society then one class nor one party have a monopoly on how OUR laws get written. We have done the "don't tax the rich" crap for 36 years. We have done the "less regulation" crap for 36 years. And in that time the GOP has had an average of the majority of power in those 3 branches. And all it has done is make the rich richer and explode the pay gap.

The GOP is not anti-regulation. That is why I am not a Republican and have not voted for any of them. 

 

Quote:

Regulations are not designed to punish anyone. Regulations are laws we agree on. The problem in that 36 years has not been that speed limits exist, but in that one party, the GOP has been better at marketing to protect the rich by selling the bullshit idea that the left are anti private sector. We are not. I'd only admit we let the right control the narrative and we keep losing because we suck at marketing.

How can we agree on regulations when there is not a single human alive who knows every regulation written last year, let alone be knowledgable enough to judge them?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Regulations definitely need

Regulations definitely need regulating. Ironic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

No, regulations depend on lawmakers. Anti trust laws are just like speed limits, they are not anti car, just anti speed. The purpose of regulations are not to favor, or more in the point they should not favor. Currently because of the asshole GOP the purpose is to create monopolies. Laws are only as good as the society that allows them and right now the public has been bullied by the top.

How do you think proposed laws are written? Do you think that enlightened members of Congress take a pen to paper? Hell no. People who have a significant interest in a law write a draft and give it to their representative. Once a representative is encouraged to actually try to push the law through the churn, everyone else who has a strong interest pays lawyers thousands of dollars to suggest modifications- those lawyers are called lobbyists. In most cases, the lobbyists don't give a fuck what party is in power, they just change their sales pitch. For example, Romney Care is a "private sector" solution,  while Obamacare is "controlling big health" despite being extremely similar at the core. 

Laws will ALWAYS be strongly biased towards the largest company. They have the most money to spend on lobbyists, who are the ones offering proposed legislation and amendments. But beyond that is the simple fact that elected officials cannot possibly be experts on every topic they vote on. So what do they do? They contact experts to ask their opinion, they hold hearings where experts testify, they talk to supporters who are experts. On any given issue, who is the expert? Naturally, the person who has worked in the industry for 40+ years and now holds an executive position in the field being regulated. Nobody is going to come ask Brian37 about his expertise in the restaraunt industry. Everyone is going to want to ask a high level executive of McDonalds, Burger King, Darden or any other major restaurant.

Then AFTER a law is passed, it goes through a process of regulation writing, where more lobbyists spend countless hours interpreting the law and suggesting regulations to be enacted by the regulating agency. The agency posts the proposed regulations, has a period of feeback, again mostly from lobbyists, and then finally approves them. And that is what is ultimately enforced.

Quote:

Taxes are NOT robbery. Voting is NOT tyranny. Now please shut the fuck up. If you value a free society then one class nor one party have a monopoly on how OUR laws get written. We have done the "don't tax the rich" crap for 36 years. We have done the "less regulation" crap for 36 years. And in that time the GOP has had an average of the majority of power in those 3 branches. And all it has done is make the rich richer and explode the pay gap.

The GOP is not anti-regulation. That is why I am not a Republican and have not voted for any of them. 

 

Quote:

Regulations are not designed to punish anyone. Regulations are laws we agree on. The problem in that 36 years has not been that speed limits exist, but in that one party, the GOP has been better at marketing to protect the rich by selling the bullshit idea that the left are anti private sector. We are not. I'd only admit we let the right control the narrative and we keep losing because we suck at marketing.

How can we agree on regulations when there is not a single human alive who knows every regulation written last year, let alone be knowledgable enough to judge them?

NO the GOP is "fuck you I got mine" and write the "regulations" to benefit the top. Now you keep saying you don't vote for them because they regulate too much? NO again, they rigg regulations that allow the top to get richer. Now if you think less regulations will work you are a fool, if you are a libertarian then to me you are simply a republcian on steriods willing to turn America into Somolia.

You are simply trying to put lipstick on a pig. Just like when a theist says "I am not like the others". Yea, your worse than a republican. You'd allow someone to speed 100mph in a school zone. At least republicans keep the speed limits and only ticket the middle class and poor. 

Sorry you are worse than a republican. You are like them, they protect the rich too, but are simply willing to boil the lobster slowly like they have for the past 36 years. You want to dump America in the deep frier as quickly as possible. 

I want regulations. Regulations are what keep water clean. Regulations are why restaurants can be shut down for not keeping up with health codes. I want regulations becuase I don't want some fuckface going 100mph in a school zone. I want regulations like seat belts and air bags becuase that keeps everyone's car insurance down on top of saving lives. 

You don't like regulations? TOO FUCKING BAD, you are not the only voter in society and in a free society WE decide, not you alone.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:NO the GOP is

Brian37 wrote:

NO the GOP is "fuck you I got mine" and write the "regulations" to benefit the top. Now you keep saying you don't vote for them because they regulate too much? NO again, they rigg regulations that allow the top to get richer. Now if you think less regulations will work you are a fool, if you are a libertarian then to me you are simply a republcian on steriods willing to turn America into Somolia.

I've been telling you for almost a decade now that I am not a republican. And you can stop pretending you know anything about the economy or politics of Somalia, we all know better.

 

 

Quote:

I want regulations. Regulations are what keep water clean. Regulations are why restaurants can be shut down for not keeping up with health codes. I want regulations becuase I don't want some fuckface going 100mph in a school zone. I want regulations like seat belts and air bags becuase that keeps everyone's car insurance down on top of saving lives. 

Yet water isn't clean- go drink straight from your nearest river, I dare you. Restaurants break health codes all the time. Fuckfaces go 100mph in school zones. People drive without wearing seatbelts while texting and drunk. And there is a good number of regulations limiting what factors insurance companies can use to isolate high risk drivers from low risk drivers, thus raising the cost of car insurance on low risk drivers. Large corporations routinely break the spirit and sometimes the letter of regulations. The benefit of having full time armies of lawyers to fight in court. 

You bitch about monopolies in cable and health insurance, but those monopolies were created by the regulations you say you want. Regulations are often created with wonderful goals, what I am saying is that they are not the best method for achieving those goals. Now many people have one health insurance company, where pre-Obamacare they had 20. 

 

Quote:

You don't like regulations? TOO FUCKING BAD, you are not the only voter in society and in a free society WE decide, not you alone.

The irony is that I actually decide slightly more than you. I'm in position that some representatives in my state at least ask my opinion on legislation that impacts my business. But on the federal level, neither one of us has any impact on the decision. You are deluding yourself if you think you decide anything. Trump & co. decide. How much do you trust him?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:My comment was

Vastet wrote:
My comment was directly based on your comment, that you'd only had 7 tenants. I STILL have more experience with landlord vs tenant disputes in adjudication. So it doesn't matter.

More hyperbole from a biased renter.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think what's

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Since when are banks unregulated? Seems to me is that extreme regulation has failed to prevent dishonesty. Why do you think the next round of regulation will have different results?

meant here is--- while the banks are regulated it's the back room operations that come in question. The 2008 financial situation is the example. While being regulated the investment banks had congess repeal the Glass-Stegal regulations. Thats what caused everyone to get robbed.  It's the honky tonk between elites that lets things like this happen. In this case regulations were removed causing that part of the regulations to protect people's money went out the window. It's the same thing as letting half lions out of the zoo. Yummy yum for them.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

NO the GOP is "fuck you I got mine" and write the "regulations" to benefit the top. Now you keep saying you don't vote for them because they regulate too much? NO again, they rigg regulations that allow the top to get richer. Now if you think less regulations will work you are a fool, if you are a libertarian then to me you are simply a republcian on steriods willing to turn America into Somolia.

I've been telling you for almost a decade now that I am not a republican. And you can stop pretending you know anything about the economy or politics of Somalia, we all know better.

 

 

Quote:

I want regulations. Regulations are what keep water clean. Regulations are why restaurants can be shut down for not keeping up with health codes. I want regulations becuase I don't want some fuckface going 100mph in a school zone. I want regulations like seat belts and air bags becuase that keeps everyone's car insurance down on top of saving lives. 

Yet water isn't clean- go drink straight from your nearest river, I dare you. Restaurants break health codes all the time. Fuckfaces go 100mph in school zones. People drive without wearing seatbelts while texting and drunk. And there is a good number of regulations limiting what factors insurance companies can use to isolate high risk drivers from low risk drivers, thus raising the cost of car insurance on low risk drivers. Large corporations routinely break the spirit and sometimes the letter of regulations. The benefit of having full time armies of lawyers to fight in court. 

You bitch about monopolies in cable and health insurance, but those monopolies were created by the regulations you say you want. Regulations are often created with wonderful goals, what I am saying is that they are not the best method for achieving those goals. Now many people have one health insurance company, where pre-Obamacare they had 20. 

 

Quote:

You don't like regulations? TOO FUCKING BAD, you are not the only voter in society and in a free society WE decide, not you alone.

The irony is that I actually decide slightly more than you. I'm in position that some representatives in my state at least ask my opinion on legislation that impacts my business. But on the federal level, neither one of us has any impact on the decision. You are deluding yourself if you think you decide anything. Trump & co. decide. How much do you trust him?

I want clean water too, what the hell makes you think I don't? If you are a libertarian, then to me, you are simply a republican who is willing to extend poverty wages to LGBT and pot smokers. "Less regulation" does not make the top behave, they simply pocket the money overseas and blackmail or con voters into allowing them to write our laws for us. 

Restaurants break health codes all the time? No shit Sherlock. Been in retail/food service most of my life. That's like saying "People speed so lets not have any speed limits". Again, you are not making any arguments for less taxes on the rich that prove the way we do things is working. You are not making any arguments that our current regulations have improved anything but the profits of the top. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
My comment was directly based on your comment, that you'd only had 7 tenants. I STILL have more experience with landlord vs tenant disputes in adjudication. So it doesn't matter.

More hyperbole from a biased renter.

More hyperbole by an inexperienced, ignorant, and biased fool.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: "Less

Brian37 wrote:

 "Less regulation" does not make the top behave, they simply pocket the money overseas and blackmail or con voters into allowing them to write our laws for us. 

Neither does more regulation. 

 

Quote:

 You are not making any arguments that our current regulations have improved anything but the profits of the top. 

Of course I am not making that argument. I don't believe our current regulations have improved anything at all. Hence why I oppose more regulations, because they will only support existing large corporations. The mystery is why you sit there pointing out the abject failure of regulating, and then suggest more regulating is the solution.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
 This is a total strawman

 This is a total strawman argument. What you described is fraud and theft. The company is pressuring it's employees to run a scam. What conservative or free market capitalist doesn't want to jail thieves? The real problem is elitism. If you're a poor person running a $100 scam you go to jail. If you're the CEO of Wells Fargo Bank running a trillion dollar scam, you don't. You get a $100,000,000 golden parachute to retire on.

 

The real question is why don't these employees do not quit such shitty working conditions. The answer is of course TMFP looking for too few jobs, so the unwashed masses of humanity must all must accept whatever the boss tells them to do. But I know it is taboo to even TMFP as a problem. And Mr. Trudeau want to provide these banks and other big business with all the slave immigrant they ask for, and then tell you he is for the common man.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: This is a total

EXC wrote:

 This is a total strawman argument.

Not remotely.

EXC wrote:
What you described is fraud and theft.

Which is exactly what happens when there are no rules.

EXC wrote:
The company is pressuring it's employees to run a scam.

Actually they aren't. The company is trying to get employees to make sales targets honestly, they just don't appreciate that the goals they set and the pressure to meet those goals creates an environment where people are forced to be shady or find a new job. The rich people running the show simply don't comprehend how little money the average person has, and assume it should be easy to sell people things. There is a disconnect between the rich and reality for the majority, and most people on both sides don't really appreciate how much of a disconnect there actually is.

EXC wrote:
What conservative or free market capitalist doesn't want to jail thieves?

Most of them want to jail competitors while acquiring monopolies. Give them the opportunity and that's exactly what happens. Every single time.

EXC wrote:
The real problem is elitism. If you're a poor person running a $100 scam you go to jail. If you're the CEO of Wells Fargo Bank running a trillion dollar scam, you don't. You get a $100,000,000 golden parachute to retire on.

That is indeed a problem, but it isn't the problem.

EXC wrote:
The real question is why don't these employees do not quit such shitty working conditions.

They can't afford to.

EXC wrote:
The answer is of course TMFP looking for too few jobs, so the unwashed masses of humanity must all must accept whatever the boss tells them to do. But I know it is taboo to even TMFP as a problem.

No, the problem is the rich only investing in things that make them richer, while doing everything to maximise profits and minimise expenditures.

EXC wrote:
And Mr. Trudeau want to provide these banks and other big business with all the slave immigrant they ask for, and then tell you he is for the common man.

I'm all for immigration. There's plenty of room. It's not going to make any difference as long as the richest people keep things as they are, at least until they get themselves all killed again. Only a matter of time, and the cycle will begin anew.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:EXC

Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:
What conservative or free market capitalist doesn't want to jail thieves?

Most of them want to jail competitors while acquiring monopolies. Give them the opportunity and that's exactly what happens. Every single time.




hear, hear! that's why the biggest capitalists nearly always come out in support of fascists. each individual capitalist only wants an unregulated economy as far as he is concerned. just like religions with their cry of "religious freedom," the robber capitalist will cry "laissez-faire" until he is on top, then the tune quickly changes. national socialism is their wet dream.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Actually they

Vastet wrote:
Actually they aren't. The company is trying to get employees to make sales targets honestly, they just don't appreciate that the goals they set and the pressure to meet those goals creates an environment where people are forced to be shady or find a new job.

These managers all knew what was going on. Of course the didn't explicitly tell them to break the law. A mafia boss doesn't usually say "kill him" when they order a hit. They use coded language to escape the law. Pleading ignorance is not supposed to be a legal defence. These banks are protected by both political parties.

Under communism/socialism, party bosses will pressure workers to meet production goals right? Sometime the employees will cheat and steal to meet these goals. Lower level bosses will often lie to the higher ups to hold their position of power. I fail to see how letting government run things changes this. How can an economy function if workers are not pressured to meet production goals?

Vastet wrote:
Most of them want to jail competitors while acquiring monopolies. Give them the opportunity and that's exactly what happens. Every single time.

Under communism/socialism, party bosses want to jail political competitors and acquire a monopoly of power. Outlawing greed is not going to make it go away.

What you propose is insane. The current government fails to jail scam artists, racketeers, fraudsters. So your solution is send more money and power to the politicians that don't jail these bank managers???? You tell me I should glad to pay taxes for policing and then the police don't arrest these criminals and take back their stolen money. WTF, the police and the government are crooks too.

The problem is not too much freedom, it is elitism. The politicians of both the left and right protect other elites like this bank CEO. The bank CEOs in return send a lot of their ill gotten gain to politians in the form of taxes and political donations. How does having an elite group of communist party bosses change things?

You're actually doing the same thing as thse banks. They use lies and deception to get people to turn over more of their money to the bank. You do the same thing to get people to accept paying more in taxes. Sorry I'm not falling for either scam. I will protect myself from all manner of scam artist, especially the politician that tells me he is looking out for me so send me all my money.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:These managers all

EXC wrote:
These managers all knew what was going on.

Managers are under greater pressure than regular employees, because their jobs have no legislated protection whatsoever. I'm certain many of them did know. But their bosses wouldn't listen to them and they had to do their jobs of coaching employees to meet sales goals.

EXC wrote:
A mafia boss doesn't usually say "kill him" when they order a hit.

Actually he does. You watch too much tv. The only time a crime lord will be cute with language is when he suspects he's under surveillance and/or doesn't trust those in earshot.

EXC wrote:
Under communism/socialism, party bosses will pressure workers to meet production goals right?

Production goals are completely unrelated to sales goals. Production goals exist under any sustainable economic system.

EXC wrote:
Sometime the employees will cheat and steal to meet these goals.

Very rarely. Most often it is top level management's fault for not providing sufficient resources to meet production goals.

EXC wrote:
Lower level bosses will often lie to the higher ups to hold their position of power.

Which would get them caught and jailed. No problem there.

EXC wrote:
I fail to see how letting government run things changes this.

Because governments primary purpose is not to acquire profit, it is to govern.

EXC wrote:
Under communism/socialism, party bosses want to jail political competitors and acquire a monopoly of power.

Sure, in a dictatorship. Not in a democracy.

EXC wrote:
What you propose is insane.

Lol. No.

EXC wrote:
The current government fails to jail scam artists, racketeers, fraudsters.

Because capitalism makes all ventures legal, until you get caught. The government doesn't have the resources to pursue all scam artists, because companies and the rich have all the money and refuse to part with any. In order for government to be able to do what you suggest, taxes for the rich would quadruple overnight. They'll never let their taxes be expanded so heavily for a cause that will by definition reduce their income as well. It's a ridiculous catch 22 you're presenting here.

EXC wrote:
The problem is not too much freedom, it is elitism.

No, it isn't.

EXC wrote:
The politicians of both the left and right protect other elites like this bank CEO. The bank CEOs in return send a lot of their ill gotten gain to politians in the form of taxes and political donations.

That's how capitalism works.

EXC wrote:
How does having an elite group of communist party bosses change things?

There wouldn't be such a group, so this is a strawman.

EXC wrote:
You're actually doing the same thing as thse banks. They use lies and deception to get people to turn over more of their money to the bank. You do the same thing to get people to accept paying more in taxes.

Lol no. I'm telling the truth to get more taxes. There is no comparison.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Because

Vastet wrote:
Because governments primary purpose is not to acquire profit, it is to govern.

An individual purpose is to survive, to attain wealth and power. Making everything run by the government does not make greed go away. These bank managers and workers got into banking because that is where the money was, the easiest way to make their money. So under communism/socialism, they become goverment beauracrats and government employees. But there greed doesn't disappear. Their willingness to cheat the system and break the rules doesn't go away because they are employed by the government. This is driven by living in a competive society and world. Government does not have a magic want to make greed go away.

Vastet wrote:

 Lol no. I'm telling the truth to get more taxes. There is no comparison.

The leftists propagandists have duped you the same as these banks duped their customers. "Trust us with all the fruits of your labor, we can manage things better than you can yourself. We have your best interest at heart."

Sorry but I'm not falling for either scam.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:An individual

EXC wrote:
An individual purpose is to survive, to attain wealth and power.

That's your opinion, not a fact. A person's actual purpose is to increase entropy in the universe, as is the purpose of all life.

EXC wrote:
Making everything run by the government does not make greed go away.

Noone said it would. But making everything transparent and run by government makes it incredibly difficult if not actually impossible for the greedy to get away with their scams. There's no way to hide a scam when everything is transparent.

EXC wrote:
These bank managers and workers got into banking because that is where the money was, the easiest way to make their money.

That's debatable but seeing as how it isn't relevant I won't bother debating the point.

EXC wrote:
So under communism/socialism, they become goverment beauracrats and government employees.

Sure, in a dictatorship. Not in a democracy.

EXC wrote:
But there greed doesn't disappear.

I'm not trying to eliminate greed, it isn't possible. What is possible is making the ability to act on greed far more dangerous to the greedy. That absolutely requires government and transparency. Nothing else can or will accomplish anything except more greedy activities.

EXC wrote:
Their willingness to cheat the system and break the rules doesn't go away because they are employed by the government.

And they get caught in a week and go to jail. No problem.

EXC wrote:
This is driven by living in a competive society and world. Government does not have a magic want to make greed go away.

Yes, it does. It's called transparency. Greed won't actually go away, no. But it will be leashed. Something capitalism isn't capable of as it works by rewarding greed.

EXC wrote:
The leftists propagandists have duped you the same as these banks duped their customers.

The rightist propaganda has duped you the same as these banks duped their customers, literally.

EXC wrote:
Sorry but I'm not falling for either scam.

Way too late. You fell for the scams decades ago, and now defend those scams with every breath you take. You are the embodiment of a corporate puppet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote: I'm not trying

Vastet wrote:
I'm not trying to eliminate greed, it isn't possible. What is possible is making the ability to act on greed far more dangerous to the greedy. That absolutely requires government and transparency. Nothing else can or will accomplish anything except more greedy activities.  

The government officials now don't prosecute and jail these bank managers and employees, even though the voters of both parties want this to happen. In communism/socialism, what would cause the top official to order them to be prosecute? All you're doing is changing the title of who owns the banks from private shareholders to the government. Does this piece of paper have magical properties? Why would the greed and corruption go away just from a title change?

Can't you see the problem is not who's name is on the title to the bank? The problem is elitism, the top politicans look out for the top bankers and visa versa. No one looks out for the common man.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The government

EXC wrote:
The government officials now don't prosecute and jail these bank managers and employees, even though the voters of both parties want this to happen.

Because this is capitalism, where such behaviour is rewarded. In socialism it would be punished.

EXC wrote:
In communism/socialism, what would cause the top official to order them to be prosecute?

The same thing that makes a police officer arrest someone they watched commit a crime. What kind of stupid question is that?

EXC wrote:
All you're doing is changing the title of who owns the banks from private shareholders to the government.

Which is (in the context of democratic socialism) more than anyone has done in all of history, so your premise that the change isn't significant is self refuting.

EXC wrote:
Does this piece of paper have magical properties? Why would the greed and corruption go away just from a title change?

Only an ignorant retard would refer to such a change as only a change in title. Everything would change. Goals, policies, methods, results, everything. Try drinking bleach. It's just got a different title than water, it'll be fine. Drink it for a week and get back to us with how the same it is to drinking water.

EXC wrote:
Can't you see the problem is not who's name is on the title to the bank?

Strawman and mischaracterisation.

EXC wrote:
No one looks out for the common man.

Because capitalism. duh.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote: The same thing

Vastet wrote:
The same thing that makes a police officer arrest someone they watched commit a crime. What kind of stupid question is that?.

You're obviously calling it a stupid question because you can't answer it. Public officials now don't punish fellow elitiist that commit white collar crimes like these bank managers that knew this was going on. What is going to motivate them to act under communism/socialism?

We have leftist politicians and right wingers, but still they get away with their crimes? The system is set up to make it so the elistist protect each other from the irate public.

Here is a list of failures of government that led to this situation.

1. Little prosecution of white collar crimes like finacial fraud, making the bankers think they can do whatever they please.

2. An education system that produces people who's only job skill is to scam people.

3. An education system that produces bank customers that can't manage their own finances or spot an obvious scam.

4. A justice system that prevents these victims from recovering their money from the fraudsters.

This is why liberalism is a mental disorder. You double down on failed government by insisting that we need more government.

We need real power to the people where we refuse to live by the rules made by elitist bankers, elitist medical industry, eletist judges, etitist politicians, political parties, etc... The people need to be the police, judges and jailers. Not these fucking elitiest theives that tax you to death and then don't do shit with all the money they steal. 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think what

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
The same thing that makes a police officer arrest someone they watched commit a crime. What kind of stupid question is that?.

You're obviously calling it a stupid question because you can't answer it. Public officials now don't punish fellow elitiist that commit white collar crimes like these bank managers that knew this was going on. What is going to motivate them to act under communism/socialism?

We have leftist politicians and right wingers, but still they get away with their crimes? The system is set up to make it so the elistist protect each other from the irate public.

Here is a list of failures of government that led to this situation.

1. Little prosecution of white collar crimes like finacial fraud, making the bankers think they can do whatever they please.

2. An education system that produces people who's only job skill is to scam people.

3. An education system that produces bank customers that can't manage their own finances or spot an obvious scam.

4. A justice system that prevents these victims from recovering their money from the fraudsters.

This is why liberalism is a mental disorder. You double down on failed government by insisting that we need more government.

We need real power to the people where we refuse to live by the rules made by elitist bankers, elitist medical industry, eletist judges, etitist politicians, political parties, etc... The people need to be the police, judges and jailers. Not these fucking elitiest theives that tax you to death and then don't do shit with all the money they steal. 

needs to be understood here is- (just my contribution to the discussion) Civilization was created by those who needed a system to take advantage of the people/masses. That's what civilization was desiged for. Think carefully. When technically has civilization ever turnd out any different then it has today. Look at who's benefiting from the lot. People have been duped into thinking that civilization will some how, someday, actually work---but it never has and can't. No matter how many times it's been started over it always reverts back to fulfilling it,s original design, because it's merely doing what it's been designed to do, take advantage of the masses for the sake of the one's who maintain the system that long ago was invented by floks like thamsleves. No matter what modifications have been implements over the millenia it has turned out the same. The people of today and the leaders think that eventually it can be modified to work for everyone (you've most certainly heard that one over the past decade) but it can never be. Civilizations must, and can only be founded on the very ideas that destroy it.

The conversation of this thread was about capitalism--there's the  main problem. Civilization  was founded to satisfy the lead persdators of a society, and predators will eventually devour the prey (the little guy) and then they will begin to devour each other, as can be seen by the growth of the finacial system by the larger banks taking over the smaller banks making fewer predatory entities. Also notice that the finacial system has become the governing factors in all coutries. In essence thay have become the governemnt. They don't care about who runs red lights or whoi kills who, that's not what they govern. They govern the one that govern you, and the ones thaty govern are controlled as not to harm their p[rdatorship. Yhis is why Glass-Steegal, was not re-implemnted--so thay have acsees to "your" money through their banks that you have to use in your evryday dealings.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:You're obviously

EXC wrote:
You're obviously calling it a stupid question because you can't answer it.

No. I'm calling it a stupid question because it is a stupid question. Your inability to explain why any police officer does their job today shows just how stupid a question it is.

EXC wrote:
Public officials now don't punish fellow elitiist that commit white collar crimes like these bank managers that knew this was going on. What is going to motivate them to act under communism/socialism?

Today corporate entities exist independently, with the sole purpose of acquiring profits. Those entities are permitted lobbyists who can influence politicians to help them increase their profits.
In socialism, they would not be independent corporations, and their existence would depend on their services or products and the quality of their services or products. Profit would not be an objective at all, let alone the primary reason for being. They wouldn't have lobbyists, and ceo's would be elected by the population or earned through work and education instead of by a few dozen shareholders, because the entire population would be shareholders.
Everything you say adds up to a demonstration of your ignorance of socialism, which has been one of your biggest flaws since you started posting here. You don't have the slightest clue how socialism works, even though it has been thoroughly explained to you multiple times per year for almost a decade. Which means you are stupid, and explains why a 6 year old would whoop your ass in a debate. Unfortunately for you, I'm considerably smarter than a 6 year old, and as a result it's amazing you aren't too embarrassed to show your face after I obliterated your entire argument for the 500th time straight.

1: capitalism.
2: capitalism.
3: capitalism.
4: capitalism.

This is why you're clinically retarded. You constantly and consistently blame the problems of the day on completely unrelated issues or person's, refuse to educate yourself to find out what the real problems are, and come up with brainless solutions that not only won't fix anything, but in fact will only make things worse.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I think what

Old Seer wrote:
I think what needs to be understood here is- (just my contribution to the discussion) Civilization was created by those who needed a system to take advantage of the people/masses.

That is pure bs. Civilisation began out of need, not design.

Every social species on the planet has figured out that a group needs a seat of authority. There is no evidence of any social species that ever existed that didn't have such a seat. Without such a seat, anarchy reigns and cooperation is impossible.

Someone has to be there to put down the bickering and make a decision.

You cannot have a group of more than maybe 10 people without a leadership structure. Even 10 people would be an incredible feat. Many people need such a structure with as few as 1 other person.

We are not carbon copies of each other. We all have our own goals, and most or all of us have some desires that are significantly detrimental to any attempt at large scale cooperation. It simply isn't possible to have a large scale cooperative effort without some form of leadership structure that makes us behave in such a way as to remain cooperative.

The real problem is that there are and always will be people who want more than others, to be the best, and they are willing to work towards that goal. And really, this is a very good thing. If not for this quality in a significant portion of the population, we'd still be in the dark ages.

Most people just want enough to be comfortable, and they don't put in work for more than that. Which is why revolutions only happen once people start starving. Only then is the average person pushed hard enough to take up arms. As long as they have basic necessities, the average person is content.

So a competition for those who want more is held by a minority of the population, uninterfered with by the majority. Over time, that minority finds more and more opportunities to increase their share; from each other and from the majority who are like sheep. It has happened throughout all history. It has never not happened. There may be brief periods where the majority actually gain more than the minority, but in the long run the minority always gets a larger and larger share, until enough people are starving that everyone rises up and revolts.

It is a completely predictable and logical system that functions very well. There is rarely anything of real significance lost during a revolution, because the people revolting are the people who have, understand, and disseminate all the knowledge and experience necessary to run everything when the revolution is over.

But we should be smart enough to recognise that while capitalism was necessary to get us this far, there is a superior method. It isn't one that arises naturally because there are prerequisites. You'd need technology very slightly superior to what we have today for it to be possible to arise naturally. But you don't actually need that technology in order to adopt the system.

Indeed, socialism is absolutely necessary for a society such as ours. And we use it in a lot of ways. Every country does. But it isn't the dominant system. Capitalism dominates. And as long as capitalism dominates, the endless cycle of rich getting richer until they push too far and revolution results will continue indefinitely.

There is noone planning this cycle. There is not and never has been a group of people who created society with the express purpose of seizing power and resources. There is no conspiracy. It is a perfectly natural and predictable cycle that is blatantly obvious when you know just enough about varied earth based sciences to see it.

I guaran-damn-tee that every intelligent species in the universe has, had, or will have exactly the same problem. Some fixed it long before we will. Others will take much longer to fix it, and still others will never fix it (I suspect we are within 2 generations of either fixing it or failing to). But I'm 100% certain that any species which gets anywhere near our level of technology will have experienced this problem. It is quite impossible for them to not have experienced it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote: Today

Vastet wrote:
Today corporate entities exist independently, with the sole purpose of acquiring profits. Those entities are permitted lobbyists who can influence politicians to help them increase their profits. In socialism, they would not be independent corporations, and their existence would depend on their services or products and the quality of their services or products. Profit would not be an objective at all, let alone the primary reason for being.

Under communism/socialism, there still is a hierachtical structure. Same as any corporation. The whole society just becomes one big monopolistic corporation. It exists to serve the beauracracy and enrich the leaders at the top of the pyramid. The existence of any enterpise or commune would depend upon how it served the needs of the elite leaders not society at large.

You have to get rid of the damn elitist structure. The only way to do that is stop feeding the beast. Taxes must be entirely replaced with user fees. Instead of stop feeding the elites with the fruit of people's labor, you want 100% taxation. How insane.

People need to get rid of this idea of that others can do things better. You don't need to turn control over to party leaders, beauracrats, politicians and judges. You don't need them to control your healthcare and every ohter aspect of your life. Taxation is a total scam, it is rarely a fee for services, but rather a way to maintain the elitist control.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Without such a

Vastet wrote:
Without such a seat, anarchy reigns and cooperation is impossible. Someone has to be there to put down the bickering and make a decision. You cannot have a group of more than maybe 10 people without a leadership structure. Even 10 people would be an incredible feat.

There is nothing wrong with having leaders. But they should not be in a position where they can personally profit from being a leader. They should be a leader of ideas, not there to grap more power and money. What happens under communism/socialism is the powerful use their power to get more powerful. Same as in capitalism the rich use their richer to get richer. That is what you are missing, this is human nature.

If we got rid of taxation, there would not be a pot of free money for the corrupt and greedy to aspire to grab. If we replaced representive government with true democracy, they would not aspire to attain positions of power. Technology has made this possible, every service can be charged a user fee, all laws can be voted on by everyone.

You are correct to say cutting off the flow of money to the top will kill capitialism and end the corruption. So why not cut off the flow of power and money to the top in a politial structure as well? Why should we not thing a communist/socialist party leader would not be as corrupt as a capitalist bank CEO, given so much money and power?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Under

EXC wrote:
Under communism/socialism, there still is a hierachtical structure. Same as any corporation. The whole society just becomes one big monopolistic corporation. It exists to serve the beauracracy and enrich the leaders at the top of the pyramid.

Sure, in a dictatorship. Not in a democracy. Any hierarchy is constantly shifting. There is no comparison to a corporation which has the same people in charge year after year. There is no elite group to maintain power indefinitely. There isn't even much of a power base for the elite to claim provided power is sufficiently decentralised.

EXC wrote:
You have to get rid of the damn elitist structure. The only way to do that is stop feeding the beast.

Which can only happen with socialism.

EXC wrote:
Taxes must be entirely replaced with user fees.

That will simply increase costs for everyone except the rich and make the elite even more powerful. Brainless suggestion based on a flawed understanding of the problems facing society.

EXC wrote:
Instead of stop feeding the elites with the fruit of people's labor, you want 100% taxation. How insane.

What is truly insane is your having to make up lies because you're too stupid and uneducated to understand socialism. Instead of resdistributing wealth so the elites have less power, you want to give them the biggest break they've ever seen so they can double down on getting rich at the expense of everyone. THAT is insane.

EXC wrote:
People need to get rid of this idea of that others can do things better.

No, they don't. It's an indisputable fact that some people can do some things better than other people.

EXC wrote:
You don't need to turn control over to party leaders, beauracrats, politicians and judges.

If there is no power base then there is no society. Period. Say goodbye to all technology, emergency services, defence, running water, electricity, and everything that exists soley because of cooperative society.

EXC wrote:
You don't need them to control your healthcare and every ohter aspect of your life.

Until you can show me a population where everyone is sufficiently educated as to be able to do every job in society at peak efficiency, yes we do need people in charge who know what they're doing and how to run things. There's a reason you go to a doctor instead of a lawyer or taxi driver or bureaucrat when you have a broken leg. Only the doctor knows how to fix it. The day you go to a lawyer to cure you is the day you lose all chance of being cured.

EXC wrote:
Taxation is a total scam, it is rarely a fee for services, but rather a way to maintain the elitist control.

False. Taxation is by definition soley a fee for services and to redistribute wealth, and the only thing keeping the rich from seizing absolute power. Remove taxation and you give up on any chance of freedom and equality and prosperity for all.

EXC wrote:
But they should not be in a position where they can personally profit from being a leader.

Which can only happen with socialism.

EXC wrote:
What happens under communism/socialism is the powerful use their power to get more powerful. Same as in capitalism the rich use their richer to get richer. That is what you are missing, this is human nature.

What you keep missing is that that's only true in a dictatorship, not in a democracy. Which is why I can continue to call you a dumb shit who doesn't have a clue how socialism works.

EXC wrote:
If we got rid of taxation, there would not be a pot of free money for the corrupt and greedy to aspire to grab.

The corrupt and greedy don't have access to taxpayer money today, which is why they recruit patsies like you to argue for them. They certainly wouldn't have access to it in socialism. You are incredibly ignorant of reality.

EXC wrote:
If we replaced representive government with true democracy, they would not aspire to attain positions of power. Technology has made this possible, every service can be charged a user fee, all laws can be voted on by everyone.

You seem to be living in a fantasy where everyone is highly educated on all subjects despite the fact you've completely eliminated the education system. Ridiculous.

EXC wrote:
You are correct to say cutting off the flow of money to the top will kill capitialism and end the corruption. So why not cut off the flow of power and money to the top in a politial structure as well?

That's exactly what I'm proposing. There is no need for a central power position to control everything. A federal government must be concerned only with making sure the country is adequately defended and that there is no significant disparity between locales. Everything else can be done more locally.

EXC wrote:
Why should we not thing a communist/socialist party leader would not be as corrupt as a capitalist bank CEO, given so much money and power?

Because noone would ever be in such a position. It would be illegal. As would political parties be, if I had anything to say about it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:That will

Vastet wrote:
That will simply increase costs for everyone except the rich and make the elite even more powerful.

How would user fees increase costs? Youi'd get rid of the taxation industry and save all that money.

Vastet wrote:
  Instead of resdistributing wealth so the elites have less power, you want to give them the biggest break they've ever seen so they can double down on getting rich at the expense of everyone. 

The CEO of a bank does not redistribute the wealth amoung the employees, he make 10x more than the managers below him who make 10x more than those below him, etc.. The employees get starvation wages. 

Why would your brand of socialim run by eliites be any different? Why would the elites running your socialit utopia not enrich themselves and their cronies? If this happens what could the workers do about it. 

Socialism/Communism is actually just one big monompolistic corporation. The worst of the very thing you say you hate. 

Vastet wrote:
 

Until you can show me a population where everyone is sufficiently educated as to be able to do every job in society at peak efficiency, yes we do need people in charge who know what they're doing and how to run things. There's a reason you go to a doctor instead of a lawyer or taxi driver or bureaucrat when you have a broken leg. Only the doctor knows how to fix it. The day you go to a lawyer to cure you is the day you lose all chance of being cured.

I'm not saying youi don't hire others to do a job for you. But you don't need government to tell you who should provide your services.

The problem is the elites have deliberately created a doctor shortage. So maybe you wait weeks to see a doctor and then they charge $10K for one hour of service. End these elitist structures that prevent more people from becomming doctors if there is a demand.

Vastet wrote:
 

False. Taxation is by definition soley a fee for services and to redistribute wealth, and the only thing keeping the rich from seizing absolute power. Remove taxation and you give up on any chance of freedom and equality and prosperity for all.

That is a good one. So the income tax I pay is for a government service they provide in return??? What service??? The privledge of waking up everyday dealing with traffic, problems, ruining my health with work stress. Such great service I'm getting for my money.

Very Orwellian. Taxation is freedom??? I work, then others others that don't collect the fruits of my labor, and this is equality??? You are a lost cause, total indoctrination by the elitist and their slavery agenda for the unwashed masses.

The money that goes for the poor's food stamps all goes to big agra. They money that goes for the poor's free healthcare all goes to big pharma and wealth doctors. They money for the poor's rent subsidies goes to wealthy landlords. So how exactly is my income tax not making the rich richer? Do the poor have more money in their portfolio, no. But the 1% sure do.

Vastet wrote:
 

Which can only happen with socialism.

How can a government collect 100% of the wealth generated by workers, tax at 100% and not have the leaders and tax collectors not be in a position where they could personally profit from their position of power?

You seem to think socialism is a magic word. It is just like beliving that a Christian makes someone more honest and more than an athiest. It is not that I can't understand how you want socialism to work, it is that you can't seem to understand how human nature works. This bank CEO is not going to stop being greedy and corrupt just because he works for government instead of shareholders.

Vastet wrote:
 

You seem to be living in a fantasy where everyone is highly educated on all subjects despite the fact you've completely eliminated the education system. Ridiculous.

Complete strawman. I want to eliminate the monoply that teachers unions and elitiest universities have over educations. So there would be more education not less.

The fact is everyone has equal access to the information on any subjuct. What we have now is politicians pretending to be experts on everything, but they are only experts in raising money to get elected. Cetainly if you are a total fool like Brian37 you should not vote. If you can't pay user fees to run the democracy you shouldn't vote until you can.

Vastet wrote:
 se noone would ever be in such a position. It would be illegal..

If all wealth flowed to the government, how couild the leaders and tax collectors not be in a postion to be corrupt? If you were inclined to be greedy and corrupt, you would aspire with all your effort to become a leader in government because that is where the money is. 

Saying it would be illegal is a joke, if you control all the wealth, you make the rules. It is the golden rule, the one with the gold makes the rules.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen