, Maddus Mattus wrote

Good, I see you edited some constructiveness into your post.

*snip*

No. Because in the wake of that 1% will be the 99% who get wealthier (not rich, wealthier).

The 99% get wealthier but not rich. And how is that a bad thing?

*snip*

No. You get paid close to what you produce. If that is little, you get paid little.

So a Chinese worker making iPhones should be making way more than $8 per day salary then right? Because he certainly produces way more than $8 per day.

So if a CEO employs a million people and he takes 1%, he will very fast make hundred times more then they do. But they still earn close to what they produce and if they don't like the percentage, they are free to move elsewhere. 

CEOs don't produce anything. CEOs are overhead. You need to stop sucking up to corporate executives, as if they're some kind of demigods.

And having a CEO employ a million people is at the heart of the "too big to fail" problem. Don't give CEOs an excuse to justify such a huge salary just because he employs so many people. If he fucks up and costs 1 million people their jobs, are his personal consequences any greater than if he employed only 100? That's a big fat "NO". He's going to end up with $50 million golden parachute instead of a $100K golden parachute.

What do you propose? A tax on the top? So that he has to take even a bigger share of the income, so that the little guy get's even less wage, but now he is dependent on government, who also takes a cut?

No, you give tax breaks for smaller corporation. This will incentivize corporations to stay small. You also break them up if they start forming oligopolies. Don't wait until they become monopolies.

*snip*

No. It's a profit and loss system, we can't all be winners.

Nobody is saying everybody should be winner. What we can't have is 99% of the people being losers. Capitalism can't exist under those conditions.

What would you like as a solution? Everybody wins? How would you go about implementing that? Communism?

Did I say everybody should win? You only know the extremes, don't you?

*snip*

Yes, and you are willing to spend even more of their money on stimulus packages to give to large corporations, KUDOS!

Most of the stimulus money went to tax breaks. Doesn't that mean that the government took even less of the people's money by force, as you like to call it? You really need to get your facts before making an * of yourself with statements like this.

Or did you miss that the FED is going to print 40 BILLION a MONTH bailing out the banks and their CEO's?

The solution is not MORE government control, but LESS.

Make sure you don't have to learn the lesson we are learning over here.

For about the millionth time, the banks needed to be bailed out to avert a global economic depression. That's the end of pipe solution to avoid a disaster. The front of pipe solution to prevent the possibility of this crisis from ever happening again, is to regulate the * out of the banks, because it's plainly obvious except to the densest of people that capitalism cannot self-regulate. There is no such thing as pure capitalism anyway. It's an invisible pink unicorn. You're never going to see it in your lifetime. So don't delude yourself into think you can.

We have to work within the given parameters: government must exist in order for capitalism to exist. And within these parameters we've tried going to one extreme of laissez-faire capitalism several times, and each time ended with near disaster. We can slowly turn the notch the other way without taking it to 11. Or in Maddus's world does there exist only 0 or 11?