Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Everyone needs an Enemy.

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 22, 2013, 2:28 p.m. EST by ProblemSolver (79)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  • 'Greedy-Middle-Man' has stripped the world of all its wealth.

  • 'Greedy-Middle-Man' has taken the cream of the crop.

  • 'Greedy-Middle-Man' sleeps well at night.

  • 'Greedy-Middle-Man' has no conscience.

  • 'Greedy-Middle-Man' has taken everything.

  • 'Greedy-Middle-Man' will be back tomorrow.

Unless we stop the 'Greedy-Middle-Man' , perpetual inequality will continue.

We are given a minimum wage regulated by Democratic process.

We need a maximum profit regulated through democratic process.

Yes the employer can pay a higher wage if he so desires.. but he is not allowed to pay lower than minimum wage. Therefore a maximum profit will not be allowed to be increased by the middleman. but the consumer can pay more if he so desires.

Equality is a beautiful thing.

With a Maximum Profit we would all survive comfortably on a minimum wage salary/earning.

  • 'Greedy-Middle-Man' has taken TOO MUCH !

15 Comments

15 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Have fun trying to regulate that.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

In order to achieve goals , we need to set goals.

I am not suggesting this will be easy.. just the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its not that its not easy, its impossible. Every single person is in a unique situation on this planet. Every single business is in a unique situation on this planet.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Civilization is built on regulations.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its built on sensible regulation. For every regulation, it takes people to monitor it.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

The Free Market , where the greedy middleman is allowed to hold out as long as he can to achieve the highest possible profit , is not sensible regulation.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Tell us all about your business experience to give you credentials to make such a post.

Have you ever been in business for youreslf? And if so, was it successful or did it fail because you didn't know how to manage and run a business.

We want to know what your "business experience" is.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Wrap your head around this:

  • When the doors opened to free trade, many items were brought in by the middleman from countries where products were very cheaply made.

  • Now the only competitive pricing was witth domestic products.

  • So a Fine crafted piece of furniture made domestically was 8X higher than a compressed sawdust piece of furniture from overseas.

  • The consumer looked at the two prices. And began opting for the lower priced item.. even though it was noticably less quality.

  • The middle man seeing the turn over of foreign product began to raise his profit mark-up. Soon the Mark-up on the foreign made items were much higher than the mark-up on domestic products. In fact domestic prices had to be dropped in order to make a sale..

  • Domestic manufacturing began to lose sales over foreign competition. Manufactures began to make cuts. in there own profits ( not in their quality).

  • Foreign product began making huge profits , while domestic product had to slim down their profits.

  • A cheaply made foreign piece of furniture was bringingin 300 - 400 % profit, while domestic was cut back to 10% profit.

  • Sales men and Middlemen began advetising foreign product front and center.. the profits were encouraging them to push foreign product sales.

  • Anyone selling foreign product was making a huge killing in profits..

The moral of the story - Had there been a maximum profit regulation , those foreign merchants would not have gained the advantage over domestic merchants as easily .. WalMart would be no where near the size in wealth as it is.. Local businesses would not have cut back on their profit mark up to near scarcity. driving them under. Consumers may still have bought the cheap items .. being extremely cheaper than domestic.. but not having to pay the additional inflated mark-up (practically unfettered). The savings by the consumer would have allowed the consumer to make the domestic higher quality purchases. while the foreign product would have tempered domestic prices somewhat from climbing out of control ..

But, as it stands , foreign product made a killing in high profits because their only competition was domestic prices.

A Maximum profit would have changed the outcome .

My business experience ?

  • I have been a consumer my whole life.

  • I have paid the unfettered jacked up profits out of necessity.

  • I have worked for less than minimum wage. I have worked for room and board only.

  • My accumulated wealth is less than half million.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Wrap your head around this - If you don't have business experience what gives you credibility?

If you have never been in the shoes of a "business owner" what gives you the "authority" to comment on how much profit a business makes or should make?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Why are you always trying to justify the profits of a business.. do you really believe Waltons deserve to be amongst the wealthiest people on the planet..

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

I'm not justifying profits of businesses - I have managed businesses and know what's involved in keeping the doors open - so that is why I ask.

A person who has no business experience has no idea what's involved in keeping the doors of a business open be it big or small.

Walton started out with one store - did he ever think his company would be as hugh as it is - probably not. So, do you resent him for being successful?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I do not resent any one person individually. It is the system which allows this unfair practice of greed to exist.

We must regulate greed.

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

It's about a fair distribution of wealth.

As you may agree , wealth is accumulated at the top mostly through profits. This high amount of accumulation at the top has altered economic- eco-system to the extent those at the bottom have lost their homes, their jobs , and are out on the street .. living a very 'undignified' existence.. through no fault of their own.. but through the fault of an unfair system which advocates extreme wealth.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Let me ask what do you think will solve the problem of a "person living on the street?

What do you think will solve the problem when a person loses their home?

And let me ask if you know - how many people who have lost their homes are homless and out on the streets?

[-] 0 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

If wealth was distributed equally amongst every American, how much would they each have?

Would the world be so awful if everyone had equal wealth?

Would the world be more productive if everyone had a job ?

Yes , I have many solutions for this.. many complicated solutions which would take a great deal of explaining..

First a Cap on profits:

This one key solution is the silver economic bullet.

The ramifications are enoromous.. and would turn the worlds economic situation completely around.. including creating a much better sustainable standard of living for the consumer.

The pile of wealth at the top would diminish .. and be spread out amongst the people.

[Removed]