Upcoming elections and the next Cabinet's economic platforms

silverfox91 said:It’s funny how they claim it isn't an issue when, under the Freedom of Information Act, they’re legally obligated to hand everything over for free—yet somehow, they still find ways to hike prices by 100%. Then they bump up court fees just to "discourage" people from filing lawsuits. It’s a classic move. Solve the problem with a stroke of a pen. Brilliant.
Where is this money actually going for "modernization"? They’ve already flushed millions down the drain on failed upgrades, and we’re still waiting decades just to get a property deed processed. It’s the exact same story with them promising to speed up the courts.

silverfox91 said:Here’s another one of the current administration's bright ideas... they just ordered state-owned companies to hand over half of their profits straight to the federal budget. 😲

Good luck to whoever actually manages to win the next election.

Ashley Collins4;33017384 said:

Carl Foster8 said:Who, exactly, should private entrepreneurs be answering to, and why?

Their duty to society starts and ends with paying taxes (which the Government clearly mismanages). Market forces determine product prices; essentially, customers decide what they are willing to pay for something.
By that logic, an owner should also be free to set labor costs, because that's really the only way to boost employment. Minimum wages in struggling sectors, like textiles, have drained the capital needed for modernization and productivity gains, which ultimately leads to mass layoffs. It’s basically living on credit through a guaranteed minimum wage.

If the Government promises to create jobs, they're basically putting themselves in a position
where they have to beg every small business owner to hire one extra person
just so they can keep their word. These are companies they didn't even control to begin with.
When interest rates need to drop, they should be negotiating with
bankers instead of trying to command them, as if the banks were under their direct control, etc., etc.

The Government shouldn't be promising job creation either; they can only offer projections that their policies might create the space for certain numbers of jobs to open up.
Banks act as repositories for savings, and you can't just walk up to a stranger on the street and demand they give you $33 a low interest rate just because you want it....

Just as a free market never functions perfectly in practice, your ideas wouldn't function anywhere near perfectly either.

Nobody can give you less than what you actually earned.

If you think you're being underpaid, then quit and good luck finding a new job. The thing is, competition among the unemployed is so high that people would work for significantly less money. You aren't actually helping anyone; you're just preventing those who know how to value their labor from earning what they deserve.

Carl Foster8 said:It would actually be logical if state-owned companies turned over all their profits to the treasury. Are you even sure that information is accurate?

Except for the funds they have to set aside for the following year, obviously.

silverfox91 said:I'm positive. Why would they pay into the budget just so the government can scrape by for a few more months? They shouldn't be working their tails off just to subsidize people sitting on their hands.

restlesscrane152 said:🤦

Think about it. Why do people actually sell stuff or offer services? You think that baker at the corner shop is selling you bread just because he wants you to stay full? Or an ISP provides internet just so you can have a voice online? Does an employee work to boost their boss's bottom line, or is it all about grabbing that paycheck?

Adam Smith nailed this ages ago—most people are driven by their own interests. That's the genius part of a market economy. Because everyone is out there trying to get rich, the rest of society ends up with a massive variety of products and services to choose from. It just works!

Ashley Collins4 said:The fundamental engine here is interest, and the core motivation is cash—the more
money, the better.
"I have nothing against it; I want to be wealthy too."
Let’s all aim to be rich, since I assume money is, generally speaking,
everyone's motivator. How do we get there?
Right now, we have two main groups, which are subdivided themselves. A small group
of the wealthy, split into rich, wealthier, and the ultra-rich.
And a larger group of the poor, split into poor, poorer, and the destitute.

Now, looking at your idealistic theories—whether a worker works to increase a
boss's profits or for their own salary, whatever. Mostly, they're working to bump up the employer's
profits.
The other idealistic view—that we get to enjoy a diverse selection of products because someone else
wants to get rich (honestly, thinking about it makes me want to sing from pure joy),
is also nonsense. Our daily reality is drastically different and speaks
for itself.

You want to know the difference between the rich and the poor? It's right there!!!
Ha, ha, ha. Someone might say, "Very clever, but without the poor, there wouldn't be any
rich people."

morsk!;33023081 said:

Ashley Collins4 said:Nobody can pay you less than what you've earned.

If you think they're lowballing you, just quit and good luck finding something else. The thing is, the competition among the unemployed is so fierce that people would work for pennies. By staying, you're actually robbing the people who actually know how to value their skills and demand a fair wage.

You want to talk about getting paid less? Go ask any of those 70,000 people waiting on back pay, or the countless others
stuck on minimum wage or some mediocre middle-class salary.

I mean, if I think I'm being underpaid, I quit—so what? Good luck out there. You'll be stepping right into an army of
350,000 people with zero direction. Not long ago, all of them had jobs.
The sickness of privatization is exactly this: half the workforce got kicked to the curb overnight
for all sorts of reasons. The real sickness is that these guys swooped in and became "entrepreneurs" and owners
who don't even know how to park a car, let alone run a corporation. Exactly. I'm not giving a chance to the people who know how to raise their rates, because high societal standards aren't about raising prices—they're about lowering them. And profit has another side to the coin: higher volume. Produce more units at the same or lower price, and you get more profit.
Just look at the Chinese.

We never seem to learn from our mistakes. And I'm not even the one saying the stuff above; that was Carl Foster8.

restlesscrane152 said:🤦🤦🤦

Seeing comments like that, I realize there's seriously no point in even trying to argue...

Ashley Collins4;33034103 said:

Carl Foster8 said:Nobody can give you less than what you actually earned.

If you think you're being underpaid, then quit and good luck finding a new job. The thing is, competition among the unemployed is so high that people would work for significantly less money. You aren't actually helping anyone; you're just preventing those who know how to value their labor from earning what they deserve.

I think I'm getting paid less. I might just quit. And then what? Good luck to you, I guess. You'll be joining an army of...
There are 350,000 people out there right now, and I guess nobody really knows what to do with them. They all used to have jobs once.
The real sickness with privatization is that half the workforce gets kicked to the curb immediately. I guess that's just how it works.
For various reasons. The real problem is that they just swooped in and suddenly decided they were owners and entrepreneurs.
People who can't even figure out how to park a car shouldn't be running corporations or anything else, for that matter. I guess it's just common sense.
That’s right. I don't give a second look to people who clearly know how to jack up their prices just because they want to maintain some high standard.
In society, it’s not about raising prices; it's about driving them down. Profit always has another side to it, I guess.
Medals? That just means higher production volume. More units being pumped out at the same price, or maybe even slightly lower. I guess.
It yields a higher profit. I guess we should just look at how Chinese people do it.

We just can't seem to stop making the same mistakes. I'm not even the one saying this—it was Carl Foster8.

Ashley Collins4 said:The government exists specifically to ensure things like this never happen again.

The role of the state is to look out for its people and constantly strive for progress.
Clearly, we need a massive shift in mindset—moving away from this downward spiral
and finally heading upward.
The government shouldn't be acting like a stepmother, as some might say; instead, it needs to drive consistent economic growth and raise the standard of living for everyone.
From that perspective, here are the priorities:
- Force entrepreneurs to actually pay their workers what they’ve earned.
- Urgently create opportunities for the 350,000 unemployed and keep
opening new jobs for future generations.
- Jumpstart manufacturing by offering low-interest loans to business owners, capped at 2%.
- Provide citizens with low-interest consumer loans, also capped at 2%.
This stimulates spending and ensures that everything
produced by domestic industry actually gets bought.

Talking about self-employment under these conditions is pointless, especially when
even the biggest capitalists are hunkering down, refusing to take out loans or invest
their own capital back into the businesses they started.

I'm talking about the Chinese model of production, which relies on high volume
and low unit costs. It's simple math.

Qty of Goods Price Revenue
....1.......*....10...=10
...10......*......1...=10

Talking about self-employment under these conditions is pointless, especially since even
the biggest capitalists have pulled back—they aren't taking loans or investing their own money
into the businesses they previously started.

I'm talking about the Chinese way of manufacturing, which relies on high volume
with low unit prices. It's just pure math.

Qty of Goods Price Revenue
....1.......*....10...=10
...10......*......1...=10

Carl Foster8 said:I guess someone on this subforum actually needs to understand economics.
Consumer credit is basically suicide; it’s what led us into debt slavery. It isn't about evil banks or foreign corporations, but rather arrogance and living on credit.

Talking about self-employment under these conditions is pointless, especially since even
the biggest capitalists have pulled back—they aren't taking loans or investing their own money
into the businesses they previously started.

I'm talking about the Chinese way of manufacturing, which relies on high volume
with low unit prices. It's just pure math.

Qty of Goods Price Revenue
....1.......*....10...=10
...10......*......1...=10

You claim self-employment isn't worth discussing, yet you want the government (which mismanages resources) or private companies (who clearly see no profit in investing right now) to handle it.

What you described below is called economies of scale.

Gregory Williams7 said:Subsidies are out of the question. Every single subsidy is nothing short of economic assault. We need to slash taxes and cut through the red tape; that is the only way to attract real investment. Cutting taxes will inevitably lead to fewer fees and less social spending. Sure, people might say "the poor will get poorer," but there is simply no other way out.

The truth is we will see more "bad" investors—the types who show up just to exploit workers. But those players will eventually fail on their own. Once the entire nation reaches full employment, a bad private employer won't be able to mistreat staff anymore because employees can easily walk away to a better job elsewhere.

One might think that with unemployment levels this high, we would be the most competitive country in the region. But what good is that if the bureaucracy and the tax burden crush us first?