The cheapefying of America

[CD_Vision]

Anyone else noticed that as the cost of materials and ingredients gets higher and higher, that your favorite goods are made to be less costly? This seems to happen with food a lot. I'm sitting here with a pint of Ben and Jerrys, and it tastes like they started whipping the ice cream, so it takes up more volume and they make more per bucket.

Economics aside, is this the right thing to do? Why sacrifice quality so the masses can enjoy it? Seems to me like you should leave a good thing alone, so that maybe people are willing to work harder to get it.

[Will Gotti]

Well since we're pretty much going through a recession, companies are suffering too. Even though they're multi-million dollar companies/corporations, they feel losses/the effects of recession and compensate for it at the cost of the consumer.

[alfaphlex]

snip

Ben and Jerry's was never good quality imo. Here's something fun to try... buy a bucket of Ben and Jerry's, any flavor, eat it about 1/2 way and then just let it melt. The shit turns into FOAM.

Now if you go buy real ice cream, like ColdStones or something, let that melt. It just melts into a thick liquid cream, not that foamy stuff.

As far as the topic, yeah, the past decade has been like that. I hate to sound old and say "i remember when" or "back in my day", but there's no denying that in the 80s-90s, you got more for your money's worth.

Perfect example would be a bag of potato chips. For 25 cents, they used to be decent sized, and filled almost to the top. Nowadays, not only are the 25 cent bags 1/2 the size, but the bag is almost entirely empty. It's just inflated with air. Take a needle with you to any store and just puncture a hole in a bag and squeeze the air out. You'd be surprised how much of that tiny bag is actually filled with chips.

To add insult to injury, the fuckin chips themselves are smaller too. Also, what used to be a $.25 bag is now the $1 version.

[Satomiblood]

8 oz yogurts have been downsized to 6 oz while the price remains the same (or higher).:shake:

[Grog]

A bag of regular Lays is now so low that when you first open it it's literally 2/3rds empty, simply rediculous.

[sonicspear64]

^Yeah they reduced the size of Lays chip bags from 1 oz to 3/4 oz over the past few years. Even the 3+ oz bags are like 2 1/2 oz now.

[Rooks4]

As far as the topic, yeah, the past decade has been like that. I hate to sound old and say "i remember when" or "back in my day", but there's no denying that in the 80s-90s, you got more for your money's worth.


I know what you are trying to say, but I don't agree with how you are saying it. It's not that you got more for your money's worth back then. It's just that (american) money was worth more.

Once we got off the gold standard it was only a matter of time till we printed too much and inflation fucked our currency. The FED has no oversight on how much money they can print and our Government continues to print money to pay off their debts - hence causing the devaluation of the dollar.

Companies are having to cut corners left and right in order to continue even making a profit. Devaluation of the dollar means increases in raw materials which means they either have to charge significantly more to recoup costs AND lost profit due to devaluation, or they have to scale it down instead and charge the same as before.

It's easier from a corporate standpoint to make the packaging smaller and charge the same - afterall people quickly respond to increases in price as opposed to smaller changes in quality or size. The example of a bag of chips being half empty is perfect. Most people don't even notice and just keep buying the same bag of chips for the same price and don't realize it went from 14oz or 8oz, but the same sized bag. (i made those #s up.)

Im not trying to turn this into a political discussion, but it all resolves around our fucked up financial system in this country and the weak dollar getting weaker. Something needs to change, or else we will all be bankrupt and the only use of our money will be to wipe our ass since we can't afford Toilet paper.

[kz0060]

A bag of regular Lays is now so low that when you first open it it's literally 2/3rds empty, simply rediculous.

The secret is to go for Pringles. It'll always have the same amt. b/c well, it's in a cylinder container.

[ShinkuuR]

The secret is to go for Pringles. It'll always have the same amt. b/c well, it's in a cylinder container.

Yeah that's true, but didn't the price of Pringles increase instead?

That's the thing about having static containers like Pringles and soda bottles and the like. The size won't increase so companies can't decrease the volume of the product(like in chips), so they have to jack up the price. That's why bottles of sold cost like $1.50 at a soda machine instead of the usual $1 that it was a couple of years ago. Like what Rooks said, I think more people would complain about price change than volume change, since it has a more direct effect on your budget.

[Demon Dash]

At least we still get 8 packs... :lol:

[pherai]

Economics aside, is this the right thing to do? Why sacrifice quality so the masses can enjoy it? Seems to me like you should leave a good thing alone, so that maybe people are willing to work harder to get it.

Economics aside? It's a purely economic issue.

[Satomiblood]

Economics aside? It's a purely economic issue.

I LOL'd in real life.

[Septimus Prime]

The bags need to be inflated with nitrogen or something to keep the chips crisp or some shit. So when you deflate the bag, you just cause the chips to go stale for the next person, you jerks.

[DeathScythe]

Where is this happening? The food I'm eating still tastes the same, but now it costs more. Good ol' NYC. The funny thing is, your theory applies more to our transit system. Shitty service for double the cost. :tup:

[Rooks4]

Where is this happening? The food I'm eating still tastes the same, but now it costs more. Good ol' NYC. The funny thing is, your theory applies more to our transit system. Shitty service for double the cost. :tup:

Well that makes perfect sense. You can't really scale down transit. The same amount of people still need to go the same distance every day. Making the damn subway shorter or smaller isn't going to help.

The price of electricity rises, so the subway needs to charge more to remain in service- so prices rise.

But the slice of pizze around the corner that was a dollar a few years ago is still a dollar today. Except instead of being a 1/4 of a 18inch back then, it's now 1/8th of a 10". Same price, massively different size.

The key here is that the change in size is gradual. Most people probably don't even notice it. Quality doesn't have to change if size does. There is ALWAYS the option of the company just accepting lower profits and leaving size, quality, and price the same. But eventually it will come to a point where they AREN'T making profit. So what is there to change?

Poor Quality
You get a bad reputation and nobody wants to buy your shitty product. This really isn't a good option for ANY company. Poor quality = Poor reliability = Poor sales.

Smaller Portions (if possible)
A very small change in size can recoup very large costs using economies of scale. And this doens't always effect the consumer. Look at cans of coke - the 'rim' that you see today used to be on both the top AND bottom of the can. Well they had to cut back so decided to change the can to only have that rim at the top of the can and change the bottom so it could still stand without needing the rim. They saved hundreds of millions of dollars in aluminum cost off that alone.

However, most likely it's a change that DOES affect the consumer... LIke a bag of chips being 1/2 empty, a normal 15inch digornio pizza now a 12inch for the same price. A box of triscuits going from 16oz to 14oz. Very minute changes that 99.9% of the sheepish masses won't even notice, but it saves plenty of money for the companies and preserves their quality.

Raise Prices
No brainer. People flip out when gas raises 10cents. (Bad example, considering the price has double/tripled over the past few years.) It's an obvious quantifiable change. when you've been buying that 10lb bag of potatoes for 5.99$ for the past 5 years and you walk into publix and try to buy it and its 8.99, you notice immediately. Now those Idaho Golds don't seem like such a great deal, and you go for some other brand that's cheaper. Might not be as good (the consumer chooses to sacrifice quality due to price) and the company loses sales. It's a lose-lose for both the consumer and the company.

It's all a bunch of bullshit advertising stuff, and there's been a ton of research on this type of behavior. And it all goes back to the weak dollar and the inflation of raw materials - we need to fix our economy before it's too late (if it's not already.)

/end of doom-and-gloom type posting.

[Satomiblood]

Bags of pretzels are superior. You can get a 1.5 oz bag for a quarter.

[ST Vega]

Pork rinds too.

[Havoc]

Pork rinds are disgusting though.

[Satomiblood]

I like pork rinds.

[BBCampbell]

Well that makes perfect sense. You can't really scale down transit. The same amount of people still need to go the same distance every day. Making the damn subway shorter or smaller isn't going to help.

The price of electricity rises, so the subway needs to charge more to remain in service- so prices rise.

But the slice of pizze around the corner that was a dollar a few years ago is still a dollar today. Except instead of being a 1/4 of a 18inch back then, it's now 1/8th of a 10". Same price, massively different size.

The key here is that the change in size is gradual. Most people probably don't even notice it. Quality doesn't have to change if size does. There is ALWAYS the option of the company just accepting lower profits and leaving size, quality, and price the same. But eventually it will come to a point where they AREN'T making profit. So what is there to change?

Poor Quality
You get a bad reputation and nobody wants to buy your shitty product. This really isn't a good option for ANY company. Poor quality = Poor reliability = Poor sales.

Nope. If you reduce the quality of your product, some will stop buying, most will keep buying even though the quality has diminished and simply complain about how the quality has diminished. Look at the comic book, video game, car, magazine, music, almost anything else industry.

Smaller Portions (if possible)
A very small change in size can recoup very large costs using economies of scale. And this doens't always effect the consumer. Look at cans of coke - the 'rim' that you see today used to be on both the top AND bottom of the can. Well they had to cut back so decided to change the can to only have that rim at the top of the can and change the bottom so it could still stand without needing the rim. They saved hundreds of millions of dollars in aluminum cost off that alone.

However, most likely it's a change that DOES affect the consumer... LIke a bag of chips being 1/2 empty, a normal 15inch digornio pizza now a 12inch for the same price. A box of triscuits going from 16oz to 14oz. Very minute changes that 99.9% of the sheepish masses won't even notice, but it saves plenty of money for the companies and preserves their quality.

Raise Prices
No brainer. People flip out when gas raises 10cents. (Bad example, considering the price has double/tripled over the past few years.) It's an obvious quantifiable change. when you've been buying that 10lb bag of potatoes for 5.99$ for the past 5 years and you walk into publix and try to buy it and its 8.99, you notice immediately. Now those Idaho Golds don't seem like such a great deal, and you go for some other brand that's cheaper. Might not be as good (the consumer chooses to sacrifice quality due to price) and the company loses sales. It's a lose-lose for both the consumer and the company.

It's all a bunch of bullshit advertising stuff, and there's been a ton of research on this type of behavior. And it all goes back to the weak dollar and the inflation of raw materials - we need to fix our economy before it's too late (if it's not already.)

/end of doom-and-gloom type posting.

That line is the best line in this post.

However, "fix" the economy? How?

[Rooks4]

Nope. If you reduce the quality of your product, some will stop buying, most will keep buying even though the quality has diminished and simply complain about how the quality has diminished. Look at the comic book, video game, car, magazine, music, almost anything else industry.


I guess it really depends on what you are talking about. When you reduce the quality of anything enough, you'll get a bad reputation. For example, if Toyota decided that profits were in the shitter and so lowered the quality of their cars to only last a few years to save on price, people would stop buying them pretty quickly. Bad example, but the point im trying to make is when Quality is a definitive factor for a product, you can't really change it and expect to stay on the same pedestal as before. If you are going to have shitty quality, you are going to need a low price. You cant expect premium prices (and profits) with low quality.


That line is the best line in this post.

However, "fix" the economy? How?

Hmmmm If I had the answers I'd be a richer, better man than I am today. I'd start with pegging our currency to some standard. Maybe gold isnt the answer, but without a real connection to a commodity it's intrinsic worth is zero. Maybe don't abolish the FED, but set regulators which do NOT allow them to print money just 'because' and/or to pay off Government Debts. Balance the federal budget - don't spend more than it takes in taxes.

Im sure there's plenty of other ways that could HELP.. There is no quick fix, great minds need to work on this and there needs to be REAL effort by the Government, otherwise we are fucked (in my opinion.)

[DeathScythe]

Well that makes perfect sense. You can't really scale down transit. The same amount of people still need to go the same distance every day. Making the damn subway shorter or smaller isn't going to help.

The price of electricity rises, so the subway needs to charge more to remain in service- so prices rise.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything when the MTA cries for money and then a surplus of money magically appears a few months after the fare hike. Mind you, this is surplus money they've been sitting on for years. At the end of the day, politics.

But the slice of pizze around the corner that was a dollar a few years ago is still a dollar today. Except instead of being a 1/4 of a 18inch back then, it's now 1/8th of a 10". Same price, massively different size.

I noticed that YEARS ago with pizza. But in this day and age, the slice is the same size, just more expensive and it still tastes the same. NYC is just shady like that when it comes to hiking up prices. A slice of pizza goes for $2.50. That's just a plain cheese slice.

Of course, this is all a natural reaction due to prices in EVERYTHING increasing with time(thanks, Bush!).

Moral of the story: Fuck inflation.

[Bowza]

Of course, this is all a natural reaction due to prices in EVERYTHING increasing with time(thanks, Bush!).

Moral of the story: Fuck inflation.

Bush certainly hasn't helped with his adventures in the middle east- but blame on inflation can't be on republicans alone. Both democrats and republicans love to increase spending with money that they don't have. The Federal reserve has had an inflationary policy for a long time now.

[Havoc]

^^^

Truth.

Bush has been such a fuck-up, that it seems like everything wrong with the US is his fault, but that's not really the case.

[Bowza]

Im sure there's plenty of other ways that could HELP.. There is no quick fix, great minds need to work on this and there needs to be REAL effort by the Government, otherwise we are fucked (in my opinion.)

The problem is that government loves to help in the wrong way- like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or all the new regulations and powers the federal reserve was given recently.

The gold standard may have problems, but its definitely better than what we have now. Some ideas are thrown around such as allowing competing currencies and the market will decide which is the best one. Anything with a more free-market approach will help the economy.

[Night]

Kid: I want a racing car set.
Kramer: Ho ho ho ho a racing car set! *whispers to the kid* Hey you don't want that. Those are assembled in Taiwan by kids like you. And these Coleman pigs, they sell it at triple the cost.
Kid: But I want a racing car set.
Kramer: No, you see kid, you're being bamboozled. These capitalist FAT CATS are inflating the profit margin and reducing your total number of toys!
Kid: Hey, this guy's a COMMIE!
Mickey: Hey, kid, quiet. Were did a nice little boy like you learn such a bad word like that? Huh?
Kid: COMMIE! COMMIE! TRAITOR TO OUR COUNTRY!
Mickey: Santa is not a Commie. He just forgot how his good friend stuck his neck out for him to get him a good job like this. Didn't he Santa?!
Store manager: Is there a problem here?
Kramer: Ho ho ho ho!
Kid: This guy's a commie. He's spreading propoganda.
Store manager: Oh yeah? Well that's enough PINKO! You're through. The both of ya'
Mickey: Hey, I got two kids in college!
Kramer: You can't fire me, I'm Santa Claus!
Store manager: Not anymo! Get yo skinny ass outta here!

[The Chief]

Well since we're pretty much going through a recession, companies are suffering too. Even though they're multi-million dollar companies/corporations, they feel losses/the effects of recession and compensate for it at the cost of the consumer.

Yep, companies HATE...

HATE

ABSOLUTELY HATE falling revenues and decreasing profits. They will do anything and everything necessary to maintain and or improve their numbers. The government tried to boost the economy (with your tax checks) before the recession got to far, but we're still feeling the effects of it.

It won't be long til jobs are cut so that companies can keep up their numbers even just for a little longer.

During a recession, the less we buy, the higher the prices of common day to day needs go. Non-necessities won't be affected as much. They tend to go down in price actually.

[Rooks4]

The government tried to boost the economy (with your tax checks) before the recession got to far, but we're still feeling the effects of it.


When you think about it, where did that money they paid come from? We are already overspending our budget... So that magic 'boost to the economy' was really a shitload of printed cash, which was worth nothing. What they did was devalue the dollar by adding a massive amount of cash into the economy which had no basis for being there.

Im sure it doesn't work this way (i think?...) but this reminds me of a company and its outstanding stocks.. When new stocks are issued to the market, the collective value of the whole goes down. More outstanding stocks / total worth = lower number of value per stock.

I know printing money definitly devalues the dollar.... what if our Government stopped overspending, balanced the budget, and began taking dollars OFF the market? Like... Burning dollars to decrease the supply to the global market? In reality it should increase the value of the dollar.... Of course, the greedy fuckers in Washington would never DREAM of doing this, and im sure there are better alternatives... but it makes ya wonder :)

[Havoc]

Im sure it doesn't work this way (i think?...) but this reminds me of a company and its outstanding stocks.. When new stocks are issued to the market, the collective value of the whole goes down. More outstanding stocks / total worth = lower number of value per stock.


That's not how it works.

When a company issues new common stock, it's not just creating new stock. That's not possible. It's just selling stock that hadn't been bought before. It's the same amount that had existed anyway. That particular action has no effect on prices (though the circumstances leading up to the decision often do).

Now, when a company splits it's stock, it effectively doubles the amount of stock, which halves the value of the stocks, to stimulate buying. While this devalues the stock, any shareholders get the number of their stocks doubled. So they have double the shares, at half the price. No net effect.

Usually it causes the total value to rise, since it does stimulate buying in the short term.

[Septimus Prime]

The rationale would be that the economic stimulus money would be spent on products and services and injected right back into the economy.

The problem is that many people are being "responsible" with this money and either saving it or using it to pay off their credit card debt, which ends up actually hurting the economy. What we need is a greater amount of irresponsible, Middle American Walmart shoppers.

[The Chief]

The rationale would be that the economic stimulus money would be spent on products and services and injected right back into the economy.

The problem is that many people are being "responsible" with this money and either saving it or using it to pay off their credit card debt, which ends up actually hurting the economy. What we need is a greater amount of irresponsible, Middle American Walmart shoppers.

:rofl: :rofl:

My check came 2 days ago and it's sitting in my savings account with my tax returns of 2 years minimum. My inability to spend money recklessly is gonna cost me my job. How ironic.

[gguseila]

The US is just using too many band aids with stimulus packages and cutting interest rates. We continue to dilute our dollar which raises energy prices and all other imports which forces companies to cut corners and so on.

The problem is not our spending as Americans but spending in government, panicking with monetary policy, and too much taxation for companies and people. Were starting to forget what got us at the top in the first place.

[Rhio2k]

Nope. If you reduce the quality of your product, some will stop buying, most will keep buying even though the quality has diminished and simply complain about how the quality has diminished. Look at the comic book, video game, car, magazine, music, almost anything else industry.



That line is the best line in this post.

However, "fix" the economy? How?

No more Reppies? (No, not the 6-foot-tall singing lizards from PBS in the early 90's...although the environmental episode had some tight songs)

[Bowza]

The rationale would be that the economic stimulus money would be spent on products and services and injected right back into the economy.

The problem is that many people are being "responsible" with this money and either saving it or using it to pay off their credit card debt, which ends up actually hurting the economy. What we need is a greater amount of irresponsible, Middle American Walmart shoppers.

The entire rationale is pretty ridiculous- as if after people spend the rebate check- bam! Economy saved!

The whole notion that the economy is only run by consumer consumption is a problem, especially since government has provided incentives towards borrowing rather than saving to finance any consumption. Everyone's been consuming a lot in the past decade with borrowed money- as low interest rates by the Fed and lax lending standards have allowed. But its all a false boost in the economy since eventually, things must be paid back.

Its better for people to save and be responsible with their money- due to the gov'ts actions, the prices of things such as food and energy are going up- and they need to save just live. But in the end, savings are always a good thing and lead to capital investments that create more wealth and improve our living standards. Borrowing can do that too, but instead people have been borrowing to finance their consumption, and consumption does not create new wealth. Just as breaking a glass window in your house giving the window-repairman a job does not create new wealth.

But I wouldn't blame the American citizen- it has everything to do with this country's monetary policy, spending, taxation, and tough regulations that serve as a barrier to entry into the market.

[Rooks4]

That's not how it works.

When a company issues new common stock, it's not just creating new stock. That's not possible. It's just selling stock that hadn't been bought before. It's the same amount that had existed anyway. That particular action has no effect on prices (though the circumstances leading up to the decision often do).

Now, when a company splits it's stock, it effectively doubles the amount of stock, which halves the value of the stocks, to stimulate buying. While this devalues the stock, any shareholders get the number of their stocks doubled. So they have double the shares, at half the price. No net effect.

Usually it causes the total value to rise, since it does stimulate buying in the short term.

Actually a company CAN issue brand new stock. I wasn't referring to treasury stock (i think that's the right term.) I was talking about going through the paperwork with the SEC or whoever approves it and issues NEW stock.. Just like printing NEW money.

You are right in that if the Government was sitting on a plethora of unspent cash (a budget underrun) they could then inject THAT into the economy for a great boost. However, that's not what they did. They printed NEW money (ala new stock) and injected THAT into the economy - which devalued the dollar.

You are right when it comes to issuing treasury stocks of a company, but that's not what I was referring to :)

[ElderGOD]

printed NEW money and injected THAT into the economy - which devalued the dollar.


It makes everyone happy as long as people get some kind of insignificant bonus as a result.

[True Grave]

I like pork rinds.

Me too, love those salt & vinegar flavored ones especially.

[Starhammer]

The rationale would be that the economic stimulus money would be spent on products and services and injected right back into the economy.

The problem is that many people are being "responsible" with this money and either saving it or using it to pay off their credit card debt, which ends up actually hurting the economy. What we need is a greater amount of irresponsible, Middle American Walmart shoppers.

...........Don't look at me. I went through my check so fast the ink was still drying on my signature when the last dollar hit the counter. I did my part as an irresponsible american walmart shopper, I just did it online.

-Starhammer-

[voodazz]

Maybe some of you fatties will lose some weight *hahaha! I'm in shape so I'm superior!!*

[Sonic_Reaper]

Being a Canadian citizen and not actually knowing much about American politics and government policy, I won't say much. What does seem obvious to me though, is that Capitalism doesn't work. The problem has already been touched on here. The whole basis behind a consumer lead free-market is consumption (buying and consuming goods). The problem however, is that people aren't spending money. Consumers are either using credit to finance purchases, or are simply saving their money. The problem becomes greater as you get higher on the financial ladder. Corporations and their CEOs are sitting on billions of unspent wealth. Instead of being injected back into the economy, it goes nowhere. Of course the government has to print new cash when it's all being horded by a select 1% of the population. I think, above all, that's the root of the problem, and a place to start (I'm not sure how taxation works in the states, obviously the rich are taxed, but when you're making millions or billions of dollars, and saving it as opposed to spending it, that's still a large amount of cash that sits in limbo and does nothing).

I don't fault people that make a meager living for saving their cash, I do fault however, specific individuals for continuing to amass billions of dollars in saving for absolutely no good reason. There's more than enough cash to go around to solve the world's problems. This cash just doesn't happen to be doing anything.

[Nando]

Even fucking rockstars and monsters...
weed is still the same, I think

[Havoc]

Being a Canadian citizen and not actually knowing much about American politics and government policy, I won't say much. What does seem obvious to me though, is that Capitalism doesn't work. The problem has already been touched on here. The whole basis behind a consumer lead free-market is consumption (buying and consuming goods). The problem however, is that people aren't spending money. Consumers are either using credit to finance purchases, or are simply saving their money. The problem becomes greater as you get higher on the financial ladder. Corporations and their CEOs are sitting on billions of unspent wealth. Instead of being injected back into the economy, it goes nowhere. Of course the government has to print new cash when it's all being horded by a select 1% of the population. I think, above all, that's the root of the problem, and a place to start (I'm not sure how taxation works in the states, obviously the rich are taxed, but when you're making millions or billions of dollars, and saving it as opposed to spending it, that's still a large amount of cash that sits in limbo and does nothing).

I don't fault people that make a meager living for saving their cash, I do fault however, specific individuals for continuing to amass billions of dollars in saving for absolutely no good reason. There's more than enough cash to go around to solve the world's problems. This cash just doesn't happen to be doing anything.

.....

I used to be one of these anti-capitalist guys too..... back in high school. Then I learned what the fuck was really going on.

The basis for your argument is shaky at best. For one, people are consuming. Consuming on credit is still consuming. When you make a credit card purchase, the merchant gets paid on the spot. If you don't happen to pay the bill off, the bank that issues the credit takes the loss, not the merchant, so the money is still circulating.

Two... when companies make huge profits, a very large amount of that money is reinvested into the company. A lot of it goes into wages, but even that should be considered reinvestment. The money that gets reinvested into the company gets spent to further the business. So that money is still working itself around the economy. Companies don't just get to a certain point, and then just hold on to their money. They're always trying to get bigger, and that involves spending money. If some of that money happens to go into the hands of individuals that aren't going to spend the majority of it (again... a dubious claim), it is still a worthwhile investment, because it helps ensure that valuable individuals will continue to make money for the company, which can be reinvested into the company, and thus circulate back into the market.

For the record, most people that have amassed billions don't just keep their cash in a vault like Scrooge McDuck. Most invest their money into something. This money that is invested is used in the market, so it's still circulating funds.

Obviously, capitalism is not a perfect system, though. There are going to be flaws, but having the proletariat viewpoint, and say "just tax the companies" is just a sign of ignorance to how the world really works. It's really not that simple, and "corporations" aren't some evil sect money hordes either.

[cwrenlmi@gmail.com]

.....

I used to be one of these anti-capitalist guys too..... back in high school. Then I learned what the fuck was really going on.

The basis for your argument is shaky at best. For one, people are consuming. Consuming on credit is still consuming. When you make a credit card purchase, the merchant gets paid on the spot. If you don't happen to pay the bill off, the bank that issues the credit takes the loss, not the merchant, so the money is still circulating.

Two... when companies make huge profits, a very large amount of that money is reinvested into the company. A lot of it goes into wages, but even that should be considered reinvestment. The money that gets reinvested into the company gets spent to further the business. So that money is still working itself around the economy. Companies don't just get to a certain point, and then just hold on to their money. They're always trying to get bigger, and that involves spending money. If some of that money happens to go into the hands of individuals that aren't going to spend the majority of it (again... a dubious claim), it is still a worthwhile investment, because it helps ensure that valuable individuals will continue to make money for the company, which can be reinvested into the company, and thus circulate back into the market.

For the record, most people that have amassed billions don't just keep their cash in a vault like Scrooge McDuck. Most invest their money into something. This money that is invested is used in the market, so it's still circulating funds.

Obviously, capitalism is not a perfect system, though. There are going to be flaws, but having the proletariat viewpoint, and say "just tax the companies" is just a sign of ignorance to how the world really works. It's really not that simple, and "corporations" aren't some evil sect money hordes either.

The line in the second paragraph kills me. When a company makes more profit it reinvests it in wages. LOL . My republican buddies use this all the time. Please give me an example of a company going wow we made an extra billions dollars this year let's give everyone a raise. That's just nuts. Increased wages is usualy a case by case basis, a federal mandate to increase the minwage, or unions fighting for their peoples income to keep up with inflation. Example the oil industry is raking in record profits, but are their employees making record salaries? I dont think so. The problem with this thinking is it assumes that corporations are to be trusted to do the right thing. Its just as ubsurd as trusting the government to do the right thing. They are both giant greedy monsters without feelings or a conshience. They dont care about you. No one does. Save your money things are going to get much worse before they get better.

[Havoc]

I wasn't speaking of wages to the workers. I was speaking to his point that a lot of the money goes to a few at the top.

I guess, "wages" wasn't the best word, because it sounds like I mean money for the workers. I should have said "salary".

Even still, I work for Bank of America, and I know that everyone got a $2000 bonus in 2006, due to impressive earnings. That's not the point though. My point is that a lot of money goes to a few people, but you can't say that that money is just disappearing. It's still circulating in the market.

[DeathScythe]

My point is that a lot of money goes to a few people, but you can't say that that money is just disappearing. It's still circulating in the market.

Yeah, I never really took into consideration how many people actually think that money flow ceases just because everyone gets rich(not necessarily rich, but you get the idea). It's a vicious cycle and hence the term "Money makes the world go round and round."

What's the first thing someone tells you to do when you land a good amount of money? Invest it in stocks. Man, if everyone managed to hold onto their money and not spend, then we'd REALLY be fucked.

[cwrenlmi@gmail.com]

I wasn't speaking of wages to the workers. I was speaking to his point that a lot of the money goes to a few at the top.

I guess, "wages" wasn't the best word, because it sounds like I mean money for the workers. I should have said "salary".

Even still, I work for Bank of America, and I know that everyone got a $2000 bonus in 2006, due to impressive earnings. That's not the point though. My point is that a lot of money goes to a few people, but you can't say that that money is just disappearing. It's still circulating in the market.

point taken the money does circulate. However this is where the problem is. Capitolism relyes on people consuming. So the more people get paid the more they spend. So basically companies need to pay their employees more so that they will be able to consume more which inturn makesthe company more money cuz they are selling more stuff. But companies only focus on the bottom line, they look at the breakdown and say well if we give our employees a raise we will make less money and really dont have the ability to guage how that affects the economy as a whole. So company A makes toilet paper they cut their employees pay to increase profits, these employees con now not afford the fancy clothes made by company B so company B starts to lose money. They then inturn either go out of business or lay off employees to maintain their profits . And the vicous cycle continues. Basically the companies need people to have disposable income but dont want to provide it to them. On the flip side the people need the companies to make money so they can provide jobs and products. Its a symbiotic relationship that can crumble at any moment. But its the best thing we have.