How about a nationalized, democratized banking system - General

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33287986]Explain why these massive protests are happening world-wide in protests against the power and influence of banks? These banks caused the recent economic depression and got massive bailouts. Then for another kick in the balls their owners still have massive salaries and pensions. Why do bank owners require so much money?[/QUOTE] The first mistake you are making is in assuming that we have a free-market oriented banking system. I agree that it isn't perfect by a long shot, but you would be incorrect to attribute it's demerits to capitalism.

If you are interested in this topic, go watch the November 9th GOP debate. It centers around improving the economy, with a minimum of moderators trying to make candidates look bad (With the exception of that 'character' question Cain got). A recurring theme during the debate was "If you are too big to fail, you are too big." Sounds good to me. As Derubermensch and Megafanx13 have been stating, I think having many smaller credit union style organizations would be the best alternative.

[QUOTE=Callius;33288900]The same reason CEOs of businesses or TNCs get such high pay, it's a highly demanding, stressful job which cuts deeply into your personal time and even regulates what you do in your spare time e.g. scandels which ruin the business' reputation. [/QUOTE] Highly demanding stressful job my arse. A miner has a more difficult, dangerous and stressful job than a CEO. Plus the CEO pisses away his capital on acquiring more capital or on himself, which like a leech will only suck more labour. A plumber is of greater benefit to society than 10,000 CEO's.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33290956]Highly demanding stressful job my arse. A miner has a more difficult, dangerous and stressful job than a CEO. Plus the CEO pisses away his capital on acquiring more capital or on himself, which like a leech will only suck more labour. A plumber is of greater benefit to society than 10,000 CEO's.[/QUOTE] Except a CEO has more skills and education than a miner or a plumber, and more skills = higher pay. Also a single CEO might directly be responsible for hundreds of plumbers jobs, and indirectly responsible for thousands.

[QUOTE=Homez;33290835]As Derubermensch and Megafanx13 have been stating, I think having many smaller credit union style organizations would be the best alternative.[/QUOTE] Not precisely. I support the nationalization of money and the total privatization of banking.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33291045]Except a CEO has more skills and education than a miner or a plumber, and more skills = higher pay. Also a single CEO might directly be responsible for hundreds of plumbers jobs, and indirectly responsible for thousands.[/QUOTE] And what if these people live in crippling poverty? The CEO still pays them an inadequate amount for their labour, yet he still has enough money to retire at an early age and have masses of money.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33291340]And what if these people live in crippling poverty? The CEO still pays them an inadequate amount for their labour, yet he still has enough money to retire at an early age and have masses of money.[/QUOTE] No miner or plumber lives in crippling poverty. Both these professions are very well paying. Anyways, I'm not against lowering the income disparity. However, simply nationalizing the banking system wouldn't work.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33291389]No miner or plumber lives in crippling poverty. Both these professions are very well paying. [/QUOTE] Minus say for example Chilean miners, who make much less than what miners in the United States might make.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33291482]Minus say for example Chilean miners, who make much less than what miners in the United States might make.[/QUOTE] Well that's Chile.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33291482]Minus say for example Chilean miners, who make much less than what miners in the United States might make.[/QUOTE] Nationalizing the banks would help Chilean miners how?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33291340]And what if these people live in crippling poverty? The CEO still pays them an inadequate amount for their labour, yet he still has enough money to retire at an early age and have masses of money.[/QUOTE] How exactly will reducing the money earnt by a bank's CEO give more money to any of those people, the only ones who'd benefit would be the bank's shareholders. Even then the amount saved wouldn't be much compared to the profit earnt by the CEO (yes they don't do it directly so it's hard to know how much but good leadership does help). Not to mention it would mean people who have enough drive, time management skills, leadership skills and want to train for a long while away from becoming CEOs of banks meaning there'd be less skill and so the bank would be worse off as a whole. [quote]A plumber is of greater benefit to society than 10,000 CEO's. [/quote] Really. Shame plumbers are probably 10,000 times easier to come by, doesn't that indicate something of the comparative skill needed for each? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;33290956]Highly demanding stressful job my arse. A miner has a more difficult, dangerous and stressful job than a CEO. Plus the CEO pisses away his capital on acquiring more capital or on himself, which like a leech will only suck more labour. [/QUOTE] I assume you mean the CEO's personal wealth not the business's assets in which case I couldn't care if he poured petrol on them then set fire to them, it's their money so their right to do as they want. I don't see how 'sucking labour' is bad, surely labour infers providing a job so therefore is good..?