A worker is paid in relation to the skill level required of their job. And as the one who is actually paying the employee the owner can set any rate you want and one can simply not work there, that is your right. It is not an obligation of the millionaire to provide you with an amazing paying job.
This is a good point, and something socialists do stick to. Also, yes Ruddeker, I'm not your stock standard socialist, although their policies are the best middle ground we're going to find, and they are an exceptional base from whence to begin.
Yes these people are the ones who help make the weathly rich, but it is a trade. You go to the store and pay for what you need, you find the best prices you reward those who have made the best product. You make them rich but it is your choice who you make rich. It will never be right for someone to be forced to support another.
No, this is utterly incorrect. A simple "well in theory it works" does not excuse the fact that the system promotes those who bypass and exploit the shit out of it. You have a choice who to make rich, but once they are rich your choice is severely limited, as they could quickly buy out or outproduce small time competitors. The wealthy should be forced to support the poor to at least a sane quality of living. I'm not saying free checks for all, but as long as a man is willing to work, he should be afforded a house, a car, and a job. These should be basic rights for a western world, not only for the people, but for the efficiency and output of a nation. Surely you could see how that would be beneficial, if say every person in America was not worrying about how they were going to make it through the day, and a near 0 unemployment rate?
Many people state this is the way forward but would you give up your computer that you are posting this on to someone below the poverty line? Everyone wants there to be a transfer of wealth but no one wants to do it themselves, and why should they? Most of us have worked hard for our stuff and want to be able to enjoy it.
You are taking this too far. I do not advocate communism. You should be rewarded for your hard work, but you should not take that to the extreme of keeping *everything* you own. That is greed. That is anti-human. That is simply being an asshole, when people who gave you their wealth are without food, water or shelter. Now I understand that the human condition implies greed, which is why the state should come into this. They are the ones that we give the power to make these decisions.
If we kept a strict laissez faire capitilism system then it would allow for a more fluid class system. Those companies who fall and go bankrupt should not be bailed out because it keeps the same failed people in charge. However if we just leave it all alone those businesses who provide the best innovation and best products will rise, and should there come a day when they are not the best they will be replaced. The bailouts/loans annoy me most within the energy sector: The DoE has sent hundreds of millions to energy companies that have shown no possible merit to accept. These companies tended to be Obama finacial supporters and many of them actually went bankrupt. This has hurt the alternative energy sector businesses that are actually doing well off.
Again, you are simply excusing the system with an "In theory it works". This is
wrong, just like how communism, in theory, works, but we have never seen a fully communist and functional society, capitalism, in theory, works... but we have never seen a fully capitalist and functional society. It is quite simple, if certain companies fall, the world falls with them. This is the fault with the stock exchange, this is the fault with such trading underpinning our concept of success and wealth. It is inherently an abstract and fickle material. The world is not congruent with a capitalist system, it can
never work.
Anyway, as for the alternative energy sector, the thing that really pisses me off is that your government has decided "Oh yes, it's of extreme importance to the people" but then turned around and said "so who wants to do it?". The problem lies not with the fact that your companies are damn stupid, but with the fact that your government is such a bunch of lazy pussies that they won't get off their fat asses and do what needs to be done. The state should drive this. They should micromanage it, they should set it up, and they should be the first competitor in the market, cause they're the only ones who give a fuck. They are the will of the people, and if the people want, they had better damn well do.
Picture this:
You own a food market and get a loan for 700k then someone opens a food market right down the street and gets a government subsidized loan of about 10 million. How can one even compete with that? The subsidized market will probably outlast yours and the same thing is happening to our companies.
The book Atlas Shrugged may have at one time seemed far-fetched and unreasonable but I feel that we are headed in that direction.
Oh, it's solveable. In one such system a second food market would not be permitted to be opened. Why? Because that would upset the careful balance of the area, drive down costs, drive up competition, production, etc. And lead to widespread growth. Growth, is bad. If you grow too much, you exhaust resources on maintainance. Neutral growth must be maintained, and so, everything is overseen by a vast governing system. Money is heavily spent into education, gearing the new people with knowledge to expand into fields that are not yet explored, improving innovation into new product.
It's very different, but that's one solution. There are a number. None of them you will stomach, I will assume.
Also if anyone ever mentions that bloody Ayn Rand again, I will find you, and ram her book down your throat. The woman sickens me. Her beliefs are based in premises of selfishness, greed, contempt for her common man, and a serious misinterpretation of the human condition. In short, she is very, very wrong.
