|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
posted December 09, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Most people get complacent with their job. They become satisfied with what they have and stop working harder to achieve better.
My parents run their own business. And they probably work harder than anyone I know. You insult them by saying they are dishonest and lazy. They are perfectionists that have made their business successful by being the best or one of the best. And becoming one of the best at what they do did not come magically. It came with years of hard work and experience.
And as for Bill Gates and Microsoft. Ya it's a monopoly, but I still get my computers for a decent price. And Bill Gates isn't hoarding his money away in a safe. It's invested in Microsoft and other companies. His money is in circulation and is being used by all of us.
Sure dishonesty happens, but I bet it'll still happen in socialism and it'll still happen in communism.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 08:45 PM |
|
|
This is a true story that describes something very interesting about the traditional American Thanksgiving. Please read this. You'll learn the reason why we have capitolism and not socialism or communism.
Quote:
On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.
"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.
During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.
"When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats." Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. "Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. "Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.
Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.
"All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.
Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.
"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?
It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?
What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.
What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.
"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'
Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?
"Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.
Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?
'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'
Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.
"Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)
In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.
And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"
Now, other than on this program every year, have you heard this story before? Is this lesson being taught to your kids today -- and if it isn't, why not? Can you think of a more important lesson one could derive from the pilgrim experience?
So in essence there was, thanks to the Indians, because they taught us how to skin beavers and how to plant corn when we arrived, but the real Thanksgiving was thanking the Lord for guidance and plenty -- and once they reformed their system and got rid of the communal bottle and started what was essentially free market capitalism, they produced more than they could possibly consume, and they invited the Indians to dinner, and voila, we got Thanksgiving, and that's what it was: inviting the Indians to dinner and giving thanks for all the plenty is the true story of Thanksgiving.
The last two-thirds of this story simply are not told.
Now, I was just talking about the plenty of this country and how I'm awed by it. You can go to places where there are famines, and we usually get the story, "Well, look it, there are deserts, well, look it, Africa, I mean there's no water and nothing but sand and so forth."
It's not the answer, folks. Those people don't have a prayer because they have no incentive. They live under tyrannical dictatorships and governments.
The problem with the world is not too few resources. The problem with the world is an insufficient distribution of capitalism.
So in essence, you say Capitolism breeds corruption? Well Socialism breeds dependancy and laziness. I'd rather let Bill Gates have his 40 billion and still have something to eat at the end of the year.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 08:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And as for Bill Gates and Microsoft. Ya it's a monopoly, but I still get my computers for a decent price. And Bill Gates isn't hoarding his money away in a safe. It's invested in Microsoft and other companies. His money is in circulation and is being used by all of us.
Oh, I wasn't talking about the whole company's budget, in which case it is a lot higher, but his own budget 
And who cares that you still get computers at a decent price? That wasn't even what I was talking about! I meant that someone who wants to be "like" Bill cannot easily, even if he puts MORE effort than Bill. He needs a huge investment to be able to compete with Bill. And even then he won't have more profit than Bill, since he'll have to pay back the investment (I assume debt, since it's impossible otherwise) even though he might have put more effort into it!
Let me give you a tip for the average capitalist (not necessarily Gates): "never ask a millionaire (or billionaire) where he got his first million". After that, it's pointless he won't even WORK anymore, he'll just take the profit.
Trust me when I say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to be multi-billionaires REGARDLESS of their effort or hard working. This means somewhere it is unfair in the middle. Not to mention, people who are born and own a large inheritance have a "head start" so to speak even though they didn't do anything -- this means like a company etc...
As for the insult, I can say the same: that capitalism insults those who had less opportunities and are at the mercy of those in wealth (i.e need to slave away work for them), even though THEY ARE THE ONES who put the effort, not the billionaires who just regulate the profits. And they get the most profits. It's economic slavery, because you know people are starving so they WILL have to work for you.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 09:39 PM |
|
|
No one in America is at the mercy of those in wealth. It's a misconception that people tell themselves. I strongly believe that anyone in America can make a million dollars. They just either fail to see their opportunities or fail to create those types of opportunities for themselves.
People let themselves become complacent thinking they are at the mercy of their boss. If you aren't happy with your job, then look for a better one.
My Uncle and Aunt just recently started a Daycare where they teach kids how to read, play music, etc...
It was a creative idea and they are doing quite well at it. They thought outside the box and found a way.
Socialism and Communism removes or limits the reward for hard work and the desire to better oneself.
Read that article I posted. It's proof that if you try to share everything, some people will either not work, or not work as hard. Look at our unemployment system. Look at our welfare system. The vast majority of those people could be working, but they don't, because they don't have to.
Welfare is not based on capitolism. It's based on Socialism. And it doesn't work.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 09:56 PM |
|
|
Stop talking about millionaires that work hard because now that makes me sick.
Since when hard work has been about telling others to do this and that. Please, I'm going to throw up.
I can tell you from my experience that many of these people have never done a single day of hard work in their lives. They have done nothing to deserve the money they have. They are just players who are ready to do basically anything to get maximum profit for themselves. And that is what they must do or otherwise they would have never acquired such fortune. You're simply gullible if you believe else.
And what Bill Gates actually does with his 50 billions? I say nothing useful for the commonweal, maybe some charity to promote his own imago but I have no reason to believe that he differs in any way from these other greedy money-players unless he spends his every single billion to make the world a better place. Because he or his posterity doesn't need that money never as much as the world does.
And the same applies to everyone with such affluence.
If those who work hard would actually be richest ones, they would those who live in some freaking field or forest and do hard physical work there just to earn their bread, and yet they're left hardly anything to spend after all that drudgery. And they still have the spirit to do it; all respect to them.
I feel sorry for you if you think that those who talk to phone, press keyboard buttons and attend in conferences telling what everyone should do are doing hard work.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No one in America is at the mercy of those in wealth. It's a misconception that people tell themselves. I strongly believe that anyone in America can make a million dollars. They just either fail to see their opportunities or fail to create those types of opportunities for themselves.
You do realize that a millionaire needs poorer (aka hard-working) people -- or employees. If such employees were millionaires, do you think they would go and work as hard for another guy?
Therefore it is impossible for everyone to be millionaires --> it's unfair.
And Totoro summed it well 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:03 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
What's the average salery of an employee? 20K a year?
In the US, it's 40K a year. Plus usually there are some benefits.
Also, there's also a concept, the name of which I can't remember, that at the top, small differences in productivity can make huge differences in pay.
Totoro:
Quote:
Since when hard work has been about telling others to do this and that. Please, I'm going to throw up.
Wrong. First, it's not about working hard, but about being productive. Second, just take the average worker out of his assembly line and place him in the CEO's seat. The company would fail hard.
I don't care how hard a janitor works - he shouldn't be getting paid as much as an engineer or a doctor. Because he's not as productive.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Therefore it is impossible for everyone to be millionaires --> it's unfair.
I'd rather have a Honda and my neighbor have a Jaguar than for both of us to ride identical horses to work. Total wealth in a society is more important than how that wealth is distributed.
Quote:
If such employees were millionaires, do you think they would go and work as hard for another guy?
Wait. How would they be millionaires in the first place if they haven't worked at all yet?  And there are some advantages to working for another guy. You get his company's benefits. You get a steady job, and don't have to worry about going under all the time. And so on. You may not make as much money, but you're also safer from the risk of losing everything.
RSF:
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:14 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:16, 09 Dec 2008.
|
@Totoro
You know, I'm not really interested in getting into another discussion with those who impugn capitalism for no reason at all, but I will say that I find it rather sad that someone would question the motives of Bill Gates when he formed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I don't know Bill Gates, and I won't speculate on whether he "deserves" his money or not (whatever that means). What I do know is that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is an unbelievably large charity that has done a lot of incredible things, and you would be well served to take a look at some of the projects the Foundation has funded, and then honestly ask yourself whether Bill Gates really did it just to get a little PR payoff. And let's not forget Warren Buffet, who gave over 30 BILLION US dollars to the foundation and didn't even ask to have his name attached to the foundation. If Buffet was doing it for a little fame, don't you think he would have wanted his name attached to the foundation?
And even if you are right that Bill Gates gave billions and billions of his own dollars and spends countless amount of TIME to see that his foundation helps a lot of people, just for something as stupid as "promoting his own image" (and maybe you could explain why he needs to "promote his image" if he's just an evil person who doesn't care about people - doesn't really make much sense to me), that STILL doesn't mean that the charity is a bad thing. People STILL benefit from it. So even if you accept that the person who made the charity is evil, you STILL haven't demonstrated that it's an example that capitalism is BAD. In fact, it STILL shows quite the opposite.
I think your unwarranted hate of capitalism is clouding your reason. Your arguments make no sense, have no logic, and are colored only by hate, distrust, and envy, and are actually quite insensitive. Just because a person has money does not necessarily mean he is evil.
Disgusting.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't care how hard a janitor works - he shouldn't be getting paid as much as an engineer or a doctor. Because he's not as productive.
And? The point was about working hard -- if you think they are not related, then why do people keep on posting that in capitalism or that millionaires work hard? Because "working hard" evokes more sympathy (and thus, the unfairness of taking away their money) than productive?
I'm arguing especially because people use the working hard as pro-capitalism argument.
Then again, let's take now the 'productive' thing -- I call it unfair. Plain and simple. I don't care if you want the more productive ones to get better profits. For me it's unfair. Consider the following exaggerated scenario (just to prove the point):
Guy A inherits Microsoft from Bill.
Guy B starts in poverty.
which is more productive? Guy A. Why? What did he do to get there? What if, for example, they were in a competition like "who is born first"? After all, before Microsoft was founded there was no Microsoft. So a guy that is born when Microsoft exists has a HARDER time to be as productive because of competition.
Isn't this unfair? What did Guy B do less than Guy A? Just because he was born in a different state, and that state is BECAUSE of Guy A (if there was no Microsoft and Guy A, Guy B wouldn't be considered so 'poor' anymore). He might even have a chance to sell his small software (Guy B) if Guy A didn't exist. He can't compete with Guy A because of lack of money.
Technically Guy A robbed him of opportunities. Of course Guy B can go and hire himself at Guy A -- but that is exactly the problem. He can't do anything else, he'll be out-done because of his SITUATION, not because of what he has done, but because of Guy A.
This is slavery, in a metaphorical sense. He has no other choice. Period. He would have if Guy A didn't exist -- but now he has no chance of competing because of his situation. Therefore, Guy A is responsible for the lack of choices he has, therefore he 'enslaved' him and forces him to work for him (or starve, but that's not an option).
This is what I consider unfair: when someone WANTS to do something but CANNOT, compared to another one who CAN, then it's unfair. Period. Since he wants to do it, it means he isn't lazy... so therefore some other factor besides his own will (suppose they are both identical clones) happens, like environment, situation, etc... so it's unfair.
Quote:
I'd rather have a Honda and my neighbor have a Jaguar than for both of us to ride identical horses to work. Total wealth in a society is more important than how that wealth is distributed.
The total is the same. Unless the two horses cost as much as the Jaguar + Honda then I don't see your point.
Quote:
Wait. How would they be millionaires in the first place if they haven't worked at all yet?
Opportunities? Inheritance? Luck? These are not working hard. Period.
You know, I'm not going into a "productive vs working hard" discussion, but I'm literally tired of people who claim that millionaires work hard. If you can't back up your claims then don't post them. They may be productive, but that doesn't mean they work hard.
So why do people always use the "work hard" as pro-capitalism arguments?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:31 PM |
|
Edited by william at 23:33, 09 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Stop talking about millionaires that work hard because now that makes me sick.
Since when hard work has been about telling others to do this and that. Please, I'm going to throw up.
I can tell you from my experience that many of these people have never done a single day of hard work in their lives. They have done nothing to deserve the money they have. They are just players who are ready to do basically anything to get maximum profit for themselves. And that is what they must do or otherwise they would have never acquired such fortune. You're simply gullible if you believe else.
Millionaires DO work hard. They worked hard to get where they are now, and they work hard to make sure that they do stay a millionaire and not lose their money. So you think that they don't work hard and that they just try anything just to get the maximum profit for themselves? I seriously doubt that. Take Bill Gates for example. He started working with computers in College and he was exceptional at using them. He kept doing what he liked doing, and eventually set up a company which was to do with Computers. He worked damn hard to get where he was today. If YOU believe otherwise then YOU are gullible.
You can also take musicians for example. They work hard to get where they are. If you are trying to get some fame then you have to do all sorts of things like advertising, setting up some small time gigs, making a myspace (which is a good way of getting exposure, it worked for Soulja Boy and many other musicians), setting up your own web site and updating it frequently and many other things. Getting money is not such an easy thing to do, especially becoming a millionaire. It's never an easy thing to get to, and people generally have to work hard, perhaps even most of their lives just to get that amount of money.
People who start their own companies and later turn out to be millionaires or even billionaires don't just get that amount of money from sitting back and doing nothing. They MAKE the decisions for the company, they have to hire workers. At the beginning, they basically have to sort everything out. In a company, the boss usually does have to tell people what to do. Why? Because that is a part of his job. So you think that people will just sit there and decide what they will do? If that was the case, then nothing would ever get done or the wrong things might get done. Giving instructions to do is a part of work, whether you wish to accept that or not.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Millionaires DO work hard.
Did. Not "do".
Quote:
They worked hard to get where they are now, and they work hard to make sure that they do stay a millionaire and not lose their money. So you think that they don't work hard and that they just try anything just to get the maximum profit for themselves? I seriously doubt that. Take Bill Gates for example. He started working with computers in College and he was exceptional at using them. He kept doing what he liked doing, and eventually set up a company which was to do with Computers. He worked damn hard to get where he was today. If YOU believe otherwise then YOU are gullible.
Sorry Will, you're just plain wrong. What about the guy who works 2x times Gates but doesn't have a computer available?
Quote:
You can also take musicians for example. They work hard to get where they are. If you are trying to get some fame then you have to do all sorts of things like advertising...
advertising hmm... imagine a scenario in which everyone wants to be famous. Who will they advertise for, other famous people?
Famous or millionaires are leeches in that they depend on less-famous or "average joe" next door. Can Bill Gates be the same multi-billionaire if everyone was the same as him? Who would he hire to do his job? Only after this will you realize how hard he works.
As in the comic with Circle vs Square, it's so damn hard working to ring the bell and have your food delivered on a plate... [/sarcasm]
Quote:
setting up your own web site and updating it frequently and many other things.
Or just hire someone to do it...
see my point?
Quote:
At the beginning, they basically have to sort everything out.
What if I inherit Bill Gates' company? Huh? I work so damn hard I sweat (not only physically but also mentally)... right?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:51 PM |
|
|
One of my professors is one of the busyest men I've ever met. He told me about how often gets done with work at around 2am because his flight got delayed. Then he reads 200 emails a night.
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a millionaire. Don't tell me millionaire's don't work hard. It's not just working hard. It's being efficient and smart with your opportunities and your money.
If you can't see that you are just jealous of those who make their million the hard way.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:54 PM |
|
Edited by william at 23:55, 09 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Did. Not "do".
They still do, to an extent. They have to still work hard in order to actually keep the millions of dollars they might have.
Quote:
Sorry Will, you're just plain wrong. What about the guy who works 2x times Gates but doesn't have a computer available?
I think if you were working at Microsoft, then you would get a sufficient amount of money to be able to afford a computer for yourself, lol. Plus, if a person is working hard, they will still gain money, correct? If you don't work too hard, then there might be other people working a bit harder than you and you might not be needed at the job anymore because you aren't doing sufficient work. It all means something in the end. You are STILL getting money, regardless.
Quote:
advertising hmm... imagine a scenario in which everyone wants to be famous. Who will they advertise for, other famous people?
did you even understand my point? No wonder threads go off into other discussions all the time with you. If you are trying to become famous then you will advertise what you do to ordinary people - that is, people who aren't in the, for example, music industry, then you will also advertise to people that DO work in the music industry, such as music labels, radio stations etc etc.
Quote:
Or just hire someone to do it...
see my point?
I see your point, but if you are trying to establish yourself as a musician and trying to earn some fame, then you would try to do it yourself or maybe get a friend to do it. You wouldn't hire someone to do it because that might cost money and you might not have money. I say might because the person may have a job or they might still be in school or something. I hope that makes sense.
Quote:
What if I inherit Bill Gates' company? Huh? I work so damn hard I sweat (not only physically but also mentally)... right?
Yes, that might happen as well. But to be able to keep the company working then you will need to work hard. Correct?
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2008 11:55 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:00, 10 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a millionaire. Don't tell me millionaire's don't work hard. It's not just working hard. It's being efficient and smart with your opportunities and your money.
These two things happen to people AGAINST THEIR WILL.
if that's not what you call unfair then I don't know what is. It's like being born without eyes (opportunities) -- isn't that unfair? Seriously.
and this was what I was trying to get across, the unfairness thing. Don't start to use arguments for 'productiveness' because it wasn't even my point -- and you were arguing with my point after all so you keep on it.
@william: Quote:
They still do, to an extent. They have to still work hard in order to actually keep the millions of dollars they might have.
What prevents them to hire someone else who does it for them, while they reap the profits?
Quote:
I think if you were working at Microsoft, then you would get a sufficient amount of money to be able to afford a computer for yourself, lol.
??? Microsoft doesn't even exist in that example.
And hiring myself at MS? That's exactly the unfairness I am talking about. Why do I have to hire at MS and Bill found the company? Why not vice-versa? Just because he has a better situation than me, that is, it's not because I was lazy but because I couldn't.
Quote:
did you even understand my point? No wonder threads go off into other discussions all the time with you. If you are trying to become famous then you will advertise what you do to ordinary people - that is, people who aren't in the, for example, music industry, then you will also advertise to people that DO work in the music industry, such as music labels, radio stations etc etc.
Did YOU even read what I said? Don't you see how these famous people DEPEND and LEECH on "ordinary" people as you put it? How can that be fair lol 
I mean, why is person X famous and not Y? Why not both? Technically, both should be IF THEY WANTED, to be fair. Unfortunately, one thing is to want, another to be able to -- due to the situation. That's unfairness.
Quote:
Yes, that might happen as well. But to be able to keep the company working then you will need to work hard. Correct?
Or hire someone to keep it working. Someone who was less fortunate of course -- since millionaires don't hire another millionaire. yeah it's unfair and capitalists exploit that. Freaky world we live in.
Quote:
How many times have you heard: "If you work hard and put your nose to the grind stone you, too, can become financially successful." We were told that to amass great wealth -- the American Dream -- you simply need to be good at what you do and work hard.
We've been told that to tax the rich is equivalent to "punishing people for their success."
If we've learned nothing else from this financial crisis it should be that this is complete and utter bull****.
Look at the salary and bonus packages being given to CEO's of failing corporations. It's the height of rewarding failure. And it didn't just happen. Over the past eight years we have seen a stead stream of CEO's who on one hand will layoff tens of thousands of workers, while continuing to take multimillion dollar salaries and bonus packages -- and THEN have the nerve to appear before Congress asking for a bailout!
And they GET IT, with NO REQUIREMENT that they GIVE BACK the MONEY THEY HAVE STOLEN.
This greed has been so rampant for so long that our entire banking system is on the verge of collapse. American Capitalism as we've known it is disappearing.
The Washington Post reports:Quote:
The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression is claiming another casualty: American-style capitalism.
Since the 1930s, U.S. banks were the flagships of American economic might, and emulation by other nations of the fiercely free-market financial system in the United States was expected and encouraged. But the market turmoil that is draining the nation's wealth and has upended Wall Street now threatens to put the banks at the heart of the U.S. financial system at least partly in the hands of the government.
The Bush administration is considering a partial nationalization of some banks, buying up a portion of their shares to shore them up and restore confidence as part of the $700 billion government bailout. The notion of government ownership in the financial sector, even as a minority stakeholder, goes against what market purists say they see as the foundation of the American system.
Yet the administration may feel it has no choice. Credit, the lifeblood of capitalism, ceased to flow. An economy based on the free market cannot function that way.
The government's about-face goes beyond the banking industry. It is reasserting itself in the lives of citizens in ways that were unthinkable in the era of market-knows-best thinking. With the recent takeovers of major lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the bailout of AIG, the U.S. government is now effectively responsible for providing home mortgages and life insurance to tens of millions of Americans. Many economists are asking whether it remains a free market if the government is so deeply enmeshed in the financial system.
What began with Ronald Reagan has now culminated in a meltdown of our financial structure under George W. Bush.
One only need look at the behavior of Wall Street CEO's to know these greedy bastards must be regulated. Without regulation they simply take the money and run wild.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 12:06 AM |
|
|
Did you watch all 3 of these videos? He clearly states that capitolism is the answer.
And all these bailouts you talk about? That's not capitolism. That's socialism. Bailouts should never happen in a capitolistic economy.
What is your opinion on managers that make 50-75K per year? Their jobs aren't easy. Not only do they have to keep the people under them happy and motivated, they have to pick up the slack when people don't show up for work or do their job correctly. They are responsible for everyone's mistake.
I bet you think your bosses job is easy. Well it's not. You might think they don't work hard because they leave work early or takes several vacations a year. But you didn't see the years that they worked until 8 or 9 every night eating dinner in the office to get their businees running, because they couldn't afford to hire another employee.
And yeah, if a millionaire decides to stop working hard, they won't continue to make that same salary for very long. And if you hire everyone to do your work for you and you don't keep a good eye on them, they'll either do a snowty job it up or they could screw you out of your money, because you aren't paying attention. So really if a millionaire wants to be 100% certain he's going to continue making money, there will be work involved.
Are you saying that they don't deserve to keep that million dollars because they stop working hard?
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Did YOU even read what I said? Don't you see how these famous people DEPEND and LEECH on "ordinary" people as you put it? How can that be fair lol
I mean, why is person X famous and not Y? Why not both? Technically, both should be IF THEY WANTED, to be fair. Unfortunately, one thing is to want, another to be able to -- due to the situation. That's unfairness.
I read what you said. The person trying to become famous doesn't necessarily "leech" off "ordinary" people. they do depend on them though, because support is always good and it helps build a fanbase which could get the band to getting a recording contract or something. Leeching is the wrong word to say though, it doesn't seem right when put in the context of a musician trying to become famous.
Person X might be famous and Y might not be because of a few things, which might include:
- The quality of what each of them do.
- The amount of supporters they might have. If person X has 1000 supporters and person Y has 10 supporters, then person X is obviously going to be more famous than person Y.
- The appeal of their work to people. If what person Y is doing might appeal to a small minority whereas person X appeals to a larger audience of people, then person X is going to obviously be more popular.
Take for example, The Beatles. One of the greatest bands in the world. A massive amount of fans, their music was superb, the message in their songs was good and the songs appealed to many people. The music was original and innovative. It was, in a whole, fantastic stuff. Now, look at a band such as Electric Light Orchestra. Their music was more complex than The Beatles but that doesn't mean it was bad. They made fantastic music. They didn't have as big of a fanbase as The Beatles did and a lot of the songs didn't appeal to people as much as The Beatles songs did.
Now, you say that technically, if both people want to be famous then they should and that would be fair. You then say that it is one thing to want, but another to be able to, due to the situation and that is unfairness. Just because both want to be famous then that doesn't mean that "technically they should be if they wanted, to be fair" as you put it. I want to be famous, but that doesn't mean that I should, technically, be famous. If I have the skill, and I get more exposure then there might be a chance that I would become famous. If person X has more skill than person Y then that doesn't mean that it is unfair that one is famous and that the other isn't famous. It has to do with the fact that one person can make better things than the other. How exactly is that unfair? There is ALWAYS going to be a person who can do something better than somebody else, that doesn't mean it's unfair, that's just called life and we all have to deal with it. I can make music, but there are millions of people who can do it better than me because they have greater skill and more knowledge.
But this is getting off topic, so I'll stop for now. Plus, I don't really want to initiate in any quote wars with you.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 12:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I read what you said. The person trying to become famous doesn't necessarily "leech" off "ordinary" people. they do depend on them though, because support is always good and it helps build a fanbase which could get the band to getting a recording contract or something. Leeching is the wrong word to say though, it doesn't seem right when put in the context of a musician trying to become famous.
No you still don't get it. Leech is a good word because they depend on them.
You say a musician becoming famous is a good thing right? Then why can't everybody do it? Suppose you clone yourself 100 times. Which one of you will be a musician and "famous"? If that were a good thing it should apply to everyone but it is clear that you will need SOME of them to be "poorer" to leech on them.
Good things always can apply to everyone and never depend on people who do not have them.
And RSF, that's not my quote (I mean not me who said that, just something I found)
Quote:
Take for example, The Beatles. One of the greatest bands in the world. A massive amount of fans, their music was superb, the message in their songs was good and the songs appealed to many people. The music was original and innovative. It was, in a whole, fantastic stuff. Now, look at a band such as Electric Light Orchestra. Their music was more complex than The Beatles but that doesn't mean it was bad. They made fantastic music. They didn't have as big of a fanbase as The Beatles did and a lot of the songs didn't appeal to people as much as The Beatles songs did.
Where is the "hard working" thing? It seems to me like the Beatles worked a lot less and got more money.
Why can't you accept that the hard-working argument is invalid? Why do people use it? Because it evokes sympathy? Please...
Quote:
If I have the skill, and I get more exposure then there might be a chance that I would become famous.
What if you clone yourself and you all have the same skills? I think you realize it's impossible for all of you to be "famous". Therefore, it is not skill which determines your wealth, it's luck/opportunity. Luck is unfair, as we all know. My point stands.
Quote:
There is ALWAYS going to be a person who can do something better than somebody else, that doesn't mean it's unfair, that's just called life and we all have to deal with it. I can make music, but there are millions of people who can do it better than me because they have greater skill and more knowledge.
That's a false statement. How can there always be someone better when the amount of people on this planet is finite?
Logical deduction.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 12:30 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
which is more productive? Guy A. Why? What did he do to get there?
Who cares? As long as his productivity isn't a result of initiating force, then it's fine. I see it unfair that you want to steal people's opportunities. If you're against abortion for humans, why do you want abortion for opportunities? 
Quote:
This is what I consider unfair: when someone WANTS to do something but CANNOT, compared to another one who CAN, then it's unfair. Period.
There is no economic system in the world where people can do everything that they want. Period.
Quote:
The total is the same.
No, it isn't. In the first scenario, the total is Honda + Jaguar. In the second scenario, the total is 2 horses. Obviously, the total is greater in the first scenario than in the second.
And even if you have all the opportunities in the world, you're not going to get anywhere unless you work hard.
As for inheritance, that is an interesting issue. I'm undecided about it. But suffice to say that inheritance by itself doesn't make people more productive. If I got a million dollars from a rich uncle, by itself wouldn't make me any more productive.
Quote:
I mean, why is person X famous and not Y? Why not both? Technically, both should be IF THEY WANTED, to be fair. Unfortunately, one thing is to want, another to be able to -- due to the situation. That's unfairness.
You can't blame that on capitalism. That's just the natural result of scarcity. If everyone wanted a mansion, and things were "fair", then no one would have a mansion. But I see it much more fair for some people to have mansions and others not to have them than to not let anyone have mansions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 12:32 AM |
|
Edited by william at 00:33, 10 Dec 2008.
|
@ TheDeath
What the hell are you on about with this cloning business? Just stop making some unrealistic "what if" situations.
With that last thing you quoted, what I meant to say was that there will always be somebody better than you for example: You might be the best at HOMM3, but then somebody might come along and then beat you and is much better than you. Then somebody might beat him and be better overall and then so on and so on. Hope that makes my point more clearer now.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 10, 2008 12:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You can't blame that on capitalism. That's just the natural result of scarcity. If everyone wanted a mansion, and things were "fair", then no one would have a mansion. But I see it much more fair for some people to have mansions and others not to have them than to not let anyone have mansions.
Agreed Mvass
Capitolism gives people that chance to have a mansion. That chance to have the mansion is what motivates people to strive for success. If you continue to give the "less fortunate" money and benefits, they won't work hard to better themselves.
That's why capitolism DOES work.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
| |
|
|
