Most of rich bastards of XXI century just recieved same money in form of subsidies.
This cowards just can't face the truth.
System based on making other people work? Is there such a thing as a system that doesn't have other people doing work. I know the meat cutters at the deli can't do crap unless drivers deliver the meat.
And you know they're not being paid the value of their labor... because you were properly indoctrinated? The whole point of the free market is supply meeting demand. Workers want to be paid as much as possible while employers want to pay as little as possible, and they meet somewhere in the middle and all have maximum satisfaction. Or we could just pay menial workers $1000 an hour and then the business goes under.
Right, so you said something completely different to what I said. What you pointed out is called "team work". What I was pointing out was "someone else making money of someone else's work". EG, I make 10 guys produce PC's and make another guy sell them. The profits go to me, and I pay the people working. I am doing nothing, and getting much more money than the other 11 guys. I am making other people generate my wealth.
Because if they were being paid the full value of their labour then the employer wouldn't be making a profit, and the actual working people would be a lot richer than the business owners. And I really don't see your point, the real menial workers (CEO's and such, who sit around doing effectively nothing) get paid much more than a grand an hour.
So basically you believe that work can exist without a hierarchy? Apparently the Soviets disagreed with you because Stalin was on top of pretty much everything and murdered everyone he didn't like. His crimes against humanity would have made Hitler blush if he'd lived long enough to see them.
And the profit goes back into the business so it can expand, hire more workers, produce more product, thereby making an even greater profit to pay even more workers and thus the standard of living is raised as more and more people are employed. That's how it's worked for Africa with fewer and fewer people each year living off less than a dollar a day. Gradual improvement. As opposed to just stealing from the rich, distributing it amongst the poor, minus the fee taken by those in power. It works really great for one year, but after that there's nothing left to redistribute so the state just focuses on lowering the standard of living.
Tell me. If you system is so much better, why doesn't it exist? It's been tried numerous times, but it always fails some time after the death camps are built. And why the compulsion to murder countless men, women, and children anyway? Not cool www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjY4jQ…
Also, why are you arguing with me on this? I've seen evidence that socialism fails. Besides the human rights violations, there's also this little thing called the tragedy of commons. Then there's the warping of culture to make everyone distrust each other so that no one will think of teaming up against the tyranny of the state. I've seen the evidence. You saying that CEOs make more money than me isn't going to win me over to your cause.
One of MammaObama's vacations would feed a poor food stamp recipient for better than 1500 years. And they take a lot of vacations.
Obama cost 1.5 billion in upkeep in 2012, about an 8oth of the annual food stamp cost. Add the cost of all the other oinking politicians and food stamps and feeding the poor to stop them from robbing you is cheaper than feeding the politicians to stop them from robbing you.
And the poor rob you less often.
the same can be said for both, (capitalisum and comunisum) however the rich don't stay rich in capitalisum unless they are fair and just to there employies, and that includes helping them generate weath as well. in socalisum its work to make me rich or die.
what does that do to your argument?
Don't beleve me? read a history book on the two topics then agure your point.
Socialism have a lot of problems too, that's far from being a secret.
But in my country (France), we never enjoyed classical capitalism. After the fall of the monarchy, there was a direct switch to financial capitalism (because most of the philosophers of the enlightenment promoted it, especially Voltaire). This is why I didn't thought about classical capitalism at first. This is also why I wouldn't say no to more informations on the subject.
we enjoyed it briefly over here in my country (America) Following the new deal, the real end to it was fine print in the act that created the EPA.
Goes to show you we need to create guidelines for our laws or they shouldn't become laws.