Continued
[Quote = anomoly]
Quote:
|
You mentioned government regulations, and you assume they are bad for America. In the '20s and again in the late '90s to now we have seen laissez-faire policies implemented. During these times, we have also seen inequality greatly increased. In 1990, the worker to CEO salary ratio was 1:85. By '99, it was 1:475. This is compared to Japan, where the ratio is 1:11, and even to the UK, where the ratio is 1:24, extremely high. But it's ok right? It's ok, because the poor have welfare to live on, and many workers get stock options.
|
You continue to sing this socialist song of misery and woe. I believe that a person is worth whatever a person is worth. Those who fill menial jobs will be compensated accordingly. If they are not satisfied, they should make the effort to advance. Those whose contributions are greater deserve greater compensation. Those at the top, who make it all possible for those below, deserve the greatest compensation. Why should anyone belimited?
Please comment on the incomes of sports figures, rock stars, and Hollywood entertainers.
Quote:
|
Well, welfare doesn't work as an excuse for the right wing, since they want to destroy it.
|
Except for the aged and infirm, why should there be a need for welfare beyond a short period to tide one over a rough spot? Isn’t it far better to get these folks into the labor force where they can join in?
Quote:
|
It must be those wondrous stock options that have helped workers! In the 90's, however, 86% of the stock market's advances went to the richest 10% of the US population.
|
Did you know that the Clinton Administration is the father of the modern ‘stock option’ scheme that you bemoan?
Quote:
|
The bull-market we see only contributes to inequality. Not to mention that, during the 90s, worker salaries barely kept pace with inflation. In fact, the stock market often rallied during the 90s on news that wages were lagging! In the game of capitalism, lower wages for workers means more money for CEOs, and thus more 'success' for capitalism.
|
Evidently, this is no secret among the millions of workers who have IRAs, 401Ks, and many other investment programs that invest in equities.
Quote:
|
Painfully, we see that capitalism helps the minority of Earth's population, yet we consistently produce enough goods to benefit everyone. We have enough food to feed the world a few times over, yet many starve.
|
The US shares its bounty with impoverished nations worldwide. The problem is the greed and thievery that is rampant with governments in many of these impoverished nations. I’m sure you can name a few.
Quote:
|
We have the power to establish a minimum wage worldwide, yet we do not.
|
Minimum wage is a good way to keep people in poverty. As an example, in the US, whenever it is raised, that percentage of workers are laid off. This tells me that the workers were not really needed in the first place.
Quote:
|
These things do not help those for whom capitalism is intended-the rich. They only help to make people globally more equal. And if cheap labor disappears, or if people do not need to work so cheaply anymore, gets who 'suffers' because of it? The rich. Oh, we mustn't let that happen. The rich may slip from a bllionaire to a millionaire, they may slip from 46 billion (Gates) to 30 billion. Oh, how they would suffer! The right wing wishes us to remain subjects in the royal court of the market, dependent upon it for our welfare. Should the people themselves ever democratically run an economy? No, never. Capitalist theory, whether you faihtful pro-marketers like it or not, is designed on the premise that some will suffer, inequality, poverty, is neccesary, in order to give money to those who deserve it. And that, that is what capitalism is really about-giving money to those who, in some people's eyes, deserve it. Democracy therefore becomes an enemy to the holy market, and thus will not be tolerated.
|
Nice speech. Again I think I can hear, in the background, the men’s chorus singing “The Internationale”.