Toemeesleather wrote:eCat wrote:
the reality of capitalism is in order for it to work, there has to be losers, there has to be economic classes
I would say Henry Ford and Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are examples of
winners..please list the
losers that were created by these guys....
While I believe that Capitalism works, its supply and demand. If 80% of the kids in America went to college to be Electrical Engineers - Capitalism isn't going to support that model, just like Capitalism doesn't support an art history major and they are working at Starbucks.
If you don't want to call them a loser in the sense they aren't high income earners in the economy, that's fine - they made the choice and certainly the option to choose a more in demand lucrative route was there for them, but none the less, they are playing a role in capitalism and that is filling the need of an entry level job that provides low cost services to people that can afford $5 coffee. Other "losers" in the capitalism are the non-skilled labor like immigrants and high school drop outs. Its all about choice, but in reference to Tree " we should have a system where everyone is a winner", is a reliance on technocrats to measure the economy, to understand what and where the GDP must be addressed. Not to mention the concept that the "winners" in Capitalism must cover the difference in standard of living for the losers. That disincentivises both classes to achieve.
Its an impossible task.
That is what I meant by loser in Capitalism.
To me the real issue is the cost of these capitalism losers to society as a whole. Currently its up to the government to provide the income security necessary to provide a standard of living -which results in deficit spending, tax increases and a stigma associated with those receiving aid, when it should be on the business sector to provide an environment where someone working a standard work weeks is capable of earning enough for a living.
Wal-Mart's business model was - until they bowed to pressure (and I'm not sure its changed that dramatically) that government subsidies would close the gap in an employee living wage. And to me there is a huge difference when you are the worlds largest employer versus a mom-n-pop corner grocery with 8 employees. Wal-Mart and a host of other business wanted to say they were the same as the mom-n-pop's in justifying the low wage for the job description, while earning hundreds of millions in profit for the stockholders and core family owners.
To me the closest we can come to having a fair system of capitalism across the board is to push for business owners to pay a living wage - with the resulting costs passed on to customers or resolved by innovation, where a defacto minimum wage is established not by some random government mandate but by market forces.
And the easiest way to address that in the short term is to cut off immigration at the knees, deport thousands of illegal workers and introduce a merit based immigration system.
I like the stinky pinky but only up to the first knuckle, I do not want a GD thumb up there--I've told her multiple times and I always catch her when she tries to pull a fast one---it's my butthole for Chrissakes I'm gonna know--so cut out the BS.
