Isn’t that a problem of capitalism, not socialism?
Technically, in pure socialism, aren’t “companies” run by the society or the workers themselves?
Here here! Money as the (by far) primary measure of a company’s well-being and determinant of future success is a HUGE problem. Outrageous salaries, and the belief that anyone can get those salaries through “gambling” investments, are as detrimental to society as poverty, and serve little purpose. If the maximum salary was $2 million, for example, you’d still find thousands of excellent, excellent people to fill the top jobs, you don’t need to pay 10 million 100 million etc to do it. In the end, money, the accumulation of ridiculous wealth, really is a zero-sum game. Someone getting extremely rich usually means someone else isn’t getting enough, unless you’re printing money.[/quote]
Was it the guy who started McDonalds or another “household brand” who had the famous quote,
I only want as much money as I deserve. And that’s all of it.
this is the kind of narcassistic greed that surrounds big business. And actually Okami, you were pretty harsh again. This guy may be pretty naive in your mind, but he has a valid opinion.
You claim one man is worth 100 of his peers, can you substantiate that claim?
many people I know in business actually have said that when it comes to hiring people and getting selected for the best business schools so you can get hired they know that 9/10 people can do the job/program, they just gotta find an excuse to pick one. to me it seems your argument that the CEO is super valuable is incorrect. In reality, the CEO is a guy who worked as hard as his colleagues and had a series of lucky breaks/good contacts/ got credit for an idea and is now reaping a massive reward because he gets to choose his salary and is so used to dealing with 300 billion dollar figures he is disillusioned into thinking he, as a single person, also needs millions and millions of dollars.
[quote=“itakitez”] This guy may be pretty naive in your mind, but he has a valid opinion.
[/quote]
She please… 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1m1hc48X4
“All you people in high places, the pieces all gonna fall on you!!”
Isn’t that a problem of capitalism, not socialism?
Technically, in pure socialism, aren’t “companies” run by the society or the workers themselves?[/quote]Ok genius, name me one country with a better environmental record, more product choice, cheaper products and safer products than the US that is socialist. 
[quote=“itakitez”]this is the kind of narcassistic greed that surrounds big business. And actually Okami, you were pretty harsh again. This guy may be pretty naive in your mind, but he has a valid opinion.[/quote]2 reasons that I’m hard on her.
- Socialism is always associated with nationalism. They support each other and provide a means for either to confirm the use of the other.
- Socialism causes distortions in the market that politicians believe they can fix. examples:
a)Students in Venezuela pay half rate for bus fare, so bus drivers get their lunch at their breakfast during the morning rush hour when students need them the most.
b)Bus companies in Peru and independent owner operators(practically the very definition of socialism you guys push) have their fares set by the state which then forgets to raise them with inflation causing repairs to be put off till the inevitable happens because they can’t fix their bus and feed their family at the same time.
c)Socialized medicine in Greece. The receptionist tells you that their is a 10 month waiting list to see the doctor, but if you pay a bribe you can see him next week.
d)North Korea…
e)Nationalised oil companies such as Mexico that raided the exploration fund to pay for pet political projects and outright theft while causing Mexico’s decline in oil production.
[quote=“itakitez”]many people I know in business actually have said that when it comes to hiring people and getting selected for the best business schools so you can get hired they know that 9/10 people can do the job/program, they just gotta find an excuse to pick one. to me it seems your argument that the CEO is super valuable is incorrect. In reality, the CEO is a guy who worked as hard as his colleagues and had a series of lucky breaks/good contacts/ got credit for an idea and is now reaping a massive reward because he gets to choose his salary and is so used to dealing with 300 billion dollar figures he is disillusioned into thinking he, as a single person, also needs millions and millions of dollars.[/quote]Yes, because skill and ability never come into your reasoning here at all. 
Isn’t that a problem of capitalism, not socialism?
Technically, in pure socialism, aren’t “companies” run by the society or the workers themselves?[/quote]Ok genius, name me one country with a better environmental record, more product choice, cheaper products and safer products than the US that is socialist. [/quote]
Not many countries are totally socialist, just as none are totally capitalist, it’s a sliding scale. But more-socialist countries with far better environmental records include all of Scandinavia, and the Netherlands, just off the top of my head - certainly more than the US. And you’re missing the point, which is that in the US, companies definitely spend HUGE dollars on purchasing political power. Are you seriously claiming that this doesn’t happen in the US with the Reign of Lobbyists? Are you joking? Why don’t you name some socialist countries that A. have a lot of big business (practically against the definition of socialism), and B. spend a lot of their money on political power. Brazil? Where is that crazy fucker Hugo?
And thank you for acknowledging what most of the world already knew about my intellectual legerdemain.
[quote=“Tiare”]I believe for me it’s more of a moral issue than a money issue. I’m just against the immorality that big business and profit chasing causes. I wish that we lived in a world in which living a happy life was more important than having a larger bank account. Yes, I understand that I’m very idealistic, and that my ideas can’t fly in the current world we live in, but I believe that I’m allowed to have my opinions, and my hopes that someday people will give a crap about what they do to each other and the environment. I think the oil spill is a pretty good indication, among other things, about why American-style Capitalism isn’t working. For those that feel they need to insult my intelligence in order to show that they don’t want to hear my opinions, that’s fine. That’s your right. I also have the right to be a socialist and believe that a human life is more valuable than money.[/quote]Tiare -
Thank you for sharing a bit more info. It makes responding to your comments easier when you state something of a more definitive nature.
No one appears to be seeking to deny you the expression of your opinions; just attempting to get some sort of focused response so as to address you correctly. It does make the discussion easier.
You might be happy to know that the "…someday people will give a crap about what they do to each other and the environment. " has arrived. I’m pretty sure it occured back in the mid-80s when "Greed Was King." There was quite a backlash against this hideous green monster and social concern took off like a rocket on the 4th of July. At least thats the time frame I’m using as a base line. Others might date it even earlier - say late '60s or early '70s. Hard to say…there was so much drug use back then that things are sometimes hazy.
As to using the Gulf oil spill as an example of “…why American-style Capitalism isn’t working.” I think I might see why you might say this, but it doesn’t really provide sufficient explanation for use in this context. Although it does sound nice to say…I guess.
As to your “I also have the right to be a socialist…”…of course you do. I’m not aware that anyone has or is trying to deny you that “right.” Are they?
Its nice to want to be something that makes you feel good. What really counts is actually understanding the ramifications of ones choices. In your choice of “socialism” as an identifier, who or what socialist system are you identifying with? Chavez in Venezuela? Fidel in Cuba? Danny Ortega and his Nasty Sandys in Nicaragua?(that one is a bit of a joke - he/they failed miserably and Danny O was a closet Capitalist who used his American Express card all through his glory days of the mid-late ‘80s)
Its nice to be a ‘cafe’ socialist’ and talk the talk…but really…have you given much thought too that ‘socialism’ has come to be and how it has failed miserably in providing the dreamed for utopia on earth that its progenitors espoused to the minds of mush they hoped to fill?
there is a woman, past Prime Minister of England who had some very thoughtful words on the subject of socialism vs capitalism in her final address. I do hope you’ll take the time to listen to her words. I post a link to a transcript after the YouTube bit so you might read it if you missed any.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg&feature=player_embedded
Transcript here:
Thatcher’s Last Stand Against Socialism
All the best.
Just keep in mind who your compatriots(comrades) are when you chose a self-identifier.
That’s pretty rich, dude. Telling someone they’re compatriots are people like Castro, Chavez, and Ortega just because they dream of real socialism is ludicrous, Why don’t you add Stalin in there too? Just because it’s been done wrong before doesn’t mean it can’t be improved - just like capitalism in the US: it doesn’t really work well for everyone, and could be improved by sliding further down the scale towards socialism.
And let’s not get started on Nicaragua and El Salvador, eh? We frickin funded and trained death squads, who you kidding with your Ortega comment. Reagan and W are worse than Chavez in an absolute scale, and maybe you forget what Castro and Guevara were fighting against in Cuba when Castro was still idealistic and on the right side. How about our friend in Panama? The death squads in Colombia?
TT -
You failed to inject the mandatory anti-Thatcher rebuke.
You’ll lose points for omitting that.
[quote=“TC”]TT -
You failed to inject the mandatory anti-Thatcher rebuke.
You’ll lose points for omitting that.
[/quote]
Literally typing it as you posted, I thought I’d separate out the issues for easier rebuttal later.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Transcript here:
Thatcher’s Last Stand Against Socialism
[/quote]
Thatcher’s statements are of course one sided and hide a lot of the negatives of what she did to Britain with her “anti-socialism”. Wasn’t unemployment at like 10% when she left? Inflation at 10%? I just read that in N Ireland, unemployment was 20% when she left, and Scotland 16%. Woo-hoo!
20% unemployment, and a rich bitch says “there is no such thing as society”. What a T-W-A-double-T.
Now gimme my points back, 500 more and I get a free trip to Pa-kee-shtan.
but she does look surprisingly good cast in 8 feet of towering bronze, complete with hand bag. I’m just ducking off for a quick ducking off.
Sorry for being unclear. Sometimes I try a bit too hard to be polite that my main point becomes a little hazy 
Anyway, this comment above was my attempt at smoothing over the insult I received from another poster (not you). I was trying to bring light to the fact that their comment to me was judgmental and condescending, implying that I am ignorant because my value system is different. I believe that everyone has a right to believe in what they want. So, he is free to have unquestioning devotion to the current system, just as I am free to question it and believe that another system could be better.
I thought Mark Cuban’s take on Wall Street right now were fairly interesting. Perhaps this is the sort of thing some of the posters in this thread were trying to describe earlier.
blogmaverick.com/2010/05/09/what … street-in/
[quote]I started actively trading stocks in 1992. I traded a lot. Over the years I’ve written quite a bit about the market. I have always thought I had a good handle on the market. Until recently.
Over just the past 3 years, the market has changed. It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in. Discussion in the market place is not about the performance of specific companies and their returns. Discussion is about macro issues that impact all stocks. And those macro issues impact automated trading decisions, which impact any and every stock that is part of any and every index or ETF. Combine that with the leverage of derivatives tracking companies, indexes and other packages or the leveraged ETFs, and individual stocks become pawns in a much bigger game than I feel increasingly less comfortable playing. It is a game fraught with ever increasing risk.
The Pimco (who I think are the smartest guys on the Street) guys talk about a new normal as it applies to today’s state of the world economy. I think just as important is the new normal as it applies to Wall Street. Wall Street is now a huge mathematical game of chess where individual companies are just pawns. This is money in the bank for the big players like Goldman, Morgan, etc. Why ? Because the game of chess is far too complicated for 99pct of the institutions out there investing money. So to keep up, they turn to Goldman, Morgan and the like to invent products for them. “You don’t know how to play the housing boom, let us show you”. “You think the housing boom is about to crash, let us show you how to play that”. “You think that PIIGS are in trouble because they can’t print money to pay debt holders, let us create a product to allow you to play that game” The big houses have the best hackers in the business and they put together the games and sell them to the many, many institutions managing Billions and Billions of dollars. They are the ultimate Hackers selling their attacks to the highest bidder, regardless of which side they are on. That is a new normal[/quote]
…and his take on what needs to happen
[quote]Regulators have got to start to recognize that traders are not investors and vice versa and treat them differently. Different regulations. Different tax structure. Different oversight. Individual investors and the funds that just invest in stocks and bonds are not going to crash the market. Big traders who are always leveraging up and maximizing the number of trades/hacks they make will always put the system at risk. We need to recognize that they do not serve much of a purpose other than to add substantial risk to the global economy. That their stated value add of liquidity does not compensate the US and World Economy nearly enough for the risk of collapse they introduce into the system.
Wall Street as a whole needs to be in the business of creating capital for companies and selling shares to investors who believe they are shareholders. The Government needs to create incentives for this business and extract compensation from the traders/hackers for the systemic failure level of risk they introduce.[/quote]
Oh, and I take your Margaret Thatcher and raise you one FDR. Sounds like he believes in some socialist ideas to me.
youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4
As for the the fact that BP preferred to keep their $500,000 instead of installing an emergency shut off valve not being enough to prove that our current capitalistic system doesn’t work, here are more examples:
- Monsanto throwing their seeds into other farmers land so that they can later come back with police and show that these farmers had “stolen” from them, subsequently causing the same farms to be shut down.
- Halliburton winning all government contracts without competition
- Air France crash caused by the plane being forced to fly at higher altitudes in order to save on fuel (which caused important instruments to ice over)
- Unrealistic intellectual property rights that allow businesses to copyright DNA, among other things, and the length that they are given protection is grossly unfair due to the quickness in which our world changes.
- The fact that a normal citizen can be sent to jail for littering consistently, while a large corporation is allowed to damage an area beyond repair, but has no real consequences (might want to check out the copper mines in PNG if the current oil spill isn’t a good enough example of this)
- The chairman of the US treasury is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs (can we say conflict of interest?)
- Bill Gates, Sr. agrees that the rich are not paying enough taxes (the rich only pay about 2% while the common man pays 16%)“Poor people and middle-income people are paying too much to support the state and rich people aren’t paying enough,” Gates Sr. said in an interview yesterday in Seattle. “That’s the starting point for me.”
- In America, 1% of the people have 95% of the wealth (sounds a bit like serfdom to me…or perhaps France right before the revolution)
The fact is that there isn’t enough education for people on what is actually happening. The poor that don’t question why they are living in such terrible poverty when they don’t need to be have just been brainwashed into believing that they will someday be rich too. But they won’t…ever.
Oh, and as for walking the walk…I used to work for a prominent bank back in the US, but I couldn’t sell my soul to them any longer. You’d be disgusted by the glee on their faces on the second Thursday of every month, repossession day! I left corporate America for good after that. Got a job working with children, who are forced into care all day because it is now impossible for a family to survive on a single income anymore. My grandfather was able to raise 8 children on a school principal salary while my grandmother stayed home. Hmmm, that alone should prove that the system is broken.
Eh, in Capitalism wages are what the market will bare. So unemployment will be the norm as it just doesn’t take that many people to produce things anymore, and there can only be so many service jobs.
Also overtime the richest accumulate all the poker chips and it has to start all over again usually through violent revolt. What a silly system
Tiare -
Thank you again for taking the time to continue the discussion.
[quote=“Tiare”]Oh, and I take your Margaret Thatcher and raise you one FDR. Sounds like he believes in some socialist ideas to me.[/quote]That conclusion has been reached by many persons reviewing FDR domestic economic policies.
[quote=“Tiare”]As for the the fact that BP preferred to keep their $500,000 instead of installing an emergency shut off valve not being enough to prove that our current capitalistic system doesn’t work,[/quote]A more concise interpretation would be that BP, under the specified mandates, proceeded acting upon approved safety procedures. Keep in mind that this platform was the recipient of numerous Saty Awards very recently. This is NOT to excuse the accident nor to remove any blame on the operations of the platform. Just to put things in a more accurate perspective.
[quote=“Tiare”]1. Monsanto throwing their seeds into other farmers land so that they can later come back with police and show that these farmers had “stolen” from them, subsequently causing the same farms to be shut down.[/quote]Atrocious behavior. Got a link to these allegations?
[quote=“Tiare”]2. Halliburton winning all government contracts without competition[/quote]How many contracts? What were/are the contracts? Were the on-going sole-provider contracts? Who were/are the other qualified bidders for these contracts? Was this ‘No Bid’ award approved, as required by the specified oversight GAO group? just a few pertinent details.
[quote=“Tiare”]3. Air France crash caused by the plane being forced to fly at higher altitudes in order to save on fuel (which caused important instruments to ice over)[/quote]Flight levels are part of global airline operation procedures. Details and link please.
[quote=“Tiare”]4. Unrealistic intellectual property rights that allow businesses to copyright DNA, among other things, and the length that they are given protection is grossly unfair due to the quickness in which our world changes.[/quote]Details and link to further information, please.
[quote=“Tiare”]5. The fact that a normal citizen can be sent to jail for littering consistently, while a large corporation is allowed to damage an area beyond repair, but has no real consequences (might want to check out the copper mines in PNG if the current oil spill isn’t a good enough example of this)[/quote]If this is indeed the case, what is halting legal actions against this operation? Details and links please.
[quote=“Tiare”]6. The chairman of the US treasury is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs (can we say conflict of interest?)[/quote]An Obama appointee I do believe. But then vetting for qualifications is hardly the forte of this current regime.
[quote=“Tiare”]7. Bill Gates, Sr. agrees that the rich are not paying enough taxes (the rich only pay about 2% while the common man pays 16%)“Poor people and middle-income people are paying too much to support the state and rich people aren’t paying enough,” Gates Sr. said in an interview yesterday in Seattle. “That’s the starting point for me.” [/quote]Did you know, that if one wishes to pay more than the specified amount of their IRA taxes…One only needs to do it?
Its true. Bill can pay as much tax as he wants. You can also!
[quote=“Tiare”]8. In America, 1% of the people have 95% of the wealth (sounds a bit like serfdom to me…or perhaps France right before the revolution)[/quote]Check your stats. It appears that you are confusing Taxes paid by % of wealth vs % of wealth en total.
[quote=“Tiare”]The fact is that there isn’t enough education for people on what is actually happening.[/quote]Hardly reasonable given the 24/7 access to information, varied in reliability, that the internet now provides.[quote=“Tiare”]The poor that don’t question why they are living in such terrible poverty when they don’t need to be have just been brainwashed into believing that they will someday be rich too.[/quote]This appears to be a rather misguided and elitist statement. Being poor and being ignorant is not somehow magically connected. Their are just scads of ignorant middle-class and wealthy people. sually, it has to do with the topic being discussed.[quote=“Tiare”]But they won’t…ever.[/quote]Oh yes…they will…and are.
[quote=“Tiare”]Oh, and as for walking the walk…I used to work for a prominent bank back in the US, but I couldn’t sell my soul to them any longer. You’d be disgusted by the glee on their faces on the second Thursday of every month, repossession day! I left corporate America for good after that. Got a job working with children, who are forced into care all day because it is now impossible for a family to survive on a single income anymore. My grandfather was able to raise 8 children on a school principal salary while my grandmother stayed home. Hmmm, that alone should prove that the system is broken.[/quote]Your GrandFather and GrandMother sound like very commendable people. You are fortunate to have them as role-models for what can be achieved by dedicated hard work in the face of adversity.
Flights can fly at various flight levels once in the air, but it is true that flights tend to burn less fuel at higher altitudes once they get up there - pressure, mix of oxygen, gliding, etc. I was not aware of the instruments icing over though on the Air France flight, I would be curious to know about that, might just look it up myself.
There are a bunch of people under 3 strikes and your out in California for crimes that by no means justify life in prison, you can find those yourself I’m sure if you’re interested. The point Tiare is making is that it is far more difficult to put executives of corporations away who damage the environment or ruin people’s livelihoods than to put shoplifters away for life, for example, while the former do far far more damage to society (which doesn’t exist accordin to Ol Maggie). But the real problem is really that so much of what they do is LEGAL, and thus the problem is often lack of regulation (enough laws or oversight bodies) or enforcement (lack of oversight bodies or funding thereof). If what TC says about BP not being legally required to buy that device, then I see two problems: 1. the oil companies probably lobbied to get regulation in general and some specifics in particular off the books, and I’m sure it worked - why don’t you see how much money oil companies funnel into politics; and 2. there is a general lack of a law, we call it something like a “care of duty” in our industry, which says corporations must exercise their best judgment on issues of safety and security, and they can be held responsible for failing that. Also, regarding funding of oversight in financial industries, check out how poorly underfunded and understaffed and backed up the SEC was during W (and perhaps before), not sure if Oama has fixed that yet. Also, isn’t the SEC private i.e. non-governmental? How’d big business ever get THAT through?
Maybe, TC, but that doesn’t answer the claim of conflict of interest that Tiare brought up.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”] [quote=“Tiare”]7. Bill Gates, Sr. agrees that the rich are not paying enough taxes (the rich only pay about 2% while the common man pays 16%)“Poor people and middle-income people are paying too much to support the state and rich people aren’t paying enough,” Gates Sr. said in an interview yesterday in Seattle. “That’s the starting point for me.” [/quote]Did you know, that if one wishes to pay more than the specified amount of their IRA taxes…One only needs to do it?
Its true. Bill can pay as much tax as he wants. You can also![/quote]
Just like the SEC being self-regulating, the point isn’t that you CAN pay more taxes, so what? If the government needs more money for social costs, and it decides income tax is a good source, then they have to take it from the wealthier, because poor people don’t have the money. And what Bill Gates is saying is that the government should TAKE that money in taxes, not that rich people should open their hearts. Doesn’t work that way, TC, and you know that.
Wikipedia says in 2001, 10% owned 71%, the top 1% own 38%, and the top 40% own 95%. Still heavy bullshit, and we’re 10 years off of 2001 - let’s place some bets on what we’ll see in 2011 eh?
Right, that’s what poor people do, get on the internet (costs 20-50$ a month in the US) with their computer (still cheapest about 500$) and learn on their own basic economics, basic politics, and get onto forums and dig out “facts” and watch politicians on CNN/CSPAN and catch up to the years of educating and arguing that we do - and we’re nothing compared to what’s needed. Tiare is right, people are not educated in civics, government operations, politics, and economics in general in their first 12 years of school in the US, so their generally at the mercy of mainstream media “news”.
You’re wrong TC, this is one of the key ways the “elite” in general try to control the masses in the US - by making everyone believe that they too can be rich if they keep working hard. Which is 100% unadulterated horseshit for most people, they do not live in a meritocracy, they will not be rich no matter how hard most people work, the system is rigged against them. Whenever you have a system that allows the rich to get far richer (stocks, investment opportunities, etc) while the poor can’t “play”, and a system that rewards companies for sending business overseas, out of state, etc, this will always be the case.
So we should count you too among the brainwashed.
Or an even better way is what this independent investigator - who was part of BP and still considers himself part of the industry - says:
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37279113/ns/nightly_news[/img]
[quote=“MSNBC”][b]Dr. Robert Bea: There are time pressures that are extremely intense. And there are economic pressures that are extremely intense.
Lisa Myers: So you saw a lot of cutting corners.
Dr. Robert Bea: Sure.[/b]
Bea says the worst mistake was the decision to remove heavy drilling fluid, called “mud,” from the drill column, as part of the end of the normal process to close down the well. Fine if the cements seals were working, he says. Potentially catastrophic if they weren’t.
Lisa Myers: “The critical decision was the one to remove that heavy mud?”
Dr. Robert Bea: “That’s based on everything we know. Yes.”
The biggest underlying problem of all, Bea says, is that “we horribly underestimated the risk.”[/quote]
More details in that link and in the report itself. Clearly not just lawbreaking, clearly not just an issue of enforcement. It’s an issue of trying to make more profit or reduce costs that is the basis of capitalism. Some things simply can not be allowed to be done with a profit motive, and production of essential materials - oil, basic food needs, electricity - should not be subject to private profit. Why the hell should it? Because it’ll somehow be done better? cheaper? Yeah right, every time electricity or water gets “deregulated” and privatized, there’s an initial cost drop (usually mandated - see the DC area as a great example, or our good friends at Enron) and then into the stratosphere the prices go! Ridiculous.
The thing is though that investing is, by the very nature of it, irrational in a sense because it’s about predicting the future. Even Benjamin Graham couldn’t accurately predict the value of a company because no one can predict the future (which is why he emphasised margin of safety, of course). The problem though is that the opposite – doing nothing – is even more irrational.
The problem seems to be that you think human traits such as greed, fear and risk-taking behaviour – things which provided an evolutionary advantage and are hard-wired into us (to varying degrees) – can and should be legislated against. It’s in the same league as the President of Iran saying there are no homosexuals in Iran or someone in the Prohibition Era thinking that because alcohol was illegal, no one was drinking. It brings a rather wry smile to my face. One of the things about humans is that they’re remarkably creative and will find all sorts of ways to go on doing what humans do, regardless of who tries to stop them. The other thing is though that because such risk-taking behaviour would have to operate through the black market, it actually would mean you’d get even shadier characters involved (such as loan sharks and their thugs).
There are several problems this would cause, but I’ll only address one: capital flight. If America were to hamstring both its stock market and business in general like this, what you would see is another country gladly rubbing its hands together as investors and businessmen went there instead. Look through history every time a king decided to do this and you will see exactly what I mean. Not only that, but I am a personal example. Two of the main reasons I no longer live in Australia are: 1) I would pay too much income tax on my salary; 2) I would pay too much income tax on my investments. Consequently, I have only a few thousand dollars in Australia right now, and the government gets very little tax from me. Great plan that. Again, you may think that’s really wrong of me, but it doesn’t change the reality that the ATO is getting virtually no money from me because it’s driven me away.
[quote]I guess the point is, the goal should not be profit before everything else. Business started out as a way to feed the family and have a stable, secure life, but it has grown into this ridiculous behemoth that controls government and puts society and stability second or third after profit. To get it back on course with societal stability and security as it’s main goal, the unlimited profiting has to be curtailed.
Back in the real world, this has to mean putting limits on profitability.[/quote]
You’re defining this in a really one-sided way. Business always started out as a way to make money, people only ever limited themselves by their ambitions and their talents, not by nobler causes. Pure and simple, whether big or small. Likewise, consumers have always looked for the best deal, pure and simple. It really irks me when people make out as though in any transaction there is just the seller and it’s out to get everyone. Maybe society isn’t how you think it should be, but maybe it’s how a lot of other people think it should be and they’re acting upon that every time they engage in commerce. Or, maybe the world isn’t how they want it to be, but maybe consumers didn’t exercise their own individual responsibilities, and so have no one else to blame by themselves. Don’t want a job to go overseas? Then buy locally, but also accept that you’re not going to get it as cheaply. Don’t understand an investment product or home loan? Then don’t sign on the dotted line. Buffett said that one of the reasons he didn’t get burnt in the dot.com bust was because he hadn’t bought tech stocks because he didn’t understand what they did or how they planned to make money. Sounds sensible to me. Don’t want to get into unmanageable debt? Then live within your means and stop buying shit you can’t afford.
Again though, we’re getting back to the point of trying to legislate away the human condition. That’s fine in a sense, but it usually has two unintended consequences. The first is that you end up relying on an enlightened despot of one form or another to protect people from themselves and enlightened despots have always been fairly thin on the ground, mainly because they’re humans also (and thus, suffer the same condition they’re supposedly trying to protect against). The second is that there’s no incentive for people to take risks and found companies or invent things. So, either society stagnates (or ends up with a massive black market, corruption and organised crime) or they get the hell out of there and go somewhere that will allow them to take the risks they want and get the rewards they want if they’re successful. Want a really good example of this? Why was the “New World” colonised and conquered by Europeans (most notably Spain at first) instead of China, which was more advanced and had greater unified resources? Really simple expanation: China had one bumbling idiot in charge and Christopher Columbus was able to shop around (he went to six different courts in fact, including Ferdinand and Isabella twice) until he got someone to take a risk on him. It’s like history is being reversed right now and the West is trying its damned hardest to make itself as uncompetitive as possible.