I am admiring the articulate explanation of the differing views being expressed. Interesting reading so thank you.
I am admiring the articulate explanation of the differing views being expressed. Interesting reading so thank you.
As Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”
it's as much fear as it is greed, sometimes smaller players (small business owners etc.) have to act that way (of course a lot of other things can also enter in, there is always the boss who treats their employees badly just because they can, even when it provides no benefit to do so, just because they are personality disordered, but that's not entirely a systematic issue). But anyway, decent regulation when it is enforced (like some labor protections) actually levels the playing field here and makes it easier to do the right thing which might be what many actually want to do anyway.It's hard to say the nature of capitalism is "greed" but the substantial raison d'ętre of capitalism is wealth production with no ceiling, so it stands to reason that there is going to be a lot of collateral damage in its path.
With bezos your talking true monopoply/oligopoly type power though so it's kind of it's own thing, with that type of power you are pretty shielded from much competition anyway, so you really aren't doing what you do just to keep up with competition.
Trees don't grow on money
Depending on your viewpoint, there seems to be two primary opinions about Capitalism.
One, that capitalism when left to free market principles and not interfered with is the best hope of relieving poverty and improving the standard of living for all. That the war on poverty in the US has been an utter failure is emblematic of a Government too restrictive on capitalists.
Or two, Capitalism is exploitative of workers and naturally creates wealth inequality. That the existence of poverty in the US is proof that even though corporations and capitalists have had free reign with lobbying and reinvestment of capital to make more capital....the poor are still languishing and the gap between the elite rich and the poorest is growing.
Welfare is necessarily a part of the system as it stands. But is it finally time, after all these years from Thomas Paine to Milton Friedman to Robert Reich, for a Guaranteed National Income to replace the current cobbled together behemoth we refer to as the Welfare State?
Could we convince the capitalists to go along with a progressive tax that would be enough to enable the country to redistribute wealth in a manner that would provide each citizen no matter what their status and ability, a guaranteed annual income paid in cash and substantial enough to ensure a decent existence? Are we innovative and bold enough? Or will capitalists fight to preserve their wealth even in the face of a growing distrust of their benevolence and intentions? Will capitalism survive as it is or can it be redefined as a moral tool to lift the more unfortunate in a way that hasn’t yet been accomplished.
Capitalism is inherently NOT benevolent.
Neither is the wheel. That doesn't mean its a bad idea.Originally Posted by nswef
"Government of the shareholders, by the shareholders, and for the shareholders" just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Even if it's more accurate in today's America.
I was always convinced the wheel was a great idea until one day I went down a particularly steep and winding hill on my bicycle.....and lost my brakes.
Yes, the share holders probably hold shares in more than just their own wealth. Probably.
Unfettered wheels have brought our country to the brink of collapse.
Yes, it’s better to burn out than it is to rust. Somebody from Canada once said.....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote