Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:08:17 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
