I AM A CAPITALIST: Your Problem With That Is?

ROTFL, Thatcher avoided a depression.

You sound like the Greek of today. Hopefully they will stay the course into oblivion, as a testament to unsustainability.

Because the unions striking an already fragile economy. Entitlement, indeed.

 

You've said some silly things on here, but this takes the biscuit! You're not worth my time

 

Is that why religion is so dominant in socialist countries?

 

The endoctrination from the left has been way too successful.

 

I have known small business people I would never trust, and big companies that have very high ethics.

When Jack Welsh ran GE, he instituted a program called "Work Out". Any employee could challange the manager that implemented a rule or system. If the manager couldn't prove it's worth, the rule or system was dropped.

 

Typical, the "They just didn't do it right" defense. Every time the historical failure of socialist nations is shown, that is the argument that the defenders of socialism tend to run to.

The government controlled the means of production, owned all of the land and controlled the distribution of funds. That fits the definition of socialism.

 

Nope. Simple reference to socialist political economy.

No it doesn't. Socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. You've confused yourself with the economic spectrum. A very common basic error

 

We can find that out if you answer a few questions. First question:
Do you pay your employees enough to live on, with good health care and pension benefits, or do you depend on the liberals and their social welfare policies that provide support for your underpaid employees for your profits?

 

Okay someone who finally addresses the issue directly. So then it's greedy to employ people? Greedy to take care of your family? How about this: We've saved money for retirement and even my daughter's college education! How about having a house or nice car? Is that the part that pisses off your interpretation of God?
My understanding of God is that he isn't opposed to any of those things.

 

We're a small business with only a few employees. My lowest paid guy is at about $30K in income so far this year. He'll probably end up at about $50K with bonueses etc... Everyone except one guy has the same HMO I do. The one guy is covered under his wife's plan. They work about 35 hours a week and work from home 1 - 2 days a week. I'm in a professional services industry so we can do a lot through phone and e-mail.
So what exactly is an acceptable wage and benefits package? Does it apply to alljobs everywhere? I'm curious as to what specifics you would have to offer on this subject.

 

My only criteria for acceptable wages is wages that do not require workers to seek help from welfare or charity agents, public or private, to meet their needs for decent food, clean water, adequate shelter, health care, appropriate clothing, education and transportation where necessary. Since this can vary considerably depending on where one lives I cannot put it in numbers. And yes, it applies to all jobs everywhere.

Next question:

Are you for or against employee collective bargaining?

 

In order to provide that level of pay and benefits, the employee has to create that much value for the employer. So, if someone isn't worth that, they can never get work?

What value does collective bargining have for an employer?

 

The evidence shows that wages and firm size are inversely related. The evidence also shows that a significant proportion of that wage differential is a form of underpayment. One doesn't need to refer to issues of fairness or equity, one can just refer to productivity and acknowledge that capitalism's labour markets are characterised by severe inefficiencies (with the individual firm just doing its best within that sea of inefficiency)

 

Please answer the question.

 

Collective bargaining can be an important means to increase productivity. The fear, however, is that it re-inforces inefficient wage norms such that its the fellow worker that suffers (as it effectively becomes a zero sum game and redistributes monies from one type of worker to another)

 

That is in denial. God oppose greed.

Capitialism make you and your family doesn't mean you have to totally support it without any criticism about it, and defend it to the point to change what God stand.

Capitialism encourage greed, and greed is all root of problems, capitialism consume everyting in its way, it is not a system to the good of most people and the world and the earth, its nature is similar to feudalism, for fews to enslaves the masses, God would not like this system, plain and simple.

I am sure you wouldn't like the behaviors of the wall street and bankers too? And the wars that the bankers start everywhere to satisefy their greed? And the corruption the bankers, corporate, super riches instill in your political system, and try to destroy the constitution? And that 1% of super riches pay less tax than you in percentage?

You wouldn't like all that, would you?

P.S most people don't really have problem with small business owners.

 

Its also the mechanism that allows us to use the market to strive for allocative efficiency. You may want to talk about the 'super rich', but ultimately you also want to harm the well-being of the poor pleb

 

You want me to answer my own question?

 

Ultimately capitalism is not a system of caring the well-being of the masses, it is the opposite. The "poor" make and support the super rich through the capitalism system.

Could you elaborate what did you mean by harm the well-being of the poor pleb?

 

Greed provides the means to enable the exhaustion of mutually beneficial exchange. It therefore maximises economic activity and generates greater well-being for the average fellow. There certainly are severe limitations with capitalism. However, we don't have to refer to morality concerns over greed. We can simply refer to aspects such as the failure to protect property rights. Its then an (in)efficiency matter

 

?!? How?

 

e.g. Voice effects, as neatly described by the empirical work from Freeman and Medoff

 

The problem is not the individual, it's the system. The problem with capitalism is that it is the fundament for constructing an empire (Germany was based on the same capitalistic type of system) Via capitalism the people who are pulling the strings become corrupt by buying people on their side they need to gain control over the system, military, police, all kinds of industrial branches, and so on, they can overtake the system, and this is what happened since 1913. They use the capital/wealth of your company that you have on their banks.
Over the last century they have gathered all the wealth the system has, now they have full control over most branches.
This capitalism is a danger to the world, not only because of the creation of a global empire, also because people who control this system have no responsibility to human life and ecology, they only think about one thing, reach their ultimate goal, world domination.

 

Here is a critique of "What Unions Do"

To your point, the collective voice aspects of a union has the possibility of improving productivity.

Much of that benefit has been superceded by improvement in managment approaches since the 80's, even more so in a small company. I work for one of the biggest companies on the planet, and I have no fear about expressing my concerns to senior management.

Economics being a living breathing thing, that selects for success, has shown unions to be more negative than positive in the private sector in the US.

As government deals budget shortfalls, public sector unions will come under pressure. Some, like my nephew's police union, will agree to equitable terms. Other, like the teachers unions, will escalate to the point of absurdity, bring education to a standstill, resulting in outlawing public sector unions.

 

I'm not interested in your critique as I already know the evidence. I've already mentioned, for example, that there are competing effects and therefore we'd expect to see mixed results (which we do). However, to ignore voice effects is just ignorant. That doesn't stop right wingers though in their desperate urge to worship at the ideological altar of worker hatred