Well, the reason I posted that is because a "rigorous definition" isn't possible for either - and you just demonstrated that. Indeed, both are completely relative terms - yet people like to use them in contexts like this as if they are definitive, easily understood, known and accepted by all - AN EASY STANDARD BY WHICH WE MIGHT JUDGE SOMEONE "GUILTY."
And yet, they are anything but.
When we start looking at someone with more money than we have, or more money than someone else has to decry them for their "riches" and "wealth" - we judge them accordingly, and when we do we err in an extremely egregious, unjust, and unfair manner.
If as you and so many others here are asserting, that the "wealthy" are easily identifiable people like Soros, Adelson, the Koch brothers, et. al. - and that in a thread that is denouncing such people for being "the wealthy," then who - by whatever "rigorous definition" you can put forth for us - who by your definition is NOT guilty?
I'll give you some help - you can't do it. It's not possible, by ANY definition, however "rigorous" one might think it.
People here are equating guilt with wealth; they are judging an impossible to define group of people for what? For having more money (and in this context more power thereby). More money than what? What is the standard of guilt here?
Impossible to define - and therefore totally unjust to be pronouncing anyone guilty on that basis. Totally unjust.
Two dollars, two votes?
I say yes because the wealthy can lobby congress to impose certain economic policies to sustain the certain industry they are currently involved in. So a wealthy union will force close shop laws as well as a company impose lobbying to have subsidies etc etc.
I think the fact that a lot of American voters don't vote or pay enough attention to geopolitics that they don't really oppose the the funding.
Tsk tsk tsk. Let them eat cake?
Lobbyist have been around forever. No different than protest or marches etc. They are all groups lobbing congress to change policies, for whatever their cause. Government can be very over reaching. Lobbyist, protesters, marchers etc voice their opinion on that overreach or they are pushing for more regulation. Green Peace as an example, there are many wealthy people trying to change laws that they think for one reason or another needs to be addressed etc. Can you imagine the wealth behind the push of climate change as an example. Those are also lobbyist of one nature or another.
Why is it exploitation to hire cheap labor?
I'll give you a dumbed down example: A sweatshop worker makes $100 in clothing per hour, the capitalist realizes this worker doesn't have minimum wage protection, etc.. and only pays the worker 25 cents an hour, which is way more then what sweatshop workers actually make on average (Mexico is 3.00 per day on average I think?), but none the less, you can see how I oppose it, you may not follow the labor theory of value, but I do, so we will always disagree.
so how much should the worker in your scenario receive in wages?
In the extreme cases, this can be very dehumanizing, and it costs lives. Sometimes people who get injured are simply cast out to die.
Surely we can agree that it is wrong to treat people that way, even if it is good business?
I'm speaking about lobbying for governmental involvement in market process, like bailouts etc etc. economic lobbyists that get paid millions and millions of dollars to promote protectionist policy of a firm should not be a power of gov.
Do You tHink that government should have the power to impose trade regulations and specific tariffs to certain companies, and then open non regulations to others only because certain companies can afford a lobbyist?First lobbyist are not a power of government. I spoke in a broader sense of lobbyist, protest, marches etc. influencing government. I have to assume you are OK with these groups trying to influence government decision making. You cannot separate economic involvement, everything has an economic impact of some degree. Take Green Peace as an example, everything it promotes has an economic impact. People promoting global warming has an economic impact. Everything the EPA does has an economic impact and to suggest the people cannot lobby against the EPA is ridiculous.
You are advocating that the government can impose economic impact on the American people all it wants and no one can lobby against the government for or against. Then you state lobbyist get paid millions of dollars as those they should not be paid. That is also ridiculous.
Do You tHink that government should have the power to impose trade regulations and specific tariffs to certain companies, and then open non regulations to others only because certain companies can afford a lobbyist?
Do You understand what the economic effects of a export subsidy has on the American people or what about other trade protection policies, these fiscal policies are not the power the government should have as well as special interest taking advantage through campaign contributions.
You call yourself a conservative but you don't understand the guidelines of the constitution. I can get millions of people to agree that a dog is a fish and my company specializes in protecting sea life on land, does that mean the federal government has the power to enforce a subsidy, or negative tax, towards my special interest? No, what the federal government literally only has the power to do is protect the constitution and citizens of the participating States.
My experiences count since I live in the real world. And I graduated from college many many years ago.
I co-own my company and Im making good money so I am quite happy with the system- sure it can be improved with less taxes and eliminating minimum wage but on the whole capitalism works, its proven itself superior to communism in every which way and so it baffles me as to why there are still believers in a failed economic theory like communism.
Your experiences mean nothing, you're one of the lucky few, 80% of the world makes less then $10 a day.. It can be improved by eliminating the minimum wage? We see the conditions in countries without some sort of actual minimum wage, what our country was like before the minimum wage.. Lower taxes? Typical libertarian. Communism has never been tried, and you say in every way, comparing what? Cuba to The united states?
Your experiences mean nothing, you're one of the lucky few, 80% of the world makes less then $10 a day.. It can be improved by eliminating the minimum wage? We see the conditions in countries without some sort of actual minimum wage, what our country was like before the minimum wage.. that's a ****ing joke. Lower taxes on who, multi billion dollar businesses? Typical libertarian. Communism has never been tried, and you say in every way, comparing what? Cuba to The united states?
Capitalism defines the labor market as a societal agreed upon even trade. So I trade someone capital for an amount of output, however the distinguishing point of value of labor would need to be directed by a few people as well as society to force the individual to accept it. So, regardless of the sustainability of any service job in a communist society, a short order cook would be forced to take low wage jobs yet in capitalism the individual who is in contract with employer has the freedom to transfer capital or labor. Meaning, if the wage is too low they won't take the job.
You suggest capitalism exploits people, however it's only through state that any firm can actually benefit off of exploitation. "We have to pay the workers enough to buy the cars' Henry ford
It's typical of a liberal/socialist/communist to just look at the total amount of money earned and nothing else.
here hear this same story time and time again,.....if they would only allow true communism to be put into practice it would work....and the people who say that are always the ones who think they can make it work.
How can a truly socialist country feed to world. Please explain economically
Literally, communism, by definition, has no state. I don't see how anything has come close.
It's nice to know communists are learning.
Yes, I'm really an anarcho capitalist. Why would people suffer?
I'm sorry, I'm sure less then $10 a day can provide a comfortable life, not just subsistence, which is the great burden of the capitalist, workers need enough to be fed, sometimes even that is a burden, which is why we have people making less then $1.25 a day.
It hasn't been built yet, and if needs to be done by force, I can understand why.
The problem I see regularly on this forum is that people like yourself imagine that what people in this country need to meet their basic needs is the same amount needed in other countries.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?