- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,401
- Reaction score
- 10,429
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Lets say that some poor working dude got fed up with working and robbed a bank and got millions from his crime. Then he invested it in stocks and quit working, spending all of his time looking at porn magazines. Some would praise the guys merit's because he is now a "capital provider" claiming that because he has the financial ability to fund businesses he is now more productive than he was when he was just a worker.
Did he actually do anything to improve production? Actually, all he did was transfer control of wealth from the bank to himself. He produced nothing and no additional production will result in his actions. If anything, but quitting working, he is impeding production.
Now after a few years, he is feeling guilty about his crime so he goes back to work and donates all of his money to a wino on the street who does nothing with the money because he is happy being a wino. Is the bank robber now somehow less productive since he is no longer a "capital provider" and has gone back to his lowly job? Is the wino somehow now more productive since he is now considered a "capital provider" - even though he is still a wino?
Lets say that the bank robber now gets paid more at his job (the same job he had before he robbed the bank) because his employer things that he is a good person for giving all of that money away to charity. So does the fact that the former bank robber now makes more money indicate that he is more productive than he used to be?
What if the bank robber gave the money back to the bank, would the bank employees suddenly have became more productive just because the bank now shows a big windfall profit due to getting the money back?
And would it make any difference if he got rich by inheriting money instead of robbing a bank? What if he won the lottery instead? Or if he became a CEO of his mom's business and was paid $10 million bucks before he was fired for being not doing his job? What if he got rich from being in a commercial for the company that he worked for (I once had a roomate who was paid a fairly good size amount of money for doing a Holiday Inn commercial - he was selected just because he had the right "look" for the part and they wanted an actual employee to play the part).
Did he actually do anything to improve production? Actually, all he did was transfer control of wealth from the bank to himself. He produced nothing and no additional production will result in his actions. If anything, but quitting working, he is impeding production.
Now after a few years, he is feeling guilty about his crime so he goes back to work and donates all of his money to a wino on the street who does nothing with the money because he is happy being a wino. Is the bank robber now somehow less productive since he is no longer a "capital provider" and has gone back to his lowly job? Is the wino somehow now more productive since he is now considered a "capital provider" - even though he is still a wino?
Lets say that the bank robber now gets paid more at his job (the same job he had before he robbed the bank) because his employer things that he is a good person for giving all of that money away to charity. So does the fact that the former bank robber now makes more money indicate that he is more productive than he used to be?
What if the bank robber gave the money back to the bank, would the bank employees suddenly have became more productive just because the bank now shows a big windfall profit due to getting the money back?
And would it make any difference if he got rich by inheriting money instead of robbing a bank? What if he won the lottery instead? Or if he became a CEO of his mom's business and was paid $10 million bucks before he was fired for being not doing his job? What if he got rich from being in a commercial for the company that he worked for (I once had a roomate who was paid a fairly good size amount of money for doing a Holiday Inn commercial - he was selected just because he had the right "look" for the part and they wanted an actual employee to play the part).