Reply With Quote
Take your pick.
Y'all are the ones arguing for "wealth equality," not me.
As for me, I recognized early in life, things aren't equal. They never will be. My station in life is wholly dependent on my abilities and determination.
this is an extremely ambiguous question..are we talking about needs or luxuries?
also, what universe is this ? i imagine in this mystical place that we are all also physical and intellectual equals living in a world that is at complete peace and rid of violence and disease.
Take your pick.
Y'all are the ones arguing for "wealth equality," not me.
As for me, I recognized early in life, things aren't equal. They never will be. My station in life is wholly dependent on my abilities and determination.
My point is that your returns would be a lot better for any given revenue stream if the executives had not taken quite so large of a share, as statistically they probably do, based on overall compensation.
There is some evidence to suggest that CEO pay and company perfomance are inversely correlated.
Simply waving ones hand and saying "they should educate themselves or they have only themselves to blame" strikes me as a glib transfer of responsibility.
Don't you think that boards of directors, as representatives of stockholders, have an ethical duty to make things a bit more transparent to the average stockholder?
(sniffs)
Smells like moral ambiguity to me.
You are, in essence, saying:
"There is a difference between unethical behavior and illegal behavior, and if it isn't illegal it is ok."
Can something be legal, and yet unethical?
arguing for a more level and less corrupt playing field is not tantamount to saying that everyone should have the exact same amount.
and of course abilities and detmermination are part of the equation. but there are lot of other variables as well. simplifying them to all it takes is some good old fashioned american ethic and pride is too simplistic.
but outside the context of this elementary critique of human nature is the fact that we have a government that is destroying the invisible force of the market and replacing it with rules and regulations meant to abet corporate crooks (both individual and ins utional) bent on creating a compe ive advantage.
when administrations destroy anti-trust laws (reagan), deregulate the financial sector (clinton), enlarge the miltary's relationship with corporate america (reagan, bush, clinton, bush and obama) and then bail out banks (obama) you can not honestly say that this is really a "free" market.
So, the problem is government? I agree.
@Yoni: A mild rejiggering of the equities back toward the bottom of the scale needn't presuppose a strict equalitarian distribution of the social product, and even Marxism doesn't assume one: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" is an insight that proceeds from presumed inequalities of wealth and ability.
(So much for that strawman.)
Besides, you haven't even acknowledged/responded to the argument that extreme concentration of wealth can breed economic inefficiencies.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2010 at 12:40 PM.
The system relies on happy consumers. Wealth is squeezing out the middle class in the US. That's not a good thing for the legitimacy of the system. In that direction lie Mexico and Brazil. But maybe that was the intended result all along.
And, are self-correcting if you don't with it.
If companies are, by their actions, unethically witholding a part of the information that could materially affect its stockholders, what do we do about it?
You are assuming that it is supposed to be self-correcting based on what, exactly?
not government. the problem is the past few adminstrations. they have turned our particular government into a statist nation when it comes to how our economy is run.
this does not make the corporations any less cuplable. there is a reason that lobbyists are sent to capitol hill in record amounts year after year...all with the intent of making sure that policies prove to be more beneifical to them than to the public.
According to theory and legend, yes.
Who's the utopian now, Yoni?
The state is boots deep in business, and the other way around. There's no free market. There hasn't been one for 100 years, if ever. There's always the context of legality and political power. Maybe you can bracket the state conceptually, but in reality you can't untangle it from everyday life.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2010 at 01:08 PM.
The plea to "leave business alone" at this point is a demand that the concupiscence of commerce and the state be allowed to continue without interruption or interference.
Tell that to the corporations who with it on a daily basis to their benefit and societies detriment.
Surely the American people are smart enough to not let the system do horrible things, WH. We dont' need regulation, its just a power grab. We've seen recently how well our system runs when consumers and business are allowed to go at it. The consumers run all over business!
If only business lobbies were similarly reluctant to " " with elections and legislative process. Wouldn't that be nice?
i never thought of it in such intimate terms but i guess that is kind of what it is.
After what I've seen in the past few years anyone who still clings to anarcho-capitalism is an ignorant fool, IMO.
There again, I blame the politicians. Elect people with integrity.
sounds like you're actually blaming the voters.
A good businessman would after all be remiss in his responsibility to shareholders to refrain from abusing a venal government....
Well, I'll be damn; I am.
so then that means your blaming the electoral process since it is dependent upon such fallability.
There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)
Posting Permissions
