- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Ludwig von Mises ( USA ) on May 16, 1999 at 13:49:36:

In Reply to: Irrelevent. posted by Red Deathy on May 15, 1999 at 15:48:24:

: : In the good ol' USA, we tax the crap out of everyone and make a little more than we spend, but we use this money to baloon social programs, rather than pay off our 5,000,000,000,000+++debt. That doesn't exactly deserve high payment.

: No, but the jobs are comparable skills and responsibility wise, if you're truly unsatisfied with them- sack them...however I suspect polliticans aren't to blame, after all, they're not in charge...

Maybe so, but I just gave a reason that the CEOs should get higher pay: whatever they run makes a profit(and if it either doesn't or doesn't improve substantially, the CEO is outa there), wheras the government loses money, and their version of upper management has no punishment.

: : What was that coin made from?

: I suspect copper.

Hmmm...was anything else involved in the trade? Also, are you saying that this happened all of the time, or just some of it?

: :Bartering is usually easier with money, though I guess we could do without. However, doing without trade is not an option. Free access mean that you have to work 100x harder to earn 50x less. Thats not for me.

: No, I don't mean that you can freely work for yourself, and provide for yourself alone,

Then you are not free.

:...it means that society produces for all societies needs- almost like the current system, except you don't have to pay for what you take. Goods will still be moved around teh world, but instead of being restricted to buying our value of ourselves on teh market, we can have what we need and want.

Which means that several will work their asses off and several will sit on theirs. This means that those still working will produce more than they ussually would, but ultimately end up with less.

: :I like laissez-faire, but that would mean having a more natural system. Making people give up what is theirs would require a ton of government, which is not what freedom is all about.

: Why would it require tons of government, it would require non- people make things, and give them away, on the basis that by doing so they perpetuate a system that works to their benefit.

To complex--you need to trade with people directly. Producing tons of stuff and then sending it away on some plane or ship so that many others can take it and then hoping that a ship comes back with stuff that you need is a little risky, n'est-ce pas? Plus, many people would not get what they needed, as the export/import system would go to hell in a handbasket.

: : Ahah! You said that "workers" create all of the wealth. Assuming that ou mean everyone that has a job, that's absolutely correct. However, I know that that's not what you mean...you mean everyone from your position on down, thus you give no credit to those above you, just like they don't give credit to the non-corporates.

: Erm, no, I mean everyone that works, even unto the management, a tiny tiny few, about 5% of our society don't need to work, have no hand in producing the wealth, but live off the produce of others, they are the ones I mean. Non-executive directors and members of the board, share holders, investors, they are the ones we can do without, and yet our society is geared towards their needs.

OK, I agree that we could do without boards:) However, companies go public in order to create more capital to do what they have to do, and investors are the only way to a ccomplish that. Also, in a free society, people should be able to do what they want, be it investing in companies or investing in commodities, they should be able to do it.

: : Yeah, we have options over here too. Generally, though, people get x amount of options issued by the company upon their signing, and these options become excersizable at different times. Generally they vest at the end of the contract, but other than that the people have to buy shares with their own money. Options at the begining of the contract tend to give a little extra incentive to do well, as stock price is related to a company's success.

: And its also a way of allowing CEO's to benefit from the Labour of others, and not through their own work- they get us to produce much wealth, and they gain from it.

Not just CEOs, pretty much everyone in an office. Also, the CEOs produce a good portion of shareholder wealth, so they aren't entirley benefiting from ohters.

: : Several. And those that didn't start there started at middle management, but that is a lucky few. No one can start at the top, the lack of experince would come crashing down on them.

: Happens more often than you'd reckon, people can start up higher up the ladder because of who they are (not what they can do) or who they know- we do not have equality of opportunity.

Then they drive the company into a dark pit and get fired. You might be able to get there quick, but it would require a lot of work to stay there.

Follow Ups:

  • Was gonna Red Deathy Socialist party Uk May 17 1999 (0)

The Debating Room Post a Followup