Okay, I keep seeing all these folks whining about solving the economic crisis. Like on the news, when someone dared to wonder why Chairman Maobama hadn't even formulated a plan yet for the bank recovery money.
Well, first off- lay off Baracknarock! Cmon people, you didn't hire him because he had experience or skills. You hired/elected him because he was black. Don't whine now that he can't do the job. That's like hiring a man with no hands to play the piano and complaining that you aren't hearing any music.
Secondly, let's take a moment to analyze who is really suffering, economically, right now. A bunch of rich people pissing their money away on the stock markets?- failing to realize someone has to lose in order for them to win; ergo, not all investors will see gains? Or everyday folks who have to pay more for a loaf of bread, gallon of milk or cable TV?
Personally, I couldn't care less about the rich slackers who have so much money they can gamble it on stocks. Or who invested in Bernie Made-off and didn't know their money was missing until they saw it on the news. I'm more concerned about the poor schlubs losing their jobs because they get laid off.
Do folks get laid off because business is bad? Do you honestly think the number of shoppers dropped at Circuit City because their customer base took a beating on Wall Street? No, the layoffs are because the greedy corporations aren't making ENOUGH profit. Instead of being happy they are making a profit at all, the suits- who make obscene salaries for little to no work- are worried they won't be able to give out billions of dollars in bonuses. Rather than tighten their belts, they adopt a "let them eat cake" attitude and fire the minimum wage-earners in the companies. As if that is going to make a difference.
Here's the solution to the current economic "crisis": a maximum profit law. No more selling things for 1000x what it costs to make them. No more execs making 14 million dollar a year salaries while there are folks in their companies making minimum wage. I'm not calling for a communist "everybody-makes-the-same-pay" way of doing things. I'm talking about putting the same kinds of limits on businesses that loan sharks and pawn shops have- laws preventing obscene, over the top profits. If there can't be monopolies, why can there be such crazy salaries?
With less profits, items will be lower priced. That means everyday folks can buy more. And since the suits know they won't have the same gobs of cash to give themselves God-like salaries, they'll have to spread the wealth around.
That's right, I'm calling for the criminalization of greed. Just like we can't trust drunks not to drive home intoxicated, we can't leave these robber barons to follow their own internal, moral compasses. Because after years of unchecked excesses, they are lost in the wilderness.
Technically what you are talking about is socialism. Socialism doesn’t have everyone as an equal, therefore it is more like the America before Reagan took some of Teddy Roosevelt anti-trust laws. Socialism doesn’t have to have government programs that let us mooch, although most view it that way, or even still support that type of socialism, even though we have seen the wreckage of Social security. Free-market capitalism in it purest form does not exist in this country. We can call our system capitalism, but Adam Smith said that Capitalism would be regulated by the invisible hand, which does not exist. With the invisible hand luxury would be unattainable, because people wouldn’t buy a product at that ridiculous a price, thus balancing the economy. The problem is that the very mass production that fueled the system has allowed it to buy in such bulk, that even a reasonable price garners the CEO’s so much profit.
Socialism is just the in between of two inherently flawed systems, which both sound great, but were in the end not practical enough.
I’ll agree that what I describe isn’t capitalism, I balk at the idea it’s socialism; I’m not calling for any government ownership of businesses, merely government regulation. Teddy is my favorite Prez, but his monopoly-busting ways have always seemed counter capitalist to me. But the precedent is set, let’s follow thru. If Ma Bell can’t make unbridled wealth, why should anyone else?
Socialism doesn’t have to have government ownership, just government regulation. CEO’s in Japan pay themselves only slightly more than the people working below them, and they are now at the top of the auto industry. The government shouldn’t take over the corporations, because that will cause stagnation, we saw it in soviet Russia already. It is becoming pretty obvious that the CEO’s won’t self regulate their greed, so they’re going to need a dad to reprimand their spoiled asses.
I am using Socialism as a blanket term to represents Marxist ideas, and not as a representation of any particular states government.
Uh, yes, for it to be socialism, there has to be some government ownership…
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
That’s ownership AND control, not or. Again, I don’t advocate government ownership, just that we enact laws to force people to follow the moral code that the majority wants in effect. Outlaw greed.
And yes, the Japanese have proven that selling a lot with a little profit, is better than selling a few with a huge profit.
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Each definition is correct usage, let us take Orange as an example
1 a: a globose berry with a yellowish to reddish-orange rind and a sweet edible pulp b: any of various small evergreen citrus trees (genus Citrus) with glossy ovate leaves, hard yellow wood, fragrant white flowers, and fruits that are oranges
2: any of several trees or fruits resembling the orange
3: any of a group of colors that lie midway between red and yellow in hue
Something of orange color doesn’t always have to be an Orange. Marriam-Webster provides us with more than one definition because definitions are contextual.
I am using the third of the definitions, so I am still standing behind my point.
I am just pointing out that socialism has many interpretations, and does not always include government take over.
I totally agree with the main article, this is just a tangent thought.
Didn’t Henry Ford wish to produce his vehicles at a fair price, affordable enough that every household in America could afford to buy one ? Well, that’s what he wanted , until (supposedly at least) certain others stepped in and corrected his “poor business judgement”.
Is it possible to regulate greed ? And, moreso, is it possible to rely on government to do that job if they are moved by their own personal ambitions, lobbyists and business cohorts ?
Could the results still be negative if a Corp decides to clean house and bring in cheaper labor ? All in all, what keeps the greedy person from going around the law anyways, especially with all the legal loopholes available ?
The American business model needs glue. It’s broken.
Too many American companies rely on maximum profits, instead of a little bit of profit and lots of sales.
I think you can regulate greed. We already do it with loan sharks, pawn shops, and monopolies. Cutting tax breaks for the rich sounds like a good start….
Sorry, I had to stop the gagging when I realized I was agreeing with some Devilcrats….
The only people who should get a tax break are poor people who can’t afford to pay taxes. It’s morally correct.
There is no crime in legally “raping” the masses via tax laws set up in the Corporate spectrum. The only wrong done is a moral and ethical wrong, which I presume those “guilty” feel no guilt in doing. Yes, you are right, the American business model has corrupted itself thru greed. I heard the oil exec proclaim a couple years back that they “deserved the same profit lines” that any other Corp exec “earned” in today’s market……..the same excuse that the Exec from the US Postal Serv claimed a couple days ago. This is the same mentality that we “choose” to support from our professional athletes when they demand “mo’ money” .
As a “sole-proprietor” , my “business” and “me” are one and the same entity. As a Corporation, we are taxed as separate entities and (tho’ not necessarily easily done) I could legally run my corporation into the dirt , all the while making myself (as CEO and separately taxed entity) a very wealthy man.
There are Corporations running on nice profit margins as we speak laying off workers for the generic business claim of “good business” tactics, preparing for it to get worst. The question to ask is = what came first the chicken or the egg? Is the crisis getting worst because people are getting laid off, or are people getting laid off because the crisis is getting worst?
I think “we” know the answer, but in the world that may exist above us, the mass of American society is irrelevant in the equation. It is indeed greed, but when they don’t believe themselves to be “greedy” , just being the status quo, how will they regulate themselves?
I agree to tax the wealthier more in direct proportion. They abhor the idea, but when greed is concerned, no wonder. Corps get massive tax-break incentives just for establishing themselves in localities….laymen’s terms : States literally buy Corps moving into their taxable localities. Trickle down effect works about as well as …..well, our current situation, Corp execs, et al, are multi-millionaires and our economy is “on the brink of disaster”.
I am interested in seeing just how “all” of us will sacrifice as O says, when in reality we “little people” will probably do all the sacrificing when “they” are the ones with all the power and money. There is the “greed” factor to begin with. Who will regulate the regulators ? When they themselves are a very large part of the greed factor.
I too have hope, just waiting to see hope turn to fruition.
Am I the Devilcrat you speak of ?
Price controls are absolutely not what we need to solve the economic crisis. Tell companies that they can’t make the profits they want to make, and they won’t make the products. Plants shut down. People lose jobs. Unless you demand that they make the products, and also tell them what they can charge, but then you have a planned economy. Look the term up before you start thinking that a planned economy sounds smart. In certain cases, I’m for this. Monopolies are the obvious case where government regulation of prices might be appropriate. As a blanket policy on all prices, however, that’s just stupid.
So when is it appropriate for a company to charge 1000x what it cost to make something? What product could justify that?
When is it okay for an executive who sits in an office all day long to make millions of dollars a year, yet the janitor who cleans toilets only makes $40,000 a year?
A blanket policy is stupid?
Does that mean there shouldn’t be justice for all? That the law should only apply to some and not everyone? That on some cases you aren’t innocent until proven guilty?
Exceptions to the rule are the whole problem. The Devilcrats don’t want to play by the rules- they dodge taxes and register fake voters.
Cell phone companies can charge ridiculous rates for text messages, but meanwhile, pawnshops and banks are told they can only charge so much interest on their loans.
To be fair, everyone needs to play by the same rules. Anything else is stupid.
It is appropriate for a company to charge a thousand times more than it cost them to make the product if they have buyers willing to pay that price. The issue isn’t when is it justified, but rather, when does it happen? Aside from a monopoly situation, where I agree the government might need to step in, I just can’t see how you could run a business with that kind of profit margin, and not have someone else decide to sell the same crap at only a 900 times markup, and take all your customers away. Of course he’ll lose his business to the guy that’s happy with the 800 times markup, etc., until the price reaches a level where there’s a “fair” profit.
I AM a janitor, and I make just about 40,000. I work for a school district, and the superintendent doesn’t make millions of dollars, but if I did the same job for the same pay at a company where the CEO did make millions, would I be any worse off? I don’t think so. The CEO may or may not be worth that much, but my pay doesn’t really factor in when deciding that.
A blanket policy against, say, murder, is probably a good idea. Nobody likes being murdered. A blanket policy against dairy products is probably a bad idea. Yes, some people are lactose intolerant, but other people really like their cheeseburgers and their coffee with cream. The point is sometimes you need a policy that always applies inflexibly (like don’t murder people, no matter how irritating they are), and sometimes you need a general rule that usually applies (like let the market determine the price, unless there’s a good reason to interfere with the market). If you think something is overpriced, you don’t buy it. That’s a rule that works very well most of the time. If it’s the medicine you need to stay alive, and nobody’s selling at a price you can afford, we should look into making an exception to the rule.
You don’t need to send text messages, nor do cell phone companies need to offer text messaging service. If you don’t like the prices, don’t use them. If they don’t like the prices customers are willing to pay, they can find another business. Both sides are going to gripe because customers always want to pay less, and businesses always want to charge more, but the market price of text messages (just like all prices in a market economy) represents the point where enough customers are willing to pay, and enough businesses are willing to sell, to make supply and demand match.
Excessive interest, can trap the poor in a cycle of borrowing to meet their immediate needs, and then finding themselves worse off when they have even less money next month after paying to service their debt, then borrowing more, cause their needs aren’t going away, and the debt keeps getting worse. Lenders are in a position to exploit these people, so some other people have decided this is a case where we need to make an exception to the rule of letting the market decide the price. I’ve heard the case for both sides, and I’m not sure that I agree that people who cannot find loans at “acceptable” interest rates should be kept out of the market for borrowing money by not allowing them to pay “excessive” interest rates. Whether I agree or not, society has decided that we will regulate the price of borrowing money. To then claim that we have to regulate the price of everything else, from automobiles to candy bars, or else we are not being just doesn’t follow to me. I stand by my claim that this inability to be flexible is stupid.
Sandy, you say that “I stand by my claim that this inability to be flexible is stupid”.
Does that mean that you think America is stupid?
The United States was founded on the principle of equality for all men (and women). That all should be treated the same. Our founding fathers threw out the social class system of europe and england in favor of a democratic process of equality for the benevfit of all. (A very christian concept)
Why then should not ALL businesses be treated equally? If one business can’t make unbridled profit, none should be able to.
I know, it flies in the face of liberal elitism. The Devilcrats thrive on thinking they are better than others- that blacks NEED secial college funds and assistance because they are inherently inferior.
I don’t.
Aside from my Christian principles that we are all equally loved by God, I adhere to the American tradition of equality for all.
And that includes businesses.
If blind people can’t be allowed to drive, no one should. If felons can’t be allowed to own guns, no one should. If minors can’t be allowed to vote no one should. And if you disagree with me you hate America!!
Seriously, you should read a basic economics textbook. Until then, you just aren’t worth discussing the issue with.
“Seriously, you should read a basic economics textbook. Until then, you just aren’t worth discussing the issue with.”
And yet, here you are…
Who, pray tell, wrote the economics book you would recommend? Karl Marx? Rockefeller? A Kennedy?
My point is that we (the U.S.) apply the same liberal elitist methods to the economy as to everything else- we don’t provide justice and equality for all.
And by the way, blind people do get to drive. “Legally blind” people. Those are the folks who can’t see without their glasses. Comparable to the lazy bastards that use the electric fatty-carts at grocery stores while people who can’t walk at all have no choice but to ride. But that’s a whole ‘nuther argument.
Yes, I’m still here, but I’m not interested in addressing any of your other points. Seriously, find a book. I’m sure Economics for Dummies would cover the basics well enough. If you’re afraid the evil liberal media is filling that book with commie propaganda, then I’d suggest you find the most conservative Christian university you know of that has an economics department and find out what book they use in their Econ 101 class. Generally that’s microeconomics, and it’s macroeconoics that’s more applicable here, but most books cover both, and macro makes more sense when you know a little about micro. Seriously, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Find a book and read something about it. Seriously.
Hey, seriously- er, sandy, why am I reading this book again? Is it to justify your ridiculous idea that greed is good for the economy? You did understand that’s what I’m talking about, right?
Tell you what, you read a Bible, and I’ll read an economics book. Greed is amoral. And since the libs already want to legislate everything else, let’s follow the monopoly-busting, interest rate regulating precedents and regulate profit as well.
The reason you need to read an introductory book on economics is that you sound like an idiot when you discuss the subject. I’m sure there are thousands of decent books to choose from. I’m not telling you which one to pick. These are very basic and non-controversial issues that you fail to grasp. Just about any book should set you straight. There’s no agenda I’m trying to push on you. Just basic facts. That’s why I don’t have to suggest a specific book to you. If the subject was American history, there are lots of differing interpretations out there of many events, but I’d feel comfortable telling you to read any book at all if you didn’t know who we fought the Revolutionary War against, or who the first president was, or basic facts like that. Your ignorance of economics is that basic. It really doesn’t matter what book you read. You should read one, though. Or you should stop making a fool of yourself posting ridiculous nonsense you know nothing about.
Sorry Trog, but I own and operate two small businesses and I sure as hell don’t want anyone telling me what I can and can’t charge for my services.
Granted, I’m not a fortune 500 company, but still, where do you draw the line? I think government has intervened too much already. THEY are the reason we are in this mess economically. Now they’re going to “bail us out”? What a joke. They can’t balance their own damned checkbook and they are going to fix the economy. They muck up everything they touch and now you want them to get all touchy feely on earnings as well. Sorry man, that is just too much regulation. I have had it up to HERE with government regulation.
If they want to regulate something they should look to our trade policies. They should look to our energy problems. Those are reasonable things to regulate. You regulate trade, you bring back jobs to America and get her producing again. You regulate energy, you lower the cost of living and strengthen the dollar. Just be sure you get a successful businessman to oversee the whole thing. Otherwise, you’ll get more of the same crap we’ve had inflicted on us since legislators decided that politics only meant one thing: A BLANK CHECK!
Sandy & Chad,
What amazing elitists you both are. You think it’s ridiculous to put a legal cap on business profits, yet neither of you is raging against anti-loan sharking laws or pawn shop laws.
Do you honestly believe that laws shouldn’t exist to protect consumers from unscrupulous greed? I guess neither of you has ever complained about gas prices. No such thing as price gouging, huh?
The law should apply to everyone equally. Anything else smacks of liberalism.
We should regulate the profits of every business, or else we’re liberals? Seriously? I take back what I said about reading a book. You don’t just sound like an idiot on this subject. You clearly are one. Facts aren’t going to help that. Nevermind.
you’re a liberal because of your elitism; you unequally punish businesses. limiting the profit of one business and not others is no different from not letting everyone vote. There’s either equality or there isn’t.
greed caused the current economic crisis. It’s the root cause. Since we can’t rely on people to stop this amoral behavior on their own, the only choice left is to regulate, limit, profit. you can try and deflect my argument with slander and calls for books all you want, but apparently you can’ t come up with a reason why this wouldn’t work.
I have read Adam Smith, and the problem with the laws of economics as far as capitalism is concerned is that there is no invisible hand to guide prices. Wholesale has made it so that a product can be ridiculously cheap, and still be making 3 fold profit. The mass production of everything has sacrificed the quality of the old assembly lines, which while being efficient and highly productive were still using good quality materials. Consumers are no longer able to balance the prices, because they don’t realize how cheap their food cost to manufacture, or their clothes to make.
If the system won’t regulate itself then who will regulate it?
I don’t think the solution is price fixing, since that would wipe out the entire point of capitalism, and would make the situation worse, as it has in the past. I think the solution lies within the salaries of the ceo’s, the fact that they make as much as they do is what drives the price up. There should be a maximum pay grade, not ridiculously low, but around 400,000-600,000 a year. Why does anyone need to make more than that?
John, I’m not for price fixing, or any specific number. I’m for a more simplified approach- a maximum percentage profit.
The precedent has already been set with banks and anyone who loans money- they are allowed to only charge up to a specific percentage.
I agree that executives make way too much money, but how to combat that? Maybe a maximum salary ratio? Say for example, that the highest salaried person in companies make no more than X times the amount of the lowest paid person? What a nightmare that would be to figure out.
Of course, by limiting maximum profits, the executives don’t have as much money to play with.
And think of the benefit to average Joes. Clothing prices would drop. Many luxury item prices would drop.
John, not to open this can of worms here, but one very effective answer to insane corporate salaries is an across-the-board Tax rate for all Americans. A Percentage of salary, rather than a set dollar amount.
Instead, we now have a system where the percentage of income kept is reduced the more money you make.
Let’s do a discussion on that in another article…
Trog,
With respect to you O fellow knuckle dragger, actually, your view is the one which is a form of elitism. In this sense it “denotes situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination.” That fits the description of what it is you want to do to the top wage earners in this country. You want to discriminate against them so others may profit.
Are your wages capped? If so, how does that affect your productivity? Would you “feel” like doing more, knowing that your pay isn’t tied to your level of both risk and productivity?
John,
Welcome back:)
With respect, I think your question,uh…begs the question. You write, “Why does anyone need to make more than that?” The answer is highlighted in the word, “need.” The question of wages has nothing to do with need and everything to do with level of reward per level of “productivity.” Also, this question underscores a sliding scale. The same question is being asked by those who make substantially less than you. (I’m using that rhetorically, as I obviously don’t know what you make…LOL) But the principle applies, in that the level of reward is relative.
Have a good one and once again, welcome back:)
Sorry, T.R.
I thought wage wage fixing was exactly what you and Sandy were arguing about for the past week. If you didn’t mean that, I apologize, but it sure looked that way on this thread.
thanks
Chad, what color reading glasses should I buy you? I’m not for caps on wages. I am for fair, equal treatment for all.
We put a percentage limit on loans. Why are other industries limited? Is that fair? What is good for one, is good for all.
As for the top wage earners- I’m saying that if they want to make more, they need to pay their underlings more. That’s not a cap or a discrimination. It’s making greed unlawful. Again, if we can bust up monopolies because it’s “unfair”, then how do we sit idly by and let businesses pay minimum wage so they can send executives to spas?
But you’re still wrong:) Don’t tell me how much profit I can make, bub. Them’s fightin’ words.
I was arguing for a maximum percent profit law. Not sure Sandy was arguing- just repeated “you’re ridiculous” etc. I’m just demanding equality- treat all businesses (loan shark, pawn shop, mortgage company, car manufacturer) the same by imposing a PERCENT limit on profits.
Think about this: loan sharking laws exist because someone thought it was immoral to charge excessive interest rates on loans. That’s a moral call. Where do morals come from? Morals are opinions on what is right and wrong. Past opinions in this country have been that women shouldn’t vote and slavery was okay. Do we really want a country with laws based on opinions, or laws based on justice and equality? If “All men are created equally” is the foundign concept of our nation, we need to have equality in the law as well.
Okay Chad, here’s a scenario for you, taken from the law of our great State of Indiana.
Let’s say you’re a roofer. And you want to get your kid braces. Times have been tough and you have just the one roofing job this month. You could charge your normal rate of $2000, but man, you need some extra money. Aw heck, just charge $10,000.00.
Under Indiana Law (Indiana Code 35-43-6) you’ve committed Home Improvement Fraud by entering into an “unconscionable contract”- providing a service that an unreasonable difference exists between the fair market value of the services.
So as a roofer, you can’t hit people up for 5x what you should be charging, or you go to jail. Yet how many other companies do this on a daily basis? Clothing has an obscene mark up, when compared to other products. Texting is in the news this month as people proclaim that it too is unconscionable, as the amount of data being sent for each text is miniscule compared to downloading a song, yet the cost per kilobyte of data is not the same for each action- texts are billed at a significantly, astronomically higher rate per kilobyte than songs.
If you want to go back to a lawless, no regulation Old West economy, then let’s do it. But as long as one company is regulated as to how much profit they make, then ALL companies should be.
Uh, I don’t wear glasses…hmmmmm…Oh! I get it, yer saying I need some:)LOL
Look, I appreciate your little Utopian vision here. I really do. But it is fatally flawed because it is based on the assumption that all are essentially equal. It also removes personal responsibility from the working class, of which I am a member, BTW. If people don’t like what they’re making, then it’s THEIR responsibility to get proactive. Don’t like what you’re earning? Think you’re being screwed by The Man? Then exercise your free job market nuclear option.
I hate corporate greed as much as the next guy. But what you’re advocating is sounding like (I can’t believe I’m going to put this in print) neoliberalism…Yech!
And minimum wage laws actually hurt the economy. They don’t help it.
Chad, you’re right that people can change jobs if they want. But what if EVERYONE wanted, and had the drive, to go to law school for example. COuld society function with nothing but lawyers? No, all jobs are important. Someone has to pick up the garbage. Someone has to deliver the mail. Someone even has to run those annoying kiosks at the Mall.
I disagree about it being liberalism. Liberals like to believe themselves better than others. My system makes it very clear that everyone is equal. No one gets an exception. No business gets to gouge consumers while others are regulated.
You tell me, Chad- why should any group be allowed to price gouge?
The reason for the obscene prices, Trog, is a supply and demand issue. As I said, I appreciate what your after here. But your overlooking consumer greed in your scenario. Consumers create demand. Producers create supply. In large measure, consumers set the price of goods and services. They do so based on their purchasing preferences. That is the free market. Sellers are getting those prices because consumers are willing to pay them. When consumers stop paying those prices, supply will go up, effectively driving prices down. Those who don’t give the public what it wants will go under. Okay…I’m overstating my case here. I know that. Free trade has complicated the scenario. It’s really not as simply as I let on. But my original assertion of consumer greed stands. In a nutshell, it’s supply and demand. Consumers share the responsibility for continuing to gobble up those high priced items.
It’s not price gouging if people are will to pay for it, Trog.
Price gouging is based on a moral imperative of “what is considered fair.” Capitalism’s imperative has no such moral constraint. The only thing considered fair in capitalism is “fair market price,” and the consumer is the one who determines that.
Then all regulation should be done away with. And we already know where that will lead. It isn’t unregulated roofers, and loan sharks that have tanked the economy. It’s greedy, unregulated corporations.
You say that consumers are to blame. That’s true as well. But government exists to serve the public interest. We don’t let consumers purchase narcotics on street corners. Why shouldn’t we enact maximum profit limitations to protect consumers from rampant, unchecked supply and demand?
Watching this debate continue is almost agonizing. For Trog, yes the greed of Corp America is at times unbearable. Does that mean they are not entitled to earn whatever they wish to earn ? NO !!! The problem lies in seeing some Corp A exec “earn” ump-teen gazillion dollars and turn to the US Gov’t and whine about bailout funds. It lies in seeing Corp B exec “earn” ump-teen gazillion dollars and then turn to the public and say “we need to raise prices to stay afloat”. Especially now, this is taboo in an ailing market when the so-called average family is stressed financially. None of those families wish for the price to go up when the Exec is making 100x the avg. family income. It’s like a guy pulls up to you in a Porsche and begs for change to buy gas.
For Chad, you are right too, and yes the greedy consumer creates the damage caused by Corp America. Just say, “X” music is an “immoral form of music” (just say) ……and yet…..that is the market, that’s what sells. If people can’t buy enough of it, then they will produce more.
Joe Schmo athlete just signed a 2-year contract for $45MIL , so is that “greed” ? To me …yes. But, he can only get that because all those idiot consumers continue to pay the price to provide that ability of income. If I don’t want my hog to get fatter, I stop feeding it all that grain.
I think the general public are pure idiots. Feed them a little junk, they’re addicted in the cause of “greed”…….I want more.
When the consumer stops demanding the fortune, the Execs will have to cut themselves off. They are only greedy because consumers allow them to be. But, who would dare go without the luxuries of life ……..oops, is that greed on the consumer’s part ? Surely not.
A friend of mine stopped to offer shelter, food, and farm work for extra cash to one of those hobo guys on the corner of the Interstate holding a sign that said “work for food”. Long story short, the guy said “no thanks, I can make more money standing here with this sign”. Now, morally speaking………what’s wrong with that? But, legally and morally are two mighty different causes.
It is consumer greed as much as corporate greed, that I will agree to. The biggest thing though is that who puts their products in advertisement? The corporations have spent a substantial amount time convincing us as the consumer that we need to buy their luxuries. Sure we might fall for it, and that doesn’t make us blameless, but there were many generations before us that made it on just what they needed.
In case you wanted your what I do question answered, I will do that. I am a student studying secondary education. I am working for a construction company in a foreign country next year both to learn how to build a house, like my father and grandfather before him, and to make money towards my education. I am studying this summer before I leave at a small farming school. The fact that very few consumers today are even slightly self sustaining is the main problem. When we can only get our basic necessities through money, and so the line starts to blur between what we need, and what we want.
I agree with you John. As a culture, we’ve become much too dependent.
As for your work and plans for your education, sounds like your goals are laudable. Best of luck in your endeavors.
See you next time.
DAVE:
Well said buddy. Part of the problem with corporate America is that they have no moral center governing their capitalism. Their ethos is just pure, “unadulterated” capitalism. Now, we’re reaping what that kind of credo produces. It’s a bit like Darwinism. Darwinism has one essential characteristic. That is, whatever gives a species the advantage in surviving and thus passing on their genetic material is considered “good.” Similarly, pure capitalism operates under the sole characteristic of what is profitable. Therefore, what is profitable is deemed “good,” and therein lies the problem. When corporate America fixates on the bottom line to the detriment of everything else, we end up in the mess we have today. We’re dealing with people and entities whose only reason for being is keeping it in the black and they don’t give a damn who they have to hurt in the process.