Capitalism: Explain how it creates "wealth and prosperity"?

[TheCrusader]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

 

[Centinel]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

 

[TheCrusader]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

 

[TheCrusader]

Simply:

No person should be allowed to own the labor of another person.

But when a business owner or stock-holder buys ownership of a company what the majority of them are doing is buying rights to work, and then they rent that job to employees at a fee (called profit).

Unless the 1% billionaires who own 50% of America's wealth make 50% of America's Gross Domestic Product, then this is completely true.

Those billionaires make their money by siphoning the fruit of "non-owner's" labor, of worker's labor.

Tell us how this is just, fair, or righteous?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How many troll threads on the same subject are you going to post burger flipper?



.

 

[TheCrusader]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

 

[TheCrusader]

How many troll threads on the same subject are you going to post burger flipper?



.

Every thread is different, approaching different ideas within a single GENRE.

I'm sorry you're too ignorant to see the difference.

The only person posting troll threads here is yourself.

 

[TheCrusader]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's the same damn thread troll





.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Simply:

No person should be allowed to own the labor of another person.

But when a business owner or stock-holder buys ownership of a company what the majority of them are doing is buying rights to work, and then they rent that job to employees at a fee (called profit).

Unless the 1% billionaires who own 50% of America's wealth make 50% of America's Gross Domestic Product, then this is completely true.

Those billionaires make their money by siphoning the fruit of "non-owner's" labor, of worker's labor.

Tell us how this is just, fair, or righteous?

Look, Fidel, you are free to leave this terrible country anytime you wish. You still here?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

Employees know the wage when they accept employment, where are you trying to go with this?

 

[Centinel]

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

It is impossible to own the actions performed by another person.

 

[deltex1]

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

So if they produce a car they should be paid what the car is worth? That makes sense.

 

[TheCrusader]

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

Employees know the wage when they accept employment, where are you trying to go with this?

What does that have to do with anything?

Slaves know how much food they are going to get per meal when they go work the cotton fields.

You are describing a system that allows people to legally own the labor of another, but blame the victims for the system?

Pathetic.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

So if they produce a car they should be paid what the car is worth? That makes sense.

Except there are many involved in the making of the car, from design to build.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Capitalism is merely the free exchange of goods, services, and money, unhampered by government force or coercion.

Govt’s only role is to enforce contracts, prosecute fraud or coercion, and adjudicate disputes.

In a word, capitalism is economic freedom.

No wonder liberals hate it.

 

[TheCrusader]

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

So if they produce a car they should be paid what the car is worth? That makes sense.

It does make sense, are you disagreeing with this?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

Employees know the wage when they accept employment, where are you trying to go with this?

What does that have to do with anything?

Slaves know how much food they are going to get per meal when they go work the cotton fields.

You are describing a system that allows people to legally own the labor of another, but blame the victims for the system?

Pathetic.

So what's your solution....or do you have one?