Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The right is for allowing those who can do better the opportunity to out race their compatriots. In school, in business, in sports. Side-effect some get left in the dust who can't keep up with the flow. Somebody has to take out the garbage.The Left is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-people.This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.
I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.
Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.
Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.
The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.
Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.
In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.
The Right is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-wealth.
Did you miss that in your studies (if any) of history since the French Revolution ?!
You say this thread is not about demonizing socialism, yet the only case you make for why people like me agree with Socialist elements are because we are just too insecure with ourselves to compete with others. That's a huge deductive leap you make there as well as a pretty premature value judgement.
Left or right, I think most of us believe that we are part of a greater good or in some ways contributing to some greater good (though that greater good will vary from person to person). But I'm going to assume that, for example, you believe that you are doing your part in society by partaking in a job or industry that helps propel the economy forward, hence keeping the "machine" that keeps things civilized moving forward, whilst utilizing your "natural" comparative advantage. What I'm trying to get at is that whether one is socialist, capitalist, or mixture of both, people want to believe that they are helping, in some way, to move society "forward" (again, what "forward" is will vary).
Two: that whenever one is pointing out ever-increasing wealth inequality, childhood poverty (which i repeat is the LARGEST in the first world), one is essentially blaming society.
I believe it is society's responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity (which isn't the same as 'everyone being equal' or some strawman like that).
Before delving deeper, I think you and I would agree that it would be best if we define our terms before going forward. Otherwise, again we'd be talking in cross-purposes.
What's your definition of "progress"--is it a society that ensures the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people?
there is also an american nazi party..... why does the right love fascism?Now why would Purple Owl lie, other than that is typical of Marxism/Socialism/Fascism/Liberalism/Progressivism? They even have their own website. I think soon, that there will be a war like the one back in the late 1800's between ideology. Those that believe in God and Guns against those who believe in government and don't like guns. Guess who will win?Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?
Socialist Party USA - HomeJust shows how stupid people have to be, to believe that Socialism would be good for them.THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups.; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible...
Of course socialism always ends the same way, just look at Venezuela.
View attachment 106273
Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life.
You say this thread is not about demonizing socialism, yet the only case you make for why people like me agree with Socialist elements are because we are just too insecure with ourselves to compete with others. That's a huge deductive leap you make there as well as a pretty premature value judgement.
I never said you were too insecure with yourself. I said you lack the confidence to believe you can compete with others. You are probably quite secure in your lack of confidence... that's precisely why most socialists cling to Socialism. It is deductive but it's not a leap at all. In fact, I dissected your response to me to show you how what you are saying fits this reasoning to the tee. You may not like hearing it... I realize most people don't like hearing their flaws. It's not intended to insult but rather to help you.
Left or right, I think most of us believe that we are part of a greater good or in some ways contributing to some greater good (though that greater good will vary from person to person). But I'm going to assume that, for example, you believe that you are doing your part in society by partaking in a job or industry that helps propel the economy forward, hence keeping the "machine" that keeps things civilized moving forward, whilst utilizing your "natural" comparative advantage. What I'm trying to get at is that whether one is socialist, capitalist, or mixture of both, people want to believe that they are helping, in some way, to move society "forward" (again, what "forward" is will vary).
I am not really concerned with "moving society forward" (i.e.; progressivism) to be honest. I don't work for the sake of the economy, I do it for personal gain and self-fulfillment. And so do you... I doubt if your boss suggested you voluntarily forfeit 2% of your check because the economic report said the economy declined 2%, you'd go along with that idea. I believe the "greatest good" we can do is promote individual liberty and personal property rights and that includes the right to keep most of the fruits of your labor.
This whole idea that you need to "help" is predicated on your own lack of confidence in your ability to compete. You assume just as many people as you are unable to compete and society needs to act or we're going to have problems. And the way you want them to act is by taking some of the gains of others who competed better than you. To you, they must have gained an advantage by cheating or gaming the system somehow, not through their own hard work and effort, better education and choices. This is how you deal with your own inadequacies.
Two: that whenever one is pointing out ever-increasing wealth inequality, childhood poverty (which i repeat is the LARGEST in the first world), one is essentially blaming society.
Well who else do you blame? You don't seem to want to blame the individual. So is it the successful person's fault? We've had over 80 years of progressive policies intended to help those in poverty but we still have poverty. This should show you these policies simply don't work.
First of all, this entire "wealth inequality" thing is Socialism 101. If you go study Mao Zedong and his revolution, it's the exact same argument. Wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working as it is designed. People gaining wealth is a GOOD thing, not something to wring our hands about and worry over. It's the natural results of people being economically prosperous. Second, and even more importantly... Wealth is not finite. It's not like there is only one big pie and a certain number of pieces exist... the pie is constantly growing. People are constantly creating new wealth through their innovations, talents, skills, labor, etc. There is no solution to wealth inequality because it's not a problem, it's a result of free enterprise working... the best way to mitigate the widening of it is to motivate and "train-up" those at the bottom, not to hobble or punish those at the top.
But you see... this requires you to have confidence in your ability to compete. It all goes back to that.
We've already addressed the "poor children" meme.. children are incapable of earning incomes, so we can't do anything about that. You know, once was a time when a poor kid could go down to the docks and unload fishing boats to make a little money but we outlawed that. We took any ability they may have had to earn something on their own away because progressives said this was inhumane. Progressives did the same with poor black people when they implemented minimum wage laws which made it cost just as much to hire a black man as a white man. At the time of the Davis-Bacon Act, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment, afterwards it shot up to over 25% and it has historically been higher than white unemployment ever since.
I believe it is society's responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity (which isn't the same as 'everyone being equal' or some strawman like that).
Well, we have laws on the books and the Justice Dept. has a telephone... just call them if someone is being discriminated against and not given an equal opportunity. It's a matter of Federal Law. What Socialists often mean when they whine about "equal opportunity" is actually equal outcome. Outcome is a matter of personal effort and responsible decision making.
Before delving deeper, I think you and I would agree that it would be best if we define our terms before going forward. Otherwise, again we'd be talking in cross-purposes.
What's your definition of "progress"--is it a society that ensures the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people?
Again, I am not a Progressive so I am not concerned with "progress." I believe the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people comes through having a vibrant free enterprise, free market capitalist system, where the constitution is applied and government gets the hell out of the way. In such an environment, I believe people will progress economically because they always have.
The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?The right is for allowing those who can do better the opportunity to out race their compatriots. In school, in business, in sports. Side-effect some get left in the dust who can't keep up with the flow. Somebody has to take out the garbage.The Left is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-people.This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.
I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.
Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.
Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.
The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.
Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.
In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.
The Right is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-wealth.
Did you miss that in your studies (if any) of history since the French Revolution ?!
The left is for holding back achievers so as to prop up those who need the most help. The strength of the team is measured by it's weakest link and you work to strengthen that weaker link even if it holds back the team. Nobody is allowed to accel.
You say this thread is not about demonizing socialism, yet the only case you make for why people like me agree with Socialist elements are because we are just too insecure with ourselves to compete with others. That's a huge deductive leap you make there as well as a pretty premature value judgement.
I never said you were too insecure with yourself. I said you lack the confidence to believe you can compete with others. You are probably quite secure in your lack of confidence... that's precisely why most socialists cling to Socialism. It is deductive but it's not a leap at all. In fact, I dissected your response to me to show you how what you are saying fits this reasoning to the tee. You may not like hearing it... I realize most people don't like hearing their flaws. It's not intended to insult but rather to help you.
Left or right, I think most of us believe that we are part of a greater good or in some ways contributing to some greater good (though that greater good will vary from person to person). But I'm going to assume that, for example, you believe that you are doing your part in society by partaking in a job or industry that helps propel the economy forward, hence keeping the "machine" that keeps things civilized moving forward, whilst utilizing your "natural" comparative advantage. What I'm trying to get at is that whether one is socialist, capitalist, or mixture of both, people want to believe that they are helping, in some way, to move society "forward" (again, what "forward" is will vary).
I am not really concerned with "moving society forward" (i.e.; progressivism) to be honest. I don't work for the sake of the economy, I do it for personal gain and self-fulfillment. And so do you... I doubt if your boss suggested you voluntarily forfeit 2% of your check because the economic report said the economy declined 2%, you'd go along with that idea. I believe the "greatest good" we can do is promote individual liberty and personal property rights and that includes the right to keep most of the fruits of your labor.
This whole idea that you need to "help" is predicated on your own lack of confidence in your ability to compete. You assume just as many people as you are unable to compete and society needs to act or we're going to have problems. And the way you want them to act is by taking some of the gains of others who competed better than you. To you, they must have gained an advantage by cheating or gaming the system somehow, not through their own hard work and effort, better education and choices. This is how you deal with your own inadequacies.
Two: that whenever one is pointing out ever-increasing wealth inequality, childhood poverty (which i repeat is the LARGEST in the first world), one is essentially blaming society.
Well who else do you blame? You don't seem to want to blame the individual. So is it the successful person's fault? We've had over 80 years of progressive policies intended to help those in poverty but we still have poverty. This should show you these policies simply don't work.
First of all, this entire "wealth inequality" thing is Socialism 101. If you go study Mao Zedong and his revolution, it's the exact same argument. Wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working as it is designed. People gaining wealth is a GOOD thing, not something to wring our hands about and worry over. It's the natural results of people being economically prosperous. Second, and even more importantly... Wealth is not finite. It's not like there is only one big pie and a certain number of pieces exist... the pie is constantly growing. People are constantly creating new wealth through their innovations, talents, skills, labor, etc. There is no solution to wealth inequality because it's not a problem, it's a result of free enterprise working... the best way to mitigate the widening of it is to motivate and "train-up" those at the bottom, not to hobble or punish those at the top.
But you see... this requires you to have confidence in your ability to compete. It all goes back to that.
We've already addressed the "poor children" meme.. children are incapable of earning incomes, so we can't do anything about that. You know, once was a time when a poor kid could go down to the docks and unload fishing boats to make a little money but we outlawed that. We took any ability they may have had to earn something on their own away because progressives said this was inhumane. Progressives did the same with poor black people when they implemented minimum wage laws which made it cost just as much to hire a black man as a white man. At the time of the Davis-Bacon Act, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment, afterwards it shot up to over 25% and it has historically been higher than white unemployment ever since.
I believe it is society's responsibility to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity (which isn't the same as 'everyone being equal' or some strawman like that).
Well, we have laws on the books and the Justice Dept. has a telephone... just call them if someone is being discriminated against and not given an equal opportunity. It's a matter of Federal Law. What Socialists often mean when they whine about "equal opportunity" is actually equal outcome. Outcome is a matter of personal effort and responsible decision making.
Before delving deeper, I think you and I would agree that it would be best if we define our terms before going forward. Otherwise, again we'd be talking in cross-purposes.
What's your definition of "progress"--is it a society that ensures the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people?
Again, I am not a Progressive so I am not concerned with "progress." I believe the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people comes through having a vibrant free enterprise, free market capitalist system, where the constitution is applied and government gets the hell out of the way. In such an environment, I believe people will progress economically because they always have.
I never said you were too insecure with yourself. I said you lack the confidence to believe you can compete with others. You are probably quite secure in your lack of confidence... that's precisely why most socialists cling to Socialism. It is deductive but it's not a leap at all. In fact, I dissected your response to me to show you how what you are saying fits this reasoning to the tee. You may not like hearing it... I realize most people don't like hearing their flaws. It's not intended to insult but rather to help you.
Pointing out the intrinsic inhumanity of our current system isn't revealing any lack of confidence. Again, you make deductive leaps towards the personal which pretty much ends the argument since it's tantamount to back-and-forth labeling/name calling. Your "dissection" of my response simply reveals your attitude about the issues I raise, nothing more. I could say that my "dissection" of your response shows me that your reasoning fits into my labeling you as "selfish" or "lacking empathy." But seeing how I've never met you personally, it would be meaningless to make such a deductive leap. Again, we can go back and forth with this but it would be a waste of time.
This whole idea that you need to "help" is predicated on your own lack of confidence in your ability to compete. You assume just as many people as you are unable to compete and society needs to act or we're going to have problems. And the way you want them to act is by taking some of the gains of others who competed better than you. To you, they must have gained an advantage by cheating or gaming the system somehow, not through their own hard work and effort, better education and choices. This is how you deal with your own inadequacies.
The way I want to act is by taking the gains of others who don't need those gains and wouldn't be affected at all by losing a small kernel of those gains. I'm not implying that we should raise taxes on small business owners or middle class families trying to put their kids in school. We should raise taxes on people who wouldn't be that affected by it. For instance, a man making ten million dollars a year probably wouldn't have his life changed one bit if he instead made 8 million a year (he might have to hold off on buying that expensive yacht...), as compared to, say, a working class father who just lost his manufacturing job and whose kid needs medicine for his asthma. In other words, those who aren't willing to spare a meaningless dime to help those less fortunate than them simply on the grounds that "it's MINE I EARNED it".... are indeed selfish to put it mildly. To your assumption that I think those with wealth gained an advantage by "cheating" is false. They gained wealth through hard work, sure (there are plenty of poor people who work really hard too), but a good deal of luck was involved, such as being born in circumstances where you have access to good schooling.
Well who else do you blame? You don't seem to want to blame the individual. So is it the successful person's fault? We've had over 80 years of progressive policies intended to help those in poverty but we still have poverty. This should show you these policies simply don't work.
80 years of progressive policy? Progressive policy had virtually stopped in the late 1970s and was swiftly replaced by right-wing neoliberal economic policies implemented by Reagan, and then put even more forward by Clinton. Incidentally, this was when wealth inequality started to rise and when financial crashes became more abundant. Saying "progressive policies" don't work is just reductive because it's such a broad blanket statement. Progressive policies helped spur the civil rights movement, which enfranchised the black population and allowed them to vote, as well as mobilize the working class to earn a living wage. In addition, it was the ideological bedrock of Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal policies and G.I bill. You need to be more specific on which progressive policies your'e talking about.
First of all, this entire "wealth inequality" thing is Socialism 101. If you go study Mao Zedong and his revolution, it's the exact same argument. Wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working as it is designed. People gaining wealth is a GOOD thing, not something to wring our hands about and worry over. It's the natural results of people being economically prosperous.
A couple of dogmas need to be dismantled here.
Saying that "wealth inequality" is socialism 101 doesn't progress your argument at all. Your Mao Zedong example for instance is irrelevant. I've already stated above why Mao's China and Stalin's Russia weren't socialist in practice so no need to repeat myself unless you want me to.
You say wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of free enterprise working by design, that it's all just a "natural" result. That's completely false. Again, it rests on the assumption that the "free market" is this machine in which human beings have no control over or rather a force of nature, like a hurricane or sand storm. The only reason why the American economy even exists in the form we see today is because of state intervention/our tax dollars. I mentioned earlier about the G.I bill that helped build the middle class, which you say doesn't count. But it goes way beyond that. The interstate highways, railway systems, and so on were all funded by tax dollars. Even today, our "market" is heavily state subsidized. Boeing for example receives more than 10 billion dollars from the government. Intel receives about four billion and General Motors about 3 billion. In addition, Goldman Sachs and various other criminal banks were virtually nationalized after they knowingly collapsed the economy, destroying savings and pension funds from millions of working class Americans including veterans. So we can stop with the myth about markets being completely free of government intervention. Governments WILL ALWAYS intervene in some form. It's a matter of who they intervene for...the business class or the general populace. This was perfectly understand by even the "pioneers" of classic economics/capitalist philosophy such as Adam Smith and F.A Hayek.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."-- Adam Smith
"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law" -- F.A Hayek
Second, and even more importantly... Wealth is not finite. It's not like there is only one big pie and a certain number of pieces exist... the pie is constantly growing. People are constantly creating new wealth through their innovations, talents, skills, labor, etc. There is no solution to wealth inequality because it's not a problem, it's a result of free enterprise working... the best way to mitigate the widening of it is to motivate and "train-up" those at the bottom, not to hobble or punish those at the top.
This is why you need to define terms. If you mean that wealth, in the sense of, say, how comfortable or free our population is, then yeah it probably is not finite. We can do A LOT to increase the level of freedom, comfort, and opportunity for people and decrease the level of unjust coercion in society (as well as wealth inequality which you disregard completely). But if you mean wealth in the abstract social capital sense, there is a limit.
If we want to take your "free market" ideology in a literally, those with the most social capital would essentially be the ones who dictate policy. There would be no democracy because there would be nothing to stop private industries from pushing policies that would benefit them and only them. Meaning, the more we try to create meaningless abstract wealth, the more the rest of the population will be removed from getting to decide what policies get to implemented. It would soon evolve to the point where society would consist of a small population who live inside giant sealed off gated communities and a majority who live in slums....history has shown this to be true. t would make our 21st century society no different from fascist dictatorships or monarchies....
But to get back to the real world. Currently, more than 50 percent of the population have absolutely zero say on policy (Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens). And it's been increasing. So if you really do believe in complete government-free markets, then you can't really be for democracy. If so, there's no further argument as I tend to believe that democracies are the only forms of governance that really work.
To the most urgent issue, wealth inequality. I've cited the reasons above as to why I think wealth inequality is a major concern for ALL. You say we can't do anything about it but I've already stated what we can do, tax those who only have their egos to lose, namely those who can EASILY afford to have their taxes raised (and who might have to hold off on buying that yacht or private jet for a year...god forbid). "Punishment" implies being materially harmed or made vulnerable by taxes. None of the wealth brackets that should have their taxes raised would be "punished" in any real or meaningful sense.
We've already addressed the "poor children" meme.. children are incapable of earning incomes, so we can't do anything about that. You know, once was a time when a poor kid could go down to the docks and unload fishing boats to make a little money but we outlawed that. We took any ability they may have had to earn something on their own away because progressives said this was inhumane.
Again, you keep saying we can't do anything. Same answer as above. No need to repeat myself.
You're second point. Are you seriously implying that we should outlaw child labor laws? Personally, I don't think kids at all should work for slave labor. Children are supposed to learn how to think and how to be creative when they're younger--they should also have a little fun--which is intrinsic in human nature, the ability to be creative. If you're suggesting that we should go back to 19th century industrial England, where children as young as eight years old were put to work in factories for 12 hours a day, and you don't see the utter despicable inhumanity of that, then I have to say that we may just have different ethical viewpoints....no further discussion there.
I believe the greatest quality of life for the most amount of people comes through having a vibrant free enterprise, free market capitalist system, where the constitution is applied and government gets the hell out of the way. In such an environment, I believe people will progress economically because they always have.
This is the third time you've made this statement so I think it's time it's been addressed. As I've stated above, there has never been and there will never be a completely free market capitalist system, just by the fact that human beings are not machines. History also proves your last sentence completely false. By 'people', do you mean the rulers of a society? In which case, yes, those who are most willing to exploit and enslave and give themselves illegitimate power will progress as they always have....if you mean by "people" as in overall population, as history has shown, progress for the rich have always been at the majority's expense...we can go further into the history of this if you'd like.
Overall, it seems to me you believe in the abolition of child labor laws, abolition of freedom and democracy for the majority of the population, and ownership of the state by private corporations. Correct?
The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?
Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?
What qualified a community agitator to become president? At least she was looking out for her company to make profit so her employees would be paid. The failed administration promised to protect the constitution and the US citizens and couldn't keep that promise.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?The right is for allowing those who can do better the opportunity to out race their compatriots. In school, in business, in sports. Side-effect some get left in the dust who can't keep up with the flow. Somebody has to take out the garbage.The Left is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-people.This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.
I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.
Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.
Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.
The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.
Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.
In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.
The Right is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-wealth.
Did you miss that in your studies (if any) of history since the French Revolution ?!
The left is for holding back achievers so as to prop up those who need the most help. The strength of the team is measured by it's weakest link and you work to strengthen that weaker link even if it holds back the team. Nobody is allowed to accel.
So the stockholders who know even less about the technologies involved determine a CEO's salary according to free market principles? I fever there was an argument that decouples the correlation between compensation and merit, it's that.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?
The CEO of any corporation is paid by a board of directors and their stockholders. They are paid in accordance with free market principles of supply and demand. Good CEOs are expensive... like quarterbacks or head coaches on an NFL team. You may think $19 million sounds excessive but if the company makes $380 million, it's not much. Regardless, it's not your decision to make. If you want to start a company to compete with Mylan, and you wish to hire a CEO for $50k a year, go for it! No one is stopping you! If you think that's a better game plan, you're free to give it a whirl.
Nine times out of ten, when I debate some idiot about CEO salaries, I ask them one simple question they can never sufficiently answer... What does a CEO do? Can you tell me? Just give me a rough outline of what a typical CEO does... daily, weekly, monthly and annually. I find that 90% of the time, those who complain about CEO salaries simply have no clue what they do.
Why is it that dumb shits bring every conversation back to an Obama bashing session. He's almost gone so don't worry your little head about it.What qualified a community agitator to become president? At least she was looking out for her company to make profit so her employees would be paid. The failed administration promised to protect the constitution and the US citizens and couldn't keep that promise.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?The right is for allowing those who can do better the opportunity to out race their compatriots. In school, in business, in sports. Side-effect some get left in the dust who can't keep up with the flow. Somebody has to take out the garbage.The Left is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-people.This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.
I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.
Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.
Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.
The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.
Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.
In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.
The Right is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-wealth.
Did you miss that in your studies (if any) of history since the French Revolution ?!
The left is for holding back achievers so as to prop up those who need the most help. The strength of the team is measured by it's weakest link and you work to strengthen that weaker link even if it holds back the team. Nobody is allowed to accel.
What determines the pay for a professional athlete? Just asking, as the athlete does not employ many employees or run a business, the athlete usually gets in trouble, smokes dope, makes a fool out of themselves, punches women, but still get millions of dollars.So the stockholders who know even less about the technologies involved determine a CEO's salary according to free market principles? I fever there was an argument that decouples the correlation between compensation and merit, it's that.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?
The CEO of any corporation is paid by a board of directors and their stockholders. They are paid in accordance with free market principles of supply and demand. Good CEOs are expensive... like quarterbacks or head coaches on an NFL team. You may think $19 million sounds excessive but if the company makes $380 million, it's not much. Regardless, it's not your decision to make. If you want to start a company to compete with Mylan, and you wish to hire a CEO for $50k a year, go for it! No one is stopping you! If you think that's a better game plan, you're free to give it a whirl.
Nine times out of ten, when I debate some idiot about CEO salaries, I ask them one simple question they can never sufficiently answer... What does a CEO do? Can you tell me? Just give me a rough outline of what a typical CEO does... daily, weekly, monthly and annually. I find that 90% of the time, those who complain about CEO salaries simply have no clue what they do.
I'm a stock holder and I've never been given the option of determining a CEO's compensation. Yeah, you can vote for one of maybe 7 or 8 candidates but compensation is never one of the choices given.
And how is a CEO's time spent? Cheerleading for their companies, looking for other companies to acquire, keeping track of budgets at the 50,000 foot level, interviewing candidates for their inner sanctum...
So the stockholders who know even less about the technologies involved determine a CEO's salary according to free market principles? I fever there was an argument that decouples the correlation between compensation and merit, it's that.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?
The CEO of any corporation is paid by a board of directors and their stockholders. They are paid in accordance with free market principles of supply and demand. Good CEOs are expensive... like quarterbacks or head coaches on an NFL team. You may think $19 million sounds excessive but if the company makes $380 million, it's not much. Regardless, it's not your decision to make. If you want to start a company to compete with Mylan, and you wish to hire a CEO for $50k a year, go for it! No one is stopping you! If you think that's a better game plan, you're free to give it a whirl.
Nine times out of ten, when I debate some idiot about CEO salaries, I ask them one simple question they can never sufficiently answer... What does a CEO do? Can you tell me? Just give me a rough outline of what a typical CEO does... daily, weekly, monthly and annually. I find that 90% of the time, those who complain about CEO salaries simply have no clue what they do.
I'm a stock holder and I've never been given the option of determining a CEO's compensation. Yeah, you can vote for one of maybe 7 or 8 candidates but compensation is never one of the choices given.
And how is a CEO's time spent? Cheerleading for their companies, looking for other companies to acquire, keeping track of budgets at the 50,000 foot level, interviewing candidates for their inner sanctum...
You asked how someone could be qualified to be a CEO, I just asked what qualified a bi racial community agitator to be a president. Gee, seems that you have pretty thin skin about the future ex president.Why is it that dumb shits bring every conversation back to an Obama bashing session. He's almost gone so don't worry your little head about it.What qualified a community agitator to become president? At least she was looking out for her company to make profit so her employees would be paid. The failed administration promised to protect the constitution and the US citizens and couldn't keep that promise.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?The right is for allowing those who can do better the opportunity to out race their compatriots. In school, in business, in sports. Side-effect some get left in the dust who can't keep up with the flow. Somebody has to take out the garbage.The Left is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-people.This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.
I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.
Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.
Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.
The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.
Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.
In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.
The Right is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-wealth.
Did you miss that in your studies (if any) of history since the French Revolution ?!
The left is for holding back achievers so as to prop up those who need the most help. The strength of the team is measured by it's weakest link and you work to strengthen that weaker link even if it holds back the team. Nobody is allowed to accel.
This OP might be a little wordy, so I will go ahead and tell you, if you don't like wordy OPs, you may want to pass this one up and move along. It is intended to address a burning question that many on the right side of the political spectrum have had for a while about the left's fascination with socialism and socialist policies. To answer tough questions, it sometimes takes more than a paragraph. So, forgive me for the length and try to muddle through to glean the overall point.
I watched an old movie the other day. It was from 1949, called The Green Promise, starring a young Natalie Wood as a child and a middle-aged Walter Brennan as her father. In the story, he was a widower with 4 children, three daughters and a son, and he was a farmer. The five of them worked together to make their farm life work and the father was really big on having these "family meetings" where they would routinely vote on various issues and decisions. At first, this is presented as a proud and virtuous way to handle things, democracy in action as opposed to the iron-fisted tyranny of the father. Everyone working together for the common good. It was the perfect model of Democratic Socialism in every respect.
Okay... So the youngest daughter (Natalie Wood), meets this young boy her age, I am guessing they are around 12-13ish... His name is Buzz. Now, Buzz has done very well for himself at his young age. He has a herd of cattle and a prize bull worth over $1,000. He started with two calves his father sold him on credit, which he has long since paid for. She admires he has done this on his own at his age, and she starts thinking about doing the same thing with a couple of lambs. One of the protagonists in the story is a County Extension Agent who is trying to help the farmers in his community with advice and mentors to the young people by introducing them to the 4-H Club. He kind of puts the notion in the young daughter's head that she can do the same thing as Buzz and raise two lambs into her own flock of sheep.
Her oldest sister is kind of taking on the role of matriarch, is on her side. She explains how she understands how it's important for her to do this because it's her individuality and sense of self-accomplishment. The middle sister is unsympathetic because she is a suck-up to the father for attention. So this issue of her getting two lambs to raise on her own finally comes to a "family meeting" where a vote will be cast on what they should do. The father has his mind set on purchasing a tractor, even though it's something they really can't afford. And this is where the model of Democratic Socialism goes awry.
The father begins the meeting with a little lecture to his young daughter that her idea of raising two lambs on her own is selfish and it must be because she doesn't love the rest of her family. Greed is the only reason he can see for her wanting to do this. He then demands the family show hands if they oppose the idea. The older daughter speaks up, asking why not show hands in favor first, and he quickly shoots back... it doesn't matter! Of course, he has already raised his hand in opposition, and the suck-up middle daughter raises her hand. His son, sits there contemplating the situation... he is going to be the deciding vote and he has to live with his dad. You can tell that he begrudgingly votes with the dad, which seals the deal. The father goes on to lobby through his idea of buying a tractor and the little girl's dream is crushed.
Now, as fate would have it, the father is injured severely on the farm and the older daughter has to take over running the farm. So she ends up approving the young daughter's plan if she can raise the money to buy the initial lambs. She does so with the help of the County Extension Agent. A lot of other things take place as well but the father finally comes to realize the error of his ways and this is where I gained some insight into why I believe the left is so fascinated with Socialism, and why most people are so enamored.
In his confessional, he admits that his reluctance to allow his children to be independent, the reason he insisted on everyone working together as a cooperative unit, was because he was afraid to compete, afraid of his own lack of ability. As long as everyone was working for the common cause, he felt secure, he didn't have to worry about being left alone to fend for himself. This is where I realized what lies behind this modern Democrat Socialist view of the world and what is motivating it. These are people who are afraid to compete as individuals because they have no confidence in their own ability. They feel more secure as part of a supporting cast who can carry most of the load and where their underachievement can be hidden. They are unwilling to let that go, even though it stifles individuality and sense of self-accomplishment for others.
Go into detail then about what a CEO does.So the stockholders who know even less about the technologies involved determine a CEO's salary according to free market principles? I fever there was an argument that decouples the correlation between compensation and merit, it's that.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?
The CEO of any corporation is paid by a board of directors and their stockholders. They are paid in accordance with free market principles of supply and demand. Good CEOs are expensive... like quarterbacks or head coaches on an NFL team. You may think $19 million sounds excessive but if the company makes $380 million, it's not much. Regardless, it's not your decision to make. If you want to start a company to compete with Mylan, and you wish to hire a CEO for $50k a year, go for it! No one is stopping you! If you think that's a better game plan, you're free to give it a whirl.
Nine times out of ten, when I debate some idiot about CEO salaries, I ask them one simple question they can never sufficiently answer... What does a CEO do? Can you tell me? Just give me a rough outline of what a typical CEO does... daily, weekly, monthly and annually. I find that 90% of the time, those who complain about CEO salaries simply have no clue what they do.
I'm a stock holder and I've never been given the option of determining a CEO's compensation. Yeah, you can vote for one of maybe 7 or 8 candidates but compensation is never one of the choices given.
And how is a CEO's time spent? Cheerleading for their companies, looking for other companies to acquire, keeping track of budgets at the 50,000 foot level, interviewing candidates for their inner sanctum...
Maybe you don't understand how these things work so let me explain. At some point, a drug/invention was discovered and patented. A manufacturer purchased the rights to produce said invention from the patent owner. At that point, it becomes their property. So whoever originated the patent has already been compensated and they are no longer part of the equation.
As a stockholder, you vote for a board of directors. Part of their responsibilities include the hiring of a CEO. This is because, theoretically, the board of directors you voted for are more familiar with what CEOs make and who will be a good one. In the event that you and a majority of stockholders don't like the CEO or what they are paid, you can replace the directors.
As for your definition of what a CEO does... you failed.
I'm not even an Obama fan any longer. The only reason I commented is because statements like yours seem to come directly from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.You asked how someone could be qualified to be a CEO, I just asked what qualified a bi racial community agitator to be a president. Gee, seems that you have pretty thin skin about the future ex president.Why is it that dumb shits bring every conversation back to an Obama bashing session. He's almost gone so don't worry your little head about it.What qualified a community agitator to become president? At least she was looking out for her company to make profit so her employees would be paid. The failed administration promised to protect the constitution and the US citizens and couldn't keep that promise.The CEO of Mylan, the maker of the Epipen was paid $19 million last year. She didn't invent the process for creating epinephrine (that was done in a government funded lab almost 100 years ago) nor did she invent the novel delivery system. What about her qualifies her as an achiever? Would that product exist if not for the relatively underpaid people who invented it?The right is for allowing those who can do better the opportunity to out race their compatriots. In school, in business, in sports. Side-effect some get left in the dust who can't keep up with the flow. Somebody has to take out the garbage.The Left is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-people.
The Right is and always has been for hundreds of years pro-wealth.
Did you miss that in your studies (if any) of history since the French Revolution ?!
The left is for holding back achievers so as to prop up those who need the most help. The strength of the team is measured by it's weakest link and you work to strengthen that weaker link even if it holds back the team. Nobody is allowed to accel.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I hope that there's nothing left of her company after the competing product comes out but then I tend to be biased against obscene greed.And oh by the way... speaking of Mylan... I just read yesterday where CVS is coming out with a generic alternative of the Epipen which will be about 1/6 the price. So what is about to happen is called free market competition. Mylan will be forced to reduce their price in order to retain their market share. This is where a really good CEO comes in handy because they have to figure out how to do this without totally destroying their profit margin, and subsequently, the stock value for their shareholders.
