thus should control businesses. Socialism, the anti-thesis of
'freedom of property' and civil liberties, gives the 'power' to those
who want something for nothing. In the example I gave to Jonathan,
Wal-mart, on its own, decided to let employees share in the profits.
There was no government edict that money be taken from management to
be given to those who don't even work for that company, nor even have
a job. Trust me that my New Constitution will hang for TREASON any
elected official who proposes anything "social" like SS, Medicare,
Medicaid, and unemployment insurance. All of those must be privatized
EXCEPT for those too old or too sick to survive otherwise. Generally
speaking, no more than 5% of the non-employees of government should
ever get anything from government. In the case of Social Services,
such should be administered at the local and state levels, NEVER by
the federal government! — J. A. Armistead —
>
On May 11, 10:21 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.Really?
> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
> What are the 'bad points'?Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
> workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
> not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. Endorsing socialism again, huh.
> What is 'fair'? Who gets to decide? Why them?Wal-Mart
> started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
> until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
> job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
> plan. A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
> company and had several million dollars in the bank. That sort of
> fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.If you mean Walmart VOLUNTARILY and within THEIR business model utilized 'profit sharing', then no.
> But having the Government FORCE businesses to do so ... is certainly socialism.I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
> building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do—
> the compensation needs to be tops. In the long run, everyone in the
> employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
> the bottom or at the top.Joe owns a business. He puts a sign in the window/on the lawn advertising that he needs employees. Pete applies for the job and agrees to wage X in exchange for task Y. Is Pete being paid fairly?
> FRANCE is currently implementing the type of socialism you are endorsing hereSalin on Sarkosy in the WSJMay 10, 2011 byPeter G. KleinAgreat op-ed from Pascal Salin, the Mises Institute's 2008 Schlarbaum Laureate, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Writes Pascal:[I]n his more recent statements and decisions Mr. Sarkozy seems to have tilted France even closer toward socialism than one might previously have thought possible. Last month, reiterating a theme that he first broached during his election campaign, the president declared that it is unfair that shareholders and owners get to keep all of a firm's profit, and that it would be more fair for company profits to be divided into three equal parts: one for shareholders, one for wage earners and one for reinvestment into the enterprise.This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.Nevertheless, Mr. Sarkozy is now preparing to make his sense of fairness the law of the land. After some discussions about the precise features of this proposal, his government has now put forward a law that will force firms with more than 50 employees to pay them a bonus whenever profit increases from one year to the next. The precise amount of the bonus is to be negotiated with trade unions. And of course, unlike a business's owners, wage earners will share in the profit but not help bear the cost of any losses.Regard$,
> --MJ
> "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment