Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

The True Nature of the Democrats (Socialist)

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 16:35

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-25 11:22

>>92
Here's where you're wrong: If people want trinkets, then let them go out and earn money and buy trinkets. But who wants trinkets? Do you want trinkets? There are many things that motivate people in this world, I don't believe trinkets are that high on the list. Maybe someone is working so he can afford to buy a house for his family, or to pay for an overseas trip, or to start up his own business, or to go back to school.

Capitalism gives anybody the opportunity to earn money to pay for the things that they want. I don't think people are about to start paying for things they don't want. Maybe if they were fucked in the head like you are they would, but typically if someone is working hard for their money they will spend it on things that are important to them, things that they value.

If there's nothing you value in life, you simply want food and shelter, build a shack in the middle of nowhere and grow your own vegetables. That's perfectly accetable. Of course someone may come along and buy your land if they think they can put it to better use, but you can use the money to buy some new land, still further away from civilisation, and plant a new vegie patch.

Now, as you say, a business owner might own a business but leave all the work, including management and decision making, to other people, so that he is a beneficiary with no input into the business. Those circumstances do exist, but I don't see any real problem here. The managers are still at the mercy of market pressure. It is likely that this person's business would go bad though, because what would happen if the managers were doing a bad job? Someone would have to fire them. Another possibility would be for another business to buy him out because they believed they could make more money out of the business by running it differently. But the main thing is that, the existance of silent beneficiaries, who do no work of their own, doesn't make capitalism good or bad. In any rate he, or someone else, would have had to have earned the money legitimately in the first place.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List