One question though a serious one. In the short - medium term future ( under 30 years ) do you actually think there will actually be a communist revolution?
Right third times the charm. I shall attempt to have a reasonable debate on the economics of capitalism and socialism. keeping race and the jq out of it. Kyrie Eleison
how much of capitalism is wrong. when most people think of capitalism images of Mark Zuckerberg and dystopic mega corporations are thought of. but one of my question is the SME's. the local chip shop and the butcher and the greengrocer. should the state own all greengrocers. so should we then set up a greengrocer commission. shous
should a commission for greengrocers be set up. and what fruit should not be sold. how many banana's should one person buy. how much should a banana cost. should the cost of banana's be universal across the country or should it vary by region? all this seems inefficient and needlessly complex. and for the case of workers being exploited. what about family run companies, sole traders, partnerships. to tar all companies with the same brush seems needless. I am in favour of certain things such as monopolies commissions. personally I believe in the case of defence corporations they should be nationalised so companies like Lockhead Martin don't hold any country to ransom. defence is essential. but the nationalization of ALL companies would hurt the small man
And if the state own's everything why innovate. there is only one TV company so why innovate to make a better tv. there is only on pharmaceutical company so why innovate when what we have suffices. Capitalism is not perfect. Persian rugs deliberately have one flaw because perfect is only for Allah. but with the tools we have and the historical evidence capitalism ( not corporatism ) seems the least worst
to work in a dangerous working environment is wrong. there are stories of workers in third world sulfur mines without gas masks. that is wrong plain and simple and unions for them I am 100 percent in favour of
but my gripe with unions is when they get too powerful. some picket lines use intimidation to other workers and sometimes even violence that is also wrong
and my other point was for critical industries. lets say every single subway worker in the world went on strike today. and lets say you and your friends intended to go to subway what would you do?
but now lets say that every single fireman went on strike on the same day and your house was on fire. no if subway goes on strike I have no relation to subway so no skin off my nose but for cases where there are no substitutes what can you as a consumer what would you do. because what I just said literally happened in great Britain in the seventies. the army had reserve fire engines called green goddesses so people houses would not burn to the ground
or the sewage plant. so you cant flush your toilet. what substitute is their for that. unions and companies are not inherently evil but a balance must be struck
but a line must be drawn. or in the case of power. for days sometimes the power plant workers would go on strike and the whole country would literally grind to a halt. and because it is such a specialized job the army could not do it. so I am against exploitation but it is wrong for a union of lets say ten thousand people to hold a country of sixty million to ransom for some pay
i would assume that 8 year old raven wouldn't like having five dollars less because why not. my point was that you would resent any times when your demands were not met. not seeing it from your parents perspective. perhaps they are recently having financial troubles so they lower it. we forget how hard it is to really look at it from another persons shoes
now if you work at the imaginary power plant and every worker just got a five percent pay cut you might organise a strike because you would be angry at the pay cut
now imagine you are the CEO. if they company is in debt should everyone take a five percent pay cut or should you lay off five percent of the workforce. lets say if the company is 10,000 people. 500 people would be on the dole. but those 500 people never knew that was on the table. they automatically assume the company is being greedy which sometimes they are but not every time. there is always a balance. so my question to you is would you lay off 500 or cut the pay by 5 percent. also @(ใฃโโกโ)ใฃ โฅ doom clit โฅ today im making an effort to be rational. i want to hear a debate not a list of soundbites. I welcome your side of the story
see its a difficult question. but lets assume he cuts they pay. if they go on strike 1,000,000 people lose power. should the needs of 10,000 outweigh 1,000,000?
this relates to CEO's because there is probably a fair amount of people who swim three times a week so should i be paid as much as micheal Phelps? obviously not
if Michael Phelps knew that when he took up swimming if he would only get paid the same as some English kid perhaps he might not have done if professionally. maybe maybe not only Michael Phelps can answer that. but its probable
now I Totally get your point for example a few men bought the English shop walworths and sold off all its assets for personal profit. stripping a company for money is wrong.
but most people are not good. they are not bad. they are just trying to get by. so most CEO's are just run of the mill ordinary people. but if we remove the incentive to become a CEO ( higher pay ) why go to yale, work thirty years to just be paid marginally more than a worker. just become the foreman so that's how labour shortages happen. also if you could be paid for doing the same job far more in another country why not just move. that is also how a brain drain happens
if you get paid three dollars to walk a Golden retriever one mile. now another person will pay you thirty dollars to walk a Labrador which dog would you walk?
