I don’t see the logic here. If you give people a bunch of money, they are more likely to just sit on their asses and do nothing. The key to innovation is the reward you get by taking the risks involved in creating new businesses. In that case, the reward should be as great as possible to encourage the greatest amount of risk taking and innovation.
The guy was an asshole because he USED the relationship between his employee and the store owner for a cheap financial gain. To him his employee and the store owner were unimportant as human beings, they were just tools. He deserves a good bitch-slapping. Fessie, your employer has revealed a great truth about himself and how he views you.
What the fuck do I care about the Soviet Union? They weren’t capitalists.
yes, people can get ahead by working hard, and people do. And this is a good thing. We don’t need to have EVERYONE living at the sale level of affluence. But I still think there’s a minimal standard to which we should aspire as a society, and that is, for everyone who works or is willing to work (when none is avaialable) there should be enough food to stay healthy (not necessarily filet mignon) shelter to live in, basic health care, and minimal clothing. Anything less is shameful.
Asking for a discount shows that you think of your employees as less than human? Wow.
So, Evil Captor, I have to assume that if a cashier slapped you in the face when you presented her with a coupon in the check-out line, you would feel that you had deserved it.
Remind me never to go to a car dealership with you. 
Regards,
Shodan
What Bryan is saying is that he could give a shit about social ostracism. However, if people felt about greedy rich people as they feel about pederasts, I think he’d change his tune fairly quickly.
Yes that’s great, but the problem is that they can do this on a whim. It works out very well if the wealthy benefactor gives to projects that will really help society in an important way but what if they’re a nutcase giving millions to a charity that buys little woolly jackets for poor widdle doggies in winter for example? I wouldn’t like to be relying on the charitable whims of any particular rich person. This is why we tend in the Western world to prefer democracy where the group gets to decide where money is allocated and how money is spent. That’s why so many monarchies and oligarchies have lost their power over the centuries.
Also, as a side point I will add that whether they are to be lauded for this depends on their motives for giving to some extent. The good that the money does may be the primary realistic goal but if they gave only a tiny % of their earnings and it was no real loss to them it’s not as admirable as someone who gives till it hurts and ditto for if they are only giving to raise their own profile/ popularity and make themselves feel good. I must stress that this is only minor niggling though - my main point is above.
There is a difference between using a coupon, which amounts to a pre-existing offer of a deal by the business owner, and presuming on a friendship.
To me this is just a more intricate way of saying the same ole thing…‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. I.e. its a zero sum game. You DO realize that, even if your claim is true, the rich don’t normally stuff the money in a mattress or bury it out in the back yard…right? The money is invested in other businesses (giving them injections of capital), or spent on luxury items (employing those folks who make said items and re-injecting that capital back into society)…don’t you?
Reguardless, could you give us some real examples of this ‘gaming the system’ to the detriment of society by the Super Wealthy? Are these isolated examples or is this widespread…because frankly I’ve never heard of this as a widespread problem. If you could give some cites we could actually look at what you are getting at and maybe discuss it.
As to ‘gaming the system to give the middle class folks enough money and freedom to step up there and innovate’ I really have no idea what you are talking about here. Smells like either socialism or communism to me, but you have pretty forcefully denied this so you must mean something else. Generally speaking the middle classes aren’t the poor downtrodden and destitute folks you seem to think…they ALREADY have enough money and freedom to innovate. Where do you suppose Bill Gates or Steve Wozniak, or myriad other innovators came from?
I’ve avoided this hijack but this is getting ridiculous. WHAT is the difference exactly? Again, in the anecdote the owner of the store made a free decision…and one that was probably calculated to bring him potentially more business in the future from a sympathetic fessie or her husband or THEIR friends (ever heard of ‘word of mouth’?)…after all fessie admitted that her husband had been a customer in the past to the owners old business, and she was obviously shopping at his store again. It was freely asked and freely granted…i.e. a BUSINESS decision. I fail to see why this isn’t obvious to all.
Then you should be able to show a spikey up and down progression of donations as the Super Wealthies ‘whim’ moves them to either donate or not…yes? Instead, afaik, its a steady UPWARD progression of donations to charities by the Super Wealthy…and everyone else. BTW, do you have anything resembling a cite for your “little woolly jackets for poor widdle doggies in winter” assertion? Is this something that happens frequently? Is it a rising problem?? Details details.
Finally I have to disagree with your assertion that the government is necessarily better at distributing money or fixing social problems than local charities…or that they are better at finding good causes for MY money than I am with reguard to charities. The government, at its best, is a blunt instrument where such things are concerned.
-XT
And that difference would be…?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not a zero sum game. I merely posit that adjusting the free market to benefit the middle class produces, on the whole, more wealth than adjusting the free market to benefit the wealthy (which is pretty much the same thing as unfettered free market capitalism, in my view). This has nothing to do with whether or not there is a fixed sum of wealth in society. This does not mean that the poor get poorer AUTOMATICALLY when the rich get richer – though it DOES appear to be what’s happening right now in the U.S. – just that there is LESS ability for the middle class to grow and prosper when the wealthy tie up too much of the resources of a society, as is happening now. Adn we want to maximize the middle class’s ability to grow, for the reasons I have already stated.
Actually, I already have, throughout this thread. The way CEOs hyperinflate their salaries, corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich (capital gains, Bush’s blunder tax, etc.) and the “Perfectly legal” tax dodges that allows some corporations to escape paying taxes entirely. It’s all part and parcel of the way the wealthy game the system.
First of all, I suggested several specific mechanisms for gaming the system for the middle class a page or two back. I’m not going to reiterate them. Do your homework.
When I call for communal ownership of property and the means of production, then you can call me a communist/socialist. Otherwise, you just sound shrill and ignorant. If you don’t want to think about how a free market economy works, and how it might be changed, that’s your problem.
When was it that Bill Gates, Wozniak and others did all that innovating? Back in the 70s I believe. A period when the wealthy controlled MUCH less of America’s wealth than they do now.
Thanks for making my point for me.
The guy USED a social relationship to advance an economic ploy. A straight up business-related discount would have been fine.
One is a perfectly legitimate business transaction. The other constitutes taking a personal relationship and using it for financial gain. It’s kinda like a hot girl saying she wants to go out with you on Friday night. So you get all slicked up and go and discovered that it’s an Amway sales meeting and she wants to sell you Amway products. It’s USING a personal relationship for financial gain. It’s a bad thing, Shodan, a bad thing. If people have been giving you funny looks when you do stuff like that, it’s because they share my opinion on the topic.
OK, now you need to show why it’s such a bad thing.
In particular, you need to show why it is nasty and greedy to say “You are such a good customer, I’ll give you a break on cost” or “since it is your birthday, this round is on the house”.
Then you need to show why the sales clerk had no choice in the matter, and could not possibly have refused the architect. Since we are talking about the free market, after all.
Regards,
Shodan
By what do you claim the poor are getting poorer in the US right now…or that the middle class has less ability for growth and prosperity? And how exactly does this relate to the wealthy tieing up too many resources? I don’t see either claim as being valid, and certainly don’t see a connection between them even if they are true.
What I was asking for wasn’t your opinion or thoughts on it at any rate but some kind of cite or other showing A) that each thing happens separately and B) that there is a link…I mean what proof do you have that any of this is the case? I’m willing to be swayed here if you can produce something…but not by your arguements without proofs. Its always been my experience looking at the market that the more people screw with it (for the good of the people of course) the worse off things get all around, and the more distorted the market becomes. I think the 60’s and the 70’s kind of showed not only America that but Europe as well. However, as I said, if you have something to back up these claims I’m willing to read through them.
Actually you haven’t. Even if I take these things at face value without good cites, they don’t necessarily mean what you say they mean…i.e. that ‘gaming the system’ by the Super Wealthy is detrimental to the overall system. In other words, as I said above you need to show first off that the system IS being gamed by the Super Wealthy, than you need to show that them gaming it is detrimental to the over all system…as well as your other claim that by doing this there is less wealth available for everyone else.
All of those things you list could be argued to show just the opposite. Who says CEO’s salaries are ‘hyperinflated’ for instance? Based on what? The companies hireing them? The Stockholders? You? What?
Tax breaks for the rich (and everyone else) can be argued to be a short term boost to a stalled economy…and in fact we HAVE gotten a short term boost to our stalled economy. Granted it could be coincidence too…but it most certainly isn’t a slam dunk for you. Corporate welfare comes more from those folks (both conservative AND liberal) who aren’t free market people I hate to tell you. Its folks concerned with the loss of jobs and not willing to simply let the market handle it…guys like you in fact. Now, you might not agree with this one point, but its silly to claim that this comes from the free market types.
As for ‘perfectly legal tax dodges’…well, they are perfectly legal, aren’t they? And my guess is that they come from both sides of the political spectrum again…and again, not from the free market people who would probably rather have a flat tax system with NO dodges. Reguardless the real world outcome is to provide those business’s getting these ‘perfectly legal tax dodges’ more capital to work with…which means that, while the share holders and others get richer, the companies also have more capital to expand their business with. Greedy capitalists out to make some bucks will always want to expand…and that means more jobs for folks.
Well, you know…I think you missed my point. I’m not asking for YOUR opinions or thoughts on those things…I’m asking for some cites showing both the gaming and how its detrimental to the system as a whole (I know I’m repeating myself here…I hope its clear now what I was asking for). I read through what you wrote and was unconvinced by just your opinion. I’d like to see some substance to back up these claims.
I think your understanding of communism is as tenuous as your understanding of capitalism if you think the sum total is ‘communal ownership of property and the means of production’…and certainly socialism is a different beast entirely. Its not ‘communist lite’ you know?
When you start spouting off about shifting wealth from the upper class to the middle class to give them a chance, controlling the market to ‘game’ it for other ‘classes’, blah blah blah, you are waking on the line of socialism…and even communism. Sorry if this pisses you off but I’m not the only one who has observed this in this tread alone. You may THINK that if you don’t talk about the communal ownership and such that means you are not talking socialism or even communism…but there is a bit more to both systems that the two things you listed.
I think I have a pretty good idea of both how a theoretical free market SHOULD and WOULD work, as well as how our actual hybrid system works, thanks. I also think I have a pretty good historical idea of what DOESN’T work very well…i.e. when the government tries to do just what you are advocating the system tends to grind to an eventual halt. I suggest perhaps a review of the various economies in the western world during the 70’s for instance.
A period of economic downturns, stagflation and heavy government controls you mean. And I seriously doubt that the economic outlook of the nation at that time has anything to do with either of the examples I used…it was more that we were on the verge of a technical revolution and these innovators got in on it. Unless you are claiming that no Super Wealthy have been made since then…something thats blatantly and obviously not true just looking at the founders of companies like eBay and Amazon (who also came from the middle classes afaik).
So, sorry…I don’t think it makes your point at all. YMMV though. 
sigh There really is no point in continueing this part. Its basic business from both sides of it…the man asking for the discount did nothing wrong at all, he just had more balls than most to push a social meeting like that. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out the owner of the business made his own decision…and that decision was pretty obviously ALSO motivated by sound business practice. Its obviously you don’t get this so its appearent where this entire discussion is headed unfortunately.
-XT
Ok, in reading the replies it seems the changes some would like to make include the following:
-
Guaranteed living wage to anyone willing to work.
-
Guaranteed living wage to those who want to work, but just can’t find work.
-
Limit the amount of wealth one person is allowed to accumulate. IE don’t let them have so much they appear greedy in accumulating lots of stuff they don’t really need.
-
For those that have “extra” to give, make sure that the charity they chose to give to is important and benefits society as a whole, not just some small segment that isn’t as important.
-
For those that have “extra” and give to charity, evaluate their motives and make sure they are doing it to help others, and receive no gain themselves from their giving.
Those are nice ideas, but let’s look at the specifics of making those a reality because this is where I don’t see making the above happen is possible, or even desirable when you consider what would have to be done to make it a reality.
-
Guaranteed living wage to anyone willing to work. How do we determine what a living wage should be? Who sets the standard for an acceptable place to live? And acceptable amount of food? What type of food? We might all agree filet mignon is not needed, but what about top sirloin? That good enough? How many Cokes a day is the acceptable amount? Should workers be forced to cut coupons? How much junk food should they be able to buy each week? What about grapes when not in season, pretty expensive, should workers be forced to do with out? Need money to spend on leisure activities, money to pay for 2 movies a month enough, should they be able to afford tickets to a pro game? A night of drinking and playing pool once a week enough? To come up with guaranteed living wage someone needs to calculate what a person’s acceptable lifestyle would cost. You decide what they actual need, and how much that would cost, then that would determine what they are paid. Will it vary from market to market? When I lived in San Francisco I paid $1,000 a month for a tiny studio, located in the basement of a big apartment complex, and friends were envious I found such a good deal. I moved to Kentucky and I could have not spent $1,000 dollars on an apartment if I tried. $250 a month got me a great one bedroom in a great location. So we need lots of people around the country to calculate the acceptable cost of living in each market. Who qualifies to make such a value judgement? Who says if a cell phone is needed? And if it is, how many minutes of time do they get? The list goes on and on…
-
Guaranteed living wage to those who say they want work, but just can’t find work. Well every fast food place I know of does a lot of hiring, car washes struggle to find people, how about working in the county jail? Nurse’s aide in a nursing home? Those jobs are available, shall we force the unemployed to pick one? They will be guaranteed their “living wage”, so who decides what job someone must take if there is a job opening somewhere, but no one wants to take the job?
-
Limit the amount of wealth one person is allowed to accumulate. This is where the money to fund # 1 and #2 would come from. Now we need a group to study what exactly the cap off of the wealthy should be. Just one house, ok, how large can the house be? 4 bedroom should be plenty big? Well what if they have 6 kids? Formula for so many sq feet allowed per kid? What about when first kid goes to college, must they relocate to smaller house? And what about college? Who decides how much can be spent on education. Sending your kid to Harvard is a luxury, and may give those kids an unfair advantage in the future, maybe they should be allowed to go to just state colleges. And vacations, everyone would agree the employer should be allowed to take a vacation. For how long can they go? A night in a fancy Hotel in NYC is $2,000 a night, well that is too extravagant, how about approving of 5 days at a Holiday Inn in Toledo? And when all those workers at the expensive hotels are unemployed because the high end hotel went out of business, we’ll need another group in place to decide where they will now work. And the suppliers of the hotels and all their employees will be out of work too, need to find them another job. As will the employers of the boat manufacturers, high end car makers, expensive clothes makers, and all the other industries that had been making money off the extravagant expenditures of the rich. So to decide where to cap the rich’s profits, someone must first decide how much is needed for a comfortable, but not excessive lifestyle. So to do that someone must decide what are reasonable uses of extra money, and what uses of money represents greed. The employers are capped off at a reasonable comfortable level, so they can’t have the money that would allow them to make the purchases that a greedy person would make.
-
For those that have “extra” to give, make sure that the charity they chose to give to is important enough and benefits society as a whole, not just some small segment that isn’t as important Now we need to have a group to decided which benefits society more, helping the blind function autonomously, or the deaf? Spinal injury research more important than research into curing aids? Should we fund housing for the mentally ill, or old people? Humane society, you are just out of luck, everyone agrees a human life is more important than that of an animal, so you are not a priority.
-
For those that have “extra” and give to charity, evaluate their motives and make sure they are doing it to help others, and receive no gain themselves from their giving. Well, that eliminates one of the charities I work with. I own some racehorses and work to find retired horses homes, so they will not be slaughtered and sold as rendered meat. I do this because I love horses and feel they deserve good treatment when they are no longer able to race. Bad treatment of horses hurts the industry’s image and results in fewer people supporting racing. This then lessens the value of my racing horses and the horses I breed. So I do benefit when I support improving the industry and that would no longer be allowed. But my charity would probably not meet the standards of requirement # 4 above, because society as a whole does not benefit much from horse racing, my home state and city’s economy is dependent on racing, but that really doesn’t matter too much to the folks in the rest of the country, so I couldn’t give money to it anyway.
Please believe me when I say I am not just trying to find fault with any ideas that would change the status quo and would put my accumulated wealth and nice lifestyle at risk.
I think Fessie truly is interested in how someone could support a system in which so many remain poor. It is convenient to say the rich just don’t care, as long as they have theirs. My point is is, that to make the above changes, major restrictions and regulations would have to put in place. And someone is going to have to make some value judgements as to what those new restrictions and regulations would be. Very simply, my view of a living wage will very dramatically from someone else’s. My view of excessive spending would be quite different as well. What will qualify someone to chose who is right and who is wrong? And once you eliminate what has been decided are signs of greed, that puts a whole lot of people out of work. Someone is designing, building, furnishing, staffing, maintaining all those 2nd, 3rd, or 10th houses that most would deem unnecessary. Many industries rely on the disposable income of the rich. What takes it place then?
I don’t view the poor as whole as just a bunch of lazy people who deserve to live in poverty because they didn’t work hard like I did to get out of it. People are free to have different priorities, I am not going judge them harshly because of the choices they make. But I do think our system is set up in a way that allows them to rise, if they want to badly enough.
Actually, I don’t (“could”? never understood that usage, as in “could care less”) give a shit about the loopy, twisted, irrational version of social engineering you’re proposing.
Well, if it came to that, one of my tunes would change from being pretty casual about gun laws to demanding a shotgun for myself, because while pederasts are hard to spot (looking like normal humans as they do), a mob mentality directed against people who own property will inevitably lead to vandalism, arson, looting and just thugs beating people up because they wear clothes or drive cars that look a little nicer than the bare minimum, and thus the excess money spent is being denied to the poor. I’d hate to think someone might decide my house is immodest and needs to be purged by fire.
Someone brought up the prisoner’s dilemma in this thread. I would use it in a different way.
Individual employers are better off paying less, and getting the edge on their competitors (just as individual prisoners are always better off giving up their friends).
However, the best overall outcome occurs when all employers pay enough to create a large, strong middle class.
This outcome will not be reached by self interest, because again, each employer is better off reaping the rewards of a robust society while saving money themselves. In fact, things have gotten even worse these days: self interest now involves getting all the money you can out of a company, then letting it die and other people take the losses. Then you move on to the next company to do the same. Self interest and a free market alone will result in a rotten place to live.
Luckily, we don’t actually have a free market in our society. Unfortunately, we are currently leaning too far in the corporations’ direction, lining corporate pockets with taxpayer money. This is probably because corporations are the ones the government is really beholden to, because they help pay the exorbitant and exclusionary cost of our political process. We are going down a dangerous path right now; hopefully we will recognize what is happening and do something about it.
How did the middle class come into existence in, say, the US?
How often does this happen and what percentage of businesses are run this way? I just want to make sure we’re not making policy based on something that happens infrequently.
Education has probably been the biggest factor.
Education is not created by a free market, by the way.
I guess there aren’t any privately owned schools then?