[jlisenbe]

[talaniman]

[paraclete]

good one Tal

[jlisenbe]

Tal, since you are opposed to the private ownership of businesses, meaning that anyone who wants to can start, own, and operate a private business, then what economic system do you prefer?

[talaniman]

I am not opposed to private business ownership at all. Just the institutional inequity of them as a business model. Screw that trickle down crap you seem to favor.

[jlisenbe]

I am not opposed to private business ownership at all. Just the institutional inequity of them as a business model. Screw that trickle down crap you seem to favor.

If you are opposed to capitalism, then you are opposed to private business ownership since that is the definition of capitalism. "Just the institutional inequity of them as a business model??" What do you mean by "them"? Them what?

[talaniman]

If you are opposed to capitalism, then you are opposed to private business ownership since that is the definition of capitalism. "Just the institutional inequity of them as a business model??" What do you mean by "them"? Them what?

Your assumption is incorrect and read:

"Just the institutional inequity of PRIVATE BUSINESSES as a business model??"

That inequity go back to merchants paying the help.

[jlisenbe]

If you can mandate what a business owner must pay labor, then can you also mandate what the laborer must accept?

As long as a laborer is free to make him/her self and skills more valuable (training, responsibility and education) and thus able to go to another higher paying job, then doesn't that really give the advantage to any laborer wiling to do so?

My assumption was no assumption. If you favor the private ownership of business then you are a capitalist. It's true by definition.

[talaniman]

If you can mandate what a business owner must pay labor, then can you also mandate what the laborer must accept?

NO! There are laws that govern pay on the federal and state levels but I know of no laws that mandate what a worker MUST accept. Indeed effectively there is no mandate for what a boss has to pay.

As long as a laborer is free to make him/her self and skills more valuable (training, responsibility and education) and thus able to go to another higher paying job, then doesn't that really give the advantage to any laborer wiling to do so?

Even entry level jobs have hiring requirements as do the next level jobs. That's why they generally come with a defined probation period to verify that requirement.

My assumption was no assumption. If you favor the private ownership of business then you are a capitalist. It's true by definition.

And what choices does an honest man willing to work an honest job for an honest days pay have by your definition? You really think he gives a rats patoot if the boss is a capitalists? The label is an artificial one like people cannot define themselves. I work for my own reasons not your definitions. Always have, always will.

[jlisenbe]

NO! There are laws that govern pay on the federal and state levels but I know of no laws that mandate what a worker MUST accept. Indeed effectively there is no mandate for what a boss has to pay.

I understand that, but are you suggesting that the government should be able to do that, to mandate what a business owner must pay his/her employees?

And what choices does an honest man willing to work an honest job for an honest days pay have by your definition? You really think he gives a rats patoot if the boss is a capitalists? The label is an artificial one like people cannot define themselves. I work for my own reasons not your definitions. Always have, always will.

I understand. You have your own definitions (daffynitions?) so that, even though you agree that businesses should be privately owned, which is the definition of capitalism everywhere on the earth, you can opt out of wearing that label. Trump and you have a LOTTTT in common.

[talaniman]

1. I think guidelines and perameters is best practice, and a living wage standard as opposed to minimum wages for adults, but states have a lot of powers too, to set wages.

2. UGH! That hurt...BAD! Capitalists is a somewhat recent label, as evolved from merchants, job creators and others. Labels are pretty convenient to separate ones self from other systems of governance and economic intent mostly to claim whose is better, or worse.

Why can't I be a free thinking free agent?

[jlisenbe]

think guidelines and perameters is best practice, and a living wage standard as opposed to minimum wages for adults, but states have a lot of powers too, to set wages.

What do you mean by "guidelines and parameters"? Laws? What people MUST do, or what the government suggests they do?

[talaniman]

Gotta have laws as a guardrail to acceptable behavior, or we would be lawless, and you couldn't tell the good guys from the bad, or make people accoutable for unacceptable behavior could you?

[jlisenbe]

So you want the fed government to establish some minimal salary, a living wage, that employers must pay employees?

[Athos]

I am not opposed to private business ownership at all. Just the institutional inequity of them as a business model. Screw that trickle down crap you seem to favor.

Good point, tal. Unbridled capitalism (aka crony capitalism) is ultimately destructive to a society. Proper capitalism is well-regulated and in the US, it includes aspects of socialism resulting in a capitalist society modified by socialism.

Even some Republicans during Reagan's time saw trickle down as "voodoo economics".

Russia is an interesting experiment in capitalism. Putin lets business do what it will as long as the government (Putin) gets a healthy cut. This State Capitalism has begun to curtail individual freedoms although living standards are higher than in the old USSR. Their oil-based economy is weak as seen by the price collapse. Time will tell.

[jlisenbe]

The biggest threat to capitalism is when powerful interests (big biz, big unions, big organizations such as ecologists, etc.) begin to influence government to give them special favors. Crony capitalism is not "unbridled". It's the government passing out favors to those with money, thus placing the bridal on a government bought off with cash. Improper government influence can be seen with the fact that Walmart is allowed to be opened while mom and pop operations are closed, the government not giving a contract to a deserving company because it did not meet racial or union requirements, or the government giving a contract to a company because it is minority owned despite being completely undeserving of the contract and at the cost of a deserving company being passed over.

[jlisenbe]

WG, who is slowly but surely regaining her position as Committed Grammarian, caught me! I used the wrong "bridal" in my second line. It should have, of course, been "bridle". I most humbly accept my rebuke and pleede for mursey. 8D

[Wondergirl]

WG, who is slowly but surely regaining her position as Committed Grammarian, caught me! I used the wrong "bridal" in my second line. It should have, of course, been "bridle". I most humbly accept my rebuke and pleed for mersy. 8D

Pleese ficks it. Im starting to screem!!!!

[jlisenbe]

I'd rather not. I don't want to let myself off the huk.

[Athos]

TCrony capitalism is not "unbridled".

Unbridled capitalism is any form of capitalism that has run amok - including the crony variety.

Dear God! Will he ever stop with the nitpicking?