NationStates Jolt Archive

"The rich" are an easy target. They seem to have everything their way, the road ahead is paved for them and their children, they sometimes seem to get away with murder ( O.J. Simpson, anyone? ). So why not just set an upper limit on what anyone can earn? Why not just, in effect, do away with the wealthy? Do we need them at all? Why let people accumulate all that money?

move to communist china, pinko.

Because without more affluent people, the products made by the working class would have no market, and suddenly the working class becomes the wishing-they-were-working class.

move to communist china, pinko.
I have no desire to move anywhere, certainly not China, thank you. The questions are intended to elicit discussion, not be an indication of my political leanings. :)

Many times easier said than done. It is restricting freedoms to take away their money, but also, as you have a computer and access to the internet, I imagine you are more fortunate than the 2 billion people who live on less than 70p a day. You would probably complain if the government took your money to help these people.

Although I'd definitely like to spread money evenly between everyone, but unfortunately we're all too greedy, I don't think that anyone should be living off more than £50,000 a year

I have few problems with the wealthy. If they earned it god bless them.

The ones that drive me fucking bunkers are the criminals that screw people(ie the corporate fraud), the ones that think they are superior because of breeding(yes I have actually heard that) or the inheritors who act like they made the fortune. Their children usually have attitudes as well(I went to a wealthy school).

Because without more affluent people, the products made by the working class would have no market, and suddenly the working class becomes the wishing-they-were-working class.
Very close, and accurate as far as it goes.

Without a moneyed class, there would be no accumulation of capital, thus no capital investments/improvements, thus no large-scale projects, thus little or no economic progress, thus probably little or no social progress as well.

this is where its very similar to communism.

The government would own all companies large industry instead.

this is where its very similar to communism.

The government would own all companies large industry instead.
With all the attendant massive waste, inefficiency and corruption.

Considering the capitalism rests soley on the basis of private and/or corporate ownership of goods and services that are determined by the demand in a free market, eliminating "the rich" would require a total overhaul of an economic system (being that you reside in the US, I am take it you are implying that the US do the eliminating). Converting to an economy other than capitalism would result in an eventual government transition to a less democratic system like communism for instance.

Cuba always has vacancy.

Many times easier said than done. It is restricting freedoms to take away their money, but also, as you have a computer and access to the internet, I imagine you are more fortunate than the 2 billion people who live on less than 70p a day. You would probably complain if the government took your money to help these people.

Although I'd definitely like to spread money evenly between everyone, but unfortunately we're all too greedy, I don't think that anyone should be living off more than £50,000 a year


IIRC, at last count, if we were to nationalise the world, everyone could have a P 256 and at least 56K. May not sound like a "good deal", but hey, most of china now has a T2 thanks to CERnet, we could all maybe have at least cable. Plus, if you say a P 256 is horrible, I know people who use it and get things to work, hell, we used it a few years back.

With all the attendant massive waste, inefficiency and corruption.

Yes, aren't large corporations wonderfull?

Public scandale, waste going into the rivers, and poor children making our sneakers always makes my day every time I wake up.

Very close, and accurate as far as it goes.

Without a moneyed class, there would be no accumulation of capital, thus no capital investments/improvements, thus no large-scale projects, thus little or no economic progress, thus probably little or no social progress as well.

Ah ah ah, but you count that capital can only be created for private citizens, capital can be had by the government.

Either that, or you're telling me computers and anything beyond analogue clocks are banned from every single last government institution around the world.

yeah, if everyone did work hard and give selflessly, communism could work marvellously

With all the attendant massive waste, inefficiency and corruption.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of workers' co-operatives in the UK. Companies that are owned and run by the employees, as they would be in a socialist system.

yeah, if everyone did work hard and give selflessly, communism could work marvellously
Which is never going to happen, given human nature being what it is. Yes? :)

IMO...

The rich should only be allowed to stay rich, IF...

-They show that they honestly give a damn about other people that AREN'T rich.
-If said rich person owns a business, they should not earn more than 4 times the salary of the average worker. Come on, it won't kill businesses that earn billions a year to give employees a pay raise.
-They didn't get rich by screwing people out of their money
-They honestly give a damn about the enviroment


Those criteria eliminate...about 99.999999...% of the rich people on Earth.

Seriously, I wouldn't have a problem with the rich if it weren't for the fact that they DON'T CARE about anyone or anything else, unless the "anyone" is also rich, or the "anyhting" will give them more money.

IIRC, at last count, if we were to nationalise the world, everyone could have a P 256 and at least 56K. May not sound like a "good deal", but hey, most of china now has a T2 thanks to CERnet, we could all maybe have at least cable. Plus, if you say a P 256 is horrible, I know people who use it and get things to work, hell, we used it a few years back.

Sorry for double post

I stand corrected, but I was trying to show how we would not appreciate our luxuries being taken away any more than the rich, which is why the rich would still complain if they had their money taken away from them.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of workers' co-operatives in the UK. Companies that are owned and run by the employees, as they would be in a socialist system.
Just as there are a number of employee-owned companies in the US. Inland steel springs to mind. Most of them do quite well. :)

However, in a socialist system, any "profits" made from sale of goods and services must devolve to the State, yes?

yeah, if everyone did work hard and give selflessly, communism could work marvellously

I tried using that line on my Econ thesis...... She wasnt having it.

"The rich" are an easy target. They seem to have everything their way, the road ahead is paved for them and their children, they sometimes seem to get away with murder ( O.J. Simpson, anyone? ).


They also go to jail. Michael Milkin, Martha Stewart and Scott Petersen.


So why not just set an upper limit on what anyone can earn?


What's fair? I need a lot more to live in Manhattan than Memphis.
For that matter, why would anyone work once they're past it? Why should I get $50,000 a year forever? Or why should a brain surgeon get the same pay as a plumber? For that matter, how do you deal with inflation? Prices certainly aren't static!

Now, I *can* see limiting CEO pay so that it is a multiple of corporate earnings or something. But a set dollar amount? Nope.


Why not just, in effect, do away with the wealthy? Do we need them at all?


Do I need you? Probably not. Everyone has a part to play. The rich got that way through hard work (either theirs, an ancetor's, or someone they beguiled). Whom are you to take away their efforts?


Why let people accumulate all that money?

Why let people talk freely? Why let anyone worship a religion that isn't Judism, Catholicism, or Buddhism? (Any religion not 2000 years old is a CULT!)
Why let people marry? Or divorce?

BTW, a LOT of "rich people" aren't really rich you know.
Examples:
1) Family of four with a net income of $120,000 is rich in Arkansas, middle class in Fairfield County, Connecticut and poor in Tribecca (Manhattan, NY).

2) In debt up to eyeballs with $600,000 mortgage (that's $1 million or so with interest!). Why not get a cheaper one? Sure, if you want a three hour commute each way...

So why not just set an upper limit on what anyone can earn? Why not just, in effect, do away with the wealthy?
Just raise the tax rate to a reasonable level for the rich. Narrow the gap between the netto incomes.

Very close, and accurate as far as it goes.

Without a moneyed class, there would be no accumulation of capital, thus no capital investments/improvements, thus no large-scale projects, thus little or no economic progress, thus probably little or no social progress as well.
Unless I'm mistaking companies and their capital do those things. The moneyed class usualy isn't paying for it out of their own pockets.

move to communist china, pinko.

Learn what communism is.

We need the rich so we can tax the hell out of them so there isn't a poor. Only no-one ever tries that...

move to communist china, pinko.

Yeah move to Communist China like our industries and our jobs you communist pinko bastard!

While your there pick up a job application for me. :D

Learn what communism is.

We need the rich so we can tax the hell out of them so there isn't a poor. Only no-one ever tries that...
If everyone had the same amount of wealth, the dollar would be worthless! No, we need the rich, because otherwise the economy would collapse. I do support keeping the poor at a reasonable standard of living, though.

Yeah move to Communist China like our industries and our jobs you communist pinko bastard!

While your there pick up a job application for me. :D
hell china's barely communist anymore in the economic sense of the word
wealth is as evenly (or unevenly) spread there as it is here

Sorry for double post

I stand corrected, but I was trying to show how we would not appreciate our luxuries being taken away any more than the rich, which is why the rich would still complain if they had their money taken away from them.

And I could give you another figure, about 5% of the population (in america, and I believe in canada) control the interest of the other 95% of the population, middle income, poor or broke. If anything, you'd see a fraction of the rich begin to muster ill words towards the fact that their luxuries have been taken away as you would currently see beggars on the streets.

PS: I have no problem with someone double posting by accident.

The 'Upper-Classes' pay significantly more tax on every dollar than 'Lower/Middle Classes' in Canada. The US is no different.

Wealth is not the same as riches. Riches are temporary, wealth is generational. Wealth you pass off to your children, to those around you, wealth produces more wealth. Consider how many dozens, hundreds, or thousands of families which are supported by the wealth of a member of the 'Upper Class'.

Off-topic...
I am being exploited by no one. I rise and fall based upon the merit and worth of my own skills. I have the respect of those who have an income many time my own. They do not consider me a 'lower class', and I do not consider them a 'higher class'. I do not consider myself a 'worker' or 'middle class'. It is socialist preaching which calls me a lower class, which says I am somehow lesser than those who have skills which are worth more than mine.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of workers' co-operatives in the UK. Companies that are owned and run by the employees, as they would be in a socialist system.

However, most worker co-ops require a substantial amount of money up front to purchase part of the company. The only difference is that you can't own stock unless you work for said company. There is one in my state (a lumber company) that requires $70k to join. It is really not much different than privately issuing stock.

Unless I'm mistaking companies and their capital do those things. The moneyed class usualy isn't paying for it out of their own pockets.

The companies' capital is owned by individuals. The vast majority of wealth of the upper class is tied up in stocks and bonds.

"The rich" are an easy target. They seem to have everything their way, the road ahead is paved for them and their children, they sometimes seem to get away with murder ( O.J. Simpson, anyone? ). So why not just set an upper limit on what anyone can earn? Why not just, in effect, do away with the wealthy? Do we need them at all? Why let people accumulate all that money?

lol.. thats an easy one.. they pay 80% of our taxes.. without them, our welfare collapses, along with everything else.. And if you can become wealthy, where is the american dream then. your putting limits on ambition, on success.. what is the point of capitalism. Why work hard at all.. i can let my neighbor work hard and ill just relax a little.. thanks but no thanks.. i may not be wealthy.. but i want the option open.. maybe if YOU are too poor, too uneducated, too "repressed" .. then u should find a new country more free.. canada is up there isn't it ? Then again those who want to suceed usually come here from canada.

The companies' capital is owned by individuals. The vast majority of wealth of the upper class is tied up in stocks and bonds.
If it's stockholders your reffering to by individuals. A company who sells stocks usualy has millions of stockholders. Who's amount of stocks can vary from 10 to 10,000. (or more) The majority of stock holders can hardly be classed under "moneyed" class.

IMO...

The rich should only be allowed to stay rich, IF...

-They show that they honestly give a damn about other people that AREN'T rich.
-If said rich person owns a business, they should not earn more than 4 times the salary of the average worker. Come on, it won't kill businesses that earn billions a year to give employees a pay raise.
-They didn't get rich by screwing people out of their money
-They honestly give a damn about the enviroment


Those criteria eliminate...about 99.999999...% of the rich people on Earth.

Seriously, I wouldn't have a problem with the rich if it weren't for the fact that they DON'T CARE about anyone or anything else, unless the "anyone" is also rich, or the "anyhting" will give them more money.

Question, who are you and what gives you the power to make stipulations on who can have power and money? Do they have to be only people who agree with you? You are acting as a dictator, and are admitting to everyone that you want somethign that would appeal only to your self interest. I also enjoy the fact that you can generalize so easily, who exactly represents the rich to you, since being able to simply own a computer would make you richer than 99% of the people in most countries.

If it's stockholders your reffering to by individuals. A company who sells stocks usualy has millions of stockholders. Who's amount of stocks can vary from 10 to 10,000. (or more) The majority of stock holders can hardly be classed under "moneyed" class.
while that's true, the vast majority of actual stock is owned by large corporations or wealthy individuals

while that's true, the vast majority of actual stock is owned by large corporations or wealthy individuals
Quit true. Only view companies throw all stocks out on the market. They often hold on to at least 50.???%. To avoid a take over. But indivuals rarely own more then 5% of a the stocks.

Quit true. Only view companies throw all stocks out on the market. They often hold on to at least 50.???%. To avoid a take over. But indivuals rarely own more then 5% of a the stocks.

Yes, it's rare for a single individual to own more than 5% of a stock. It would be too risky to own that much in a single company. Issued stock held within the company is called treasury stock, and it usually is a very small amount. However, the original owner usually makes sure that he/she has a significant share.

At least half of most stocks are held by institutions, such as mutual funds.

Edit: For example, Bill Gates owns 10% of his company's stock, while investment firms hold 54%. No one besides Gates holds more than 5%.

You people make it sound like you know nothing of economics or buisness.. you would hand out pay raises like water flowing in a stream.. there such a thing as inflation... companies just do get money from no where.. if they are wasting it on human resources either

Yes, it's rare for a single individual to own more than 5% of a stock. It would be too risky to own that much in a single company. Issued stock held within the company is called treasury stock, and it usually is a very small amount. However, the original owner usually makes sure that he/she has a significant share.

At least half of most stocks are held by institutions, such as mutual funds.
Still a significant share doesn't make one "moneyed". It's very common for people to invest to beef up the retirement funds. And the revenue they make of it might seem big. But smeared out over 20 some years it's not all that big anymore.

Still a significant share doesn't make one "moneyed". It's very common for people to invest to beef up the retirement funds. And the revenue they make of it might seem big. But smeared out over 20 some years it's not all that big anymore.

What is your definition of 'moneyed' then? The fact of the matter is that the top 10% of wealth holders control most of the equity and debt (even more so). The majority of people are running around with little or no networth.

You people make it sound like you know nothing of economics or buisness.. you would hand out pay raises like water flowing in a stream.. there such a thing as inflation... companies just do get money from no where.. if they are wasting it on human resources either

And by your statement I can see you are a regular Warren Buffet.

We need the rich to pay a lot of taxes to fund society. In our system, we also need an incentive for economic activity, and getting rich is one of them.

Because without more affluent people, the products made by the working class would have no market, and suddenly the working class becomes the wishing-they-were-working class.
Agreed.

I agree that the rich are a must, if not for the rich, who would the poor people mug to get money to eat? Hehe. :D

What is your definition of 'moneyed' then?
Owning 2% or more.
The majority of people are running around with little or no networth.
And those are the ones who contribute, as a group, the lionshare of the capital. The companies issue the shares and hold on to most of them. For understandable reasons. Thereby they don't bring in new capital.

And by your statement I can see you are a regular Warren Buffet.
You understood what he was saying? :eek:

Converting to an economy other than capitalism would result in an eventual government transition to a less democratic system like communism for instance.
I'm not a communist or socialist or anything, but I don't agree that market freedom = civil freedoms. There are plenty of nations on earth with great economic freedom but average personal freedoms (USA), and there are nations with mediocre economic freedom but a lot of personal freedoms (Sweden).

Owning 2% or more.

And those are the ones who contribute, as a group, the lionshare of the capital. The companies issue the shares and hold on to most of them. For understandable reasons. Thereby they don't bring in new capital.

Owning 2% of the stock? But people spread their wealth around. I may have a few million dollars, but I'm not putting it all into one stock. Also, companies are of different sizes. If I owned .1% of microsoft, I'd be worth 300 million dollars (300 billion dollar market cap.). Or I might only purchase debt, in which case I would effectively own no part of the company.

No, the lionshare of capital is supplied by the wealthiest people. Companies issue new stock to the public whenever doing so will ultimately increase the wealth of the current stock holders. The companies don't hold most of the shares. Using microsoft again, only 13% of the stock is owned by insiders.

Edit: keep in mind that I am talking from a US perspective, where average people know nothing about saving and investing. Spend spend spend....

I'm not a communist or socialist or anything, but I don't agree that market freedom = civil freedoms. There are plenty of nations on earth with great economic freedom but average personal freedoms (USA), and there are nations with mediocre economic freedom but a lot of personal freedoms (Sweden).

Could you tell me about the lack of economic freedom in Sweden? And what are the differences in personal freedom as well? I have to admit I don't know much about their economy.

Could you tell me about the lack of economic freedom in Sweden? And what are the differences in personal freedom as well? I have to admit I don't know much about their economy.
Sweden is more socially democratic. The economy is more centralized, and tax rates are higher. Personal freedoms are kind of hard to compare, because Sweden is much more homogeneous.

Unless I'm mistaking companies and their capital do those things. The moneyed class usualy isn't paying for it out of their own pockets.
Most entreprenuers start out with their own cash, and perhaps some they borrow from friends.

Most entreprenuers start out with their own cash, and perhaps some they borrow from friends.
But entrepeneurs often don't start out as a moneyed individual do they?

lol.. thats an easy one.. they pay 80% of our taxes.. without them, our welfare collapses, along with everything else.. And if you can become wealthy, where is the american dream then. your putting limits on ambition, on success.. what is the point of capitalism. Why work hard at all.. i can let my neighbor work hard and ill just relax a little.. thanks but no thanks.. i may not be wealthy.. but i want the option open.. maybe if YOU are too poor, too uneducated, too "repressed" .. then u should find a new country more free.. canada is up there isn't it ? Then again those who want to suceed usually come here from canada.
Why are a handfull of posters on this thread assuming that I'm some sort of pinko whiner with an ax to grind? Sheesh! Wake up and smell the coffee, guys! It's a way to stimulate discussion, not a statement of my beliefs!

Sweden is more socially democratic. The economy is more centralized, and tax rates are higher. Personal freedoms are kind of hard to compare, because Sweden is much more homogeneous.

Interestingly enough, their corporate taxes are actually lower. Socially democratic? As in they all vote for measures affecting social issues?

How does homogeneity affect personal freedoms?

Why are a handfull of posters on this thread assuming that I'm some sort of pinko whiner with an ax to grind? Sheesh! Wake up and smell the coffee, guys! It's a way to stimulate discussion, not a statement of my beliefs!

Haha...they obviously don't know you very well. How's the bbq this time of year?

How does homogeneity affect personal freedoms?
Perhaps because you don't have so many special interest groups, Blacks, Jews, Indians, Latins etc........?

Perhaps because you don't have so many special interest groups, Blacks, Jews, Indians, Latins etc........?

That's what I was getting at...but I was wondering how he thought this affected personal freedoms. Does there have to be less freedom with increased diversity?

That's what I was getting at...but I was wondering how he thought this affected personal freedoms. Does there have to be less freedom with increased diversity?
I'm not sure what he means by that. So I can only guess and give my own interpretation. A homogenouse group often holds the same believes. Or at least similar ones. And conflicts about let's say wearing headscarfs or special holidays for their specific group are less likely. Something like that.

Why are a handfull of posters on this thread assuming that I'm some sort of pinko whiner with an ax to grind? Sheesh! Wake up and smell the coffee, guys! It's a way to stimulate discussion, not a statement of my beliefs!

im tired of every person who isn't rolling in the dough bitching about the wealthy. Anyone can do it.. even a highschool drop ot like Michael Dell. You have to want it, and you have to get off your ass.

People whine and complain about equality, but the first opprotunity they get they would supress and discriminate the higher class (even though they support the rest of this country ALREADY).

Of course people want to get rid of the wealthy.. they are jelous, and they know they dont want to work that hard to get ahead so its easier to drag them down to your level. I dont know about all the rich ass people you know.. but my friend who is an accountant works 18 hours a day to make his wage..

Maybe if they whinney blue colar workers stoped complaining about the outsourceing of their job which was clearly overpaid to begin with (40-50k to answer a phone ? incustomer service ?) and made themselves more compeditive my expanding their education, they wouldn't have to leech off the wealthy.

and im no rich kid either.. ill succeed or fail on my own merit, and not have to blame it on my rich boss

IMO...

The rich should only be allowed to stay rich, IF...

-They show that they honestly give a damn about other people that AREN'T rich.
-If said rich person owns a business, they should not earn more than 4 times the salary of the average worker. Come on, it won't kill businesses that earn billions a year to give employees a pay raise.
-They didn't get rich by screwing people out of their money
-They honestly give a damn about the enviroment


Those criteria eliminate...about 99.999999...% of the rich people on Earth.

Seriously, I wouldn't have a problem with the rich if it weren't for the fact that they DON'T CARE about anyone or anything else, unless the "anyone" is also rich, or the "anyhting" will give them more money.
I'm with you there. I read in the paper yesterday that the CEO of 'Fannie Mae' (the largest money lender in the US) has resigned due to wrongful accounting practises that deferred billions of $ in debt, just so executives could get their maximum performance bonuses.
I wonder how much the average workers got as a pay rise that year?
Guess what? Fannie Mae have decided to view the resignation as 'early retirement', so Raines can get $1.37million a year, $8.7mill in deferred payments, lifetime medical and dental coverage and a further 370 000 shares. His total package is estimated to be worth $30million. And how did he 'earn' that lucrative deal? By fiddling the books to get more money for himself. And he has the audacity to say that his resignation shows that he holds himself accountable.
Sadly this happens all too often.

lol.. thats an easy one.. they pay 80% of our taxes.. without them, our welfare collapses, along with everything else...
Of course, the only reason they contribute so much to the tax take is because of their high incomes.
Imposing an upper limit wouldn't make that extra money disappear. Businesses might use that freed up income to invest and create more wealth, more jobs. Which increases the tax take.
Let's say the upper limit is set at $1mill. Now a CEO working 16hr days and getting $2mill might decide that it's no longer worth their while working that hard for 1/2 the pay. So they hire someone else as a co-CEO and both of them work 8 hours for $1mill. Same total income, so tax take hasn't be affected, and better socially as you have two ppl (and thus two families) earning a very good salary and having a better life.

I agree that the rich are a must, if not for the rich, who would the poor people mug to get money to eat? Hehe. :D

Shoot. That wins the dark humor award of the week... ;)

Same total income, so tax take hasn't be affected, and better socially as you have two ppl (and thus two families) earning a very good salary and having a better life.

Hiring two people to do a one person job? That is hardly efficient. If the government decided to force me to cap my wages, I'd move out of the country and into another where a law like that doesn't exist. I know for a fact that I would hardly be the only one.

It might be better socially for a short period, but once all the people who know their skills are worth more leave to places where they can make more, the industry will eventually collapse for the lack of skilled employees. Then there are going to be much more than two people (and two families) without an income.

If everyone had the same amount of wealth, the dollar would be worthless! No, we need the rich, because otherwise the economy would collapse. I do support keeping the poor at a reasonable standard of living, though.

Is there a logical argument in there?

Planned economies work, that's why they use them in war-time, because they are needed to stop the cycle of boom and bust.

Is there a logical argument in there?

Planned economies work, that's why they use them in war-time, because they are needed to stop the cycle of boom and bust.
No, economic planning is used during wartime when you want to focus the economy on winning the war.

Is there a logical argument in there?

Planned economies work, that's why they use them in war-time, because they are needed to stop the cycle of boom and bust.

Without a cycle of boom and bust, the economy just sits. Which European countries generally have the worst off economies? The ones that were in the Soviet Bloc. Cuba? Greaaaat economy. North Korea, millions starving. China, still in horrible shape, but becoming a powerhouse when? When capitalism was more and more accepted.

oohh....wonder what it would be like if a Neuro-Surgeon made the same amount a the clerk at Block Buster? or vice versa

I mean if everyone made the same amount of money....they should make a reality show about that.

Without a cycle of boom and bust, the economy just sits. Which European countries generally have the worst off economies? The ones that were in the Soviet Bloc. Cuba? Greaaaat economy. North Korea, millions starving. China, still in horrible shape, but becoming a powerhouse when? When capitalism was more and more accepted.

Cuba has a much better economy than the nearby free-market countries such as Costa Rica. Added to the fact that Cuba only has a planned econimy because the US won't trade with them.

With the cycle of boom and bust the poor suffer and the rich recover.

Yes in wartime they have a planned economy to concentrate on winning the war but, in peace time they can concentrate other things, social welfare for example.

"The rich" are an easy target. They seem to have everything their way, the road ahead is paved for them and their children, they sometimes seem to get away with murder ( O.J. Simpson, anyone? ). So why not just set an upper limit on what anyone can earn? Why not just, in effect, do away with the wealthy? Do we need them at all? Why let people accumulate all that money?

Because certain jobs which require a great deal of hard work will be payed the same amount as jobs which don't require as much work. People won't bother to take up jobs in the former, therefore damaging the economy.

Cuba has a much better economy than the nearby free-market countries such as Costa Rica. Added to the fact that Cuba only has a planned econimy because the US won't trade with them.

With the cycle of boom and bust the poor suffer and the rich recover.

Yes in wartime they have a planned economy to concentrate on winning the war but, in peace time they can concentrate other things, social welfare for example.

I gave many examples, and Cuba was the least of them. If Castro wouldnt' have stolen American businesses, factories and homes, then we would be trading, but he would still keep an iron fist over the economy.

Because certain jobs which require a great deal of hard work will be payed the same amount as jobs which don't require as much work. People won't bother to take up jobs in the former, therefore damaging the economy.

I worked fast food for almost two years, and I can tell you that it was extremely stressful with pathetic pay. If you made a pay/effort ratio, jobs like that should be staffed by people driving BMWs.

I worked fast food for almost two years, and I can tell you that it was extremely stressful with pathetic pay. If you made a pay/effort ratio, jobs like that should be staffed by people driving BMWs.
Though you have to take in account how long and hard it is to become a doctor ... and if you are a specialist even longer.
Hurts my head thinking about it (that coming from a double major on my way to double masters)

I gave many examples, and Cuba was the least of them. If Castro wouldnt' have stolen American businesses, factories and homes, then we would be trading, but he would still keep an iron fist over the economy.


When in the hell did castro do this?

Nixon branded him as a communist when Rosevelt was in power and that started the deteriorating relations.

Because certain jobs which require a great deal of hard work will be payed the same amount as jobs which don't require as much work. People won't bother to take up jobs in the former, therefore damaging the economy.


So, you're telling me working hard in the mines is much, much harder then working business? As well, what you're telling me is that one morning someone wakes up and says "You know what, I want to make money risking my life dragging people out of fires from now until I die."

I gave many examples, and Cuba was the least of them. If Castro wouldnt' have stolen American businesses, factories and homes, then we would be trading, but he would still keep an iron fist over the economy.

No. Castro was never for planned economy when he came to power [after the US supported right-wing dictatorial regime].

How about Uganda? They fully embrace free-market principles and are consequently one of the porrest countires in the world?

Burkina Faso?

Honduras? Where only 16% of profits from the banana trade stay within the country.

Senagal? Where privatisation and increased free-trade imposed by World Bannk and the IMF increased total debt owed, doubled the cost of imports due to devaluation and caused unemployment to rise by to 44% of the population.

"The rich" are an easy target. They seem to have everything their way, the road ahead is paved for them and their children, they sometimes seem to get away with murder ( O.J. Simpson, anyone? ). So why not just set an upper limit on what anyone can earn? Why not just, in effect, do away with the wealthy? Do we need them at all? Why let people accumulate all that money?
The Soviet Union tried that. Didn't work out so well.