<< It's a logical argument that's made. How does the argument suddenly become a proposal to become socialist?
The inequities in the system are obvious. Just because something can be improved upon doesn't have to lead to a black / white or win lose decision. Not liking inequalities that hurt the society doesn't automatically mean that you have to scrap the whole thing and go to Socialism... False argument and red herring.
How does propping up a bankrupt and inefficient corporation help America?
How are huge bonuses and golden parachutes paid to executives of FAILING and money losing companies justified?
>>
Well, the argument behind bailing out corporation is whether or not the consumers would be hurt by a company going out of business. If the airline companies go out of business, wouldn't the travel options of consumers be impacted significantly?
And about the executives, I don't mind that they are offered huge bonuses and etc because companies often need to do that to attract top executives. When a company losses money, it is not always the fault of the executive. However, the higher up are usually the ones who resign or are fired first because companies see it as the simple solution. I.e. if a professonal team is losing, firing the coach is easier than trading away all the players, even though it many cases, it is not the coach's fault. I don't mind the obsence amounts of money that executives make as long as the wealth is obtained within the bounds of the law. The Enron execs that dumped stock while preventing employees from selling the stock, that I definitely do not support.
<<
Oh yea, really logical... Let's see... regular Joe screws up ... gets fired. Exec screws up.. .gets golden handshake and gets to move on.
Yup... if thats what made America great.. I have been completely deluded.
>>
Well, if a regular Joe screws up, it's pretty easy to replace him. That's why he is called a regular Joe. Just about anyone could do his job. I think being an executive is a little bit tougher. You can't just one day decide, hmm ... I think i'll apply to be the CEO of some major corporation. On the other hand, most people could simply decide to be a clerk at staples and the store would gladly hire them.
<<
The argument about people taking risks etc could easily be turned around with the argument that the strong survive and the weak don't.. so whoever can take whatever they want by force shoud do it. That would promote anarchy and the criminals would be quite wealthy.
[\q]
Wealth should be achieved within the bounds of the law. There is no law saying that everyone has to be equally ambitious. There is no law that says everyone must have equal intellgience. However, possession is 9/10 of the law, and taking what one has no legal rights to, is NOT within the bounds of the law.
<<
Unfortunately most people who rant on about socialism and leaving the country seem to forget that America was founded by people who wanted to live in a society with more EQUITY and less of a class/caste/social division structure.
[\q]
You are right, the founders of this country did not like the division of the aristocracy and the common people. However, I believe their intentions was to provide everyone the OPPURTUNITY to succeed if they so wished. Hence the term, the land of oppurtunity. What people do with that oppurtunity is way beyond the reach of the government. There is no RIGID class/caste/social division in this country. Plenty of poor people have become affluent through hard work and ambition. Our laws and our government does not PREVENT anyone from moving up the ladder. Of course, no one said life was fair. People are not born into equally wealthy families. But that fact also pushes people to work hard to ensure that their offspring enjoy a better life than they. In the end, the "success" of capitalism is due to that fact that people who have an incentive to produce, produce more. Removing or moderating that incentive would have many unwanted consequences.