Goldman Sachs and Burger King

[Ráth Cúil]

The "moral" side being the one that wants to steal property from others.

You never answered; what the f*ck does someone need with that much money? ?

And anyway in a system that would see such immorality decease these people wouldn't aquire "their" property in the first place. So in effect nothing would need to be stolen.

[20000miles]

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all Human Rights"

The workers will always be exploited. If not in one form then in an other.

Workers aren't expoited (the existence of profit, or the fact that factor costs are less than output doesn't make it so).

Also, you've misquoted Lord Keynes.

[20000miles]

You never answered; what the f*ck does someone need with that much money? ?

And anyway in a system that would see such immorality decease these people wouldn't aquire "their" property in the first place. So in effect nothing would need to be stolen.

Savings and investment - stuff that benefits everyone.

It's true that an additional amount of money for a rich person might not matter very much to him, but you can't make the leap of assuming that stealing it and giving it to a poor person would lead to overall improvement.

See Happiness Economics butchers Marginal Utility Theory .

[liamfoley]

You never answered; what the f*ck does someone need with that much money? ?

And anyway in a system that would see such immorality decease these people wouldn't aquire "their" property in the first place. So in effect nothing would need to be stolen.

Regarding your first point, many entrepreneurs put their money back into their business, expanding and creating new jobs. As for your second point … well I am not exactly sure I know what you are trying to say. Are you saying that in the perfect situation people would not be allowed make so much money? What do you propose? Crush entrepreneurs? That would be great for the country.

[Bobert]

He doesn't believe in property rights. And as I've said to several people who tell me that, "Give me your shoes."

[Ráth Cúil]

Workers aren't expoited (the existence of profit, or the fact that factor costs are less than output doesn't make it so).

Also, you've misquoted Lord Keynes.

John Maynard Keynes: Capitalism and the “Nastiest/Wickedest of Men” | Steve Cotler's Irrepressibly True Tales
Who cares you get my drift.

How can the simple existence of profit safeguard against expoilation?

Often the worker is given far less compensation than is the equivalent of the work he has done.

[20000miles]

How can the simple existence of profit safeguard against expoilation?

It doesn't but....

Often the worker is given far less compensation than is the equivalent of the work he has done.

Like I said, this doesn't immediately indicate exploitation.

[Ráth Cúil]

Regarding your first point, many entrepreneurs put their money back into their business, expanding and creating new jobs. As for your second point … well I am not exactly sure I know what you are trying to say. Are you saying that in the perfect situation people would not be allowed make so much money? What do you propose? Crush entrepreneurs? That would be great for the country.

Ah yes the Trickle down theory.. how has that worked out in the past? Maybe you can ask Maggie Thatcher and Reagan, two of the most reviled characters on the face of the earth.

Also, what about people who have that sort of money who aren't entrepreneurs? I have't seen Ronaldo investing any of his new found wealth in companies so as to create jobs. . same goes for Lady Ga Ga

Never mind what I propose, I'm no economic theorist, but yes in an ideal situation obscene wealth would be non-existant

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Ah yes the Trickle down theory.. how has that worked out in the past? Maybe you can ask Maggie Thatcher and Reagan, two of the most reviled characters on the face of the earth.

Also, what about people who have that sort of money who aren't entrepreneurs? I have't seen Ronaldo investing any of his new found wealth in companies so as to create jobs. . same goes for Lady Ga Ga

Never mind what I propose, I'm no economic theorist, but yes in an ideal situation obscene wealth would be non-existant

You make a valid point there. Neo Liberalism is poison. Wealth is non existant. Small businesses are being wiped off the face of the Earth as this fascist form of State Corporate Fused monster takes control.

However there was a time before that peasants, working class, merchants and the middle class united in full force and overthrew the establishment. They were known as the Third Estate and they lived in France in 1789.

And by God I would love to see Guillotines in front of Leinster House, St Stephens Green and the IFSC.

[liamfoley]

You make a valid point there. Neo Liberalism is poison. Wealth is non existant. Small businesses are being wiped off the face of the Earth as this fascist form of State Corporate Fused monster takes control.
However there was a time before that peasants, working class, merchants and the middle class united in full force and overthrew the establishment. They were known as the Third Estate and they lived in France in 1789.
And by God I would love to see Guillotines in front of Leinster House, St Stephens Green and the IFSC.

Your solution is a bloody revolution?

In the month of July, 1789, (the period of everlasting commemoration) the finances of the city of Paris were yet in good order; the expenditure was counterbalanced by the receipt; and she had at that time a million (forty thousand pounds sterling) in bank.

The expenses which she has been constrained to incur, subsequent to the Revolution, amount to 2,500,000 livres. From these expenses, and the great falling off in the product of the free gifts, not only a momentary, but a total, want of money has taken place.