It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
... they earned their money.
Originally posted by Xtraeme
So what? Capitalism ensures the best businessman wins. Most of the time, the best businessman is not always the most ethical one. For example: Thomas Edison vs Nikola Tesla. The former being much less intelligent and ethical than the latter, but is much more known for his business sense and skills than the latter. That is capitalism.
I find this comment interesting. So you're saying you would prefer a less intelligent person to have more money than someone who actually originated an idea simply because they have the capacity to be more underhanded? Wouldn't we make our country "more great" if we funneled the resources to the people who invent the transformative ideas that advance our society instead of giving it to those who swindle it away?
If Albert Einstein couldn't be hired as a theoretical physicist, do you think his brilliance entitles him to a job and success? Because, that is what Nikola Tesla believed. He believes because of his genius, he should be much more successful than the less intelligent Thomas Edison. Unfortunately for him, capitalism doesn't work that way. It rewards the best businessman, and that was clearly Thomas Edison.
Do you have a problem with the free-market principles that made this country great?
Originally posted by Xtraeme
First, to determine if a person "earned their money" you have to actually observe them doing a job. Simply coming in to possession of resources doesn't mean it was earned. The mafia, for example, has plenty of money and I doubt anyone would say it was "earned."
Originally posted by XtraemeSo basically by your own logic then capitalism, as it currently exists, doesn't provide the most optimal outcome for our society. Yet you've asserted it's what makes this "country great." I think perhaps you're missing an explanatory sentence or two between these two ideas to form a complete thought. As it stands it's a non sequitur.
Originally posted by Diablos
Originally posted by dawnstarso they put their profits first, their people second....
pay them so little that their people end up running to the food stamp office so they can eat...
and then....
they gripe and complain when the gov't asks them for more money, so the slaves can be fed???
There is nothing wrong with that. If they want to have a decent lifestyle, then they should learn skills that are useful to an employer and retrain in a lucrative field. Corporations aren't forcing these people to work for them, so the fact you call them slaves just shows how much you hate the free market. Even Ron Paul would agree with this, and one of the few good things about him is he would abolish all corporate taxes.
Originally posted by Diablos
So, in the end, everyone is happy.
That's why capitalism works and is the best system mankind has ever proposed thus far.
Originally posted by Diablos
Do you realize the whole notion of "social responsibility" is communistic? Why not we make you socially responsible for your less fortunate fellow man and lets take your money to pay for their entitlements?
Originally posted by Diablos
Just another Mitt Romney hater who attacks him benefiting from the free market. The business world is a dog-eat-dog world and is cruel. Corporations don't have feelings, and if they are weak and a smart businessman (Mitt Romney) buys them out and has to make some tough decisions that is normally perceived as unethical by the left, then so be it.
I am beginning to think those who attack Romney's business style and call him a "vulture capitalist" are really just liberals who mask themselves as conservatives.
Also, there is nothing wrong with having donations from large corporations in the business world. Romney made some strong business contacts and those donations are a result of his hard work and ingenuity in the private sector.edit on 15-1-2012 by Diablos because: (no reason given)
Yet those researchers love what they do and are definitely content with their salaries. Most scientists are passionate about their field, and would work for very little if it had come down to it in order to do their work. So, in the end, everyone is happy.
Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion when multiple people have explained how capitalism can be corrupted and turned into mutant capitalism or slash and burn capitalism. You're not making a case for capitalism your making a case for an Oligarchy.
Originally posted by XtraemeIt's nice to know you speak for your entire university and all of the people who work there. Also you haven't actually addressed the point. Monetary systems don't make our "country great." The actual achievements of men like Tesla and Einstein are what transform our society. So if the reward mechanism is broken, what does that say about its ability to provide optimal results? Presupposing you'll reiterate that, "researchers love what they do and are definitely content with their salaries." Then what does that say about the value of the free-market enterprise in the first place?edit on 16-1-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jacobe001So you believe in continuing on the ME ME ME that riddles this "society" which is exactly why we find ourselves in the position we are in?
Originally posted by jacobe001Here's an idea, go live on a deserted island and you will not have to even live in a "society" then, and you can have everything to yourself.
Originally posted by Diablos
Originally posted by jacobe001So you believe in continuing on the ME ME ME that riddles this "society" which is exactly why we find ourselves in the position we are in?
What is wrong with the "ME ME ME" mindset? I only care for myself and my family, I most certainly don't want to pay for the entitlements of some other person because of "social responsibility" just like corporations don't want to lose profits because of too many employees.
Originally posted by jacobe001Here's an idea, go live on a deserted island and you will not have to even live in a "society" then, and you can have everything to yourself.
How about you move to China and Cuba? After all, the governments of the countries are based on the ideology that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Based on your posts, you would fit perfectly in such a society, comrade.
Originally posted by jacobe001Alrighty then.
We should go with the ME ME ME all the way then and disband the military.
Why should anyone fight and give their life for others?
That's socialist thinking where I am helping other's I do not even know.
Those whom have a beef with other countries should take some responsibility and go fight it themselves.
I'm not going to commit any of my family or friends to anything that would help the country militarily, economically or socially.
Right?
What is wrong with the "ME ME ME" mindset? I only care for myself and my family, I most certainly don't want to pay for the entitlements of some other person because of "social responsibility" just like corporations don't want to lose profits because of too many employees.
Is there a problem with being greedy, capitalistic, cold hearted? There is a reason why the most successful people on wall street are the most ruthless and cutthroat. Businesses have no moral obligation or social responsibility to the people, how can you not understand such a simple concept?