Sure. Wealth inequality is so rampant because most governments look after the wealthy while ignoring the poor and giving lip service to the middle class
E: gonna have to ask the dog about the second question. Much like Rocky Mountain Oysters I’ll never know because I’ll never try.
Ok, how do we solve that? More markets? Based on what you said above, that sounds like your solution.
I’m of the opinion that workers need ownership of the companies they work for instead of capitalist ownership, but that’s just me. After all, they’re the ones doing the work by definition.
“Don’t like slavery? Well start a farm picking cotten with all of your non-slaves then! Easy.” - You in pre-civil war America probably.
All well and good, but that doesn’t change how the system in of itself is exploitative (obviously less so than slavery), and we should not allow such strong private property rights. Capitalists are leeching your labor value, don’t lick their boots in the process.
What’s the alternative, the state leeching my labor value? How do the workers own the means of production if they don’t create the means of production?
Someone has to provide the capital (oooh, scary word) to start the whole enterprise. If that’s you and me coming together with a couple of computers and a grand idea or a truck and set of tools and we’re going to go repair people’s houses, the market is the best way for us to thrive.
No. You need labor and materials extracted by labor. Labor built the computers. Labor mined the minerals to make the computers. Labor built the factory that makes the computers. Labor operated the factory that makes the computers. Labor uses tools built by labor to repair people’s houses as a laborer.
The only thing a capitalist does is own that factory or building or enterprise, and pay workers less than what it generates. That’s the definition of profit.
Can you answer the question? Either one because the latter would at least be funny.
Sure. Wealth inequality is so rampant because most governments look after the wealthy while ignoring the poor and giving lip service to the middle class
E: gonna have to ask the dog about the second question. Much like Rocky Mountain Oysters I’ll never know because I’ll never try.
Ok, how do we solve that? More markets? Based on what you said above, that sounds like your solution.
I’m of the opinion that workers need ownership of the companies they work for instead of capitalist ownership, but that’s just me. After all, they’re the ones doing the work by definition.
Cool! Get together and create a company. Boom, all those people own it.
“Don’t like slavery? Well start a farm picking cotten with all of your non-slaves then! Easy.” - You in pre-civil war America probably.
All well and good, but that doesn’t change how the system in of itself is exploitative (obviously less so than slavery), and we should not allow such strong private property rights. Capitalists are leeching your labor value, don’t lick their boots in the process.
C’mon! Who owns the means?
A tiny minority of people with capital, at the expense of the wide majority of Laborers.
What’s the alternative, the state leeching my labor value? How do the workers own the means of production if they don’t create the means of production?
Someone has to provide the capital (oooh, scary word) to start the whole enterprise. If that’s you and me coming together with a couple of computers and a grand idea or a truck and set of tools and we’re going to go repair people’s houses, the market is the best way for us to thrive.
No. You need labor and materials extracted by labor. Labor built the computers. Labor mined the minerals to make the computers. Labor built the factory that makes the computers. Labor operated the factory that makes the computers. Labor uses tools built by labor to repair people’s houses as a laborer.
The only thing a capitalist does is own that factory or building or enterprise, and pay workers less than what it generates. That’s the definition of profit.