When did I ever say anything like that? C’mon try responding to what I actually say rather than make up a bunch of stuff and accuse me of saying it.
Look; of all of the capitalist Countries, none of them are 100% capitalist without restrictions, and they all have a faction of socialism within them; schools, police departments, etc. Capitalist countries allow socialism when necessary, but socialist countries don’t allow capitalism when needed.
So, you think greed is not a proper motive for commercial enterprise because the government has to keep stepping in to mitigate the damage it does to the general population? Well, until the capitalists can amass enough wealth and power to corrupt the government and render it ineffective at curtailing their greed. Which is it? Make up your mind, and please clarify?
I understand that people will be greedy. Some more than others. What I don't understand is why we allow our economic system to be completely controlled by the greed of capital investors. And I say greed because that's what motivates capital investment ... greed. Capitalists are people with more wealth than they need to live on that are using the excess to capture even more wealth, still. And when you give them complete control of commercial enterprise, they will use that control to maximize the return they are gaining on their investment capital, EVERY TIME. Because that's why they are investing it. Every decision they make regarding that commercial enterprise will be based on that goal. And everything and everyone that detracts from that goal will be viewed as an enemy to their cause. Which is pretty much everyone else involved in the commercial enterprise: vendors, labor, consumers, resources, community, and environmental responsibility. All impediments to the maximization of profit, and all therefor factors to be subjugated and exploited for their maximum gain.
And all this contention then requires the government to constantly reign it in, to protect everyone else involved in commercial enterprise. Which is an enormous task that will often fail, or get neglected. Especially when the capitalists are constantly seeking ways of undermining those governmental efforts, and they have massive amounts of wealth with which to do so.
According to my standard, if you are responsible for the creation of (example) a $billion worth of wealth, and you create it in a way that allows you to keep 10% of it for yourself allowing the rest to be distributed to everyone else, I find that perfectly acceptable. So explain why you consider such a scenario to be a bad thing.
No individual creates that kind of wealth. We all do it, together. But because the investor is being given total control over the wealth producing enterprise through the myth of 'ownership' people like you think they did it all by themselves. Like some economic demigod. So they should be able to claim all the profits for themselves. But no single human creates any significant wealth on his own. It requires the systemic cooperation of many people, ALL OF WHOM should then be sharing in the wealth benefit being generated. But they aren't. Because as much of it as possible is always going to the capital investors. And every decision they make is intended to ensure and maintain that result. It's exactly why they pay their CEOs 1,500 times more than the people that actually produce the wealth. They do it to ensure that as much of the increased wealth generated as possible continues to go to them.
Suppose they didn’t earn a share of the nations, or even the world’s wealth, but they created wealth where it previously didn’t exist! Would you be okay with them creating wealth and keeping a small percentage of it for themselves? Or would you rather they do not create any wealth resulting in them, the nation, and the world having less wealth because of it.
Excess wealth is useless if it's not being invested. We have no reason to presume that people with excess wealth will not invest it even if we don't give them total control over the commercial enterprise they've invested in. Also, investing in commercial enterprise is not "creating wealth". It does not make the investor some sort of commercial creator-god. If the enterprise generates wealth, it's because everyone involved in it enabled it to do so. And because everyone involved in it will be effected by how it's conducted, everyone involved in it should be given a share of control over how it's being conducted, and afforded a share of the wealth it generates. Not by their having to fight with the investors, and with each other for the scraps the investors leave unclaimed. This constant battle for economic survival and for greed is stupid, wasteful, unjust, and unnecessary.
But sharing the control and the wealth being generated is called socialism. Not capitalism. And the capitalists will fight any inclination in that direction tooth and nail. Because they are greedy, and they want ALL the generated wealth for themselves. And the more we allow them to get it, the more unstable our whole system becomes, until it will finally and inevitably collapse. Because there is no other possible result. Haven't you even played the Monopoly Game? Teaching this lesson is why that game was created. Unfortunately, we still have not learned the lesson. And we're running out of time.
