When confronted about the legitimacy and ideas of the Russell Brand video I was presented with some points about free market economy and disputed that rich people are not the source of the problem and govt intervention in wealthy corporations was a terrible idea which would lead to violence and depression. My retort was too intricate and heartfelt to simply share with the two people in the conversation, as such I am sharing it with all of you and if you find yourself to be politically minded I request that you read this to gain a greater understanding of where I stand on the political spectrum. Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you argue on the internet: But... rich people ARE the problem. They act like they are some kind of gods who need not worry about future generations, limited resources, and destruction of the only life sustaining planet we know of. Corporations DO rob the lower class of quality of life, how is that in any way untrue? When you pay your base employee a wage which puts them below the poverty line while taking multi-million dollar salaries for the CEO, CFO, CPO, COO, CTO, CMO etc. and posting multi-billion dollar profit margins it is in fact a dishonest and despicable practice which has become glossed over as normal because every corrupt businessman follows the practice. We shouldnt NEED to enforce laws like minimum wage, employee protections and the such, what ever happened to respecting ones fellow man and treating others as you would like to be treated? Your idea on corporate taxation degrading production is completely bogus with no factual basis. There is no level of reasonable taxation which is going to dent the corporate machines income or production, they are simply too powerful and massive. The actual downside to this type of heavy taxing is the risk of pushing investment into other countries, usually outside of the industrialized nations or more-so into nations with lower taxes, few to no environmental policies or labour protections. But in this age we have grown too much in terms of technology and global impact to avoid globalization, and as such should be ideally forming global policies and practices. When something performed in one non-industrial nation such as sweatshop labour, dumping of toxic materials or high carbon emission production has an impact this impact will not be limited to conventional national borders. We have come too far to ignore the fact that we are all in this together. Free market investment laws which mandate maximum profit force a company with toxic goods to dump it irresponsibly when the cost of transport to a non-protected country is lower than proper disposal fees, stating it is their obligation to the investor to take the cheapest possible route. I do not understand your point on government intervention making markets less competitive such as the pharma industry. Is it not the industry which has pushed out, stamped out or enveloped all competition and a LACK of govt intervention which has created the monopoly? Yes it is true that the principal of the free market is competition creating lower prices, variety and more accessible goods but it seems the theory on paper has not panned out in the real world (hence the ever increasing complexity and sheer shot-in-the-dark guessing nature of economics.) And we dont even really have a true free market! The very nature of taxation and redistribution of wealth in the form of health-care, social security nets, bail-outs etc. is against the capitalist free market system. We live in a mixed system which already utilizes some communist principals and what is so bad about that? Do we still live in the 50s where labeling someone a red is a legitimate way of dismissing someones ideas and opinions? What is actually so wrong about socialist and communist government/markets? With the right leadership and effective transparency laws to root out corruption are these not effective, fair practices? To finish off, where in the world did you get the idea that redistribution of wealth involves violence!? Government coercion is good. It is supposed to be in the favour of the many, rather than the few with the details being worked out by professionals and voted upon by the masses. I feel like much of the opposition presented in your argument is heavily propaganda laden and laced with the falsehoods and sedating lies of the currently corrupt and corporate influenced pay-for-education system. The whole thing reeks of broken promises propagated with the aim of maintained servitude and topped with a never mind the man behind the curtain attitude. -No sources, no videos. Just my own ideas and understandings.
Posted on: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:27:08 +0000