|
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I realize that it makes sense that they're just incompetent. My first thought was "Reaganomics strikes again". But the truth is that there was something nefarious about the inevitable outcome of freeing up the market and drastically reducing regulation. Considering how rich some people can get off the lack of regulation via less than ethical business practices, is it really so unbelievable that this kind of thing could be intentional?
Yes, but GM is just one massive failure among many. Asset ownership is bunched at the very top of income distribution, certainly you can't argue that's not the case.
I know you're a free market capitalist, but surly you can see where there could be a problem with having a small group of individuals owning most of the wealth to an overall society.
|
Looking at other countries as a lead in business and wealth distribution, I don't see anything wrong. People can invest in their wealth, or they can buy adidas, escalades, and HDTVs. No, most people aren't interested in building wealth. Consumerism shows that. Savings accounts show that.
It's not the case, many pension funds are the largest owners of assets, that's why they have huge worries when shareholders decide to change where and how they invest. These funds are held by teachers, factory workers, building supervisors, doormen, actors, and other union members.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
|