After Gamestonk will hedge funds now threaten U.S. solvency itself?

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,581
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
Systems evolve and many capitalist countries have evolved for the better and have shown their ability to provide freedom and opportunities for the less fortunate. That to this day autocrats in developing countries are selling out their people is on those autocrats. The environmental issues are very much linked to many politicians not taking their responsibilities, but Capitalism can coexist with regulation. It already does and more regulation and oversight won't kill it. Additionally Capitalism doesn't need "growth" in absolute terms to exist. We have just become addicted to it, but the current environmental crisis is leading to a lot of debates on that and how we can further adapt the system to be more "environmentally friendly".

In conclusion: There are existing capitalist countries which are much better than communist countries have ever been. One ideology has failed the other has shown itself as being the least bad one and is continuously evolving and adapting. Feel free to propose a system better than Capitalism, but it most certainly isn't Communism.
So the governments and corporations that take advantage of it bear no responsibility? Who cares if Prince Andrew fucked a few kids, it's Epstein's fault for actually doing the human trafficking.

And nobody is arguing that capitalism hasn't given a considerable number of people a comfortable life. The issue lies in the fact that it is facilitated by making it worse for an objectively greater number of people and cannot work without that exploitation. And you can say that it is "on the autocrats" but no it's also on the people perfectly willing to take advantage of that exploitation and think that their hands are completely clean of it all. Also, and here's a big one, it's literally going to destroy the planet. Like that automatically makes it not the "least bad option" because any of the problems you can think of with any other system are not as bad as none of us get to live on earth anymore.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
So the governments and corporations that take advantage of it bear no responsibility? Who cares if Prince Andrew fucked a few kids, it's Epstein's fault for actually doing the human trafficking.
I don't see the relation between a Royalty committing a crime and Capitalism?! Fucking kids is a crime.
And I never said governments and corporations bare no responsibility. They do. And that's why scandals appear, sometimes justice is served, laws are changed and usually things evolve for the better. I won't disagree the system is not perfect (at all) but it remains the least bad one.

And nobody is arguing that capitalism hasn't given a considerable number of people a comfortable life. The issue lies in the fact that it is facilitated by making it worse for an objectively greater number of people and cannot work without that exploitation. And you can say that it is "on the autocrats" but no it's also on the people perfectly willing to take advantage of that exploitation and think that their hands are completely clean of it all. Also, and here's a big one, it's literally going to destroy the planet. Like that automatically makes it not the "least bad option" because any of the problems you can think of with any other system are not as bad as none of us get to live on earth anymore.
It would likely take a cosmic event for the planet to be literally destroyed. Climate change doesn't destroy the planet, nor does the vaste amount of plastic waste. It's changing it for the worse but "literally destroying" is wrong. Figuratively yes.
And what makes you think Communism would have performed better? It's not like the USSR had a good environmental track record. Nor did China. Vietnam doesn't have a particular outstanding environmental track record either. Unless you're advocating for generalised sanctions and (extreme) poverty communism isn't any cleaner than Capitalism (unless it has been forced to through sheer lack of development opportunities).
I would argue you're even less likely to reach environmental improvements under these systems which are notorious for cracking down on criticism and opposition. At least we have the right to speak out and spread the message in order to push for change.

As for exploitation, Capitalism doesn't require the type of exploitation which occurs in many developing countries. It makes it more profitable, but no rule dictates that Capitalism requires people being able to buy more than they need and shareholders/top managers to earn millions/billions. And so this is on the local autocrats to change their rules. We will adapt. Just like we adapted to improving working conditions in our nations.

But again, feel free to propose a better system. But communism is not that system.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Only one answer should make sense. The Ideology which spawned Mao, the USSR, Hoxha, Castro, DPRK, Khmer Rouge,... or the one which has given us modern day France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark,.... ?
....Franco, Salazar, Galtieri, Batista, Noriega, the Contras, Pinochet, P. W. Botha, Ian Smith, the East India Trading Company...
 
Last edited:

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
....Franco, Salazar, Galtieri, Batista, Noriega, the Contras, Pinochet, P. W. Botha, Ian Smith, the East India Trading Company...
I know you think you made a point but you didn't. There are shitty capitalist countries, yes. But all communist countries are/have been shitty. See the difference? One has shown that it can work, the other has been a complete and utter failure.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
I know you think you made a point but you didn't. There are shitty capitalist countries, yes. But all communist countries are/have been shitty. See the difference? One has shown that it can work, the other has been a complete and utter failure.
Well, to start with, half of what you listed as examples were state-capitalist countries.

Secondly, I notice that those you listed which have shown they can work are... heavily regulated social democracies. I agree that capitalism can work if you heavily regulate it and don't let it dominate public utilities/ services (though it'll still be subject to cyclical crashes).

Thirdly, why d'you think I chose the examples I did? It's not just because they're brutal corporatists and failed free-marketeers (though that's certainly what they are). Its also because they existed with the financial / political support of other, ostensibly more "moderate" capitalist countries overseas, primarily in Europe and the US. So even half of these successful, moderate capitalist countries have acted as patron or paymaster for murderous despots overseas.

Edit: Also.... what were the examples you gave of successful modern capitalism, again? France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark-- Might there be another reason these European powers have been able to have a comfortable financial experience in the recent modern era? I notice they all held colonial territories, and derived income from overseas subjects who didn't experience the same benefits of that success.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
Well, to start with, half of what you listed as examples were state-capitalist countries.
Not my fault even communists can't keep their communist system communist and evolve to something more state-capitalistic. However Mao's China wasn't, the DPRK isn't, the USSR wasn't, Hoxha's Albania wasn't.

Secondly, I notice that those you listed which have shown they can work are... heavily regulated social democracies. I agree that capitalism can work if you heavily regulate it and don't let it dominate public utilities/ services (though it'll still be subject to cyclical crashes).
Have I ever said I was in favor of laissez-faire Capitalism? I am very much a proponent of the Social Liberal variant of Capitalism. (there is a reason why I choose these particular examples) I am however very much against any variant of Communism which always leads to: " The government continues to restrict all basic civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and the rights to freely practice beliefs and religion. It prohibits the formation and operation of any organization or group deemed threatening to the Communist Party’s monopoly of power. " And this is what Human Rights watch has to say about today's Vietnam.

Thirdly, why d'you think I chose the examples I did? It's not just because they're brutal corporatists and failed free-marketeers (though that's certainly what they are). Its also because they existed with the financial / political support of other, ostensibly more "moderate" capitalist countries overseas, primarily in Europe and the US. So even half of these successful, moderate capitalist countries have acted as patron or paymaster for murderous despots overseas.
I have never said Capitalist countries have been perfect. The past mistakes are huge and even today big mistakes are made. But at least our systems are being more than correct to their nationals. Communist countries couldn't even treat their own population correctly.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Not my fault even communists can't keep their communist system communist and evolve to something more state-capitalistic. However Mao's China wasn't, the DPRK isn't, the USSR wasn't, Hoxha's Albania wasn't.
Its your fault if you conflate state capitalism with communism, or use non-communist countries as examples of Communism failing, though.


Have I ever said I was in favor of laissez-faire Capitalism? I am very much a proponent of the Social Liberal variant of Capitalism. (there is a reason why I choose these particular examples) I am however very much against any variant of Communism which always leads to: " The government continues to restrict all basic civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and the rights to freely practice beliefs and religion. It prohibits the formation and operation of any organization or group deemed threatening to the Communist Party’s monopoly of power. " And this is what Human Rights watch has to say about today's Vietnam.
OK. I'm not a communist, so I think this bit is a bit misdirected.


I have never said Capitalist countries have been perfect. The past mistakes are huge and even today big mistakes are made. But at least our systems are being more than correct to their nationals. Communist countries couldn't even treat their own population correctly.
Are they? I'm seeing rampant poverty, starvation, modern slavery flourishing, a handful of individuals owning more money than 50 of the world's population combined, an international arms market, invasions and wars waged for financial/ economic reasons, an energy crisis, and unrestricted greed hampering the global response to a potential human extinction event in the form of climate change.

Our population is treated like absolute shit, unless you're well off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted20220709

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
Its your fault if you conflate state capitalism with communism, or use non-communist countries as examples of Communism failing, though.
OK. I'm not a communist, so I think this bit is a bit misdirected.
I have mentioned only examples of Communist attempts. Check the post history.
Mao's China? Check. USSR? Check. Hoxha? Check. Castro? Check. Khmer Rouge? Were communists, so check. DPRK ? Check. Vietnam was mentioned by others but it did indeed start as a communist revolution. That it has now adopted a state capitalistic system doesn't change the fact it was an oppressive commie regime. It has kept its oppressive nature but tweaked its economic system to make it more viable. All these examples show that everytime Communism has been attempted it has lead to oppression.

If you are not a communist why are you arguing against someone who is merely pointing out capitalism can be less bad than communism has always been?

Are they? I'm seeing rampant poverty, starvation, modern slavery flourishing,
Which France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, ... do you know I do not know? Stick to the point. I have never argued all capitalist countries are X or Y. I have argued capitalism has at least lead to some success stories unlike Communism which failed every single time.

a handful of individuals owning more money than 50 of the world's population combined, an international arms market, invasions and wars waged for financial/ economic reasons, an energy crisis, and unrestricted greed hampering the global response to a potential human extinction event in the form of climate change.

Our population is treated like absolute shit, unless you're well off.
- There are still plenty of improvements to be done on the foreign policy aspect. And huge mistakes have been made in the past and they are still likely to occur in the future. But this also occurred with communist leaders. Ok, Hoxha was more interested in building a ludicrous wall of bunkers to prevent any meddling in his affairs than meddling into other's affairs. But the USSR also had fun funding and arming militias and starting bloody wars. China and Vietnam had their own little war. North Korea invaded south Korea. In the end wars are waged when a leader feels it's in their interest and they can. The fact most countries are capitalist makes it de-facto more likely for them to be invaders.

- The fact a handfull of ultra rich own more than half of the planet is not something that can be attributed to specific countries (and thus specific variants of Capitalism) now can it? Firstly because most of these handful of people do not live in the countries I mentioned and secondly because this is also a consequence of leaders of developing countries not taking their responsibilities towards their population.

- Unrestricted greed is not the only source of climate change and is again not something that can be entirely attributed to specific countries. And finally, as mentioned before, it's not like communist countries have a great environmental track record either. Unless you consider the consequences of massive sanctions on countries like Cuba or the DPRK which has massively hampered their ability to expand their economies/industries a consequence of Communism.

So again, in conclusion, I never said Capitalism is perfect, I never said I support all capitalist systems, I however believe that Capitalism has shown it can be the least bad system. This was demonstrated by a selection of examples where capitalism is at the basis of a system which provides reasonable care and freedom to all their inhabitants. This doesn't mean all capitalist countries are doing well, this doesn't mean things shouldn't change even where things are relatively good, this doesn't mean another better system cannot exist. But this means Communism surely isn't that better system. If you want to argue that point feel free.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
Have I ever said I was in favor of laissez-faire Capitalism? I am very much a proponent of the Social Liberal variant of Capitalism. (there is a reason why I choose these particular examples) I am however very much against any variant of Communism which always leads to: " The government continues to restrict all basic civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and the rights to freely practice beliefs and religion. It prohibits the formation and operation of any organization or group deemed threatening to the Communist Party’s monopoly of power. " And this is what Human Rights watch has to say about today's Vietnam.
Hey, while you're at it, you should check how many countries on your list ban specific religious attire or have banned political parties or advocacy groups for being threatening, going so far as deploying fully sanctioned state violence against protests in the last...forever?

On top of that, you're imposing a capitalist/communist dichotomy over a market economy/planned economy divide, which is just inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
It's somewhat telling that every defense of capitalism comes down to "its bad but it's the least bad system and there could be better but don't you dare suggest a whiff of what I think is communism"
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
It's somewhat telling that every defense of capitalism comes down to "its bad but it's the least bad system and there could be better but don't you dare suggest a whiff of what I think is communism"
What that should tell you is that people keep suggesting communism. It's like "gosh fellas, your capitalist system doesn't seem to magically lead to absolute equality among peoples. Guess all there is to do now is dissolve all nations, abolish private ownership, and rewrite society entirely from the ground up, with or without the consent of those within that society."
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
What that should tell you is that people keep suggesting communism. It's like "gosh fellas, your capitalist system doesn't seem to magically lead to absolute equality among peoples. Guess all there is to do now is dissolve all nations, abolish private ownership, and rewrite society entirely from the ground up, with or without the consent of those within that society."
When your country's economy would absolutely shit the bed if they weren't allowed to pay foreigners pennies on the dollar for labor, you don't get to act smug.
There's a fucking reason the CIA needs to keep putting down leftwing populist movements in the global south, and considering we always back right-wing autocrats over democratically elected governments, that reason sure as fuck isn't "freedom"
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
I have mentioned only examples of Communist attempts. Check the post history.
Mao's China? Check. USSR? Check. Hoxha? Check. Castro? Check. Khmer Rouge? Were communists, so check. DPRK ? Check. Vietnam was mentioned by others but it did indeed start as a communist revolution. That it has now adopted a state capitalistic system doesn't change the fact it was an oppressive commie regime. It has kept its oppressive nature but tweaked its economic system to make it more viable. All these examples show that everytime Communism has been attempted it has lead to oppression.

If you are not a communist why are you arguing against someone who is merely pointing out capitalism can be less bad than communism has always been?
Because you seemed to be portraying capitalism as a success story. I want people to remember that for vast swathes of the global population, its been either a qualified failure or a driving force of their exploitation.


Which France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, ... do you know I do not know? Stick to the point. I have never argued all capitalist countries are X or Y. I have argued capitalism has at least lead to some success stories unlike Communism which failed every single time.
The France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark which held colonial land overseas, feature a fair amount of poverty and economic inequality, and were riven by cyclical financial crashes over the last few decades.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
When your country's economy would absolutely shit the bed if they weren't allowed to pay foreigners pennies on the dollar for labor, you don't get to act smug.
There's a fucking reason the CIA needs to keep putting down leftwing populist movements in the global south, and considering we always back right-wing autocrats over democratically elected governments, that reason sure as fuck isn't "freedom"
Setting aside the level of conspiracy theorist you're being, I still respond "oh no, without international trade, people here would pay more for iphones, in this country that's self-sufficient in food and energy. What a horrible thing that would be!"
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
Hey, while you're at it, you should check how many countries on your list ban specific religious attire or have banned political parties or advocacy groups for being threatening, going so far as deploying fully sanctioned state violence against protests in the last...forever?

On top of that, you're imposing a capitalist/communist dichotomy over a market economy/planned economy divide, which is just inaccurate.
There is a difference between banning very specific attires linked to violent and hateful ideologies and basically banning any and all opposition. And off course violent protests should face state violence. What kind of nonsense is it to suggest a free country should mean people are free to get their homes and stores vandalized by thugs? You are however free to protest peacefully. You see even in the US you are allowed to heavily critique the system, in a communist regime a lot of people here would have already been sent to prison or at least gotten the visit from police officers for what they have said on this forum. Trying to equate these two levels of "oppressions" is just silly.

I am all ears for people suggesting comprehensive economic systems other than these two.
Anarchy is just pure fantasy in our large and complex societies, it should stay where it belongs: in comics like the smurfs.
Sometimes Socialism is suggested. But unfortunately nobody knows what that even means anymore. Are we talking about the capitalism based Social Liberalism like in Northern European countries? Or the type of Socialism which is basically a synonym for Communism?

Do mind I however didn't impose a market economy/planned economy divide. A social liberal capitalist economy is essentially a mix of both but it is a variant of capitalism. Even the USA has a partly planned economy.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
Your attempt to make economics "basic" is the problem. Wealth is both created and destroyed. It is a fiction. You can't write it as basic arithmetic and find conclusions that even make sense. Like, I'll give you the laziest counterpoint in the world: you say that if someone makes a company and hires people and the value of the company goes up, the owner took that value from the workers. What if the value of the company goes down? What if the owner loses money? Did the workers steal that value? Did somebody steal that value? Or is your "basic numeracy" basically nonsense?
Why did the value of the company go down or why did the owner lose money in your hypothetical?

Those are questions you must ask to get at what is actually going on. For example, a worker could generate lots of produce but the company might not put enough effort into (which is to say hiring other people to perform the related and necessary task of) actually selling it and so it sits in an inventory somewhere and spoils or the loans that were to be paid after its sale default. The value produced by the worker isn't realized to the capitalist in that case, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether the worker created value in excess of their pay; the value was squandered by the business.

Or the company could be perfectly profitable, but then the owner decides to sell off a bunch of assets and pay the CEO (perhaps himself) a bunch of money while laying off a bunch of workers and cutting production by 90%. The value of the company's stock will have gone down (presumably-- this isn't necessarily the case, but assuming a bare minimum of market rationality it will be), but you can scarcely say that the workers are any less exploited than in a profitable enterprise that hasn't been gutted in the same way.

The workers are responsible for producing the product that is sold by the company whether the company is profitable or not. The owners are not responsible for producing the product that is sold by the company whether the company is profitable or not. If the workers in aggregate are overpaid with respect to what they produce and sell, we don't regard that as workers stealing from the owner because owners are the ones in a position to set terms. Owners are the ones who can simply not continue or not start in the first place, restructure the business and so on. Granted, some businesses are so small that an owner straddles the line between employer and employee such that they can feel trapped into continuing once they've started, and this can be compounded if the assets of their business become too entangled with the assets they use to live (as, say, someone who works as a hair stylist out of their own house). This is why most people who don't have money to begin with are well advised not to start a business.

The reason profitable ventures are the archetypal case that we should analyze is that unprofitable capitalist ventures do not reproduce themselves. Profitable ones do. So, despite shockingly high rates of business failure in capitalist societies, what dominates the structure of our economy are the successful businesses that profit. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have an accounting profit, as they might avoid positive cash flow by reinvesting all profit into expanding production. But it does mean they have disposable income, that the cost of the resources necessary to make the product (including labor) are less than the amount they receive for selling the product. If a business cannot achieve that in the foreseeable future, then it is well advised to restructure so that it can, or if that is impossible, to simply stop all operation (and not "throw good money after bad").

This sort of analysis can be even more micro, of course: any individual employee ought to enable a business to make more money than it could without that employee, else that employee should be fired (if maximizing profit is the only concern, anyway; it isn't always).

The analysis can also be more gross. Take, for example, the slave plantation operating in a market economy: what if the plantation has to spend more on maintaining its slaves than the slaves produce for it? Do we then say that the slaves are stealing from the master? No, we say that some people are about to be sold or brutalized (or both). Because power relations are relevant. The master is the one setting terms and the one in a position to restructure (which is to say sell slaves, feed them less, whip them harder, choose a different crop, and so on) or decide to simply fold the enterprise and sell off the land. This dynamic didn't disappear in the transition to capitalism, it was simply transferred to a contract by which workers, instead of being sold or whipped harder would be fired or paid less in cases where their produce is regarded as not enough to justify their compensation.

So anyway, what was the objection? You asked some questions and vaguely asserted that they raised some kind of problem, but it's really not apparent how. Just because the analysis of successful firms requires only basic numeracy doesn't mean that there are not answers for questions about unsuccessful firms.

I'll boil it down: Jeff Bezos can sell Amazon for whatever multiple of a hundred billion dollars, and the workers are responsible for creating the company that people think is worth that much. Jeff Bezos can decide to sell or not; the workers cannot. Why is the company worth so much? Precisely because people think that the value produced by its workers for its owners far exceeds the amount paid to its workers. It could scarcely be otherwise unless Jeff Bezos had literally invested 100s of billions into the company in the first place, or he bought the actual Amazon River and discovered a huge deposit of copper or something worth that much afterward, neither of which is the case. If you want to say that a lot of the value of Amazon is based on monopolization, I'd be inclined to agree, but that monopolization would be impossible without, you guessed it, the workers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
571
305
68
Because you seemed to be portraying capitalism as a success story. I want people to remember that for vast swathes of the global population, its been either a qualified failure or a driving force of their exploitation.
Depends, insofar it has shown it can yield better results than other alternatives which have been tested: Yes it is a success story.
But on absolute terms, no it is not a success story. It's work in progress. While many countries have managed to correct many flaws there are still many left to be corrected.

The France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark which held colonial land overseas, feature a fair amount of poverty and economic inequality, and were riven by cyclical financial crashes over the last few decades.
"Held" being the key word.
Economic inequality isn't bad in itself. And poverty really needs to be considered in relative terms. When you are able to afford food, shelter, medicine and education you are richer than most humans have ever been in the history of our species. So yes there is "poverty" as it is currently defined, but the vast majority of the poor still have all their basic human needs met in these countries. And that's a pretty damn good achievement if you ask me.

Does that mean things are perfect? off course not. I don't like the idea of having people owning more than they could ever dream of spending over 10 generations while others can barely meet basic human needs any more than you. Just like I don't like the idea of companies making profits with products made by laborers working in horrible conditions. And I also don't like how many companies get away with polluting our world without having to pay a penny for the externalities they are causing. But it's work in progress, we will get there; if the people wills it.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
Directly it doesn't, indirectly it should. If Hedge Funds pump half a billion worth of bonds into the market through short selling that's half a billion worth of bonds the market will not want to buy when the government tries to issue bonds. This would drive the required yield upwards and increase the governments cost of debt and thus deficit. However the impact of that is likely to be minimal.
Maybe, but I want to know the specifics that would make the impact as severe as stroopwafel claims to be. I'm already skipping the insinuation that the he hedge funds alone increased the efficiency from 0,9 to 1,6% in just four months (let's not forget the bonds plummeted at the start of the pandemy)
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
I'm not seeing that. I think you're unintentionally confusing an issue of principle with a matter of scale.

For argument's sake, let's imagine a hypothetical company in which a lower-level employee on the production floor earns 10, and their manager earns 100. I do not believe that the manager puts in 10x as much work as each individual employee (and nor do I believe that their input is 10x as responsible for the company's performance), so I'm objecting to the principle that their wage should be 10x higher.

Shift a year later, and the company is performing very well, selling lots of what-have-yous. Their revenue has doubled. Now, if wages rose in line with that performance, we end up with the employee earning 20, and the manager earning 200.

The gap between them was 90 last year; now it's 180. Seanchaidh's contention is that since the growth of the company relied on the company's output, which he believes is more down to the employee than the manager, then the increase in the scale of that differential represents a larger "theft".

But it is only the scale that has shifted. The principle which underpins the objection-- that the manager should not be paid 10x more than the employee-- is unchanged. That is the core of the issue. Scale has magnified it; resulted in a larger numerical discrepancy. That's all. The principle is the same.

@Seanchaidh, feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.
Seems fine at a glance
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
If the workers in aggregate are overpaid with respect to what they produce and sell, we don't regard that as workers stealing from the owner because owners are the ones in a position to set terms.
When you say "we", you mean "you". You don't regard that as theft, because it's important that you always cast ownership as evil. If a business is successful, the owners are thieves to you. If unsuccesful, the owners are incompetents to you. And everyone else in the whole world is entirely without agency, so who cares about them, because they are seemingly incapable of doing wrong.
Seems fine at a glance
Don't lie to Silvanus. You and I both know you don't believe it's a problem of scale. If every worker got $100,000, and the owner got $5, you'd still consider that $5 as stolen and you know it.