Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:can't argue with any of those points. the problem is, you are bringing "morals" into the picture.
this country runs on the free enterprise system of capitalism.
do some people get hurt? you bet! Does that suck? you bet!
Can the free enterprise system crash? Just did!
I suppose the question would be "why did it crash?". Depending on which side you listen to, you will hear that either companies took advantage of the freedom or that the government over-regulated. Now, there seems to be a bit on an inconsistency with the latter reason since the same people are saying that government can't actually so anything right. So the government is hopelessly incompetent, but also intelligent enough to cause widespread system instability that went unnoticed (at least in the mainstream) for years. From my perspective, there is little or no regulation in a vast number of areas; the Bernard Madoff case demonstrates this very nicely. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog...
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:however, just like has been said about our form of government, "it aint perfect but it is better than anything else out there".
If you're referring to the Winston Churchill quote, then he also said "the best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" and "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else".
In any case, I'm obviously a fan of both Democracy and Capitalism, but Capitalism doesn't mean "anarchy" either. As I said above, there are problems that are created by the free market that are not solved by the free market. If the system rewards the most clever individuals with wealth, then it is only natural that they will exploit the system itself to gain more wealth. Create a dog treat dispenser for desired behavior (like doing tricks). The dumb dogs will starve, the average dogs will perform the tricks to get the treats, while the smartest of the bunch will go around back and break open the door used to refill the dispenser.
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:as far as proving that rich people create the jobs, that is nonsense. that is like saying " prove that the sun is there".
If the rich do not create the jobs and therefore the economy, then who do you think is doing it, the poor?
Let's look at this another way. The goal of companies ("the rich") is to make a profit and presumably continue increasing that profit, correct? Creating jobs is not the same goal. Sometimes revenue can be generated by creating jobs (ie. expanding a factory, opening a new store, etc.) and sometimes there are other ways (ie. firing a few people to downsize, firing 20 people and hiring 20 more at a decreased salary, firing 1000 factory workers to outsource the labor).
The homeless aren't creating jobs, but the goal of the rich isn't to create jobs either. Would you invest your money with someone who made decisions in your favor only when it also made them the greatest amount? It would be a conflict of interest if a broker purposely lost your money to make the greatest profit himself, yet this is often what happens when companies receive tax cuts and then don't actually use that money for job creation.
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:Even the "ivy league" bunch will still be the owners of business and therefore the creators of jobs etc.
bottom line is, for good or evil, the business owners are what keep this country alive. If you take away their incentive to grow and produce, they will stop. Then where will the jobs go? How will any of us make a living?
You shouldn't take away their incentive to grow and produce, but you also shouldn't reward them for exploiting the system, and you definitely don't want to ever be delusional about their motivations. Increasing profits does not always go hand-in-hand with job creation. In some cases, such as with outsourcing, the two are polar opposites.
Lumpy Burgertushie wrote:Also, I doubt there are many, if any, of us here on this board that wouldn't just love to be one of those "rich people".
While most people wouldn't reject additional money (for obvious reasons), I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with anything.