WHY SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH, CAPITALISM FOR THE POOR?

[wdmso]

interesting article some my not like the author But this is a contributing issue why the Avg worker gets boned by the company ....


Mayer is CEO of Yahoo. Yahoo’s stock lost about a third of its value last year, as the company went from making $7.5 billion in 2014 to losing $4.4 billion in 2015. Yet Mayer raked in $36 million in compensation.


Even if Yahoo’s board fires her, her contract stipulates she gets $54.9 million in severance.

But the rest of America works in a different system.

Theirs is cutthroat hyper-capitalism—in which wages are shrinking, median household income continues to drop, workers are fired without warning, two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck and employees are being classified as “independent contractors” without any labor protections at all.

Why is there no-lose socialism for the rich and cutthroat hyper-capitalism for everyone else?

Because the rules of the game—including labor laws, pension laws, corporate laws and tax laws—have been crafted by those at the top, and the lawyers and lobbyists who work for them.

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich...r-455066?rx=us

[Jim in CT]

CEO compensation (while obviously excessive) is usually a very small line item on the balance sheet of a large company. I have done the math at Walmart, if the CEO worked for free and gave every cent back to the employees, it would work out to less than $100. Year for each employee.

There are bad rich people out there. But wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza ( otherwise GDP could not increase). If Oprah Winfrey makes a million dollars today, that does not mean there's a million less for you and I to scrounge for.

It's always easy and gratifying to believe that someone else is to blame for whatever pisses us off.

And it's in the private sector, so it's not socialist. Yahoo doesn't get one cent from you, unless you freely choose to give it to them.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Bank bailouts and stimulus to rescue large too big to fail companies, which result in bonuses is nothing more than socialism for the rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Bank bailouts and stimulus to rescue large too big to fail companies, which result in bonuses is nothing more than socialism for the rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed 100%. And that's why many people were opposed to the bailouts. Not sure if it matters, but from what I understand, the vast majority of that was re-paid, with interest. But I don't like the government picking winners and losers like that.

Great post, though.

[scottw]

wait,,,,so now the left is opposed to socialism???

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

wait,,,,so now the left is opposed to socialism???

I think most of us are opposed to government subsidies for the uber wealthy. Unfortunately, it does happen.

CEO compensation is a different matter, I think. I think CEO pay is grossly excessive, and I also think it gets a million times more attention than it deserves. One person's wealth almost never causes another person's poverty. Wealthy people usually pay a lot of taxes (easing the burden on the rest of us), and they usually give a lot to charity (easing that burden for the rest of us).

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Bank bailouts and stimulus to rescue large too big to fail companies, which result in bonuses is nothing more than socialism for the rich.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, it was just socialism. It is redundant to say socialism for the rich. Under socialism, as it is practiced, the rulers are rich. Everyone else is "equal." But not rich.

Banks that exist under socialism are its system of controlling the amount and flow of money. So they have to be supported by government (bailed out). In a free market capitalist system, banks are not an arm of government, but purely private entities, and would cease to exist if they were not profitable.

Big companies under socialism are the means of production and are the conduit for which "workers" are employed and paid. So they, also, must be supported by government (bailed out). In a free market capitalist system, companies that are not profitable, no matter their size, would go out of business.

Government stimulus of the economy is socialism's attempt to maintain its control and regulation of its system of social welfare without having to resort to armed force and rationing. Controlled economies generally fail due to lack of the motivational element required for humans to do things without being coerced to. In a free market capitalist economy, work and productive innovation is stimulated by self motivation in order to survive and thrive. The more that motivation is replaced by government regulation, the more government must stimulate for an economy to work.