Quote:
Originally Posted by JurisDictum
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There's the cost of labor,
The cost of materials,
The cost of management,
Then there is surplus.
The surplus produced goes a 100% to the "owner" of the venture. But that "owner" didn't do anything except own something. The owner can do other things on the list above, but that is beside the point.
The point is, the owner was not producing any value by owning anything. They merely claim it belongs to them by right.
Capitalism is based on people that are productive being paid less than they actually produce.
This is a necessary evil to get "investment" to start the venture in some cases. Especially in early human development. But after awhile, it is no longer necessary to set up the system that way.
That's the bases of Marxist theory. Capitalism is a phase in history were those that "own stuff" (starting with feudalism) invest in ventures to get more. Then Socialism comes along, and the productive members of the venture seize control over the "means of production."
Because their working/producing and the owner isn't.
and there is a whole list of reasons why that is inevitable. Starting with "concentration of capital" where a small group eventually own everything and use market power to take more and more for themselves until all the workers are subsistence workers.
|
This doesn't describe free market capitalism at all. Not that we have a whole lot of free market in the US nowadays with all the regulations and redistribution of wealth, not to mention lobbyists that marry big corporations with big government. If it wasn't for big government, I doubt very much we would have monopolistic big corporations.
In a free market, someone gets an idea, creates a product or does a service that people may want and starts a business to sell that product or service. Yes, he wants a profit for his idea and investment. And why shouldn't he? If the business is successful and it grows, he will need help. So he hires one or more employees. But, he can only pay them so much, and the market and sales will determine the rate. So, he is happy for getting something for his idea, the customer is happy for whatever product or service he receives and the employee is happy to be making some money.
But, when you start redistributing his profits in the form of huge taxes and fees for running the business and piling on draconian regulations, he may have second thoughts about even starting a business, or may not want to expand it. And, who would want innovate and start a business if as soon as he becomes successful the government swoops in and takes more of his profits, whether through taxes or minimum wages. Redistribution of wealth is theft. Speaking of minimum wages, if governments keep upping the minimum wages the way they are, more people will be priced out of a job, especially for the low skilled starter jobs. Whenever I hear the protests of fast food stores saying they need to make a living wage, I roll my eyes. The typical fast food job isn't supposed to support a "living". Those jobs are supposed to be starter jobs for teenagers or people going to college... not to make a career out of it.
Excessive taxes, fees and regulations stifle innovation (innovation that may save someones life or solve the energy problems, etc.) and are a barrier to the little guy, since big corporations have the resources to pay or circumvent the taxes and fees, and can afford a legal department to deal with all the regulations... regulations they probably lobbied for in the first place to keep the little guy out.
I'd rather have a small government that leaves people alone to prosper in a free market, than to have big government in bed with big corporations. Maybe then there would be much better competition where everyone wins. Because with true competition, there would be lower costs, better quality, more ideas to solve problems and even competition for workers (i.e. higher wages).