richardhutnik said:
SamuelRSmith said:
richardhutnik said:
SamuelRSmith said:
What I hate about these discussions, when it comes to CEOs being paid 100* more than their workers, or athletes earning millions while nurses/firemen are on low wages (in the UK, anyway), is this implication that we actually have some sort of right to tell other people what to do with their money.
When people talk about CEOs being paid too much, and workers too little, and talk of introducing laws that limit the difference between the highest and lowest wage in a company, what they are essentially saying is that they own the business. We didn't risk any money or time investing in the company, we just reap the benefits, so why do we get a say in these issues? The employees aren't forced to work in this company, if they wanted to take the same risks that the investors and founders took, they could be making just as much money, anyway. But they didn't take that risk, and so they don't get the benefits of a high wage. If you want more money, you either work hard enough and get promoted up, or you leave, take risks, and set up your own company.
Don't force someone else to pay you more money through the law. Besides, you'll (or your kids) will be worse off for it in the long run, anyway. |
Nope, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. But there is no guarantee that things will work out if everyone happens to merely work by self-focused motives without any regard to anyone else. What you see in bubbles, for example, is people collectively will go into the same segment of a market and collective drive up prices far beyond what is normal, as everyone ends up being sellers in a market where they buy and believe there is another sucker to come along. Then, the bottom falls out and impacts everyone. Same with the said effects of income inequality and it possibly getting worse and worse, affecting everyone. The solution to this isn't for everyone to turn a blind eye, merely compete selfishly and believe their ideological -ism will sort things out.
No amount of cheap TV and electronics will make up for people who will increasingly have problems making ends meet.
|
The solution to it is to not create the bubbles in the first place. How do you reduce bubbles? Sound monetary policy, no fiscal deficits, and as little government manipulation of the economy as possible. Expanding the government into essentially controlling our wages, is not the right direction to go in.
Income inequality wouldn't matter at all if the dollar was strong, people would be able to make ends-meet easily.
|
What did the dotcom and tulip bubbles have to do with the soundness of money? Bubbles happen with or without government intervention. Government can amplify it and make it worse, but not always.
|
I said reduce, not eliminate. The dot-com bubble was nothing compared to the real estate bubble. Bubbles happen when the markets forget the fundamentals, or the fundamentals become hazy. The tulip/dot-com bubble were examples of the former, 2008 is an example of the latter.
And, who knows? Would there have been a dot-com bubble if there wasn't any inflation? Nobody can really know. 2008 is a good example because it was clear that the Government were involved, and it was clear that it was that involvement was what led to the bubbles.
I believe that we're actually heading into a dot-com bubble 2.0. The amount of money flowing into smart phones and social networking, and it is not yet clear whether these markets will pay off in the long run. I also believe a lot of this is due to inflation. I mean, look at the prices of some of these smartphones, and yet they're selling exceptionally well in a recessionary environment. People have clearly lost track of what is good value for money, and that is exactly what one of the results of inflation is. Could the same thing have played a part in the first dot-com bubble? Probably, but it's not certain.
