Paul Ryan has his interns and staff read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Paul Ryan has said the author of these books is what inspired him to enter politics. Paul Ryan has said many times that he is guided by this author’s principles and philosophy.
Paul Ryan is talking about Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand was born in Communist Russia. She spoke English with a Russian accent. Ayn Rand was a loud prognostic Atheist. Ayn Rand was a leader in making abortion legal in this country.
Can you imagine what the conservatives would do to Biden and the President if they touted a female Russian atheist abortionist? We liberals don’t care and would never accuse Paul Ryan of supporting communism, atheists or abortion.
Paul now disavows Ayn Rand. Paul says when he found out, “some time ago”, he stopped being a follower. Paul was a key note speaker at the Ayn Rand convention in 2009. Last year Paul was still telling reporters he recommends reading Ayn Rand.
So for 22 years Paul had not a clue as to who Ayn Rand was? Paul Ryan is either incredibly stupid or a great liar. If I were Paul I would fane stupid, that you can be excused.
The problem, we the educated have, with Ayn Rand is not Ayn Rand per say but people who take her fictional writings as gospel. Ayn Rand believed the leaders have to be the Elite who rule through Economics. There would be no government as we know it. It’s fun reading about a species that does not exist. But, has no substance for Homo sapiens.
The desperation is beginning to show. Now we have to prepare ourselves to survive the tsunami of horse-hockey they will throw out trying to see if any of it will stick.
Thanks to those that can read and think.
Hint: it's not a good idea to insult your readers, even if you disagree with them. Whearas the reader isn't always right, they are always the reader.
Socialism is a dirty word in America... Little do people recognize that the Progressive Era (you know, the one that followed the Gilded Age), heavily relied on socialistic policies to rebuild the economy and provide Americans with a sense of economic security after the Great Depression. Granted, this wasn't full on democratic socialism... But very similar ideologies and the acknowledgment that the working class (and by this I mean the 80%+ of the population that works for someone else) needed some security. Socialism isn't "the equal sharing of misery"-- It's about equality, yes. It's not that everyone should make the same wages, or capitalists shouldn't profit. It's acknowledging workers deserve a fair share of the pie considering their labor contributed to the overall profits of the organization. Thus, the idea of public (or cooperative, or state-- depending on the socialist theory) ownership is born. Markets are no longer a luxury of the incredibly wealthy. In sum, there are several schools of thought on socialism and it's not limited to one ideology. Sort of like the varying theories of capitalism (laissez-faire, state capitalism..).
ROTFLOLUIB Rolling on the Floor Laughing out loud until I barf. Here's to you I.M. Wright
Markets aren't the luxury of the incredibly wealthy. I started several businesses without being incredibly wealthy. Who better than me to set what wages I am willing to pay? Who better than those seeking work are better to determine if they accept those wages? I force nobody to do anything. They either agree, or they don't. If they generate additional value I would be foolish to not pay them more. If they don't generate additional value, I would be foolish not to find someone else.
To my way of thinking, equality is a loaded word. What are we talking about when we throw that word into the mix? The founding fathers in establishing this nation granted its citizens liberty and guaranteed freedoms no other ruling entity, historically, ever bestowed on its people. Equality of opportunity was the outcome of this. For several centuries now peoples from all over the world have fled to our country to participate in this never before conceived way of life. They fled for the liberty that no other nation provided. They fled toward the chance, not the guarantee of success and with willingness to risk failure. Our nation isn't perfect and we do have our share of greedy villains. We have provided more people with equality of opportunity than any other. Government guaranteed outcome/security by necessity, diminishes equality of opportunity.
I think Keith is a good kid, trying to find his way. I like his bravery in risking his thoughts and opinions to the 'public'. I can only condone his efforts if not his conclusions.
I went back and re-read your post with Webster's Third Unabridged in hand and am happy to say that now I understand your point. I fully agree that Paul Ryan is a liar per say and that he should fane stupidity in lieu of admitting that he is a liar. Please disregard my earlier posts. At the time they were written I didn't fully understand that I was dealing with an intellectual superior. I bow before your brilliance and look forward to being further enlightened by more of your posts in the future.
First off, you are right, depending on the business it doesn't have to be that expensive to start it up. What I was referring to is stock ownership shares. A very small percentage of the American population owns a vast majority of controlling stock shares. I'm not sure what would be a "fair piece of the pie"- Democratic processes could help to establish that. For EOCs it varies. http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100 <--Here you can learn more about how different companies do it. Some companies don't allow any single person to own more than 10% of the shares. Kudos to you: you don't use force with your employees and you're right about if they're earning you more you should pay them more (ideally). That's probably the biggest difference between a hands-on, hardworking self-starter and the high executives of some of the wealthiest companies. Some are so far removed from their workers and despite the handwork of the employees they're not seeing it "trickle down". It's a complex to say the least and there's so many factors to look at. Company size, social obligations, varying functions, etc. etc. etc. Thanks for expanding the discussion MZ, you made excellent points!
The executives at McDonalds pay many people big time money, but they bring special skills that are hard to find and harder to replace. There are thousands of people who work for the corporate structure that make well into 6 figures due to their special skills. Certainly the CEO doesn't know every fry cook, but even if he did what do you expect to trickle down? I'll ask the same "loaded" question, what is the fry cooks fair share of the pie?
There isn't one concrete idea nor can I do it any justice in this casual conversation. There are several different approaches: many of which (as Phyllis has pointed out) have failed. Then there is social democracy (like we see in Europe). Granted, the socialist party has lost voters over the past few years.. Still there tho. When you talk about "supply and demand"- This is the effectiveness and the pitfall to capitalism because it doesn't account for things that humans value outside of money. In this society money governs the entire rationality. Look at how many people have gone through college to get new skills and they're walking out into an economy where despite their specialized skills there aren't the jobs available. Now too many people have skills and there aren't enough jobs to sustain them. Lots of supply, pay is low, and people are living in states of perpetual debt with limited resources. Low wages = less spending. Economics 101: Can't have a consumer based economy when consumers can't afford to consume.
Why would the fry cooks have a percentage of the company? Again, there are literally millions of people that perform that work. You cite Europe as an example of a socialist democracy while Europe is quite literally a powder keg. There is higher unemployment, worse conditions for graduating students, less potential to move upward, and the gap between rich and poor is larger in Europe. The European growth rate is miniscule with few exceptions and those exceptions are the least socialist. It sounds like you are for spreading the wealth around or “trickle up poverty”. The more we model ourselves after Europe, the more we will become Europe. It is not the paradise you might think it is.
I too, know several people who graduated with certain degrees and are now working a job that has really nothing to do with their degree. I know people who opted to go back for their masters to give themselves more of an edge. I know programmers that have been in business for 20+ years whose departments are being outsourced to India (and many companies are learning that the work isn't necessarily better because its cheaper... so we may see more of a shift back here for our tech skills). In sum, we live in a global society now. A choice of one country may directly or indirectly affect another. When we talk about unemployment, let's see how that has changed in the US after 2008. Unemployment rates skyrocketed and then people could not find jobs. These weren't lazy people, these were people who worked their entire lives. So now people are allowed to be on unemployment for 99 weeks, enough time to develop new skills or invest in a new line of business- or is it? In 2009 we shared the same employment rate as the EU. Now, EU as a whole has a higher rate...
One way to combat this is to have young people develop skills that are in-demand (as you said). I also see this as semi-problematic because then as a country we're breeding people for production. In essence we're not teaching people to think critically, we're teaching them to perform better for means of capital pursuit. Tell me how the USA is in "economic crisis" and CEO's pay have risen upwards of 27% over the past year. Not the case with small-medium size business. Local companies have struggled (as a general whole). Between 1978 and 2011 CEO pay has grown 725% while worker pay fell 2% (http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331-ceo-pay-top-1-percent/). Who am I to say what's fair... But those numbers don't add up and it seems to have a trickling effect on the economy. Money still isn't going to job creation and these companies have no obligation to America. There was a time where they did. An employer took pride putting people to work and ensuring they could live. Not the case anymore: globalization. Do we accept the situation and start selling labor for the same cost as China, Philippines, etc?