Re: Starbucks to close 600 stores


"Jack Denver" <nunuvyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:U_6dnargVpo7YfPVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"alan" <in_flagrante@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Clvbk.4281$np7.1538@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Favoring a regulated capitalism does not make one a Maoist. With your all-or-nothing, black-or-white approach, I'm afraid you've again missed my point (and have misinterpreted my "conclusions") --- one needs to focus not on "losers" alone OR on "winners" alone. One needs a balanced approach and focus on BOTH, curbing the strength of the "winners" in order not to place the "losers" at a hopeless and total disadvantage. There will probably always be social and economic injustice, but does this mean that one shouldn't fight injustice?

Who decides what is justice and injustice? At what point do you stop fighting "injustice" - when all incomes are exactly equalized? A 200% spread? How big a "winner" do you have to be before the government cuts you down to size?
Well Jack, how about YOU decide?
It is an undeniable fact that, in the US in the last 20 years, the average worker's real wages (adjusted for buying power) have decreased while at the same time concentration of wealth in the upper one percent of the population has increased dramatically. Individuals' share of income tax has increased while corporations' share has decreased. While a "Darwinian market" certainly has contributed to increased inequality of income, there's been a bit of outside help in the form of tax law revisions. This, of course, is "capitalism in action" --- but is it a good thing? If I correctly understand your thinking, since the strong are winning and the weak are losing, all is well and good.
It is also an undeniable fact that hundreds of thousands of formerly self-sufficient farmers in Mexico , in the face of competition from North American agribusiness, have been forced to sell their land, migrate to already overcrowded cities and (if lucky) land jobs in the maquilladoras, supplying cheaper labor for strong North American producers who are, in turn, "picking off" large numbers of weak North American workers. Again, "capitalism in action" --- the strong are winning and the weak are losing. Do you REALLY think this is a "good thing"?
And Jack, stop using your B.S. black-and-white reductio ad absurdum arguments --- calling for regulation is NOT the same thing as calling for "all incomes" to be "exactly equalized".
--
alan

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Starbucks to close 600 stores
    ... all-or-nothing, black-or-white approach, I'm afraid you've again missed my point --- one needs to focus not on "losers" alone OR on "winners" alone. ... One needs a balanced approach and focus on BOTH, curbing the strength of the "winners" in order not to place the "losers" at a hopeless and total disadvantage. ... There will probably always be social and economic injustice, but does this mean that one shouldn't fight injustice? ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Poundland shelf-stacker claims its forced labour, sues for human rights
    ... in other countries who are probably in a similar position to us. ... winner in a system that will always produce winners and losers. ... I take it that by an exhortation to 'live with the facts' you mean learn ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Find second minimum number
    ... He then discusses quadratic selection. ... EITHER it's one of the winners in the other four groups, OR it's one of the losers in z's group. ... Likewise u. So the second highest is either z, or u, or y, or x, or d, or f (the two losers to @ in the first round). ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: >>> the "underside-LAS"-like NASA "MLAS" >>>
    ...  I mean Landis and others debated me very strongly about my ... optical powersat ideas as well as optical propulsion ideas. ... We might for lack of a better term call them winners. ... when one compares winners and losers we are struck by the fact ...
    (sci.space.policy)