This article is bad mainly because it relies on a strawman as an example. Any (reasonably rational) business owner would love to have a salesman like John, prob

This article is bad mainly because it relies on a strawman as an example. Any (reasonably rational) business owner would love to have a salesman like John, probably promoting him to a higher position where he can have an even better influence. The whole idea of putting a cap on what an employee can earn is a socialistic practice, anyways (don't want employees getting too "unequal"), and has nothing at all to do with capitalism. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Do companies, owners, and other people in power make bad decisions? All the time. Does that mean that capitalism doesn't work? The problem, in my mind, is the one that YCombinator is trying to solve. There are not enough owners. There is not enough competition. The more competition there is among smallish businesses, the more likely that big, inefficient companies and other companies that make bad decisions (like firing your best salesman) will fail. One reason there aren't many owners is all the red tape and government control. Two examples: My stepmother has been breeding and selling German Shepherds for over ten years now, and she gets customers from all over the US. To go along with the dog-selling aspect, she would like to open up a small shop to sell dog food, leashes, toys, etc. Simple enough, right? In order to do so, they would have to install a new septic/sewage system, just so that they can run a business. Why is this important? Also, in spite of the fact that she is always accommodating to people with special needs (e.g. she would be perfectly willing to carry out an entire litter of puppies in order to show someone in a wheelchair), she would have to take special measures to ensure that all public areas are wheelchair accessible. So she hasn't opened the place up yet. I just watched Be Kind, Rewind today, and although several of the ideas were far-fetched and irrational, one part in particular hit home. A new developer would like to take over an old building in the downtown area of a small town, and the city can basically force the owner out of his business by citing "building code" requirements. Things like this actually happen in real life; I've seen a similar situation with a building in Columbus, OH, that was not up to fire code. In both instances, small businesses are suffering because of big government. In both cases, laws were made "in the interest of the people," but in the end, they hurt the people. In my ideal world, the government would be more responsible for ensuring consumer awareness without the use of coercion. Clearly, people have the right to know that they are preparing to enter a dangerous building. Beyond that, however, if that individual wants to take the calculated risk of going in, anyways (whether to work or conduct business), it should be up to the individual. Government hand-holding only causes more problems, and the implication of the article that government needs to step in and make measures to ensure that capitalism "rewards wealth creators" is mistaken. /rant (sorry about that)