2 ms·

An interesting take on capitalism: McDonald's provides an entrepreneur all the equipment, infrastructure, consumables, staff, even customer base - all one has

An interesting take on capitalism: McDonald's provides an entrepreneur all the equipment, infrastructure, consumables, staff, even customer base - all one has to do is show up, flip burgers, and earn $8/hr. Of course there are rules to using all of those resources, and McD's stockholders get a cut (hey, they're providing all that stuff); if you don't like it, you can leave. You can't "redistribute power more equally". Most people don't, in reality, want it: they refuse the responsibilities that come with ownership & liability, hence they get less of the revenue. Most people don't want equal distribution of power, they want to receive more wealth without earning it.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Lots of projection there. More likely, lots of folks have not got the skills to take more power. Just giving it to them will end disastrously. There's a famous case of a Socialist who was a wealthy scion of a manufacturing family. He inheirited, gave the factory to the workers and went on the road as a Socialism shill. A year later the factory went broke. This is curiously used as an endorsement of Socialism somehow, or at least of this guy's commitment. What I learned from that is, without training the workers should not normally be entrusted with power. It's in nobody's best interest.
- mercer 12y ago
  Poverty functions in a similar way. On the one hand it's not an unfair assessment that poor people make poor choices, need constant supervision, and cannot be left in charge (which is often something I find I'm often afraid to say among more left-leaning individuals). On the other hand you can't really blame the poor for that, and the cycle of poverty can be broken with a combination of education and opportunity, perhaps only over multiple generations. What you do with this information, I suppose, depends on your political leanings. You can emphasize either side of the story, and be sort of correct.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Lots of projection there. More likely, lots of folks have not got the skills to take more power. Just giving it to them will end disastrously. There's a famous case of a Socialist who was a wealthy scion of a manufacturing family. He inheirited, gave the factory to the workers and went on the road as a Socialism shill. A year later the factory went broke. This is curiously used as an endorsement of Socialism somehow, or at least of this guy's commitment. What I learned from that is, without training the workers should not normally be entrusted with power. It's in nobody's best interest.

mercer 12y ago
Poverty functions in a similar way. On the one hand it's not an unfair assessment that poor people make poor choices, need constant supervision, and cannot be left in charge (which is often something I find I'm often afraid to say among more left-leaning individuals). On the other hand you can't really blame the poor for that, and the cycle of poverty can be broken with a combination of education and opportunity, perhaps only over multiple generations. What you do with this information, I suppose, depends on your political leanings. You can emphasize either side of the story, and be sort of correct.