Sir Xsarus wrote:
I do find Capitalism hilarious though. I bought a house a while ago, and currently live there and rent out a few of the rooms to help pay the mortgage faster.
But you can also look at it from this perspective. I had a bunch of money in the bank, and so I convinced three other people to buy me a house because they didn't have money. All I had to do was sign some documents, and lock my money away.
But you can also look at it from this perspective. I had a bunch of money in the bank, and so I convinced three other people to buy me a house because they didn't have money. All I had to do was sign some documents, and lock my money away.
You saved up the money first and made the choice to risk it by investing in a property purchase. They could have done the same thing, but didn't (for whatever reason). Capitalism rewards those who take actions which provide greater value to others in the short term, by granting the investor greater profits in the long term. The same can be said of starting a business, right? You could always argue that your customers are buying your business for you. The shoppers at a store collectively pay more for the goods they buy than it cost the store owner to buy them, and that amount extra is sufficient to pay all the overhead for the store and some profit for the owner. So you could ask why that owner gets to make that profit when he doesn't really do anything, right?
The answer is the short term gain for the consumer. We could all buy goods in bulk for wholesale prices, but realistically no one needs or can consume 500 pounds of fish, or 20 jars of peanut butter, or 100 rolls of toilet paper at a time. We gain the benefit of being able to buy goods we'd never be able to buy in sufficient quantities to justify the shipping if someone else buys them in bulk and then sells them to us in a store. That's the "value" we get, and it's worth the profits we pay to the guy who provided that value to us.
Same deal with an insurance business. Someone had to invest the money to start the business. The fact that the profits are later generated entirely by employees is irrelevant. If no single one of them could generate the same business and provide the same services and thus gain the same accounts and revenue, then every single one of them would be out a job if someone else didn't collect those things together in a single office. The "value" is that he's connecting a group of people with a combination of skills with a group of customers who need those combined skills. And doing so on his own dime. If the business fails, the employee is out a job. The owner is out a job *and* out whatever time and money he put into the business.
There's nothing wrong with the concept. What I find "funny" is when people seem to think that it shouldn't work this way, or that it's somehow unfair that it does. Yet, when you ask them how it could or should work differently, they can't ever give a good answer. Yup. That's funny...
I often point out the problems with capitalism? Really? Over the years I've never provided any concerns about things I support? It's nice an all that you can make up stuff to make yourself sound more convincing, but that's all it is. I try to point out the pitfalls when I make posts supporting a topic, which you never do., although I'll err on the side of being concise. Right now you're trying as hard as you can to ignore my point, and pretend I'm making some statement that capitalism is horrible.