> Scott wrote: > I think what you are saying is that no one shold be rich. >
Nope. I'm saying what I said, and I didn't say that. In short, Laissez Faire has 2 core problems: (1.) Short Term: peaks and valleys, otherwise known as depressions and booms. If our society doesn't have a tolerance for them, and we don't, then we'll need to take steps to ensure they don't happen and those steps will mean it will be harder to be rich, but also harder to be poor. (2.) Long Term: eventually transition to oligarchy. I think we're about as close to that right now as I ever want to be. If we change that it'll be harder to become rich. Why? Because we won't be able to as easily buy legislators who destroy the egalitarian nature of the playing field. I give you an example: professional baseball. Some people might argue that it's just capitalism at work to have one team that can pay a single pitcher $200M/year while another team is paying their roster $70M. I would argue that it's a violation of anti-trust regulations in that there's a clear imbalance and no equal playing field for teams. As to the capitalism side of the argument I will argue that baseball competes with football and cable TV and radio, while the teams *within* baseball are simply employees. Thus if one pitcher is getting paid way higher than another for doing the same job at the same level, then we've got a discrimination problem. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:283207 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
