Some of the "benefits", "perks", "packages", and outrageous salaries that some executives receive are almost criminal in some circumstances. No doubt...
So we agree on something.
... However I would question your dislike for private investing and the potential dividends possible. If I buy 100 shares of Pepsi stock at $100.00 per share and that stock goes down I lose money. Loss is also a part of that gamble. Private investing is retirement for many people in the world. Think 401K's. Private investing has kept many businesses open, and/or allowed many to expand...
I didn't actually say that I "dislike" it. What I was trying to examine was, in the context of your comments about earning things and rewards etc, whether it can really be said that shareholders can be described as having 'earned' such things, simply because they have the fortune to have spare money that can be invested. One could look, for comparison, at a British company called John Lewis Partnership, which runs smart department stores (and a high-quality supermarket, Waitrose) throughout the country. Its shareholders are its staff – hence 'partnership'. They share the dividend at the end of the year. It is a successful business. There is a difference between the partners in John Lewis and the majority of shareholders in other companies.
It's also worth noting that in many cases, there is little real private (individual) investment. In the 1980s in the UK, the government sold off major utilities companies. It advertised these to the public on the basis of individuals owning a little bit of, for instance, British Telecom. Initially, this happened – a wide spread of ownership, which could therefore be said to be democratic. But that changed as individuals sold their shares, which were bought, generally, by a decreasing number of large organisations, thereby concentrating ownership of a vital public utility in a smaller and smaller number of hands. Which, of course, raises the issue of accountability in companies/organisations that are there to provide an essential service to the public as a whole. A brief example – in the UK in recent months, power companies have used the excuse of increasing fuel costs to ratchet up their prices to households by substantial amounts (that will particularly hit low-income households). Yet of the rises, only around 55% of the rises can be put down to this; 30% of the rises account to increased profits of approximately £2.3bn across the companies. These companies were already making substantial profits. How can this be considered ethical or, indeed, accountable? In many cases, people have the chance to switch where they buy something from or even the choice of whether or not to continue purchasing a given item. In the case of the fuel to light and heat their homes, wash themselves and their families, prepare their food etc, they have very little choice.
As for retirement and pensions – I think it's a disgrace that people who have worked and paid tax have to gamble in order to have a secure retirement and old age. And what about those who cannot afford to put money into investments etc? Are you suggesting that people on low incomes don't deserve to have a decent retirement?
In some situations yes. You'd have to give me some specific examples for me to answer otherwise...
I'm meaning the sort of person who isn't very bright; who didn't get any qualifications at school and who does something, for instance, such as cutting the grass in a local park or sweeping the roads – things that benefit society as a whole.
Should the person who hits their spouce to solve problems, or uses a gun to rob a person of their money be punished? Yes.
I certainly think that people who do such things need to dealt with by the judicial system, but I don't think that such examples have anything to do with the question of the morality or otherwise of profit.
What I have been generally attempting to do is show that, while – as I have said – profit itself is not bad per se, the issue is not a black and white one where profit can also simply be described as 'good'.
Central planning can feature greedy bureaucrats who hoard goods and give them to family and party friends while the peasants go without. North Korea is a great example of that. Greed explains why the African traders in the business in the first place. The "market" is further aided by desperate parents who are lied to and who think their children will make it in Britain. As a matter of fact, capitalism could cure the situation. If African leaders were free-market Friedmans walking around, then parents wouldn't have to sell their children.[/U]
as plenty of jobs would be around as European and American companies would out source to market friendly African countries known for stability and a hard working work force.