: : And how much profit/trade value/property did Britain acquire/make during the last year?: Growth was 1% last year, but balance of payments was in the Red again, methinks.
In the good ol' USA, we tax the crap out of everyone and make a little more than we spend, but we use this money to baloon social programs, rather than pay off our 5,000,000,000,000+++debt. That doesn't exactly deserve high payment.
: : Abolish money? Even the most primative nations had some form of money. It is unnatural to live without some trade standard. The people with the most money also have the most posessions, and if all trade were to be stopped, noone would work and everyone would have exactly what they had to begin with.
: No, instead of production for exchange, we would have production for free access, with everyone having a right to share in teh fruits of society, and thereby having a self interest in continuing teh production of that society. Many cultures have lived utterly without money, many middle ages folk could have gone whole lives without seeing money, the smallest coin in Roman Britain bought an entire barrel of beer- people can do without money.
What was that coin made from? Bartering is usually easier with money, though I guess we could do without. However, doing without trade is not an option. Free access mean that you have to work 100x harder to earn 50x less. Thats not for me. I like laissez-faire, but that would mean having a more natural system. Making people give up what is theirs would require a ton of government, which is not what freedom is all about.
: Anyway, mightn't abolishing money be the *final* civilised accomplishment?
Well, it would be our final "accomplishment", as we wouldn't be able to live long without it. I would say that freedom would be the ultimate accomplishment, as freedom would dictate itself, allowing the best system to prevail.
: : This forum is the perfect example of not giving any credit to the upper management. Nobody that is constantly slamming them is one of them, hence they are only attributing the success of a company to themselves.
: Thats because the workers create all the wealth, and because we're pissed off with being poor...
Ahah! You said that "workers" create all of the wealth. Assuming that ou mean everyone that has a job, that's absolutely correct. However, I know that that's not what you mean...you mean everyone from your position on down, thus you give no credit to those above you, just like they don't give credit to the non-corporates.
: : What CEO bought stock and got a bonus for it? BTW, many people on the top don't get bonuses.
: Over here 'share options' are a common way of dividing up teh booty, the CEO gets to buy shares at a knock down price, and then sells them off at full market value, nice trick really, especially when they go up- its how the Chairman of Glaxo Welcom (or was it Smith-Kleine Beecham, can never remember which) made £63million in one year.
Yeah, we have options over here too. Generally, though, people get x amount of options issued by the company upon their signing, and these options become excersizable at different times. Generally they vest at the end of the contract, but other than that the people have to buy shares with their own money. Options at the begining of the contract tend to give a little extra incentive to do well, as stock price is related to a company's success.
BTW, what do those companies that you mentioned do?
: : Most everyone starts at the bottom. Success is making it to the top.
: Starts at the bottom- how many CEO's began on the shop floor? Not many...
Several. And those that didn't start there started at middle management, but that is a lucky few. No one can start at the top, the lack of experince would come crashing down on them.
