: yes it is extremely significant. $200.00 invested monthly for 30 years at 12% grows to $706,000.00 At 5% it grows to only 167,000 (bank rates). But it takes time and discipline something most socialists have no concept of. However, all that relies on there not being a stock market crash- higher interest means more risk- small investors are hit hardest (though usually take safer firms).
: Sorry Red your going to have to clarify that last statement, I cant make sense of it.
In order to invest, first I must work to earn the money to invest, and further, I must keep working in order to not need to spend the money. I cannot 'live' off my investments.
: In this country many people save for their own retirements and live off of that money. and of course its from their earnings. Where do you think money comes from?
Money is made by the workers.
: Just who is this capitalist class you are referring to? Wealthy people I know still work 60 to 80hour weeks.
Wealthy, maybe, some of them won't need to, and there are plenty of other millionaires, etc. who need never lift a finger. Capitalists make up about 5% of the population.
: So what? don't you get it, most millionaires and billionares are in fact self made. Very few inherit. These people the bottom and worked their way up. In most cases they've made many others wealthy along the
way, and produced goods and services that we use today.
I doubt most millionaires started at the bottom, perhaps started from a relatiuvely wealthy familly, yes. And there are many more rags to rags stories than rags to riches.
: to bad it has no grounding in reality.
Rhetoric is grounded in linguistics.
: You are one unhappy person. I think I am starting to figure out the psychology of socialists. You think eveyone is a victim. Except of course if you've got money then you have of course exploited someone in order to get it.
I think *everyone* (including capitalists loses out from our current system of society.
: It is to the extent of your interest in the company to do otherwise would be disatrous. If every shareholder had an equal say regardless of percentage ownership rival companies could buy a minority interest with many shareholders, then theoretically they could replace the board and president with farm animals.
But its still not democracy, so you can't really call it a share holder democracy, perhaps plutocracy is a better word?
: Only to the extent they are allowed, they can be easily fired and replaced
Usually they are allowed, because they can do *anything* pretty much to secure their mandates profits.
: If that were true then personal choices made in ones life would have nothing to do with the results. for example two twins, same opportunities, one studies works hard and saves his money the other is a drug addict never works, and expects his parents or government to support him. Under your theory they should have the same outcome. Your ideas don't square with reality.
No, everyone who took the opportunity to become a drug adict would have the same outcome as the second twin. Everyone who took the same opportuinty to work hard should come out rewarded, that does not happen. Otherwise women and ethnic minorities would not have comparatively low pay.
Equality doesn't mean the same.
: Tell that to the North Koreans who get one bowl of rice a day, while Kim Jong Ill builds his nuclear asenal. I am sure they are thrilled about the equality of it.
Erm, thats not socialism, thats a state capitalist tyranny.
: don't even think about blowing that old smoke up my behind. Capitalism
: rewards the producers. Socialism rewards beauracrats and central planners ie. the ruling class. the difference is capitalists earned it the socialists steal it.
Considering under socialism everyone is a producer, and everyone is a planner, that means everyone is rewarded. Russia wasn't socialist, China isn't socialist, Cuba isn't socialist, India isn't socialist, Korea isn't socilialst, Serbia isn't socialist...etc.
They are/were all state capitalist.
None.
