5:14 That's the way to go. That's the self-made American industrialist. That's the American dream. Work hard and get to your goals by your own effort.
4:16 You can sleep well. Your goal as a CEO is to make long-term profit for the shareholders. I wouldn't put my money in a company whose good is the public welfare.
Ron Paul will just make the problem worse. He wants to cut social security and Medicare for the next generation. He rejects protectionism ignoring the fact that there is no way $15/hr US workers can compete with $2/hr workers overseas. Ron Hira, Public Policy Professor, said it best: "No one in Washington is representing American workers."
@Sasha32659 Shrinking the gov's size would solve the problem. Get the gov out of the economy would solve the problem. Do away with minimal wages like in those developping countries and you'll see more jobs being created. In business you create win-win relationships. You cannot pay a worker higher than what his job is worth and a worker should not accept less than what it's worth. Laissez-faire capitalism is the way to go.
@Sasha32659 And by the way, the role of gov is not to protect workers rights, union rights or CEO's rights but to protect individual rights. If you favor the labor force, you're doing it at the cost of others. Favoring one group is taking away some rights to others. It's immoral. On what right should the gov impose regulations on businesses?
@maximemeis111 I agree that too much regulation can stifle growth, but the least that the government can do is incentivize companies to keep good paying manufacturing/tech jobs in the US. We need this for a strong middle class, because service jobs aren't enough. The government can increase import taxes to balance trade or it can cut corporate tax rates to 0 for companies that keep jobs in the US. The bottom line is that the government can play a big part in our economic success as a nation.
@Sasha32659 The only thing gov can do to keep good companies in the U.S. is to get the hell out of their way. On what right can the gov impose regulations on people? On what right the gov can tell me: "you've got to pay your workers this much" when the value of a worker's work is less? When you have right to your life, liberty and proprety, you also have the right to make contracts by mutual agreement for mutual profit. It's what business can still do overseas, not in the US.
@maximemeis111 The government could step out of the way completely & allow busineses to outsource as many jobs as they please and drop US worker's pay below minimum wage if necessary. It would give businesses more freedom, but it was also drive the wages of US workers down, reducing tax revenue. There would have to be more cuts to defense, education, local law enforcement and fire departments. Grandma would have to move in w/ you because of cuts in SS and Medicare. We need some regulation.
@Sasha32659 Yeah it would drop wages down. The work of a worker would take the value it ought to be: the agreement between the employer and the worker. The only proper role of gov is to protect people's individual rights from force and fraud by means of army, police and courts (not education.) It would require way less little money than what is being paid to the gov. Regulations are a reduction of your freedom.
@Sasha32659 Well how? You're given to pursue your own happiness, not the right of somebody bringing you happiness. If it was so, than the people who would have to provide it to you wouldn't have freedom nor right to pursue their own happiness. The right to pursue your own happiness means that you can do whatever as long as you don't step on the rights of others.
@Sasha32659 (continue from comment below) Here's an example. Let's say that tomorrow I invent a car motor working on water. Let's say I can sell this motor half the price of any car motor on the market and still make 60% profit. Should the gov regulate my motor given the fact that many people at GM, Chrysler, Ford are going to lose their jobs? Do I prevent them from pursuing their happiness? NO. Regulating by motor would be breaking my rights.
@Sasha32659 (continue ) Is my motor going to hurt people? Well beside if it exploded, I would not care to consider. Some people are going to lose their jobs? People working in the oil feel would lose their jobs? Yes of course I don't prevent them from trying to keep it or find a new one. But think about all the people who would profit from my motor, a motor working on water. But this doesn't matter. If I sell a product and people are willing to pay for it, nothing should stop it.
5:14 That's the way to go. That's the self-made American industrialist. That's the American dream. Work hard and get to your goals by your own effort.
maximemeis111 4 weeks ago
4:16 You can sleep well. Your goal as a CEO is to make long-term profit for the shareholders. I wouldn't put my money in a company whose good is the public welfare.
maximemeis111 4 weeks ago
Ron Paul will just make the problem worse. He wants to cut social security and Medicare for the next generation. He rejects protectionism ignoring the fact that there is no way $15/hr US workers can compete with $2/hr workers overseas. Ron Hira, Public Policy Professor, said it best: "No one in Washington is representing American workers."
Sasha32659 5 months ago
@Sasha32659 Shrinking the gov's size would solve the problem. Get the gov out of the economy would solve the problem. Do away with minimal wages like in those developping countries and you'll see more jobs being created. In business you create win-win relationships. You cannot pay a worker higher than what his job is worth and a worker should not accept less than what it's worth. Laissez-faire capitalism is the way to go.
maximemeis111 4 weeks ago
@Sasha32659 And by the way, the role of gov is not to protect workers rights, union rights or CEO's rights but to protect individual rights. If you favor the labor force, you're doing it at the cost of others. Favoring one group is taking away some rights to others. It's immoral. On what right should the gov impose regulations on businesses?
maximemeis111 4 weeks ago
@maximemeis111 I agree that too much regulation can stifle growth, but the least that the government can do is incentivize companies to keep good paying manufacturing/tech jobs in the US. We need this for a strong middle class, because service jobs aren't enough. The government can increase import taxes to balance trade or it can cut corporate tax rates to 0 for companies that keep jobs in the US. The bottom line is that the government can play a big part in our economic success as a nation.
Sasha32659 4 weeks ago
@Sasha32659 The only thing gov can do to keep good companies in the U.S. is to get the hell out of their way. On what right can the gov impose regulations on people? On what right the gov can tell me: "you've got to pay your workers this much" when the value of a worker's work is less? When you have right to your life, liberty and proprety, you also have the right to make contracts by mutual agreement for mutual profit. It's what business can still do overseas, not in the US.
maximemeis111 3 weeks ago
@maximemeis111 The government could step out of the way completely & allow busineses to outsource as many jobs as they please and drop US worker's pay below minimum wage if necessary. It would give businesses more freedom, but it was also drive the wages of US workers down, reducing tax revenue. There would have to be more cuts to defense, education, local law enforcement and fire departments. Grandma would have to move in w/ you because of cuts in SS and Medicare. We need some regulation.
Sasha32659 3 weeks ago
@Sasha32659 Yeah it would drop wages down. The work of a worker would take the value it ought to be: the agreement between the employer and the worker. The only proper role of gov is to protect people's individual rights from force and fraud by means of army, police and courts (not education.) It would require way less little money than what is being paid to the gov. Regulations are a reduction of your freedom.
maximemeis111 3 weeks ago
@maximemeis111 Can you see how no regulation on businesses would affect your right to pursue happiness?
Sasha32659 3 weeks ago
@Sasha32659 Well how? You're given to pursue your own happiness, not the right of somebody bringing you happiness. If it was so, than the people who would have to provide it to you wouldn't have freedom nor right to pursue their own happiness. The right to pursue your own happiness means that you can do whatever as long as you don't step on the rights of others.
maximemeis111 3 weeks ago
@Sasha32659 (continue from comment below) Here's an example. Let's say that tomorrow I invent a car motor working on water. Let's say I can sell this motor half the price of any car motor on the market and still make 60% profit. Should the gov regulate my motor given the fact that many people at GM, Chrysler, Ford are going to lose their jobs? Do I prevent them from pursuing their happiness? NO. Regulating by motor would be breaking my rights.
maximemeis111 3 weeks ago
@Sasha32659 (continue ) Is my motor going to hurt people? Well beside if it exploded, I would not care to consider. Some people are going to lose their jobs? People working in the oil feel would lose their jobs? Yes of course I don't prevent them from trying to keep it or find a new one. But think about all the people who would profit from my motor, a motor working on water. But this doesn't matter. If I sell a product and people are willing to pay for it, nothing should stop it.
maximemeis111 3 weeks ago
This movie is so biased... they should look at the main problem which is the Federal reserve as Dr. Ron Paul had pointed out.
mmrllmonta 1 year ago
These people going into schools are like vampires. I wish I had a stake so I could drive it into their cold hearts.
SiriosIX 4 years ago