Whose money is it anyway?

I used the word money but in the end, what it really comes down to wealth, which most people associate with money.

How far would you get if you had to do everything (and I mean everything) all alone, with no assistance?

Imagine yourself naked and alone in the wilderness with only your wits to keep you alive. How long do you suppose you’d last?

With that thought in mind, the world as we know it is not the product of any individual’s efforts but the sum of all of our efforts…the ones who are ‘profitably’ employed anyway.

Yet the economic pie is not divided equally.

Since it takes all of the ingredients (not just some of them) to create a finished product, who can justly say that their input is any more ‘valuable’ than anyone else’s?

Short answer, no one. Yet it’s regularly done.

To make a bad situation even worse, the ones that do the least, take the most!

This, in case you didn’t know it, is the law. Laws that you had no say in making and aren’t likely to change without engaging in a bloody revolt.

Unless you smarten up that is.

Surrendering your labor for less than your fair share is often a moot point. There’s an up to date list kept of the ‘prevailing wage’ for every classification of work. Unless you’re blackmailing the boss, you won’t get one cent more.

You’ve got your head in a vise and there isn’t anything you can do about it if you like living indoors and eating regularly.

The accepted definition of slavery is someone having a bill of sale with your name on it.
But if you are forced to act against your own best interests by laws that you had no hand in creating, isn’t that the same thing?

It is law that creates both of these situations, not natural laws but laws created by other humans for the purpose of exploiting you.

You’d think there’d be a law prohibiting any human from exploiting the efforts of any other, but that would nullify the employer/employee relationship.

Horrible thought, eh?

This brings us to the ‘purpose’ of commerce. Does it exist to serve the needs of the community or does it exist to enrich its owner?

Quite simply put, we do the things we do because life is a lot tougher if we don’t. It’s foolishness to think that we’d stop trying to survive if the companies that cater to our needs ceased to exist.
Companies fill needs, needs that exist whether or not there is a company established to satisfy that need…so the need would get satisfied with or without a company…a.k.a. an employer.

Under our current laws (laws made by criminals in the truest sense of the word) a company exists to provide profits for the shareowners, the consuming public and it’s own employees be damned!

Once a company ceases to be ‘profitable’ (for it’s shareowners) it is liquidated and it’s employees cut loose.

Which brings us to that most sacred cow of the capitalist system, competition.

This begs the question as to whether life is a competitive venture or a cooperative one.

Were it competitive, you’d rise every morning and kill everyone who crossed your path…but you don’t, do you?

No. Instead, the workplace is governed by teamwork, developing a synergy that gets the job done in as efficient a manner as possible.

Seems far more cooperative than competitive to me.

So what’s the ‘benefit’ of competition? There isn’t any. It’s a wasteful redundancy that has proven counter productive to meeting the needs of society.

Did you say competition keeps prices low? Why do pay at all? For a ‘free’ society, there’s a stunning lack of free to be found anywhere.

Should there be any employers? No. The only way we will ever achieve full employment is by establishing a society that requires everyone to work.

Sounds cruel doesn’t it?

Yet what we have in its place is a society where those who do the actual work are exploited at both ends by those who place themselves above us.

Not only do the workers not receive their fair share but the taxes extracted from them are spent supporting the people commerce can’t ‘profitably’ employ.

It’s not a case of people being unwilling to work. That’s like saying they aren’t willing to live. It’s more insidious than that. Free market capitalism REFUSES to employ them.

Remember ‘more with less?’ Less employees equals more profits, thus has automation and outsourcing decimated the workforce to the detriment of our entire society.

Over sixty million people and rising.

What makes sense to you? A society where everyone works and contributes, thereby providing them with the means to obtain the things they need or is it more sensible to allow those who rob you blind to continue to exploit a situation that they themselves have created?

They’re rich and you’re not. Think about that.

Thanks for letting me inside your head,

Gegner