| I'm connecting an abstract concept to empirical reality right now, because I saw that I disagreed with you on the fundamental concept of capitalism and its inherent (in)feasibility. I read your posts, I just changed the subject ever so slightly because I disagreed with your examples.
Most people do not benefit from the market. Unless you're an investor of a company, or a stockbroker, you don't have much to gain from the market. Most people's only connections to the market are either through stockbrokers or through banks - both of which work the same way in keeping the exclusive policies of said market. They take your money, and put it in the market. If you win, they take more out of the winnings than you. After all, that's how they make money. If you lose, it's your money lost, not theirs. The government saved most people from the banks via FDIC, because otherwise quite a lot of people would be starving everytime a bank died in the natural attrition rate of the market. The stockbrokers just carry a "you do this at your own risk" policy.
Not to mention that most people's money are usually tied up in mundane tasks like feeding, clothing and housing themselves. Investing is an expensive business, it has a bar of personal weath one must pass before it is feasible to even attempt such a risk. Not to mention that you either need to spend all your time following the market or you must pay someone else to.
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |