Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FracusBrown" data-source="post: 895369" data-attributes="member: 29360">You are absolutely correct. It was those buying $600,000 homes on a income that can only support a $100,000 home that lead to the crash. Clearly these people didn&#039;t understand basic economics. We can blame it on the banks, the corporations or even the government. Personal responsibly has a role in each of our fates. Of course 70% want more of someone else&#039;s income. These 70% are better than most of the worlds population. When you put the shoe on the other foot, how much of their wealth are they willing to redistribute to the less fortunate? None is the most likely answer. Do you think your income should be better divided with the part-timers? &nbsp;I guess it can be said that corporations are intended to serve society, but a more reasonable explanation is that corporations are intended to drive investment to grow the economy without placing the investors in a situation of unreasonable risk. Without this, people would simply put their money under their mattress. By risking their wealth, they stimulate the economy by creating companies that employ others. Microsoft (for example) made a lot of people rich, and in the process provided employment to countless others. Without the initial investment in this corporation society would not be better off and without the corporation the immense tax revenues generated (corporate and employee generated) would not exist.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FracusBrown, post: 895369, member: 29360"] You are absolutely correct. It was those buying $600,000 homes on a income that can only support a $100,000 home that lead to the crash. Clearly these people didn't understand basic economics. We can blame it on the banks, the corporations or even the government. Personal responsibly has a role in each of our fates. Of course 70% want more of someone else's income. These 70% are better than most of the worlds population. When you put the shoe on the other foot, how much of their wealth are they willing to redistribute to the less fortunate? None is the most likely answer. Do you think your income should be better divided with the part-timers? I guess it can be said that corporations are intended to serve society, but a more reasonable explanation is that corporations are intended to drive investment to grow the economy without placing the investors in a situation of unreasonable risk. Without this, people would simply put their money under their mattress. By risking their wealth, they stimulate the economy by creating companies that employ others. Microsoft (for example) made a lot of people rich, and in the process provided employment to countless others. Without the initial investment in this corporation society would not be better off and without the corporation the immense tax revenues generated (corporate and employee generated) would not exist. [/QUOTE]

Verification