Free Markets and the middle class
Got two ideas that have been touted lately by the liberal left decrying about how unfair it is that publically traded companies have Executives that make millions. But I digress. The title of this post is where the afforementioned discussion goes if they dare to bring up the debate. Point one: Publically traded is not publically owned, example, BlackBerry, a publically traded company is beholden to its shareholders that voluntarily put up private money to invest in same in the prospect of recieving a return on investment. CBC, a publically owned corporation, is funded through non-voluntary contributions from the tax payer and does not have to turn a profit to keep the doors open. So lets review the latest regurgitated talking point. The public is apparently being taken advantage of by an apparent unfair advantage that top earners have over the middle class, and its not fair, cause it somehow violates the philosphy of what a fair market is. This is particularly odious for the middle class...or so they claim. Unfair is it? How is it a free market if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is awarded a billion a year in tax payers dollars to operate yet is still allowed to obtain advertising revenue? How is it anything but bad faith to argue for free markets, but not recognize the impediment imposed by supply management? Go do a search on the term "zap your frozen" for real disingenous bald face lying with regard to government regulated markets. Lets do a comparision to how much those executives are paid, who by the way are subject to a vote of confidence each year when a publically traded company has its yearly general meeting, and how many top bureaucrats are paid through government funding that are not subject to a vote of confidence...ever. You cannot preach fair markets and middle class values while at the same time advocate taking away the freedom of the market to decide by using the government to pick the market winners and losers
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home