Homestead mailing list

["Melody O." <melody AT crecon.com>]

At 01:51 PM 4/20/05 -0700, you wrote:
>William F. Buckley Jr.
>April 20, 2005, 9:07 a.m.
>Capitalism’s Boil
>Some ugly details.

<snip>
>
>Every ten years I quote the same adage from the late Austrian analyst Willi 
>Schlamm, and I hope that ten years from now someone will remember to quote 
>it in my memory. It goes, "The trouble with socialism is socialism. The 
>trouble with capitalism is capitalists." 

<snip>

>Why does capitalism tolerate such institutional embarrassments? The answer 
>has to be that embarrassment simply isn't being felt. Consider 
>excruciating, but apparently tolerable, incidentals. Mr. Freston is based 
>in New York. But from time to time, business requires him to be in Los 
>Angeles — where, as it happens, he also has a home. On those nights does he 
>take hotel rooms? Ample hotel rooms, understand. No. He just charges the 
>company what he thinks is appropriate to pay him for using his own home. In 
>2004, this amounted to $43,000. He is evidently a man with simpler habits 
>than the Los Angeles-based Mr. Moonves's. He does the same kind of thing, 
>he has his own home in New York, but what he charged the company for the 
>nights he spent in New York was $105,000.

<snip>

The reason that capitalism allows such things is that the person is
valuable; if they weren't valuable enough to pay oodles of money for they'd
be let go.


>Once again, there is a muted reproach from the corporate world, assessing 
>this kind of thing. It is the voice of Graef Crystal, who is styled as "a 
>longtime compensation expert." Mr. Crystal says of Sumner Redstone that he 
>"certainly qualifies for the 'unclear on the concept award' contest for 
>paying himself $55.9 million in a year when the company lost $17.5 billion."
<snip>

That was based on taxes right?  You can do anything with numbers.  I highly
doubt the company actually lost money in the first place; it was after
paying the high salaries and expenses that it appeared to lose money for
taxes.  It simply proves they have good CPAs.  

I believe taxes to be immoral, legalized theft really- about the same as
simply paying the Mob so that they leave you alone.  Finding loopholes is
simply a way of trying to keep your own money.

>That money was taken, directly, from company shareholders. But the loss, 
>viewed on a larger scale, is a loss to the community of people who believe 
>in the capitalist free-market system. Because extortions of that size tell 
>us, really, that the market system is not working — in respect of executive 
>remuneration. What is going on is phony. It is shoddy, it is contemptible, 
>and it is philosophically blasphemous.

It is legal.  It is a choice that the shareholders make to keep their money
involved in the company.

The problem with this article is that it bashes capitalism based on
instances making the shareholders look like victims.  None of those people
*have* to invest their money and time in a particular company.  It is their
choice, and it would have to be lucritive if they continue to be a part of
that company.

Capitalism beats socialism any day of the week.  Those shareholders have a
choice of staying with the company or leaving it behind.  Their money is in
their own control.

Socialism, on the other hand, *takes* money from all to invest where some
want it to go.

Take Steve's and my situation for instance:  

Steve and I do not play the stock market; we invest our money in our own
company and our family.  That is capitalism.  

Yet approx. 50% of our income is taken through taxes and spent on programs
that Steve and I would never in a million years invest in on our own.  That
is socialism.  

In capitalism we have choices, in socialism we have no choices.

Capitalism is portrayed as being dirty and bad, while socialism takes care
of society.  It is a fallacy.  Capitalism allows you to do with your money
and time what you think is best; Socialsm takes your money and uses it for
programs that someone else thinks is best for you.

Best wishes,
Melody