"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/14 10:54, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 10:40:46 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Whilst I generally agree with you, capitalism has no mechanism for
sharing the wealth on a fair basis.

Define "fair".

If we mean that the rewards go to those who, through the use of labour
and/or capital, earn them - is that not "fair"?

There's a very strong argument that that's "fairer" than the rewards
being spread evenly across everybody regardless of how much effort and
innovation they've contributed.


Well an amount to allow you to live a decent life. Now I guess you'll say
define decent life. Well as say, for the average worker, a roof over your
family's head, an adequate diet and at least sufficient for a little
recreation. I'm not suggesting every one earns the same but there's a very
narrow line between competition and exploitation. It was only legislation
and still is, which protects workers from unreasonable hours, unsafe
practices and dangerous materials. Little of this was done voluntarily by
the owners, on the grounds of cost. All I'm suggesting is that there has
to be a middle way,

There is, what we have been doing for close to a century now.

which we have so far failed to do.

Like hell we have with minimum wage rates and with stuff
like council housing and welfare for those who can't work
because they are too disabled or too old etc. Leaves the
previous approach of workhouses for dead.