Once again, a version of feudalism appears to crush the majority of Americans to its unjust will.
This one is called Technofeudalism because rule is from a cloud.
The Soviets and Chinese made the prior (i. e. Marx) ism of a writer a conservative curse word.
That is the problem with revolutions, former leaders get replaced by worse.
The question remains the same: what right are a few entitled to take wealth from the many?
If you look closely at how large businesses actually work, the question arises of how effective the capitalistic model in is tapping human ability and resources to create product.
Are the few at the top of a large business worthy of the compensation received?
There is plenty of evidence (example: blue LED compensation) that many top business leaders contributed little to be worthy of the compensation they receive.
Isn't it an oxymoron statement to say that owning something entitles you to compensation?
Owning all the sand in a desert entitles you to nothing.
How many super wealthy individuals didn't cheat in many ways in order to obtain their wealth?
A classic example is creating skyscrapers with subpar materials and labor methods and escape fines by bribing building inspectors.
It is a common claim that the wealthy are the innovators, and the average American has less initiative than their wealthy counterpart.
It is true that some people work long hours and to some extent selflessly but are they the ones who cheated by the people who become super wealthy?
PayPal raises that question.
In truth, it is the average American who is responsible for most new wealth, and it is the wealthy which muscles to claim a giant part of it.
Imagine if that wealthy muscle was stopped in its tracks and the average American could claim a fair share of the new wealth created and was able to reinvest their wealth.
Would American total wealth be much greater than it is today?
Suppose the average American had more free time during the week than is currently possible.
Large businesses and government agencies would have more scrutiny than now because it would be in the best interest of the average American to keep a close eye on both.
Many employees might like the jobs they had since there would be less pressure to force average Americans to take jobs they didn't want.
Ready for an evolutionary change?
