bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,329
- 2,180
You're confusing things with the people who own them. A factory is not an extension of the person who owns it. A factory may be used in the process of production. But the person who owns it, merely by owning it, produces nothing.
I haven't confused jack squat. People who own factories had to risk their cash so that it could be created. You seem to be implying that the owners don't deserve to be compensated for providing the capital that makes a productive enterprise possible. Do you think your brother in law should be able to use your car anytime he wants without compensating you?
Of course, he could very well manage the factory, as well as own it. But in that case he's a worker as well as an owner. The two are not mutually exclusive. Millions of people own businesses, as well as work there. They're called small business owners.
The factory wouldn't exist unless someone put up the capital to create it. Those people deserve to be compensated for risking their capital, whether they work in the factory or not. Your theory that they are superfluous to the production process is the ultimate idiocy. Nothing would get produced if factories didn't get built.
Ownership and work are two different things. They may overlap, but one is not the other. To take an extreme example, suppose it was possible to own the air, as well as the land and the water. Would you say the owner of the air was "providing" something to workers, by letting them breathe?
Whoever said ownership and work were the same? The bottom line is that no one would have a job if people with capital didn't invest it to build a factory. Your theory that owners are irrelevant to the production process is simply too stupid for words to describe. The air is not a factory. The air existed before human beings appeared on the scene. On other hand, everything in a factory costs money. Someone had to buy it so some turd with a high school diploma can make far more than he's really worth.