The way the economy works at its most basic level... [View all]

[kentuck]

Suppose a thousand new people move into a town. These are all potential customers for the businesses that are in this town. But, in order for these new people to buy the products that are made by the businesses in this town, there has to be more production.

Who is responsible for more production so these customers can buy the products that they want to buy? The owners of the business would need to hire more people to make the products for the new customers.

Unless one believes that the "small business man" does all of this production by himself, then nothing could be created without the worker. Likewise, the customer is of no use to the local economy if there are no products to buy.

Granted, the "small business man" can hire more people to make more products to sell to the new customers so long as the new customers have the means to purchase the products. Each of these is dependent on the other. The small business owner is dependent on labor to make the product. The laborer is dependent upon the business owner for the job. They are all dependent on the customer buying the product, otherwise, the business fails, the worker loses his job, the customer goes without, and they all suffer. One is not superior to the other, contrary to what we have been led to believe our entire lives.

If one cannot survive without the other, then neither of them is superior to the other. Historically, the person that "invested" the capital for the business gets the larger cut. However, his capital would be worthless if it was not put to use. Then the question should be, what would be the fair cut for the business man over the worker? If the worker, also the customer, does not make enough to buy the products that are made in his town, then the business goes under and workers are laid off, and everyone loses. That is the challenge of modern capitalism.

.