Whoops -- this is getting political.
Let's not argue about socialism vs. capitalism on a
singing list... I'd suggest BACKSTAGE, but it's
currently defunct.
Just a plea: Please continue your discussions of
welfare and wages and political systems via private
email, for the peace of the list...
Isabelle
--- Ingo Duckerschein <ingo_d@y...> wrote:
> Caio wrote:
> >Mirko, I didn't complain about his price. I
> complained about his voice
> >assuming it was actually that bad as the critic
> said ). Regarding his
> >contribution to singing in the past, people are
> paying to hear him
> >sing NOW, not remember the past. That would be the
> same as that person
> >who opened a bag of chips next to you at Pav's
> concert say that it was
> >no big deal, since you could always listen to his
> cds!
>
> Until you figure out a way of paying performers for
> their actual
> ability to perform on any given night you will not
> be able to change
> this. Artists and athletes are frequently paid on
> past accomplishments
> because they were _underpaid_ during their prime.
> Find a solution to
> paying these folks what they deserve when they are
> at their best, then
> you can stop overpaying whey they are "over the
> hill". (I don't mean
> to imply that Pavarotti is "over the hill" at this
> point in his career.
> I haven't heard a live performance of his in quite
> a while, so I'm not
> in a position to argue either case.)
>
> Mirko wrote:
> >If you were as wealthy as Pav, you too
> >would spend your energies helping out the less
> fortunate.
>
> Caio wrote:
> >No, I wouldn't. I'm against charity, for good
> salaries. Against
> >philanthropy, for welfare state. Against seeing
> the world through
> >colored glasses, for reality shock and consequent
> action.
>
> Hm, sounds like most of Western Europe to me,
> especially Scandinavia,
> German, and France. But let's have a reality check
> on that welfare
> state. My father complains regularly about
> employees who no longer
> work to their abilities because the welfare system
> and drive for
> equality means that you get paid the same, no matter
> how well you do
> compared to your colleagues. Schools are no longer
> promoting the
> brightest, instead teaching to the common
> demoninator, or even worse,
> the dummest in the class. Innovation is shunted
> because their are no
> rewards, after all, why risk everything (i.e., your
> job and status in
> society), when forming a successful company which
> creates jobs doesn't
> have an equivalent reward. Last time I checked job
> creation in the US
> was much higher than Western Europe, and no, their
> not all at
> McDonald's, Burger King, and Wal*Mart.
>
> Please don't try to convince me that Scandinavia,
> France, and Germany
> are poor examples of a welfare state. Their pretty
> much the closest
> thing to it, and as you say, we have to deal with
> reality.
>
> Caio wrote:
> >BTW, in my ideal world, where I would be rich, of
> course, I wouldn't
> >be THAT rich anyway: in that realm of mine richness
> would be
> >highly taxed to support the welfare state. :-)
>
> And I'm sure you're convinced that you would be very
> happy with that
> set-up. Well, I do hope that you become "rich" in a
> welfare state with
> high tax rates. Let's see if you would be so happy
> with a 50-60% tax
> rate. If you should be, then I admire your moral
> fortitude. Somehow,
> however, I think you'll be just as human as the rest
> of us (ok, 99.9%
> of us) and complain about the tax rate and try to
> shelter as much of
> your wealth as possible.
>
> Ingo
>
>
__________________________________________________
|
