Debt is Pushing the US Into Fascism

[georgephillip]

The Marxian definition of a corporation is wrong, contradictory, and hypocritical.

Because all people get more value from whatever exchange they engage in.

Point out the hypocrisy.

Marxism and socialism

"A capitalist industrial corporation (Marx differentiates that from a merchant or financial corporation) is one which gets from its productive employees a value of output that is larger than the total value paid by the corporation for physical inputs (tools, equipment, raw materials) plus the value paid to the workers as wages (payment for what Marx calls their labor power).

"The difference is the surplus value appropriated by the corporation's board of directors.

"In the mainstream definition taught in schools (and by me as a professor) there is no such thing as a surplus and hence what I just described is NOT an aspect of the corporation, let alone its central aspect as for Marx."

 

[Andylusion]

The Marxian definition of a corporation is wrong, contradictory, and hypocritical.

Because all people get more value from whatever exchange they engage in.

Point out the hypocrisy.

Marxism and socialism

"A capitalist industrial corporation (Marx differentiates that from a merchant or financial corporation) is one which gets from its productive employees a value of output that is larger than the total value paid by the corporation for physical inputs (tools, equipment, raw materials) plus the value paid to the workers as wages (payment for what Marx calls their labor power).

"The difference is the surplus value appropriated by the corporation's board of directors.

"In the mainstream definition taught in schools (and by me as a professor) there is no such thing as a surplus and hence what I just described is NOT an aspect of the corporation, let alone its central aspect as for Marx."

Again, you don't pay the 'surplus value' created when someone adds a deck to your house that increases the value of your house.

You do this on a routine basis.

If you replace the carpet in your house for a few thousands dollars, can add $10K or $20K to the value of your house, your capital.

Did you give that surplus value to the laborers? No you did not.

So you are just being a hypocrite.

 

[Natural Citizen]

So much fail in this thread.

 

[eagle1462010]

If Warren Buffet were to lose half, or three fourths, or even 90% of his "share".... name one poor person anywhere on the planet that would be better off?

I'm not sure about Buffett's numbers.
Let's use Bezos
$180 billion.
How many millionaires could be created at Amazon if Jeff gave up 90% of his fortune by turning the corporation into a worker self-directed enterprise?

Envy alert...........begging at the moment........taking it after getting power.

You are from Venezuela..........thought you lived in a cave in the middle east.......imagine that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Marxian definition of a corporation is wrong, contradictory, and hypocritical.

Because all people get more value from whatever exchange they engage in.

Point out the hypocrisy.

Marxism and socialism

"A capitalist industrial corporation (Marx differentiates that from a merchant or financial corporation) is one which gets from its productive employees a value of output that is larger than the total value paid by the corporation for physical inputs (tools, equipment, raw materials) plus the value paid to the workers as wages (payment for what Marx calls their labor power).

"The difference is the surplus value appropriated by the corporation's board of directors.

"In the mainstream definition taught in schools (and by me as a professor) there is no such thing as a surplus and hence what I just described is NOT an aspect of the corporation, let alone its central aspect as for Marx."

"A capitalist industrial corporation (Marx differentiates that from a merchant or financial corporation) is one which gets from its productive employees a value of output that is larger than the total value paid by the corporation for physical inputs (tools, equipment, raw materials) plus the value paid to the workers as wages (payment for what Marx calls their labor power).

Yeah, a profitable one.

 

[j-mac]

The strength of my argument is the constitution...And that is what we are governed by

What does the Constitution say about corporations?

its real simple George...what ever is not spelled out in the enumerated powers, are left to the states, or the people...it’s right there.

 

[georgephillip]

you vermin are doing it.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/trump-immigrants-vermin-infest

View attachment 388343

 

[miketx]

you vermin are doing it.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/trump-immigrants-vermin-infest

View attachment 388343

Typical lies from traitor vermin. No president has been prosecuted. Yet. Watch for black jesus and his man to leave the country.

 

[georgephillip]

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”

 

[georgephillip]

But let's answer the question more directly.... how many Millionaires would be created if Bezos made Amazon into a worker self-directed enterprise.

Answer: Zero.

The flat out truth is... zero. Zero.

Let's use round numbers.
Jeff redistributes $160 billion of his $180 billion fortune to the workers who create his wealth.
$160 billion/$1million/worker
160,000 new Amazon millionaires.

Billionaires won corona

"Imagine you’re just finishing your shift as a picker at an Amazon warehouse.

"All day long you’ve been carting items for other people, under giant letters on the wall that spell 'work hard. have fun. make history.'

"The pandemic has been hard on you. You can tell from what people are buying that it’s been hard on just about everybody.

"But as you come off shift, you get life-changing news.

"Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive of Amazon, has decided to give you a bonus. In fact, he has decided to give every single employee of Amazon — some 876,000 people — a one-time pandemic bonus.

"A $105,000 bonus.

" Serious money.

"The kind of money that, if invested over a couple of decades, would give you a real retirement nest egg.

"The crazy thing? The money he is giving you — it’s merely the extra wealth he gained during the pandemic, wealth that you built."

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, people are borrowing more. But you are making up that it is because people are not paid enough. You don't know that. You are just making an assumption to fit your ideology.

What's your explanation for US wage stagnation over the past few decades?

Five Causes of Wage Stagnation in the United States | AFL-CIO

"Before digging into the details, it's important to note a few things.

"First off, wage stagnation is not a small problem, it's something that affects 90% of all workers."

 

[georgephillip]

I don't use credit cards. I barely made $30K last year. And I have zero debt at all. How is that possible? Am I with my $30K income, now the 1%?

I don't use credit cards.
I never made $20,000 in one year over my entire working life.
I have zero debt.
What is the significance of two isolated individuals in an economy with about 160 million civilian workers and a $20 trillion final output?

 

[eagle1462010]

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”

A Scottish quote from a bunch of wankers who the founding fathers threw out of the county.

Are you a SCOT............LOL

 

[kaz]

But let's answer the question more directly.... how many Millionaires would be created if Bezos made Amazon into a worker self-directed enterprise.

Answer: Zero.

The flat out truth is... zero. Zero.

Let's use round numbers.
Jeff redistributes $160 billion of his $180 billion fortune to the workers who create his wealth.
$160 billion/$1million/worker
160,000 new Amazon millionaires.

Billionaires won corona

"Imagine you’re just finishing your shift as a picker at an Amazon warehouse.

"All day long you’ve been carting items for other people, under giant letters on the wall that spell 'work hard. have fun. make history.'

"The pandemic has been hard on you. You can tell from what people are buying that it’s been hard on just about everybody.

"But as you come off shift, you get life-changing news.

"Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive of Amazon, has decided to give you a bonus. In fact, he has decided to give every single employee of Amazon — some 876,000 people — a one-time pandemic bonus.

"A $105,000 bonus.

" Serious money.

"The kind of money that, if invested over a couple of decades, would give you a real retirement nest egg.

"The crazy thing? The money he is giving you — it’s merely the extra wealth he gained during the pandemic, wealth that you built."

LOL. It was Bezos who changed the system. Most of his workers showed up for a paycheck. They could have just as easily gone to another company that was successful or not.

They definitely deserve that paycheck.

But they don't deserve credit for changing the rules of the game like Bezos. They don't get the credit for what he did.

They traded their labor for a paycheck. You're saying that no, they took no risk, they put up no money, they didn't create the ideas that transformed the industry, but they own what was built and not the guy who did all those things.

Pure Marxist bull shit rhetoric

 

[georgephillip]

The GOP need only keep telling the conservatives that the U.S. is #1 and keep them singing "God Bless America", and the right-wingers will goosestep behind the impeached president trump and the Republican Party all the way to a Fourth Reich.


.

The GOP and Democrats are on the wrong side of the class war:

https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HudsonLostTradition.pdf

"THE LOST TRADITION OF BIBLICAL DEBT CANCELLATIONS Michael Hudson, PhD. 'The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.' Proverbs 22:7..."

"THE once-glowing core body of law within the Judeo-Christian Bible has become all but ignored - indeed, rejected - by the colder temper of our times.

"This core provided for periodic restoration of economic order by rituals of social renewal based on freedom from debt-servitude and from the loss of one's access to self-support on the land.

"So central to Israelite moral values was this tradition that it framed the composition of both the Old and New Testaments."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”

 

[Andylusion]

But let's answer the question more directly.... how many Millionaires would be created if Bezos made Amazon into a worker self-directed enterprise.

Answer: Zero.

The flat out truth is... zero. Zero.

Let's use round numbers.
Jeff redistributes $160 billion of his $180 billion fortune to the workers who create his wealth.
$160 billion/$1million/worker
160,000 new Amazon millionaires.

Billionaires won corona

"Imagine you’re just finishing your shift as a picker at an Amazon warehouse.

"All day long you’ve been carting items for other people, under giant letters on the wall that spell 'work hard. have fun. make history.'

"The pandemic has been hard on you. You can tell from what people are buying that it’s been hard on just about everybody.

"But as you come off shift, you get life-changing news.

"Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive of Amazon, has decided to give you a bonus. In fact, he has decided to give every single employee of Amazon — some 876,000 people — a one-time pandemic bonus.

"A $105,000 bonus.

" Serious money.

"The kind of money that, if invested over a couple of decades, would give you a real retirement nest egg.

"The crazy thing? The money he is giving you — it’s merely the extra wealth he gained during the pandemic, wealth that you built."

Let's use round numbers.
Jeff redistributes $160 billion of his $180 billion fortune to the workers who create his wealth.
$160 billion/$1million/worker
160,000 new Amazon millionaires.

So you don't know what that $180 Billion is. It's not money. There isn't a big vault somewhere, with $180 Billion in it.

That's stock. That's the value of the stock that Bezo owns.

Now if you confiscated the stock from Bezo.... the value of the stock will drop.

You can't really pay employees with stock, because the employees can't use the stock to pay bills. Can't go to the grocery store, and pay for food by handing the cashier stock in Amazon.

So all the employees would have to sell their stock.

You have a mass sell off of $160 Billion in Amazon stock... what happens? The price goes down.

Now tell me georgephillip... who is going to buy those stocks that the employees sell off?

The rich. Like say.... Bezos. So rich people are going to buy all the stocks back, and end up wealthy again, and the employees who sold all the stock will end up where they were before.

See, you are pretending that spreading around money, will make everyone wealthy. This is false. What makes people wealthy is that they create value.

You can give $10 Million dollars to two different people, and one will end up poor, and the other will end up richer.

Sharon Tirabassi won $10 Million dollars in a lottery.

How One Lottery Winner Blew Through $10 Million in Less Than 10 Years

Barry Gray/The Hamilton Spectator With a $338 million Powerball ticket having been sold in New Jersey -- the fourth-largest jackpot in Powerball history -- it's a good time to remember that the sudden gains of a lottery windfall can be

www.aol.com

In 10 years, she was taking the bus, to a part time job, because she didn't even own a car anymore.

Giving poor people money, doesn't make them wealthy. Because wealth is dynamic. Not static. You give a poor person a high car, they can't afford, nor have the willingness to maintain, and soon they have a junker.

I witnessed this personally working at a Cadillac Dealership. People who simply didn't have the ability to maintain a high-end car, would buy expensive cars, and in just a few years, they were ruined.

Now you take that same $10 Million and give it to a innovated wealth creating person, and they'll create more wealth.

Say... a computer guy... gets lets say.... $10 Million. He buys another business for $5 Million, and then invests the other $5 Million into the company, to upgrade equipment and adding more employees, and he'll end up making Billions, and becoming more wealthy.

That's not theory. Steve Jobs when he left Apple Computer in 1985, had $10 Million in Apple stock as part of him being kicked out.

He used that $10 Million, to buy the computer special effects department of Lucasfilms, and invested another $5 Million into the company, which after several years, came out with the smash hit Toy Story.

Steve Jobs then sold Pixar to Disney for almost $10 Billion.

People who are wealthy, are wealthy because they build and invest, and grow wealth and value.
Poor people, are poor, because they consume use and deplete their wealth.

So back to your original question.... if Bezo were to give all his stock, or $160 Billion of it, to the employees.... they would have to sell it, because you can't pay bill with stock. The wealthy would buy all the stock up again, and in a few years, the employees would all be where they are now, and Bezo would be there with hundreds of billions in wealth again.

 

[georgephillip]

The problem with that, is that if they didn't cash in.... name one person anywhere, that would be better off?

Capitalists like Barrack and Mnuchin profit from bipartisan government regulations that privilege their interests over the interests of millions of productive Americans.

Obama and Trump could have chosen to help the millions of victims of the Great Recession, yet each politician choose to help those who donated most to their campaigns.

Profiting off pain: Trump confidant cashed in on housing crisis | Reveal

"There are signs that Trump is moving to help Barrack, along with other corporate landlords, who have benefitted from a decline in homeownership that continues to sag after the housing bust.

"An hour after Trump took the oath of office, his administration reversed a President Barack Obama-era rule that would have made mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration more affordable to borrowers who had good jobs but lacked enough money for a downpayment – exactly the sort of people Barrack’s company targets to rent his single-family homes...."

"Barrack isn’t the only one in Trump’s inner circle who’s profited off the housing bust.

"Trump’s treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, has been called the “foreclosure king.” OneWest, the bank he ran from 2009 to 2015, was responsible for 40 percent of all reverse mortgage foreclosures during the crash.

"The bank is being investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development over whether it violated the Fair Housing Act by making fewer mortgages available to people of color and maintaining foreclosed properties in white neighborhoods better than those in black and Latino ones.

"Then there’s Steve Schwarzman, the chairman and CEO of the Blackstone Group..."

Joe Biden Just Made a Big Promise to His Wall Street Donors

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, people are borrowing more. But you are making up that it is because people are not paid enough. You don't know that. You are just making an assumption to fit your ideology.

What's your explanation for US wage stagnation over the past few decades?

Five Causes of Wage Stagnation in the United States | AFL-CIO

"Before digging into the details, it's important to note a few things.

"First off, wage stagnation is not a small problem, it's something that affects 90% of all workers."

The problem with that, is that it all depends on your method, and your ideological bent.

There are numerous research in the area of wages verses productivity, and many of the contradict.

For example.... Say you have a laborer who fashions car doors for an auto factory, by moving sheet metal in a press, setting it up, pressing the sheets, and then putting them on a rack to be transported to an assembler.

As the value of cars increases, the workers wage would increase in relative proportion to the value of the labor.

The company replaces the machine with a new machine that feeds the sheet metal in itself, and then aligns it itself, and then a presses the metal, and then loads it on a conveyor itself. The worker only needs to monitor the machine, and verify accuracy.

Now the worker is at most, pushing a button. Would you yourself, pay someone as much money for doing barely any work?

No. Anyone can sit, and monitor a machine, and hit a button. You don't need $20/hour to do this.

So the problem is, that high skill jobs are being replaced with low skill jobs.

As our economy improve, the demand for low-skill labor, is declining. The demand for high skill labor is going up. And at the same time, we have an increased number of people in the low-skill no-skill labor market.

Therefore what we are seeing is normal, and expected.

So what are some solutions?

What is universally true, is that supply verses demand, determines price.

So... in order to increase the value of low-skill or no-skill labor, we need to either A: Increase the demand for low-end labor. or B: we need to decrease the supply of low-end labor.

If the demand for low-end labor goes up, or the supply of low-end labor goes down, the price... the wage paid for low-end labor will increase.

How do we accomplish that?

Well there are a number of ways. One way, which we just did, and is in fact working, is we lowered the corporate tax rate, which makes it more profitable to build stuff in the US. Manufacturing here is increasing, and largely due to tax cuts.

U.S. enjoys best manufacturing jobs growth of the last 30 years

Some food for thought: the U.S. had as many people working in the manufacturing sector in December as it did 69 years ago.

www.marketwatch.com

So that part is working.

Another way, is by reducing costly regulations, and reducing the cost of using human labor. For example, repeal all the Obama care regulations.

Then you can also tackle the other side, which is reducing the supply of low-end workers. How do you do this?

First, stop illegal immigration. Illegals typically are in the low-skill, no-skill labor market, and they depress wages. Stopping illegal activity will reduce the supply of low-end workers, will will push up wages.

The other way, is by encouraging more people to leave the low-skill no-skill markets. How do you do that?

One way would be to encourage more people who do not want to go to college, to go to trade schools and learn a trade skill.

Another way, is to dis-encourage bad degrees. Like I think we should have a prevention of people using student loans for an Art History degree. You get an Art History degree and end up working at Burger King.

The more people we move out of low-skill no-skill jobs, the smaller the supply of low-end labor will be, and prices will go up.

By the way, this isn't theory. This is how the world works. Contrary to idiotic left-wing lies, Denmark doesn't have a unionized McDonald's workers. Contrary to the claim, they don't negotiate with McDonald's on wages.

Denmark doesn't have a minimum wage. So why do McDonald's stores in Denmark pay their employees $16 an hour to start?

Because they have a small low-skill no-skill labor market. People don't stay in the low-end market, they get a skill, or a trade, or degree, and move up out of that market.

By the way, another way we can reduce the size of the low-skill no-skill market, is by eliminating welfare and food stamps.

When you stay on government assistance, you end up staying in the low-skill no-skill market.

As much as Socialists talk about Scandinavia, most of those country (I think all of them), do not have welfare. There is no living off the government. You don't work... you don't eat. Everyone has to work. They have Unemployment Compensation, but you only qualify for that after a full year of full time work, and you don't work, you don't get it. And that Unemployment Compensation only lasts for a specific amount of time, and then if you don't have a job by the time it runs out, it just runs out. You work, or you starve.

And people who work, will naturally progress up the income ladder. Even if you work the crappiest of jobs, like minimum wage at Wendy's... if you just stay there working full time, coming in on time, and do your job right, and get along with people... in a few years you'll be in management. And few years after that, you can move into corporate management.

But if you quit and live on welfare, no you'll be back to minimum wage again.

So those are ways to improve the low wage market.

 

[Andylusion]

The problem with that, is that if they didn't cash in.... name one person anywhere, that would be better off?

Capitalists like Barrack and Mnuchin profit from bipartisan government regulations that privilege their interests over the interests of millions of productive Americans.

Obama and Trump could have chosen to help the millions of victims of the Great Recession, yet each politician choose to help those who donated most to their campaigns.

Profiting off pain: Trump confidant cashed in on housing crisis | Reveal

"There are signs that Trump is moving to help Barrack, along with other corporate landlords, who have benefitted from a decline in homeownership that continues to sag after the housing bust.

"An hour after Trump took the oath of office, his administration reversed a President Barack Obama-era rule that would have made mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration more affordable to borrowers who had good jobs but lacked enough money for a downpayment – exactly the sort of people Barrack’s company targets to rent his single-family homes...."

"Barrack isn’t the only one in Trump’s inner circle who’s profited off the housing bust.

"Trump’s treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, has been called the “foreclosure king.” OneWest, the bank he ran from 2009 to 2015, was responsible for 40 percent of all reverse mortgage foreclosures during the crash.

"The bank is being investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development over whether it violated the Fair Housing Act by making fewer mortgages available to people of color and maintaining foreclosed properties in white neighborhoods better than those in black and Latino ones.

"Then there’s Steve Schwarzman, the chairman and CEO of the Blackstone Group..."

Joe Biden Just Made a Big Promise to His Wall Street Donors

Be specific. What exactly would you have prevented. I am open to your opinions, but I need something more than "Some people did something I don't like!" .... what specifically? What is it that you think they should not have been able to do? What specific action?