How Will the Rich Rule Without Money?

[Toddsterpatriot]

How will the richest among us protect themselves and their property if (when?) catastrophic climate chaos makes money worthless?

MR Online | How the rich plan to rule a burning planet

"Writing in the Guardian in 2018, media theorist and futurist Douglas Rushkoff related his experience of being paid half his annual salary to speak at 'a super-deluxe private resort … on the subject of "the future of technology’”. He was expecting a room full of investment bankers. When he arrived, however, he was introduced to 'five super-wealthy guys … from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world'. Rushkoff wrote:

"'After a bit of small talk, I realized they had no interest in the information I had prepared about the future of technology.

"They had come with questions of their own … Which region will be less affected by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? … Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked: "How do I maintain authority over my security force after the Event?"

"The Event.

"That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr Robot hack that takes everything down … They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs.

"But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless?

"What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader?

"The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew.

"Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for survival."

If your plan calls for allowing the world to drown in the swamp of mass death and destruction while you cower in a South Pacific bunker protected by hired killers wearing exploding collars, you are not likely to win much in the way of public support for the capitalist state economics that are creating the next mass extinction, are you?

What makes you think that the elite even believe in this "climate crisis" bullshit?

They know that past prophecies of climactic apocalypse have failed.

You really don't have much faith in these people's intelligence. Only the commonest of the common people actually believe that poppycock.

What makes you think that the elite even believe in this "climate crisis" bullshit?

They know that past prophecies of climactic apocalypse have failed.

Do they?
Got a link?

MR Online | How the rich plan to rule a burning planet

"But something is wrong with this picture.

"To believe that someone in Morrison’s position could genuinely be ignorant of the dangers of climate change is itself to give up on reason.

"The prime minister of Australia is among the most well-briefed people on the planet, with thousands of staff at his beck and call to update him on the latest developments in climate science or any other field he may wish to get his head around.

"The only rational explanation is that Morrison and his like are aware of the dangers posed by climate change but are choosing to act as though they’re not."

Do you think the capitalist imperative of short-term profit might be clouding their perspective?

Climate Change is political tool of frear

Climate Change is political tool of frear

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century.

"What's the big deal?

"Two degrees may sound like a small amount, but it's an unusual event in our planet's recent history

"Earth's climate record, preserved in tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, shows that the global average temperature is stable over long periods of time.

"Furthermore, small changes in temperature correspond to enormous changes in the environment."

"For example, at the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average temperatures were only 5 to 9 degrees cooler than today"

"Two degrees may sound like a small amount, but it's an unusual event in our planet's recent history

Really?
How much did the temperature change between 12,000 BC and 11,900 BC?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

How will the richest among us protect themselves and their property if (when?) catastrophic climate chaos makes money worthless?

MR Online | How the rich plan to rule a burning planet

"Writing in the Guardian in 2018, media theorist and futurist Douglas Rushkoff related his experience of being paid half his annual salary to speak at 'a super-deluxe private resort … on the subject of "the future of technology’”. He was expecting a room full of investment bankers. When he arrived, however, he was introduced to 'five super-wealthy guys … from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world'. Rushkoff wrote:

"'After a bit of small talk, I realized they had no interest in the information I had prepared about the future of technology.

"They had come with questions of their own … Which region will be less affected by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? … Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked: "How do I maintain authority over my security force after the Event?"

"The Event.

"That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr Robot hack that takes everything down … They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs.

"But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless?

"What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader?

"The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew.

"Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for survival."

If your plan calls for allowing the world to drown in the swamp of mass death and destruction while you cower in a South Pacific bunker protected by hired killers wearing exploding collars, you are not likely to win much in the way of public support for the capitalist state economics that are creating the next mass extinction, are you?

What makes you think that the elite even believe in this "climate crisis" bullshit?

They know that past prophecies of climactic apocalypse have failed.

You really don't have much faith in these people's intelligence. Only the commonest of the common people actually believe that poppycock.

What makes you think that the elite even believe in this "climate crisis" bullshit?

They know that past prophecies of climactic apocalypse have failed.

Do they?
Got a link?

MR Online | How the rich plan to rule a burning planet

"But something is wrong with this picture.

"To believe that someone in Morrison’s position could genuinely be ignorant of the dangers of climate change is itself to give up on reason.

"The prime minister of Australia is among the most well-briefed people on the planet, with thousands of staff at his beck and call to update him on the latest developments in climate science or any other field he may wish to get his head around.

"The only rational explanation is that Morrison and his like are aware of the dangers posed by climate change but are choosing to act as though they’re not."

Do you think the capitalist imperative of short-term profit might be clouding their perspective?

Climate Change is political tool of frear

Climate Change is political tool of frear

Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century.

"What's the big deal?

"Two degrees may sound like a small amount, but it's an unusual event in our planet's recent history

"Earth's climate record, preserved in tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, shows that the global average temperature is stable over long periods of time.

"Furthermore, small changes in temperature correspond to enormous changes in the environment."

"For example, at the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average temperatures were only 5 to 9 degrees cooler than today"

"Two degrees may sound like a small amount, but it's an unusual event in our planet's recent history

Really?
How much did the temperature change between 12,000 BC and 11,900 BC?

I bet that Judge Ginsberg knows

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Shareholders are owners while employees are commodities, right?

Shareholders are people who own the company while employees are people who work for the company, right?

Shareholders are people who own the company while employees are people who work for the company, right?

Employees produce goods and services.
Shareholders collect dividends for doing nothing.

Employees produce goods and services.

They'd better, that's why they receive their paychecks.

Shareholders collect dividends for doing nothing.

Sounds like you should save your money to buy some stock.

Shareholders collect dividends for doing nothing.

Sounds like you should save your money to buy some stock.

Because the world needs more parasites?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Property:

"Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property — not a human community — so it can be owned and sold by the propertied class."

Are corporations "a piece of property" or a "human community"?

Because the world needs more parasites?

Because you're already a parasite.
Maybe this would help you mooch less off of your parents?

Are corporations "a piece of property"

Yes.

Because you're already a parasite.
Maybe this would help you mooch less off of your parents?

Did you know your parents?

Michael Hudson’s New Book: Wall Street Parasites Have Devoured Their Hosts -- Your Retirement Plan and the U.S. Economy

"In nature, parasites tend to kill hosts that are dying, using their substance as food for the intruder’s own progeny.

"The economic analogy takes hold when financial managers use depreciation allowances for stock buybacks or to pay out as dividends instead of replenishing and updating their plant and equipment.

"Tangible capital investment, research and development and employment are cut back to provide purely financial returns.”

"The economic analogy takes hold when financial managers use depreciation allowances for stock buybacks or to pay out as dividends instead of replenishing and updating their plant and equipment.

Sounds awful! But enough about what Chavez did to the Venezuelan oil industry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How will the richest among us protect themselves and their property if (when?) catastrophic climate chaos makes money worthless?

MR Online | How the rich plan to rule a burning planet

"Writing in the Guardian in 2018, media theorist and futurist Douglas Rushkoff related his experience of being paid half his annual salary to speak at 'a super-deluxe private resort … on the subject of "the future of technology’”. He was expecting a room full of investment bankers. When he arrived, however, he was introduced to 'five super-wealthy guys … from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world'. Rushkoff wrote:

"'After a bit of small talk, I realized they had no interest in the information I had prepared about the future of technology.

"They had come with questions of their own … Which region will be less affected by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? … Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked: "How do I maintain authority over my security force after the Event?"

"The Event.

"That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr Robot hack that takes everything down … They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs.

"But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless?

"What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader?

"The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew.

"Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for survival."

If your plan calls for allowing the world to drown in the swamp of mass death and destruction while you cower in a South Pacific bunker protected by hired killers wearing exploding collars, you are not likely to win much in the way of public support for the capitalist state economics that are creating the next mass extinction, are you?

You should axe how the poor will defend their food stash under socialism when the State goes door to door to grab your food "for the people"

Just about every top economic achievement has been by a hybrid Socialist system, and NOT Capitalism, nor Communism.

#1 economic growth period in the 21st century thus far China (Socialist)
#1 economic growth period in 20th century was Japan (Socialist)
#1 economic growth period in 20th century Europe & #2 in the World was Franco's Spain (Fascist Socialist)
#1 economic growth period in 20th century USA was FDR Fascist Lite (Socialism)

BTW, Nazi Germany achieved faster economic growth than FDR.

This means Nazis (Socialists) outranked every USA president in the 20th Century for economic growth.

NOT that I deny that Nazis did the bad like invading Poland, and the ugly like the Holocaust & Generalplan Ost.

Just maybe there's more & better options out there.

Maybe we could learn from the achievements from Nazis.

It has been argued that socialism took Russia from a backwards agrarian state in 1917 to the leader in the space race in less than fifty years?

And that was in spite of two major capitalist wars of aggression fought in part in the Russian homeland.

It has been argued that socialism took Russia from a backwards agrarian state in 1917 to the leader in the space race in less than fifty years?

And all it took was 14 million in the Gulag.

 

[Billiejeens]

Ya finally got something correct.

The End is Near.

Only for you.

 

[georgephillip]

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Property:
Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property — not a human community — so it can be owned and sold by the propertied class."

How is it the humans that create a corporation's wealth are commodities and human investors are its owners?

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

Saving and investing some of your own money might make you less of a parasite.

Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property

Yes, people actually own corporations. And property.
Even if that fact makes you feel like a loser.

Actually good point..... if you intend to retire on Social Security, that would make you a parasite. Living off the hard work of others.

Saving your own money, for your own retirement would make you less of a parasite.

Actually good point..... if you intend to retire on Social Security, that would make you a parasite. Living off the hard work of others.

Actually, your retirement on SSA comes AFTER your decades of productive labor has helped those who've come before you live a dignified retirement instead of dying in the streets when they are no longer capable of working.

Oh, so as long as you worked some, you can live off the hard work of others?

So what's wrong with the wealthy living off the hard work of their employees again?

Bill Gates worked for decades, so now he can do nothing, and live off the hard of his employees, right?
The current CEO of Walmart, started off unloading trucks for a low hourly wage. What's wrong with him spending the rest of his life on the beach while his employees work for him to live off of?

Funny how quickly you magically spin your arguments around, and end up with your foot in your own mouth over and over.

You can make up whatever rational you want... in end, if you are collecting money from other people, without compensation... that makes you a parasite.

If you expect others to work, so you can sit at home and not work... you are parasite. Rationalize until the end of time.... truth is truth. You expect others to pay for you to be able to do nothing... you are parasite.

Save for your own retirement. When you are living off of your own money, then you are not a parasite.

Oh, so as long as you worked some, you can live off the hard work of others?

What's the alternative for millions of productive Americans of retirement age, move to Trump Towers?

 

[georgephillip]

The OP can only be so radically stupid due to a lack of life experience. A perpetual college freshman.

Why are you such a prissy little bitch?

 

[Andylusion]

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Property:
Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property — not a human community — so it can be owned and sold by the propertied class."

How is it the humans that create a corporation's wealth are commodities and human investors are its owners?

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

Saving and investing some of your own money might make you less of a parasite.

Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property

Yes, people actually own corporations. And property.
Even if that fact makes you feel like a loser.

Actually good point..... if you intend to retire on Social Security, that would make you a parasite. Living off the hard work of others.

Saving your own money, for your own retirement would make you less of a parasite.

Actually good point..... if you intend to retire on Social Security, that would make you a parasite. Living off the hard work of others.

Actually, your retirement on SSA comes AFTER your decades of productive labor has helped those who've come before you live a dignified retirement instead of dying in the streets when they are no longer capable of working.

Oh, so as long as you worked some, you can live off the hard work of others?

So what's wrong with the wealthy living off the hard work of their employees again?

Bill Gates worked for decades, so now he can do nothing, and live off the hard of his employees, right?
The current CEO of Walmart, started off unloading trucks for a low hourly wage. What's wrong with him spending the rest of his life on the beach while his employees work for him to live off of?

Funny how quickly you magically spin your arguments around, and end up with your foot in your own mouth over and over.

You can make up whatever rational you want... in end, if you are collecting money from other people, without compensation... that makes you a parasite.

If you expect others to work, so you can sit at home and not work... you are parasite. Rationalize until the end of time.... truth is truth. You expect others to pay for you to be able to do nothing... you are parasite.

Save for your own retirement. When you are living off of your own money, then you are not a parasite.

Oh, so as long as you worked some, you can live off the hard work of others?

What's the alternative for millions of productive Americans of retirement age, move to Trump Towers?

I think we already covered that. You need to be saving and investing for your retirement.

It's not everyone elses job to pay you to be lazy.

Get off your butt, and work for a living like the rest of us.

If you don't want to work anymore... more power to you. Save up your money, and then when you have money saved, you can sit around doing nothing, living off your own money.

People used to do that for hundreds, even thousands of years. That was normal. Before Social Security existed, people didn't just die in the streets. Because people of the past understood they needed to take care of their retirement.

Well.... start being a man, and own responsibility for yourself. And being a whiny cry baby because Trump has more than you... just makes you an immature person. Grow up, son.

 

[Andylusion]

The OP can only be so radically stupid due to a lack of life experience. A perpetual college freshman.

Why are you such a prissy little bitch?

Dude, you have been a prissy little b!tch throughout every post, of every thread I've seen you make.

How can you sit there crying about people who have more stuff than you do for a years now... and then complain when someone points that out to you?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

OMG
they'll have more to offer than poor dumbasses like you

MAGA

Morons
Are
Governing
America

Stop calling Pelosi a Moron!

Well she is the House Leader and part of the governing but alas you believe Trump is a dictator, Communism is the end answer and replacing the rich with Stalnist Politicians will save us...

 

[georgephillip]

Say you bought a car for $10,000. And then your mother pays you $10,000 for that car. She effectively made the original purchase.

A new car or used car?
If I bought a new car, some of my money went directly to the corporation that built the car. If my mother then bought the car, all of her money went to me.

 

[Andylusion]

Say you bought a car for $10,000. And then your mother pays you $10,000 for that car. She effectively made the original purchase.

A new car or used car?
If I bought a new car, some of my money went directly to the corporation that built the car. If my mother then bought the car, all of her money went to me.

Doesn't matter. Again, that share in the company, represents an investment into that company. An investment that would not have happened if the share didn't exist.

Whoever owns that share, owns the value of that investment, which allowed that company to grow.

So whether you are directly buying the share from the company, or buying from someone else who bought the share directly from the company... doesn't matter. It still represents an investment into that company, which was used to grow the company, produced more goods and services that make the country more wealthy, and provide jobs for employees.

Directly, or indirectly, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[georgephillip]

Again... we've been over this before. You can't complain about shareholders, and then complain people shouldn't buy stock to be shareholders.

Shareholders should not have primacy over employees since it is the latter that produce the goods and services that make or break the corporation.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia.

"Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919)[1] is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a charitable manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.

"It is often cited as affirming the principle of 'shareholder primacy' in corporate America."

 

[georgephillip]

Are those who make money from money sponging off productive members of society?

The Fed Has Made Jamie Dimon $250 Million Richer Through Its Repo Loans

"As Wall Street On Parade has previously reported, JPMorgan Chase has been fingered as the bank that contributed to the Federal Reserve having to intervene in the overnight loan market on September 17 of this year, and every business day since then..."

"But as it now turns out, few individuals have personally benefitted as much as Jamie Dimon as a result of the Fed’s actions.

"Jamie Dimon is one of the largest individual shareholders in the stock of JPMorgan Chase. Those shares are the sole reason Dimon is a billionaire.

"On October 10, 2019, the shares of JPMorgan Chase closed at $114.21.

"On October 11, the New York Fed announced a dramatic escalation in its plans to flood money to Wall Street’s trading houses."

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Property:
Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property — not a human community — so it can be owned and sold by the propertied class."

How is it the humans that create a corporation's wealth are commodities and human investors are its owners?

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

If you are spending your rightfully earned money, to invest in something that produces goods and services, how is that being a parasite?

A parasite would be like Elon Musk, getting money from the government for green-energy grants that produce absolutely nothing for the the majority of the population. That's being a parasite.

A parasite would be Solyndra collecting millions from the government under Obama, and then just disappearing.

But if you are spending your hard earned cash, to make a risky but prudent investment, and having that investment pay off.... why is that being a parasite?

And along those lines, your ending question makes no sense. Investors are the owners, because they are investors. That's why they are the owners, because they invested.

Most employees today, are also investors. I am investor myself. I own shares in about two dozen companies. Now where I currently work, I don't have stock in that company, because I don't think it's a wise investment, but other companies I've worked for, I did have stock in. So I was an employee and a part owner at the same time.

Again, if you want to take part in the profits of the company.... buy stock. Stop whining about it, and buy stock in the company.

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

Isn't that exactly the role shareholders play in our current common law property rights state?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn..."

"Shareholders at one time had some managerial responsibilities that they held with the firm.

"This was eventually shed, as eventually was their legal liability.

"The last responsibility to be shed was actually providing capital, as the above figures illustrate.

"So, much like aristocrats of old, shareholders today have shed all the responsibilities while retaining (and growing) all the benefits.

"This is the modern notion of privilege."

Oh... so they are aristocrats?

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Fail.

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders who do nothing to produce those profits? How many seats on Walmart's board of directors are allocated to employees?

US Wealth Distribution, Stock Ownership Edition - The Big Picture

 

[Unkotare]

The OP can only be so radically stupid due to a lack of life experience. A perpetual college freshman.

Why are you such a prissy little bitch?

Frustrated that reality doesn’t flatter your ego, comrade? That’s where your futile promotion of the most definitively failed political/economic theory in world history really comes from, after all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again... we've been over this before. You can't complain about shareholders, and then complain people shouldn't buy stock to be shareholders.

Shareholders should not have primacy over employees since it is the latter that produce the goods and services that make or break the corporation.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia.

"Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919)[1] is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a charitable manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.

"It is often cited as affirming the principle of 'shareholder primacy' in corporate America."

Shareholders should not have primacy over employees since it is the latter that produce the goods and services that make or break the corporation.

Liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

You were free to buy JPM before the Fed increased their repo lending.

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Property:
Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property — not a human community — so it can be owned and sold by the propertied class."

How is it the humans that create a corporation's wealth are commodities and human investors are its owners?

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

If you are spending your rightfully earned money, to invest in something that produces goods and services, how is that being a parasite?

A parasite would be like Elon Musk, getting money from the government for green-energy grants that produce absolutely nothing for the the majority of the population. That's being a parasite.

A parasite would be Solyndra collecting millions from the government under Obama, and then just disappearing.

But if you are spending your hard earned cash, to make a risky but prudent investment, and having that investment pay off.... why is that being a parasite?

And along those lines, your ending question makes no sense. Investors are the owners, because they are investors. That's why they are the owners, because they invested.

Most employees today, are also investors. I am investor myself. I own shares in about two dozen companies. Now where I currently work, I don't have stock in that company, because I don't think it's a wise investment, but other companies I've worked for, I did have stock in. So I was an employee and a part owner at the same time.

Again, if you want to take part in the profits of the company.... buy stock. Stop whining about it, and buy stock in the company.

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

Isn't that exactly the role shareholders play in our current common law property rights state?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn..."

"Shareholders at one time had some managerial responsibilities that they held with the firm.

"This was eventually shed, as eventually was their legal liability.

"The last responsibility to be shed was actually providing capital, as the above figures illustrate.

"So, much like aristocrats of old, shareholders today have shed all the responsibilities while retaining (and growing) all the benefits.

"This is the modern notion of privilege."

Oh... so they are aristocrats?

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Fail.

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders who do nothing to produce those profits? How many seats on Walmart's board of directors are allocated to employees?

US Wealth Distribution, Stock Ownership Edition - The Big Picture

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders

No.

 

[georgephillip]

Wouldn't that make me a parasite?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Property:
Like a feudal estate, a corporation is considered a piece of property — not a human community — so it can be owned and sold by the propertied class."

How is it the humans that create a corporation's wealth are commodities and human investors are its owners?

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

If you are spending your rightfully earned money, to invest in something that produces goods and services, how is that being a parasite?

A parasite would be like Elon Musk, getting money from the government for green-energy grants that produce absolutely nothing for the the majority of the population. That's being a parasite.

A parasite would be Solyndra collecting millions from the government under Obama, and then just disappearing.

But if you are spending your hard earned cash, to make a risky but prudent investment, and having that investment pay off.... why is that being a parasite?

And along those lines, your ending question makes no sense. Investors are the owners, because they are investors. That's why they are the owners, because they invested.

Most employees today, are also investors. I am investor myself. I own shares in about two dozen companies. Now where I currently work, I don't have stock in that company, because I don't think it's a wise investment, but other companies I've worked for, I did have stock in. So I was an employee and a part owner at the same time.

Again, if you want to take part in the profits of the company.... buy stock. Stop whining about it, and buy stock in the company.

Parasite, implies that you are giving nothing, to get something.

Isn't that exactly the role shareholders play in our current common law property rights state?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn..."

"Shareholders at one time had some managerial responsibilities that they held with the firm.

"This was eventually shed, as eventually was their legal liability.

"The last responsibility to be shed was actually providing capital, as the above figures illustrate.

"So, much like aristocrats of old, shareholders today have shed all the responsibilities while retaining (and growing) all the benefits.

"This is the modern notion of privilege."

Oh... so they are aristocrats?

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Fail.

Public school Teachers, Unions, Walmart employees.... all of them are aristocrats of old in your world? Really.

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders who do nothing to produce those profits? How many seats on Walmart's board of directors are allocated to employees?

US Wealth Distribution, Stock Ownership Edition - The Big Picture

Are Walmart employees entitled to a greater share of profits than Walmart shareholders

No.

"The business judgment rule is a case law-derived doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives.

"It is rooted in the principle that the 'directors of a corporation... are clothed with [the] presumption, which the law accords to them, of being [motivated] in their conduct by a bona fide regard for the interests of the corporation whose affairs the stockholders have committed to their charge'.[1]"

Business judgment rule - Wikipedia

Rich People Always Need More

 

[georgephillip]

Frustrated that reality doesn’t flatter your ego, comrade? That’s where your futile promotion of the most definitively failed political/economic theory in world history really comes from, after all.

I'm more frustrated morons like you aren't abortion statistics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Frustrated that reality doesn’t flatter your ego, comrade? That’s where your futile promotion of the most definitively failed political/economic theory in world history really comes from, after all.

I'm more frustrated morons like you aren't abortion statistics.

Do you have any proof that those people die because of capitalism?
Just because a Commie idiot says something.....doesn't count as proof.