Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Grumblenuts]

As long as they're not being coerced by horseshit regulation, or ripped off by thieves and fraudsters

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As long as they're not being coerced by horseshit regulation, or ripped off by thieves and fraudsters

Cognitive dissonance.

How's your Trabant running lately?

 

[dblack]

But not government's.

In a capitalist economy, business will control the largest share of private wealth. What other institution besides government has the power to prevent an outright aristocracy from forming?

Society.

This is what socialists don't get. In a free market, people accumulate wealth because society wants them to have it. As long as they're not being coerced by horseshit regulation, or ripped off by thieves and fraudsters, consumers spend their money on what they value. People get rich because society wants them to be rich.

This is important for another reason, one that rarely gets discussed. Most of you see the issue of wealth inequality completely from the perspective of personal circumstances. You whinge about who deserves what, and claim that a CEO, or sports hero, or whatever, isn't "worth" what they're paid.

But at that level, once you're past a couple hundred thousand, income is largely irrelevant. There's very little difference in the quality of life of someone making $250k/yr and someone making ten times that. The real difference is in the economic power they wield. The person making 2.5 million has the power to make decisions that have a broader impact on society. Obviously, who has this kind of power is very important.

So how do we decide? The most democratic way to make this decision, in my view, is to let each person participating in the economy vote with their spending choices. Left to their own devices, consumers will spend their money on things they value - and avoid the things they don't. Investors and entrepreneurs who provide the goods and services people want will be given more wealth to work with - not because they're greedy and evil, but because they've satisfied the wants and needs of society. Investors and entrepreneurs who squander the wealth they've been given, will lose it. It will find its way to someone who can make better use of it (unless of course government intervenes with some kind of bailout).

Socialists believe these decisions should be made by government, via democracy, aka majority rule. But majority rule is a sledge hammer in terms of decision making. It doesn't really resolve disagreements in society, it just forces the minority to conform to the wishes of the majority. Sometimes, that's necessary. If we're trying to decide whether or not to go to war or not, we can't afford to let everyone "go their own way". We need everyone to be on the same page. But most issues don't require the sledge hammer of democracy and freedom is a far better choice. We can let people spend their money as they wish and let things settle out organically. We don't need governmental authorities dictating such matters, democratically or otherwise.

 

[dblack]

As long as they're not being coerced by horseshit regulation, or ripped off by thieves and fraudsters

Cognitive dissonance.

Empty sloganeering.

 

[Grumblenuts]

This is important for another reason, one that rarely gets discussed. Most of you see the issue of wealth inequality completely from the perspective of personal circumstances. You whinge about who deserves what, and claim that a CEO, or sports hero, or whatever, isn't "worth" what they're paid.

But at that level, once you're past a couple hundred thousand, income is largely irrelevant.

Total fantasy.

the quality of life

Noise. You introduce this to dismiss it. Your problem perhaps. Evidently none other.

The real difference is in the economic power they wield. The person making 2.5 million has the power to make decisions that have a broader impact on society. Obviously, who has this kind of power is very important.

Clearly true to some extent, but 2.5 million is no big deal these days. Why go there? Try 250 million or more. At that point it begins presenting a serious, possibly intolerable risk to society.

So how do we decide? The most democratic way to make this decision, in my view, is to let each person participating in the economy vote with their spending choices.

Big of you. Those with the most spending power get to decide what's best for all. What could possibly go wrong? Durr. Actually, I think most of us have seen that movie. It's called Capitalism Run Amok, or Kleptocracy, or Modern Life In America, or something like that. Indeed, it makes no mention of any "democratic way" or "majority rule" though, I'm quite sure.

Left to their own devices, consumers will spend their money on things they value - and avoid the things they don't.

What money? Funny money? Monopoly money? What if they all want Baltic Avenue or Park Place?

Investors and entrepreneurs who provide the goods and services people want will be given more wealth to work with - not because they're greedy and evil, but because they've satisfied the wants and needs of society.

Sky's the limit, eh? What if "the goods and services people want" turn out to be exactly what only the "Investors and entrepreneurs" have because they're the only ones who can afford them? Be honest. You simply don't give a shit. You've got yours. Fuck everyone else. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Investors and entrepreneurs who squander the wealth they've been given, will lose it.

Like magic! No historical precedent, but must be because you will it so!

It will find its way to someone who can make better use of it (unless of course government intervenes with some kind of bailout).

Government? Whaa?

Socialists believe these decisions should be made by government, via democracy, aka majority rule. But majority rule is a sledge hammer in terms of decision making. It doesn't really resolve disagreements in society, it just forces the minority to conform to the wishes of the majority.

You know, The Founders actually put a lot of thought into that problem. Because they'd all seen what the kind of system you recommend yields. We got a Republic based on democratic election of representatives instead. Still far from perfect, but an improvement no doubt.

Sometimes, that's necessary. If we're trying to decide whether or not to go to war or not, we can't afford to let everyone "go their own way". We need everyone to be on the same page.

Where have you been? Anymore the POTUS says we're going to war and off we go. Sure, Congress is supposed to "decide"- by law, if you care about The Constitution and shit - but in reality? It's the fucking MIC. And who are they? The kleptocrats continuing to make billions off our endless war machine. And why's that go on? Because you don't just let it, you encourage it

But most issues don't require the sledge hammer of democracy and freedom is a far better choice. We can let people spend their money as they wish and let things settle out organically. We don't need governmental authorities dictating such matters, democratically or otherwise.

No worries there. Precious little democracy as it is. But you keep referring to money as though everyone had enough. As though some didn't have too much. As though it's all that matters. Far from it. Try studying what really makes people happy. We only get one shot at this. Why "squander it" worrying about money all the time?

 

[dblack]

This is important for another reason, one that rarely gets discussed. Most of you see the issue of wealth inequality completely from the perspective of personal circumstances. You whinge about who deserves what, and claim that a CEO, or sports hero, or whatever, isn't "worth" what they're paid.

But at that level, once you're past a couple hundred thousand, income is largely irrelevant.

Total fantasy.

the quality of life

Noise. You introduce this to dismiss it. Your problem perhaps. Evidently none other.

The real difference is in the economic power they wield. The person making 2.5 million has the power to make decisions that have a broader impact on society. Obviously, who has this kind of power is very important.

Clearly true to some extent, but 2.5 million is no big deal these days. Why go there? Try 250 million or more. At that point it begins presenting a serious, possibly intolerable risk to society.

So how do we decide? The most democratic way to make this decision, in my view, is to let each person participating in the economy vote with their spending choices.

Big of you. Those with the most spending power get to decide what's best for all. What could possibly go wrong? Durr. Actually, I think most of us have seen that movie. It's called Capitalism Run Amok, or Kleptocracy, or Modern Life In America, or something like that. Indeed, it makes no mention of any "democratic way" or "majority rule" though, I'm quite sure.

Left to their own devices, consumers will spend their money on things they value - and avoid the things they don't.

What money? Funny money? Monopoly money? What if they all want Baltic Avenue or Park Place?

Investors and entrepreneurs who provide the goods and services people want will be given more wealth to work with - not because they're greedy and evil, but because they've satisfied the wants and needs of society.

Sky's the limit, eh? What if "the goods and services people want" turn out to be exactly what only the "Investors and entrepreneurs" have because they're the only ones who can afford them? Be honest. You simply don't give a shit. You've got yours. Fuck everyone else. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Investors and entrepreneurs who squander the wealth they've been given, will lose it.

Like magic! No historical precedent, but must be because you will it so!

It will find its way to someone who can make better use of it (unless of course government intervenes with some kind of bailout).

Government? Whaa?

Socialists believe these decisions should be made by government, via democracy, aka majority rule. But majority rule is a sledge hammer in terms of decision making. It doesn't really resolve disagreements in society, it just forces the minority to conform to the wishes of the majority.

You know, The Founders actually put a lot of thought into that problem. Because they'd all seen what the kind of system you recommend yields. We got a Republic based on democratic election of representatives instead. Still far from perfect, but an improvement no doubt.

Sometimes, that's necessary. If we're trying to decide whether or not to go to war or not, we can't afford to let everyone "go their own way". We need everyone to be on the same page.

Where have you been? Anymore the POTUS says we're going to war and off we go. Sure, Congress is supposed to "decide"- by law, if you care about The Constitution and shit - but in reality? It's the fucking MIC. And who are they? The kleptocrats continuing to make billions off our endless war machine. And why's that go on? Because you don't just let it, you encourage it

But most issues don't require the sledge hammer of democracy and freedom is a far better choice. We can let people spend their money as they wish and let things settle out organically. We don't need governmental authorities dictating such matters, democratically or otherwise.

No worries there. Precious little democracy as it is. But you keep referring to money as though everyone had enough. As though some didn't have too much. As though it's all that matters. Far from it. Try studying what really makes people happy. We only get one shot at this. Why "squander it" worrying about money all the time?

Do you have any actual arguments?

 

[georgephillip]

But not government's.

In a capitalist economy, business will control the largest share of private wealth. What other institution besides government has the power to prevent an outright aristocracy from forming?

Society.

This is what socialists don't get. In a free market, people accumulate wealth because society wants them to have it. As long as they're not being coerced by horseshit regulation, or ripped off by thieves and fraudsters, consumers spend their money on what they value. People get rich because society wants them to be rich.

Society.

This is what socialists don't get. In a free market, people accumulate wealth because society wants them to have it. As long as they're not being coerced by horseshit regulation, or ripped off by thieves and fraudsters, consumers spend their money on what they value. People get rich because society wants them to be rich.

What happens when the "thieves and fraudsters" (like Jamie Dimon) control government through legalized bribery? Do we shrink government or use it to neuter the thieves and frauds?

The Fed Fears an Explosion on Wall Street: Here’s How JPMorgan Lit the Fuse

"What is particularly interesting about JPMorgan Chase’s stock buybacks is that the dollar amount increases consistently each year, almost guaranteeing a nice bump in the share price.

"That helps to explain why Jamie Dimon is the only CEO of a major Wall Street bank still at the helm of his bank since the financial crisis and despite the bank’s guilty pleas to three criminal felony counts leveled at the bank during his tenure by the U.S. Department of Justice.

"Just last month the precious metals trading desk at JPMorgan Chase was labeled a criminal enterprise by the U.S. Department of Justice and three of its traders were charged under the RICO statute, which is typically reserved for organized crime figures."

 

[dblack]

What happens when the "thieves and fraudsters" (like Jamie Dimon) control government through legalized bribery? Do we shrink government or use it to neuter the thieves and frauds?

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

You neuter them by limiting government's ability to manipulate the economy in the first place. Certainly not by giving it (them) even more power to coerce our economic decisions.

 

[georgephillip]

People like you are slaves.
Do humanity a favor and die.

Socialism is the ultimate expression of slavery. It assumes people are a resource, owned by the state, to be used for the benefit of the state. I'm not an ant. I'll pass.

Socialism is the ultimate expression of slavery. It assumes people are a resource, owned by the state, to be used for the benefit of the state. I'm not an ant. I'll pass.

Capitalism treats people as commodities subject to the same exploitative forces as serfs and slaves. Productive employees form the vast majority of the economy, yet the surplus they produce is appropriated by a small minority of employers. When the workers who produce the surplus control their workplace democratically, socialism will be the result. If that frightens you, move to China or Russia.

 

[georgephillip]

What happens when the "thieves and fraudsters" (like Jamie Dimon) control government through legalized bribery? Do we shrink government or use it to neuter the thieves and frauds?

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

You neuter them by limiting government's ability to manipulate the economy in the first place. Certainly not by giving it (them) even more power to coerce our economic decisions.

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

By removing corporate politicians like Clinton and Biden and Bush and Romney from the ranks of elected officials. If you shrink government, parasites like Trump and Dimon will find it even easier to perpetuate their capitalistic frauds upon society.

 

[georgephillip]

What happens when the "thieves and fraudsters" (like Jamie Dimon) control government through legalized bribery? Do we shrink government or use it to neuter the thieves and frauds?

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

You neuter them by limiting government's ability to manipulate the economy in the first place. Certainly not by giving it (them) even more power to coerce our economic decisions.

You neuter them by limiting government's ability to manipulate the economy in the first place

You never get around to specifics.
For example, if you wanted to eliminate Wall Street fraud, would you first shrink the SEC or FBI?

 

[Andylusion]

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

You post that like it matters. Like you made some sort of point.

Years ago, I had a garbage vacuum sweeper. I found the sweeper I wanted, but at one store it was $70, and another store it was $60. I went to Walmart, and the exact identical sweeper was $47. I still use that sweeper to this day, now 10 years later.

Which is better.... to give out a some money to help people who refuse to work for a living? Some donation to a charity that helps people hooked on drugs by choice?

Or a company that provides goods and services cheaper to working people like me?

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart.

In contrast, who has ever benefited from you? No one.

MOVEOVER... your entire post is a fraud to begin with. Net Worth, has nothing to do with liquid cash. Just because someone has a large net worth, has nothing to do with how much cash they could give to charity.

For example, my parents are millionaires. But their retirement income is only a couple thousand a month. Just because they own a lake house worth $400,000, doesn't mean that when the roof spring a leak last year, that they just had piles of cash laying around to fix it. They had to save up money from their retirement income, and then fix the roof.

Similarly, I have no idea how much liquid cash income the Walton's have each month. But even if they were collecting $500,000 a year, and giving 50% of that to charity, it wouldn't be but a few tenths of a percent of their net worth.

Still a ton more than some left-winger like you has ever given.... so shut up sparky.

LASTLY....

What business is it of yours? Did you have parents that taught you to mind your own freakin business? Even if the Walton's were to give 50% of their entire networth.. it wouldn't help any working man, and it still wouldn't be any of your business.

Learn what your grand parents should have taught your parents..... MIND.... YOUR.... OWN.... BUSINESS.

Stop being a greed and envy driven prick.

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart

People like you are slaves.
Do humanity a favor and die.

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice, in a press release announcing the publication of the report. “Many of them rely on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps to provide for their families.”

“Workers have been calling on the company to pay a minimum of $25,000, offer full-time work, and end retaliation against workers who speak out for better jobs,” she added. “The Waltons could earn goodwill and public respect by improving conditions for workers and their families.”

People like me create jobs and wealth.
People like you.... follow through on your suggestion "do humanity a favor and die".... because everywhere people like you are in charge.... people die.

Starvation...

Murder

Chaos and protests....

While the elite left-wiingers like you, live in luxury.

And everyone else waits at empty shelves..... but at least there is no walmart in Venezuela. At least there are no capitalists now.


You know what the difference between me and you is?

You post non-stop propaganda.

I just posted pictures from real life.

that's the difference. You live in a mythology of hate, evil, and greed.

I live in the real world.

 

[Andylusion]

What happens when the "thieves and fraudsters" (like Jamie Dimon) control government through legalized bribery? Do we shrink government or use it to neuter the thieves and frauds?

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

You neuter them by limiting government's ability to manipulate the economy in the first place. Certainly not by giving it (them) even more power to coerce our economic decisions.

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

By removing corporate politicians like Clinton and Biden and Bush and Romney from the ranks of elected officials. If you shrink government, parasites like Trump and Dimon will find it even easier to perpetuate their capitalistic frauds upon society.

Ironically the US census posted key factors in becoming wealthy.... hold a job, get married, and obey the law.

It's funny how stupid people mock how rich people end up rich... and then wonder why they are poor.

 

[georgephillip]

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

You post that like it matters. Like you made some sort of point.

Years ago, I had a garbage vacuum sweeper. I found the sweeper I wanted, but at one store it was $70, and another store it was $60. I went to Walmart, and the exact identical sweeper was $47. I still use that sweeper to this day, now 10 years later.

Which is better.... to give out a some money to help people who refuse to work for a living? Some donation to a charity that helps people hooked on drugs by choice?

Or a company that provides goods and services cheaper to working people like me?

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart.

In contrast, who has ever benefited from you? No one.

MOVEOVER... your entire post is a fraud to begin with. Net Worth, has nothing to do with liquid cash. Just because someone has a large net worth, has nothing to do with how much cash they could give to charity.

For example, my parents are millionaires. But their retirement income is only a couple thousand a month. Just because they own a lake house worth $400,000, doesn't mean that when the roof spring a leak last year, that they just had piles of cash laying around to fix it. They had to save up money from their retirement income, and then fix the roof.

Similarly, I have no idea how much liquid cash income the Walton's have each month. But even if they were collecting $500,000 a year, and giving 50% of that to charity, it wouldn't be but a few tenths of a percent of their net worth.

Still a ton more than some left-winger like you has ever given.... so shut up sparky.

LASTLY....

What business is it of yours? Did you have parents that taught you to mind your own freakin business? Even if the Walton's were to give 50% of their entire networth.. it wouldn't help any working man, and it still wouldn't be any of your business.

Learn what your grand parents should have taught your parents..... MIND.... YOUR.... OWN.... BUSINESS.

Stop being a greed and envy driven prick.

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart

People like you are slaves.
Do humanity a favor and die.

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice, in a press release announcing the publication of the report. “Many of them rely on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps to provide for their families.”

“Workers have been calling on the company to pay a minimum of $25,000, offer full-time work, and end retaliation against workers who speak out for better jobs,” she added. “The Waltons could earn goodwill and public respect by improving conditions for workers and their families.”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice

Walmart workers are free to take their skills elsewhere. Maybe "Jobs with Justice" can hire a few hundred thousand of them?

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice

Walmart workers are free to take their skills elsewhere. Maybe "Jobs with Justice" can hire a few hundred thousand of them?

It's your tax dollars, Kulak.
Why aren't you outraged?

You're free to argue that government should end spending on food stamps. Good luck!!

I wonder if workers would need more or fewer food stamps if WalMart fired them?
If shoppers would benefit or be harmed if WalMart didn't accept food stamps?

You're free to argue that government should end spending on food stamps. Good luck!!

I wonder if workers would need more or fewer food stamps if WalMart fired them?
If shoppers would benefit or be harmed if WalMart didn't accept food stamps?

 

[georgephillip]

But not government's.

In a capitalist economy, business will control the largest share of private wealth. What other institution besides government has the power to prevent an outright aristocracy from forming?

Society.

This is what socialists don't get. In a free market, people accumulate wealth because society wants them to have it. As long as they're not being coerced by horseshit regulation, or ripped off by thieves and fraudsters, consumers spend their money on what they value. People get rich because society wants them to be rich.

This is important for another reason, one that rarely gets discussed. Most of you see the issue of wealth inequality completely from the perspective of personal circumstances. You whinge about who deserves what, and claim that a CEO, or sports hero, or whatever, isn't "worth" what they're paid.

But at that level, once you're past a couple hundred thousand, income is largely irrelevant. There's very little difference in the quality of life of someone making $250k/yr and someone making ten times that. The real difference is in the economic power they wield. The person making 2.5 million has the power to make decisions that have a broader impact on society. Obviously, who has this kind of power is very important.

So how do we decide? The most democratic way to make this decision, in my view, is to let each person participating in the economy vote with their spending choices. Left to their own devices, consumers will spend their money on things they value - and avoid the things they don't. Investors and entrepreneurs who provide the goods and services people want will be given more wealth to work with - not because they're greedy and evil, but because they've satisfied the wants and needs of society. Investors and entrepreneurs who squander the wealth they've been given, will lose it. It will find its way to someone who can make better use of it (unless of course government intervenes with some kind of bailout).

Socialists believe these decisions should be made by government, via democracy, aka majority rule. But majority rule is a sledge hammer in terms of decision making. It doesn't really resolve disagreements in society, it just forces the minority to conform to the wishes of the majority. Sometimes, that's necessary. If we're trying to decide whether or not to go to war or not, we can't afford to let everyone "go their own way". We need everyone to be on the same page. But most issues don't require the sledge hammer of democracy and freedom is a far better choice. We can let people spend their money as they wish and let things settle out organically. We don't need governmental authorities dictating such matters, democratically or otherwise.

This is important for another reason, one that rarely gets discussed. Most of you see the issue of wealth inequality completely from the perspective of personal circumstances. You whinge about who deserves what, and claim that a CEO, or sports hero, or whatever, isn't "worth" what they're paid.

Elite athletes earn their money on a level, highly regulated playing field.
Which other highly paid capitalists can make the same claim?

 

[georgephillip]

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

You post that like it matters. Like you made some sort of point.

Years ago, I had a garbage vacuum sweeper. I found the sweeper I wanted, but at one store it was $70, and another store it was $60. I went to Walmart, and the exact identical sweeper was $47. I still use that sweeper to this day, now 10 years later.

Which is better.... to give out a some money to help people who refuse to work for a living? Some donation to a charity that helps people hooked on drugs by choice?

Or a company that provides goods and services cheaper to working people like me?

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart.

In contrast, who has ever benefited from you? No one.

MOVEOVER... your entire post is a fraud to begin with. Net Worth, has nothing to do with liquid cash. Just because someone has a large net worth, has nothing to do with how much cash they could give to charity.

For example, my parents are millionaires. But their retirement income is only a couple thousand a month. Just because they own a lake house worth $400,000, doesn't mean that when the roof spring a leak last year, that they just had piles of cash laying around to fix it. They had to save up money from their retirement income, and then fix the roof.

Similarly, I have no idea how much liquid cash income the Walton's have each month. But even if they were collecting $500,000 a year, and giving 50% of that to charity, it wouldn't be but a few tenths of a percent of their net worth.

Still a ton more than some left-winger like you has ever given.... so shut up sparky.

LASTLY....

What business is it of yours? Did you have parents that taught you to mind your own freakin business? Even if the Walton's were to give 50% of their entire networth.. it wouldn't help any working man, and it still wouldn't be any of your business.

Learn what your grand parents should have taught your parents..... MIND.... YOUR.... OWN.... BUSINESS.

Stop being a greed and envy driven prick.

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart

People like you are slaves.
Do humanity a favor and die.

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice, in a press release announcing the publication of the report. “Many of them rely on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps to provide for their families.”

“Workers have been calling on the company to pay a minimum of $25,000, offer full-time work, and end retaliation against workers who speak out for better jobs,” she added. “The Waltons could earn goodwill and public respect by improving conditions for workers and their families.”

People like me create jobs and wealth.
People like you.... follow through on your suggestion "do humanity a favor and die".... because everywhere people like you are in charge.... people die.

Starvation...

Murder

Chaos and protests....

While the elite left-wiingers like you, live in luxury.

And everyone else waits at empty shelves..... but at least there is no walmart in Venezuela. At least there are no capitalists now.


You know what the difference between me and you is?

You post non-stop propaganda.

I just posted pictures from real life.

that's the difference. You live in a mythology of hate, evil, and greed.

I live in the real world.

You know what the difference between me and you is?

You post non-stop propaganda.

I just posted pictures from real life.

that's the difference. You live in a mythology of hate, evil, and greed.

I live in the real world.

In that real world you live in

how many millions of innocent civilians has your heroic capitalist Empire murdered, maimed, incarcerated, or displaced during your useless lifetime? Maybe your millionaire parents can tell you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

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

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share but provide executives with exorbitant bonuses? Do non-voting shares influence such perfidy?

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share

You never explained your moronic claim.

Did you misspeak?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You post that like it matters. Like you made some sort of point.

Years ago, I had a garbage vacuum sweeper. I found the sweeper I wanted, but at one store it was $70, and another store it was $60. I went to Walmart, and the exact identical sweeper was $47. I still use that sweeper to this day, now 10 years later.

Which is better.... to give out a some money to help people who refuse to work for a living? Some donation to a charity that helps people hooked on drugs by choice?

Or a company that provides goods and services cheaper to working people like me?

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart.

In contrast, who has ever benefited from you? No one.

MOVEOVER... your entire post is a fraud to begin with. Net Worth, has nothing to do with liquid cash. Just because someone has a large net worth, has nothing to do with how much cash they could give to charity.

For example, my parents are millionaires. But their retirement income is only a couple thousand a month. Just because they own a lake house worth $400,000, doesn't mean that when the roof spring a leak last year, that they just had piles of cash laying around to fix it. They had to save up money from their retirement income, and then fix the roof.

Similarly, I have no idea how much liquid cash income the Walton's have each month. But even if they were collecting $500,000 a year, and giving 50% of that to charity, it wouldn't be but a few tenths of a percent of their net worth.

Still a ton more than some left-winger like you has ever given.... so shut up sparky.

LASTLY....

What business is it of yours? Did you have parents that taught you to mind your own freakin business? Even if the Walton's were to give 50% of their entire networth.. it wouldn't help any working man, and it still wouldn't be any of your business.

Learn what your grand parents should have taught your parents..... MIND.... YOUR.... OWN.... BUSINESS.

Stop being a greed and envy driven prick.

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart

People like you are slaves.
Do humanity a favor and die.

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice, in a press release announcing the publication of the report. “Many of them rely on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps to provide for their families.”

“Workers have been calling on the company to pay a minimum of $25,000, offer full-time work, and end retaliation against workers who speak out for better jobs,” she added. “The Waltons could earn goodwill and public respect by improving conditions for workers and their families.”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice

Walmart workers are free to take their skills elsewhere. Maybe "Jobs with Justice" can hire a few hundred thousand of them?

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice

Walmart workers are free to take their skills elsewhere. Maybe "Jobs with Justice" can hire a few hundred thousand of them?

It's your tax dollars, Kulak.
Why aren't you outraged?

You're free to argue that government should end spending on food stamps. Good luck!!

I wonder if workers would need more or fewer food stamps if WalMart fired them?
If shoppers would benefit or be harmed if WalMart didn't accept food stamps?

You're free to argue that government should end spending on food stamps. Good luck!!

I wonder if workers would need more or fewer food stamps if WalMart fired them?
If shoppers would benefit or be harmed if WalMart didn't accept food stamps?

I didn't need more proof you're an idiot, but thanks for providing it anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

You post that like it matters. Like you made some sort of point.

Years ago, I had a garbage vacuum sweeper. I found the sweeper I wanted, but at one store it was $70, and another store it was $60. I went to Walmart, and the exact identical sweeper was $47. I still use that sweeper to this day, now 10 years later.

Which is better.... to give out a some money to help people who refuse to work for a living? Some donation to a charity that helps people hooked on drugs by choice?

Or a company that provides goods and services cheaper to working people like me?

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart.

In contrast, who has ever benefited from you? No one.

MOVEOVER... your entire post is a fraud to begin with. Net Worth, has nothing to do with liquid cash. Just because someone has a large net worth, has nothing to do with how much cash they could give to charity.

For example, my parents are millionaires. But their retirement income is only a couple thousand a month. Just because they own a lake house worth $400,000, doesn't mean that when the roof spring a leak last year, that they just had piles of cash laying around to fix it. They had to save up money from their retirement income, and then fix the roof.

Similarly, I have no idea how much liquid cash income the Walton's have each month. But even if they were collecting $500,000 a year, and giving 50% of that to charity, it wouldn't be but a few tenths of a percent of their net worth.

Still a ton more than some left-winger like you has ever given.... so shut up sparky.

LASTLY....

What business is it of yours? Did you have parents that taught you to mind your own freakin business? Even if the Walton's were to give 50% of their entire networth.. it wouldn't help any working man, and it still wouldn't be any of your business.

Learn what your grand parents should have taught your parents..... MIND.... YOUR.... OWN.... BUSINESS.

Stop being a greed and envy driven prick.

People like me, who don't have tons of money laying around to buys stuff, benefit a great deal from the Waltons. In fact, even those of us who don't shop Walmart have benefited from the Waltons, because more expensive stores, have lowered their prices, to compete with Walmart

People like you are slaves.
Do humanity a favor and die.

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

“While the Waltons accumulate $8.6 million per day in Walmart dividends, Walmart workers are struggling to get by,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs with Justice, in a press release announcing the publication of the report. “Many of them rely on taxpayer-funded programs like food stamps to provide for their families.”

“Workers have been calling on the company to pay a minimum of $25,000, offer full-time work, and end retaliation against workers who speak out for better jobs,” she added. “The Waltons could earn goodwill and public respect by improving conditions for workers and their families.”

People like me create jobs and wealth.
People like you.... follow through on your suggestion "do humanity a favor and die".... because everywhere people like you are in charge.... people die.

Starvation...

Murder

Chaos and protests....

While the elite left-wiingers like you, live in luxury.

And everyone else waits at empty shelves..... but at least there is no walmart in Venezuela. At least there are no capitalists now.


You know what the difference between me and you is?

You post non-stop propaganda.

I just posted pictures from real life.

that's the difference. You live in a mythology of hate, evil, and greed.

I live in the real world.

You know what the difference between me and you is?

You post non-stop propaganda.

I just posted pictures from real life.

that's the difference. You live in a mythology of hate, evil, and greed.

I live in the real world.

In that real world you live in

how many millions of innocent civilians has your heroic capitalist Empire murdered, maimed, incarcerated, or displaced during your useless lifetime? Maybe your millionaire parents can tell you?

Fewer than Communism.

 

[georgephillip]

What happens when the "thieves and fraudsters" (like Jamie Dimon) control government through legalized bribery? Do we shrink government or use it to neuter the thieves and frauds?

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

You neuter them by limiting government's ability to manipulate the economy in the first place. Certainly not by giving it (them) even more power to coerce our economic decisions.

Uh... you need to think that through. If fraudsters control government, how you gonna use it to neuter them?

By removing corporate politicians like Clinton and Biden and Bush and Romney from the ranks of elected officials. If you shrink government, parasites like Trump and Dimon will find it even easier to perpetuate their capitalistic frauds upon society.

Ironically the US census posted key factors in becoming wealthy.... hold a job, get married, and obey the law.

It's funny how stupid people mock how rich people end up rich... and then wonder why they are poor.

Ironically the US census posted key factors in becoming wealthy.... hold a job, get married, and obey the law.

It's funny how stupid people mock how rich people end up rich... and then wonder why they are poor.

How does the census explain unequal starting points when embarking on your quest for wealth?

Worsening wealth inequality by race