Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Toddsterpatriot]

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share

You never explained your moronic claim.

Did you misspeak?

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share

You never explained your moronic claim.

Did you misspeak?

Do you invest in fraud?

7 Reasons Stock Buybacks Should Be Illegal

CNN recently reported that America’s total debt is nearly $22 trillion, an average of $67,000 per person. That’s right; split between all U.S. citizens, you’d owe $67,000 for your share of America’s debt.

In 2019, America’s bill for the interest on that debt is $383 billion; by 2025 it’s projected to hit $928 billion or about the same amount as corporate stock buybacks in 2018. Imagine if the dollars directed to share repurchases were redirected to paying down the national debt. At the current pace of stock buybacks, the debt problem could be eliminated in 22 years.

Why the fuck should the companies I own hand over more money to the government, instead of to shareholders?

I've got a better one, "Imagine if the dollars directed to useless federal employees were redirected to paying down the national debt? Imagine if the government stopped wasting so much damn money."

Why the fuck should the companies I own hand over more money to the government, instead of to shareholders?

I've got a better one, "Imagine if the dollars directed to useless federal employees were redirected to paying down the national debt? Imagine if the government stopped wasting so much damn money."

Imagine if chicken-shit cluster fucks like you and Trump were dying in Syria instead of the Kurds?

Remember when Trump had some bombs dropped in Syria and they killed some Russians?

That was awesome!

Remember when Trump had some bombs dropped in Syria and they killed some Russians?

That was awesome!

Tell the Kurds

$$$?

The Kurds agree it's awesome when Russians get bombed.

 

[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.

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?

The SEC.

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?

I don't know that I'd shrink either. What I shrink is the body of largely arbitrary regulation that they're responsible for enforcing. That's where the real corruption lies.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Simply "slaves" is a poor word choice. Wage slaves obviously, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Such folks could easily be seen as the heroes of our nation. Only, they have no choice in the matter. No agency. No power. That's why they're called "slaves." Some -one or -thing controls ("owns") them. Willing slaves, perhaps, but that's self-contradictory and insulting to actual slaves, past or present. No, Andy is just a natural product of our shitty culture. A clueless, self-loathing nincompoop,.. regurgitating tons of the vomit he's gluttonously ingested, so desperate now to feel better about himself.

I don't understand this idea of "wage-slave".... I've had jobs in the past, that paid less than minimum wage.

I did the most unbelievable thing ever...... I got another job that paid more.

In fact, I've done this about 5 or 6 times.

So how do you define a "wage-slave" then? Is it someone who makes the free, voluntary, mental choice to work for a wage, that you just randomly determine is "slavery", and thus is a wage-slave?

When I don't feel comfortable with my own understanding of a term..

I do the most unbelievable thing ever...... I look it up in a dictionary.

OMG, duh.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Simply "slaves" is a poor word choice. Wage slaves obviously, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Such folks could easily be seen as the heroes of our nation. Only, they have no choice in the matter. No agency. No power. That's why they're called "slaves." Some -one or -thing controls ("owns") them. Willing slaves, perhaps, but that's self-contradictory and insulting to actual slaves, past or present. No, Andy is just a natural product of our shitty culture. A clueless, self-loathing nincompoop,.. regurgitating tons of the vomit he's gluttonously ingested, so desperate now to feel better about himself.

I don't understand this idea of "wage-slave".... I've had jobs in the past, that paid less than minimum wage.

I did the most unbelievable thing ever...... I got another job that paid more.

In fact, I've done this about 5 or 6 times.

So how do you define a "wage-slave" then? Is it someone who makes the free, voluntary, mental choice to work for a wage, that you just randomly determine is "slavery", and thus is a wage-slave?

When I don't feel comfortable with my own understanding of a term..

I do the most unbelievable thing ever...... I look it up in a dictionary.

OMG, duh.

Right... but you just made that reference, and I just proved it doesn't exist.

So if it does not exist, in the form that is defined, then you must have your definition.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... what does "wage slave" mean to you? How do YOU define it?

Because the generally assumed meaning, simply does not hold to reality. I had one year where I earned $12,000 of taxable income for the year.

I just got another job. I wasn't somehow "enslaved" to this wage.

And honestly ANYONE can get a higher paying job. Anyone can.

So who is a slave? Where are these 'wage slaves' in a country where anyone can choose to work for anyone they wish? Or even to work for themselves?

The lady across the street was babysitting out of her condo. Charging $150 per kid per week, taking care of 5 kids a week. All she did was let them watch parental controlled netflix, and take them to the condo park, and microwave spaggettios. That and make them have a nap time around 2 PM.

$750 a week.

Now what is the difference between that chick, and the one working for minimum wage at Wendy's? Choice. One is not enslaved, and the other magically has the key to escape slavery.

It's choice. I don't want to put up with everyone's spoiled bratty kids. Yeah, I get it. But that's why you get paid less where you only have to put up with "do you want fries with that?".

You get paid less where your biggest responsibility and risk, is taking the fries out of the firer when the buzzer goes off.

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

 

[dblack]

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.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... what does "wage slave" mean to you? How do YOU define it?

Unlike you, I see no reason to make up facts and unsupportable arguments.

Definition of wage slave in English:wage slave
NOUN
informal

• A person who is wholly dependent on income from employment, typically employment of an arduous or menial nature.

Wage slavery is a term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person. It is usually used to refer to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages or a salary, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.

The term "wage slavery" has been used to criticize exploitation of labour and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops) and the latter as a lack of workers' self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy.

Notice those with "capital" are presumed to have "bargaining power" enabling the "self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure" you keep railing about everyone already having. They do not. According to your testimony, you've never experienced otherwise which largely explains why you find the concept so foreign.

 

[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.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

Reality reveals how US wages have increased compared to average CEO pay since 1965; do you blame capitalism of socialism?

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

"In August 2019, the Economic Policy Institute reported that, in 2018, the average pay of CEOs at America’s 350 top firms hit $17.2 million―an increase, when adjusted for inflation, of 1,007.5 percent since 1978.

"By contrast, the typical worker’s wage, adjusted for inflation, grew by only 11.9 percent over this 40-year period.

"In 1965, the ratio of CEO-to-worker’s pay stood at 20-to-1; by 2018 (when CEOs received another hefty pay raise and workers received a 0.2 percent pay cut), it had reached 278-to-1."

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Simply "slaves" is a poor word choice. Wage slaves obviously, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Such folks could easily be seen as the heroes of our nation. Only, they have no choice in the matter. No agency. No power. That's why they're called "slaves." Some -one or -thing controls ("owns") them. Willing slaves, perhaps, but that's self-contradictory and insulting to actual slaves, past or present. No, Andy is just a natural product of our shitty culture. A clueless, self-loathing nincompoop,.. regurgitating tons of the vomit he's gluttonously ingested, so desperate now to feel better about himself.

I don't understand this idea of "wage-slave".... I've had jobs in the past, that paid less than minimum wage.

I did the most unbelievable thing ever...... I got another job that paid more.

In fact, I've done this about 5 or 6 times.

So how do you define a "wage-slave" then? Is it someone who makes the free, voluntary, mental choice to work for a wage, that you just randomly determine is "slavery", and thus is a wage-slave?

When I don't feel comfortable with my own understanding of a term..

I do the most unbelievable thing ever...... I look it up in a dictionary.

OMG, duh.

Right... but you just made that reference, and I just proved it doesn't exist.

So if it does not exist, in the form that is defined, then you must have your definition.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... what does "wage slave" mean to you? How do YOU define it?

Because the generally assumed meaning, simply does not hold to reality. I had one year where I earned $12,000 of taxable income for the year.

I just got another job. I wasn't somehow "enslaved" to this wage.

And honestly ANYONE can get a higher paying job. Anyone can.

So who is a slave? Where are these 'wage slaves' in a country where anyone can choose to work for anyone they wish? Or even to work for themselves?

The lady across the street was babysitting out of her condo. Charging $150 per kid per week, taking care of 5 kids a week. All she did was let them watch parental controlled netflix, and take them to the condo park, and microwave spaggettios. That and make them have a nap time around 2 PM.

$750 a week.

Now what is the difference between that chick, and the one working for minimum wage at Wendy's? Choice. One is not enslaved, and the other magically has the key to escape slavery.

It's choice. I don't want to put up with everyone's spoiled bratty kids. Yeah, I get it. But that's why you get paid less where you only have to put up with "do you want fries with that?".

You get paid less where your biggest responsibility and risk, is taking the fries out of the firer when the buzzer goes off.

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

For the same reason not everyone can win an Olympic gold medal or gain admission to MIT at 16. There is a "talented ten percent" and 90% of us are not among it.

 

[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.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

What are your thoughts on capitalism's wage slaves?

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

"According to the AFL-CIO, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio at Walmart (America’s largest private employer) is 1,076 to 1, at Walt Disney Company 1,424-to-1, at McDonald’s 2,124-to-1, and at Gap 3,566-to-1.

"At 49 S&P 500 firms, noted an Institute for Policy Studies report, half the work force―that is, 3.7 million employees―received wages below the official U.S. poverty line for a family of four."

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

Simply "slaves" is a poor word choice. Wage slaves obviously, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Such folks could easily be seen as the heroes of our nation. Only, they have no choice in the matter. No agency. No power. That's why they're called "slaves." Some -one or -thing controls ("owns") them. Willing slaves, perhaps, but that's self-contradictory and insulting to actual slaves, past or present. No, Andy is just a natural product of our shitty culture. A clueless, self-loathing nincompoop,.. regurgitating tons of the vomit he's gluttonously ingested, so desperate now to feel better about himself.

I don't understand this idea of "wage-slave".... I've had jobs in the past, that paid less than minimum wage.

I did the most unbelievable thing ever...... I got another job that paid more.

In fact, I've done this about 5 or 6 times.

So how do you define a "wage-slave" then? Is it someone who makes the free, voluntary, mental choice to work for a wage, that you just randomly determine is "slavery", and thus is a wage-slave?

When I don't feel comfortable with my own understanding of a term..

I do the most unbelievable thing ever...... I look it up in a dictionary.

OMG, duh.

Right... but you just made that reference, and I just proved it doesn't exist.

So if it does not exist, in the form that is defined, then you must have your definition.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... what does "wage slave" mean to you? How do YOU define it?

Because the generally assumed meaning, simply does not hold to reality. I had one year where I earned $12,000 of taxable income for the year.

I just got another job. I wasn't somehow "enslaved" to this wage.

And honestly ANYONE can get a higher paying job. Anyone can.

So who is a slave? Where are these 'wage slaves' in a country where anyone can choose to work for anyone they wish? Or even to work for themselves?

The lady across the street was babysitting out of her condo. Charging $150 per kid per week, taking care of 5 kids a week. All she did was let them watch parental controlled netflix, and take them to the condo park, and microwave spaggettios. That and make them have a nap time around 2 PM.

$750 a week.

Now what is the difference between that chick, and the one working for minimum wage at Wendy's? Choice. One is not enslaved, and the other magically has the key to escape slavery.

It's choice. I don't want to put up with everyone's spoiled bratty kids. Yeah, I get it. But that's why you get paid less where you only have to put up with "do you want fries with that?".

You get paid less where your biggest responsibility and risk, is taking the fries out of the firer when the buzzer goes off.

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

For the same reason not everyone can win an Olympic gold medal or gain admission to MIT at 16. There is a "talented ten percent" and 90% of us are not among it.

Also, not everyone lives in Canada where having a sensible socialized health care system means you can quit school, quit your job, fire all of your employees, etc, and your wife won't fucking kill you because the kids still need braces and your doctor doesn't do Obamacare.
Also, not everyone has a liver transplant surgeon for a father who can no doubt be counted upon to cover any fuckup or shortfall in a GOT-CASH-TO-BURN minute.
Where in the U.S. can one just say they can't read, drop out of High School, and go right to College?
How does one afford College in the U.S. without a rich old man? How much student debt does he owe? Oh, yeah.. Canada,.. like the rest of the industrialized world,.. a place where people actually still largely care about each other, not just money.. Hmm, never mind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Really? That's funny, given how wages increase in Capitalist economies, and generally do not in socialist ones.

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

I've often thought of socialism as "democratic serfdom".

What are your thoughts on capitalism's wage slaves?

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

"According to the AFL-CIO, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio at Walmart (America’s largest private employer) is 1,076 to 1, at Walt Disney Company 1,424-to-1, at McDonald’s 2,124-to-1, and at Gap 3,566-to-1.

"At 49 S&P 500 firms, noted an Institute for Policy Studies report, half the work force―that is, 3.7 million employees―received wages below the official U.S. poverty line for a family of four."

"At 49 S&P 500 firms, noted an Institute for Policy Studies report, half the work force―that is, 3.7 million employees―received wages below the official U.S. poverty line for a family of four."

The average family size is 3.14 and half the workforce at this cherry-picked 49 make more.
The average family has 1.3 workers.

 

[georgephillip]

Simply "slaves" is a poor word choice. Wage slaves obviously, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Such folks could easily be seen as the heroes of our nation. Only, they have no choice in the matter. No agency. No power. That's why they're called "slaves." Some -one or -thing controls ("owns") them. Willing slaves, perhaps, but that's self-contradictory and insulting to actual slaves, past or present. No, Andy is just a natural product of our shitty culture. A clueless, self-loathing nincompoop,.. regurgitating tons of the vomit he's gluttonously ingested, so desperate now to feel better about himself.

I don't understand this idea of "wage-slave".... I've had jobs in the past, that paid less than minimum wage.

I did the most unbelievable thing ever...... I got another job that paid more.

In fact, I've done this about 5 or 6 times.

So how do you define a "wage-slave" then? Is it someone who makes the free, voluntary, mental choice to work for a wage, that you just randomly determine is "slavery", and thus is a wage-slave?

When I don't feel comfortable with my own understanding of a term..

I do the most unbelievable thing ever...... I look it up in a dictionary.

OMG, duh.

Right... but you just made that reference, and I just proved it doesn't exist.

So if it does not exist, in the form that is defined, then you must have your definition.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk... what does "wage slave" mean to you? How do YOU define it?

Because the generally assumed meaning, simply does not hold to reality. I had one year where I earned $12,000 of taxable income for the year.

I just got another job. I wasn't somehow "enslaved" to this wage.

And honestly ANYONE can get a higher paying job. Anyone can.

So who is a slave? Where are these 'wage slaves' in a country where anyone can choose to work for anyone they wish? Or even to work for themselves?

The lady across the street was babysitting out of her condo. Charging $150 per kid per week, taking care of 5 kids a week. All she did was let them watch parental controlled netflix, and take them to the condo park, and microwave spaggettios. That and make them have a nap time around 2 PM.

$750 a week.

Now what is the difference between that chick, and the one working for minimum wage at Wendy's? Choice. One is not enslaved, and the other magically has the key to escape slavery.

It's choice. I don't want to put up with everyone's spoiled bratty kids. Yeah, I get it. But that's why you get paid less where you only have to put up with "do you want fries with that?".

You get paid less where your biggest responsibility and risk, is taking the fries out of the firer when the buzzer goes off.

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

Again, the company 1-800-GOT-JUNK was started by a teenager with a $900 pickup. Why wasn't he enslaved by wages? And if he can do that, why can't anyone else?

For the same reason not everyone can win an Olympic gold medal or gain admission to MIT at 16. There is a "talented ten percent" and 90% of us are not among it.

Also, not everyone lives in Canada where having a sensible socialized health care system means you can quit school, quit your job, fire all of your employees, etc, and your wife won't fucking kill you because the kids still need braces and your doctor doesn't do Obamacare.
Also, not everyone has a liver transplant surgeon for a father who can no doubt be counted upon to cover any fuckup or shortfall in a GOT-CASH-TO-BURN minute.
Where in the U.S. can one just say they can't read, drop out of High School, and go right to College?
How does one afford College in the U.S. without a rich old man? How much student debt does he owe? Oh, yeah.. Canada,.. like the rest of the industrialized world,.. a place where people actually still largely care about each other, not just money.. Hmm, never mind.

I think many Americans are confused about who creates value in this economic system. Entrepreneurs like to call themselves "wealth creators" to justify their higher incomes, but their success may have more to do with convincing government they deserve high rewards for obfuscating the relationships between value, profit, and economic rent.

If value is defined by price and you earn a lot of money, then you must be a value creator; unless the word "value" has made it easier for value-extracting activities to masquerade as value-creating activities.

Economic rents (unearned income) get confused with profits (earned income) leading to a rise in inequality and a declining real economy. Some would argue huge private "earnings" from record levels of US debt should therefore be subtracted from GDP instead of counting as a positive contribution to the national economy?

I don't believe either major US political party can afford to deal with such fundamental economic contradictions.

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics

 

[dblack]

I think many Americans are confused about who creates value in this economic system.

That's the goal of your propaganda campaign, isn't it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Takers and Makers: Who are the Real Value Creators? - Evonomics
Interesting stuff.

In theory, no income may be judged too high, because in a market economy competition prevents anyone from earning more than he or she deserves. In practice, markets are what economists call imperfect, so prices and wages are often set by the powerful and paid by the weak.

In the prevailing view, prices are set by supply and demand, and any deviation from what is considered the competitive price (based on marginal revenues) must be due to some imperfection which, if removed, will produce the correct distribution of income between actors. The possibility that some activities perpetually earn rent because they are perceived as valuable, while actually blocking the creation of value and/or destroying existing value, is hardly discussed.

Growth is always presumed natural and good. Apparently value growth then as well. I dunno. Avoiding the extremes has always seemed what's logical to me. Growth to keep pace with the population makes sense. Not growth simply because inflation is deemed somehow inevitable or unstoppable. I think growth should diminish as population shrinks, a level of activity (GDP) deemed "sustainable" signaling the reasonable upper bound. Technological advance, on the other hand, is clearly inevitable. Simply replacing older means with new should be considered a wash. A plus if a net gain in decent employment results. A minus if good jobs are lost.

There needs to be something fun incentivising (rewarding) entrepreneurship. It need not be money or power. Many of the most creative and industrious have been poor.They still enjoyed it largely for its own sake. No one needs to be disgustingly rich to the point where they significantly corrupt governments to act on their behalf rather than in the best interests of the people in general. Those they are supposedly accountable to. Being able to vote them out is no longer any threat where they always make out far better by simply doing the bidding of the filthy rich.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Government is no worse than any private entity in the U.S. It's at least supposed to be accountable to the people. That certainly doesn't make either good. As Snowden makes clear, there are portions of our government that have grown out of control and beyond reform. Bureaucrats so lasting and power drunk they've mostly just laughed as Presidents have come and gone. The NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. All spying on us now constantly with tremendous help from and for private entities like Google, Amazon, and Apple. If there was a ceiling on wealth (a maximum legal percentage difference between poverty and wealth) this wouldn't be happening. A hardened societal appreciation for and commitment to each other's best interests and common decency in other words.

 

[dblack]

Government is no worse than any private entity in the U.S.

It isn't a question of better or worse. Government isn't comparable to a private entity because it has the power to force compliance. Private entities don't have that power. Liberals always want to ignore this distinction, but it's fundamental.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You seem willfully confused. Understandably so. For the record, I'm proudly liberal (empathic, conservative/thrifty as well). Not "Liberal" which is a term so broadly defined as to be meaningless. For example, one definition of liberalism:

: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

Whaa? Really? Yep. Neoliberal:

: a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods

WTF? Yep, an illiberal liberal.

Government isn't comparable to a private entity because it has the power to force compliance. Private entities don't have that power.

So given you'll readily concede that beyond that they are comparable,.. Let's skip corporate personhood since it renders your argument so immediately vacuous as George has made plain. Do private entities have any powers governments do not? If so, could considering those make them comparable? And lastly, you know, it's quite normal to illustrate a concept or argument through use of analogy? The reader is then lent benefit of the doubt to understand that no analogy is perfect. Granted, apples are not oranges. But within the particular context under consideration the comparison helps to clarify some other point. In that sense.. anything is comparable to anything else. Though oranges are berries, both apples and oranges are fruits.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

No, I would agree with *THAT*. Government is the purveyor of violence.

But between you and me, you are the one demanding government have more power. You want them with more of your money. More regulations and controls over life. More authority over the economy, which would extend to all of us as well.

So while you are quick to spew quotes, you fail to follow even the quotes you post.

Why do you think that nearly every left-wing government ends up in violence?

 

[Grumblenuts]

No results found for "Nearly every left-wing government ends up in violence".