Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[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.

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

Why would you assume they should be equality? Why would starting points be equal? Why should they be equal? Who said that?

Are you still under some toddler level notion, that life should be fair? Life is never fair. Being an adult, and mature, means accepting that life isn't fair, and doing the best with what you have.

Why should I not have a better starting point, than someone else, if my parents worked hard, saved and invested, and built a good home for me? Should children never benefit from the hard work of their parents?

This is an idiotic claim.

Basically you are suggesting that the children of hard working people, should have the same life as those whose parents never work. Wrong. That's dumb.

You really think that the children of two parents who worked full-time jobs for 40 years, should have their kids grow up in a slum somewhere, so that the children of an unmarried crack whore, and an alcoholic father, and have the same "starting point" as your children?

Ridiculous. No one would buy that.

And of course if you allow children to benefit from a better starting point, then you are going to have some that start with nothing, and others that end up with tons.

And that's ok.

Part of the greatness of the Capitalist system, is that anyone can succeed here.

The immigrant who became a drone firm boss

55% Of America's Billion-Dollar Startups Have An Immigrant Founder

You can come here with little, or nothing, and end up very wealthy.

So when you see people who have lived here their whole lives, who are poor...... It's not race.... it's not age.... It's choice.

 

[Andylusion]

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

Cuba? Laos? Cambodia? Soviet Union? Maoist China? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Jamaica in the 70s?
The list is endless. You need more?

 

[Andylusion]

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?

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

UGH>........

You schizophrenic nut job.....

YOU CAN NOT..... Complain that wealth is not equal.... and then claim that the wealth that is unequal is a fraud.

If it is a fraud........ then why do you care if the wealthy have tons of fraud? They are obviously not wealthy if all their wealth is fraud.

If they are wealthy, then their stocks are real assets, and the solution is for you to buy some.

You can't have it both ways, idiot.

You can't complain that cake is all terrible, and rots your teeth, and causes cancer..... and then turn right around and complain that the wealthy have all the cake.

It's one or the other you, mindless moron.

lol..... these people....

"I hate poop.... poop is terrible and it stinks, and it spreads diseases...... I hate the wealthy people, because they have all the poop! They should share the poop!"

Are you in an asylum? Because you are sound more and more like someone that needs lithium every day.

 

[georgephillip]

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?

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

NAKED KEYNESIANISM: Ernesto Screpanti on Marx's Labor Theory of Value and The 'New Interpretation'

When a wealthy minority appropriates and distributes a surplus produced by the majority, social goals like liberty, fraternity, and equality are undermined, no?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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.

Separating private wealth from political influence in a capitalist economy seems like separating the white from the rice. There is something inherently corrupt about those who profit the most from an economy that concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation funneling virtually unlimited amounts of money to politicians responsible for regulating their business related perfidy. I suppose we could nationalize Wall Street and the New York Fed, and empower Treasury to replace commercial bank credit thereby becoming the (sole?) source of new money?

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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

NAKED KEYNESIANISM: Ernesto Screpanti on Marx's Labor Theory of Value and The 'New Interpretation'

When a wealthy minority appropriates and distributes a surplus produced by the majority, social goals like liberty, fraternity, and equality are undermined, no?

When a wealthy minority appropriates and distributes a surplus produced by the majority

Surplus? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Separating private wealth from political influence in a capitalist economy seems like separating the white from the rice. There is something inherently corrupt about those who profit the most from an economy that concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation funneling virtually unlimited amounts of money to politicians responsible for regulating their business related perfidy. I suppose we could nationalize Wall Street and the New York Fed, and empower Treasury to replace commercial bank credit thereby becoming the (sole?) source of new money?

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

Nationalize the Fed?
How do you nationalize a part of the Federal government?

 

[georgephillip]

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

Cuba? Laos? Cambodia? Soviet Union? Maoist China? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Jamaica in the 70s?
The list is endless. You need more?

Cuba? Laos? Cambodia? Soviet Union? Maoist China? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Jamaica in the 70s?
The list is endless. You need more?

Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World.
Which country qualifies?
If you're confused, ask the Kurds.

Since the end of WWII which country has killed millions of innocent human beings (including those in Laos and Cambodia)?

MAGA, yet, Moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Cuba? Laos? Cambodia? Soviet Union? Maoist China? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Jamaica in the 70s?
The list is endless. You need more?

Cuba? Laos? Cambodia? Soviet Union? Maoist China? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Jamaica in the 70s?
The list is endless. You need more?

Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World.
Which country qualifies?
If you're confused, ask the Kurds.

Since the end of WWII which country has killed millions of innocent human beings (including those in Laos and Cambodia)?

MAGA, yet, Moron.

Since the end of WWII which country has killed millions of innocent human beings (including those in Laos and Cambodia)?

Russia and China.

 

[daveman]

Not your money, none of your business.

Society's business.

But not government's.

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?

Oh, you don't mind an aristocracy. You just want it comprised of unelected bureaucrats.

George, this is something you've never considered, but listen closely.

You believe power in the hands of the wealthy corrupts them.

But power in the hands of government employees corrupts government employees.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you believe bureaucrats are incorruptible. History is replete with examples.

Can you explain it? Please use your own words, not someone else's, and not some silly meme. I really want to know.

 

[daveman]

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.”

Communists can't handle dissent, and want the dissenters dead.

 

[daveman]

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.”

“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?

D'j'ever notice that any leftist group that talks about justice means they want what they haven't earned?

 

[daveman]

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.

You're talking about George, though you don't know it.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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.

The CIA came into being in 1947 with some deep Ivy League roots that have only become more pronounced over time "For God, Country, Yale and the CIA" has given us Poppy Bush, William Bundy, James Angleton, and Porter Goss to mention only a few one percenters and those who loyally serve them. Since the overthrow of Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, US intelligence agencies have posed a threat to human rights around the globe, and I believe that can be connected to their elite Ivy League leadership. Snowden deserves a medal for his recent revelations, imho.

 

[daveman]

Mom and Pop called. Said to tell you "Math ain't that hard. You're just an idiot. A willing tool. Putty in the hands of your careless oppressors."

Hey, speaking of math, if you confiscated every penny of wealth from American billionaires, how long would it fund government?

Hint: About 9 months.

Math ain't hard -- especially if your political philosophy relies on utterly ignoring it.

 

[daveman]

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?

Thread summary:

Powerful government is bad, and the only solution is even more powerful government.

 

[daveman]

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.

Show your math, Mutt.

Here you go, twat.

View attachment 287371
The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia

George thinks Communism killing people is funny.

 

[daveman]

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?

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?

You need a Snickers. You get angry when you're hungry.

Oh, wait! You're a Communist. You better get used to being hungry, Comrade.

 

[daveman]

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.

Yup, I called it.

Powerful government is bad, and the only solution is even more powerful government.

 

[daveman]

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

I got "About 380,000,000 results (0.80 seconds)" on that Google search. I bet you thought you scored a devastating point, too.