Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[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

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.

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?

Are you ignorant of or indifferent to the barriers that government and racist white crackers erected to prevent black wealth acquisition?

Systematic Inequality - Center for American Progress

 

[dblack]

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 ...

You go girl! Nationalize every. God. Damned. Thing. Government is everything.

 

[daveman]

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 ...

You go girl! Nationalize every. God. Damned. Thing. Government is everything.

Our Government in D.C.,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy nanny state come
Thy mandate be done
On flyover country as it is in the coasts.
Give us this month our monthly check,
And audit us our trespasses,
As we file suit against those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into liberty,
But deliver us from ourselves.
For thine is the oligarchy,
And the power, and the glory,
Forever and ever.
Amen.

 

[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.

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?

I guess you're providing an example of the whinging. Thanks.

 

[dblack]

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.

The main thing is, our corrupt government needs more power. To stop the corruption.

 

[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.”

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

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

Too much winning

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Thank you for finally just answering the question.... even if you had to throw in pointless attempts at a jab.

Eike Batista
In 2012, he was worth $30 Billion dollars. By the end of 2013, he was filing for bankruptcy.

I would argue to you, that virtually everyone depends on a wage. If your spending out strips your income, you end up a slave to your wage.

Again, Michael Jackson earned by many estimates, almost a billion dollars in his life time. At the time of his death, he was just about bankrupt. In fact, the only reason he engaged in the "This is it!" tour, was because he was ..... a wage slave. He either made an income, or he would have to file bankruptcy.

Nearly everyone is dependent on their wage, and should be. That's part of life. You don't get to do whatever you want, and not work for it.

The term "wage slavery" has been used to criticize exploitation of labour

This is dumb in my opinion, because basically you are criticizing creating jobs.

Look... if it doesn't benefit me to hire you, then I am not going to hire you. The same is universally true for everyone, everywhere, on the entire planet.

The only way.... the ONLY way to avoid "exploitation of labour" is not employ anyone. By that logic, the people dying in Venezuela, should be better off than anyone in the US, because at least no one is exploiting their labour.

Again... no one would hire anyone, unless it benefited themselves, to do so. Tell me... you tell me.... how many times have you hired a carpenter to fix your house, or add on an addition.... when you had nothing to fix or add on? Never. If it does not benefit you to hire someone, when you don't need them.... thus you don't hire. The only time you hire someone to fix your roof, is when the roof leaks.... YOU ARE EXPLOITING THEIR LABOUR.

Companies are no different than you. If they can not exploit the labour, they they will not hire the labour, and they'll end up dying like the Venezuelans. If they create a single job.... that job only exists, because they can exploit someone's labour. That's how life itself works.

Notice those with "capital" are presumed to have "bargaining power" enabling the "self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure"

Yes, and they should. Those with capital should have more bargaining power. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

The amount of money wrapped up in a McDonald's store for example, is about $2.5 Million dollars (on average. Varies by how expensive the land and contract work is).

The average cost to be an employee at McDonald's, is the cost to drive to the McDonald's, and to fill out the paperwork, and usually both the papers and the pens, are provided at the store. Since the owner has to drive to the store too, and has to fill out a ton more paperwork, we can cancel those expenses out.

Why would you ever think the owners which have invested $2.5 Million dollars, would not have drastically more bargaining power, than an employee which has invested roughly about $0 into the store? This is ridiculous.

Chrysler’s Belvidere Assembly and Stamping Plant
I was just reading here, about a new stamping machine installed at a production plant, cost $45 Million dollars. That's one machine.

And you think those employees who have invested ZERO... into the company should have what bargaining power?.... and why?

Yes, capital does vastly more bargaining power, and should. That is good and right. To argue otherwise is insane. If you hired me to mow your lawn, and I showed up the next day, saying I think you should do this or that, you would laugh me off your property. You paid for it. You own it. It's yours, so you make the rules.
You would never sit there and think you have to bargain with me, because you hired me to mow your lawn, and now I get a say on how you operate your life.
Ridiculous.

According to your testimony, you've never experienced otherwise

Depends on what you mean. I have never felt trapped, simply because I know for a fact I live in a free country, and if I refuse to show up for work, nothing is going to happen.

If you mean simply that I had to work because I had bills... then yes, I have most certainly been an adult, and made the choice to work a job I didn't like, because an adult has responsibilities, and you have to do what have to do.

This difference is, maybe I work a job I hate, but I still know I'm not trapped. I simply find another job. You can find another job. If you "FEEL" that you can't.... that's on you. But the fact is, you can.

I know you can, because I have met people who claimed they simply couldn't find another job, and then they get laid off or fired, and shockingly.... they find another job. It's amazing how it happens "I'm trapped! I'm a wage slave! I can't get another job! I simply can't get a different job somewhere!".... and then when they have no choice, suddenly they have another job. Whooaa.... what happened to all that 'its impossible to get another job' crap?

All during the crash of 2008-2010.... I found jobs. The longest I was out of work, was 2 weeks. You can find a job.

 

[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.”

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

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

Too much winning

Protip: If you had facts, logic, and reason on your side, you wouldn't have to put people in mass graves.

 

[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.

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."

Again, I already covered this. The gap between rich and poor, SHOULD widen. Just using logic, it should. Because the lowest wage, is and has always been throughout all time..... Zero. There people who do not work, or work exceptionally little. I knew a guy years ago, who only mowed lawns, and thus only had work during the winter, and his yearly income was just $10,000.

So if the lowest wage is always Zero..... and the CEO wage is always increasing.... then the gap will widen.

And CEO pay will always continue to increase. Why?

Because they keep increasing what they do. If I own 5 stores.... and open 5 more, my pay will double. That doesn't mean the pay at an individual store will increase, because the customers are not going to pay twice as much for the same product, just because the CEO pay doubled.

Math sir. Learn math.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Two problems with that. First, there was nothing super smart about Brian. All he did was buy a truck, and start hauling junk. Are you saying that it takes Olympic physical skill, or an MIT degree to haul trash?

This is like Phil Robertson, being a drunk guy at a bar, who started whittling a duck caller, and saying that it takes MIT degrees or Olympic skills, to whittle a duck caller and sell it.

No, to both. The only reason either of these people became wealthy, was simply choice, and effort. That's it.

Take Warren Buffet. Warren was not particularly brilliant. He just was an investor. You go read his history. Before he was even 10-years-old, he was buying shares in companies on Wall St. It's no wonder he is wealthy today, when he started investing before he was 10. Instead of blowing money on baseball cards, and knick knacks, he was investing. His IQ isn't over 200.... he just made good choices, and put in the effort. It's that simple, and that hard.

The second problem I have with that, is that you are implying that somehow merit shouldn't be part of the economic equation.

If you are telling me that wealthy people are wealthy because they are super smart and/or have tremendous skill.... Isn't that good? Shouldn't we support such things? Why are you complaining about people who have wealth because they merit it? Why would we give wealth to the mentally incompetent, or physically unable?

 

[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.

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."

I worked at McDonald's. I quit and got a better job.

If those people are unhappy with their pay.... that's on them to get a better job.

I don't have any problem with how much the CEO's are paid. Again, I have gained far more benefit as a working man, from Walmart and McDonald's, than I ever have from someone like you.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You do know that people come to the US for care, from Canada routinely... right? Come to the US, to pay for care constantly. Happens every single day.

 

[Andylusion]

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

No, that would be wrong. Now there are people are rent collectors. We do have that. The sugar lobby for example. The Ethanol lobby for example. Green-energy companies.

So there is economic rent seeking going on.

My favorite example is Elon Musk. His SolarCity company has never turned a profit, and yet Elon made millions off it. How? Government subsidies. Taxing you, so Elon can drive his Tesla Roadster.

However, private earnings benefit all people. Everything that creates value, is a benefit to the economy, and thus the entire nation.

Every product or service, that costs less to produce, than how much it is valued on the market, creates wealth.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Yeah, Duhh, "Results for Nearly every left-wing government ends up in violence (without quotes):"

I posted the direct result quote. STILL NO HITS. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Brain damage?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

That's where we differ.
Government itself, is the corrupting influence.

The people on the left-wing try and pretend that Government is this divine perfect pure group of people, until the evil corruption of business interferes.

That's backwards. And really odd belief system to begin with. When you look at government, how could you look at congress, and think they were pure until business showed up? Where did you get such an idea?

There are a few really good politicians, but most are Epstein types. I don't know where you would even think that Government is good and pure to begin with. Most of those people are involved in all kinds of crap.

But routinely it is government that corrupts business. My favorite example is Microsoft. Before the Microsoft anti-trust investigation by the DOJ... Microsoft never was involved in government. They had no lobbying. No significant donations to anyone. Nothing.

As the DOJ investigation randomly wandered around, trying one claim, then another, then another... Microsoft figured out what they wanted. They wanted money. So Microsoft hired lobbyists, started to wine-and-dine the politicians, started donating to campaigns, and almost like magic... the DOJ faded away, and the lawsuit was closed with barely a slap on the wrist.

Today, Microsoft continues to blow tons of money every year on lobbying.

It's a protection racket, like a mafia deal. And since Microsoft is spending thousands on thousands for protection, they might as well get something for it... so they get favorable legislation.

But you need to grasp which came first. Microsoft did not start lobbying government, and then government went bad. Government was bad, and started hammering on Microsoft until they started paying up. That's how this works. The corrupting factor was government, not business. Business was just influenced by government.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

Then explain Venezuela again.

All the wealthy people left Venezuela. But all the labor is still there.

If you are right, and the labor creates wealth, and the rich people just horde it... then explain Venezuela? All rich people left. All the labor is still there. Why isn't Venezuela now leading the US in wealth? They have all the labor, and no capitalists. They should be the most wealthy people on the face of the planet.

So what's going on? Why is your system not working?

 

[Andylusion]

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?

I'm telling you.... he needs lithium.

(I totally missed that on the first read though... absolutely hilarious.... nationalize.... the fed..... wow...)

 

[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?

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.

Lithium..... you need lithium.

200 Million dead from anti-capitalists. Yet you are worried about what the US did.... right.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

I think you over-state how much the CIA has done. However, I do agree we should have tighter limits on what the CIA does.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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?

Are you ignorant of or indifferent to the barriers that government and racist white crackers erected to prevent black wealth acquisition?

Systematic Inequality - Center for American Progress

No, I don't agree with that at all.

There are numerous examples of black people who have become fabulously successful, and / or wealthy.



1:10.... Do you believe race plays a part in wealth distrobution.

Morgan Freeman "Today? No I don't. Look at me and you, we're proof."

Did you ever read the story behind the movie "Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith?
The Pursuit of Happyness - Wikipedia

The story is about Chris Gardner, a man that grow up poor and impoverished, lived poor and at times even homeless, and by shear effort and determination, made something of himself, opened his own brokerage firm, and now is a multimillionaire.

How is that possible? Why didn't all your mythical government rules and rich white people, prevent him from acquiring wealth?

There is nothing preventing black people from getting wealthy, except their own bad choices. And that really true.

It's their choices that are making them poor.

that right there..... is a huge reason blacks are poor. Nothing spells economic doom, more than growing up without a real family, with a mother and father married to each other.

I knew a guy just 4 years ago, who was black.... and he was working two full time jobs. I happen to ask him what his other job was paying him, and he brought in a pay stub, and showed it to me. Notice, I didn't ask him to do this. He just did it.

He had 3 different child support payments on his pay stub, and he was with a fourth women at that time, unmarried, and had already popped out a kid with her.

THAT.... is why they are poor. Bad choices, equals bad results, and ends with poverty. No one wonder this guy was poor while working 80-hours a week. He made a TON of bad bad terrible choices. That's what happens when you make bad choices.