Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[daveman]

Chappelle's hilarious.

He's also worth $50 million.

 

[daveman]

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.

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

Few killers have filled more mass graves than capitalism

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

That didn't work out so great for you, did it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's not about you.

Interesting discussion of that phrase. It can possibly be interpreted as supportive, damning, or anything in between. Context is necessary, but I'd venture it generally means "you are not the intended focus nor have "you" been asked to represent those who are.

of that phrase. It can possibly be interpreted as supportive, damning, or anything in between. Context is necessary, but I'd venture it generally means "you are not the intended focus nor have "you" been asked to represent those who are.

I had not considered the ambiguity of the sentence "it's not about you" when I wrote my response to Andy's latest anecdote about his time at McDonald's. I wanted to convey my belief that millions of other workers who may have found it difficult to find a "better job" toiled as wage slaves in an organization that paid its CEO 2124 times as much as the vast majority of its labor force.

Obviously, Andy's decision to leave McDonald's was all about him...

How to parse "It's not about you"

"As far as I could understand, this phrase somehow means 'You're acting selfishly and you don't have the right to do this'. But I am having a hard time putting that into the words 'it's not about you'.

"On the surface the words are gibberish.

"Of course a decision I make for myself is 'about me'. Does the phrase mean "a personal decision that affects you should not concern you'? That also makes little sense."

Yes, highly ambiguous. Must consider the context. Tough even then. Gotta love it

 

[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 ...

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

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

Are you a fan of privatization?

Naomi Klein Quote

 

[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 ...

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

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

Are you a fan of privatization?

Naomi Klein Quote

Nothing works as well as government, eh comrade?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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

Few killers have filled more mass graves than capitalism

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

That didn't work out so great for you, did it?

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

Tyrannical capitalist government, you mean?

"Put on the U2 and The Cranberries and let’s down some green brew folks, it’s that time of year again.

"But while St. Patrick’s Day is cause to celebrate everything Irish-American, it’s also a good time to ponder just why more than a million Irish were forced to leave Ireland while another million were dying of starvation in such a short period of time in the first place.

"The answer, which also explains why millions of children are currently going without enough food in the U.S., has much more to do with market systems than Mother Nature."

EarthRx: The Irish Potato Famine Was Caused by Capitalism, Not a Fungus

 

[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 ...

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

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

Are you a fan of privatization?

Naomi Klein Quote

Nothing works as well as government, eh comrade?

Nothing works as well as government, eh comrade?

Your alma mater, maybe

Did you graduate?

 

[daveman]

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.

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

Few killers have filled more mass graves than capitalism

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

That didn't work out so great for you, did it?

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

Tyrannical capitalist government, you mean?

"Put on the U2 and The Cranberries and let’s down some green brew folks, it’s that time of year again.

"But while St. Patrick’s Day is cause to celebrate everything Irish-American, it’s also a good time to ponder just why more than a million Irish were forced to leave Ireland while another million were dying of starvation in such a short period of time in the first place.

"The answer, which also explains why millions of children are currently going without enough food in the U.S., has much more to do with market systems than Mother Nature."

EarthRx: The Irish Potato Famine Was Caused by Capitalism, Not a Fungus

Your first item: "Hurricane Katrina (deliberate faulty construction): 1,836"

It's handy when your first item is bullshit. Makes it easier to dismiss the rest as worthless, too.

 

[Synthaholic]

Nothing works as well as government, eh comrade?

Yeah, let's disband the military and turn everything over to Eric Prince.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

Are you a fan of privatization?

Naomi Klein Quote

Nothing works as well as government, eh comrade?

Nothing works as well as government, eh comrade?

Your alma mater, maybe

Did you graduate?

How's your alma mater?
Did you get out alive?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing works as well as government, eh comrade?

Yeah, let's disband the military and turn everything over to Eric Prince.

Or the Chicago Public Schools.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Too much winning

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

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

Few killers have filled more mass graves than capitalism

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

That didn't work out so great for you, did it?

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

Tyrannical capitalist government, you mean?

"Put on the U2 and The Cranberries and let’s down some green brew folks, it’s that time of year again.

"But while St. Patrick’s Day is cause to celebrate everything Irish-American, it’s also a good time to ponder just why more than a million Irish were forced to leave Ireland while another million were dying of starvation in such a short period of time in the first place.

"The answer, which also explains why millions of children are currently going without enough food in the U.S., has much more to do with market systems than Mother Nature."

EarthRx: The Irish Potato Famine Was Caused by Capitalism, Not a Fungus

Your first item: "Hurricane Katrina (deliberate faulty construction): 1,836"

It's handy when your first item is bullshit. Makes it easier to dismiss the rest as worthless, too.

 

[georgephillip]

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

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

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

"Seize the Fed: Federal lending, not Federal spending
We propose to seize the functions of the Federal Reserve System and use it as a national bank to finance the long-term needs of the American people.

"The policy of federal lending, as distinct from federal spending, can be used to break the current political impasse. Federal lending allows us to make massive long-term commitments at modest short-term costs.

"For states and businesses, the cost of capital can be radically lowered – down to 0% for public infrastructure, and a competitive advantage of the United States in world markets can be secured.

"The overriding goal is the creation of 30+ million new jobs in production, with high capital investment, high energy intensity, high value added, and high technology.

"The theoretical basis and historical validation for the program advanced here is the traditional American System of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry Carey, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, the populists, and the New Deal.

"The method of transforming the central bank into a national bank to finance a recovery derives from the work of Woytinsky and Lautenbach, interpreted in the light of the experience of the US Lend-Lease Program."

The Fed is part of the government, idiot.

The Fed is part of the government, idiot.

The Fed is actually part of Wall Street, Stooge.

"So, from the above, note that the top 4 banks Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wachovia, would control roughly 50% of the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank, and the top 10 banks, including Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC), HSBC (HBC), and the Bank of New York (NYSE:BK), would control over 68% of the stock which is shown by the graph I put together below."

Who Owns the Fed? | Seeking Alpha

 

[georgephillip]

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

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

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

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

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

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

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

Again, reality contradicts your theory.

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

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

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

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

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

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.

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

"Thus, despite the soaring incomes of top corporate executives and other wealthy Americans, the median household income in the United States grew by only 0.2 percent during 2018―a decline from the three previous years.

"Commenting on U.S. wage stagnation, Sam Pizzigati, co-editor of inequality.org, observed that 'average Americans have spent this entire century on a treadmill getting nowhere fast. The nation’s median―most typical―households pocketed 2.3 percent fewer real dollars in 2018 than they earned in 2000.'"

 

[georgephillip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMG, duh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$750 a week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

Have you ever met Brian?
If not, you have no way of knowing how smart he is.
Based on his accomplishments, he is among the brightest when motivated by money which, when you stop to think about it, isn't saying much.

 

[georgephillip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMG, duh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$750 a week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

What percentage of human beings have an IQ over 200?
As leaders in DC squabble over who's smarter, here's the IQ score Warren Buffett says is all you need to succeed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...)

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

Nationalize the Federal Reserve | United Front Against Austerity

"Seize the Fed: Federal lending, not Federal spending
We propose to seize the functions of the Federal Reserve System and use it as a national bank to finance the long-term needs of the American people.

"The policy of federal lending, as distinct from federal spending, can be used to break the current political impasse. Federal lending allows us to make massive long-term commitments at modest short-term costs.

"For states and businesses, the cost of capital can be radically lowered – down to 0% for public infrastructure, and a competitive advantage of the United States in world markets can be secured.

"The overriding goal is the creation of 30+ million new jobs in production, with high capital investment, high energy intensity, high value added, and high technology.

"The theoretical basis and historical validation for the program advanced here is the traditional American System of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry Carey, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, the populists, and the New Deal.

"The method of transforming the central bank into a national bank to finance a recovery derives from the work of Woytinsky and Lautenbach, interpreted in the light of the experience of the US Lend-Lease Program."

The Fed is part of the government, idiot.

The Fed is part of the government, idiot.

The Fed is actually part of Wall Street, Stooge.

"So, from the above, note that the top 4 banks Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wachovia, would control roughly 50% of the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank, and the top 10 banks, including Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC), HSBC (HBC), and the Bank of New York (NYSE:BK), would control over 68% of the stock which is shown by the graph I put together below."

Who Owns the Fed? | Seeking Alpha

The Fed is actually part of Wall Street, Stooge.

No, it's part of the Federal government, twat.

"So, from the above, note that the top 4 banks Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wachovia, would control roughly 50% of the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank,

Banks don't get extra votes based on assets.
The top 5 banks can't vote to pay themselves a larger "dividend" or to change the Fed Funds rate.
Doesn't work that way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The Widening Gap Between the Super-Rich and Other Americans

"Thus, despite the soaring incomes of top corporate executives and other wealthy Americans, the median household income in the United States grew by only 0.2 percent during 2018―a decline from the three previous years.

"Commenting on U.S. wage stagnation, Sam Pizzigati, co-editor of inequality.org, observed that 'average Americans have spent this entire century on a treadmill getting nowhere fast. The nation’s median―most typical―households pocketed 2.3 percent fewer real dollars in 2018 than they earned in 2000.'"

The nation’s median―most typical―households pocketed 2.3 percent fewer real dollars in 2018 than they earned in 2000.'"

The more illegal alien households you bring in, the more you drop the median.

 

[georgephillip]

Too much winning

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

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

Few killers have filled more mass graves than capitalism

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

That didn't work out so great for you, did it?

So, to prove how evil capitalism is, you post a graphic showing deaths caused by tyrannical government.

Tyrannical capitalist government, you mean?


"Put on the U2 and The Cranberries and let’s down some green brew folks, it’s that time of year again.

"But while St. Patrick’s Day is cause to celebrate everything Irish-American, it’s also a good time to ponder just why more than a million Irish were forced to leave Ireland while another million were dying of starvation in such a short period of time in the first place.

"The answer, which also explains why millions of children are currently going without enough food in the U.S., has much more to do with market systems than Mother Nature."

EarthRx: The Irish Potato Famine Was Caused by Capitalism, Not a Fungus

Your first item: "Hurricane Katrina (deliberate faulty construction): 1,836"

It's handy when your first item is bullshit. Makes it easier to dismiss the rest as worthless, too.

Your first item: "Hurricane Katrina (deliberate faulty construction): 1,836"

It's handy when your first item is bullshit. Makes it easier to dismiss the rest as worthless, too.

What makes you"think" it's bullshit?
Something Trump told you.

 

[georgephillip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMG, duh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$750 a week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

Because we have a market system based on ability to pay instead of need. There Are Alternatives.