Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[dudmuck]

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.

Yeah, we've seen your alternatives. They suck. All of them suck. That's why you are not living in a commune right now.... are you? No you are not.

That's why every country that has tried your alternatives, has fallen into ruins. Why are you not living in Cuba right now? Or any other purely "according to their need" system?

And don't give me this crap about Europe either. I've been to Europe. You know how the poor live in Europe? Like they are poor. You know how the rich live in Europe? Like they are rich. See these Lego Dutch multi-billionaires, with a private horse farm, because daddies daughter likes to compete in Pony Shows... and you have some idiot in the US talking about how they are so much more "equal" over there. Garbage.

Your system does not work. Never has. Never will.

Trump was on Twitter calling for boycots of specific companies, encouraging the use of others, handing out my tax dollars as subsidies to farmers and billioniare business owners.

Thats your idea of free markets?

 

[Andylusion]

Are you a fan of privatization?[IRRELEVANT_MEME]

I'm a fan of limited government. ie not socializing shit in the first place. "Privatization" is usually just a scam whereby government monopolies are handed over to well-connected, rent-seeking businesses. All we really need to do to "privatize" an existing government service is to have the government stop doing it.

I'm a fan of limited government. ie not socializing shit in the first place. "Privatization" is usually just a scam whereby government monopolies are handed over to well-connected, rent-seeking businesses. All we really need to do to "privatize" an existing government service is to have the government stop doing it.

Government monopolies function as a fourth factor of production which serve to lower costs of doing business and living. Instead of toll roads, public roads. Instead of a lifetime of student debt, free higher education. Instead of medical bankruptcies, Medicare for All. Profit has its uses, but they are not nearly as plentiful as capitalists believe.

That is a ridiculous claim. How is socializing the cost of something, going to reduce costs of doing business? Unless you plan to lay the costs directly on the public?

Why do you think they are protesting over in France? That whole yellow jacket protest, was over taxes levied on the poor, to pay for government spending on health care and education.

People in France are living almost in poverty, while working jobs that in the US would be middle class.

That's a baffling statement, to think that us socializing the cost.... will magically make the cost go away, and it will lower the cost of doing business. How? Where does the cost go? Just vanishes into a mist or something? Sigh...... again with the magic socialist theory that if government does it, all the costs just fade into oblivion.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Yeah, we've seen your alternatives. They suck. All of them suck. That's why you are not living in a commune right now.... are you? No you are not.

That's why every country that has tried your alternatives, has fallen into ruins. Why are you not living in Cuba right now? Or any other purely "according to their need" system?

And don't give me this crap about Europe either. I've been to Europe. You know how the poor live in Europe? Like they are poor. You know how the rich live in Europe? Like they are rich. See these Lego Dutch multi-billionaires, with a private horse farm, because daddies daughter likes to compete in Pony Shows... and you have some idiot in the US talking about how they are so much more "equal" over there. Garbage.

Your system does not work. Never has. Never will.

Trump was on Twitter calling for boycots of specific companies, encouraging the use of others, handing out my tax dollars as subsidies to farmers and billioniare business owners.

Thats your idea of free markets?

No of course not. That's why I didn't vote for him.

If you read something that is not a Free-Market Capitalist idea.... and I'm advocating Free-market Capitalism..... you are free to assume that I am not in support of an idea that isn't an idea I said I supported. Pretty easy.

Logic sir. Try it.

By the way, boycots are free-market capitalist ideas. You are free to go to...or not to go to... any company you do or do not wish to go to. That's free-market sir. Trump can't make me, or prevent me, from going anywhere. Free-market capitalism.

But subsidies.... no, I'm not in favor of taking money from one person, and giving it to another. I am not in favor of that when it is Medicare, Social Security, or Green-energy grants.

I'm against all subsidies. Again... I support free-market capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

People quit the government all the time, just ask John Bolton.

Under socialism, government is the only game in town. The only way you can avoid it is to get the hell out.

I wonder if you can actually address this point, or if you'll just keep ignoring it and posting irrelevant memes and quotes from your propaganda stockpile? I'll bet on the latter.

I wonder if you can actually address this point, or if you'll just keep ignoring it and posting irrelevant memes and quotes from your propaganda stockpile? I'll bet on the latter.

As I've pointed out on more than one occasion, socialism means society controls the means of production; government is one option, but so are worker self controlled enterprises.

but so are worker self controlled enterprises.

The workers ran United Airlines, how did that work out?

but so are worker self controlled enterprises.

The workers ran United Airlines, how did that work out?

Better than Enron.

Not better than.... oh... 90% of the rest of the economy..... Anyone can choose the worst possible example to compare to. That doesn't make your example good.

That like smoking cigarettes until you get lung cancer, and when someone says 'how'd that work for you', responding "Dur... better than Heroin!". Yeah... still not good.

 

[Andylusion]

Are you a fan of privatization?[IRRELEVANT_MEME]

I'm a fan of limited government. ie not socializing shit in the first place. "Privatization" is usually just a scam whereby government monopolies are handed over to well-connected, rent-seeking businesses. All we really need to do to "privatize" an existing government service is to have the government stop doing it.

I'm a fan of limited government. ie not socializing shit in the first place. "Privatization" is usually just a scam whereby government monopolies are handed over to well-connected, rent-seeking businesses. All we really need to do to "privatize" an existing government service is to have the government stop doing it.

Government monopolies function as a fourth factor of production which serve to lower costs of doing business and living. Instead of toll roads, public roads. Instead of a lifetime of student debt, free higher education. Instead of medical bankruptcies, Medicare for All. Profit has its uses, but they are not nearly as plentiful as capitalists believe.

What is a "fourth factor of production"?

Anyway, for each one of those conveniences, we lose a little bit of freedom - and risk giving too much power to government. I really don't get you folks who are think the solution to the notion that employers have too much power, is too give it to government instead. If things get bad enough at a job, you can quit. You can't quit the government.

What is a "fourth factor of production"?

Anyway, for each one of those conveniences, we lose a little bit of freedom - and risk giving too much power to government. I really don't get you folks who are think the solution to the notion that employers have too much power, is too give it to government instead. If things get bad enough at a job, you can quit. You can't quit the government.

People quit the government all the time, just ask John Bolton.

Tollbooth Trump | Michael Hudson

"America’s first professor of economics at the first business school – Simon Patten, at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School – said that public infrastructure is a fourth factor of production.

"But it’s not like labor, land, and capital, because the role of public infrastructure is not to make a profit.

"It’s role is to provide public services that are basic for the economy’s living standards and capacity to produce, and to provide these at a subsidized rate.

"That’s how America got rich and came to dominate the world industrial economy: by publicly subsidizing its basic costs: Low-cost roads, and low-cost other infrastructure.

"The government bore these costs so that public infrastructure would subsidize the economy to lower the cost of doing business."

Only partially true. Many times, especially during the railway era, bridges and rail lines were built using private funds.

Further, privately built roads are a reality, and growing.

THE BUSINESS WORLD; The Private Roads to Riches

Ironically France, has one of the largest private highway operating companies in the world.

I'm not suggesting that public roads were not a benefit to society, and business, or that they didn't increase productivity.

However, the claim seems to be, if government did not do this... no one would have. That claim is false. It is NOT TRUE.

A perfect example is Gujarat India. Gujarat was the poorest of all the provinces. In 2001, it had one of the worst Earthquakes recorded in India, and what little there was in Gujarat was leveled to the ground.

The government had no choice but to open the province up to business. Giving tax free operating zones, and opening the province up to nearly unlimited unrestricted development.

This included the construction of roads, bridges, water systems, electrical utilities, all without government intervention or subsidies. No red tape, no tax money.

Private companies built an entire seaport, and rail lines, and a highway for trucking.

See the problem with the analysis of how America grew, is that because the government built most of the roads, that therefore without government the roads would not have existed.

It's an elementary argument based on "because it happened this way... it couldn't have happened any other way".

Business is just like any other person or individual. If you could get someone to fix your car for free... would you pay to fix it yourself? No. You would accept the offer, and have them fix it for free. We all would. I would. Of course I would. Everyone would.

If you could stay in your house where you live, for free, would you? Yes. I would. We all would.

Well people just like you, also run businesses. And if you can get the government build that road for you.... wouldn't you? Yes you would.

But the reverse isn't true. If the government refused to build the road, you wouldn't be sitting there.... "Oh I guess I'll just close my business and die somewhere"... no you are going to build the road yourself. You'd rather have government do it, but if you can't get government to do it, then you'll do it yourself. You are not just going to... oh well.... guess I'm screwed....

So I disagree with the conclusion that we owe everything to government, and without government, nothing would exist. No. Our country was growing, and expanding, and the standard of living was rising, long before a single paved road ever existed.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again.... go get a better job. You keep saying it isn't about me.... but if I can do it.... why can't anyone else? I failed out of college. I didn't drop out. CEOs of fortune 500s drop out. I failed out. I have no degrees. No certifications. No training. Nothing. If anyone in this country should be completely stuck and unable to ever escape minimum wage (according to your theory), it should be me. Yet, I have been able to find higher paying jobs, without any qualifications, many times. Many times!

Dunno, still sounds like it's all about you. LOL

I've worked 10 hour days, getting up at 3 AM in the morning, to get my butt to work by 5 AM.

That's what an adult does. I don't care if that Adult is black, white our purple with green stripes.

You are wrong sir. Because I know these people, I've worked with them most of my life, and the moment they lose their job.... it's amazing how they are able to find another, after saying for years that they can't.

Could you possibly make this any less about you? After imagining yourself some kind of hero compared to the norm, you,.. you alone,.. set the standard for all.



Best get back on your meds, son. Otherwise, count on another mental break soon.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Only partially true. Many times, especially during the railway era, bridges and rail lines were built using private funds.

Further, privately built roads are a reality, and growing.

THE BUSINESS WORLD; The Private Roads to Riches

Hilarious. Cut, gut, and punish baby! What people? Money! Fuck people!

 

[sparky]

For years Warren has claimed "corporations are not people."

vs. we the people corporations.....?

Fucking totalitarian

which we already are living>

evidence you say?

>>

 

[sparky]

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

The United States is in a minority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that gives no representation of the workforce in corporate governance.[2]

The theory/practical gap has already been witnessed George

They always find a way to pit one worker ant against another

~S~

 

[dblack]

As I've pointed out on more than one occasion, socialism means society controls the means of production; government is one option, but so are worker self controlled enterprises.

This is horseshit equivocation. Society owns the means of production under capitalism.

 

[dblack]

What happens when the Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World prevents a small minority of Venezuelans from distributing the surplus they have appropriated from their productive majority?

The rich parasites leave the country, as thousands of Venezuelans die from the consequences of illegal economic sanctions:

Economist Jeffrey Sachs: U.S. Sanctions Have Devastated Venezuela & Killed Over 40,000 Since 2017 | Democracy Now!

"It started with sanctions in 2017 that prevented, essentially, the country from accessing international capital markets and the oil company from restructuring its loans.

"That put Venezuela into a hyperinflation.

"That was the utter collapse.

"Oil earnings plummeted.

"The earnings that are used to buy food and medicine collapsed. That’s when the social, humanitarian crisis went spiraling out of control.

"And then, in this year, with this idea, very naive, very stupid, in my view, that there would be this self-proclaimed president, which was all choreographed with the United States very, very closely, another round of even tighter sanctions, essentially confiscating the earnings and the assets of the Venezuelan government, took place."

It's interesting to me.... that every single country that is based on Capitalist Free-market ideals, is wealthy.... and every country that is based on Socialist ideals, is impoverished and dying....

Yet isn't it amazing that regardless, it is somehow always those Free-market Capitalists that are to blame for the Socialists dying.

Why is that? Can you explain to me, how if the Capitalists are to blame..... how is it that every country overwhelmingly flooded with Capitalists has food to spare, and higher standards of living for even the poorest people, and at the same time every country almost devoid of Capitalists, has starvation and people living in utter poverty?

If you were right, and it was the evil Capitalists, that caused all the suffering in the world.... shouldn't the US be facing the most starvation and impoverishment? Shouldn't we see floods of people going to Venezuela where there are barely any capitalists left?

Yet somehow.... just somehow.... it's still the fault of Capitalists.... Just amazing how that works...

t's interesting to me.... that every single country that is based on Capitalist Free-market ideals, is wealthy.... and every country that is based on Socialist ideals, is impoverished and dying....

Have you considered the possibility that is due to the amount of violence capitalists inflict on civilian populations around the globe? Maybe the Kurds could help you understand?

The Turks are killing Kurds because.....capitalism?

The Turks are killing Kurds because.....capitalism?

Could Trump's Financial Ties Have Influenced His Phone Call With Erdogan?

Gee, thanks for the link.

No answer?

Just links.

 

[dblack]

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?

Can't respond eh?

Links and memes, all the way down.

 

[georgephillip]

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

The United States is in a minority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that gives no representation of the workforce in corporate governance.[2]

The theory/practical gap has already been witnessed George

They always find a way to pit one worker ant against another

~S~

The theory/practical gap has already been witnessed George

They always find a way to pit one worker ant against another

I think that's true for an economy that depends on private for-profit capitalists to supply a majority of jobs, but what about New Deal jobs? FDR created about ten million jobs when the US workforce totaled about 50 million workers. If we apply the same ratio to today's workforce of 160 million, a unionized Green New Deal could lay the foundation for an economy where a majority of workers decides what, where, and when production will occur.

 

[sparky]

"Section 5(b)(2) requires US corporations to have the purpose of 'creating a general public benefit', while section 5(c) requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term."

The United States is in a minority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that gives no representation of the workforce in corporate governance.[2]

The theory/practical gap has already been witnessed George

They always find a way to pit one worker ant against another

~S~

The theory/practical gap has already been witnessed George

They always find a way to pit one worker ant against another

I think that's true for an economy that depends on private for-profit capitalists to supply a majority of jobs, but what about New Deal jobs? FDR created about ten million jobs when the US workforce totaled about 50 million workers. If we apply the same ratio to today's workforce of 160 million, a unionized Green New Deal could lay the foundation for an economy where a majority of workers decides what, where, and when production will occur.

Any economy is intricate George. And while i'll agree corporatism is killing capitalism , i'm not so sure involving worker ants is really going to help that out. Considering corporatism has bought Congress , it's not a stretch to consider it would also prostitute the worker ant.

So while i'll agree w/Warren on theory, i'll also side with the fact human nature will never change.

thx

~S~

 

[georgephillip]

As I've pointed out on more than one occasion, socialism means society controls the means of production; government is one option, but so are worker self controlled enterprises.

This is horseshit equivocation. Society owns the means of production under capitalism.

This is horseshit equivocation. Society owns the means of production under capitalism.

You're confused.
A small, parasitic faction of society "own" the means of production under capitalism. Currently those who control the most capital decide what, where, and when to produce goods or services. Unless your definition of "society" is limited to its richest one percent, your claim is Trump-level stupid.

 

[dblack]

As I've pointed out on more than one occasion, socialism means society controls the means of production; government is one option, but so are worker self controlled enterprises.

This is horseshit equivocation. Society owns the means of production under capitalism.

This is horseshit equivocation. Society owns the means of production under capitalism.

You're confused.
A small, parasitic faction of society "own" the means of production under capitalism.
Currently those who control the most capital decide what, where, and when to produce goods or services. Unless your definition of "society" is limited to its richest one percent, your claim is Trump-level stupid.

I'm not confused, you're lying. The fact of the matter is, there are already "worker self controlled enterprises", and we can make more whenever we like. This doesn't require state control of the economy.

 

[georgephillip]

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."

I wanted to convey my belief that millions of other workers who may have found it difficult to find a "better job"

I get that. You, or them, are both wrong.

You are wrong sir. Because I know these people, I've worked with them most of my life, and the moment they lose their job.... it's amazing how they are able to find another, after saying for years that they can't.

They are wrong. You are wrong too.

The current CEO of Walmart, started off as a crew member. Hourly wage, unloading trucks for Walmart. You can move up the corporate chain. You can choose to enroll in management training.

Or you can whine and cry, and post on a forum, that you can't get a better job.

Whiners stay where they are, typically because no one promotes a whiner. If you are store manager, and you have a whiner crying that they evil CEO makes too much, and they can't find a better job, and they are a wage slave.... would you promote them, so you have to work with that whiner more? No. I know this myself, because when I had to choose people to work with, I specifically did not pick whiny people to be promoted with me.

No one does.

Again, where you are in life, is 90% your choice, and only 10% your circumstance.

I wanted to convey my belief that millions of other workers who may have found it difficult to find a "better job"

I get that. You, or them, are both wrong.

You are wrong sir. Because I know these people, I've worked with them most of my life, and the moment they lose their job.... it's amazing how they are able to find another, after saying for years that they can't.

How many of "these people" have you met?
The current US labor force is around 160 million workers.
What percentage have you personally known?
How many had non-white skins or criminal records?
You seem to believe your personal experiences translate to a significant insight into US political economy.
They don't.

 

[georgephillip]

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."

I wanted to convey my belief that millions of other workers who may have found it difficult to find a "better job"

I get that. You, or them, are both wrong.

You are wrong sir. Because I know these people, I've worked with them most of my life, and the moment they lose their job.... it's amazing how they are able to find another, after saying for years that they can't.

They are wrong. You are wrong too.

The current CEO of Walmart, started off as a crew member. Hourly wage, unloading trucks for Walmart. You can move up the corporate chain. You can choose to enroll in management training.

Or you can whine and cry, and post on a forum, that you can't get a better job.

Whiners stay where they are, typically because no one promotes a whiner. If you are store manager, and you have a whiner crying that they evil CEO makes too much, and they can't find a better job, and they are a wage slave.... would you promote them, so you have to work with that whiner more? No. I know this myself, because when I had to choose people to work with, I specifically did not pick whiny people to be promoted with me.

No one does.

Again, where you are in life, is 90% your choice, and only 10% your circumstance.

The current CEO of Walmart, started off as a crew member. Hourly wage, unloading trucks for Walmart. You can move up the corporate chain. You can choose to enroll in management training.

Why would you think succeeding at Walmart is a good thing, because YOU save money?

One SIMPLE thing you can do to avoid supporting sweatshops — Craig Greenfield

"According to this week's Phnom Penh Post, Cambodians working in factories supplying Walmart have been subjected to horrific workplace abuse ranging from forced labor to sexual harassment.

"45000 Cambodians work in factories supplying Walmart alone.

"And according to this report, "'almart’s commitment to labor rights in Cambodian factories is next to zero.'

"Disgusting. Walmart you make me sick."

 

[dudmuck]

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.

Yeah, we've seen your alternatives. They suck. All of them suck. That's why you are not living in a commune right now.... are you? No you are not.

That's why every country that has tried your alternatives, has fallen into ruins. Why are you not living in Cuba right now? Or any other purely "according to their need" system?

And don't give me this crap about Europe either. I've been to Europe. You know how the poor live in Europe? Like they are poor. You know how the rich live in Europe? Like they are rich. See these Lego Dutch multi-billionaires, with a private horse farm, because daddies daughter likes to compete in Pony Shows... and you have some idiot in the US talking about how they are so much more "equal" over there. Garbage.

Your system does not work. Never has. Never will.

Trump was on Twitter calling for boycots of specific companies, encouraging the use of others, handing out my tax dollars as subsidies to farmers and billioniare business owners.

Thats your idea of free markets?

No of course not. That's why I didn't vote for him.

If you read something that is not a Free-Market Capitalist idea.... and I'm advocating Free-market Capitalism..... you are free to assume that I am not in support of an idea that isn't an idea I said I supported. Pretty easy.

Logic sir. Try it.

By the way, boycots are free-market capitalist ideas. You are free to go to...or not to go to... any company you do or do not wish to go to. That's free-market sir. Trump can't make me, or prevent me, from going anywhere. Free-market capitalism.

But subsidies.... no, I'm not in favor of taking money from one person, and giving it to another. I am not in favor of that when it is Medicare, Social Security, or Green-energy grants.

I'm against all subsidies. Again... I support free-market capitalism.

An explanation of how boycotts arent free market.

You might have a case if the boycott were called upon by a private individual, but when the highest government official is doing so, this is government intervention.

Subsidies: 9 of 10 counties that voted for Trump get subsidy.

 

[georgephillip]

Georgephillip, and you other far left Socialists, between Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos they have acquired roughly a quarter of a TRILLION DOLLARS in my lifetime. Specifically how much has their earnings taken from your income and net worth?

Not a penny more than I lost in this crime
Jury Convicts McNairy County Man of Bank Robberies, Firearm Charges

Why do you ask stupid questions?