Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[dblack]

Coercive acts may include violence;however, some examples of coercion do not:

See my response to nuts. We don't agree on the premise. I don't think that government should protect us from every weird kind of coercion you might dream up. Just violence, or the threat thereof.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why don't you just say "I give up!"?

Surrender is an option for you. Why don't you since you've clearly been all wet from the start?

 

[dblack]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't think that government should protect us from every weird kind of coercion you might dream up. Just violence, or the threat thereof.

Mighty white of you. Dreaming about what we may or may not dream about. Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail.

 

[Markle]

I wonder how Rudy's net worth has changed since '69?
And how much of the increase has come from assisting corporate criminals like Donald Trump?

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

 

[daveman]

Meanwhile, out here in reality, socialism is having its usual negative effects:

San Francisco And NYC Begin To See The Ugly Side Of Socialism

San Francisco and NYC retail and restaurant sectors are beginning to see the ugly side of socialism: store closures and layoffs, as their owners cannot keep up with local government mandates that raise the costs of their businesses.

Socialism is in fashion again in America. At the local level that is, where governments have been passing mandates that tell corporations how to run their businesses.

-----

The Fair Workweek laws are designed to solve this problem. “They enforce fair scheduling practices to ensure workers have ample notice (typically two weeks) of their schedules and paid accurately and on time for their work,” Hardwick says. “As the name suggests, Fair Workweek laws aim to make unpredictable scheduling practices tenfold more fair — and predictable — so that workers can manage their lives outside of shiftwork more easily.”

That’s the pretty side of socialism.

In practice, however, things are different. Implementing a fair workweek is a complex task, according to Hardwick. “As fair as the laws are for workers, they are incredibly lengthy and complex, and national food and retail chains with hundreds of locations across the country have as much trouble implementing them as more localized chains,” she says.

And that imposes a big compliance cost on employers, who eventually pass it on to consumers in the form of higher prices, and, in some cases, they go out of business and send workers to the unemployment lines.

That’s the ugly side of socialism.

But there’s a more fundamental problem in setting schedules ahead of time.It requires the guessing of market conditions, the number of customers who are expected to visit restaurants and retail stores a couple of weeks down the road. “It is tricky when evaluating these kinds of workplace changes for locations like NYC and SF because they have atypical norms when it comes to hiring, especially in certain industries,” says Jono Bacon, CEO of Jono Bacon Consulting and author of People Powered: How Communities Can Supercharge Your Business, Brand, and Teams.

Simply put, government mandates make it difficult to run businesses. “When governments get involved in the private sector with mandates and regulations that dictate how companies are run, they’re making it more difficult for them to do business,” says Kerry Jackson, Fellow in California Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. “Thousands of businesses have fled California in the last 10 years for this reason.Yet politicians keep passing laws that give some companies little choice but to leave. It’s not smart policymaking.”

Socialist governments from the former Soviet Union to Cuba and Venezuela tried to have companies plan what they would produce, how many people they would hire, how they would work, and how they will pay them.

That didn’t work, because it was an impossible task, given the lack of perfect foresight of decision makers.

It didn’t work in those societies, and it won’t work in San Francisco and NYC, where businesses are beginning to see the ugly side of socialism.
​

But, hey, it's not like the socialists who demand these laws give a shit about the working class losing their jobs and businesses closing.

​

 

[dblack]

Socialism is based on the premise that capital and labor should be property of the the state.

 

[daveman]

Socialism is based on the premise that capital and labor should be property of the the state.

And that has SUCH a great track record! Really, why would anyone oppose it?

[/sarc]

 

[dblack]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Sorry, can't sift your response through all that whataboutery. Are you saying you believe something other than government has been protecting you from being blackmailed?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Goldman can make you sign stuff.....and screw you with derivatives.

I read it on USMB, it must be true.

 

[daveman]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Sorry, can't sift your response through all that whataboutery. Are you saying you believe something other than government has been protecting you from being blackmailed?

Are you saying voluntarily signing a contract is blackmail?

Now, hop to and dismiss this question as whataboutism because you don't want to answer it.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only the lawyers, Nader and Warren, can save us!!!

 

[basquebromance]

Only the lawyers, Nader and Warren, can save us!!!

that's a great ticket for 2020!

 

[georgephillip]

I wonder how Rudy's net worth has changed since '69?
And how much of the increase has come from assisting corporate criminals like Donald Trump?

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Welcome to America.

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

"Billionaires are made billionaires through a variety of mechanisms including inheritance, finance and real estate and ownership and / or control of business enterprises.

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

"If there is a lot of money, these have a lot of monetary value. In 2008, money was in short supply. Federal Reserve policies and the Bush-Obama bailouts flooded the world with money.

"This flood of money gave the assets and enterprises the rich own trillions of dollars in monetary value.

"Welcome to America."

Now you know.
Tell Trump,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder how Rudy's net worth has changed since '69?
And how much of the increase has come from assisting corporate criminals like Donald Trump?

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Welcome to America.

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

"Billionaires are made billionaires through a variety of mechanisms including inheritance, finance and real estate and ownership and / or control of business enterprises.

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

"If there is a lot of money, these have a lot of monetary value. In 2008, money was in short supply. Federal Reserve policies and the Bush-Obama bailouts flooded the world with money.

"This flood of money gave the assets and enterprises the rich own trillions of dollars in monetary value.

"Welcome to America."

Now you know.
Tell Trump,

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

 

[georgephillip]

I wonder how Rudy's net worth has changed since '69?
And how much of the increase has come from assisting corporate criminals like Donald Trump?

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Welcome to America.

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

"Billionaires are made billionaires through a variety of mechanisms including inheritance, finance and real estate and ownership and / or control of business enterprises.

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

"If there is a lot of money, these have a lot of monetary value. In 2008, money was in short supply. Federal Reserve policies and the Bush-Obama bailouts flooded the world with money.

"This flood of money gave the assets and enterprises the rich own trillions of dollars in monetary value.

"Welcome to America."

Now you know.
Tell Trump,

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

Rich people have a biased worldview:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.' Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"...some simple algebra...show(s) that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

This world needs fewer rich people.

 

[dblack]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Sorry, can't sift your response through all that whataboutery. Are you saying you believe something other than government has been protecting you from being blackmailed?

Do you think government should protect you from being fired? Should refusing to employ someone be a crime? Should threatening to fire someone be a crime?