What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

You misquoted me, liar.

Evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Evidence.

Look at the posts where you claimed I said something. Then look at my replies where I said, "Link?" and then look at my actual posts. If they don't match your claim, you're a liar.

 

[Red Front]

Look at the posts where you claimed I said something. Then look at my replies where I said, "Link?" and then look at my actual posts. If they don't match your claim, you're a liar.

Yes everybody, look at the screenshots, then go to the actual post and compare the two. Nothing has been edited.

You indeed denigrated Walmart's full-time employees by claiming they're unproductive and hence don't deserve a living wage. According to you, they should just keep receiving government food stamps and cash assistance, despite working full-time for Walmart, as cashiers and in the stockroom..etc. If they "whine" (complaining or standing up for oneself is "whining" according to Todd), they can always get fired. You're completely fine with that.

When I proposed government-guaranteed employment for those who lose their jobs at Walmart for "whining" about their poverty wages or for those who are unemployed, you insulted them, stating that they're unemployable clowns and stupid. Here are the screenshots of Todd's posts:

​

You arrogantly denigrated them, by laughing at their plight for living wages, essentially deriding them for supposedly being "unemployable" and stupid. You're completely indifferent to the fact that these people can't make enough money to live, working full-time for Walmart, coldly asserting they deserve to be on government food stamps and cash assistance. You're a piece of shit.

​

 

[Soupnazi630]

That's not communism, that's the capitalist rhetoric against communism. This is the definition of communism:

"Communist societies also promote the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end."

Source:

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go to any encyclopedia and you will see the same definition:

"Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction."

Source:

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

Socialism is the revolutionary process that leads to a communist society, without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money. That's communism. The definition that you are pulling out of your ass, ignoring all of the encyclopedias, dictionaries and more importantly the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, isn't communism. It's "communism" in your little mind, because you're an imbecile, who doesn't care about the truth, but that isn't communism. It's only "communism" for you.

View attachment 802183
Mak-7 ​

Wrong

Your interpretation of communism is typical and narrowminded.


Yes the final Form of communism ( according to marx ) is a stateless classless society which means a universal slave state where no one owns anything and is a slave to every one else. The worst sort of evil,

However communism in a general sense is NOT that classless state. It is the general belief and ongoing effort to achieve that BORG like state of being.

Every communiost nation has been communist not just in name but in practice . The dictastorship of the proletariate ( Mao, Lenin , Stalin, Castro, Kim etc etc ) is part of the evolution OF communism and therefore communist even if only a stepping stone to the final goal

It is not capitalist propoganda it is absiolute fact. The efferts to narrowly define it as a classeless state IS the propoganda and it is false propaganda

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Forxfyre,
I will mostly ask questions about your conclusions. I find it useful to poke at ideas you will either uncover new evidence or data that changes your perspective on problems.

How did you reach the conclusion "The reason we have problems with housing and healthcare is irresponsible in harmful meddling by the U.S." ?
Did you analyze the data from other countries with varying degrees of intervention? Are there any countries with a healthcare system similar to the US? Are prices stable and affordable?Healthcare is a complex topic, much depends on life habits and population's age but I find it difficult to establish a causal relationship between government intervention and prices. Alas there is a great variation between the insurance prices among states from $350 to 712? If the main cause is government intervention what explains the difference between states?

I find the case of housing particularly suspicious. What measures did the government take that broke the housing market?

The rest of the rant talks about the form of government. I am not really talking about changing the form of government, so I consider that part of the discussion irrelevant. That's why I made the distinction in the previous post. I am talking about changing the form of production. In the case of healthcare single-payer healthcare seems the easiest fix. Turning all private hospitals into public institutions ( as is the case in Europe) seems a daunting task full of risks and points of failure.

Geezus. How much time do we have...???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes everybody, look at the screenshots, then go to the actual post and compare the two. Nothing has been edited.

You indeed denigrated Walmart's full-time employees by claiming they're unproductive and hence don't deserve a living wage. According to you, they should just keep receiving government food stamps and cash assistance, despite working full-time for Walmart, as cashiers and in the stockroom..etc. If they "whine" (complaining or standing up for oneself is "whining" according to Todd), they can always get fired. You're completely fine with that.

When I proposed government-guaranteed employment for those who lose their jobs at Walmart for "whining" about their poverty wages or for those who are unemployed, you insulted them, stating that they're unemployable clowns and stupid. Here are the screenshots of Todd's posts:

View attachment 811739


View attachment 811740


View attachment 811741

View attachment 811744

​

You arrogantly denigrated them, by laughing at their plight for living wages, essentially deriding them for supposedly being "unemployable" and stupid. You're completely indifferent to the fact that these people can't make enough money to live, working full-time for Walmart, coldly asserting they deserve to be on government food stamps and cash assistance. You're a piece of shit.

​

You indeed denigrated Walmart's full-time employees by claiming they're unproductive

Link to the post where I used the word "unproductive"

 

[Red Front]

You indeed denigrated Walmart's full-time employees by claiming they're unproductive

Link to the post where I used the word "unproductive"

Link to the post where I used the word "unproductive"

Here:

How are they....

​

...not producing, when they're employed full-time with Walmart as cashiers? Walmart should pay its full-time employees a living wage, that will at least meet their basic needs. Walmart's full-time staff, shouldn't have to remain on or apply for government socialist food stamps and cash assistance. Their multi-billion dollar employer, should at least, here in the good'ol USA, pay them a living wage. If they insist on paying poverty wages, the government should employ these Walmart employees who are being shit on. You greedy, mammon-worshiping capitalist pigs, will be competing with the government for workers and will be forced to pay more to attract and keep them.

According to Todd these full-time Walmart employees supposedly aren't working the cash registers with enough "output", hence should be paid starvation wages and remain on government socialist food-stamps and cash assistance.

The poor people that work full-time should earn a living wage. All "living wages", aren't created equal, they're not all the same. But nonetheless, if a person lives in America, the "GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD", working for a multibillion-dollar company like Walmart, there's ZERO excuse for that full-time worker, to remain dependent on government food stamps and cash assistance in order to survive. They should get paid wages that allow them to eat and have their own housing. They shouldn't need Uncle Sam to support them with food and money. They have a full-time job for that.

If Todd the pearl-clutching capitalist apologist and his ilk, insist that they have the right to pay their full-time employees poverty wages, requiring their workers to depend on government commie food stamps and cash assistance, then the government should employ them, paying them a living wage. The US government shouldn't be subsidizing the workforce of a multibillion-dollar corporation like Walmart. That's absurd.

Todd claims I was lying about him saying the poor are unproductive or underproductive, and as you can clearly see, that's exactly what he said.

In closing and for the last time.....No full-time employee in this country should be forced to depend on government food stamps and cash assistance. Their jobs should adequately cover such expenses.

 

[ralfy]

They're not taking anything that the 90% aren't giving them willingly. All the 90% has to do is say no.

They can't say "no" because the 10 pct own the means of production.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here:

View attachment 811855

How are they....

View attachment 811857


View attachment 811858
​

...not producing, when they're employed full-time with Walmart as cashiers? Walmart should pay its full-time employees a living wage, that will at least meet their basic needs. Walmart's full-time staff, shouldn't have to remain on or apply for government socialist food stamps and cash assistance. Their multi-billion dollar employer, should at least, here in the good'ol USA, pay them a living wage. If they insist on paying poverty wages, the government should employ these Walmart employees who are being shit on. You greedy, mammon-worshiping capitalist pigs, will be competing with the government for workers and will be forced to pay more to attract and keep them.

View attachment 811861

According to Todd these full-time Walmart employees supposedly aren't working the cash registers with enough "output", hence should be paid starvation wages and remain on government socialist food-stamps and cash assistance.

View attachment 811862

The poor people that work full-time should earn a living wage. All "living wages", aren't created equal, they're not all the same. But nonetheless, if a person lives in America, the "GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD", working for a multibillion-dollar company like Walmart, there's ZERO excuse for that full-time worker, to remain dependent on government food stamps and cash assistance in order to survive. They should get paid wages that allow them to eat and have their own housing. They shouldn't need Uncle Sam to support them with food and money. They have a full-time job for that.

View attachment 811867

View attachment 811868

View attachment 811869


View attachment 811871

If Todd the pearl-clutching capitalist apologist and his ilk, insist that they have the right to pay their full-time employees poverty wages, requiring their workers to depend on government commie food stamps and cash assistance, then the government should employ them, paying them a living wage. The US government shouldn't be subsidizing the workforce of a multibillion-dollar corporation like Walmart. That's absurd.

Todd claims I was lying about him saying the poor are unproductive or underproductive, and as you can clearly see, that's exactly what he said.

In closing and for the last time.....No full-time employee in this country should be forced to depend on government food stamps and cash assistance. Their jobs should adequately cover such expenses.

How are they......not producing, when they're employed full-time with Walmart as cashiers?

I didn't say they were not producing. They have low productivity, not no productivity.

The poor people that work full-time should earn a living wage. All "living wages", aren't created equal, they're not all the same.

The poor farmer, working for himself, planting seeds with a stick, works more than full time. Sadly, when you compare his input to his output, you can see that his productivity is very low. It's not Walmart holding him down. Or me.

 

[Red Front]

How are they......not producing, when they're employed full-time with Walmart as cashiers?

I didn't say they were not producing. They have low productivity, not no productivity.

The poor people that work full-time should earn a living wage. All "living wages", aren't created equal, they're not all the same.

The poor farmer, working for himself, planting seeds with a stick, works more than full time. Sadly, when you compare his input to his output, you can see that his productivity is very low. It's not Walmart holding him down. Or me.

I didn't say they were not producing. They have low productivity, not no productivity.

Now you're being pedantic. Of course, you didn't say that the full-time workers at Walmart collecting government welfare or impoverished workers in the third world are "unproductive" in the sense of ZERO PRODUCTION (in an absolute sense). That's obvious. You straining the gnat, about me saying "not producing", disingenuously interpreting it as me supposedly saying ZERO PRODUCTION, is the equivalent of me being a pedantic asshole and interpreting "unproductive" in an absolute sense, which is clearly not what you did, hence you should afford me the semantic license/courtesy to do the same.

I didn't imply that you said ZERO production, but rather not enough production to supposedly permit or warrant, Walmart paying some of their full-time employees a living wage. So why be a pedantic asshole with me? Be reasonable, I know that's practically impossible for you but try.

The poor farmer, working for himself, planting seeds with a stick, works more than full-time. Sadly, when you compare his input to his output, you can see that his productivity is very low. It's not Walmart holding him down. Or me.

We're not discussing a "poor farmer", that owns land and grows his own food, we're talking about Walmart's full-time employees. Todd and his irrelevant, stupid analogies.

If that farmer is poor it's due to several factors, not excluding the possibility that he's being sued by Monsanto for growing his crops with its "patented" GMO seeds, which contaminated his land. There are many reasons why farmers are poor, despite owning plenty of land and seeds.

​

You have the gall to use farming as an analogy for "low production" and defending wealthy capitalists paying their full-time workers poverty wages? It's capitalism that has enslaved farmers through patent laws and other capitalist-market schemes. How the hell can you be hungry, if you have good arable land and seeds? One of the indemic flaws of capitalism, is the fact that production is ONLY for a profit (private capital accumulation). You produce goods and services, not to meet human needs, but rather human greed. Profits. You can live in the tropics, have the best arable land and a warehouse full of seeds, and you still go hungry. You can have warehouses full of food throughout the world, and there are still people like this:

​

Starving because it's not "commercially viable" to feed them and they don't have any money to buy food. That's your holy, magical "INVISIBLE HAND OF THE FREE MARKET". Production only when it's PROFITABLE/COMMERCIALLY VIABLE, not to meet human needs. We have, "officially" 700 thousand homeless people in America (it's more like 2 million), but we have about 17 million vacant homes and apartments, throughout the country. We can house everybody that needs housing in this country, but capitalists and their cronies in government, don't want to. It's too "commie", to house the homeless. Let them rot out there in the street, that's the right-wing conservative stance and "motto". LET THEM ROT.

CAPITALISM = POVERTY IN ABUNDANCE. ​

You can be a high-producer and still get paid peanuts. You think capitalists give a shit about you working hard and producing plenty of profits for them, with respect to your wages? If they can pay you poverty wages, they will do it and increase their profits. Lowering their overhead and increasing their profits is their ONLY BOTTOM LINE. That's the bottom line of capitalism. It's not satisfying human needs but human GREED.

You're justifying Walmart, a multibillion-dollar company in the good'ol USA, paying shit wages to its full-time workers, forcing them to remain on or apply for government food stamps and cash assistance? Todd, the Cold War brainwashed, working-class man who worked hard for forty, fifty years+, and invested his money in the Wall Street casino, and now is a multi-millionaire retiree in his 70s or 80s. He comes here to the forum to defend his new social status as a member of the wealthy elite class. He's your typical pearl-clutching elderly capitalist forum apologist, who thinks American communists are out to get him. Snatch his money and take all of his toys.

Todd American communists, don't give a shit about your money or toys. You can keep it all. Your financial security is actually more secure with us than with right-wing Republicans. We would actually protect your wealth and human rights.

Just don't get in the way of the working class (94% of the population that needs to work for a living or they starve and die under a bridge of hyperthermia), especially those who are struggling to survive. Who are on the edge of the precipice, working for wealthy capitalists who are paying them starvation wages, forcing them to rely on government commie food stamps and cash assistance to survive. Todd and his right-wing conservative ilk, are the best propagators of socialism. You don't realize how much damage you're doing to the working class. People like you make communism inevitable.

If you were a more reasonable capitalist, you would recognize that capitalism requires, at least, a little bit of socialism. If you don't have a bit of socialism with your capitalism, you ensure the collapse of capitalism and socialism becoming the only mode of production. Advanced technology will eventually accomplish that, but right-wing laissez faire capitalists like you, expedite the process, placing the socialization of the economy and society, on TURBO. Mad-Max Nitro. Capitalism could probably survive another 100 years if the capitalists were smarter. In their insatiable pursuit of profits, they burn the house down, requiring socialism to save the day.

If a capitalist can't pay his or her full-time workers a living wage, he or she shouldn't be in business. Start a business that doesn't require the hiring of human labor or go get a job.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now you're being pedantic. Of course, you didn't say that the full-time workers at Walmart collecting government welfare or impoverished workers in the third world are "unproductive" in the sense of ZERO PRODUCTION (in an absolute sense). That's obvious. You straining the gnat, about me saying "not producing", disingenuously interpreting it as me supposedly saying ZERO PRODUCTION, is the equivalent of me being a pedantic asshole and interpreting "unproductive" in an absolute sense, which is clearly not what you did, hence you should afford me the semantic license/courtesy to do the same.

I didn't imply that you said ZERO production, but rather not enough production to supposedly permit or warrant, Walmart paying some of their full-time employees a living wage. So why be a pedantic asshole with me? Be reasonable, I know that's practically impossible for you but try.




We're not discussing a "poor farmer", that owns land and grows his own food, we're talking about Walmart's full-time employees. Todd and his irrelevant, stupid analogies.

If that farmer is poor it's due to several factors, not excluding the possibility that he's being sued by Monsanto for growing his crops with its "patented" GMO seeds, which contaminated his land. There are many reasons why farmers are poor, despite owning plenty of land and seeds.

​

You have the gall to use farming as an analogy for "low production" and defending wealthy capitalists paying their full-time workers poverty wages? It's capitalism that has enslaved farmers through patent laws and other capitalist-market schemes. How the hell can you be hungry, if you have good arable land and seeds? One of the indemic flaws of capitalism, is the fact that production is ONLY for a profit (private capital accumulation). You produce goods and services, not to meet human needs, but rather human greed. Profits. You can live in the tropics, have the best arable land and a warehouse full of seeds, and you still go hungry. You can have warehouses full of food throughout the world, and there are still people like this:

View attachment 812022

View attachment 812023
​

Starving because it's not "commercially viable" to feed them and they don't have any money to buy food. That's your holy, magical "INVISIBLE HAND OF THE FREE MARKET". Production only when it's PROFITABLE/COMMERCIALLY VIABLE, not to meet human needs. We have, "officially" 700 thousand homeless people in America (it's more like 2 million), but we have about 17 million vacant homes and apartments, throughout the country. We can house everybody that needs housing in this country, but capitalists and their cronies in government, don't want to. It's too "commie", to house the homeless. Let them rot out there in the street, that's the right-wing conservative stance and "motto". LET THEM ROT.

CAPITALISM = POVERTY IN ABUNDANCE. ​

You can be a high-producer and still get paid peanuts. You think capitalists give a shit about you working hard and producing plenty of profits for them, with respect to your wages? If they can pay you poverty wages, they will do it and increase their profits. Lowering their overhead and increasing their profits is their ONLY BOTTOM LINE. That's the bottom line of capitalism. It's not satisfying human needs but human GREED.

View attachment 812029​

You're justifying Walmart, a multibillion-dollar company in the good'ol USA, paying shit wages to its full-time workers, forcing them to remain on or apply for government food stamps and cash assistance? Todd, the Cold War brainwashed, working-class man who worked hard for forty, fifty years+, and invested his money in the Wall Street casino, and now is a multi-millionaire retiree in his 70s or 80s. He comes here to the forum to defend his new social status as a member of the wealthy elite class. He's your typical pearl-clutching elderly capitalist forum apologist, who thinks American communists are out to get him. Snatch his money and take all of his toys.

Todd American communists, don't give a shit about your money or toys. You can keep it all. Your financial security is actually more secure with us than with right-wing Republicans. We would actually protect your wealth and human rights.

Just don't get in the way of the working class (94% of the population that needs to work for a living or they starve and die under a bridge of hyperthermia), especially those who are struggling to survive. Who are on the edge of the precipice, working for wealthy capitalists who are paying them starvation wages, forcing them to rely on government commie food stamps and cash assistance to survive. Todd and his right-wing conservative ilk, are the best propagators of socialism. You don't realize how much damage you're doing to the working class. People like you make communism inevitable.

If you were a more reasonable capitalist, you would recognize that capitalism requires, at least, a little bit of socialism. If you don't have a bit of socialism with your capitalism, you ensure the collapse of capitalism and socialism becoming the only mode of production. Advanced technology will eventually accomplish that, but right-wing laissez faire capitalists like you, expedite the process, placing the socialization of the economy and society, on TURBO. Mad-Max Nitro. Capitalism could probably survive another 100 years if the capitalists were smarter. In their insatiable pursuit of profits, they burn the house down, requiring socialism to save the day.

If a capitalist can't pay his or her full-time workers a living wage, he or she shouldn't be in business. Start a business that doesn't require the hiring of human labor or go get a job.

We're not discussing a "poor farmer", that owns land and grows his own food, we're talking about Walmart's full-time employees.

The poor farmer, working really hard on his own land is poor because of his low productivity and
Walmart didn't do it to him.

If that farmer is poor it's due to several factors, not excluding the possibility that he's being sued by Monsanto for growing his crops with its "patented" GMO seeds,

He's not selling his crop, it's barely enough to feed himself. How would Monsanto know
the seeds were GMO? And what good would their GMO seeds do him, he has no herbicides,
Round-Up ready seeds only help if you use Round-Up.

You have the gall to use farming as an analogy for "low production"

Some farming is incredibly productive, some isn't.

You produce goods and services, not to meet human needs, but rather human greed.

If human greed can produce enough food to feed that poor, starving child, so be it.

You're justifying Walmart, a multibillion-dollar company in the good'ol USA, paying shit wages to its full-time workers, forcing them to remain on or apply for government food stamps and cash assistance?

Why should Walmart pay an employee more than the value they are adding to the operation of the company? Does your employer pay you more than you add?

If you were a more reasonable capitalist, you would recognize that capitalism requires, at least, a little bit of socialism.

A little bit? Aren't trillions enough?

If a capitalist can't pay his or her full-time workers a living wage, he or she shouldn't be in business.

What will those low-skill workers do when their employers go out of business?
Collect more government welfare or less?

 

[Red Front]

We're not discussing a "poor farmer", that owns land and grows his own food, we're talking about Walmart's full-time employees.

The poor farmer, working really hard on his own land is poor because of his low productivity and
Walmart didn't do it to him.

If that farmer is poor it's due to several factors, not excluding the possibility that he's being sued by Monsanto for growing his crops with its "patented" GMO seeds,

He's not selling his crop, it's barely enough to feed himself. How would Monsanto know
the seeds were GMO? And what good would their GMO seeds do him, he has no herbicides,
Round-Up ready seeds only help if you use Round-Up.

You have the gall to use farming as an analogy for "low production"

Some farming is incredibly productive, some isn't.

You produce goods and services, not to meet human needs, but rather human greed.

If human greed can produce enough food to feed that poor, starving child, so be it.

You're justifying Walmart, a multibillion-dollar company in the good'ol USA, paying shit wages to its full-time workers, forcing them to remain on or apply for government food stamps and cash assistance?

Why should Walmart pay an employee more than the value they are adding to the operation of the company? Does your employer pay you more than you add?

If you were a more reasonable capitalist, you would recognize that capitalism requires, at least, a little bit of socialism.

A little bit? Aren't trillions enough?

If a capitalist can't pay his or her full-time workers a living wage, he or she shouldn't be in business.

What will those low-skill workers do when their employers go out of business?
Collect more government welfare or less?

The poor farmer, working really hard on his own land is poor because of his low productivity and Walmart didn't do it to him.

The farmer's situation has nothing to do with a laborer employed full-time by Walmart or any other multi-billion dollar retail chain store. Your continual attempt to justify paying the full-time workers of Walmart, and other retailers, poverty wages, forcing them to remain on government assistance or apply for it, is a complete failure. If a capitalist can't pay his or her full-time workers a living wage, they shouldn't be in business. Go get a job!

I gave a detailed description of the factors that lead to farmers being poor, which are not related to being unproductive.

He's not selling his crop, it's barely enough to feed himself. How would Monsanto know. the seeds were GMO? And what good would their GMO seeds do him, he has no herbicides, Round-Up ready seeds only help if you use Round-Up.

1. Seed Dependency: Monsanto's patented seeds are genetically modified to be resistant to specific pests and diseases, but they are also engineered to be sterile in their second generation. This means farmers cannot save and replant seeds from their crops, forcing them to buy new seeds each year, creating a dependency on Monsanto.
2. Cross-Contamination: GMO cross-pollinate with non-GMO crops, leading to contamination of organic or non-GMO fields. Do you actually believe that farmers are all farming in remote locations, separated from each other by hundreds of miles? One farmer with GMO Monsanto seeds, contaminates other farms. This leads to lawsuits for patent infringement, even if the contamination was unintentional.
3. Increased Use of Herbicides: Most GMO crops are engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides, like Monsanto's Roundup. This can lead to overuse of these chemicals, causing environmental damage and potential health risks, which hurt all farmers, wherever Roundup is being used.
4. Biodiversity Loss: The widespread use of a small number of GMO crops can lead to a loss of agricultural biodiversity, making the food supply more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and climate change.
5. Economic Pressure: The high cost of GMO seeds, along with the necessary complementary herbicides, can put economic pressure on small farmers, especially in developing countries.

Capitalists are trying their very best to control the world's food supply and production through patented seeds and lawsuits. They're a bunch of Malthusian psychopaths and Todd is there with them sucking their toes.

Reasons for Farmer Poverty and Hunger Beyond Crop Production:

1. Market Volatility: Fluctuations in the prices of crops can lead to financial instability. Farmers may struggle to cover their costs when prices are low, even if their crop yield is high.
2. Climate Change: Changes in weather patterns can lead to drought, flooding, or other conditions that harm crop yields. These unpredictable events can lead to financial hardship and food insecurity.
3. Debt: Many farmers take on significant debt to pay for seeds, equipment, and other farming inputs. If a crop fails or prices fall, they may struggle to repay these loans.
4. Land Ownership: In many parts of the world, farmers do not own the land they farm on. They may have to give a significant portion of their crop to the landowner, leaving them with little to sell or eat. Another word for that is FEUDALISM. Yes it still exists! It doesn't matter if the farmer is highly productive because the landlord takes a significant percentage of the farmer's produce.
5. Policy and Trade Agreements: Domestic and international policies can favor larger agricultural businesses over small-scale farmers. Trade agreements can lead to an influx of cheap foreign crops, making it hard for local farmers to compete.

Furthermore, the argument that low wages are mostly a result of low productivity overlooks the structural issues in the economy, such as the power imbalance between workers and employers, and the fact that many essential jobs are undervalued and underpaid. Capitalists do everything they can to pay as little as possible to their workers while getting as much out of them as possible. They juice their workers dry and keep as much juice for themselves as possible.

To pretend that low wages are strictly due to some mathematical formula of production or profits is bullshit. The business owner can be making a lucrative return on his investment and still pay his hard-working, highly productive workers poverty wages. For Todd to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best, if not completely moronic.

If human greed can produce enough food to feed that poor, starving child, so be it.

Capitalism produces food for profit, not to feed people. In capitalism you can have an abundance of goods and people are still in scarcity, even starving to death.

Why should Walmart pay an employee more than the value they are adding to the operation of the company? Does your employer pay you more than you add?

First of all, before I say anything else, let me start by telling you again. If you can't pay your full-time workers a living wage, then you don't deserve a business. Go get a job, OK?

You assume that Walmart isn't paying them a living wage, because of some well-defined and quantified calculated formula of output that Walmart cashiers are failing to meet. This supposedly justifies Walmart paying their cashiers poverty wages, which require said workers to remain on government food stamps and cash assistance or apply for such government commie subsidies.

The reality that you are unwilling to recognize is that Walmart's decision to pay its cashiers a poverty wage, is not based upon those workers being "underproductive" but rather Walmart's attempt to draw as much output from their workers for the smallest input or overhead cost. It's Walmart's greed that is the cause of Walmart's poverty wages, not your imaginary "unproductivity". Adam Smith the father of capitalism wrote:

" What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations, Adam Smith)

The so-called "masters" are the capitalist employers and their financial interests differ from that of their "workmen". They will do everything they can to pay their workers, as little as possible, not because workers are "unproductive" but to increase their profits. Even if the worker is highly productive, allowing the employer to turn a great profit, that employer will continue to pay that worker a shitty wage. The masters don't give a rat's ass about their worker's needs, hence they pay whatever they can get away with, even starvation wages, irrespective of the worker's level of output or productivity.

​

In recap:

Your question assumes that the value a Walmart cashier adds to the company can be precisely quantified and that this value directly correlates with their wage. However, this oversimplifies the complex dynamics of labor value, the retail industry, and the broader economy.

let's consider the multitude of tasks a cashier performs and the value they bring to the company:

1. Customer Service: Cashiers are often the primary point of contact for customers. They answer questions, provide information, and help solve problems. Good customer service can significantly enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, leading to repeat business.
2. Sales: Cashiers not only ring up sales but also often upsell or cross-sell products at the point of purchase. They contribute directly to the company's revenue.
3. Inventory Management: Cashiers scan items and process returns, contributing to accurate inventory tracking. This helps the company manage stock levels and reduces losses from overstocking or understocking.
4. Loss Prevention: By carefully checking the items customers are purchasing and ensuring they're correctly billed, cashiers play a role in preventing theft and fraud.
5. Brand Representation: Cashiers represent the company's brand. Their professionalism, helpfulness, and efficiency can greatly impact a customer's perception of the company.

Those cashiers that Todd shits on, might be producing tens of thousands of dollars for Walmart daily, when one factors in all of the aforementioned tasks cashiers perform.

How do we measure the value of a cashier's output? Are we considering the number of transactions processed per hour? The amount of revenue generated? The level of customer satisfaction achieved? The accuracy of inventory management?

The value of a cashier's work is multifaceted and can't be reduced to a single metric.

Again, I repeat myself like a broken record, because Todd is a piece of shit. The wage a cashier or any worker receives is not purely a reflection of their productivity or the value they add. Wages are also influenced by factors such as the bargaining power of workers, the minimum wage set by the government, the cost of living in a particular area, and the company's wage policies. Walmart, like any other company, aims to maximize profits, not match a worker's productivity with the amount of money they're paid.

Moreover, Tod refuses to recognize, that paying a living wage is not just about some imaginary quantified "output" or being "fair". It also makes good business sense. Higher wages can lead to lower turnover, higher employee morale, and increased productivity.

So, when we discuss wages, we need to consider not just the immediate value a worker adds, but also the broader social and economic impacts of wage policies. A society where full-time workers can't afford basic necessities is not sustainable. Therefore, the question isn't whether Walmart can afford to pay a living wage, but whether we as a society can afford to let them continue paying poverty wages. WE CAN'T!

A little bit? Aren't trillions enough?

Are you referring to the trillions of dollars in bailout money? Those bailouts would be unnecessary if we had a bit of socialism where it actually matters, as in protecting worker rights and making sure the working class has a robust social safety net. A bit of socialism could actually, at least for a while, extend the life of capitalism, ensuring a smoother, and more peaceful transition to a socialist, non-profit economy. The switch from capitalism to socialism is inevitable due to advanced automation technology, so you might as well transition through a peaceful process rather than through social upheaval and civil war.


What will those low-skill workers do when their employers go out of business? Collect more government welfare or less?

Cashiers, for example, need to have good customer service skills, attention to detail, the ability to handle money accurately, and often, the ability to handle difficult or stressful situations. These are valuable skills that are transferable to many other jobs.

Second, the idea that paying a living wage would lead to businesses going under is not necessarily accurate. There are many examples of successful businesses that pay their employees a living wage. In fact, research has shown that paying higher wages can actually benefit businesses by reducing turnover, increasing productivity, and improving customer satisfaction.

Moreover, the government can play a role in helping workers transition to new jobs. This could include funding for education and training programs, job placement services, and unemployment benefits to support workers while they look for new jobs. These programs are not just handouts; they are investments in the workforce that can lead to higher productivity and economic growth in the long run. Of course, not to mention the fact that the government can also have its own job training and jobs program, that guarantees employment, with a living wage, to all Americans capable of being trained and fully employed.

Finally, I'd like to challenge the idea that people who receive government assistance are somehow less deserving or less capable. Many hardworking people rely on government assistance at some point in their lives, often due to circumstances beyond their control. This doesn't make them lazy or incompetent; it makes them human.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The farmer's situation has nothing to do with a laborer employed full-time by Walmart or any other multi-billion dollar retail chain store. Your continual attempt to justify paying the full-time workers of Walmart, and other retailers, poverty wages, forcing them to remain on government assistance or apply for it, is a complete failure. If a capitalist can't pay his or her full-time workers a living wage, they shouldn't be in business. Go get a job!

I gave a detailed description of the factors that lead to farmers being poor, which are not related to being unproductive.

1. Seed Dependency: Monsanto's patented seeds are genetically modified to be resistant to specific pests and diseases, but they are also engineered to be sterile in their second generation. This means farmers cannot save and replant seeds from their crops, forcing them to buy new seeds each year, creating a dependency on Monsanto.
2. Cross-Contamination: GMO cross-pollinate with non-GMO crops, leading to contamination of organic or non-GMO fields. Do you actually believe that farmers are all farming in remote locations, separated from each other by hundreds of miles? One farmer with GMO Monsanto seeds, contaminates other farms. This leads to lawsuits for patent infringement, even if the contamination was unintentional.
3. Increased Use of Herbicides: Most GMO crops are engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides, like Monsanto's Roundup. This can lead to overuse of these chemicals, causing environmental damage and potential health risks, which hurt all farmers, wherever Roundup is being used.
4. Biodiversity Loss: The widespread use of a small number of GMO crops can lead to a loss of agricultural biodiversity, making the food supply more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and climate change.
5. Economic Pressure: The high cost of GMO seeds, along with the necessary complementary herbicides, can put economic pressure on small farmers, especially in developing countries.

Capitalists are trying their very best to control the world's food supply and production through patented seeds and lawsuits. They're a bunch of Malthusian psychopaths and Todd is there with them sucking their toes.

Reasons for Farmer Poverty and Hunger Beyond Crop Production:

1. Market Volatility: Fluctuations in the prices of crops can lead to financial instability. Farmers may struggle to cover their costs when prices are low, even if their crop yield is high.
2. Climate Change: Changes in weather patterns can lead to drought, flooding, or other conditions that harm crop yields. These unpredictable events can lead to financial hardship and food insecurity.
3. Debt: Many farmers take on significant debt to pay for seeds, equipment, and other farming inputs. If a crop fails or prices fall, they may struggle to repay these loans.
4. Land Ownership: In many parts of the world, farmers do not own the land they farm on. They may have to give a significant portion of their crop to the landowner, leaving them with little to sell or eat. Another word for that is FEUDALISM. Yes it still exists! It doesn't matter if the farmer is highly productive because the landlord takes a significant percentage of the farmer's produce.
5. Policy and Trade Agreements: Domestic and international policies can favor larger agricultural businesses over small-scale farmers. Trade agreements can lead to an influx of cheap foreign crops, making it hard for local farmers to compete.

Furthermore, the argument that low wages are mostly a result of low productivity overlooks the structural issues in the economy, such as the power imbalance between workers and employers, and the fact that many essential jobs are undervalued and underpaid. Capitalists do everything they can to pay as little as possible to their workers while getting as much out of them as possible. They juice their workers dry and keep as much juice for themselves as possible.

To pretend that low wages are strictly due to some mathematical formula of production or profits is bullshit. The business owner can be making a lucrative return on his investment and still pay his hard-working, highly productive workers poverty wages. For Todd to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best, if not completely moronic.




Capitalism produces food for profit, not to feed people. In capitalism you can have an abundance of goods and people are still in scarcity, even starving to death.




First of all, before I say anything else, let me start by telling you again. If you can't pay your full-time workers a living wage, then you don't deserve a business. Go get a job, OK?

You assume that Walmart isn't paying them a living wage, because of some well-defined and quantified calculated formula of output that Walmart cashiers are failing to meet. This supposedly justifies Walmart paying their cashiers poverty wages, which require said workers to remain on government food stamps and cash assistance or apply for such government commie subsidies.

The reality that you are unwilling to recognize is that Walmart's decision to pay its cashiers a poverty wage, is not based upon those workers being "underproductive" but rather Walmart's attempt to draw as much output from their workers for the smallest input or overhead cost. It's Walmart's greed that is the cause of Walmart's poverty wages, not your imaginary "unproductivity". Adam Smith the father of capitalism wrote:

" What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations, Adam Smith)

The so-called "masters" are the capitalist employers and their financial interests differ from that of their "workmen". They will do everything they can to pay their workers, as little as possible, not because workers are "unproductive" but to increase their profits. Even if the worker is highly productive, allowing the employer to turn a great profit, that employer will continue to pay that worker a shitty wage. The masters don't give a rat's ass about their worker's needs, hence they pay whatever they can get away with, even starvation wages, irrespective of the worker's level of output or productivity.

​

In recap:

Your question assumes that the value a Walmart cashier adds to the company can be precisely quantified and that this value directly correlates with their wage. However, this oversimplifies the complex dynamics of labor value, the retail industry, and the broader economy.

let's consider the multitude of tasks a cashier performs and the value they bring to the company:

1. Customer Service: Cashiers are often the primary point of contact for customers. They answer questions, provide information, and help solve problems. Good customer service can significantly enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty, leading to repeat business.
2. Sales: Cashiers not only ring up sales but also often upsell or cross-sell products at the point of purchase. They contribute directly to the company's revenue.
3. Inventory Management: Cashiers scan items and process returns, contributing to accurate inventory tracking. This helps the company manage stock levels and reduces losses from overstocking or understocking.
4. Loss Prevention: By carefully checking the items customers are purchasing and ensuring they're correctly billed, cashiers play a role in preventing theft and fraud.
5. Brand Representation: Cashiers represent the company's brand. Their professionalism, helpfulness, and efficiency can greatly impact a customer's perception of the company.

Those cashiers that Todd shits on, might be producing tens of thousands of dollars for Walmart daily, when one factors in all of the aforementioned tasks cashiers perform.

How do we measure the value of a cashier's output? Are we considering the number of transactions processed per hour? The amount of revenue generated? The level of customer satisfaction achieved? The accuracy of inventory management?

The value of a cashier's work is multifaceted and can't be reduced to a single metric.

Again, I repeat myself like a broken record, because Todd is a piece of shit. The wage a cashier or any worker receives is not purely a reflection of their productivity or the value they add. Wages are also influenced by factors such as the bargaining power of workers, the minimum wage set by the government, the cost of living in a particular area, and the company's wage policies. Walmart, like any other company, aims to maximize profits, not match a worker's productivity with the amount of money they're paid.

Moreover, Tod refuses to recognize, that paying a living wage is not just about some imaginary quantified "output" or being "fair". It also makes good business sense. Higher wages can lead to lower turnover, higher employee morale, and increased productivity.

So, when we discuss wages, we need to consider not just the immediate value a worker adds, but also the broader social and economic impacts of wage policies. A society where full-time workers can't afford basic necessities is not sustainable. Therefore, the question isn't whether Walmart can afford to pay a living wage, but whether we as a society can afford to let them continue paying poverty wages. WE CAN'T!



Are you referring to the trillions of dollars in bailout money? Those bailouts would be unnecessary if we had a bit of socialism where it actually matters, as in protecting worker rights and making sure the working class has a robust social safety net. A bit of socialism could actually, at least for a while, extend the life of capitalism, ensuring a smoother, and more peaceful transition to a socialist, non-profit economy. The switch from capitalism to socialism is inevitable due to advanced automation technology, so you might as well transition through a peaceful process rather than through social upheaval and civil war.


What will those low-skill workers do when their employers go out of business? Collect more government welfare or less?

Cashiers, for example, need to have good customer service skills, attention to detail, the ability to handle money accurately, and often, the ability to handle difficult or stressful situations. These are valuable skills that are transferable to many other jobs.

Second, the idea that paying a living wage would lead to businesses going under is not necessarily accurate. There are many examples of successful businesses that pay their employees a living wage. In fact, research has shown that paying higher wages can actually benefit businesses by reducing turnover, increasing productivity, and improving customer satisfaction.

Moreover, the government can play a role in helping workers transition to new jobs. This could include funding for education and training programs, job placement services, and unemployment benefits to support workers while they look for new jobs. These programs are not just handouts; they are investments in the workforce that can lead to higher productivity and economic growth in the long run. Of course, not to mention the fact that the government can also have its own job training and jobs program, that guarantees employment, with a living wage, to all Americans capable of being trained and fully employed.

Finally, I'd like to challenge the idea that people who receive government assistance are somehow less deserving or less capable. Many hardworking people rely on government assistance at some point in their lives, often due to circumstances beyond their control. This doesn't make them lazy or incompetent; it makes them human.

The farmer's situation has nothing to do with a laborer employed full-time by Walmart or any other multi-billion dollar retail chain store.

Why not? Two people, working hard, not making much because they aren't producing much.

Monsanto's patented seeds are genetically modified to be resistant to specific pests and diseases, but they are also engineered to be sterile in their second generation.

Do you have a single example of a seed in current use that is sterile in the 2nd generation?

The high cost of GMO seeds, along with the necessary complementary herbicides, can put economic pressure on small farmers, especially in developing countries.

If the higher yield isn't worth the higher cost, they shouldn't use them. No one forces them.

Capitalists are trying their very best to control the world's food supply and production through patented seeds and lawsuits. They're a bunch of Malthusian psychopaths

The capitalists who made much higher crop yields possible are the Malthusians?
I suspected you had a very low IQ, thanks for the confirmation.

Meanwhile, yields in your worker's paradises are falling.

First of all, before I say anything else, let me start by telling you again. If you can't pay your full-time workers a living wage, then you don't deserve a business.
Exactly. And those low paid, low productivity, workers can go on 100% welfare.

You assume that Walmart isn't paying them a living wage, because of some well-defined and quantified calculated formula of output that Walmart cashiers are failing to meet.
Not an exact formula, to be sure, but their low-productivity is more obvious every time I go into the local Walmart and see the increasing ratio of self-serve to cashier aisles.
Are you referring to the trillions of dollars in bailout money?

Trillions in welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Second, the idea that paying a living wage would lead to businesses going under is not necessarily accurate.

Does your business pay any of their workers more than they produce? All of them?

When is your worker's takeover scheduled? There must be some corporate fat cats
who can be sacrificed for the good of the common man. All you have to lose are your chains.

 

[Red Front]

The farmer's situation has nothing to do with a laborer employed full-time by Walmart or any other multi-billion dollar retail chain store.

Why not? Two people, working hard, not making much because they aren't producing much.

Monsanto's patented seeds are genetically modified to be resistant to specific pests and diseases, but they are also engineered to be sterile in their second generation.

Do you have a single example of a seed in current use that is sterile in the 2nd generation?

The high cost of GMO seeds, along with the necessary complementary herbicides, can put economic pressure on small farmers, especially in developing countries.

If the higher yield isn't worth the higher cost, they shouldn't use them. No one forces them.

Capitalists are trying their very best to control the world's food supply and production through patented seeds and lawsuits. They're a bunch of Malthusian psychopaths

The capitalists who made much higher crop yields possible are the Malthusians?
I suspected you had a very low IQ, thanks for the confirmation.

Meanwhile, yields in your worker's paradises are falling.

First of all, before I say anything else, let me start by telling you again. If you can't pay your full-time workers a living wage, then you don't deserve a business.
Exactly. And those low paid, low productivity, workers can go on 100% welfare.

You assume that Walmart isn't paying them a living wage, because of some well-defined and quantified calculated formula of output that Walmart cashiers are failing to meet.
Not an exact formula, to be sure, but their low-productivity is more obvious every time I go into the local Walmart and see the increasing ratio of self-serve to cashier aisles.
Are you referring to the trillions of dollars in bailout money?

Trillions in welfare.

You need to improve your reading comprehension skills and stop ignoring what people say to you.

If anyone reads Todd's posts and wants me to answer any questions that they might have about my position in relation to his. Ask me here on the thread and I will respond. I'm not wasting any more of my precious time on Todd. He's not worth it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You need to improve your reading comprehension skills and stop ignoring what people say to you.

If anyone reads Todd's posts and wants me to answer any questions that they might have about my position in relation to his. Ask me here on the thread and I will respond. I'm not wasting any more of my precious time on Todd. He's not worth it.

And the commie runs away.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You need to improve your reading comprehension skills and stop ignoring what people say to you.

Nearly 2000 words of your commie drivel, DURR.

 

[Quentin111]

Here is another serious disadvantage of socialism compared to a market economy, which I forgot to mention: under socialism, everything was managed centrally and bureaucratically, so private initiative was fraught. For example, if you invented something, then it was very difficult to immediately introduce it into production. The official most often shelved your invention. In a normal (not monopolized) market economy, you have the right to immediately introduce your invention into production, and then the market will show whether your idea is worth it or not. You take full responsibility. And accordingly you can get rich, if you are right.

 

[Red Front]

Here is another serious disadvantage of socialism compared to a market economy, which I forgot to mention: under socialism, everything was managed centrally and bureaucratically, so private initiative was fraught. For example, if you invented something, then it was very difficult to immediately introduce it into production. The official most often shelved your invention. In a normal (not monopolized) market economy, you have the right to immediately introduce your invention into production, and then the market will show whether your idea is worth it or not. You take full responsibility. And accordingly you can get rich, if you are right.

1. Central Planning and Bureaucracy: While it's true that socialist systems, particularly in the 20th century, often relied on centralized planning, it's an oversimplification to say that this stifled innovation. Central planning allowed for coordinated efforts in sectors deemed crucial for the nation. The USSR, for instance, made significant advancements in space technology, nuclear physics, and other fields, demonstrating that innovation was not only possible but also achieved at remarkable scales.
2. Private Initiative: The assertion that private initiative was fraught under socialism is a narrow view. In a socialist system, the emphasis is on collective progress rather than individual profit. While it might have been challenging for an individual to introduce a product into the market, the state often took on the role of fostering and scaling innovations that served the greater good.
3. Modern Central Planning: With the advent of advanced computing, automation, and artificial intelligence, central planning in the 21st century can be far more efficient and responsive than in the past. These technologies allow for real-time data collection, analysis, and decision-making, making the process more dynamic and adaptable.
4. Capitalism and Innovation: The notion that capitalism inherently promotes innovation is flawed. Many inventors and entrepreneurs lack the capital for research, development, and market introduction. Often, it's public funding or government grants that support early-stage innovations. Moreover, capitalism tends to prioritize commercially viable products, potentially neglecting innovations that might have broader societal benefits but lack immediate profitability.
5. Non-commercial Innovations: Under capitalism, if an invention isn't immediately profitable, it often gets sidelined, regardless of its potential long-term benefits. In contrast, a socialist system can allocate resources to research and develop innovations that serve the collective good, even if they aren't immediately lucrative.
6. 21st Century Production: The landscape of production has dramatically changed with advanced automation and AI. These technologies can streamline and optimize production in ways previously unimaginable. In a socialist system, these tools can be harnessed to ensure equitable distribution and efficient production, serving the needs of all rather than the profits of a few.

 

[Captain Caveman]

American capitalists who close factories here in America and move them to the third world are doing it out of greed, not need. They should be taxed and hit over the head by a mountain of tariffs, rendering their economic cannabilism unprofitable. Stripping Americans of their good-paying jobs and turning around and selling them foreign manufactured goods. These un-American capitalists don't care what the long-term negative effects of their cannibalistic business practices are upon our economy.

Capitalism allows you to set up your manufacturing business in America. So you're welcome to reopen one of those factories.