Jump to content

Let face it - our version of capitalism is broken


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Can you make a case for something?

I am making a case.  Political power within a large organization determines compensation.  Power begets influence.  Every CEO thinks that he is the Tom Brady or Drew Brees of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 658
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK, back it up - provide facts to support your silly assertions.  And get a freaking spell checker. Shit, you come across dumb enough without "centerded".  Does that go good with Hamberders?  Nev

These threads remind me of the disclaimers for investment schemes "past performance is not indicative of future results". Capitalism as we know it is maybe 150 years old and an artifact of the industr

One fact is that the wealth at the top is in the stratospheres and catastrophic.  The working class is losing out even as the economy has grown.  Greed has been glorified.  Certain protected classes l

Posted Images

1 minute ago, jzk said:
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If you have ever owned stock yourself, and followed the corporation's releases, you know that stockholders have almost no input whatever to CEO pay. As I said, they have to cookie jar on their desk, and the culture increasingly encourages them to help themselves.

...    ...

Can you make a case for anything?  Your very point in running a complex organization makes my case.  It requires skill and talent.  Corporations generally don't just hire people to give money away for no reason.  

The input that the stockholders have is that they can sell.  

Umm, no, stockholders have more power than that, in theory at least. Ever heard of voting?

But you don't address the point- yes it takes skill and talent..... actually it takes some education and some hard work, not talent....... to run a big company. Should a good CEO make lots of money? Sure. Should he make so much money that even a successful corporation goes into debt to fill his pockets? Should he suck up 110% of all profit?

A good corporation needs good productive workers. Why should they get 1/200th (many cases it's more like 1/600th) of what the CEO gets?

Let's take a look at that noted Communistic propaganda outlet, Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/07/12/how-many-workers-must-live-in-poverty-for-mcdonalds-ceo-to-make-21-8-million/#b7a0df910926

How Many Workers Must Live In Poverty For McDonald's CEO To Make $21.8 Million?

Some years ago an earlier MacDonald's CEO was raging against increase in minimum wage while pulling in over 27 million a year...... and lobbying for a tax cut, no doubt. After all why should he pay taxes to fund welfare for those lazy goddam workers he won't give higher wages to?

The cookie jar is right on his desk! HE gets as many as he wants, and fuck everyone else!

Well, in practice, the CEO and CFO generally hand out cookies to the Board of Directors so they'll go along happily; but the workers who actually put the cookies in the jar? What should they expect?

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Laker said:

I am making a case.  Political power within a large organization determines compensation.  Power begets influence.  Every CEO thinks that he is the Tom Brady or Drew Brees of business.

But is every CEO Tom Brady?  Is there such a thing as a Tom Brady of CEOs?  Why should Tom Brady make so more than the guy selling beer?  Who has the harder job?

Corporations pay CEOs based on the expected value that they are going to get from them.  Just like anything else.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, no, stockholders have more power than that, in theory at least. Ever heard of voting?

But you don't address the point- yes it takes skill and talent..... actually it takes some education and some hard work, not talent....... to run a big company. Should a good CEO make lots of money? Sure. Should he make so much money that even a successful corporation goes into debt to fill his pockets? Should he suck up 110% of all profit?

A good corporation needs good productive workers. Why should they get 1/200th (many cases it's more like 1/600th) of what the CEO gets?

Let's take a look at that noted Communistic propaganda outlet, Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/07/12/how-many-workers-must-live-in-poverty-for-mcdonalds-ceo-to-make-21-8-million/#b7a0df910926

How Many Workers Must Live In Poverty For McDonald's CEO To Make $21.8 Million?

Some years ago an earlier MacDonald's CEO was raging against increase in minimum wage while pulling in over 27 million a year...... and lobbying for a tax cut, no doubt. After all why should he pay taxes to fund welfare for those lazy goddam workers he won't give higher wages to?

The cookie jar is right on his desk! HE gets as many as he wants, and fuck everyone else!

Well, in practice, the CEO and CFO generally hand out cookies to the Board of Directors so they'll go along happily; but the workers who actually put the cookies in the jar? What should they expect?

-DSK

 

Why do people get paid what they are worth?  Why does Ellen get paid so much more than you?  Because the world demands the services that Ellen can provide so much more than it demands those which you can provide.  People want Ellen.  You, not so much apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

But is every CEO Tom Brady?  Is there such a thing as a Tom Brady of CEOs?  Why should Tom Brady make so more than the guy selling beer?  Who has the harder job?

Corporations pay CEOs based on the expected value that they are going to get from them.  Just like anything else.  

Again, your are refreshing in your ingenuousness.  You must run for political office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Why do people get paid what they are worth?  Why does Ellen get paid so much more than you?  Because the world demands the services that Ellen can provide so much more than it demands those which you can provide.  People want Ellen.  You, not so much apparently.

Ok, let’s just tax the hell out of incomes that are obscenely out of line then.  Tax the company as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fakenews said:

Ok, let’s just tax the hell out of incomes that are obscenely out of line then.  Tax the company as well.

Why do you want to tax Ellen even more for providing demanded entertainment to millions of people?  She already paid far more in taxes for government than anyone here will ever pay.  Is it that your utopia government simply can't sustain itself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Why do you want to tax Ellen even more for providing demanded entertainment to millions of people?  She already paid far more in taxes for government than anyone here will ever pay.  Is it that your utopia government simply can't sustain itself?

Pineapples 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Ok, let’s just tax the hell out of incomes that are obscenely out of line then.  Tax the company as well.

I'm  thinking $85k is out of line seeing that the median is $65 (?).

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jzk said:

Why do people get paid what they are worth?  ....

Do they?

You are missing my point entirely: CEOs get paid WHAT THEY WANT.

Hence the phrase "they have the cookie jar on their desk."

9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Why do you want to tax Ellen even more for providing demanded entertainment to millions of people?  She already paid far more in taxes for government than anyone here will ever pay.  Is it that your utopia government simply can't sustain itself?

Umm, no. Ellen (and almost everybody in the >10mill$/yr bracket) pays far less as a portion of their pie.

Let's see, you pay a little over a quarter of your pie...... wait, let's not mix metaphors, go back to cookies...... you get 10 cookies a year and you gotta give 3 or maybe even 4 to the goddam gubbermint. Ellen gets over 5,000 cookies a year and she puts some in a lunchbag and says "Here, don't you dare fucking count them."

Why shouldn't people who gain by far the greatest benefit from our economic system pay the cost of operating and maintaining said system?

You were really born to be a peasant, weren't you? Yearn for the feel of manure between your toes, and bow to your lord when he rides by spattering you with mud? Bet you love it when he fucks your teenage daughter too. What status you gain among the other peasants! Fortunately you don't live as long as the lords you worship, so you never get the time to think it over.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do they?

You are missing my point entirely: CEOs get paid WHAT THEY WANT.

Hence the phrase "they have the cookie jar on their desk."

Umm, no. Ellen (and almost everybody in the >10mill$/yr bracket) pays far less as a portion of their pie.

Let's see, you pay a little over a quarter of your pie...... wait, let's not mix metaphors, go back to cookies...... you get 10 cookies a year and you gotta give 3 or maybe even 4 to the goddam gubbermint. Ellen gets over 5,000 cookies a year and she puts some in a lunchbag and says "Here, don't you dare fucking count them."

Why shouldn't people who gain by far the greatest benefit from our economic system pay the cost of operating and maintaining said system?

You were really born to be a peasant, weren't you? Yearn for the feel of manure between your toes, and bow to your lord when he rides by spattering you with mud? Bet you love it when he fucks your teenage daughter too. What status you gain among the other peasants! Fortunately you don't live as long as the lords you worship, so you never get the time to think it over.

-DSK

What is this "proportion" bullshit?  Ellen contributes more actual dollars to your government than you ever will.  Why the need to take even more from her?  Why do you feel the need to vilify the people that actually contribute to society?

Should the cost of goods and services be based on income?  Should Ellen pay more for a car than you do?

If CEOs get paid what they want, why don't you become a CEO?  You could get paid millions.  Think of all the poor people you could help.

Only one problem.  Not a chance in hell that anyone would pay you to be CEO of their corporation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Come on guys, when you start hitting jzk with math that ain't fair. I know I lose IQ every time I read his eco drivel.

Another big contributor to society.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Come on guys, when you start hitting jzk with math that ain't fair. I know I lose IQ every time I read his eco drivel.

There is a solution.

543043863_ScreenShot2019-04-10at9_57_49am.png.b7b43cc7a692638b04c8e5aa2b0b8335.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I have him on ignore which doesn't work when others keep quoting him at such time I feel compelled to poke the dumfuk.  I know, it's a character flaw.

Have the same character flaw too. Hell, the trolls on this site tend to count on folks having it so they can get past the ignore filter. Which is why I put together a little site plugin for blocking the quotes of those on the ignore list too. I don't have to read any of the drivel and I'm not tempted to respond to idiots I had already decided aren't worth my time. 

Been there, done that, had an obsessed fan make a Downfall parody t-shirt for me ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jzk said:

What is this "proportion" bullshit? ...    ...    ...

It's called a "marginal rate" .......... a fairly basic business concept. Without understanding it, you will never really break out of the category of being fiscally illiterate.

 

17 minutes ago, jzk said:

.......    ...    ... Not a chance in hell that anyone would pay you to be CEO of their corporation.

True. And just as well.

As I've said before I am rather happily retired. Have been for over 10 years now, time seems to be flying. If I'd wanted to be a CEO or to own a country estate or megayacht, I'd have kept working (and studying). Instead I am having fun sailing, being a youth sailing coach (which can be an even more expensive hobby than sailing one's own boat, but very rewarding), traveling with Mrs Steam, and otherwise doing whatever the fuck I want.

Not everybody worships wealth.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I have him on ignore which doesn't work when others keep quoting him at such time I feel compelled to poke the dumfuk.  I know, it's a character flaw.

???

I though it was a feature, not a bug!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Come on guys, when you start hitting jzk with math that ain't fair. I know I lose IQ every time I read his eco drivel.

I’ve read some of your crap.  You don’t have any IQ points to spare.  And you certainly haven’t been able to rebut his arguments.  Is it because of your low IQ or the eco-bullshit you believe in?  I’m guessing a little of both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, J28 said:

I’ve read some of your crap.  You don’t have any IQ points to spare.  And you certainly haven’t been able to rebut his arguments.  Is it because of your low IQ or the eco-bullshit you believe in?  I’m guessing a little of both.

So, do you worship wealth like JZK? Do you agree with his pseudo-eco-blather?

In that case, perhaps you can tell me: Why should CEOs make such tremendous amounts of money while paying workers that create this wealth so little that they depend on charity? And then get a tax cut so they're not even paying a full share supporting the charity?

Do you like having money taken out of your pocket so that CEOs can have more? Do you like the idea that they will live longer and be healthier than you? That their kids can be dumb and lazy and still succeed over your kids?

That's the Republican ideal, isn't it?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

So, do you worship wealth like JZK? Do you agree with his pseudo-eco-blather?

In that case, perhaps you can tell me: Why should CEOs make such tremendous amounts of money while paying workers that create this wealth so little that they depend on charity? And then get a tax cut so they're not even paying a full share supporting the charity?

Do you like having money taken out of your pocket so that CEOs can have more? Do you like the idea that they will live longer and be healthier than you? That their kids can be dumb and lazy and still succeed over your kids?

That's the Republican ideal, isn't it?

-DSK

Why are you lying again?  I am not the one that wants to take Ellen's or anyone else's wealth.  You do.  You are the one obsessed with rich people and CEO pay.

Who takes money out of your pocket so CEOs can have more?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do they?

You are missing my point entirely: CEOs get paid WHAT THEY WANT.

Hence the phrase "they have the cookie jar on their desk."

Umm, no. Ellen (and almost everybody in the >10mill$/yr bracket) pays far less as a portion of their pie.

Let's see, you pay a little over a quarter of your pie...... wait, let's not mix metaphors, go back to cookies...... you get 10 cookies a year and you gotta give 3 or maybe even 4 to the goddam gubbermint. Ellen gets over 5,000 cookies a year and she puts some in a lunchbag and says "Here, don't you dare fucking count them."

Why shouldn't people who gain by far the greatest benefit from our economic system pay the cost of operating and maintaining said system?

You were really born to be a peasant, weren't you? Yearn for the feel of manure between your toes, and bow to your lord when he rides by spattering you with mud? Bet you love it when he fucks your teenage daughter too. What status you gain among the other peasants! Fortunately you don't live as long as the lords you worship, so you never get the time to think it over.

-DSK

FIFO 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J28 said:

  Is it because of your low IQ or the eco-bullshit you believe in?  

this is shit, even for you. it indicates you're deep into dumbfuck, alternate reality land, and that's factual. this kind of blatant clown in denial garbage is as bad as flat earth 'theory'. pull that head out. on the other hand, maybe it's pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 3to1 said:

this is shit, even for you. it indicates you're deep into dumbfuck, alternate reality land, and that's factual. this kind of blatant clown in denial garbage is as bad as flat earth 'theory'. pull that head out. on the other hand, maybe it's pointless.

No, I'm pretty sure it's pointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, do you worship wealth like JZK? Do you agree with his pseudo-eco-blather?

In that case, perhaps you can tell me: Why should CEOs make such tremendous amounts of money while paying workers that create this wealth so little that they depend on charity? And then get a tax cut so they're not even paying a full share supporting the charity?

Do you like having money taken out of your pocket so that CEOs can have more? Do you like the idea that they will live longer and be healthier than you? That their kids can be dumb and lazy and still succeed over your kids?

That's the Republican ideal, isn't it?

-DSK

Or the Republican FEAR:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, d'ranger said:

If you watch his show or read some of the links in the google page I provided you would see that what is happening (it starts with how mobile homes are marketed) is a plan to fleece the poor and uneducated. That isn't a good thing. It flies in the face of "big government" and helps keep the poor more so while the wealthy get more so.

Income inequality - it is an issue and history shows if it continues long enough does not end well.  The above is just an example of why good government is a requirement for a successful society.

Sorry, too busy participating in the housing market sometimes to read about what I'm doing.

If the marketing of mobile homes and the management of parks is a clear indicator of why good government is necessary, what is a good government to do about those situations?

I think the people I deal with an I will all be better off without any such help, but maybe you've thought up some help that sounds actually helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These threads remind me of the disclaimers for investment schemes "past performance is not indicative of future results". Capitalism as we know it is maybe 150 years old and an artifact of the industrial revolution. There is nothing to say that because it was well suited to this thin slice of history that it will be forever the ideal economic model for all time forward. The economic environment is not like gravity or the earth rotating as it orbits the sun which can be counted on to create tides and sunrises virtually forever. So it seems silly to argue in absolutes. There is, with nearly 100% certainty, going to be a day when capitalism makes for a horrible economic model. The question is whether that is today, in 10 years, 100, 1000, or yesterday or last year. Until everyone in the discussion at least opens up to that possibility, the discussions will continue to devolve into school yard name calling. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LenP said:

These threads remind me of the disclaimers for investment schemes "past performance is not indicative of future results". Capitalism as we know it is maybe 150 years old and an artifact of the industrial revolution. There is nothing to say that because it was well suited to this thin slice of history that it will be forever the ideal economic model for all time forward. The economic environment is not like gravity or the earth rotating as it orbits the sun which can be counted on to create tides and sunrises virtually forever. So it seems silly to argue in absolutes. There is, with nearly 100% certainty, going to be a day when capitalism makes for a horrible economic model. The question is whether that is today, in 10 years, 100, 1000, or yesterday or last year. Until everyone in the discussion at least opens up to that possibility, the discussions will continue to devolve into school yard name calling. 

Meanwhile.

gdp-per-capita-graph.jpg.e4d073d1494b49d96664734bf6568bf8.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

A more important question is, which place has more GUNZ!!???

-DSK

I'm sure it does.

You should get down to Fort Myers some day and visit the Edison-Ford Estate and compare their lifestyle to what the average worker has today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I'm sure it does.

You should get down to Fort Myers some day and visit the Edison-Ford Estate and compare their lifestyle to what the average worker has today.

Why not go to Williamsburg and look at how colonial farmers lived? Of course, they don't really give the full picture, you don't have to walk thru ankle deep manure.

The modern industrial serf will be so much better off than his medieval counterpart, why are the silly fucks complaining?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

I'm sure it does.

You should get down to Fort Myers some day and visit the Edison-Ford Estate and compare their lifestyle to what the average worker has today.

When I bought my powerboat, it was at the Marina at Edison-Ford.  I was going to move it to the east coast on the day of the sale, but I liked Fort Myers so much, we stayed 6 months.  On that river, we saw dolphins every single time we ever took the boat out.  Pretty sweet.  Unfortunately the water is brown and even the gulf area is pretty greenish.  The dive bars on beach are pretty cool as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Why not go to Williamsburg and look at how colonial farmers lived? Of course, they don't really give the full picture, you don't have to walk thru ankle deep manure.

The modern industrial serf will be so much better off than his medieval counterpart, why are the silly fucks complaining?

-DSK

The thing about capitalism is that it makes the products and services that everyone wants affordable to the masses.  Now poor people have cars, refrigeration, 60" flat screen tvs and indoor plumbing.

Your big government plan is not affordable.  That is why you need a highly progressive tax code because it must be subsidized by rich people.  And, at the same time you whine about how unfair and inequitable it is to even have rich people.  Your system cant function without them, yet you vilify them.  It is simply not sustainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I surmised no one here watches the show - too bad as it is informative and humorously entertaining - in this episode Oliver also rips the mayor of Baltimore. The point is (good old John always has a point) is there is an area where poor people are being exploited. Now that can fall into two groups: 1. The people who don't want to see this happen understanding that those who are less savvy are easy to exploit (or stuck without many options) and desire some legislation to prevent predatory actions. 2. Those who want to get in the game and make big bucks, or perhaps just enjoy seeing people suffer. The elderly on fixed incomes are easy marks for predators. 

During my lifetime I have experienced a number of things including being successful and also desperately poor while experiencing the benefits and pitfalls of both. It's why I currently can't support the GOP (except for some local positions including county judges).  Like any group PA has some interesting, educated and generous folks and a handful of insufferable assholes. 

I didn't spoon feed the solutions nor the exact circumstances hoping it would demonstrate the need for good government regulations, I can see that was asking a bit too much. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jzk said:

 

Your big government plan is not affordable.  That is why you need a highly progressive tax code because it must be subsidized by rich people.  And, at the same time you whine about how unfair and inequitable it is to even have rich people.  Your system cant function without them, yet you vilify them.  It is simply not sustainable.

Funny that when talking tax "Fairness" no one ever suggests " let's bring tax rates up to the high income levels".

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

The thing about capitalism is that it makes the products and services that everyone wants affordable to the masses.  Now poor people have cars, refrigeration, 60" flat screen tvs and indoor plumbing.

Your big government plan is not affordable.  That is why you need a highly progressive tax code because it must be subsidized by rich people.  And, at the same time you whine about how unfair and inequitable it is to even have rich people.  Your system cant function without them, yet you vilify them.  It is simply not sustainable.

 

Why is it a "subsidy" to pay for what you're getting? Rich people are getting a well-ordered socio-economic system that offers then tremendous benefits.

In most of your posts, you do not support the idea of getting lots of free goodies. Yet, because you worship great wealth and see the wealthy as somehow inherently superior to yourself, you want -them- to get lots of free stuff.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jzk said:

But is every CEO Tom Brady?  Is there such a thing as a Tom Brady of CEOs?  Why should Tom Brady make so more than the guy selling beer?  Who has the harder job?

Corporations pay CEOs based on the expected value that they are going to get from them.  Just like anything else.  

I put it in purple, well because. Surely you don't think the system works like this? Lets say I am a big company CEO and so are you. Each of us serves on the board of directors of the other's company and by 'happenstance' on the compensation committee that sets the CEO salaries. Do you see any conflict of interest here? Lets compare two companies - Toyota and GM. Which CEO do you think gets the highest salary and options etc? Does this reflect the value that each has brought to their companies? The last half dozen or so CEOs at GM have taken the largest corporation in the world and made it into a mediocre, midrange auto company far behind Toyota, VW and Honda. How much did these CEOs get for this feat? Could do the research but I assume in the hundreds of millions. To take a different tack (sailing reference), lets assume that the compensation for big corporation CEOs was cut by 50% tomorrow, would these guys (and a few gals) only work half as hard and produce substantially worse outcomes for their companies. What is we cut by 90% so the twenty million people are no getting two. Would they all quit and get a job as a greeter at Walmart? I can't believe that you think that 'system' actually works in the efficient and fair way you think it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I put it in purple, well because. Surely you don't think the system works like this? Lets say I am a big company CEO and so are you. Each of us serves on the board of directors of the other's company and by 'happenstance' on the compensation committee that sets the CEO salaries. Do you see any conflict of interest here? Lets compare two companies - Toyota and GM. Which CEO do you think gets the highest salary and options etc? Does this reflect the value that each has brought to their companies? The last half dozen or so CEOs at GM have taken the largest corporation in the world and made it into a mediocre, midrange auto company far behind Toyota, VW and Honda. How much did these CEOs get for this feat? Could do the research but I assume in the hundreds of millions. To take a different tack (sailing reference), lets assume that the compensation for big corporation CEOs was cut by 50% tomorrow, would these guys (and a few gals) only work half as hard and produce substantially worse outcomes for their companies. What is we cut by 90% so the twenty million people are no getting two. Would they all quit and get a job as a greeter at Walmart? I can't believe that you think that 'system' actually works in the efficient and fair way you think it does.

Summed it up right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

The thing about capitalism is that it makes the products and services that everyone wants affordable to the masses.  Now poor people have cars, refrigeration, 60" flat screen tvs and indoor plumbing.

Your big government plan is not affordable.  That is why you need a highly progressive tax code because it must be subsidized by rich people.  And, at the same time you whine about how unfair and inequitable it is to even have rich people.  Your system cant function without them, yet you vilify them.  It is simply not sustainable.

Boy are you ever mired in the muck is money paradigm.  It is not capitalism that gave refrigeration, it is technology.  Capital follows technology.  There is an infinite amount of capital available for the ultimate deal.  That is an important concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Why is it a "subsidy" to pay for what you're getting? Rich people are getting a well-ordered socio-economic system that offers then tremendous benefits.

In most of your posts, you do not support the idea of getting lots of free goodies. Yet, because you worship great wealth and see the wealthy as somehow inherently superior to yourself, you want -them- to get lots of free stuff.

-DSK

Unlike the products and services brought to people by capitalism, rich people are paying much more for government than are anyone else.  

Unlike you, I don't hate rich people for being rich.  I can make my own way in this world without taking from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I put it in purple, well because. Surely you don't think the system works like this? Lets say I am a big company CEO and so are you. Each of us serves on the board of directors of the other's company and by 'happenstance' on the compensation committee that sets the CEO salaries. Do you see any conflict of interest here? Lets compare two companies - Toyota and GM. Which CEO do you think gets the highest salary and options etc? Does this reflect the value that each has brought to their companies? The last half dozen or so CEOs at GM have taken the largest corporation in the world and made it into a mediocre, midrange auto company far behind Toyota, VW and Honda. How much did these CEOs get for this feat? Could do the research but I assume in the hundreds of millions. To take a different tack (sailing reference), lets assume that the compensation for big corporation CEOs was cut by 50% tomorrow, would these guys (and a few gals) only work half as hard and produce substantially worse outcomes for their companies. What is we cut by 90% so the twenty million people are no getting two. Would they all quit and get a job as a greeter at Walmart? I can't believe that you think that 'system' actually works in the efficient and fair way you think it does.

Lots of sports players also end up being over paid and don't end up earning the salaries that they were able to negotiate.  These kinds of salaries are forward thinking.

Same with actors.  A movie company hires a big star hoping to have a huge box office success.  Sometimes it works out, and other times it doesn't.  If we capped actor salaries, would those actors take Walmart greeter positions?  Who the fuck cares?  If some movie company wants to pay them big bucks, why is it your business or mine?  

Generally speaking, movie companies don't over pay people just because they are their "buddies," but even if they did, why is it your business?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Laker said:

Boy are you ever mired in the muck is money paradigm.  It is not capitalism that gave refrigeration, it is technology.  Capital follows technology.  There is an infinite amount of capital available for the ultimate deal.  That is an important concept.

Yeah, right.  This huge increase in productivity was not brought to us by capitalism, but rather the technology developed by governments, right?  Government is why people can buy a 60 inch 4k flat screen TV for $450.  

gdp-per-capita-graph.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Lots of sports players also end up being over paid and don't end up earning the salaries that they were able to negotiate.  These kinds of salaries are forward thinking.

Same with actors.  A movie company hires a big star hoping to have a huge box office success.  Sometimes it works out, and other times it doesn't.  If we capped actor salaries, would those actors take Walmart greeter positions?  Who the fuck cares?  If some movie company wants to pay them big bucks, why is it your business or mine?  

Generally speaking, movie companies don't over pay people just because they are their "buddies," but even if they did, why is it your business?

Because, as you’ve pointed out, they have the money.  Next thing we know, you’ll be advocating the rich pay for their their own security, everywhere....

:lol:

you pay for your own, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amati said:

Because, as you’ve pointed out, they have the money.  Next thing we know, you’ll be advocating the rich pay for their their own security, everywhere....

:lol:

you pay for your own, right?

What does your post even mean?  What question are you answering?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amati said:

Your question.

These are my questions:

If we capped actor salaries, would those actors take Walmart greeter positions?

Who the fuck cares? 

If some movie company wants to pay them big bucks, why is it your business or mine?  

Generally speaking, movie companies don't over pay people just because they are their "buddies," but even if they did, why is it your business?

You answered "because, as you’ve pointed out, they have the money."

Which question are you answering?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

You want to cap salaries on people because they have money?

Of course not.  But there is the corollary to your question- how do you keep the money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Piketty and others have researched the historical trends in the distribution of wealth, which are alarming . . 

and have a lot to do with why so many Americans are struggling to get by. 

The local Reich will not address this issue, or study it even a little bit - 

rather, they will relentlessly dodge and deflect. 

Actually, even before Marx, economic analysts had noted the tendency of wealth and power 

in capitalist societies to become EVER MORE CONCENTRATED. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ Oliver said:

Tom Piketty and others have researched the historical trends in the distribution of wealth, which are alarming . . 

and have a lot to do with why so many Americans are struggling to get by. 

The local Reich will not address this issue, or study it even a little bit - 

rather, they will relentlessly dodge and deflect. 

Actually, even before Marx, economic analysts had noted the tendency of wealth and power 

in capitalist societies to become EVER MORE CONCENTRATED. 

 

Kind of like corporate feudalism?  Or religious states? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Tom Piketty and others have researched the historical trends in the distribution of wealth, which are alarming . . 

and have a lot to do with why so many Americans are struggling to get by. 

The local Reich will not address this issue, or study it even a little bit - 

rather, they will relentlessly dodge and deflect. 

Actually, even before Marx, economic analysts had noted the tendency of wealth and power 

in capitalist societies to become EVER MORE CONCENTRATED. 

 

You are not addressing the issue.

How does it hurt you for Ellen to continue to do her talkshow?  Should we shut it down to keep the wealth from becoming EVER MORE CONCENTRATED?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Amati said:

C’mon jz, who has the money and how do you keep it are the only 2 questions you’ve ever had.

 

You are forgetting about making money.  Money can be made.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah, right.  This huge increase in productivity was not brought to us by capitalism, but rather the technology developed by governments, right?  Government is why people can buy a 60 inch 4k flat screen TV for $450.  

gdp-per-capita-graph.jpg

The technology does not always come from government.  Atomic energy did come from government, though.  If you have capital as the leader, you have the tail wagging the dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

I am the last person here trying to take Ellen's money.  Why are you trying to take it?

Repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat 

11100111 11000000101010 1001101100001

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jzk said:

You want to take her money because she has it?  How nice.

You never answered my question:

Why should the very wealthy NOT pay for the economic system they get to live in, which delivers them tremendous benefits like living longer? Life itself would be worth a lot, I should think

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You never answered my question:

Why should the very wealthy NOT pay for the economic system they get to live in, which delivers them tremendous benefits like living longer? Life itself would be worth a lot, I should think

-DSK

Well, I suppose you could argue that by living longer, you do pay more taxes than if you died young.....

:lol:

F3D48BE5-1F00-4100-A4DD-6104AA3D2524.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

Lots of sports players also end up being over paid and don't end up earning the salaries that they were able to negotiate.  These kinds of salaries are forward thinking.

Same with actors.  A movie company hires a big star hoping to have a huge box office success.  Sometimes it works out, and other times it doesn't.  If we capped actor salaries, would those actors take Walmart greeter positions?  Who the fuck cares?  If some movie company wants to pay them big bucks, why is it your business or mine?  

Generally speaking, movie companies don't over pay people just because they are their "buddies," but even if they did, why is it your business?

I commented on CEO salaries and you can only talk about pro athletes and entertainers. Is that because you could not respond to the actual points I made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Raz'r said:

To be fair, Carly was paid to go away and stop destroying shareholder value....

So she gets paid a shitload of money if she does a good job and a shitload of money if she does a terrible job. Seems like a great system to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

So she gets paid a shitload of money if she does a good job and a shitload of money if she does a terrible job. Seems like a great system to me.

Few of of these jokers actually own the corporations they “work for”.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

So she gets paid a shitload of money if she does a good job and a shitload of money if she does a terrible job. Seems like a great system to me.

Capitalism at work Win/ Win for Carly.

The shareholders not so much.

Say, did the taxpayer invest and lose anything?

It was a while ago I can’t recall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Why not go to Williamsburg and look at how colonial farmers lived? Of course, they don't really give the full picture, you don't have to walk thru ankle deep manure.

The modern industrial serf will be so much better off than his medieval counterpart, why are the silly fucks complaining?

-DSK

Why don't you try answering that question?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Addressing the issue . . . 

which is that capitalism is not working for the majority of a Americans 

ergo - contemporary capitalism in the US is broken 

(It works reasonably well elsewhere - see happiness report) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Addressing the issue . . . 

which is that capitalism is not working for the majority of a Americans 

ergo - contemporary capitalism in the US is broken 

(It works reasonably well elsewhere - see happiness report) 

How is it not working?

Seem to be a lot of jobs and frivolous consumerism.

Why a high school graduate can become the youngest billionaire on the Forbes list by selling makeup to little girls who don't need it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

How is it not working?

Crap health care, crap wages, crap vacations, crap sick days - one could go on. 

Humorously, like the commies, the US Reich sees that the capitalist system is not working so well  . . 

And their solution is to change the PEOPLE, not the system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 4:16 AM, Importunate Tom said:

If the marketing of mobile homes and the management of parks is a clear indicator of why good government is necessary, what is a good government to do about those situations?

 

19 hours ago, d'ranger said:

I didn't spoon feed the solutions nor the exact circumstances hoping it would demonstrate the need for good government regulations, I can see that was asking a bit too much. 

Or assuming too much. For example, you referenced "chattel" mortgages. What rate would that be?

Before you answer, the private loans I do are at 8 to 12%. Yes, for a home loan. And I have a pile of thank you letters from property owners who happily paid that rate. Happily because Mr. Ray was a LOT more understanding than the credit card companies, who charged a MUCH higher rate. That was their only other experience with debt for many.

None of those people would be property owners without "predatory lenders" like my father.

I don't think they need to be protected from happily paying off a loan that NOBODY ELSE WOULD GIVE THEM and becoming property owners instead of being renters for life. I think they need to be protected from nanny statists who would dream up sensible regulations to prevent it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Saorsa said:

How is it not working?

Seem to be a lot of jobs and frivolous consumerism.

Why a high school graduate can become the youngest billionaire on the Forbes list by selling makeup to little girls who don't need it.

You are living in a self-created dreamland. Here is a real life example of someone who works at JP Morgan-Chase who ends up short more than $500 a month - must be frivolous spending, you can see what she spends her money on. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of the company who makes $31 million a year, could not/would not respond to the inquiry. BTW, how does one spend $31 million a year? If you don't spend it you can only invest it and make even more money.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/katie-porter-jamie-dimon-jpmorgan-chase_n_5cae6b58e4b0308735d4b310

Link to post
Share on other sites