Forum Post: The 99% MUST Only Vote In Their Best Interest!!
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 11, 2012, 6:40 p.m. EST by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom
(3360)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Democracy does not work merely by voting. It only works when you vote in your best interest.
The 99% must vote in their best interest.
The problem is that the 1% own all the media and all the politicians and they only promote policies that favor the 1%. So they have convinced the 99% to vote in the best interests of the 1%.
To combat this, the 99% need to be educated on a few important economic facts they will never get from the 1% owned media:
- The planet and its rich resources rightfully belong to everyone equally.
- This gives everyone a natural right to be able to participate in converting their planet's resources into useful goods and services.
- And they have a natural right to get paid fully for that work, without being exploited by the 1%.
- Our current system exploits the 99% by paying them a tiny fraction of what they produce.
- They must vote for candidates that make their exploitation illegal.
- The 99% would all get paid over $100k for working 20 hours per week if they weren't exploited.
- Making every worker wealthy, by eliminating their exploitation, would fix nearly every problem in society.
.
THE MOST IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUE IN THE WORLD IS THE FACT THAT THE 99% ARE EXPLOITED
The 99% need to understand that our economic system is a system designed by the 1% to benefit the 1%. Its purpose is to exploit workers by paying them a tiny fraction of what they produce, so the 1% can pocket the difference.
Even though worker productivity is $65 per hour, as shown here, which is enough to make every worker wealthy, most workers are broke because they only get paid a tiny fraction of the $65 per hour they produce. Most of that $65 unfairly gets paid to the 1%.
Half of all the income that workers produce gets paid to a small handful of gamblers who got lucky investing in the market like bankers and entrepreneurs, as shown here, and most of what remains gets paid to a small handful of people who have bargaining power merely because they are unique like athletes and celebrities.
The 1% takes the vast majority of the income the workers produce merely because they are lucky or unique.
The 99% of workers who produce everything - the engineers, doctors, construction workers, factory workers, miners, farmers, teachers - have to fight over the little income that remains.
Because of this exploitation, 50% of Americans are living in or near poverty, according to the latest census. This lack of income is the root cause of nearly every problem in the world.
.
THE 99% MUST VOTE TO END THEIR EXPLOITATION
Exploitation of the 99% will only end when the 99% vote for an economic system that makes their exploitation illegal.
To do that, the 99% must vote for candidates that will implement a system which pays workers 100% of the income, since they do 100% of the work, which pays no income to investors since they do no work, and which pays you based on how hard you work, not based on how lucky or unique you are, which is explained more fully here.
If we allocated income this way, if we paid workers in full, without exploitation:
- it would raise the minimum wage to over $100,000 per year, as explained here
- for working just 20 hours per week, as explained here.
.
THE 1% WILL SAY EXPLOITATION IS NECESSARY
But keep in mind that the 1% will do everything in their power to convince the 99% that they need to be exploited in order for the economy to work. They will say an economy that pays workers 100% of the income and pays them based on how hard they work is not possible.
They will make all sorts of absurd claims like it will lead to tyranny or corruption or oppression. They will say workers will lose the incentive to work. They will say it will turn America into a Stalin dictatorship.
So the 99% must stand vigilant in their right to full pay and recognize that paying workers fairly has nothing to do with any of that. It will only significantly improve society.
Paying workers fairly won't eliminate democracy or transparency or accountability or worker incentive or our justice system or human rights!
The 1% will say and do whatever it takes to continue to profit from the exploitation of the 99%. And they will unfortunately recruit a lot of gullible members of the 99% to their cause.
The best defense against this is facts.
The 99% must be educated on how much money they are losing to exploitation and on how much more income they would get paid in a system that does not exploit them so that they vote for candidates that will make their exploitation illegal.
Excellent and highly recommended forum-post. Thanx 'DTGL.com' :-) Also :
fiat lux ...
You have hit the nail on the head. Ending exploitation should be the focus of the 99%.
They are having us vote on the same things wearing different hats. The election seems to be nothing but a puppet show. Don't you wonder why Obama did the same things you'd expect Bush to do? It's like starbucks and pete's coffee. They create a sense of veriety but really just belong to the same thing, a monopoly to snatch all the money. We need an open source way to vote, for anything.
I'm curious -- have you ever actually owned or run a business? And if your theory is sound, why don't you start your own socialist business and put your theories into practice? Your narrative would be a lot more compelling if you could show that it actually works in real life, as compared with hypotheticals. And if you could really pay all of your employees 100k a year or something close to it, you'd certainly have a lot of converts.
"have you ever actually owned or run a business"
I went to business school, worked for the Fed, worked as an investment banker and owned several businesses.
.
"if your theory is sound"
It is not my theory. This idea has been around for hundreds of years.
Every aspect of democratic market socialism is already proven to work in theory and in practice.
On the theory side, it has been rigorously peer reviewed in mainstream economics journals for the past 100 years, beginning with Oskar Lange demonstrating that a socialist market is more efficient than a capitalist market in the famous Economic Calculation Debate with Mises and Hayek.
.
"why don't you start your own socialist business and put your theories into practice?"
Socialism is a type of economic system, not a type of business.
In order to create socialism, you need to pay workers 100% of the income, since they do 100% of the work, pay no income to investors since they do no work, and pay workers based on how hard they work, not based on how lucky or unique they are.
In order to do that, you need control over the income in the entire economy, not just control over the income in 1 business.
.
"Your narrative would be a lot more compelling if you could show that it actually works in real life, as compared with hypotheticals."
As mentioned above, this is already proven in theory. It is also proven in practice.
We already have all the components of market socialism successfully working in practice. We already have absentee owners in publicly owned companies, pay based on difficulty and performance, market allocation of goods and services, companies that must remain profitable, and investors paid based on financial performance of investments.
The only difference between a socialist system and a capitalist system is that the money being invested is public instead of private. And this won't make any difference because investment bankers could care less where the money they need to invest comes from. It does not affect their job at all.
.
"And if you could really pay all of your employees 100k a year or something close to it, you'd certainly have a lot of converts."
In order to pay those incomes, you need control over the allocation of income within the entire economy.
However, I have written posts on one potential idea where the government provides start-up money to people who want to start building a socialist sector. This will give workers the freedom to choose which system they want to work for and the capitalist sector would have to compete against the socialist sector for their membership.
As the socialist sector grows and becomes more independent, it will get closer and closer to having control over allocation of 100% of the income and the incomes paid will get higher and higher towards the $100k+ minimum income that a full socialist economy would pay.
I think workers should be given the option to work in a socialist system. And I don't think a capitalist system could compete against it. Nearly everyone would choose the much higher paying jobs in the socialist system.
I wrote a few posts that expands on this idea. You can read them here and here and here.
Excellent! As a former investment banker, you're well-positioned to do a demonstration project and refute that guy that you were arguing with that takes home 60% of his gross.
Start a business, make lots of money, and pay all of your employees 100k each. Obviously, you can't control the whole economy, we couldn't reasonably expect that. But you would control a part of it, and as an investment banker, you'd be making buckets of money -- everybody on this site know well that in a business like that the money just pours in. You could then institute your own scheme on that small scale, thereby demonstrating that people will respond in the manner you predict, including most importantly that you, as boss, were perfectly willing to make no more than 4x the amount you paid the janitor.
Question: You mention that you owned several businesses. How were your employees paid at these businesses? Did you compensate them commensurately with your own rubric that since they do all the work and produce everything, they should get all the money excepting only what you fairly earned with your own labor? Did you in fact pay people according to the principles you've laid out?
"Obviously, you can't control the whole economy, we couldn't reasonably expect that. But you would control a part of it"
An economy that is more than 99.999999% capitalist is not socialism. Owning 1 business would give us less than 0.000001% control over the economy. You can't create a socialist economy with 1 business!
.
"Did you compensate them commensurately with your own rubric that since they do all the work and produce everything, they should get all the money"
I think you are missing the point.
My businesses, along with nearly every other business, is created with private money. People are not going to risk their own private savings without getting compensated for it.
Socialism is not an economic system that requires people to risk their own private savings without getting paid for that risk. In socialism, nobody risks their own private savings. All investment is done with public money.
I would be more than willing to launch a public company with public investment funds while getting paid $115k and up to $460k if that company did well.
" People are not going to risk their own private savings without getting compensated for it."
Ah, so you didn't pay them as your socialist rubric would dictate. So much for that. Of course, you concede you'd be willing to make 460k if somebody else bears all the risk of failure and ponies up the startup capital. Wow! Some risk-taker you are. It might surprise you to hear that everybody on the planet would also cheerfully take 460k to try running a business funded entirely out of someone else's pocket and where none of their own money was on the line. I certainly would.
As for people not being willing to risk their own money, I beg to differ. I started a company a while back, and when I hired people, I gave them each an equal share in the stock, equal pay, and equal shares in the profits -- equal to mine, that is, so we're talking full parity here. And we're making a success of it. So it can be done, it is being done,and it can work, without the rest of the economy being socialist. My business proves it, so don't tell me it can't be done.
I think the problem is that you're like everybody else here -- a pretty good armchair quarterback, complaining about how the game is being played, but not so willing to suit up and go out on the field and put your own ass on the line.
And that, my friend, is the whole problem with OWS. Lots of armchair quarterbacks.
"It might surprise you to hear that everybody on the planet would also cheerfully take 460k to try running a business funded entirely out of someone else's pocket and where none of their own money was on the line. I certainly would."
It does not surprise me. That is why I think socialism will work. That is why I advocate socialism.
But it would come to a surprise to capitalists who think everyone will lose the incentive to work when they aren't investing their own money.
.
" it can work, without the rest of the economy being socialist"
Since you are just 1 company in a capitalist system, and don't have control over total income in the economy, and have not put an end to 50% of all income being paid to investors, what you are paying your workers is likely less than what they would get paid in a socialist system.
But even if you were paying them socialist wages, it does nothing for the 18% who are underemployed, the 50% who are living in or near poverty, and the 95%+ who are not getting paid socialist wages. We need socialism to help them.
.
"I think the problem is that you're like everybody else here -- a pretty good armchair quarterback"
I am not an armchair QB. I think the solution to the world's problems is replacing capitalism with socialism. The only way to change the economic system is to sell people on why socialism is better. And I spend a great deal of time and effort selling people on why socialism is better.
You may disagree with my solution or tactics, but I'm not just doing nothing.
.
"And that, my friend, is the whole problem with OWS. Lots of armchair quarterbacks."
That is not accurate.
OWS are people who are camping out, protesting, and getting arrested. They are not armchair QBs!
However, I do have a complaint against OWS. I don't think protesting is ever going to change anything. Instead, they should decide on what the problems are, decide on how to fix those problems and then organize all their efforts around implementing those solutions which I get into in this post.
Sitting around and criticizing what's happening and talking big about about solutions without ever actually getting out on the field and playing, and without ever taking the risk of testing your solution in battle, is exactly what armchair quarterbacks do. And it's all very simple and it all works very well, and you get to be ever so much smarter than the guys who are actually out there playing ball; and every game is a victory. And that, my friend, is exactly what you and everybody else here is doing.
How does a person who wants to change the economic system "get out on the field and play" or take "the risk of testing your solution in battle?"
Since replacing capitalism with socialism requires people selling the public on the benefits of socialism, I believe my efforts in doing just that - selling people on socialism - is in fact getting out on the field and playing.
[Removed]
I love how he says you're missing the point....and yet he doesn't seem to have a CLUE that all that "public money" comes from PRIVATE citizens in the first place!
You are a moron if you don't understand the difference between private and public.
If you launch a company with $100k in public funds and the company does not survive, you do not lose $100k of your personal savings.
How investment works in a socialist economy is explained here.
Ah, no. There's a magic well somewhere, and when you need more money for these things, you just go to the magic well with your enchanted bucket, and just pull yourself up a few buckets full of fairy money. I'm surprised you don't know about it. Don't you have an enchanted bucket?
How investment works in a socialist economy is explained here.
Let me know if you want to have an adult conversation.
Well, okay, since you're going to be the fun police, let's get back to business. You're ignoring the fact that when you've had the opportunity to put your socialist principles in action, you elected to do what bosses everywhere do -- take the money and run. I know it's possible to take the other road, since I've done it. Your excuses are disingenuous.
And calling BetsyRoss a moron simply proves how little you yourself understand this whole thing. Of course, you don't lose your own money when the funding came out of someone else's pocket. That's her point and my point. Saying you'll take a chance on a business if someone else pays is exactly like saying you'll go to Vegas and gamble with someone else's money. Who wouldn't? All upside and no downside, except, of course, for the sap that gave you the money. And why on earth would anyone give you the money in the first place? What reason is there to think that such a model would have a snowball's chance in hell of success? People do in fact, take the money and run; except that when it's not their money, and your salary limitations limit their upside, they're not really incentivized to make the business a go. Stripping the money out of the business in the short term, or just sitting on your ass collecting a fat salary for a while, is a much more lucrative option. Obama's tried this sort of thing in the Green Energy biz, and the results aren't encouraging.
" You're ignoring the fact that when you've had the opportunity to put your socialist principles in action, you elected to do what bosses everywhere do -- take the money and run. I know it's possible to take the other road, since I've done it. Your excuses are disingenuous."
I advocate socialism. I do not advocate that people should invest their own private savings and not get paid for that risk. So I am not being disingenuous.
In socialism, investment is made with public funds, not with your personal savings. So you never lose anything when starting a new business.
.
"And calling BetsyRoss a moron simply proves how little you yourself understand this whole thing"
BetsyRoss is a troll, not someone who wants to have a genuine conversation. If you missed that, you are the one who is not understanding.
.
" Who wouldn't? All upside and no downside"
Nobody wouldn't. That is why socialism works. People will still have the same incentive even though they are not investing their own private money.
.
"except, of course, for the sap that gave you the money. And why on earth would anyone give you the money in the first place?"
They wouldn't. Nobody is going to give you their private, personal savings for you to start a business with.
You don't understand how socialism works. I keep explaining it and give you links that explain it. But if you are going to ignore it all, this conversation is going to go nowhere!
In socialism, you use public funds, not the private savings of some poor "sap."
How investment using public funds works is explained in this comment.
And I give a basic overview of what socialism is in this post and in this post.
.
"and your salary limitations limit their upside, they're not really incentivized to make the business a go"
Socialism allocates income by limiting differences to only what is necessary to get people to work hard.
I think a chance at earning 4 times more income is enough incentive to get people to give their maximum effort in making their business a success.
But I could be wrong. Maybe we need to pay them 10 times more. However, you will not be able to provide any scientific evidence that says we need to pay people much more than that. We don't need to pay them up to 150,000 times more which is what some entrepreneurs are paid in capitalism.
The details of how income is allocated is explained in this comment.
.
"or just sitting on your ass collecting a fat salary for a while, is a much more lucrative option."
Nobody is going to get paid to sit on their ass in socialism.
Managers in charge of hiring are paid based on performance. So they have zero incentive to employ someone to just sit on their ass.
.
"Obama's tried this sort of thing in the Green Energy biz, and the results aren't encouraging."
The results actually were encouraging.
Obama allocated public money to be used to invest in private companies, just like every president before him has done.
The rate of success on those investments were better than the rate of success that the investment banking industry gets.
So a socialist system that invests public money can perform as well or better than a capitalist system that invests private money.
And the green company you are probably referring to, Solyndra, did not fail because it was poorly run or produced bad products. It failed because it could not produce solar panels cheaper than their Chinese competitor. And their Chinese competitor only produces at their cheap prices because their government subsidizes their company.
"I advocate socialism. I do not advocate that people should invest their own private savings and not get paid for that risk. So I am not being disingenuous."
"In socialism, investment is made with public funds, not with your personal savings. So you never lose anything when starting a new business."
In YOUR PLAN/MIND where do the "public funds" come from? Money has to come from SOMEWHERE....how do these "funds" get into a fund accessible by the "public"???
Socialism is not my plan or a system that came from my mind. It is a centuries old movement to stop the exploitation of workers.
How to organize a socialist economy, which I talk about in some of the posts at this site, has been rigorously peer reviewed in mainstream economics journals for the past 100 years, beginning with Oskar Lange demonstrating that a socialist market is more efficient than a capitalist market in the famous Economic Calculation Debate. And every component is already proven to work in the real world.
You can learn what socialism is in this post and in this post.
You can learn how investment works in this comment.
And you can learn how income is allocated in this comment.
In one sentence, tell me where the money in the "public fund" comes from. Or is that too difficult for you?
Leave Demand alone. He just got some bad news about where he lives
"...pushed 2011’s priciest ZIP code, Alpine, N.J., 07620, to No. 2, followed in third place by another usual suspect: Atherton, Calif., 94027.
Alpine is a discreet New York City suburb where the median home price is $5.75 million, street addresses are regularly scrambled on GPS and residents include celebrities like Stevie Wonder and Sean “Diddy” Combs"
Oh wow....that poor guy....
Here is my idea: I will create the idea for a new business, borrow $2 million of public money, pay penguento and betsyross a million each, disband the fake company, collecy a nice kickback from both, pcket way over $115000, and head for Cancun.
No one lost any money because its public money! Why go thru the bother of actually trying to create a company using your own money as done today, when you can rip off the taxpayer and no one will care?
The investors will care if you rip them off because they are paid based on how well their investments perform.
If you stole millions from the company, you would get arrested and sent to jail.
It is good to see you are back to making idiotic comments.
They have to find me. Plus the lowest paid person at your mythical company is getting paid $115000.
And I didnt steal anything. I put together a plan, the public bank lent me $2 million and the business failed. Happens all the time. Like in ALL socialist economies, I just pay people to look the other way.
What investors?
Really? After hundreds of comments, you still don't understand how it works?
Thre will be bank managers and loan officers in your system, but those arent investors. Those are paper pushers. YOU dont understand the value of capitalist investors and the great service they provide in an economy. You want to do awaywith them but i have proved you cannot. Banks dont invest in risky start ups, venture/ vulture capitalists do today. I helped charter a bank, Rancho Vista Community Bank years ago, and i put up my own money to found it.
What you dont grasp, and will never understand, is that for every VC that makes a killing, there are VCs that lose fortunes. It is that money that drives enterprise. You are envious. Blind envy. You can play at this socialist nonsense, but just like Oskar Lange, its just academic futility. Workers will NEVER own the means of production unless they become investors and investors must risk their own money. It takes risk capital to own the means of production. Loaned money is not risk capital. Banks dont make uncollateralized loans, and neither will your central bank.
Landlords provide extreme value to economies. Its not an accident that section 8 housing gets run down so quickly. Right now a landlord has to improve his property to attract tenants. Your system wont need that.
This is where he's lost-he's not SEEING (or admitting?) that you are using HIS "economy"-not a capitalist one. The "investors" in his economy are "the public"and HIS system doesn't pay them AT ALL-much less more if their "investments" perform well.
I don't understand why you would attempt to criticize something you did not take the time to understand. You and TheRazor are like the blind leading the blind.
Socialism is not my system or a plan that I came up with. It is a centuries old movement to stop the exploitation of workers.
How to organize a socialist economy, which I talk about in some of the posts at this site, has been rigorously peer reviewed in mainstream economics journals for the past 100 years, beginning with Oskar Lange demonstrating that a socialist market is more efficient than a capitalist market in the famous Economic Calculation Debate. And every component is already proven to work in the real world.
You can learn what socialism is in this post and in this post.
You can learn how investment works in this comment.
And you can learn how income is allocated in this comment.
You arent making sense. YOU BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, SAID there wont be investors or passive income in a socialist economy. If there isnt any income passively, there wont be investors. I do undrestand there will be some central making loas with tax payer monies but i know you said no investors.
Anyone can say anything in a debate, so Oskar Langes papers anddebate have no value, zero. I have undeniable concrete proof that socialsm always leads to tyranny and graft and corruption. You have yet to prove me wrong.
First off, I KNOW what socialism is. And it has FAILED for centuries.
In one simple sentence, where does the money in the "public fund" come from?
I like that idea a lot. I think I'll apply for a government grant to invest in your company.
And you can be assured that your application will be denied.
I dunno about that -- I'm from an economically disadvantaged background, I'm a member of an ethnic minority, I've got a crippled hand and I'm a small business owner. In short, I'm very nearly the Platonic ideal of a candidate for a government grant. It's a damn shame I'm not a woman or I'd have every base covered.
I might apply for two.
The beauty of this is that its completely other peoples money. Its foolish in the extreme to expect clerks and middle men to care bout money that doesnt belong to them. Some employees will be honext, but human nature being what it is, enough will try to scam te system.
Good question!! Can't imagine why he wouldn't do as he says everyone else should do. Except that I noticed he used past tense and didn't say "I co-owned several businesses with other employees"....or any version of it. And if such a business model was successful, why isn't he still doing it?
"Can't imagine why he wouldn't do as he says everyone else should do."
I would. I said so in the last paragraph of my comment:
I would be more than willing to launch a public company with public investment funds while getting paid $115k and up to $460k if that company did well.
.
"if such a business model was successful, why isn't he still doing it?"
Socialism is an economic system, not a business model!!
I am not advocating a different way to run a company. I am advocating a different way to run an economy.
Where exactly do you think "public money" comes from?
Like I said in the comment above, you are a moron if you don't understand the difference between private and public.
If you launch a company with $100k in public funds and the company does not survive, you do not lose $100k of your personal savings.
How investment works in a socialist economy is explained here.
From your post/link-
"Since nobody is paid on the money they invest, that will essentially put an end to people investing their own money. But an economy needs investments to run, so we will just use public funds for investment." (replace the word "public" here with "worker")
"Investment funds will come from whatever the natural savings rate is in the economy. Not everyone spends 100% of their income as soon as they get it. The money that they do not spend is the natural savings rate." (MANY, MANY people spend 100%+ of their income as soon as they get it-many, many spend it BEFORE they get it)
"This money would be allocated by the Fed to independent banks for them to invest. Since these are public funds and not the savings of any particular investor, nobody gets paid any interest. So borrowers would not be charged interest." (Again, replace the word "public" with "worker generated")
"If the natural savings rate is not enough to meet our investment needs, an investment tax would be levied on the gross sales of companies and the revenue collected would be added to the total investment funds available." (more taxes)
You seem to be saying that since people won't invest their OWN money because they won't get paid interest on their risk, that whatever the public does NOT spend on it's own, will be TAKEN FROM THEM by the FED and allocated somewhere else. Which then makes this statement a LIE-"Since these are public funds and not the savings of any particular investor, nobody gets paid any interest".
All you are doing is RENAMING the personal savings of the workers- "public funds"-so you can then say that the "public" loses out if a $100k business fails instead of saying that the "workers" lose out.
THIS.
Ah, these are the great unknowns. I should think that workers would flock to such a business, and work very diligently indeed for those 20 hours or so. I know that I certainly would. And with such happy and diligent employees, you should have very happy customers, and thereby a most successful business.
I agree. I believe that if we had a socialist sector, competing against the capitalist sector, that workers can choose to work in, capitalism would come to an end. Workers get a terrible deal in capitalism. So none would choose to work in the capitalist system. They would all choose the socialist system.
I wrote a few posts on building a socialist sector here and here and here.
Instead he's involved in an online pyramid scheme, and I wonder where the money comes from?
DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom,
Can you explain to me how you include links in your texts (the blue texts).
Thanks, niphtrique
This page explains all the syntax used on this forum:
http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#link
Thank you, this was helpful.
Here are a couple of post I put up on this if you didn't see them, the BLS info is really great, I have been trying to find the productively number for a long time, after talking to the guy at the BLS I found out that they changed the method in 1996 that’s why it is no longer reported in $/hr but only as a change now. The second link was a result of the lengthy phone call we had.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/jeff-faux-the-servant-economy/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-make-they-take-increase-labor-cost-now/
BTW nothing is perfect, but the GOP comes about as close to perfect as you can get in their support of the 1%.
It is all about class consciousness.
Labor needs to understand that they produce everything, and that the owners are completely unnecessary, and that these completely unnecessary owners are taking most of the wealth labor creates.
Owners are just parasites in society. They live off the backs of labor without providing anything useful in return.
And labor needs to understand that the owners have an agenda and that agenda is to take as much of the wealth labor produces as it can. Owners obviously own all the media, so they have an extensive propaganda apparatus to pursue this agenda.
They use their media to convince labor that they should hand over more and more of the wealth they create to the owners and to convince labor that if society did not have owners taking most of the wealth labor creates that society would devolve into an oppressive Stalin dictatorship.
Labor should vote socialist which would replace owners with a labor owned bank that provides the investment money labor needs for free. Labor can then pay itself 100% of the wealth it produces, instead of half, which would raise the minimum income to over $100k and cut the work week in half.
.
You can still calculate the $/hr using the BEA.
Just take Gross Domestic Income and divide it by Total Hours Worked.
Yes but the actual productivity number which was about $29.50/hr when they stopped reporting it 15 years or so ago, got screwed up when they did the calculation change, but I'm glad there are ways around that problem.
I think most things can be best understood when we bring them home, what "ownership" are you or I willing to forgo? our home? our car? our clothing? our food? I think it becomes a question of scale and that is a question certain people don't want us to raise.
The owners I am referring to are the owners of investment, not consumption. So any consumption thing you buy like a home, car, clothing and food, you would be the owner of. However, the investment money used to launch companies would be publicly owned as well as the companies they launch.
Bectel is private and is the largest construction company in the world, under your plan no one would make investment and they would all just go private, how do you deal with Mom and Pop Shops?
All income would be paid to labor since they do all the work. No income would be paid to investors.
Unearned income, like profit, interest, rent, dividends, and capital gains, would essentially be taxed at 100%. That money would then go into the pool of money that pays workers.
All investment money will come from public banks that provide that money to workers for free as explained here.
If you want to open a Mom and Pop store you would apply for funding at a public bank. The people who work at the Mom and Pop store, including the people who applied for funding, would get paid according to the national compensation plan, as explained here, just like every other worker in the economy.
Bectel would no longer be a private company that exploits workers. It would be equally owned by all workers. It would be run by the workers of Bectel. And the workers would get paid just like the workers at the Mom and Pop store do.
but who "owns" the store the workers or Mom or Pop?
of there would be no "investment" therefore no need to collect the tax....
Bectel, all the Mom and Pops and all the rest of the companies would all be owned equally by workers.
As equal owners, they will have full control over the allocation of total income that all the companies in the economy pay out.
And instead of allocating that income the way capitalism does (by paying half the income to owners and half to workers and by allocating the worker portion by how unique you are), workers will now pay zero to owners and 100% to the workers and will allocate that income among workers based on how hard you work instead of how unique you are.
So why would I take out a loan? From the public bank or anywhere else? and if it's the 'workers" which comes first the job-site or the worker?
It costs money to start a new business or expand an existing one. Where would they get this money if not from a bank or anywhere else?
I didn't understand your last question. Which comes first in what?
But if I am not going to "own" the business why would I borrow money and start one?
You would want to start a business in socialism for all the same reasons you would in capitalism: you want to be the boss, you want to spend the day building your idea instead of someone else's, you want to make more money.
Being an entrepreneur would be a performance based job that gives you an opportunity to get paid the highest income.
Here, you're ignoring the fact that one of the chief reasons people open their own business is that they're hoping to cash in and get rich. Not, 'have-a-salary-at-the-high-end-of-the-government-mandated-salary-scale' well-to-do,I mean rich, as in driving a Maserati-own-an-airplane-live-in-a-mansion rich. That may not be realistic, but that's what they're hoping for. Most folks that start businesses just simply aren't interested in putting in 70 or 80 hours a week for salary; and the ones that are happy with salary aren't interested in opening a business.
That's another flaw in socialist reasoning: the underlying assumption is that people will sacrifice their own upside potential in order to further some greater good. Up to a point, that's true. That's why people will pay taxes up to some level (above which they don't buy that proposition anymore and start engaging in tax avoidance). But past that point, most people are about ruthless self-interest, and if they're going to work that 80 hours a week, they want that Maserati to go with it. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.
How would that be decided? This "getting the highest income"?
A lot of people start businesses because they want to own them and pass them on to their children,, not just to feed their ego and "be the boss".
"why would I borrow money that I have to pay back when all the money goes to the workers?"
You would not be personally responsible for the loan. It would be the company's debt, not yours. And you would get paid according to the national compensation plan, just like every worker.
If the compensation plan was identical to the example I give in the comment where I explain income allocation, as an entrepreneur, you would get paid at least $115k and up to $460k, depending on how well your company did.
.
"Your concept is quit different than mere socialism, Sweden is quite Socialist"
Sweden is welfare capitalism, not socialism. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Socialism is not giving a handout to people who are getting screwed in capitalism.
.
"the people there have a fine standard of living"
Welfare capitalism may soften the blow of capitalism, but it is nowhere near ideal.
A socialist system in the US would pay all workers over $100k for working 20 hours. Sweden does not come anywhere near that.
Welfare capitalism has lots of inefficiencies and limited dynamism.
In Sweden, workers get taxed 70%. That means the government is spending 70% of your income. That is inefficient. I know what I want better than the government. So I want to spend that money, not the government.
Most of that money is paid to the state-run sector. That is also inefficient because state-run monopolies are inefficient. Individually run companies that must compete against other companies in a market for your dollar produce far better results. That market process forces organizations to be efficient, innovative and dynamic.
Why would ANYONE start a business if all they could earn was $460000 after years of managing and working long long hours, while an entry level worker woud get $115000 for working 40 hours?
How income is allocated is explained in this comment.
With socialism, you would no longer have an economy where Donald Trump's Dad gives him a $50 million start in life and the vast majority cannot even afford school. Instead, everyone is given equal ownership in the economy.
Socialism creates a real democracy. Your station in life is no longer determined largely by heredity. Instead, you are born equal to everyone else as a human right.
Your #1 is that all money is paid to workers, why would I borrow money that I have to pay back when all the money goes to the workers? Why would anybody? Your concept is quit different than mere socialism, Sweden is quite Socialist and the people there have a fine standard of living but people still own businesses.
You would take out a loan because thebank would be lending you tax payer money and you could get rich by just stealing te money thru a loan. Remember, in this Socialist construct, interest would not be paid. How a bank would generate income is of course a closely held secret that only DTGL knows. I guess the tellers would work for free.
Even better the loan officers wouldnt have any incentive to protect tax payer funds. We sort of have that now, what with FDIC insurance protecting reckless bankers, but with no profit motive at all and no one watching the till, we can expect all sorts of graft, bribes, and corruption.
Your comments remind me a lot about how corporations are allow to do whatever and nobody is held accountable.
Please name these evil corporations or retract all you have previuosly said as utter bullshit.
Names please,or declare yourself a fraud.
I wont answer any more of your lies till you name one evil corporation.
First refer me to where I said any corps should be punished. I don't remember proposing that, it seems to be your thing, perhaps you would like to tell us which corps you feel should be punished as you seem to want to punish something though no one knows why.
Oh I see "held accountable", is being punished, OK so when we hold politicians accountable we are punishing them, interesting position, not sure I agree.
(you can retract your bullshit now)
PS look I understand how it is you're just saying what you've been told to, you don't understand a damn bit of it and never ran into to anyone that did before.
Held accountable for what? Please articulate. "Held accountable" means they did something wrong? What?
As I said I don't believe holding politicians or anyone accountable is necessarily a punishment.
Can you find no wrong in anything any corporation has ever done? If not, I'm not sure I can help you.
But the corporations are only beholden to their stockholders. The issue, and having read your posts, you are liberal and usually on the wrong side of most economic issues, is that corporations that mess up should have their shareholders severely punished. Severely.
Here is my idea: No more financial regulations at all. With this proviso: Any investments made are in real dollars. No more borrowing, no more margins. If you want to buy $10 billion woryh of mortgages, you put up $10 billion of your own money. If the deal goes south, YOU lost YOUR own money. Goldman wouldnt be able to buy $10 billion by putting up only $500 million and borrowing the other $9.5 bil. from Citibank.
You want to punish corps (envy, maybe) which are private concerns. Wrong. Make sure not to conflate private profit with public risk. Thats what socialism does. Government should not be assisting ANY company at all. For example, fund basic research at the University level, but dont give money to Solyndra. Or Goldman. Or Exxon. Or GM.
Is it "envy" that makes us want to put child molesters in prison? maybe in your case?
Pleade name these bad corporations? Are you afraid to answer? I want child molesters punished. Your turn.
Why was the question, you have brought motive into this first let's agree on why we punish then we can talk about who should be punished.
I'll go first I think child molesters should be punished to discourage others from doing the same.
I would like to see the big 6 banks broken up, they are a threat to the entire planet.
As for the retail corporations, when they are packed with idiots on Thanksgiving night, all trampling eachother to buy useless crap, well its tough to say whose to blame there.,.
I dont want corps punished so now can you list "bad" corprations?
I did not restrict my question to "corps" is there no one you feel should be punished? if so why? not child molesters?
Which companies are evil?
I have no idea what you are talkng bout. However please answer who is an evil company?
Here I will help you out since thinking is not your thing, since you have questioned my motivation for wanting to punish corps, then first let's talk about why anyone who want to see anyone punished. I don't recall calling for the punishment of any corps or of the 1% in general, I don't equate paying taxes with punishment, but I think more to the point is this question of motivation so let's discuss that for a bit, then we can talk about actions by corps.
"You want to punish corps (envy, maybe)"
Short memory problem? Common among cons, so what do you mean with the envy comment?
The envy remark relates to you worrying about what corporations, which are beholden only to their stockholders and boards, and you wanting to punish them when you have no stake in them. I can see YOU being concerned with how government spends YOUR mo ey but what a corp. does has no effect on you.
Corporations get punished thru drops in stock value. For YOU, somehow that isnt enough. You want legislative punishment but why?
When YOU call for someone to be punished (not that I have) what are YOUR reasons? Since YOU brought it into the conservation.
Please name these evil corporations. give me a list. How do they hurt you?
Please expound on your belief that all punishment is based in envy.
I think the corporations that he is referring to is the ones that are not "obama's lap dogs" some of the other corporations that are voting for the village idiot are exempt from obummercare for their vote.
"Make sure not to conflate private profit with public risk. Thats what socialism does."
That's not what socialism does. There are no private profits in socialism. In socialism all companies are equally owned by all workers.
Turn off Rush Limbaugh.
You are not going to get an honest understanding and assessment of Pepsi by asking the owner of Coke.
Again, I question whether you have run any businesses. Every successful business has profits, or it wont be successful.
In your model the profits are simply being returned to the workers in the form of wages. They are still profits. The workers will decide whether to expand the company by hiring more people or paying themselves higher wages.
And in your model the risk is entirely public. Entirely. The danger to taxpayers is extreme.
"You would take out a loan because thebank would be lending you tax payer money"
Investment is an expense that every business incurs. It is built into the price of the things you consume. So consumers pay the investment.
The amount business can borrow for investment depends on how much income consumers are saving. If consumers do not save enough, then an investment tax will be levied on business which essentially forces every business to put more of their gross revenue towards investment.
.
"you could get rich by just stealing te money thru a loan"
Borrowing money is not stealing. Borrowing puts you in debt, it does not get you rich. If you want to get rich, just get a job. Unlike in capitalism, in socialism every worker would have a right to a job that pays you a high enough income to make you rich.
.
" Remember, in this Socialist construct, interest would not be paid."
Wow, surprisingly, you got one fact correct! Congratulations. No unearned income, including interest, is paid in a socialist system. If you want to earn an income, you have to work.
.
"How a bank would generate income is of course a closely held secret that only DTGL knows"
Banks would charge a fee to cover its costs. You would pay the bank, you just would not pay anyone for giving money to the bank.
In capitalism, if you take out a $400,000 mortgage at 4.5% interest, you will pay a $400,000 fee for borrowing that money.
We don't need to pay a bank $400,000 to process a mortgage.
.
"Even better the loan officers wouldnt have any incentive to protect tax payer funds."
Investing would be a performance based job. So the incentive will be to earn more money. You will get paid more money if your investments perform well.
.
"We sort of have that now, what with FDIC insurance protecting reckless bankers"
The FDIC protects the depositors. It does not protect the bankers.
.
"we can expect all sorts of graft, bribes, and corruption"
Unfortunately, people are not perfect. So there will be graft, bribes and corruption. That will exist in every system.
What prevents that is a justice system.
Capitalism wants to do away with a justice system by eliminating regulations and minimizing transparency. Socialism does just the opposite, so there will be significantly less graft, bribes and corruption.
Banks would only get a fee. Hmmm. And if 5% of loans go bad and arent paid back, what happens? Lets role play: A banker makes 20 12 month loans of a $1000 each. He gets a 1% fee for each loan, or $200 total. From thst 1% fee he pays salaries, utilities, materials, equipment, pensions, depreciation.
Unfortunately one loan goes bad. He is only going to be paid back $19000 that year. What happens?
For a "supposed" manager of many businesses, you sure are naive. FDIC insurance ultimately protected the bankers. If i were an unscrupulous banker, I could recklessly gamble my depositirs money, up to $250000 each AND EVEN IF I LOST IT IN DISHONEST LENDING, my depositors were protected. The banker was protected. This is the textbook definition of private profit, public risk. That was the crux, the underpinning of bankster recklessness.
Socialism would be private profit, public risk on steroids. All the risk, every speck, would be on the public, while all the profit would be for the private. And how would I profit with no real profit? Simply hire friends at your $135000 minimum wage, have them do nothing and and pay them half. I pocket the diff.
Are you involved in some kind of competition where you get points for the most amount of wrong things said on this forum?
I don't understand what motivates you to constantly make comments on this forum that even grade school kids know are wrong.
The FDIC is depositor insurance, not banker insurance. The banker loses their bank. But the depositor does not lose their deposit.
And there are no private profits paid in socialism.
.
"And how would I profit with no real profit? Simply hire friends at your $135000 minimum wage, have them do nothing and and pay them half."
What customers are going to give you all that money to hire your friends to do nothing?
You are not in touch with reality.
You just might be the dumbest or at least most poorly informed person in recent times.
Risking tax payer monies on start ups is begging for economic disaster. Contrary to your misguided notions, capitalists provide a very important role, they take the risk of starting new businesses. By your own admission, new business ventures are fraught with enormous risk. You said it yourself. Public monies need to be ready for infrastructure and pension, and the huge task of running government. Tax payer money used to create economic winners is reckless. There will b economic losers, lots ofthem, and money will be lost in droves.
Please google private profit/ public risk. You need to understand.
Go thru the entire process of building a business and hiring employees, starting with getting a loan.
For the record banks rarely lend money on embryonic businesses, venture capitalists and private equity firms do. Thats thereal vale of capital. So why would a bank end on Apple 30 years ago?
"Go thru the entire process of building a business and hiring employees, starting with getting a loan."
It works the exact same way as it does in capitalism. The only difference is that the money being invested is public money.
.
"For the record banks rarely lend money on embryonic businesses"
A socialist bank will do everything from provide collateralized loans to uncollateralized investment in small start-ups.
Answering another reply of yours: No one is putting up any collateral of their own in your bank. The banker is simply an employee. YOU CANT EVEN GET YOUR OWN SYSTEM CORRECT OR REMEMBER WHAT YOU WROTE!
What a pile of nonsense. How many times have you posted no one should risk their own money, and now that i have you cornered you say bankers have to put up their own money as colateral. If they are putting up their own money,they are capitalists.
Get your lies straight.
FDIC is insurance that exists in capitalism. I was talking about what happens in capitalism, not what happens in socialism.
You brought up the FDIC, not me. I was simply pointing out that the FDIC does not make bankers in capitalism reckless. It is depositor insurance that the banker must buy. And the banker cannot get FDIC insurance if they are being reckless. But the point is that it insures the depositor, not the banker.
In socialism, nobody puts up their own money. Bankers do not put up their own money. There is no FDIC in socialism because it is not necessary.
You don't know how the world works and capitalists are taking advantage of your ignorance. They are taking most of the money you produce.
I own my own business and I personally keep 60% of my gross sales. I make well over $460000 so your system is a loser for me.
In your system no one will createasmall business. Its not worth it.
Anyways i get the last laugh. You have been preaching this for over a year and you havent created one single socialist program.
I win, haha.
"I own my own business and I personally keep 60% of my gross sales. I make well over $460000 so your system is a loser for me."
Judging from your comments, I think you are a complete moron. So I doubt that is true.
But socialism is not a system for the 1%, it is for the 99%. So if you are very wealthy, socialism will not benefit you.
.
"In your system no one will createasmall business. Its not worth it."
Some people want to make more money, so to them, it will be worth it.
Some people want to spend their day building their idea instead of someone else's, so to them, it will be worth it.
.
"You have been preaching this for over a year and you havent created one single socialist program."
You think someone can change the economic system of the US in a year? lol
.
"I win, haha."
No only do I think you are a moron, I also think you are no more than 12 years old.
How would a bank cover loan losses? It cant charge interest. Fees would be used to cover salaries, I guess.
How big a fee might there be on a 30 year mortgage?
Why do you avoid this question?
"Why would ANYONE start a business if all they could earn was $460000 after years of managing and working long long hours, while an entry level worker woud get $115000 for working 40 hours?"
Because they would rather spend their time building their idea than someone else's. And because they can make 4 times the hourly wage.
.
"How big a fee might there be on a 30 year mortgage?"
I don't know. But processing a mortgage can be mostly automated. So the fee will be very small. All you need to do is confirm their income which would be a simple computer look-up. You would spend more on the home inspection.
.
"Why do you avoid this question?"
I haven't avoided answering any of your questions.
Nope, you dont get it. A reckless banker, there were a few you know, could lend out money to whatever wild schemes he wanted and if they paid off, he was richly rewarded. If they failed, the bank was clsed but he lost nothing and neither did the depositors. Say i had 20 deposits of $100000 or $2 million total. I lent out the $2 million on some risky loan. The loan went sour. Who lost? Not me. I didnt put up any of my money. The bank fails, as so many did, and the depositors get their deposits back. The depositors are whole. So who loses. The insurance.
See who was REALLY protected? The dishonest banker. He risked nothing. And if was in cahoots with the borrower he pocketed fees like you mentioned and maybe a kick back.
Thats the real world.
Whack a mole.
"if they paid off, he was richly rewarded. If they failed, the bank was clsed"
That is the way every business works, not just banks.
.
"If they failed, the bank was clsed but he lost nothing"
He lost his bank and all the money and collateral he put in it. So he lost everything.
Maybe our problem is that we spend too much time on our self interest. Maybe we should vote with our neighbors, our children, and our nation in mind, not our selfish interest.
What you and your neighbor need from the economy are the same: a right to a job at full pay, without having to pay half your income to investors and most of what remains to unique workers.
What is best for you and your neighbors is what is best for the nation.
What is best for me is not always best for my neighbor, and frequently not what is best for the nation.
The trend these days is to care less about our neighbors (many people never even speak to their neighbors) and let the Gov take care of them.
Maybe you can give me an example of what you mean.
My neighbor down the block sends her child to Catholic school. She would benefit from a voucher to help pay for tuition. I am a teacher at the local public school. Vouchers threaten my job.
I am retired and collecting SS. I have some savings and the SS is more than I need, but if I think only of my self interest the nation suffers because of the burgeoning debt.
What's best for your neighbors is bottle service at the Electric Room and a Kardashian on their arm.
We need to figure out what is the Next Intelligent Thing To Do-it seems to me we can never,however hard we try,get any progress within this system unless we undertake to amend the constitution to get all the money out of political campaigns.Then at least Democracy would have a fighting chance.I can't believe anybody really believes voting changes anything regardless of what they say.We need to take over the whole campaign finance system and pull the plug on the fucking lobbyists once and for all.Until that happens,nothing will change for the better;instead the deterioration will continue,and accelerate.I have heard that anybody who has 120,000 usd's can buy a Member of Congress...and the price is probably going down-LOL
Hello DemandTheGoodLife.Com,
I see you are holding strong with your belifs and intentions.. while being attack from all angles by trolls looking for your weakness..or just plain trying to wear you down. I admire your strength, courage , and conviction .. and offer to lend you a hand.
May I offer a thought or two ?
With the ideas involved in solicialism, it like many other economic systems have not been successful by many examples.. although Socialism probably had the best intentions, and may still have root /core values greater than all the rest.
The problems come in with open door fairness vs greed ,power and corruption. And this falls in the hands/minds of the human spirit.
An economic solution is surely possible, afterall , it is man made and with that improvements and possibilities are in the mind/hands of man.
DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom, you have made a lot of good strong and valuable points in your arguement for a Socialism type economy.
One of the troubles we face in a civilization of economics, is " who works harder"? Who deserves a greater reward? .. The Banker will say he deserves the greatest reward .. the lawyer will claim the highest reward,.. the investor wants everything.. the school teacher claims to work the hardest, .. the bus driver says he works the hardest .. the plumber ,, ..the electrician .. the factory worker .. the farmer .. .. How do we truly decide who works hardest ? and is there truly one job that deserves a higher reward , when after all it is performed by a human being without racism or prgidous.
The fact is there will be some jobs that will be .."displeasing and perhaps difficult.. and to fill those jobs may require a higher incentive to perform... (But surely a banker is not one of them) And if education, sitting in a classroom studying/reading text books all day somehow deserves a higher reward .. things are certainly upside down. The solution would be to offer a higher reward to those jobs not wanting to be filled. perhaps by a "bid"" we could hand out jobs .. for those willing to work and perform .. example: if we have trouble finding someone to be the janitor we will simply offer more pay until eventually we have enough personnel willing to do the work.. it sounds like a simple solution .. but keep in mind a simple solution is sometimes what we overlook. ..Now when/if, we compare a bankers position to a janitor .. most would possibly prefer the nice cushy comforts of a bankers job and thus we would offer less reward for such a position , while the janitors position would need greater incentive and thus greater reward to fulfill the needed requierments.
And yes , to answer to some of the trolls attacks, we do have a "magicwell" we can print all the money we so desire ../we so earn.
In a system of equality and fairness (A socialism style system) , there would be no shortage of public money, and all jobs and requirements would be fulfilled by "priority, and necessity" .
The closed minded individuals which attack your thoughts and suggestions , I suspiciously believe they have altterior motives to see your plansor as you say" plans that were around for hundreds of years") ..fail.
DemandTheGoodLife, combine your ideas/suggestions with the possibility of an unlimited ability to print public funds . and we may have a very fruitful well balanced socialist style economy/civilization.
The greed of private ownership has long been the result of poverty and suffering..
Your post is eloquent and sincere, but I fear that you're mistaken on a couple of facts. First, the more minor: The current system already utilizes your proposed system for filling unpleasant jobs. If any employer has a vacancy and people don't want to do the work for the money offered, he has no choice but to raise the wages offered until he can find someone willing to take the job. So here, you offer no new thinking.
But that's just a quibble. Your real error is your statement that you can simply print an unlimited amount of money to fund everything. That statement shows you to be the greenest of novices when it comes to economics.
You may think you've hit on something clever with your notion of unlimited money printing, but you're very badly mistaken. A dollar has no intrinsic value -- it's just a piece of paper, or a number on a computer. What it represents is the important thing: It represents a tiny slice of the output of the US economy, and is a coupon you can trade for that slice. Thus, the real value of a dollar is calculated by dividing the total output of the economy by the number of dollars in circulation. Double the number of dollars without increasing the output of the economy and you simply halve the value of every dollar.
You cannot avoid this. Pump extra cash into the economy without raising economic output and the economy will magically soak it up in the form of inflation. The people quickly figure out what's going on, and so in places where governments try this sort of thing there are back-alley currency exchangers where people change local currency into more stable foreign currency at the real exchange value, not the official one; and everybody knows what the real exchange rate is. And the inflation destroys the value of everything that everybody has -- pensions, wages, bank accounts. This process happens unfailingly each and every time this tactic is employed. And it has been employed many times, so we have a rich history of its effects. Turning on the money presses is the oldest trick in the book for governments that have gotten themselves into trouble, and we have a long and sad history of the destruction visited upon the economies and peoples of those countries when it has been tried. Responsible central bankers work very hard to control the money supply to just so as to avoid inadvertently doing this very thing.
You perhaps think you've got some clever way around all of this, but here you'd be mistaken again. All those central bankers that have turned on the presses in the past thought that too, and they were all very badly mistaken. I doubt that you know more than they did.
So before you go around self-righteously calling other people trolls, go to wikipedia and look up the term hyperinflation and study a bit. You have a long way to go before you're ready to jump into a discussion of economic systems.
More generally, to you and to DTGL, DTGL points to an assortment of academic papers (written, I might observe, by professional academics who have themselves not ever run an actual business) and his own unsupported reasoning as evidence that his economic theory is superior. You concur. But can either of you point to any place in the world where this system is being successfully implemented, and people are making the kind of money he claims? If the theory has been around hundreds of year, as you both claim, surely there will have been ample opportunity.
And if you can't, and if you're unwilling or unable to put together some successful socialist enterprises as a proof of concept, why on earth would you expect the people of this country to take the gamble of switching to your system? If it turns out you're mistaken, it could be a catastrophe. How can you expect people to take that gamble with zero real-world evidence of success? Would you fly in an airplane that had never been test-flown? That seems to be what you're asking other people to do.
More fundamentally, why would the people who are highly skilled or highly productive or highly creative buy into this? For the low-paid janitor, it's all upside, with nothing to lose -- their buy-in is easy. But for an engineer or designer who's already making good money, it's a big risk, and if you're mistaken -- and perhaps even if you're not -- it represents a massive transfer of the wealth created by his/her efforts to someone else (and regardless of what YOU think, that is what THEY will think -- they will be far less interested in your notions of social equity than you seem to imagine).
And whatever the merits of paying janitors the big money you propose, you must surely recognize that you can't build a company or an economy with janitors and factory-line workers alone. You MUST have the highly skilled, highly creative people who are already well-compensated; otherwise your line workers will have nothing to make and your janitors nothing to clean. How do you propose to persuade those people that DTGL's system is in their best interests when you can't point to anyplace where it's been successfully implemented and that people in their position haven't suffered from it? Regardless of the theoretical merits of DTGL's proposed system, if he can't answer these questions, he'll never get anywhere.
"First, the more minor: The current system already utilizes your proposed system for filling unpleasant jobs. If any employer has a vacancy and people don't want to do the work for the money offered, he has no choice but to raise the wages offered until he can find someone willing to take the job. So here, you offer no new thinking."
interesting , and if you only look at 'half' the story your point seems valid .. lets try the other half .. a million people would line up to do a bankers job.. and yet he is paid sky high wages ? with the sysytem I have proposed the easy jobs such as banking would show reduced wages .. now as I said, it's looking at the other half of the story .. something you trolls have proved incapable of.. so on that note , I see no point in reading the rest of your comment .. have a nice day.
Of course you don't want to admit reading the rest of it. You've been exposed as a greenhorn, completely out of your league. Thus, you affect a superior dismissiveness. Ah . . . if only everybody else here couldn't see the exchange.
But regrettably for you, they can. You have a nice day also, but study that wikipedia article before you check back in here. It'll save you some embarrassment next time.
You must have a Rubber-Brain bouncing around in that skull of yours ...back and forth.. back and forth , with the same continual..pessimism..
If Everyone' thought like you, we would all be living in CAVES !
...How would the wheel have ever been invented ?
Go away. TROLL
You said: "In socialism, you use public funds, not the private savings of some poor "sap.""
In this case, the sap is the public fisc, and through it the taxpayers that contribute part of their earnings to it. Solyndra is an excellent example of my point. The allocation of investment capital by the government was inevitably corrupted by political considerations, and the money went to politically well-connected donors, notwithstanding that it was common knowledge in the solar industry that the product was already a behind-the-technology-curve dog that would never be cost-competitive.
You socialist theorists universally have a fatal flaw in your analysis: You posit a government that is not only completely honest and incorruptible, and total resistant to political pressure and influence-peddling; but which is also possessed of some unparalleled knowledge and wisdom in finance and economics, such that it will dispense public funds not only impartially and fairly, but with such skill and expertise that it can put a private economy to shame.
A pleasant fantasy, no doubt. Unfortunately, there's no evidence whatsoever that any government anywhere is capable of these things; and anyone who's had occasion to deal with government bureaucrats anywhere knows how truly laughable this fantasy is. Just exactly where do you propose to get all of these remarkable, wise savants who will dispense our money back to us so wisely and justly? Why don't they work for the government now?
Your claim that when investors, who are paid based on performance, work for a capitalist company, they are perfect, create a capital utopia, and are completely immune to political pressure and influence peddling, but when investors, who are paid based on performance, work for a socialist company, they are useless, create a capital dystopia, and are completely corrupted by political pressure and influence peddling is ridiculous and unfounded.
The idea that capital in capitalism is always allocated by merit is laughable given the fact that trillions in wealth are regularly transferred based purely on heredity. Getting trillions in wealth merely because you were born into a wealthy family is the height of influence peddling.
Socialist investors will invest in the best projects because their pay depends on it, just like it does for capitalist investors. The fact that they are using public money instead of private money does not in any way change their incentives.
And since socialism is completely transparent, unlike capitalism where every company hides behind their private status, and since giving out wealth can never be done based on who is your friend or relative, unlike in capitalism where it is done all the time, there will be significantly less influence peddling.
You capitalist apologists are brainwashed by a tiny few at the top to think that unless these few take most of your income and most of the income of all the rest of the workers that society will devolve into an oppressive Stalin dictatorship. They are taking advantage of your gullibility. It is sad.
Ad hominem attacks neither impress or scare me.
Your reply is a non-sequitur, and inaccurate to boot. I never claimed that capitalism or free enterprise were without flaws -- they have many, and the people involved in them are likewise flawed in many ways. You're the one that claims that you've got this foolproof scheme and some selfless geniuses to run it, not me. So who are they? Where do you plan to get them?
Your facts are also wrong. Most of the rich in this country are first generation rich like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, or professional athletes. Your notion of vast numbers of idle hereditary rich is another old those old leftist chestnuts that you all seem so fond of.
But seriously, squabbling aside, how do you intend to convince 300 million people to do this when you can't point to any actual successful implementations of it anyplace? You can't prove it works until you've persuaded 300 million people to go along, but you can't get 300 million people to go along until you've proved it works. Seems like you have a real chicken-and-egg problem on your hands.
Oh, and the difference between waste of public money and waste of private money is key, and fundamental. If I invest my money and the company I invest in is run by fuck-ups, it's my money I lost, voluntarily invested. When it's public money, its money taken from citizens coersively, through the taxation and police power of the government. They have no option of opting out of the investment if they think it's a bad idea.
[Removed]
[Removed]
It's in the best interests of the 99% to defeat the racist right wing. Everything else follows.
How do you define right wing?
Obama and Clinton may be to the left of Romney and Bush, but they are not left wing.
Agreed. In today's climate and context you could argue that there is no left wing at all - yet here we have a candidate who believes that dark skin indicates a curse by his god. He opposes the very concept of telling the truth and acknowledging reality. He bellows that Obama is not "strong" enough, not "decisive" enough.
And look at who the electoral bases are of the two candidates. No doubt the most retrogressive elements are for Romney. Just look at a map delineating red and blue states and compare it to a map of the slaver confederacy. Do they need a shot in the arm or a kick in the slats? I vote for the kick in the slats.
The answer is to stop voting. We elected ourselves into this mess. There's no electoral way our. Stop supporting the system. Stop dreaming of using it to steal from the 1%. It won't work. They will always control the govt & use it to steal from you. http://www.anti-politics.ws/
http://electionboycott2012.org/
You are persistent, i will grant you that.
As are you. The 1%, your rulers, must be very proud of you.
Easy to find out. Ask your neighbors in Alpine, NJ if they are proud of him.
In 2012, Forbes ranked Alpine as America's most expensive ZIP code with a median home price of $4.25 million,[13] after being ranked 4th in the magazine's 2010 listing of "America's Most Expensive ZIP Codes", with a median home price of $3,814,885.[14] In 2009, Forbes ranked Alpine first, along with Greenwich, Connecticut, with a median home price of $4.14 million.[15] Alpine was tied with Greenwich for first in both 2006 and 2007 on the ABC News list of most expensive ZIP codes, with a median home sale price of $3.4 million.
I don't need to ask. I know they are very proud of him. He is fully indoctrinated and will continue to make them wealthy.
YEA meaningless slogans to make us feel good. Whatever makes you feel good
Meaningless slogans? Try again.
Here are some very real facts:
Since the rulers own all the media and politicians, they are in full control of the propaganda. So they convinced you and many like you that none of this is going on.
They have convinced you it is not theft, it is the way it has to be. And more powerfully, they convinced you that anyone can join their ranks, and get a cut of the exploitation, if they are just willing to work hard enough.
However, if the ruled working class ever gets educated on basic economic facts like the fact that they produce $65 per hour and they do not have to pay any tribute to rulers and workers should get paid based on how hard they work not how lucky or unique they are, the long reign of the ruling class, a parasitical group that provides nothing of value to society, which existed throughout all of history will finally come to an end.
Excellent points.
(The podboy is clearly a right wing wacko republican hack so take his comments with that in mind.)
So all you want to do is switch rulers, then they will turn into the same thing you just or rid of. "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss". They 100% huh? They put up their personal money to start the bus. And all the other things that go into making a bus. ? Not even close, I would suggest you start your own company and run it like you want and all your personal money on the line and the lets how long you stay afloat.
You have been subjected to a lifetime of propaganda by the ruling class. So you are fully indoctrinated.
But a system where workers are all equal owners in the economy means there are no rulers.
It means workers get paid 100% of the income they produce, they no longer have to pay half their income to the rulers as tribute. Workers do not have to pay interest, profit or rent to any owning class.
The solution to 18% underemployment, 50% getting paid less than $16 per hour and 50% living in or near poverty and 55% wasting their life in pointless jobs that machines can do is not for oppressed workers to risk their life savings so they have a shot at joining the ruling class and getting a piece of worker exploitation. The solution is to get rid of the rulers and their absurd capitalist system of exploiting workers.
But all workers provide is labor they didn't provide the capital to start the bus. You may want to have your water tested for lead, you seem to think buss. Just pop out of the sky. Again I challenge you to take everything you have if value and put it up to start a buss. And run it he way you talk.
Investment money does nothing. Workers do everything.
Investment money does not leap out of the ruler's pocket and mine material, farm food, manufacture goods and build infrastructure. Workers do all of that.
Workers produce everything. Investment money just forces workers to send half of what they produce to the rulers.
If we eliminated workers, production comes to halt, nothing gets done, GDP goes to zero.
Without workers, investment money is worthless paper. But workers can get by just fine without investors.
If we eliminated workers having to pay tribute to their rulers, all production continues without missing a beat. Workers do not need investors. They do not need rulers. They do not need to pay tribute to anyone in order for their work to be productive.
Its really easy to eliminate workers, its much harder to eliminate the owners of the tools that allow workers to produce.
Whats the most valuable thing in the following example A man felling a tree with an axe, a man felling a tree with a chainsaw?
Clearly its the chain saw. Its the tool that allows any man to fell trees quickly.
Who is more valuable, the janitor cleaning the Sears tower or the architect and capitalists who provided the funding to build it.
Clearly the capitalists and the architect. The janitor is virtually worthless.
"Whats the most valuable thing in the following example A man felling a tree with an axe, a man felling a tree with a chainsaw?"
Hey Einstein, they are BOTH workers.
.
"Who is more valuable, the janitor cleaning the Sears tower or the architect and capitalists who provided the funding to build it."
The janitor and architect are both workers. They are both required in constructing and cleaning buildings. The capitalist is not. The capitalist does no work. The capitalist is a parasite that contributes nothing useful to society. They just live off the backs of workers.
Put a million investors together with no workers and they will produce absolutely nothing.
Put a million workers together with no investors and they will produce everything.
You are so brainwashed by your rulers, you don't even know what a worker is and how things are made.
And neither worker is as useful as the chainsaw.
Lets use another example ( I love wacking you, like a wackamole)
I put up the money build a motel on a busy highway. I own the motel. The workers that built it get paid once. I keep raking in bank, because I am the capitalst that invested the money shwredly and people keep paying me rent. (Actually i bought some houses whrn real estate plummeted and now I rake in rent and will continue until I give it to my lucky kids). People need housing, but they dont need a maid so i fire the maids and increase my profit. The peopke need my housing, they dont need my maids. Perfect!
"And neither worker is as useful as the chainsaw."
Hey Einstein, the worker made that chainsaw, not the investor.
And it is the worker that wields that chainsaw in cutting wood, not the investor.
.
"Lets use another example ( I love wacking you, like a wackamole)"
Your perception of whether you are whacking me or not is about as accurate as your spelling of whacking and as accurate as your understanding of what a worker does.
.
"I put up the money build a motel...I own the motel...and people keep paying me rent."
Great, at least you understand what capitalism is.
In socialism, workers build the motel without your private savings. And since nobody has to put up their private savings in order for workers to build hotels, they no longer have to pay anyone profit, interest and rent.
Workers will no longer have to pay half their income to investors.
Some of those workers will get paid to measure demand for any good or service like motel rooms, and some of those workers will get paid based on how well they meet that demand. But that is all that is necessary in creating an economy that meets consumer demand. We don't need to pay anyone billions in income to figure out what the market is demanding.
In another post, you said this mythical central bank will use savers money to lend. Now no one has to put up their private savings. Hmmm? Another of your contradictions.
Since the Fed is using the public's total savings, nobody has to put up their private individual savings.
If you don't understand what that means, and there is no reason for me to think that you would be able to understand any of this, you can read this comment where it is explained in full.
I know exactly how you think this might work. This mythical bank will guesstimate the total money saved by workers ( how they will figure this out will be quite a trick since no one will put money into a bank that doesnt pay interest) and lend out an equal amount.
However that is instantly highly inflationary, since the bank will have to print money to do a loan AND increase the money supply.
No one will have to pay rent at this public motel? You are certifiably nuts. How will it survive?
Hook me up with a hotel on the beach in Maui! No rent, what could be better!
Consumers will have to pay for the cost of building and maintaining the motel. And 100% of that consumer revenue is paid to the workers who built and maintain it. None will go towards rent. Try and follow along.
So they will pay rent. Paying to live in housing is RENT. The building might be paid off in say 5 years. Now where does the rent go? Nowadays the folks that borrowed the money to build it pay off the mortgage and after thats done, they get to collect a profit.
Where do the consumers get the money to "pay for the cost of building and maintaining" the motel in the first place? And why do they HAVE to pay for it?
If 100% of the consumer revenue goes to the workers-who pays for the materials, the supplies, the hammers and nails? The taxes, the trucks, the road to the hotel, the electricity the water etc? Who pays for the cleaning supplies and advertising etc?
If I have to pay for all that stuff, then I won't have the money to be able to STAY in that hotel so where does your future income-come from?
Investment money does nothing ? Wow really I suppose all that equipment just appears out of thin air, training workers that just comes from thin air too.
No, investors don't make equipment appear out of thin air. All equipment is made by workers. It is not made by investors.
And investors don't train workers either. Workers train other workers.
People, union retirement funds, Calpers, all are investors providing capital for creation of business and business growth.
You bewildering idea that workers provide all the growth is a myth. Capital, meaning tools, robots, materials, energy, buildings, all are more valuable than labor. You saying it wont change reality.
Look at farming. 150 years ago, it was one farmer busting his ass trying to eke out subsistence on 160 acres. Now its massive machines doing almost all the work. Progress and productivity is based on capital formation (a combine or giant thresher or earth mover) not labor.
Unskilled workers are replaced in a heartbeat. It behooves all workers to acquire skills that arent easily replaced and remain in demand.
Look at retail clerks, 35 years ago they needed real skills, know the keys on a register, know the prices of all items and process as many goods as quickly as possible. Now all they do is scan tags. Machines do the rest. Stores now mostly have self service aisles lie Home Depot. A clerk is being replaced by a machine as we speak.
You socialists wish for an era that is long gone. American workers who are unskilled are at the mercy of the smart people, the capitalists and investors and nothing will change that.
People intrinsically know a surgeon is 100s of times more valuable than a janitor. Even the janitor defers to the intellect and superiority of the surgeon. Someone who changes bedpans is a flea compared to a physician. Or next time you are ill, go to Molly Maids for care.
"You bewildering idea that workers provide all the growth is a myth. Capital, meaning tools, robots, materials, energy, buildings, all are more valuable than labor."
Where do you think these tools, robots, materials, energy and buildings come from?
Do they come from the capital fairy?
Do investors chant a spell that turns their money into all of the above?
Do they just magically materialize after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 3 hours straight?
No. All of it is produced BY LABOR!
You have no clue how the world works and rich people are taking advantage of your ignorance.
.
"People intrinsically know a surgeon is 100s of times more valuable than a janitor"
And how do these people feel about Kim Kardashian getting paid hundreds of times more than surgeons? Do they intrinsically know she is more valuable too?
The truth is people intrinsically know that socialism, where you pay workers based on how hard they work, is a fairer system than capitalism, where you pay workers based on how unique you are.
Investors pay for all of the above. Not workers lol
Yes, investors pay for that in a capitalist system. And in exchange for paying for it, they collect half the income workers produce.
In a socialist system, investment will come from a public bank, as explained here, that will provide workers with public investment money without workers having to pay any profit or interest in return.
So workers can work in a capitalist system where they have to pay half their income to private investors and half of them live in or near poverty.
Or they can work in a socialist system where they can keep 100% of their income (which would raise the minimum income to over $100k and reduce the week to 20 hours) and get their investment money for free from a public bank.
I think socialism is a much better deal for workers.
Investment money for free? Are you Moabites in some way I'm not aware of?
I don't know what that means.
Auto correct from iphone5 is not all its cracked up to be. " Impaired"
No, you're not getting it. There is more than capital involved in production. The capitalist purchases the capital portion, the equipment, per se, but he needs labor. Labor is the other large item and how labor is valued is a huge piece of the profit puzzle. In the United States workers are exploited through low wages, wages that have been declining for 40 years. Get it? The capitalists exploit workers to extract larger shares of the profit. It does not have to be this way. Workers should be paid fairly for their contribution to the profit.
'Extract' is the key term and concept in your brilliant and succinct comment. It is happening at every level - from resources and habitat to 'devaluing labour' and fleecing workers and savers. The Bailout Of Private Corporate Banks from 'the public purse' is the final insult to injury that should be beyond all and any further toleration -you'd think but apathy, ignorance and propaganda persist and prevail ... for now !!
Please consider :
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-stuff/ &
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-broke/ from
http://www.storyofstuff.org/ .
fiat justitia ruat caelum ...
Thanks for those excellent and educational links and also for highlighting the exploitation of banks on savers. Very similar to the exploitation of the worker by the employer for the extraction of profits are the banks that extract profits through usury interest rates, fiat money, and the like.
Yes "exploitation" is The Key Issue as you and 'DTGL.com' point out so well here and previous models of 'capitalist exploitation' has now morphed and metastasised into 'Vampiric Predatory Extraction Crapitalism' - and frankly 'bw', this just will not do !!!
Therefore : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-F2HKLzB6c !!
verum ex absurdo !
: )
No worries, ;). It was funny.
Ok, 'gwabbit it's a wabbit' are my last words on the matter :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW4qiJuZs6Q ...
lol et fin ;-)
Okay, yup, that one was funnier, omg. LOLOL.
LOLOL !!! We'll just leave it there, shall we ?!! <blush> !
That link down below is very funny. LOL. "Down with this sort of thing!"
Oh & dhoh !! I thought you said 'link down' & oooh-er, sowwy for wudeness, re. new link !
too embarrssed for latin, lol ...
Try this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM - but it's the longer ruder version !!!
ergo caveat lol ...
You don't get it none of it happens without capital ..... No equipment no workers no nothing.
It is funny that your typo in the word "argument" below became "argent" which means "money" in French. That's all you care about, you refuse to see my point that people matter.
If I started a business and applied what I preached I would merely be paying my workers a decent wage and extracting enough profit for myself to live and grow the business, not be a greedy s.o.b.
No you would go bankrupt, you still can't argue effectively that without capital none of t happens. So are you going to put everything you have worked for in life up and risk it all so you can start a buss. And follow your own preaching?
"Workers come after not before." That is crazy. What came first, the chicken or the egg, what does that matter? The big difference between capital and workers is that workers are human beings. Profits should be shared with them fairly through fair wages so they can live decent lives.
I was going to use the egg reference! What matters is nothing starts without capital tey getting equipment and workers without capital. Have you ever owned a business? You should really try it an apply what you preach and see how long you stay in business. No one has to be a worker if they chose not to so your argent is weak at best.
You need both. No workers, no working equipment, no nothing. You are the one that doesn't get it.
Workers do not have to stay at a job if they don't like it they can leave. I would like to see workers do anything without pay, get equipment without pay. So you don't eT it without capital it never starts. Workers come after not before.
you're trying to reason with someone incapable of reason.
Unless you are a wealthy investor, you are not benefiting from a capitalist system where you have to pay half your income to investors.
Workers can work in a capitalist system where they have to pay half their income to private investors and half of them live in or near poverty.
Or they can work in a socialist system where they can keep 100% of their income (which would raise the minimum income to over $100k and reduce the week to 20 hours) and get their investment money for free from a public bank.
Understand that investors own all the media and they are using that to brainwash workers into choosing the former so they can take most of the wealth labor creates.
Which country in the World currently uses an economic system closest to what you think would be best?
There are none. Every country is capitalist with a few dictator-led command economies.
I don't except them to use reason. I just like making them Angry.
doesnt take much to tick off rabid dogs.
Heheh an it entertaining.
Investment money bought Demand a house in Alpine NJ. Don't listen to him.
All the more reason to listen to me. I'm interested in what is fair and what is right, not what is going to line my pockets.
Unline them pockets first, then I'll listen. Rich Dems and Socialists always go on about how unfair it is that so many have so little, but if you notice, they always keep their money.
Sort of like Soros & Moore & Carter & Gates & Buffet & Ben & Jerry
And Kennedy, Kerry, Roosevelt, Kerry, Pelosi
Yes, advocating socialism is my diabolical plan to keep my capitalist wealth.
Hat tip: They probably keep their money because they need it to survive and live well.
I guess Sean Penn's $3.8 million home is roughing it by your standards, Uncle Pennybags.
Are we having the same conversation?
Living in a $3.8 million home is not roughing it.
Selling it and becoming homeless is.
Selling it, buying a modest home and giving the rest of the money to help out the less fortunate would be nice. Or I guess you could just talk a good game while living it up in Alpine while the workers suffer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/11/alpine-most-expensive-place-america
http://www.forbes.com/2005/02/14/cx_sc_0214how.html
"Alpine is one of the richest towns in the country. It has just one school and no commercial area, but it abounds with spanking-new mansions. The residents so value their privacy that there are no mailboxes on the homes--all letters must be picked up at the post office. But a source says that Stevie Wonder has lived in Alpine for many years. Other celebrity home owners, according to public records, are Yankees outfielder Gary Sheffield and his wife, DeLeon Richards; actor/comedian Chris Rock and his wife, Malaak; and hip-hop mogul Sean Combs, who reportedly paid more than $10 million for a 21-room mansion last year. "
all paid for on the backs of the working class
I advocate replacing capitalism with socialism. That is not going to happen by me donating money to the less fortunate.
My complaint is with the system and the people who want to continue it, not the people who are forced to live within it.
And socialism does not mean you can't live in Alpine or in a mansion.
No, you are only interested in what YOU BELIEVE to be "fair and right" with total and complete disregard for for anything or anyone that doesn't line up with YOUR definitions.
Many people do not believe, and never WILL believe that socialism is good, or even DOABLE no matter how many times you put the word "FACT" in front of one of your declarations.
Your constant insistence that the 99% of this country have been brainwashed or is stupid or blind or has NO CLUE about what is in their OWN "best interest" is insulting! If the 99% truly ARE that capable of being manipulated-then you are just the next "machine" trying to control them. If they aren't-they just find all your posts and grandiose claims of fairness and "right" completely condescending and false.
"No, you are only interested in what YOU BELIEVE to be "fair and right" with total and complete disregard for for anything or anyone that doesn't line up with YOUR definitions. "
Since workers do 100% of the work and produce 100% of our goods and services, I think it is fair that they should get paid 100% of the income.
If you think capitalism, a system that pays workers half the income and investors - a useless parasitical class who do zero work - the other half, is fair, I am going to disagree with you.
And since the purpose of income is to motivate people to work and work hard, I believe it is only fair that those workers should get paid based on how hard they work.
If you think capitalism, a system which pays workers based on how unique they are is more fairer system, I am going to disagree with you.
.
"Many people do not believe, and never WILL believe that socialism is good"
That is because the investors, who want to take most of the income workers create, own all the media and they use that media to convince workers that socialism is something that it is not.
Investors do not want to lose out on their free ride in society. And if workers demanded socialism, their free ride would come to an end.
If workers understood that socialism is just a system that pays workers 100% of the income, since they do 100% of the work, which pays no income to investors since they do no work, and which pays you based on how hard you work, not based on how lucky or unique you are, they would in fact believe socialism is good.
.
"or even DOABLE no matter how many times you put the word "FACT" in front of one of your declarations."
Every aspect of democratic market socialism is already proven to work in theory and in practice.
Oskar Lange demonstrated that a socialist market is more efficient than a capitalist market in the famous Economic Calculation Debate with Mises and Hayek.
And we already have all the components of market socialism successfully working in practice. We already have absentee owners in publicly owned companies, pay based on difficulty and performance, market allocation of goods and services, companies that must remain profitable, and investors paid based on financial performance of investments.
The only difference between a socialist system and a capitalist system is that the money being invested is public instead of private. And this won't make any difference because investment bankers could care less where the money they need to invest comes from. It does not affect their job at all.
.
"Your constant insistence that the 99% of this country have been brainwashed or is stupid or blind or has NO CLUE about what is in their OWN "best interest" is insulting! If the 99% truly ARE that capable of being manipulated-then you are just the next "machine" trying to control them. "
You are being naive if you don't think the owners, who own all the media, have an incentive to only promote a system where they remain the owners.
The owners of the media are never going to use the media they own to advocate for a system where they are no longer the owners.
I never said the 99% were stupid.
Yes, I want to change public opinion just like the current owners do.
The difference is that the owners want to take your money and make you poor, I want to do just the opposite.
If you think your best interests are served by continuing to pay most of your income to owners and being broke, then continue to vote for capitalism.
If you think your best interests are served by getting paid 100% of what you produce which would raise your minimum income to over $100k and reduce the week to 20 hours, then vote for socialism.
You do realize that it isn't just the wealthy one percent that make money off of investments? Anyone with internet access can become a big bad investor and make money off the backs of others.
If everyone made a 5% return on the 5% of their income they saved, it would represent a very small percentage of the economy and likely would not be an issue.
But not everyone can be a big bad investor that makes billions for programming a website or $20 million per year from leveraged buyouts you did a couple of decades ago. Investors are now paid half the income workers produce. So it is now a significant problem.
you stated the " tolerance " of the left perfectly
For a word they like to use so much, it's glaring how seldom anyone can actually apply it to them or their behavior.
Kinda like Obama and "fair". Fair share, fair shot, etc. I sure wish a debate moderator would push him to define "fair" instead of pushing for the details of Romney's tax plans.
they have a very narrow definition.
Here's a link to a really HUGE example of more tolerance, in a thread ALL about tolerance-enjoy
http://occupywallst.org/forum/white-might-white-right-white-fright-white-flight/#comment-854815
thanks for the link.
I wonder if he lives here
http://homesoftherich.net/2012/08/newly-listed-18-5-million-22000-square-foot-colonial-in-alpine-nj/
I think he lives in Joe Biden's head and that condescending, patronizing attitude, and incredibly offensive suggestion that "his way" is the only "true and fair" way will ALWAYS be what pushes people away from even bothering to listen to him.
No actually that makes you a hypocrite.
Not surprisingly, you do not know the definition of a hypocrite.
I advocate that we should change our economic system from capitalist to socialist. I do not advocate that people should give away all their money.
Try again.
Actually it does make you a hypocrite, I can see why you left out the fact Marv pointed out.
If you can point to a comment or post I made that says people living in a capitalist system should give away their money and homes, then yes I will be a hypocrite for not doing the same.
But you will not find that comment or post.
What he is saying is that it was ok to make millions through investing when he did it. Now it's wrong and has to stop. The money he made is not evil, nor is he, because it was ok then, so he gets to keep it. If you or I wanted to do it so we could live like him, no way. Evil evil evil. The workers deserve better.
Like any good comedy, it's all about timing.
We live in a capitalist system, not a socialist system.
So you have to invest your private savings and you have to pay people a return to get them to do that.
I don't advocate that people should invest their money and not get paid a return. You don't understand what it is I advocate. Read the post again.
Yep typical socialists luv to spend others money, do as I say not as I do
100% of our wealth comes from labor.
Capitalism is a system that allows investors, who do zero labor, to take the income that workers produce.
Capitalism is a system that enables investors to take and spend labor's money.
However, since investors own all the media, they are trying to convince the public of just the opposite. Given your comment, they have successfully brainwashed you into thinking that.
They are taking advantage of your gullibility.