Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Jay-Z confused by Occupy Wall Street, 'What are you fighting for?'   ( nydailynews.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Occupy Wall Street, Jay Z, Russell Simmons, fixed rate mortgage, Zuccotti Park, demonization  
•       •       •

15656 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 5:59 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



433 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-09-10 01:28:43 AM  

ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY


His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

There are many more things wrong with this country, and in this time. They have been multiplying like roaches for the past 50 years or more, and don't have just one explanation, definition or bumper-sticker platitude.

Ghandi's bumper sticker would read simply "PEACE". Things are a bit more complex today.
 
2012-09-10 01:30:08 AM  

rewind2846: I think I might understand him just a little better... where he's from is where I'm from. Crack dealers, pimps and hos, saw three people killed before my tenth birthday. One was a distant relative. Two of my cousins are crackheads, haven't seen them in over 15 years. They stole their own mother's welfare checks for their habit. One of my brothers was one too, he shook the habit and has been clean since 1993. To get out I joined the navy, traveled the world and now have two degrees and a decent job... and yet somehow I understand what OWS is about.

Why doesn't he?


Interesting... I also joined the Navy and have 2 degrees (serious), I also understand what OWS is about, I also belive Jay Z does as well.... What I am referring to is how they're going about it. The tactics are... Old... they may have worked back in the 60's but they're passé: the police and media have been able to adapt and control to this technique since the 80's.

You're an (ex) military man: the military doesn't use the same tactics as they did in WW2 or Vietnam. However, the protestors are.

Look at StoPPeRmobile's post... he's still hung up on Gandhi: his tactics may be outdated, but look at what he accomplished: he managed to get his message out to several hundred million people. He didn't have internet. The official media of the time was against him too. And yet, he got his message through to several hundred million people. He didn't wait for them to "go find out for themselves": he found multiple ways to communicate with and recruit millions of people of disparate backgrounds -most of who were illiterate- into a united movement. Sitting around, camping out, holding signs, and waiting for everyone else to "find out for themselves"? That's not even trying.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:19 AM  

rewind2846: ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY

His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

There are many more things wrong with this country, and in this time. They have been multiplying like roaches for the past 50 years or more, and don't have just one explanation, definition or bumper-sticker platitude.

Ghandi's bumper sticker would read simply "PEACE". Things are a bit more complex today.


Agreed: Gandhi may have been able to get the British out of India, but even he had his limits.

/Still one of the greatest human beings who ever lived.
 
2012-09-10 01:35:44 AM  

rewind2846: ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY

His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

There are many more things wrong with this country, and in this time. They have been multiplying like roaches for the past 50 years or more, and don't have just one explanation, definition or bumper-sticker platitude.

Ghandi's bumper sticker would read simply "PEACE". Things are a bit more complex today.


That's just war talk.

It is as it has always been.

Dicks talking their way out of working in the fields.
 
2012-09-10 01:37:35 AM  

FloydA: joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.


Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government money went into the invention of both.

Also, using those tools to fight against corporate influence is not hypocritical just because a corporation produced them if the net impact of using the product furthers one's own goal more than the purchase of the product furthers that of the corporation's.

Also, Occupy was/is more about raising awareness and making a statement of public opinion re: wealth distribution and a broken political structure than about actively undermining any specific entities.

In short, stop being a dumbass. The fact that politicians are shying away from giving the 1% another tax break is proof that Occupy accomplished something.
 
2012-09-10 02:02:04 AM  
rocky_howard:
I'm willing to give Capitalism the benefit of doubt because I like several of its precepts/effects, but if what we've been seeing with the war profiteering and the banking crisis is what this is about, then we need something new. And no, it's not Communism. Something that shares those things we like about Capitalism, because they are good. I'm gonna give it and call what the 1% does Abject Capitalism.

What you are describing is not capitalism, but crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is like capitalism, after a fashion, but the government becomes massively intrusive into business affairs, and controls the relative advantage various companies have, sometimes as simply as by making so many regulations that any company that is not huge cannot afford to track them all. Various companies then become chummy with the government in exchange for being on the "right" side of the government enforcers. Think GE stumping for Obama, and paying no taxes on a massive profit.

Crony capitalism is the model for NAZI Germany -- Several large companies got lots of control over industry through the power of the government, to which they sucked up. This binding between large corporations and an intrusive, nanny-state government is anathema to capitalism and the free market, and is pretty much the same as socialism, only with better, non-governmental managers.


I also like to go back to something I said to another person, the language misdirection. The establishment has tried for a long time to equate Democracy with Capitalism, obviously as a mean to deter people from even thinking about any other option. The "Why you hate America?" conundrum. Is it possible to have Democracy without Capitalism? I think so. Is it possible to have Democracy without Abject Capitalism? I want it so.

Hang on to your shorts -- we DON'T have democracy. We have a republic. Thank God. And, yes, political systems can be totally independent from economic systems. China, for example, is still a brutal communist state -- but they've adopted capitalism, because it works ever so much better than the dreary socialist demand economy they used to use. They learned from Hong Kong, of course, and are quick studies. They are now kicking serious butt on the world economic front, and have a lot of expanding to do.
 
2012-09-10 02:05:28 AM  
"One percent" vs."Ninety-nine percent" only really makes sense within the context of the American tax debates circa 2010. That's what really got on my wick about people who tried to transplant the Occupy "movement" elsewhere- they forgot that they have their own local politics and their own, more relevant slogans.

/Somewhere within the top 3% worldwide
 
2012-09-10 02:06:24 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.

I'm pretty sure he has at least a little intelligence, enough to not outright say that American citizens should be killed en masse because he doesn't like them and what they think. It's really obvious that's what he meant, considering his was shiatting himself in self-generated rage every time he mentioned OWS.

Oh, I get it. You figured it out, just like the Storm Front people figured out that socialists are filthy scum that only want to destroy the greatest country on Earth for their Soviet and Cuban overlords. In other words, you just yank it out of your butt, and claim to know what other people are thinking.

Got it.
 
2012-09-10 02:09:33 AM  

Z-clipped: FloydA: joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.

Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government money went into the invention of both.

Also, using those tools to fight against corporate influence is not hypocritical just because a corporation produced them if the net impact of using the product furthers one's own goal more than the purchase of the product furthers that of the corporation's.

Also, Occupy was/is more about raising awareness and making a statement of public opinion re: wealth distribution and a broken political structure than about actively undermining any specific entities.

In short, stop being a dumbass. The fact that politicians are shying away from giving the 1% another tax break is proof that Occupy accomplished something.


Two can play that game, too.

Your assumption that governemnt is 100% responsible for computers and the Internet and corporations were just back seat drivers is wrong. I am going to use your logic. Harnessing electricity had 0 to do with gov. It was all private business. Without electricity, how could have the government invent computers and the Internet? Electricity is the product of capitalism

Your move, and I believe that is check mate
 
2012-09-10 02:17:05 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Yeah, he was a farking moran.


[Ghandi.jpg]

Don't forget that Ghandi benefitted from the fact that the British were somewhat inclined to be sympathetic to his cause. You can't hunger strike a tyrant. Hitler would have laughed at him while he starved. It's important to size up who you are dealing with when you conjure your tactics.
 
2012-09-10 02:20:01 AM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.

While you're trying to imagine his medical bills, how about trying to imagine that he is a radio performer with an act that attracts people and makes him a good deal of money. His "rage" could easily be simply part of his job description, and he doesn't get any more worked up over it than he does his lunch bill.

Of course, I do not know the man, so this is all conjecture. The point is, it is conjecture for YOU, as well. I'm willing to bet you know Savage about as well as I do... and that being having listened to part of his show a couple times. You're talking with total assurance about a subject of which you cannot have first-hand knowledge. I claim you would appear smarter if you quit.


Hey, he chose to be an "actor" (funny that Rush also calls himself this in between telling people to wage war to take back America while preaching fear and hate) that specializes in venomously attacking and demonizing his fellow Americans. I chose to see him as a piece of worthless shiat that offers nothing to the world. Maybe he's a wonderful family man, maybe he personally bottle-feeds puppies at the local shelter. He's the one who decided to be a radio star by being a complete bug-farking dick towards the world, so I think he's trash. Simple as that.

Let's take this in small steps. Okay, now you are showing that you know that Savage and Limbaugh are ACTORS. They both have good careers. Now for the hard part. Think about it -- are actors, while they are acting, always telling you what their true feelings are?


And stop trying to be ass-holier than me, Jim, you're really bad at it.

Yeah, I know... never screw with the Master. (Fixed for greater accuracy and specificity.)
 
2012-09-10 02:25:14 AM  

Z-clipped: Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government Department of Defense money went into the invention of both.


Yes, a lot of "government" money went into the development of Computers and the internet. And it all originated from the military-industrial complex. Initially, they were developed exclusively as weapons of war: the computer to design fighter aircraft (Germany), crack codes (UK) and help engineer the atomic bomb (US). The ARPANET was developed to provide decentralized military communication in case of nuclear war. Any other social/commercial benefit was ancillary.


/Hurray War!
 
2012-09-10 02:42:25 AM  

ScreamingHangover: Z-clipped:

/Hurray War!


In fairness, war has certainly led to some brilliant inventions throughout the history of civilisation. It's a very motivating circumstance to be stuck in, if ever there was a positive spin you could put on a fairly unfortunate situation. Whether your fighting it, avoiding it or working behind the scenes, you're generally more productive than in peacetime.
 
2012-09-10 02:43:23 AM  
I thought they were an autonomous collective?
 
2012-09-10 02:52:19 AM  

Aussie_As: ScreamingHangover: Z-clipped:

/Hurray War!

In fairness, war has certainly led to some brilliant inventions throughout the history of civilisation. It's a very motivating circumstance to be stuck in, if ever there was a positive spin you could put on a fairly unfortunate situation. Whether your fighting it, avoiding it or working behind the scenes, you're generally more productive than in peacetime.


It always blows my mind how they managed to create and execute D-Day... over 130,00 people in a day: 1 million in a month... Just think of that from a logistical standpoint: coordinating the troops, equipment, supplies, transportation...

And to think they did it with telephones, telegraph and the occasional analog radio. I don't think this is possible today.

And they even managed to keep the dates and locations a complete surprise to the Germans.
 
2012-09-10 03:47:18 AM  

halfof33: Did Fark get a history tab?

Occupy? How retro.



You always jump on here and claim they're ancient history. This just shows you only get your information from the mainstream media.
 
2012-09-10 03:48:36 AM  
o5iiawah:
Your rage shouldn't be against the corporations or the bankers but at the politicians who crawl in bed with them. In the absence of a politician who writes favorable legislation, creates barriers to entry in the market or directs public funds or insures the bets of a private company, a corporation or a bank can only offer you a job you're not forced to take or a product you're not forced to buy. When government is constrained by its constitutional limits, there's no point in a bank buying a congressman to write favorable mortgage regulations because "ensuring everyone can afford to own a home" is not a function of congress and there's nothing the congressman can do

Sure the banks got greedy. They only did so when the government decided it would shoulder the burden of the losses on the public. When you remove the penalty of failure from any entity you get reckless decision-making.

it is far easier and more lucrative to loot than it is to diligently toil

Wise you are in the ways of the financial force.
 
2012-09-10 03:51:35 AM  

ScreamingHangover: Yes, a lot of "government" money went into the development of Computers and the internet. And it all originated from the military-industrial complex. Initially, they were developed exclusively as weapons of war: the computer to design fighter aircraft (Germany), crack codes (UK) and help engineer the atomic bomb (US). The ARPANET was developed to provide decentralized military communication in case of nuclear war. Any other social/commercial benefit was ancillary.


/Hurray War!



It didn't matter it was defense money. It was merely government research money, the same research money thrown out today by the NIH and other agencies. Besides, the idea of computers in the first place wouldn't have been possible without the scientific breakthroughs of research years earlier not funded by any military or for any war. Government giving out funding for scientific research is always a good thing, if there wasn't a war or a military industrial complex, the technology would have been found by these same scientists working in labs in universities.
 
2012-09-10 03:55:14 AM  

cman: Electricity is the product of capitalism

Your move, and I believe that is check mate


Hardly since both writing and printing books weren't a product of capitalism and they are the cornerstone of human knowledge.
Ditto for math and language.

BAM!!
 
2012-09-10 04:11:37 AM  
Magnus:
You say that a regulated as well as an unregulated market can exist side by side. I don't see it. I think the money will migrate toward the market that they can trust is not rigged against them.

Meh. You're saying that the regulated market will be BIGGER than the unregulated one. Could be, doesn't matter.

Personally, I think you aren't understanding the statement. Currently, we HAVE both -- checking and savings accounts covered by FDIC, the same with credit union accounts. For unregulated, we have the stock market. Now, before you go ballistic, YEAH, there are rules -- as in fraud prevention, mostly. But the government does not tell you what stocks you can buy, or what minimum P/E is required for trading, or anything like that. Nor do they guarantee that you won't lose your investment.

Again, the problem comes when "wild and wooly" investments are available without government oversight, and then the losses are covered by the taxpayer. Whatever cockamamie crap derivative they want to sell, I say, have at it, as long as they don't lie about what it is. By the way, the RATINGS houses called the crap housing bubble froth good enough to use by retirement account managers. I'd say some people deserve to go to jail for THAT little fiasco. And the same twerps that said that packaging a bunch of turds in one box turned them into chocolate cake are the people who then downgraded U.S. credit after we taxpayers ate their "cakes." Hmm. Maybe we should skip the jail, and just feed them to crocodiles.

But, savings accounts held under government supervision, required to maintain conservative fractional reserves, and then guaranteed by the federal government is a function I would allow government to do. Some people want that level of protection, and are willing to lower their return to be that safe. Fine.

And, letting the "wild west" happen as well, where 'you pays your money and you takes your chances' is the rule is also fine by me -- as long as it is portrayed accurately. "Historically, you would make 20% ROI every year, but there's a 10% chance that if you keep this fund for five years, you will lose money." is okay by me. If people are too stupid to figure out what the disclosures mean, they should either NOT BUY the dammed things, or hire someone who DOES understand it as an adviser.
 
2012-09-10 04:25:05 AM  
If you expect me to bite on a strawman, you're going to have to be about 1000 times less obvious about it.

I live with my mom for phoning it in
 
2012-09-10 04:44:08 AM  

ScreamingHangover: Z-clipped: Also, computers and the internet are not "products of capitalism". Enormous amounts of government Department of Defense money went into the invention of both.

Yes, a lot of "government" money went into the development of Computers and the internet. And it all originated from the military-industrial complex. Initially, they were developed exclusively as weapons of war: the computer to design fighter aircraft (Germany), crack codes (UK) and help engineer the atomic bomb (US). The ARPANET was developed to provide decentralized military communication in case of nuclear war. Any other social/commercial benefit was ancillary.


/Hurray War!


Why the scare quotes? Is military research somehow not funded by taxpayers? The point is that those two things are not even close to being good examples of products of private industry, or the free market.

The OP's premise aside, it would have been at least more accurate to call Occupiers hypocritical for using lightbulbs, though that example does tend to show how stupid the whole argument is to begin with.

War between governments is about as "socialist" an endeavor as you can get.
 
2012-09-10 05:00:29 AM  

Silly Jesus: FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.

Have they presented any viable solutions or is the extent of their goals to draw attention to the existence of said problems?


Given that just a few generations ago people were getting McCarthy-ed for daring to criticize our economic and political scehma, I'd say that an enormous grassroots movement drawing attention to the fact that there's a problem is a pretty big deal.

The problems are widespread and entrenched enough that the solutions won't fit on a sign or a bumper sticker.
 
2012-09-10 06:09:19 AM  

GeneralJim: Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.
Very nicely phrased. Have you a newsletter to which I might subscribe?


It's in the works.
 
2012-09-10 06:12:29 AM  

spidermilk: He sounds like he thinks some people deserve to be WAAAAAAY richer than others and that as long as they do it ethically it is okay.


You disagree?
 
2012-09-10 07:07:48 AM  

Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.



Ah yes the old and tired "I'm rich because I'm better than you" opinion. The perfect excuse for the inflated sense of self worth from a person who will always be a nothing in life but desperately wants to believe they are important.
 
2012-09-10 07:09:45 AM  

Silly Jesus: You disagree?



As long as people go starving and die because they lack the basic necessities, you thinking you deserve more money is one of the many reasons you are morally bankrupt.
 
2012-09-10 07:40:16 AM  

flamingboard: They said that being freeing the slaves people have more freedom. Not that complicated.


He also said that owning slaves was freedom. Which is what I questioned.

rocky_howard: I've said part of what I want in several posts. Look for them. You haven't.

Since we're talking about sharing the profits, then it has little to no effect on production. Unless you think the owner should keep 100% profit and that anything else is "cost".


So your argument is that salaries and benefits are not costs?

So as long as insatiable greed isn't your motivator, this is not "cost".

Even if your "business" is a medical research and free puppy charity, salaries and benefits are still costs.

No, but I think you're obtuse.
Before 1865 people were free to have slaves. Slaves didn't have freedom.
After 1865 people weren't free to have slaves. Now slaves have freedom.
There were more slaves than slave-owners, thus limiting the freedom of a group translated more freedoms to a larger group.


That's not being obtuse. That's me pointing out that if you think that being able to own a slave is a form of freedom, then that's one more shining example of how you don't understand what freedom is.
 
2012-09-10 08:16:39 AM  
rocky_howard:
GeneralJim: Sorry you're analogy-impaired. Inequality in several fields is being compared, along with the disastrous, or at least stupid, results of trying to remove that inequality. Had you gotten the analogy, you would be led to question whether trying to remove the effects of economic inequality is actually a good idea.

No, but inequality in all fields is irrelevant since that's not what's being discussed. What? We're gonna talk about bleaching everyone's skin Michael Jackson style? Adding more bone and flesh to people's legs to make them taller a-la Gattaca?

Hell, I dunno. It's YOUR dumbass idea, after all. WTH were you suggesting? Putting all the salaries for the Bulls team in a big pot, and dividing it up "fairly?" The whole NBA in a pot? The whole U.S.A.? It's YOUR dumb, you run with it.


We're talking about socioeconomic matters, not physical traits. No, your analogies don't apply as you showed them.

Right... because 5'2" centers make, on average, the same as 7'2" centers.


Also, I doubt we could remove economic inequality. I said mitigating the effects of socioeconomic inequality. Not the same.

You have approximately the same odds of removing "socioeconomic inequality" as you do of removing height inequality. But, have fun trying....


www.mydarkdesigns.com

 
2012-09-10 08:17:38 AM  

intelligent comment below: Ah yes the old and tired "I'm rich because I'm better than you" opinion. The perfect excuse for the inflated sense of self worth from a person who will always be a nothing in life but desperately wants to believe they are important.


Its true. Poverty is a state of mind or a way to describe the aggregate financial situation of an individual. Barring a scant percentage who are simply a paycheck from getting their foot over the top rung and being able to sprint away from the lifestyle. A few thousand here or there to an individual who cant budget or blows their money on items that arent assets wont make a lick of difference.

You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"
 
2012-09-10 08:54:55 AM  

o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"


I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.
 
2012-09-10 08:58:06 AM  
rocky_howard:
Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure anybody with the talent and/or dedication can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

Right. But YOU get the 'dedicated and talented' blind pilots, and doctors (surgeons) with palsy.

I mean, seriously... there are any number of conditions which can either prevent one from doing what interests one, or making one not worth as much as others in one's chosen field. Such as a dyslexic accountant, a baker who can't test his or her work due to nut allergies, a tech support phone worker with a horrible stutter, or an opera singer with a beautiful, well-controlled voice... and Tourette's.Syndrome. Now, that last one sounds frickin' hilarious, and might just work as a comedy act -- which would probably frustrate the singer even worse.

And, making money in business is the same as any other field. There are a myriad of factors which can either help or hinder the person choosing that field. For example, the same cognitive issue that prevents you from extracting data from analogies would prevent you from learning about how business works, unless every situation was exactly what your business was doing. You could see a tale of a restaurant that concentrates on tiny portions to save money going out of business, and, rather than pick up the lesson that doing extra for the customer is your best insurance of success in retail, you would say "But I run a dildo store, not a restaurant," and totally miss the lesson. This, and similar behaviors, would mean that you are less likely to be successful than the average person.

You would miss the lesson, just as you missed the analogy. And the analogy shows you, if you learn from it, how trying to make everyone equal is a pointless, wasteful pursuit. So, read the whole Kurt Vonnegut story on this idea, and maybe you can see your error. In this story, Harrison Bergeron, you are attempting to play the part of Diana Moon Glampers. Hopefully, with that extra clue, you can follow.

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut (1961)



Better? I made a mess in that comment, even ended up posting it twice and messing the html up.

Yep. Lots. I normally don't gripe about errors, but I could not decode so many at once. Now that you cleared it up, I can see that the IDEA behind what you were writing is flat wrong, whereas before I could only speculate.
 
2012-09-10 09:09:46 AM  
StoPPeRmobile:
Yeah, he was a farking moran.
www.mahatmagandhionline.com

You see the OWS delinquents as Gandhi? I think I've found your problem.

Ah, yes, Gandhi... The father of non-violent crapping on police cars and park rape. A true pioneer.
 
2012-09-10 09:29:43 AM  

Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.


The US has had policies like this in the past... the highest income bracket at one point used to be a 90% tax rate. I believe limiting wealth hoarding in this manner would be a good thing for the world. People say it would prohibit growth, but that simply isnt true... people would give up on hoarding sooner or later, or not try so hard, but that simply opens up new opportunities for start ups. Its much better for the economy and society to have ten people with $10m companies than one person to have a $100m company, who uses his wealth to crush any competition coming his way.

There are a few extreme circumstances where this doesnt work... like its an advantage having nationwide cell phone carriers vs lots of local ones, but you will find these examples are far and few in between.
 
2012-09-10 09:40:13 AM  
rewind2846:
ScreamingHangover: StoPPeRmobile: he was a farking moran. was willing to change and adapt both his strategy and tactics in order to achieve a specific, well defined, goal.
[www.mahatmagandhionline.com image 300x427]
FTFY

His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan.

"Led to the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan? The creation of Pakistan was what Ghandi considered a major, if not THE major failure of his life. The only thing I can think of here is to quote Wanda, from "A Fish Called Wanda" to you... realize that it applies to you.

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
 
2012-09-10 09:41:27 AM  

GeneralJim: Ah, yes, Gandhi... The father of non-violent crapping on police cars and park rape. A true pioneer.


I have to wonder, were you gullible enough to be brainwashed by the media into this stupid sensationalist misrepresentation of the entire Occupy movement, or did you just latch onto it like a pitbull because they were spoon-feeding you the excuse you were already looking for to dismiss Occupy's real message?

I suppose you could also be trolling... I just can't tell if the obnoxious green font is a put on, or if you just really think your comments are special somehow.
 
2012-09-10 09:43:21 AM  

GeneralJim: Right. But YOU get the 'dedicated and talented' blind pilots, and doctors (surgeons) with palsy.


Idiotic argument is idiotic.

Also, who told you everyone will be made what they want just because without any kind of regulations or requirements?

Are you naturally this stupid or do you practice every day?
 
2012-09-10 09:43:54 AM  

Alonjar: who uses his wealth to crush any competition coming his way.


A businessman can only "Crush" competition if he curries favor with government to create barriers to the market, otherwise he is offering his product at better quality or price. Artificially supporting players in a market which they dont belong doesn't work.

Z-clipped: but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired.


So if I come up with a product or service that enriches the lives of millions or even billions of people, who are you to keep me from being compensated for it and where does the extra money go?

Would the government simply regulate the price of Apple's products so there was only a penny of profit per unit so Steve Jobs was forced to live on $250k or would they simply knock on his door once a year and take whatever he had leftover after rightly earning his millions?

Your version of egalitarianism doesn't work.
 
2012-09-10 09:48:21 AM  

BMFPitt: So your argument is that salaries and benefits are not costs?


Exactly.

I don't even know why you mention salary, since we're not talking about that. Sharing of the profits is the discussion, focus.

Salaries are paid no matter what, that's cost.
Sharing of the profits are only paid IF there is profit.
Do you think the owner taking 100% of the profit is a cost for the company? I doubt so.
He'd just be sharing his part with the workers. That's not cost. Unless you think human beings are things.
In that case, nothing I can do for you, pal.
 
2012-09-10 10:10:24 AM  
rocky_howard:
GeneralJim: Right. But YOU get the 'dedicated and talented' blind pilots, and doctors (surgeons) with palsy.

Idiotic argument is idiotic.

And clueless non-answer is clueless non-answer.


Also, who told you everyone will be made what they want just because without any kind of regulations or requirements?

Regulation? Jesus. Look, people will NOT always get what they want. Sometimes the reason is an obvious, physical one, such as the blind man who longs to be an airline pilot. Sometimes it's the aficionado of some product who wants nothing more than to have a store devoted to his favorite product, but has no business sense. And, sometimes, it's you, who longs to sit down to a nice breakfast bowl of stupid without drooling in it. Life's not fair. (Maybe next week...)

Success is not guaranteed by ANYTHING. But, one's best bet is to find something at which they both do well, and enjoy, and pursue it. No amount of regulation is going to make life "fair." It's a chumps' game, Chump.



Are you naturally this stupid or do you practice every day?

Look, I'm not the one saying regulations can make people equal. You're projecting.
 
2012-09-10 10:15:26 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.

Nice load of psychobabble and "my personal experience is how it happens everywhere" malarky there. All you needed to do was compare poverty as a "mental illness" to homosexuality as a "mental illness" and it would have been beautiful.


1) I said that my personal experience is how it happens everywhere?
2) Not sure what you're trying to do with throwing the whole gay thing in there...

Stark differences in attitude and behaviors exist between people who start in the same place and end up in completely different ones.
 
2012-09-10 10:16:48 AM  

zzrhardy: Silly Jesus: Xenomech: [www.thenation.com image 550x506]

[amkon.net image 504x356]

What does drinking coffee have to do with being pissed off about corporate bailouts?

Was starbucks bailed out?


That was directed at the not so tiny segment of the Occupiers who were staunchly anti-corporation. Not anti-corporation corruption...but anti the very idea of them existing etc.
 
2012-09-10 10:20:01 AM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.

That's a bit vague....and as such, meaningless.

bullshiat, that's as clear as can be. while you and yours may not want to understand we don't all have to play stupid.


So if you walk up to someone and say "Hi, I'm pro-human" they are going to know what the fark you are talking about? Because I sure don't.
 
2012-09-10 10:22:28 AM  

Rip Dashrock: Start sentencing white collar crime as severe as it should be. The hypocrisy that someone (poor, colored) who robs a store of $20 will spend more time in prison than someone (upper class, wears a suit) who uses the system to steal hundreds of millions.
And none of this club fed, regular prison, general population.
Enjoy your nutraloaf.


I agree that the penalties for white collar crime should be much more severe, but to compare someone fiddling with numbers on a keyboard to someone pointing a gun in another person's face is a little silly. Drug laws would be a better comparison maybe.
 
2012-09-10 10:24:25 AM  

ideamaster: Most people want to blame OTHERS for THEIR problems. I feel bad for people that are evicted from their homes. However it is truly not their home unless the mortgage is paid off. No one forced you to sign a sheet of paper to borrow money for 15 or 30 years. You made a choice. And sometimes bad things happen. Did they put away money? Did they have an emergency fund?

Okay, maybe they didn't have a good paying job and they didn't have a lot of money. Why didn't they work on building better/more valuable skills instead of being on facebook and playing xbox?

People feel entitled to too many things. If you didn't earn it, then you don't deserve it. It is really that simple.


Watch out, what you've just said is the equivalent here of saying that you love Hitler.
 
2012-09-10 10:26:01 AM  

RanDomino: Silly Jesus
The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message.

The medium is the message. The camps were prefigurative examples of a different way of organizing society. The fact that they lasted so long that the government felt compelled to crush them, when they were probably expected to collapse on their own after a few days, should be the real story here.


Those cesspools were supposed to demonstrate the ideal society? I hadn't heard that angle yet.
 
2012-09-10 10:31:44 AM  

GeneralJim: rocky_howard: Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?
I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

Are you NOT? Are you saying that I should be able to be on a professional basketball team in the NBA, and make huge sums of money, irrespective of how well I play basketball? To be fair, if I were paid millions a year, I would bust my ass to do as good a job as I could, but, somehow, I think those with a larger quantity of natural talent would kick my ass all over the court. So, it would be a good thing that positions would be awarded by lottery, to make sure that those with more talent did not have an advantage in the NBA.

And, I'm sure that millions of people would tune in to watch a bunch of random jerkweeds, like you and me, play B-ball in the big leagues. And sponsors would gladly pay the huge sums that allow them access to all those millions of fans, even if the players had an assortment of liabilities and even outright handicaps. Seriously, people can get VERY fired up over wheelchair basketball, so a mixed league should do okay.

Oh, and I've always wanted to be an airline pilot. I mean, I've not had any flight classes, but it would be unfair to discriminate based upon my training and abilities, wouldn't it? Again, if I had the job, I would try my best to get everyone to the (correct, hopefully) destination safely. I know you would wish for (and perhaps pray for) the best possible outcome for my work efforts -- ESPECIALLY if you were on the plane I was flying.

Oh, and surgeons make a lot of money, too. Do you want a surgeon who got the job as part of some Jobs Act after high school? Or a financial adviser with no skill but a lot of enthusiasm, and gratitude for his job?

Do you really live in such a fantasy world? I'm betting you don't, because in even a fantasy world, people would want the best at activity X to be doin ...


bears bears bears bears bears
 
2012-09-10 10:31:45 AM  

intelligent comment below: You always jump on here and claim they're ancient history. This just shows you only get your information from the mainstream media.


well that, and walking around the Loop where Occupuds are noticeably absent,

And walking near Obama's headquarters where they might get 10 people to protest once a week.

And their own web site, of where they bragged about shutting down a conference dedicated to ENDING child trafficking.

So yeah, another quality post sport.
 
2012-09-10 10:38:34 AM  
rocky_howard: I don't even know why you mention salary, since we're not talking about that. Sharing of the profits is the discussion, focus.

OK, so it seems that you want profit sharing mandated by law, which would in turn cause salaries to be lower and total income unpredictable.  Wouldn't have been easy to just say that rather than dancing around it?

Salaries are paid no matter what, that's cost.
Sharing of the profits are only paid IF there is profit.


Everything that is paid out is a cost.  That's what costs are.

Do you think the owner taking 100% of the profit is a cost for the company? I doubt so.

Yes it is.  Although you seem to believe all companies are sole proprietorships, so there's not really much of a distinction between the company and the owner at that point.

He'd just be sharing his part with the workers. That's not cost.

I get it, you don't understand the concepts of accounting, ROI, or unintended consequences.

Unless you think human beings are things.
In that case, nothing I can do for you, pal.


This is what you actually believe.
 
2012-09-10 11:12:42 AM  

o5iiawah: So if I come up with a product or service that enriches the lives of millions or even billions of people, who are you to keep me from being compensated for it


You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

All you did was have an idea. Maybe it was a good idea, and sure, you should be compensated for it. But that comes back around to the point that, what the ever-loving fark do you need with billions of dollars? If you make enough from your idea to have a good life, that should be enough.

and where does the extra money go?

Well, initially it would go to the IRS. Where it goes from there, we can all decide together as a nation. The possibilities are limitless. Tell you what... you pay yourself $250K/year for the next 50 years, and we can take the remaining $987500000 of your cool billion and maybe,

-feed 2 million starving people for a year.

-start a fund to build a space elevator

-improve the worldwide communications network

-offer about 20000 people a $50k no interest business loan to use to get their ideas off the ground (and once they pay it back, holy crap, we could do this one again!)

-start a project to terraform Mars

-fund research to improve alternative energy sources

See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of one useless person having more than they could ever spend or appreciate. It's not that difficult a concept. It was only about 50 years ago that this country had tax brackets that reflected this idea. The world didn't end, innovation wasn't stifled, and some people still had more than others. Hopefully, we can end the current bout of insanity we're going through and get back to being more civilized.
 
Displayed 50 of 433 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report