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.

(Salon)   The whiniest members of the 1%   (salon.com) divider line 231
    More: Amusing, plutocracy, selfishness, American Justice  
•       •       •

13071 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 10:55 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-08 10:59:32 AM
Teens are dumb and whiny as fark, even kids of rich people.

Now feast your eyes in spoiled stupidity:

]www.boredpanda.com

www.boredpanda.com
www.boredpanda.com
 
2014-02-08 10:59:53 AM
i291.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-08 11:01:03 AM
Oops, forgot oblig pastebin:  http://pastebin.com/jmuNTt0Y
 
2014-02-08 11:01:16 AM
Salon = pop-Marxists. The 1% are the chief beneficiaries of QE, the Federal Reserve, deficit spending, and US foreign policy.

The system is rigged by both major parties, to favor those who pull their strings.

OTOH the system was designed by the rich to make themselves richer. I favor clawing back all corporate subsidies and tax breaks enacted over the past generation, and using that money to (a) eliminate debt and (b) provide GOOD healthcare for the poor. I favor hanging bankers out in the middle of Wall Street. Who opposes the prosecution of bankers ? Obama and Holder. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Salon.
 
2014-02-08 11:01:39 AM
sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk
 
2014-02-08 11:05:20 AM

TheSwissNavy: Salon = pop-Marxists. The 1% are the chief beneficiaries of QE, the Federal Reserve, deficit spending, and US foreign policy.

The system is rigged by both major parties, to favor those who pull their strings.

OTOH the system was designed by the rich to make themselves richer. I favor clawing back all corporate subsidies and tax breaks enacted over the past generation, and using that money to (a) eliminate debt and (b) provide GOOD healthcare for the poor. I favor hanging bankers out in the middle of Wall Street. Who opposes the prosecution of bankers ? Obama and Holder. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Salon.


inb4 BSAB
 
2014-02-08 11:07:45 AM
Then there's this guy, who gets it. Of course this talk is banned on TED's own site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g&list=PLfLRo1Q-oUY2BA6oGSL G- cse5KDR-HkrA
 
2014-02-08 11:09:45 AM
I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.
 
2014-02-08 11:09:46 AM
Yeah, like no poor people own an iPhone.
 
GBB [TotalFark]
2014-02-08 11:10:16 AM
The whiniest members ARE the 1%

FTFY, subby.
 
2014-02-08 11:11:30 AM

bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.


Nah, they're good.
 
2014-02-08 11:13:09 AM
It's all Barack's fault
Repeat until nauseous
 
2014-02-08 11:13:59 AM
FTA: Since then, America has been busy transforming itself into an unabashed plutocracy: while median household income has barely budged since the mid-1960s, the annual income of the top 1 percent has increased by an average of approximately 200 percent in real terms.


Ladies and gentlemen your 'economic recovery!'
 
2014-02-08 11:15:57 AM

offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]


That would be funny except for ..

The Black Book of Communism

mises.org

You wouldn't like Communism. Read the book.
 
2014-02-08 11:17:36 AM
Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?
 
2014-02-08 11:18:01 AM

Clemkadidlefark: offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

That would be funny except for ..

The Black Book of Communism

[mises.org image 200x300]

You wouldn't like Communism. Read the book.


He probably doesn't like communism. He just hates capitalism and saw that communism is the exact opposite of it.
 
2014-02-08 11:18:37 AM

TomD9938: Nah, they're good.


cdn2.spectator.co.uk
                                                    "yeah... yeah... probably *sigh*"
 
2014-02-08 11:18:51 AM

Clemkadidlefark: offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

That would be funny except for ..

The Black Book of Communism

[mises.org image 200x300]

You wouldn't like Communism. Read the book.


Oh you silly, that's just because they didn't practice communism/socialism/marxism correctly!  We'll get it right THIS time!
 
2014-02-08 11:20:18 AM

Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?


That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...
 
2014-02-08 11:22:57 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...


They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!
 
2014-02-08 11:23:05 AM

Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?


Well American wages are still comparable to first world countries. So we're not lagging behind.

cdn.static-economist.com

/Yet.
//Or if you're poor.
 
2014-02-08 11:23:43 AM

Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?


The understanding of global economics displayed here is staggering. If only our brightest economists and legislators had played the same lemonade stand video game with four whole variables that this conclusive evidence must be based on, surely we'd all be rich and happy.
 
2014-02-08 11:25:26 AM
20 years??   and he would have gotten out in 2 or 3.  don't exaggerate.


poor little rich kid.  ):   its tough all over.
 
2014-02-08 11:26:47 AM

Clemkadidlefark: offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

That would be funny except for ..

The Black Book of Communism

[mises.org image 200x300]

You wouldn't like Communism. Read the book.


Well, since Soviet style Communism is the only possible alternative to a laissez faire plutocracy, I guess we're f**ked.
 
2014-02-08 11:27:16 AM
The thing is, we don't need the top 1%. These people could be completely removed and the country would actually operate better without them. I don't understand why people can't see this, but I'm ready to help with the extermination when everyone else wakes up.
 
2014-02-08 11:27:39 AM

offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]



lol.  don't kill 'em.  just send them all to an island where they can kill each other and screw each other over for a dollar and a cent.
 
2014-02-08 11:28:53 AM

baconbeard: Yeah, like no poor people own an iPhone.



the Smart Money buys an Android (Samsung, etc) and pockets the rest, rather than pay the Apple advertising/marketing tax.
 
2014-02-08 11:29:35 AM
I was reading a different article about that kid in Texas the other day. Apparently, the defense attorney was upste about all the flack his expert witness's "Affulenze" theory was pulling. Said it "distracted from the facts" of the case.

-16 yr old
-THREE TIMES the legal limit
-Traces of Valium in his system
-70 mph in a residential area
-four dead
-one paralyzed (passenger and I wonder what he thinks of his cool, rich pal now?)
-one hospitalized with internal injuries and broken bones (passenger and ditto)
-Gets 10 years probation
-Sent to a half mil per year rehab facility. Half mil per year! Is it anything more than a spa at that point?

Pretty sure I didn't need "Affluenza" to hate this kid. Those facts, right there, would prevent me from pissing on him if he were on fire.
This is one of those instances where I feel like I *have to* be missing something, right? I mean, no one can do all that and just...walk away, can they? Can they?? I know this is where we make jokes about "money solves all problems" but this is one of the few times where I've actually wondered how much you got for your soul?
 
2014-02-08 11:30:46 AM

jxb465: The thing is, we don't need the top 1%. These people could be completely removed and the country would actually operate better without them. I don't understand why people can't see this, but I'm ready to help with the extermination when everyone else wakes up.


They aren't the problem - a system that diverts an unconscionable percentage of society's wealth into their coffers is. killing them will accomplish nothing except to replace them with other, worse people.
We have to cure the violence inherent in the system.
 
2014-02-08 11:32:13 AM

Clemkadidlefark: offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

That would be funny except for ..

The Black Book of Communism

[mises.org image 200x300]

You wouldn't like Communism. Read the book.



you are making a moot point.  anyone with an IQ above 60 knows that Communism is not the answer.  History shows this over and over.

Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, has a bright future, even if it takes another 50 years to get it.

unbridled Crony Capitalism is on its way out. Period.  its days are numbered.


so when things do change for the better, you can say 'i remember first reading about it on Fark way back in around 2014'.


you're welcome.
 
2014-02-08 11:32:48 AM
I wonder if his "affluenza" would stop a sniper's bullet.
 
2014-02-08 11:33:54 AM

super_grass: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

Well American wages are still comparable to first world countries. So we're not lagging behind.

[cdn.static-economist.com image 794x1219]

/Yet.
//Or if you're poor.


Hmm. I wonder if they've averaged in all the $0 annual salaries that the millions of unemployed people in the US are making these days.
 
2014-02-08 11:34:10 AM

Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!


Seems like you're blaming women and immigrants.
 
2014-02-08 11:35:07 AM

jxb465: The thing is, we don't need the top 1%. These people could be completely removed and the country would actually operate better without them. I don't understand why people can't see this, but I'm ready to help with the extermination when everyone else wakes up.

f
They don't see it because every single aspect of our culture is nudge and wink, don't tell mommy what's going on in your room at night and if you play along, you get into the club.  We actually believe that we're just one or two iconic, stuff we can't afford, luxury purchases from getting a spot in the VIP section.  Seriously.  You keep the plebes barking sh*t at each other, convinced that the reason they don't have a pot to piss in is because of the other poor, dumb sonofab*tch up the road who hasn't got a pot to piss in either, and you can clean out the safe while they cheer you on.  "That male / female / black / white / brown / gay / straight / deist / atheist is RUINING THE COUNTRY AND KEEPING YOU DOWN, MAN!"  *snort*  And we eat it with a spoon.
 
2014-02-08 11:35:20 AM
UNDER A [crony] CAPITALIST SYSTEM, MAN EXPLOITS MAN.
UNDER A COMMUNIST ONE, ITS JUST THE OPPOSITE.
  ----renowned American Economist John Kenneth Galbriath.

you're welcome.   'crony' is my addition. but it still applies to unbridled-by-that-pesky-government capitalism.
 
2014-02-08 11:35:47 AM
Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.
 
2014-02-08 11:36:20 AM

Via Infinito: super_grass: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

Well American wages are still comparable to first world countries. So we're not lagging behind.

[cdn.static-economist.com image 794x1219]

/Yet.
//Or if you're poor.

Hmm. I wonder if they've averaged in all the $0 annual salaries that the millions of unemployed people in the US are making these days.


That would make America look better considering that its has a lower unemployment than almost all of the Euros.  I think.
 
2014-02-08 11:36:56 AM

austin_millbarge: Then there's this guy, who gets it. Of course this talk is banned on TED's own site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g&list=PLfLRo1Q-oUY2BA6oGSL G- cse5KDR-HkrA


Thanks for the link.  That concept seems so obvious, but is completely unaccepted by those who set policy.
 
2014-02-08 11:37:07 AM

Linux_Yes: UNDER A [crony] CAPITALIST SYSTEM, MAN EXPLOITS MAN.
UNDER A COMMUNIST ONE, ITS JUST THE OPPOSITE.  ----renowned American Economist John Kenneth Galbriath.

you're welcome.   'crony' is my addition. but it still applies to unbridled-by-that-pesky-government capitalism.


Why? There has never been, and never will be, any kind of "capitalism" other than Crony capitalism - the system we call capitalism has always run on cronyism.
 
2014-02-08 11:37:55 AM

grumpyoldmann: I wonder if his "affluenza" would stop a sniper's bullet.



my guess is that it wouldn't even slow it down.  ((:
 
2014-02-08 11:38:04 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...


Hey, look who's here!
 
2014-02-08 11:38:05 AM

Clemkadidlefark: offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

That would be funny except for ..

The Black Book of Communism

[mises.org image 200x300]

You wouldn't like Communism. Read the book.


You're right. Anarchy's where it's at.

www.bristolanarchistbookfair.org
 
2014-02-08 11:38:11 AM

Shades: Clemkadidlefark: offmymeds: [sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk image 600x700]

That would be funny except for ..

The Black Book of Communism

[mises.org image 200x300]

You wouldn't like Communism. Read the book.

Oh you silly, that's just because they didn't practice communism/socialism/marxism correctly!  We'll get it right THIS time!


Yeah! Capitalism for the win!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-08 11:39:04 AM

AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.


No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.
 
2014-02-08 11:40:57 AM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

Seems like you're blaming women and immigrants.


If there is an abundance of labor but a small demand for labor, what do you think happens to the value of labor? Anyone? Anyone?

This is why your kind that demand an increase in minimum wage while demanding amnesty for all illegals are pulling on both sides of the rope.
 
2014-02-08 11:42:17 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 11:42:34 AM
It's time to reboot the board game.  There's no more free spaces, there's no more silver on the etch a sketch screen, there's nothing to capitalize.  You crawled up your own asses and did an Ouroboros.  You can sit around and nibble on gold bars and drive your Maybachs into the sea off of your yachts when you get bored and call it a life or put the capital back in play and man up to the table.  Your little Nancy assed cocoons of insular wealth are just gonna kick off guillotine fandango v.2.0, otherwise, and you know it.  Well?  Got any balls left, you fat, arrogant pricks or are they in your Caymans deposit box?
 
2014-02-08 11:44:15 AM

jso2897: Linux_Yes: UNDER A [crony] CAPITALIST SYSTEM, MAN EXPLOITS MAN.
UNDER A COMMUNIST ONE, ITS JUST THE OPPOSITE.  ----renowned American Economist John Kenneth Galbriath.

you're welcome.   'crony' is my addition. but it still applies to unbridled-by-that-pesky-government capitalism.

Why? There has never been, and never will be, any kind of "capitalism" other than Crony capitalism - the system we call capitalism has always run on cronyism.


but 'ideally', Capitalism that is reigned in by government has its pluses.  but once those same capitalists buy off Legislators and the Press, then all bets are off.

so, on paper, it could work well, but in reality, not so well.  that is human nature.
 
2014-02-08 11:45:02 AM

AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.


I take it you're speaking to the investor class?
 
2014-02-08 11:45:51 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-08 11:46:32 AM

super_grass: Teens are dumb and whiny as fark, even kids of rich people.

Now feast your eyes in spoiled stupidity:

]


All I can think is that I want to strangle each of those idiots with the intestines of their own pets. And their parents.

/And their parents' pets, too
 
2014-02-08 11:46:35 AM

Nemo's Brother: If there is an abundance of labor but a small demand for labor, what do you think happens to the value of labor? Anyone? Anyone?


What works better, a consumerist economy with a small consumer base, or a consumerist economy with a large consumer base?
 
2014-02-08 11:47:02 AM

captcaveman: [img.fark.net image 412x238]



too funny.  but keep it on the down low. you're scaring the Owners.  they are a skittish bunch. they have convinced themselves that the little people are trying to steal their money.
 
2014-02-08 11:48:32 AM
Remember when your social studies teacher said that honest, God fearing men threw off the yoke off oppressive classism to create a new, free ountry where all men were created equal?  What she was trying to say is, " a bunch of English bankers found the mother lode and started writing debt against it for people to go and settle it and send the profits home and things got a little pear shaped until they regained control in Dec. 1913".  Welcome to the ass end of that business plan.
 
2014-02-08 11:50:02 AM

Nemo's Brother: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

Seems like you're blaming women and immigrants.

If there is an abundance of labor but a small demand for labor, what do you think happens to the value of labor? Anyone? Anyone?

This is why your kind that demand an increase in minimum wage while demanding amnesty for all illegals are pulling on both sides of the rope.


The solution is simple - put a third of the workforce on a permanent, comfortable public dole, and tax the wealthy to pay for it. Create an artificial seller's market in labor, and let them bargain for the human labor they need.
We no longer live in a biblical society where all must work in order to eat - we should quit letting phoney moralists persist in the lie that we do.
But, you probably don't like that answer - and I'll bet you are really going to hate it when it happens - because that is exactly where we are headed.
 
2014-02-08 11:53:28 AM
If you whiners in the 99% don't stop whining and get busy with the job creating profits for us to fill our swimming pools with to go full Scrooge McDuck, we'll fix that valve in the urinal and stop all that trickle down we do on you.
 
2014-02-08 11:59:19 AM

Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!


.....You kind of come across as a bigoted, old, redneck fool with white hair growing out of his ears, still hanging around and complaining that women and blacks have the right to vote.
 
2014-02-08 12:00:32 PM

bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.


Nope. Not a one.
 
2014-02-08 12:03:24 PM

jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.


And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.
 
2014-02-08 12:04:41 PM

ThighsofGlory: Nope. Not a one.



Then maybe all this intaglio printed bumrag is doing us more harm than good.  And good luck using it unless you put it all on a plastic card, first.  Only terrists use cash.
 
2014-02-08 12:08:37 PM


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

 
2014-02-08 12:08:43 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: but my question really is: Is it your money?


Of course it is.  Money is a lubricant.  It's a convenience.  The only useful thing it does is move around easily.  There's no intrinsic value and frankly, it's all just backed by 17 trillion in debt that somehow, as if by magic, we'll make good on when our great, great, great, grandkids save the world and pay off all of out kited checks.  It's a great con until people start misusing it by shoveling it all into the pockets of a few families.  Makes it look like it's gonna be worthless, soon.  Is that a Weimar in your pocket or was that our Reichstag fire?  Of course it's our money.  Money is a gentleman's agreement.  And we're all out of gentlemen.
 
2014-02-08 12:09:19 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.


Sounds like a stupid, unanswerable question. And the only one who is whining here is you.
 
2014-02-08 12:14:04 PM
jso2897:  "The solution is simple - put a third of the workforce on a permanent, comfortable public dole, and tax the wealthy to pay for it. Create an artificial seller's market in labor, and let them bargain for the human labor they need. We no longer live in a biblical society where all must work in order to eat - we should quit letting phoney moralists persist in the lie that we do."

Collective bargaining, right? If so, then I'm good with it.

Used to be that the unions were infiltrated and taken over by by the criminal underworld. Now they're being stomped on by the criminal (read: corporate) upperworld. Given a choice between the two, I'll throw in my lot with the former, thank you.

/trollin' right back atcha, bro.....
//oh, and Perkins, Jamie Dimon, the Koch boys, and all the rest?  Pitchforks, torches, and tumbrels. We've got a remedy for your affluenza.
 
2014-02-08 12:14:47 PM

jso2897: Nemo's Brother: Zarquon's Flat Tire: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

Seems like you're blaming women and immigrants.

If there is an abundance of labor but a small demand for labor, what do you think happens to the value of labor? Anyone? Anyone?

This is why your kind that demand an increase in minimum wage while demanding amnesty for all illegals are pulling on both sides of the rope.

The solution is simple - put a third of the workforce on a permanent, comfortable public dole, and tax the wealthy to pay for it. Create an artificial seller's market in labor, and let them bargain for the human labor they need.
We no longer live in a biblical society where all must work in order to eat - we should quit letting phoney moralists persist in the lie that we do.
But, you probably don't like that answer - and I'll bet you are really going to hate it when it happens - because that is exactly where we are headed.


Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.
 
2014-02-08 12:16:49 PM

Top Geezer: //oh, and Perkins, Jamie Dimon, the Koch boys, and all the rest?  Pitchforks, torches, and tumbrels. We've got a remedy for your affluenza.


As near as I can tell, stepping away from the urgency farm and looking at the actual crap being flung, this seems to be the entire end game of their existence.  Not all that impressive, IMO.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-08 12:19:01 PM

jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

Sounds like a stupid, unanswerable question. And the only one who is whining here is you.


I don't whine, my little giraffe whines.
 
2014-02-08 12:19:40 PM
Awwwwww. The richies are upset.

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 12:19:56 PM

bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.


Vagina
MrsGina
Angina
Its natures way
 
2014-02-08 12:20:07 PM

ransack.: Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.


So, we're either gonna have to try something at some point aside from corporate capitalism über alles, or just start paving the roads for robotic cars with the bones of the poors we gas, Auschwitz stylee, on a daily basis?  "Wait, wait.. there.  We just drove over my dad!  Good thing I got a GOOD job servicing robotic cars!"
 
2014-02-08 12:24:43 PM
bunner:
img.fark.net


Look up the tomb of a old-timey plutocrat named George Pullman. He was such a vile piece of evil and so universally despised that when he finally croaked,  he had himself buried under tons of concrete and asphalt out of fear that his corpse would be exhumed & violated by the many, maaaaaaaaany people that he had done wrong.
 archaeology-travel.com
 
2014-02-08 12:26:56 PM
jso2897:  "The solution is simple -... society where all must work in order to eat -


Extract.

I plan to make it so when i am the King.img.fark.net
 Through the multitude of Incarnations, I am always with you
Waiting
Watching
Ruling
 
2014-02-08 12:27:08 PM

bunner: ransack.: Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.

So, we're either gonna have to try something at some point aside from corporate capitalism über alles, or just start paving the roads for robotic cars with the bones of the poors we gas, Auschwitz stylee, on a daily basis?  "Wait, wait.. there.  We just drove over my dad!  Good thing I got a GOOD job servicing robotic cars!"


We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.
 
2014-02-08 12:28:49 PM
Capitalism is no more a way of life than roller skating and it is no more a solution than a pair of gloves is a winter outfit.  It's one cog in a set of wheels that, when properly maintained, regulated and attended to by honest folks, keeps the world turning.  If you want people to vote for your dog in the dog show, take your dick out of it and stop kicking the other dogs, you self important, blithering greedheads.
 
2014-02-08 12:30:35 PM

ransack.: We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.


Or, since money all just a pretendy collection of opinions, we may have to start taking a hard look at what we value and why.
 
2014-02-08 12:31:44 PM

ransack.: bunner: ransack.: Especially with advances in robotics and self-driving cars. There will continue to be an increase in population and a decrease in actual work to be done for the foreseeable future.

So, we're either gonna have to try something at some point aside from corporate capitalism über alles, or just start paving the roads for robotic cars with the bones of the poors we gas, Auschwitz stylee, on a daily basis?  "Wait, wait.. there.  We just drove over my dad!  Good thing I got a GOOD job servicing robotic cars!"

We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.


or our ruler could give us tasks to do in exchange for food and shelter
 
2014-02-08 12:33:01 PM

haywatchthis: or our ruler could give us tasks to do in exchange for food and shelter


*taps watch*  That doesn't seem to work well, so far.
 
2014-02-08 12:33:10 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.


It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.
 
2014-02-08 12:33:42 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: but my question really is: Is it your money?


It's a meaningless and oversimplified question.  Society, (to which everyone contributes) fosters an environment more amenable to prosperity.  Regardless of the philosophical view of "whose money it is", you either believe that society has a duty to preserve itself, or not.  Unless you're arguing in favor of a completely anarchocapitalist system (no police, no laws, no government, no common coffers, with wealth or violence being the only power an individual can wield), you've already tacitly accepted that some of every individual's wealth must go toward the preservation of society. Whether it's by duty to the social contract, or by virtue of the nature of ownership makes no difference.

The question that is left on the table (the one the grownups are trying to discuss) isn't "whose money is it?".  It's "how much taxation is best for society as a whole, and is our current distribution of wealth detrimental to the welfare of our nation?"
 
2014-02-08 12:44:16 PM
More than half a century ago, "West Side Story" satirized the idea that what was then known as juvenile delinquency was a product of poverty and the psychological maladjustments it produced, and that therefore "this boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care."

It was ROMEO AND JULIET, for f*ck's sake.
 
2014-02-08 12:46:30 PM

Top Geezer: Collective bargaining, right? If so, then I'm good with it.


It only makes sense. If a business can incorporate, so can workers.  Allowing one and not the other automatically unbalances the system.

ransack.: We could put a large percentage of the population on welfare with no expectation for them to work. Or we could mandate people retire when they are 35, or we could limit people to working 16-hour weeks. We will have to expect no labor from some people or expect much less from each individual, those are the only real options.


OR we could force companies to pay better wages, take lower profits, and keep their money in the country, thereby growing the consumer base which would in turn increase employment, and eventually return us to a more productive industrial economy.  The 1% might have to accept the awful proposition of only controlling the vast majority of the wealth, instead of basically all of it, but I don't think that's too much to ask of these farkers.

But yes, while all of that's going on, paying a guaranteed base minimum income would keep the bottom 30% afloat.
 
2014-02-08 12:48:17 PM

MayoSlather: It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.


Well put, you pinko-commie bastard.
 
2014-02-08 12:48:41 PM

eil.com

 
2014-02-08 12:50:59 PM

MayoSlather: Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.


Somebody has to wash those Bentleys and dry dock that Hattaras.  Oh, sweet!  A ducat in my piss pail!  That's like, three days rent!
 
2014-02-08 12:52:31 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: but my question really is: Is it your money?

It's a meaningless and oversimplified question.  Society, (to which everyone contributes) fosters an environment more amenable to prosperity.  Regardless of the philosophical view of "whose money it is", you either believe that society has a duty to preserve itself, or not.  Unless you're arguing in favor of a completely anarchocapitalist system (no police, no laws, no government, no common coffers, with wealth or violence being the only power an individual can wield), you've already tacitly accepted that some of every individual's wealth must go toward the preservation of society. Whether it's by duty to the social contract, or by virtue of the nature of ownership makes no difference.

The question that is left on the table (the one the grownups are trying to discuss) isn't "whose money is it?".  It's "how much taxation is best for society as a whole, and is our current distribution of wealth detrimental to the welfare of our nation?"


Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.
 
2014-02-08 12:52:56 PM
half the people in the country worship the ground the walk on, you can't really blame them for thinking they are better than everyone.
 
2014-02-08 12:53:55 PM
By the time a dollar moves 10 times in the above ground economy, the house gets it all back.  And the house is still 17,000,000,000,000.00 in hock and kiting checks.  So, how's that stuffing every penny that could be moving around and funding all the stuff you refuse to pay taxes for thing working out, lord fatass?
 
2014-02-08 01:02:24 PM
www.prescott.va.gov


                                              W A N T E D
Fraud
Collusion to bankrupt the treasury
Homicide
Mayhem
RICO activities
Passing bad checks
Uttering
Aiding and abetting extortion
War crimes
Child abuse
Illegal wiretapping
Fraudulent business practices
Issuing worthless currency
Violation of the constitution
Treason

                                   ARMED AND DANGEROUS.  DO NOT APPROACH.
 
2014-02-08 01:06:13 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.


Yes, generally, they do.  Working is not the only way we contribute.  In fact, spending money is nearly just as important a means of contribution than working for it in an economy like ours, which is why so many are arguing in favor of a base guaranteed income. It gives poorer people the power to drive the economy by spending money that the rich won't because of decreasing marginal utility.
 
2014-02-08 01:08:48 PM

MayoSlather: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.


In all honesty, you are a fool.

Also, Mayo is a disgusting condiment and you should feel bad.

/You're adopted.
 
2014-02-08 01:09:59 PM

8 inches: In all honesty, you are a fool.


No he isn't.  And you're not that entertaining.
 
2014-02-08 01:10:53 PM
Rich kid kills people DUI & gets probation, but poor people have to show ID to buy food cuz fraud will not be tolerated.

Y'know, armed insurrection is starting to look appealing.


/Who the fark could be knocking on my door this early on a Saturday...??!?
 
2014-02-08 01:11:26 PM
That price is paid in the form of the growing contempt of their fellow citizens, a contempt that grows in proportion to the ever-increasing gap in America between the children of privilege and everyone else.

So, the more money a person has the more people will hate them?  That's some real insight there.  Or, check a fark thread.
Oh, and, guillotine.  Am I the first to guillotine this thread?

/guillotine
 
2014-02-08 01:12:16 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.

Yes, generally, they do.  Working is not the only way we contribute.  In fact, spending money is nearly just as important a means of contribution than working for it in an economy like ours, which is why so many are arguing in favor of a base guaranteed income. It gives poorer people the power to drive the economy by spending money that the rich won't because of decreasing marginal utility.


criminals contributes by providing jobs for law enforcement and prisons
 
2014-02-08 01:13:42 PM

rzrwiresunrise: /Who the fark could be knocking on my door this early on a Saturday...??!?


Nah, they're sort of counting on it.  How else can they let the other shoe drop and blow out of here in a fleet of Gulfstreams due to a "hostile business climate"?
 
2014-02-08 01:14:07 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.


Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.
 
2014-02-08 01:15:17 PM
haywatchthis: criminals contributes by providing jobs for law enforcement and prisons


And the plague contributes by keeping face mask makers in business.  Doesn't quite pass cost / benefit analysis, though, does it?
 
2014-02-08 01:16:06 PM

trappedspirit: That price is paid in the form of the growing contempt of their fellow citizens, a contempt that grows in proportion to the ever-increasing gap in America between the children of privilege and everyone else.

So, the more money a person has the more people will hate them?  That's some real insight there.  Or, check a fark thread.
Oh, and, guillotine.  Am I the first to guillotine this thread?

/guillotine


all you had to say was poor people are jealous
 
2014-02-08 01:17:48 PM

8 inches: MayoSlather: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.

In all honesty, you are a fool.

Also, Mayo is a disgusting condiment and you should feel bad.

/You're adopted.



Nicely constructed argument.

/I actually was adopted
 
2014-02-08 01:18:29 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.


Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.
 
2014-02-08 01:18:31 PM
To those who threw hard work and there own ability became wealthy. More power to you.
To those who inherited daddies money and think everyone exist to serve them. Fark you you farking fark!
 
2014-02-08 01:19:18 PM

haywatchthis: trappedspirit: That price is paid in the form of the growing contempt of their fellow citizens, a contempt that grows in proportion to the ever-increasing gap in America between the children of privilege and everyone else.

So, the more money a person has the more people will hate them?  That's some real insight there.  Or, check a fark thread.
Oh, and, guillotine.  Am I the first to guillotine this thread?

/guillotine

all you had to say was poor people are jealous


He managed to be stupid enough without including that turd of wisdom, actually.
 
2014-02-08 01:19:43 PM

haywatchthis: all you had to say was poor people are jealous


Of what?  Precisely.
 
2014-02-08 01:20:18 PM

haywatchthis: criminals


I did say "generally".  However, a thousand petty criminals that steal $1000 worth of stuff from WalMart, and then sell it and spend the money still contribute more than one shady investment banker who pockets a cool $1million under the table and sticks it in an offshore account.

You follow me?
 
2014-02-08 01:22:32 PM

Z-clipped: haywatchthis: criminals

I did say "generally".  However, a thousand petty criminals that steal $1000 worth of stuff from WalMart, and then sell it and spend the money still contribute more than one shady investment banker who pockets a cool $1million under the table and sticks it in an offshore account.

You follow me?


Oh yes - I'm sure he possesses a full and intimate understanding of the concepts you are discussing.
No doubt.
Really. I mean it.
Stop laughing.
 
2014-02-08 01:24:35 PM

0z79: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

.....You kind of come across as a bigoted, old, redneck fool with white hair growing out of his ears, still hanging around and complaining that women and blacks have the right to vote.


Let's explore your theory- businesses could cut their payroll by X%, and get the same exact output in terms of quality and quantity, but refuse to do so because they're all so raaaaaaaaysis. Makes perfect sense!
 
2014-02-08 01:25:14 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

Sounds like a stupid, unanswerable question. And the only one who is whining here is you.

I don't whine, my little giraffe whines.


Well, then, collect their tears, trade them for Bitcoins, and .....Profit!
Your bootstraps, man! Get to yankin' on those motherf**kers!
 
2014-02-08 01:27:27 PM

haywatchthis: all you had to say was poor people are jealous


I think you mean "envious".  Given the literal meaning of the word, it's the rich who are "jealous".
 
2014-02-08 01:28:57 PM
I'm not sure how killing the rich would solve your problems.
 
2014-02-08 01:30:25 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.


This we know, so change will only come when one changes ones "philosophical reasoning"? Sounds like that's been tried before.
 
2014-02-08 01:31:41 PM

jso2897: Z-clipped: haywatchthis: criminals

I did say "generally".  However, a thousand petty criminals that steal $1000 worth of stuff from WalMart, and then sell it and spend the money still contribute more than one shady investment banker who pockets a cool $1million under the table and sticks it in an offshore account.

You follow me?

Oh yes - I'm sure he possesses a full and intimate understanding of the concepts you are discussing.
No doubt.
Really. I mean it.
Stop laughing.


www.commlawblog.com

*sigh*
 
2014-02-08 01:35:49 PM

traylor: I'm not sure how killing the rich would solve your problems.


It would force the system to reboot, and, on the whole, is probably unnecessary because there's nothing left TO do but reboot the system with or without the cooperation of the greedheads or their safety or lack of it.  Violent revolt wouldn't be necessary unless thy try a mass exodus with all their pelf to whatever part of China the rest of their money already is.  And, historically, when the tanks roll, so will the tumbrels.  It never really ends well when a small collection of people take all the wealth and power and keep it.   Mostly, the world at large and the citizenry of the US are just waiting to see if they have the balls to put their trillions back into play and live by the capitalist dictum they claim to worship or if they're just dime store thieves heading for the parking lot.
 
2014-02-08 01:37:22 PM
Globalized Capitalism at work:
Step 1. Move factories to Asia where labor is dirt cheap.
Step 2. Figure out how to completely automate factories.
Step 3. Bowing to pressure, return now-automated factories to US and hire sister's half-wit child to push the "off" button if anything screws up.
Step 4. You guessed it: profit!
 
2014-02-08 01:38:01 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: This we know, so change will only come when one changes ones "philosophical reasoning"? Sounds like that's been tried before.


Eh?  No.  I was commenting on the pointless preoccupation people seem to have these days with devising economic ideologies from oversimplified first principles, like "whose money is it, really?"
 
2014-02-08 01:42:25 PM

Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!


You are incredibly ignorant of the driving factors behind wage stagnation in the US. You really should just shut up or you're going to make yourself look like more of an idiotic misogynist/racist than you already have.
 
2014-02-08 01:43:18 PM

jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.


But enough about our President.
 
2014-02-08 01:45:06 PM
If I turned in schoolwork that was as lazy & half-assed as the average Slate/Salon article my teachers/professors would demand to know why if was mad at them and why.


/Please hire people who can actually WRITE.
 
2014-02-08 01:45:30 PM

bunner: traylor: I'm not sure how killing the rich would solve your problems.

It would force the system to reboot, and, on the whole, is probably unnecessary because there's nothing left TO do but reboot the system with or without the cooperation of the greedheads or their safety or lack of it.


Also, according to the philosophy of conservative justice, it would serve as the best deterrent to the next group of plutocrats.
 
2014-02-08 01:46:50 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our Presidentmy mother, the whore.



See? Now we're BOTH really clever! :D
 
2014-02-08 01:47:46 PM

Marshal805: If I turned in schoolwork that was as lazy & half-assed as the average Slate/Salon article my teachers/professors would demand to know why  if I was mad at them and why.


/Please hire people who can actually WRITE.


Forgot to preview.

My apologies.

/Hey, at least I don't expect a paycheck.
 
2014-02-08 01:48:22 PM
I can write.  I desperately need a proofreader and an editor, but I can write.  I can't type for poo.
 
2014-02-08 01:49:23 PM

traylor: I'm not sure how killing the rich would solve your problems.


It wouldn't - it's just people letting off steam - anyway, it's good for you, because it gives you a strawman that you can pretend is the serious opposition opinion - so everybody wins!
 
2014-02-08 01:50:22 PM

8 inches: MayoSlather: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

No, not really - no intelligent adult would say that, and nobody does. That's a strawman argument - fit for middle school, but way too weak for Fark. 4chan, maybe.

And yet here we are at Fark whining about this. I know about the distribution of wealth in this nation. It's not fair in the least, but my question really is: Is it your money? Maybe I'll go to 4chan for the answer.

It's the working class' money. They did the work, but the wealthy are taking the gains simply because they can due to having more leverage.

No one on this planet does or has done the work equivalent to a million people. No one. Not Einstein, not Jonas Salk, not Thomas Jefferson, not Mahatma Ghandi...Their contributions in their place and time were significant, but someone else would have stepped in, someone else would have figured out what they did eventually.

The irony here is that these men that you could potentially deem more valuable than a million were humanists, and never would have claimed their worth was equivalent to what the contemporary rich claim they're worth. Today's rich who by the way contribute little of value.

This is an issue of sheer avarice, and a rigged system. It's not about ethically protecting the coffers of the rich who have long been morally reprehensible.

In all honesty, you are a fool.

Also, Mayo is a disgusting condiment and you should feel bad.

/You're adopted.


Are like 86 or something? Seriously? A fool? I bet you advocate the aspirin-between-the-knees contraceptive method and liked it better when the Joos, Skirts and and Blahs weren't bothering everybody with their whining.

www.plainolas.com
 
2014-02-08 01:50:59 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: But enough about our President.


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-08 01:55:38 PM

machodonkeywrestler: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

You are incredibly ignorant of the driving factors behind wage stagnation in the US. You really should just shut up or you're going to make yourself look like more of an idiotic misogynist/racist than you already have.


Please, dazzle me with your theory about how pumping tens of millions of poor uneducated people into the market has been or could possibly have been good for our native poor uneducated people. Tell me how, say, greatly increasing the number of doctors will increase the wages of doctors. This'll be good.
 
2014-02-08 01:56:57 PM

jso2897: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our Presidentmy mother, the whore.


See? Now we're BOTH really clever! :D


My mother is Mother whore to you. For the next time.
 
2014-02-08 01:57:05 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.


www.debbiereber.com

The Derp store called.....
 
2014-02-08 02:00:33 PM

Shades: machodonkeywrestler: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

You are incredibly ignorant of the driving factors behind wage stagnation in the US. You really should just shut up or you're going to make yourself look like more of an idiotic misogynist/racist than you already have.

Please, dazzle me with your theory about how pumping tens of millions of poor uneducated people into the market has been or could possibly have been good for our native poor uneducated people. Tell me how, say, greatly increasing the number of doctors will increase the wages of doctors. This'll be good.


Adding those people didn't make the GDP even skip a beat, the money is being made, the problem is the tax structure minimum wage is too low and lack of organized labor so it isn't being made by the right people.
 
2014-02-08 02:10:24 PM
It's easy to fall into quantative fallacies like more doctors = more better for doctors / more marginally educated people = more better economy because all of this dog and pony postulation and presuming is based on the notion that an economy is something that the poor should serve and should then, in turn, serve the currency at hand that supports it and the people who have the most of it.  That is total bullsh*t.  ALL of this stuff, every bank note, every building, every technology, every field of wheat is all supposed to serve the society that produces it.  Bet they don't teach that in Econ. 101.  Once you spit out the warty dick of capital über alles, the world starts making sense.
 
2014-02-08 02:17:45 PM

super_grass: Teens are dumb and whiny as fark, even kids of rich people.

Now feast your eyes in spoiled stupidity:

][www.boredpanda.com image 605x780]

[www.boredpanda.com image 605x553]
[www.boredpanda.com image 605x749]


At least half of those people are clearly being ironic.
The other half aren't really whining.
 
2014-02-08 02:19:47 PM
Lemme try and summarize why we keep throwing ourselves into canyons for rich people.

This is how capital is sold by capitalists.

saintsherald.files.wordpress.com

This is how it really works.


www.apollotools.com
 
2014-02-08 02:21:49 PM

ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.



The Derp store called.....


Is "derp" the cool word of the internet nowadays, because I want to be a part of it!!!!
 
2014-02-08 02:26:57 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.

The Derp store called.....

Is "derp" the cool word of the internet nowadays, because I want to be a part of it!!!!


No actually its a cliche, and a tired one. Tell me though who is really the douchebag here gramps? The guy tossing out the tired meme or the guy it still describes succinctly?
 
2014-02-08 02:29:27 PM

bunner: Lemme try and summarize why we keep throwing ourselves into canyons for rich people.

This is how capital is sold by capitalists.

[saintsherald.files.wordpress.com image 850x620]

This is how it really works.


[www.apollotools.com image 625x525]


Not only is it a blatant falsehood that capital needs to coalesce in a few hands to be useful, but we now have things like kickstarter, which are more organic and non destructive to an economy as a mechanism for raising capital.
 
2014-02-08 02:32:55 PM

MayoSlather: bunner: Lemme try and summarize why we keep throwing ourselves into canyons for rich people.

This is how capital is sold by capitalists.

[saintsherald.files.wordpress.com image 850x620]

This is how it really works.


[www.apollotools.com image 625x525]

Not only is it a blatant falsehood that capital needs to coalesce in a few hands to be useful, but we now have things like kickstarter, which are more organic and non destructive to an economy as a mechanism for raising capital.


Yeah, I had one up for a bit.  Apparently, there weren't more than 4 people interested in helping me make a good record.  Maybe next time, I'll try and write a children's book about rainbow farting unicorns with a pop up cardboard goat.   :  )
 
2014-02-08 02:39:48 PM

Headso: Shades: machodonkeywrestler: Shades: The My Little Pony Killer: Shades: Always whining about wages being stagnant or falling since the 1960s, never saying WHY they've done that.  I'll help:
- Women entering the workforce in droves
- 1965 Immigration Act opening the floodgates to poor, uneducated immigrants

If you increase the supply of labor, the cost of labor drops.  Gosh, whodathunk?

That explains why white men are still being paid so much more...

They aren't, not for the same work.  Keep blaming others for your problems, though, that'll start paying off any decade now.  Look what it did for Detroit!

You are incredibly ignorant of the driving factors behind wage stagnation in the US. You really should just shut up or you're going to make yourself look like more of an idiotic misogynist/racist than you already have.

Please, dazzle me with your theory about how pumping tens of millions of poor uneducated people into the market has been or could possibly have been good for our native poor uneducated people. Tell me how, say, greatly increasing the number of doctors will increase the wages of doctors. This'll be good.

Adding those people didn't make the GDP even skip a beat, the money is being made, the problem is the tax structure minimum wage is too low and lack of organized labor so it isn't being made by the right people.


Your example is mostly a non-sequitur. I didn't ask how doubling the poor uneducated labor pool affected the economy, I asked how it helped them. An illustration:

I own a factory. Let's call it Factory USA. I employ 100 people to make widgets, and we have agreed that their pay is $20/hr. After a few years, I have enough money to open a second factory, Factory USA Prime. However, I would have to pay the next 100 people $30/hr to work there, as there's nobody left who will agree to work for $20/hr. I decide to think about it.

Then one day, the government magics a second group of people into existence who WILL work for $20/hr. I immediately swing into action.

In the end, I have doubled my personal GDP, and employed twice as many people, good for the nation's GDP. However, the poor uneducated people I employ are making the exact same wage- not so good for them.

The real situation is closer to the government magicking 30,000,000 people into existence who will work for $0.50/hr, but I think you can see my point.
 
2014-02-08 02:40:49 PM

ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.

The Derp store called.....

Is "derp" the cool word of the internet nowadays, because I want to be a part of it!!!!

No actually its a cliche, and a tired one. Tell me though who is really the douchebag here gramps? The guy tossing out the tired meme or the guy it still describes succinctly?


Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong
 
2014-02-08 02:41:17 PM

bunner: MayoSlather: bunner: Lemme try and summarize why we keep throwing ourselves into canyons for rich people.

This is how capital is sold by capitalists.

[saintsherald.files.wordpress.com image 850x620]

This is how it really works.


[www.apollotools.com image 625x525]

Not only is it a blatant falsehood that capital needs to coalesce in a few hands to be useful, but we now have things like kickstarter, which are more organic and non destructive to an economy as a mechanism for raising capital.

Yeah, I had one up for a bit.  Apparently, there weren't more than 4 people interested in helping me make a good record.  Maybe next time, I'll try and write a children's book about rainbow farting unicorns with a pop up cardboard goat.   :  )


mediad.publicbroadcasting.net

Too late.
 
2014-02-08 02:47:26 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.

The Derp store called.....

Is "derp" the cool word of the internet nowadays, because I want to be a part of it!!!!


Was "derp" before it became cool:

weknowmemes.com
 
2014-02-08 02:50:44 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.

The Derp store called.....

Is "derp" the cool word of the internet nowadays, because I want to be a part of it!!!!

No actually its a cliche, and a tired one. Tell me though who is really the douchebag here gramps? The guy tossing out the tired meme or the guy it still describes succinctly?

Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong


Your context implies that both sides are at fault for this supposed "class war" they aren't. When the ghouls you are throwing yourself on the grenade for stop doing shiat like shipping jobs overseas, laying off thousands despite record profits and blaming the scary blah guy in the White House for it all then I may revisit my tone. Until then I'm still voting for public executions Beijing style.
 
2014-02-08 02:53:56 PM

Shades: The real situation is closer to the government magicking 30,000,000 people into existence who will work for $0.50/hr, but I think you can see my point.


Your point doesn't take into account that those people all become consumers as well so the ones that earn money spend it just like everyone else. Every person "magicked" into existence that went to work for a union shop earns whatever the other guys in the union earn at that job. Every one that went to work for minimum wage earns the same minimum wage as everyone else. If there were more unions and a higher minimum wage it would help all those people just like it would help  the real merkins who had family come over on the mayflower.
 
2014-02-08 02:56:21 PM

grumpyoldmann: I wonder if his "affluenza" would stop a sniper's bullet.


Let's find out.
 
2014-02-08 03:11:09 PM

ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.

The Derp store called.....

Is "derp" the cool word of the internet nowadays, because I want to be a part of it!!!!

No actually its a cliche, and a tired one. Tell me though who is really the douchebag here gramps? The guy tossing out the tired meme or the guy it still describes succinctly?

Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Your context implies that both sides are at fault for this supposed "class war" they aren't. When the ghouls you are throwing yourself on the grenade for stop doing shiat like shipping jobs overseas, laying off thousands despite record profits and blaming the scary blah guy in the White House for it all then I may revisit my tone. Until then I'm still voting for public executions Beijing style.


Talk to President Clinton.

/leaving for Beijing tomorrow. Will eat the scorpion blood that. is....
 
2014-02-08 03:11:27 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong


Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.
 
2014-02-08 03:14:13 PM

super_grass: Teens are dumb and whiny as fark, even kids of rich people.

Now feast your eyes in spoiled stupidity:

][www.boredpanda.com image 605x780]

[www.boredpanda.com image 605x553]
[www.boredpanda.com image 605x749]


"Fark you Santa. I wanted an Iphone"

Hilarious
 
2014-02-08 03:17:53 PM

Linux_Yes: 20 years??   and he would have gotten out in 2 or 3.  don't exaggerate.


poor little rich kid.  ):   its tough all over.


You know what I got for Christmas? Oh, it was a banner farking year at the old Bender family. I got a carton of cigarettes. The old man grabbed me and said, "Hey, smoke up Johnny." Alright? So go home and cry to your Daddy. Don't cry here, okay?
 
2014-02-08 03:20:11 PM
So, what have we learned?

Capitalism is a valuable method for certain things but only when used in concert with other ideologies and methods and the whole idea for the end result is to improve the quality of life.


As a religion, it's as poisonous as pretty much any other religion.


The people who have hoarded all of the available wealth into a few hands have been dismantling our way if life and bending us over the sink for decades, and who is or isn't in office has nothing to do with their disingenuous greedcraft.  And we can't vote for or against them.


Opportunity no longer exists unless that opportunity includes making a rich person richer.


We are largely quite happy to endlessly turn upon each other, like a pack of digs when the master holds up a steak, instead of addressing the sources of our poverty.


Bread and circuses still works.


History is sitting with a bag of crap in one hand and the fan switch in the other and we're pretty sure it doesn't mean US.


The egregious acquisition of everything that isn't nailed down will likely continue unabated because there's no redress against government approved thievery and the preponderance of the people practicing it seem to be delusional sociopaths.


They're getting pissy and "aw shucks" about our growing disdain for their unconscionable behaviors.


Any questions?  Answers?  Anybody want a tic tac?  See the proctor for your grade.
 
2014-02-08 03:21:13 PM

jso2897: haywatchthis: trappedspirit: That price is paid in the form of the growing contempt of their fellow citizens, a contempt that grows in proportion to the ever-increasing gap in America between the children of privilege and everyone else.

So, the more money a person has the more people will hate them?  That's some real insight there.  Or, check a fark thread.
Oh, and, guillotine.  Am I the first to guillotine this thread?

/guillotine

all you had to say was poor people are jealous

He managed to be stupid enough without including that turd of wisdom, actually.


The moment you realize someone mad, tho
 
2014-02-08 03:31:25 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: jso2897: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Correct, but not everyone contributes to society.
/otherwise very well said.

Basically, there's a certain distribution of income/wealth that is ideal for a consumer economy.  At the moment, the consumer base is too small and the rich are too rich, so things aren't moving as well as they could.  We can grow the base by taxation/redistribution, we can grow it by regulating corporate pay structures, we can grow it by shifting the power in collective bargaining... It doesn't matter much how the money gets back down to the people who will spend it, as long as it gets there.

Devise whatever philosophical reasoning you need to come up with about "who owns the fruit of who's labor".  It' makes no difference in the long run.

Pragmatism is wasted on ideologues. They are RIGHT - and hang the consequences.

But enough about our President.

The Derp store called.....

Is "derp" the cool word of the internet nowadays, because I want to be a part of it!!!!

No actually its a cliche, and a tired one. Tell me though who is really the douchebag here gramps? The guy tossing out the tired meme or the guy it still describes succinctly?

Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Your context implies that both sides are at fault for this supposed "class war" they aren't. When the ghouls you are throwing yourself on the grenade for stop doing shiat like shipping jobs overseas, laying off thousands despite record profits and blaming the scary blah guy in the White House for it all then I may revisit my tone. Until then I'm still voting for public executions Beijing style.

Talk to President Clinton.

/leaving for Beijing tomorrow. Will eat the scorpion blood that. is....


 And with "But. But..Clinton!" we're done.

24.media.tumblr.com

Maybe try the comments over at yahoo news I think thats a little more your speed.
 
2014-02-08 03:38:24 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong


meh, why? Some of the rhetoric can target people that are into civility but nothing wrong with lower brow rhetoric that targets more emotional voters.
 
2014-02-08 03:38:28 PM

Headso: Shades: The real situation is closer to the government magicking 30,000,000 people into existence who will work for $0.50/hr, but I think you can see my point.

Your point doesn't take into account that those people all become consumers as well so the ones that earn money spend it just like everyone else. Every person "magicked" into existence that went to work for a union shop earns whatever the other guys in the union earn at that job. Every one that went to work for minimum wage earns the same minimum wage as everyone else. If there were more unions and a higher minimum wage it would help all those people just like it would help  the real merkins who had family come over on the mayflower.


If we simply raise minimum wage without requiring any further effort on the part of the people getting it, why shouldn't I, as the owner of Factory USA, move the factory to Mexico? If you force me to stay in the USA, why wouldn't I automate the plant? If I ran McBurger USA, why wouldn't I just replace people with robots? That's happening by the way, food service businesses are going with robots.

In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.
 
2014-02-08 03:38:57 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.


You and I know... this will not happen.
 
2014-02-08 03:44:30 PM

Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.


as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.
 
2014-02-08 03:49:26 PM

Shades: The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.


Or to put enough capital into the economy to launch new consumer demand like a missile to the point where ditch diggers can actually get paid to dig ditches.
 
2014-02-08 03:51:46 PM

Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.


How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.
 
2014-02-08 03:51:51 PM
See, all these Econ 101 scenarios have a major flaw.  They are all predicated on the assumption that the people with all the capital, having glommed huge amounts of it, should say "Well, we done got that, so we're gonna keep that and now we have ta figger out to get a lot more of it without actually putting any of that big ass truck full of it back into play."  Uh, no.
 
2014-02-08 03:54:09 PM

Shades: nobody rides for free.


www.biz.uiowa.edu
                     Next platitude, please.
 
2014-02-08 03:57:25 PM

Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.


But all of the jobs have been automated or outsourced- so who are these people still working?  Is there a demand for them?
 
2014-02-08 03:59:28 PM

Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.


you wouldn't be working to support them anymore than you'd be working to support yourself if each person had a min income, all that extra money a person might make working hard as a trust fund child or a bankster would be extra income.
 
2014-02-08 03:59:49 PM
But they work harder at whining than the poors.
 
2014-02-08 03:59:59 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.

You and I know... this will not happen.


mysonhasaids.files.wordpress.com

Yeah how dare us poors have the unmitigated gall to bear resentment against people who have made us a nation of $10 an hour or less and no benefits. I mean really what kind of parasitic crybaby thinks they should be able to take their kids to a doctor! A DOCTOR PEOPLE! Can you believe there even those out there who have got it into their heads that because we aren't paid enough to comfortably support a family of 0.5 we should earn more. But the worst are those unpatriotic turds who waste their money on meaningless crap like food, bills and medicine when they know Sarah Bear is planning a 2016 run.

The sooner the boomers die off the better. The part of me deep, deep, deep deep down that believes that people are inherently good has the goobledygook theory that the A.C.A. was Intentionally crippled to help nature take its course. After you're all dead we'll see a single payer system passed with broad bipartisan support.
 
2014-02-08 04:00:20 PM

Wally007: Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.

But all of the jobs have been automated or outsourced- so who are these people still working?  Is there a demand for them?


Somebody has to design the robots, I suppose. That or we must inevitably turn into the Judge Dredd universe.
 
2014-02-08 04:02:41 PM
Do we really still believe that success means "I got enough money to last me for 10,000 life times and I'm KEEPING it!"?  Do we?   Has our perception of what it means to be a successful human being truly never evolved past 6th grade recess?  And if not, do we have any business complaining when the people we bestow the mantle of success upon piss down our backs as we genuflect?
 
2014-02-08 04:04:50 PM

Headso: Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.

you wouldn't be working to support them anymore than you'd be working to support yourself if each person had a min income, all that extra money a person might make working hard as a trust fund child or a bankster would be extra income.


Oh, I see. You don't understand what wealth is or how societies function. You see, a great many material things must be made in order to continue and further society. We call that "wealth". People not working simply consume wealth without creating any. Those of us creating wealth will eventually get the idea that we would have more wealth for ourselves if we didn't have to give any away to the freeloaders. Makes sense?
 
2014-02-08 04:05:54 PM

Shades: freeloaders.


See GE post.
 
2014-02-08 04:11:08 PM

ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.

You and I know... this will not happen.

[mysonhasaids.files.wordpress.com image 707x600]

Yeah how dare us poors have the unmitigated gall to bear resentment against people who have made us a nation of $10 an hour or less and no benefits. I mean really what kind of parasitic crybaby thinks they should be able to take their kids to a doctor! A DOCTOR PEOPLE! Can you believe there even those out there who have got it into their heads that because we aren't paid enough to comfortably support a family of 0.5 we should earn more. But the worst are those unpatriotic turds who waste their money on meaningless crap like food, bills and medicine when they know Sarah Bear is planning a 2016 run.

The sooner the boomers die off the better. The part of me deep, deep, deep deep down that believes that people are inherently good has the goobledygook theory that the A.C.A. was Intentionally crippled to help nature take its course. After you're all dead we'll see a single payer system passed with broad bipartisan support.


OUR president is a boomer.
 
2014-02-08 04:12:10 PM
When I see a thread like this, it isn't the 1% that I find whiny.
 
2014-02-08 04:13:12 PM

06Wahoo: When I see a thread like this, it isn't the 1% that I find whiny.


They probably don't have FARK accounts.
 
2014-02-08 04:14:48 PM

Shades: Headso: Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.

you wouldn't be working to support them anymore than you'd be working to support yourself if each person had a min income, all that extra money a person might make working hard as a trust fund child or a bankster would be extra income.

Oh, I see. You don't understand what wealth is or how societies function. You see, a great many material things must be made in order to continue and further society. We call that "wealth". People not working simply consume wealth without creating any. Those of us creating wealth will eventually get the idea that we would have more wealth for ourselves if we didn't have to give any away to the freeloaders. Makes sense?


there's no jobs but skilled labor that pay well because it is in high demand and can't be automated in your society and capital gains on the labor robots are doing. If that 15% of the population who are "working" and those reaping the majority of the capital gains want to get uppity they can have their heads removed from their bodies by the other 85% of people.
 
2014-02-08 04:15:15 PM

Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.


Succinctly put; well said; bears repeating; farking THIS.

Cut, paste, and save Z-clipped's comment above for the next Class Warfare accusation from the game-riggers.
 
2014-02-08 04:18:03 PM

Headso: Shades: Headso: Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.

you wouldn't be working to support them anymore than you'd be working to support yourself if each person had a min income, all that extra money a person might make working hard as a trust fund child or a bankster would be extra income.

Oh, I see. You don't understand what wealth is or how societies function. You see, a great many material things must be made in order to continue and further society. We call that "wealth". People not working simply consume wealth without creating any. Those of us creating wealth will eventually get the idea that we would have more wealth for ourselves if we didn't have to give any away to the freeloaders. Makes sense?

there's no jobs but skilled labor that pay well because it is in high demand and can't be automated in your society and capital gains on the labor robots are doing. If that 15% of the population who are "working" and those reaping the majority of the capital gains want to get uppity they can have their heads removed from their bodies by the other 85% of people.


Oh, you're one of those. Good day.
 
2014-02-08 04:18:48 PM
"There is a class war.  And we're winning." - Warren Buffet
 
2014-02-08 04:31:14 PM

06Wahoo: When I see a thread like this, it isn't the 1% that I find whiny.


Yeah, it's pretty whiny to be all like "Our economy is unsustainable" or "People don't make a living wage" or "Wages have been stagnant for 30 years for 60% of the population"

Call the wahhambulance am I right?
 
2014-02-08 04:32:08 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.

You and I know... this will not happen.

[mysonhasaids.files.wordpress.com image 707x600]

Yeah how dare us poors have the unmitigated gall to bear resentment against people who have made us a nation of $10 an hour or less and no benefits. I mean really what kind of parasitic crybaby thinks they should be able to take their kids to a doctor! A DOCTOR PEOPLE! Can you believe there even those out there who have got it into their heads that because we aren't paid enough to comfortably support a family of 0.5 we should earn more. But the worst are those unpatriotic turds who waste their money on meaningless crap like food, bills and medicine when they know Sarah Bear is planning a 2016 run.

The sooner the boomers die off the better. The part of me deep, deep, deep deep down that believes that people are inherently good has the goobledygook theory that the A.C.A. was Intentionally crippled to help nature take its course. After you're all dead we'll see a single payer system passed with broad bipartisan support.

OUR president is a boomer.


Oh are you one of those derps who assume because I idenitify as democrat I think Obama walks on water? Let me let you in on a little secret, those people don't exist anywhere except for the fevered imaginations of terrified old white guys. Just because you people treat anyone shrieks loud enough about guns, messicans and baby jesus like the farking messiah you shouldn't assume the other does the same.
 
2014-02-08 04:56:55 PM

MayoSlather: "Wages have been stagnant for 30 years for 60% of the population"


And will likely decline until people who work for a living figure out a way to bring in thirty times what they're paid every day by serving an economy with no money to spend on anything.
 
2014-02-08 04:59:10 PM

ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.

You and I know... this will not happen.

[mysonhasaids.files.wordpress.com image 707x600]

Yeah how dare us poors have the unmitigated gall to bear resentment against people who have made us a nation of $10 an hour or less and no benefits. I mean really what kind of parasitic crybaby thinks they should be able to take their kids to a doctor! A DOCTOR PEOPLE! Can you believe there even those out there who have got it into their heads that because we aren't paid enough to comfortably support a family of 0.5 we should earn more. But the worst are those unpatriotic turds who waste their money on meaningless crap like food, bills and medicine when they know Sarah Bear is planning a 2016 run.

The sooner the boomers die off the better. The part of me deep, deep, deep deep down that believes that people are inherently good has the goobledygook theory that the A.C.A. was Intentionally crippled to help nature take its course. After you're all dead we'll see a single payer system passed with broad bipartisan support.

OUR president is a boomer.

Oh are you one of those derps who assume because I idenitify as democrat I think Obama walks on water? Let me let you in on a little secret, those peo ...


Do you know what happens when you assume about something about people?
 
2014-02-08 05:01:37 PM
"All we gotta do is make stuff over here for 2.00 a day and then ship it back here for a 3,000 percent markup!"

"So, like, what do we do when the people who no longer make stuff here anymore run out of money?"


"They can take out loans!"


"Are people that stupid?"
 
2014-02-08 05:13:20 PM

ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: ScaryBottles: AlwaysRightBoy: Z-clipped: AlwaysRightBoy: Actually I'm just an old guy asking to go about it in civil way as opposed to all this classwar way. I'm soooo wrong

Advocating for a higher top marginal tax bracket is not class warfare.
Advocating for a more balanced collective bargaining framework is not class warfare.
Advocating for restricting offshore tax havens and outsourced labor is not class warfare.
Advocating for corporate salary regulations, or a better social safety net is not class warfare.

It wasn't class war when F.D.R. did it, and it ain't now.

You want civility? Help realign the system to smooth out the distribution of wealth and income so our economy improves.  That's the civil solution.  Don't, and you just might see some uncivil solutions.

You and I know... this will not happen.

[mysonhasaids.files.wordpress.com image 707x600]

Yeah how dare us poors have the unmitigated gall to bear resentment against people who have made us a nation of $10 an hour or less and no benefits. I mean really what kind of parasitic crybaby thinks they should be able to take their kids to a doctor! A DOCTOR PEOPLE! Can you believe there even those out there who have got it into their heads that because we aren't paid enough to comfortably support a family of 0.5 we should earn more. But the worst are those unpatriotic turds who waste their money on meaningless crap like food, bills and medicine when they know Sarah Bear is planning a 2016 run.

The sooner the boomers die off the better. The part of me deep, deep, deep deep down that believes that people are inherently good has the goobledygook theory that the A.C.A. was Intentionally crippled to help nature take its course. After you're all dead we'll see a single payer system passed with broad bipartisan support.

OUR president is a boomer.

Oh are you one of those derps who assume because I idenitify as democrat I think Obama walks on water? Let me let you in on a little secret, those peo ...


learn to read boomer killer
 
2014-02-08 05:18:55 PM
ScaryBottles:

Are like 86 or something? Seriously? A fool? I bet you advocate the aspirin-between-the-knees contraceptive method and liked it better when the Joos, Skirts and and Blahs weren't bothering everybody with their whining.

[www.plainolas.com image 580x1019]


Since when did "fool" make people sound old?

/I said consummate V's: comsummate!
//geez...
 
2014-02-08 05:23:34 PM
Ruiizu: 

Since when did "fool" make people sound old?

For that matter, when did we buy the notion that old people are automatically uninformed fools, wholesale?  Oh yeah.  As soon as people under 40 bought into the idea that the sun shines out of their ass because they're not 50.
 
2014-02-08 05:28:17 PM
An article that summarizes two articles that had been previously greenlit gets greenlit.


i.imgur.com

/now we know how to get greenlit
 
2014-02-08 05:37:28 PM

Shades: Headso: Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.

you wouldn't be working to support them anymore than you'd be working to support yourself if each person had a min income, all that extra money a person might make working hard as a trust fund child or a bankster would be extra income.

Oh, I see. You don't understand what wealth is or how societies function. You see, a great many material things must be made in order to continue and further society. We call that "wealth". People not working simply consume wealth without creating any. Those of us creating wealth will eventually get the idea that we would have more wealth for ourselves if we didn't have to give any away to the freeloaders. Makes sense?


That's rich telling other people they don't understand the economy when your view is based on fallacies, a narrow minded view, a basic drive to blame all your problems on what you perceive as your "lessers".
 
2014-02-08 05:40:46 PM

Shades: Headso: Shades: Headso: Shades: In any case, none of your scenarios raise any individual's true income. The only real way to raise the cost of unskilled labor is to restrict the supply of it.

as you mention it isn't possible to restrict the supply of it because of technological advancement so if raises in minimum wage hastened automation or outsourcing then the next step would be a guaranteed minimum income for the citizenry.

How will you avoid this problem, that those if us working to support those who don't will come to see them as a useless drag on our own prosperity, and come to hate and despise them? Secular humanism is nice in theory, it just doesn't survive a collision with reality. Coke, toke, or poke, nobody rides for free.

you wouldn't be working to support them anymore than you'd be working to support yourself if each person had a min income, all that extra money a person might make working hard as a trust fund child or a bankster would be extra income.

Oh, I see. You don't understand what wealth is or how societies function. You see, a great many material things must be made in order to continue and further society. We call that "wealth". People not working simply consume wealth without creating any. Those of us creating wealth will eventually get the idea that we would have more wealth for ourselves if we didn't have to give any away to the freeloaders. Makes sense?


Also, your "us" rhetoric is laughable.
 
2014-02-08 05:43:27 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Do you know what happens when you assume about something about people?


All too frequently they'll cite a tired aphorism that uses homonyms of fragments of a particular word to try to seem profound.

But maybe that won't happen now.
 
2014-02-08 06:42:14 PM

bunner: "There is a class war.  And we're winning whining." - Warren Buffet


FTFM
 
2014-02-08 06:51:10 PM

ThighsofGlory: bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.

Nope. Not a one.




Then explain Tom Perkins.
 
2014-02-08 06:58:10 PM

bunner: Shades: nobody rides for free.

[www.biz.uiowa.edu image 300x299]
                     Next platitude, please.


It doesn't make sense to tax them since we're already giving them all those energy subsidies and juicy, juicy military contracts.
 
2014-02-08 07:16:56 PM

bunner: MayoSlather: bunner: Lemme try and summarize why we keep throwing ourselves into canyons for rich people.

This is how capital is sold by capitalists.

[saintsherald.files.wordpress.com image 850x620]

This is how it really works.


[www.apollotools.com image 625x525]

Not only is it a blatant falsehood that capital needs to coalesce in a few hands to be useful, but we now have things like kickstarter, which are more organic and non destructive to an economy as a mechanism for raising capital.

Yeah, I had one up for a bit.  Apparently, there weren't more than 4 people interested in helping me make a good record.  Maybe next time, I'll try and write a children's book about rainbow farting unicorns with a pop up cardboard goat.   :  )


You could try a legion of miniature flying assault butts.
 
2014-02-08 08:39:59 PM

ransack.: [eil.com image 300x300]


Steven Tyler, Net worth: $130 million.
Joe Perry: $120 million
Tom Hamilton: $215 million
Joey Kramer: $100 million
Brad Whitford: $75 million

So... dinner time?

/Probably not that appetising... beef jerky-like.
 
2014-02-08 08:47:31 PM

Chameleon: You could try a legion of miniature flying assault butts.



:  /


:  \


:  |


Yeahhhhh.
 
2014-02-08 09:02:44 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.


You don't own money.

Ever.

It's not yours.

The people, in the form of government, own all money everywhere. You don't own it. You don't get to say "I earned it, I get to keep it!"

You didn't earn it in a vacuum. You earned it because society made it possible for you to earn it.

There is no such thing as "My" money or "Your" money. Just money. You use it for a while, I use it for a while, but it belongs to the government. They do have the power and every right to say "We're taxing this money to pay for society's needs." And you don't get to say what those needs are, except by exercising your right to vote. The civilized world has decided that it's not right for a few ultra-wealthy people to control all of the money. The civilized world has decided that the poor need protection from the rich, as the rich have proven time and time again that they will grind the poor into the dirt to earn fraction of a percentage more per quarter than they did last quarter. The civilized world has decided that the wealthy only got that way on the backs of the poor, and it's the responsibility of the wealthy to pay for those that paved the road for their success.
 
2014-02-08 09:27:39 PM

LavenderWolf: The people, in the form of government, own all money everywhere. You don't own it. You don't get to say "I earned it, I get to keep it!"


This looks like its shaping up to be one of those currency vs money things.  Are you sure you're going with that formulation?
 
2014-02-08 09:42:07 PM
See, the problem is, money and data move
i.imgur.com

and governance moves
i.imgur.com

Just add some icicles.  And government wouldn't have it any other way.
 
2014-02-08 09:46:14 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: LavenderWolf: The people, in the form of government, own all money everywhere. You don't own it. You don't get to say "I earned it, I get to keep it!"

This looks like its shaping up to be one of those currency vs money things.  Are you sure you're going with that formulation?


Don't split unrelated hairs.

My point is unequivocally clear. There isn't a rich person alive who has earned their wealth without the aid of society. They owe society literally every penny. I have no problem with people spending the money they earn, or gathering large sums of money for actual purposes. The real problems come from money-hoarding. If a single digit tax change has a six digit effect on your taxes, you make enough money off the backs of the poor to pay for their care.

Unspent money - savings over any reasonably necessary amount required to live extravagantly for generations - should be taxed at extremely high levels. I mean like 70% of money over a certain threshold. Your average person (your average ten thousand people combined, actually) couldn't hope to reach that threshold in two lifetimes of earning.

The ultra-rich are wrenches in the gears of the world economy. They have their money sit and earn interest, taking more and more out of circulation.

I don't think you understand the problem with money hoarding. Spent money drives economies. People buying things. The ultra-wealthy, despite having billions of dollars more wealth, do not spend that money on things that actually create jobs. They might open/run businesses to create jobs themselves, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the jobs created by a proper middle class economy. The whole "Job creator" meme needs to die. The ultra-wealthy don't create jobs, they stagnate economies.
 
2014-02-08 09:51:21 PM
LavenderWolf: The ultra-wealthy don't create jobs, they stagnate economies.


Tape this to your fridge.
 
2014-02-08 10:12:59 PM

LavenderWolf: I don't think you understand the problem with money hoarding. Spent money drives economies. People buying things. The ultra-wealthy, despite having billions of dollars more wealth, do not spend that money on things that actually create jobs. They might open/run businesses to create jobs themselves, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the jobs created by a proper middle class economy. The whole "Job creator" meme needs to die. The ultra-wealthy don't create jobs, they stagnate economies.


I don't disagree with that at all.

I just think saying "Goverment owns the money" is a poor way to argue it, to the point of making it a non-sequitur.   The benefits of an active economy, and the point of supply being useless without demand would still apply even if people used bitcoins, dogecoins, or barter.
 
2014-02-08 10:21:46 PM
The Wealthy have this Nation brainwashed.   which proves they aren't even smart enough to plan for their long term survival.

the Lie won't last forever.  eventually, the truth always gets out.  any 9th grade history buff knows that.
 
2014-02-08 10:26:19 PM
the population is growing faster than advancements.
 
2014-02-08 10:34:37 PM

LavenderWolf: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

You don't own money.

Ever.

It's not yours.

The people, in the form of government, own all money everywhere. You don't own it. You don't get to say "I earned it, I get to keep it!"

You didn't earn it in a vacuum. You earned it because society made it possible for you to earn it.

There is no such thing as "My" money or "Your" money. Just money. You use it for a while, I use it for a while, but it belongs to the government. They do have the power and every right to say "We're taxing this money to pay for society's needs." And you don't get to say what those needs are, except by exercising your right to vote. The civilized world has decided that it's not right for a few ultra-wealthy people to control all of the money. The civilized world has decided that the poor need protection from the rich, as the rich have proven time and time again that they will grind the poor into the dirt to earn fraction of a percentage more per quarter than they did last quarter. The civilized world has decided that the wealthy only got that way on the backs of the poor, and it's the responsibility of the wealthy to pay for those that paved the road for their success.


So 35 years of sacrifice and labor at my job is for nothing? Should I have  just gone on the government dole in the first place? I'll try that next time around and see how it works.


knows about "My" money... it still not yours for the taking
 
2014-02-08 10:40:24 PM

haywatchthis: the population is growing faster than advancements.


No, the money is lagging behind about 20 years and the notion that an inexcusable amount of profit must be the result of implementation is the boulder blocking the road.  Nobody ever called Jonas Salk a no good sonofab*tch.
 
2014-02-08 11:33:07 PM
"Yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people."
- Billy Ray


/profound
//now

AlwaysRightBoy: knows about "My" money... it still not yours for the taking


Maybe not... but "your" money is only worth anything because we as a society (and by implication the government) agreed that it was, like gold or anything else. Food has intrinsic worth because without it you die. Same with water, and clothing in colder climates, as well as shelter. But unless I agree that those brightly colored pieces of paper and shiny metal you hand me are equal in value to what you want from me, "your money" means jack sh*t. It does indeed belong to all of us, because without all of us it has no value.
The value it has to you is irrelevant, but the value it has to me is what's important when you want something I have.
 
2014-02-08 11:37:50 PM
Searching: "zero sum"
0 results

You goyim don't even know how all this supposed hoarded wealth, that didn't exist 100 years, came into existence.  You can't hoard what only exists once you create it.

Go flucking study economic theory some more.  It has done you shiat good up to now.  I'm hoping it will keep your idle hands busy in the future.
 
2014-02-08 11:42:44 PM
If wealth is such a burden then give away your money and be happy.
 
2014-02-08 11:43:09 PM

rewind2846: "Yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people."
- Billy Ray


/profound
//now

AlwaysRightBoy: knows about "My" money... it still not yours for the taking

Maybe not... but "your" money is only worth anything because we as a society (and by implication the government) agreed that it was, like gold or anything else. Food has intrinsic worth because without it you die. Same with water, and clothing in colder climates, as well as shelter. But unless I agree that those brightly colored pieces of paper and shiny metal you hand me are equal in value to what you want from me, "your money" means jack sh*t. It does indeed belong to all of us, because without all of us it has no value.
The value it has to you is irrelevant, but the value it has to me is what's important when you want something I have.


You can have the rest of mine so I can start taking the rest of yours.
 
2014-02-08 11:46:07 PM

super_grass: Teens are dumb and whiny as fark, even kids of rich people.

Now feast your eyes in spoiled stupidity:

][www.boredpanda.com image 605x780]

[www.boredpanda.com image 605x553]
[www.boredpanda.com image 605x749]


They're stupid, too.  Apple doesn't even make white Macbooks any more.  That brat is angry she didn't get something they stopped making 3 years ago.
 
2014-02-08 11:55:35 PM
faculty.tcc.fl.edu

floridahistory.org

sites.psu.edu

static.guim.co.uk
 
2014-02-09 12:31:54 AM

trappedspirit: Searching: "zero sum"
0 results

You goyim don't even know how all this supposed hoarded wealth, that didn't exist 100 years, came into existence.  You can't hoard what only exists once you create it.

Go flucking study economic theory some more.  It has done you shiat good up to now.  I'm hoping it will keep your idle hands busy in the future.


This is an economic myth, akin to humans having unlimited wants and needs, and the reason why economics is the most dismal science of all. Economic theory is a contrivance and corrosive to basic morality.

Of course it's a zero sum game. We don't live in a magical world where infinite money, time, demand, and resources exist. A company makes 100 bucks the CEO takes 99 and gives his employees a dollar to split, that's pretty f'ing zero sum. Or there are 2 restaurants that get all the business, a third restaurant opens and takes half the business away from the other two; again pretty f'ing zero sum.
 
2014-02-09 01:00:22 AM

MayoSlather: Economic theory is a contrivance and corrosive to basic morality.


As should any "science" be that offers validity to nothing more than a pack of play by play wankers who never picked up a ball, sitting in the lodge, and telling the crowd what they just saw every 3 minutes.  And then publishing the game sats as a "theory"  Useless as titties on a fish, the lot of them.  Business plans can be mapped to cover centuries.  The transactions take about 3 sec flat, happen with a handshake and then the mountains move.  Nobody who has made a nickel in this shark tank is working off the Econ 303 play book or needs it.
 
2014-02-09 01:08:22 AM
Don't give the people who bring the money in the door a decent wage, give them stirring songs and emotionally engaging videos and attaboys and folded flags and medals and some hyped notion of he dignity of beating your brains out for 50 years to get bent over the sink when they're too tired to keep buying you 300,000.00 cars.

thomsonconsultingservicesllc.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-09 01:43:37 AM
So let us lift a glass to those who toiled on another man's field.  Who sowed where they could barely reap.  Who took a scythe to 1,000 acres for the privilege of gleaning the scraps.  Who plowed and sweat and laughed and loved and brought loved and hopeful babies into a world that gave them no ladder or comeuppance, only a smile from an honest father or a loving mother who fed and clothed them the best they could.

Let us praise the true wealth creators, briefly, as they are mostly modest men and women.


Call up the band and play a reel and a polka and a happy dance for the makers of the world we stand upon.


Let us shake their hands and pull them to our bosoms to praise their furrowed brows and sore backs and tell them the love they put forth has not gone unnoticed at our dinner table or in our humble homes.  Let us tell them of our respect and admiration for the roads they cleared and the wheat  they harvested and the money they moved so that others might stand in the shadow of their dignity and toil, before they, as we all must, look to the sky, starless and bible black, and fall back into the arms of mother night.   Let's drink to the salt of the earth.
 
2014-02-09 02:23:51 AM
Doug Hopkins was a brilliant songwriter who blew his brains out after he got kicked out of his own band, named after a skin condition that results from alcoholism.

Ah, the irony.

This is the best song on their debut album, IMNSFHO.

If you want to know what it's like to be working class, whip smart and out of ideas, give it a listen.
 
2014-02-09 03:26:24 AM

Astorix: ThighsofGlory: bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.

Nope. Not a one.

Then explain Tom Perkins.


No.
 
2014-02-09 11:43:26 AM

MayoSlather: trappedspirit: Searching: "zero sum"
0 results

You goyim don't even know how all this supposed hoarded wealth, that didn't exist 100 years, came into existence.  You can't hoard what only exists once you create it.

Go flucking study economic theory some more.  It has done you shiat good up to now.  I'm hoping it will keep your idle hands busy in the future.

This is an economic myth, akin to humans having unlimited wants and needs, and the reason why economics is the most dismal science of all. Economic theory is a contrivance and corrosive to basic morality.

Of course it's a zero sum game. We don't live in a magical world where infinite money, time, demand, and resources exist. A company makes 100 bucks the CEO takes 99 and gives his employees a dollar to split, that's pretty f'ing zero sum. Or there are 2 restaurants that get all the business, a third restaurant opens and takes half the business away from the other two; again pretty f'ing zero sum.



*whoosh*
 
2014-02-09 12:01:35 PM

trappedspirit: MayoSlather: trappedspirit: Searching: "zero sum"
0 results

You goyim don't even know how all this supposed hoarded wealth, that didn't exist 100 years, came into existence.  You can't hoard what only exists once you create it.

Go flucking study economic theory some more.  It has done you shiat good up to now.  I'm hoping it will keep your idle hands busy in the future.

This is an economic myth, akin to humans having unlimited wants and needs, and the reason why economics is the most dismal science of all. Economic theory is a contrivance and corrosive to basic morality.

Of course it's a zero sum game. We don't live in a magical world where infinite money, time, demand, and resources exist. A company makes 100 bucks the CEO takes 99 and gives his employees a dollar to split, that's pretty f'ing zero sum. Or there are 2 restaurants that get all the business, a third restaurant opens and takes half the business away from the other two; again pretty f'ing zero sum.


*whoosh*


Brilliant rebuttal. The response to criticism of "non zero sum" thinking always has such cogent displays of logic, and are never based out of bias from wealth apologists.

And in your mind you're above this, anyone that disagrees with you, you'll claim they just don't get it, or they aren't framing it the proper context. Unfortunately non zero sum ideas never hold up in any model, and is easily disprovable.

The thing about hard sciences is they offer a model of prediction. You can run thought experiments and calculations with observable data and anyone given the right variables can predict outcomes. Unfortunately for economics, this is an impossibility. It rarely plays out as predicted. Other than the most rudimentary elements of supply and demand does any prediction consistently hold up.
 
2014-02-09 12:10:34 PM

Shades: Keep blaming others for your problems, though,


Point out where I did that, smartass, or keep your ignorant assumptions to yourself.

/in fact, just keep your ignorant assumptions to yourself, please and thanks
 
2014-02-09 12:16:18 PM

traylor: I'm not sure how killing the rich would solve your problems.


It's not just the killing of the rich, it's the fact that when they're no longer around to hoard money, all that money goes back into the economy. Ta-daaa!
 
2014-02-09 12:18:50 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: classwar


I don't think you quite grasp who is waging war with whom.
 
2014-02-09 12:21:34 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: You and I know... this will not happen.


Bull-farking-shiat, it won't.
 
2014-02-09 12:26:16 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: So 35 years of sacrifice and labor at my job is for nothing?


It is if you're some mean old bastard barking on the internet.
 
2014-02-09 12:41:06 PM

MayoSlather: Brilliant rebuttal. The response to criticism of "non zero sum" thinking always has such cogent displays of logic, and are never based out of bias from wealth apologists.

And in your mind you're above this, anyone that disagrees with you, you'll claim they just don't get it, or they aren't framing it the proper context. Unfortunately non zero sum ideas never hold up in any model, and is easily disprovable.


You are the guy who said

"Of course it's a zero sum game. We don't live in a magical world where infinite money, time, demand, and resources exist. A company makes 100 bucks the CEO takes 99 and gives his employees a dollar to split, that's pretty f'ing zero sum. Or there are 2 restaurants that get all the business, a third restaurant opens and takes half the business away from the other two; again pretty f'ing zero sum. "

Right?  Then you go off on scientific principles.   Well thing is, Scientific 'zero sum' principles, like conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are supposed to apply at all times.  not just after T=0.

Your example:  "A company makes 100 bucks ".  That's before the T=0 where the  profit is distributed.  So is it still a conservation principle at T<0?  But 100 bucks were 'made'! Sure you'll say the customers paid for it, so it's still zero sum.  But how?  They wrote a check?  The bank has cash sitting in a vault to cover that check?  In this day of fractional reserves, probably not.  So where is that money coming from.  Probably the future value of a mortgage or something similar.  Which is a guess, not something real.

Congratulations, your zero-sum is not zero sum.
 
2014-02-09 01:15:30 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: MayoSlather: Brilliant rebuttal. The response to criticism of "non zero sum" thinking always has such cogent displays of logic, and are never based out of bias from wealth apologists.

And in your mind you're above this, anyone that disagrees with you, you'll claim they just don't get it, or they aren't framing it the proper context. Unfortunately non zero sum ideas never hold up in any model, and is easily disprovable.

You are the guy who said

"Of course it's a zero sum game. We don't live in a magical world where infinite money, time, demand, and resources exist. A company makes 100 bucks the CEO takes 99 and gives his employees a dollar to split, that's pretty f'ing zero sum. Or there are 2 restaurants that get all the business, a third restaurant opens and takes half the business away from the other two; again pretty f'ing zero sum. "

Right?  Then you go off on scientific principles.   Well thing is, Scientific 'zero sum' principles, like conservation of energy and conservation of momentum are supposed to apply at all times.  not just after T=0.

Your example:  "A company makes 100 bucks ".  That's before the T=0 where the  profit is distributed.  So is it still a conservation principle at T<0?  But 100 bucks were 'made'! Sure you'll say the customers paid for it, so it's still zero sum.  But how?  They wrote a check?  The bank has cash sitting in a vault to cover that check?  In this day of fractional reserves, probably not.  So where is that money coming from.  Probably the future value of a mortgage or something similar.  Which is a guess, not something real.

Congratulations, your zero-sum is not zero sum.


In my example, which admittedly was not the basis out which non zero sum thinking arises, but it is the applied principle. That few having more directly translates into others having less. There's no way around this. It is zero sum.

Furthermore, non zero sum thinking requires the infinite. Infinite is impossible in an economy, both in supply and demand. Make any excuse you want out of fractional reserves in banks, but none of that applies to real resources available, which are in fact finite, and in real world resources one person having more will translate to another having less.

Try as you might, economics does not trump physics.

All non zero sum thinking occurs at this mythical level of production that doesn't exist in the real world. And again, real science has real world applications and freely admits we live in a fully connected system. Non zero sum game thinking exists within a vacuum and a world without leverage. In this magical world one person can acquire infinite amounts of wealth and this has no effect on another persons ability to produce wealth. It's simply not true.

Congratulations your logic sucks, and you're still wrong.
 
2014-02-09 02:06:37 PM

MayoSlather: Furthermore, non zero sum thinking requires the infinite. Infinite is impossible in an economy, both in supply and demand. Make any excuse you want out of fractional reserves in banks, but none of that applies to real resources available, which are in fact finite, and in real world resources one person having more will translate to another having less.


Well, there's your problem.  You think money, or 'bucks' as you put it are REAL resources, instead of a fungible token unit.

Your world model is based on an assumption that all things are owned by someone somewhere.  That's not the case.    There are plenty of things that are not owned (aka wealth) until they are claimed.  If a golden meteor falls from space and lands on your property, you can claim it.  But you didn't get it from any other person.  It's a non-zero sum acquisition.  Set up a solar panel and acquire some solar power, then sell it to the powergrid.  That power did not come from diminishing another person's wealth, but you 'made' money.  Same thing with agriculture.  The solar power to grow the food did not diminish anyone else.  Your labor to till the soil didn't either. The CO2 and other gases come 'free' with the atmosphere.  They do not belong to any one person. Assuming no need for irrigation, the water fell free from the sky.  Your produce is wealth that you can trade.  It came from no other person to make it a zero-sum game.

Sorry to break it to you, but the entire world is but an infinitesimal part of the universe, and so in a practical sense there is what's effectively infinite stuff out there.  Not to say it's all easy to acquire, but to claim it doesn't exist or is already owned by another person is just plain stupid.
 
2014-02-09 02:10:46 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: a fungible token unit.


www.csmonitor.com


SKREEEEE
 
2014-02-09 02:44:53 PM

thamike: AlwaysRightBoy: So 35 years of sacrifice and labor at my job is for nothing?

It is if you're some mean old bastard barking on the internet.


Really? That's no way to address yourself in the mirror. Especially  the first thing in the morning
 
2014-02-09 03:07:00 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: thamike: AlwaysRightBoy: So 35 years of sacrifice and labor at my job is for nothing?

It is if you're some mean old bastard barking on the internet.

Really? That's no way to address yourself in the mirror. Especially  the first thing in the morning


A mean old bastard acting like a 5th grader on the internet.
 
2014-02-09 03:15:52 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: MayoSlather: Furthermore, non zero sum thinking requires the infinite. Infinite is impossible in an economy, both in supply and demand. Make any excuse you want out of fractional reserves in banks, but none of that applies to real resources available, which are in fact finite, and in real world resources one person having more will translate to another having less.

Well, there's your problem.  You think money, or 'bucks' as you put it are REAL resources, instead of a fungible token unit.

Your world model is based on an assumption that all things are owned by someone somewhere.  That's not the case.    There are plenty of things that are not owned (aka wealth) until they are claimed.  If a golden meteor falls from space and lands on your property, you can claim it.  But you didn't get it from any other person.  It's a non-zero sum acquisition.  Set up a solar panel and acquire some solar power, then sell it to the powergrid.  That power did not come from diminishing another person's wealth, but you 'made' money.  Same thing with agriculture.  The solar power to grow the food did not diminish anyone else.  Your labor to till the soil didn't either. The CO2 and other gases come 'free' with the atmosphere.  They do not belong to any one person. Assuming no need for irrigation, the water fell free from the sky.  Your produce is wealth that you can trade.  It came from no other person to make it a zero-sum game.

Sorry to break it to you, but the entire world is but an infinitesimal part of the universe, and so in a practical sense there is what's effectively infinite stuff out there.  Not to say it's all easy to acquire, but to claim it doesn't exist or is already owned by another person is just plain stupid.


Again, you're still operating within a mythical non connected reality and one that exists without taking leverage into account. And even in your example there is still a very finite money supply which is largely held by a few people, while others have very little, that's the entire premise behind why wealth inequality is a problem. Ignoring this is to ignore a very simple observable reality.

We are on earth, we have real limits to resources and as long as we're going to agree that things like hyperinflation are possible then in fact it is zero sum. If a non zero sum game was true we could agree to just give everyone a million dollars and let them produce off this capital. And in truth we could hand out money to some degree given our current levels of productivity, however it still has its limits.

Even when dealing with solar power as you point out, you can only produce so many solar panels, someone will have more while another has less. There is finite space available to set them up, finite time to build them, only a finite amount of power they can produce. Not only that but there power must be used as it's created, there is only so much power demand at a given time and hence so much money that can be produced once that power demand is met and that must be split in some very real fashion where one person gets more and another gets less.

Also, if your argument needs golden meteors to fall from the sky to be relevant...give up.
 
2014-02-09 03:30:52 PM

MayoSlather: Also, if your argument needs golden meteors to fall from the sky to be relevant...give up.


So since it didn't, and used solar power and agriculture as other examples, you give up?

Oh wait, you think money is as real a resource as land, energy, food, water and shelter.

But I'm disconnected...

Tell you what.  Lets plop you alone on a desert island with a million bucks, but no power, food, water, or shelter and see how you do.   Then you can show me how REAL money is as a resource.

/Hell, I acquired many trillion dollars to give away as presents last year, so I know how real dollars are.

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-02-09 05:19:50 PM

AlwaysRightBoy: LavenderWolf: AlwaysRightBoy: Noted: other people's money belongs to the people who don't make that money.

You don't own money.

Ever.

It's not yours.

The people, in the form of government, own all money everywhere. You don't own it. You don't get to say "I earned it, I get to keep it!"

You didn't earn it in a vacuum. You earned it because society made it possible for you to earn it.

There is no such thing as "My" money or "Your" money. Just money. You use it for a while, I use it for a while, but it belongs to the government. They do have the power and every right to say "We're taxing this money to pay for society's needs." And you don't get to say what those needs are, except by exercising your right to vote. The civilized world has decided that it's not right for a few ultra-wealthy people to control all of the money. The civilized world has decided that the poor need protection from the rich, as the rich have proven time and time again that they will grind the poor into the dirt to earn fraction of a percentage more per quarter than they did last quarter. The civilized world has decided that the wealthy only got that way on the backs of the poor, and it's the responsibility of the wealthy to pay for those that paved the road for their success.

So 35 years of sacrifice and labor at my job is for nothing? Should I have  just gone on the government dole in the first place? I'll try that next time around and see how it works.


knows about "My" money... it still not yours for the taking


The point has sailed over your head.

Also, you're pretty stupid if you think "35 years of sacrifice and labour" qualifies you for taxes on the ultra-wealthy. You are not ultra-wealthy.
 
2014-02-09 05:25:22 PM

MayoSlather: trappedspirit: Searching: "zero sum"
0 results

You goyim don't even know how all this supposed hoarded wealth, that didn't exist 100 years, came into existence.  You can't hoard what only exists once you create it.

Go flucking study economic theory some more.  It has done you shiat good up to now.  I'm hoping it will keep your idle hands busy in the future.

This is an economic myth, akin to humans having unlimited wants and needs, and the reason why economics is the most dismal science of all. Economic theory is a contrivance and corrosive to basic morality.

Of course it's a zero sum game. We don't live in a magical world where infinite money, time, demand, and resources exist. A company makes 100 bucks the CEO takes 99 and gives his employees a dollar to split, that's pretty f'ing zero sum. Or there are 2 restaurants that get all the business, a third restaurant opens and takes half the business away from the other two; again pretty f'ing zero sum.




This is why "The Secret" doesn't work. We can't all be billionaires, we can't all have a BMW.

However, having said that, there is no way we should tolerate 85 families owning as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. It's suicidal in it's unsustainability.

It's like these rich jerks WANT to be guillotined.
 
2014-02-09 05:42:10 PM

ThighsofGlory: Astorix: ThighsofGlory: bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.

Nope. Not a one.

Then explain Tom Perkins.

No.


Then I'll explain it for you: "if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit barks."

Tom Perkins spent the last couple of weeks whining that the resentment of the 1% is about to turn into Kristallnacht. Why? Because he and his fellow complainers are afraid. They are very afraid that they are outnumbered and out gunned. Which they are: 85 people against 7 billion are not good odds.

What is missing is the mobilization to send them to the guillotine. There are too many people still brainwashed into thinking that they will get some crumbs odd their huge tables. It's called the "Powerball" mentality. They still hold out that little hope.

But it won't work out for Tom Perkins in the long term. Because he, Waltons, Kochs, Chip Wilson, AOL guy Armstrong, Zuckerberg, they put their Spaceball maids on suck mode. And they don't stop sucking until they have completely sucked all the resources, money and means for life out of everybody else.

When people no longer are able to eat, they mobilize frighteningly fast.

This is why the 1% get guillotined. This is why Rome gets sacked. This is why the Russian Czarist gets dragged out and shot.
 
2014-02-09 06:03:54 PM

Astorix: ThighsofGlory: Astorix: ThighsofGlory: bunner: I wonder if people with more money than Croesus ever stare out their windows and ponder if this sad little tap dance we all get to do is all there is and if, by the grace their vomit inducing avarice, they really have "won".  And whether that brief, hollow feeling when nobody is kissing their ass is what winning feels like.  I mean, sure, they just shake it off and go buy more useless, overpriced trash and then wave it around like it's the holy grail, but I can't help but wonder if they ever have the little attacks of existential angst that are the hallmark of living poor.

Nope. Not a one.

Then explain Tom Perkins.

No.

Then I'll explain it for you: "if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit barks."

Tom Perkins spent the last couple of weeks whining that the resentment of the 1% is about to turn into Kristallnacht. Why? Because he and his fellow complainers are afraid. They are very afraid that they are outnumbered and out gunned. Which they are: 85 people against 7 billion are not good odds.

What is missing is the mobilization to send them to the guillotine. There are too many people still brainwashed into thinking that they will get some crumbs odd their huge tables. It's called the "Powerball" mentality. They still hold out that little hope.

But it won't work out for Tom Perkins in the long term. Because he, Waltons, Kochs, Chip Wilson, AOL guy Armstrong, Zuckerberg, they put their Spaceball maids on suck mode. And they don't stop sucking until they have completely sucked all the resources, money and means for life out of everybody else.

When people no longer are able to eat, they mobilize frighteningly fast.

This is why the 1% get guillotined. This is why Rome gets sacked. This is why the Russian Czarist gets dragged out and shot.


Can't wait.
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report