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 114
    More: Amusing, plutocracy, selfishness, American Justice  
•       •       •

13073 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 10:55 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-08 11:07:45 AM  
8 votes:
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 11:29:35 AM  
7 votes:
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 11:27:16 AM  
7 votes:
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 01:06:13 PM  
5 votes:

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 12:08:43 PM  
5 votes:

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 11:34:10 AM  
5 votes:

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 11:01:39 AM  
5 votes:
sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk
2014-02-08 12:46:30 PM  
4 votes:

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 11:32:13 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:09:45 AM  
4 votes:
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 11:01:16 AM  
4 votes:
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 09:46:14 PM  
3 votes:

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 09:02:44 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:20:11 PM  
3 votes:
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 03:11:27 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:50:44 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:33:42 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:33:10 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:24:43 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:16:49 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:48:32 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:45:51 AM  
3 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2014-02-08 11:42:34 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:42:17 AM  
3 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-02-08 11:35:20 AM  
3 votes:
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 11:30:46 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:27:39 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:26:47 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:17:36 AM  
3 votes:
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?
GBB
2014-02-08 11:10:16 AM  
3 votes:
The whiniest members ARE the 1%

FTFY, subby.
2014-02-09 12:21:34 PM  
2 votes:

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


Bull-farking-shiat, it won't.
2014-02-08 11:55:35 PM  
2 votes:
faculty.tcc.fl.edu

floridahistory.org

sites.psu.edu

static.guim.co.uk
2014-02-08 11:42:44 PM  
2 votes:
If wealth is such a burden then give away your money and be happy.
2014-02-08 10:21:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:32:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:59:49 PM  
2 votes:
But they work harder at whining than the poors.
2014-02-08 02:26:57 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:57:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:50:59 PM  
2 votes:

AlwaysRightBoy: But enough about our President.


www.quickmeme.com
2014-02-08 01:50:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:35:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:27:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:20:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:14:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:53:55 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:28:49 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:14:04 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:59:19 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:50:02 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:46:35 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:38:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:35:07 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:33:54 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:20:18 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:18:51 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:15:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:13:59 AM  
2 votes:
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!'
2014-02-09 05:42:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:25:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:15:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:07:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:15:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:26:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:16:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:22 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:31:54 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-08 11:46:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:33:07 PM  
1 votes:
"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 09:27:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:42:14 PM  
1 votes:

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


FTFM
2014-02-08 05:43:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:37:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:23:34 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:18:55 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:31:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:15:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:14:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:12:10 PM  
1 votes:
When I see a thread like this, it isn't the 1% that I find whiny.
2014-02-08 04:02:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:59:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:57:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:51:51 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:31:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:29:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:17:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:00:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:46:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:45:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:42:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:31:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:18:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:10:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:09:59 PM  
1 votes:

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


No he isn't.  And you're not that entertaining.
2014-02-08 01:02:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:50:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:48:41 PM  
1 votes:

eil.com

2014-02-08 12:48:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:33:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:27:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:20:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:09:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:03:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:00:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:47:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:40:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:32:48 AM  
1 votes:
I wonder if his "affluenza" would stop a sniper's bullet.
2014-02-08 11:28:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:25:26 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:23:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:22:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:46 AM  
1 votes:
Yeah, like no poor people own an iPhone.
2014-02-08 11:01:03 AM  
1 votes:
Oops, forgot oblig pastebin:  http://pastebin.com/jmuNTt0Y
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report