Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 01:45:36 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Economics (Moderator: ag)
| | |-+  'You Didn't Build That'
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Author Topic: 'You Didn't Build That'  (Read 3305 times)
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: July 26, 2012, 11:55:07 am »
Ignore

So it is in life - if you redistributed all the wealth evenly and then left the individuals to their own merits, after a relative short period of time, you'd end up with roughly the same distribution as you currently see.  The only way to keep the wealth evenly distributed is to hold back the more effective.

^This guy perfectly displays the blind spots which allow for the right-wing viewpoint.

Everything is down to 'effectiveness', as if we were all running a foot-race.  As we all know, society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 863


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: July 26, 2012, 12:21:09 pm »
Ignore

The right throw a ridiculous hissy-flip over a statement which is obvious true even when taken out of context, and on the left a bunch of tools succeed to make it into a internal civil war over idiotic ideological details. You people want to know why the right always win, here's the answer, because no one on the left is able to focus on the important thing, the right, they will rather fight each others.

Here's a advice, first you kill the enemy and when you fight to the death over whatever internal disagreement you have.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35399
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: July 26, 2012, 07:00:00 pm »
Ignore

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

to have some starting point for understanding the difference between possessions and private property for discussions like these, you could review some texts re: the everyday life of an average urban citizen in the Soviet Union.  you could 'own' pencils but not forests, cars but not automobile factories.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5051
United States


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: July 26, 2012, 09:04:31 pm »
Ignore

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

to have some starting point for understanding the difference between possessions and private property for discussions like these, you could review some texts re: the everyday life of an average urban citizen in the Soviet Union.  you could 'own' pencils but not forests, cars but not automobile factories.

Considering my parents and grandparents were actual urban citizens of the USSR, I have far more understanding of this topic than you do and would be offended if you disagreed. I can assure you people in the USSR strived to emigrate to places like the US where people can own automobile factories. Why? Because they work better. Because forests owned by people and not the government are used more economically. And so on. Of course individuals should be able to own pencils, forests, cars, and automobile factories.

All you have to do is think, Tweed, it isn't so very hard.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5051
United States


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: July 26, 2012, 09:06:20 pm »
Ignore

So it is in life - if you redistributed all the wealth evenly and then left the individuals to their own merits, after a relative short period of time, you'd end up with roughly the same distribution as you currently see.  The only way to keep the wealth evenly distributed is to hold back the more effective.

^This guy perfectly displays the blind spots which allow for the right-wing viewpoint.

Everything is down to 'effectiveness', as if we were all running a foot-race.  As we all know, society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.

Not really. In an bee-hive, the life of the colony is more important than the life of the individual bee. In a human society (for most people), the life of the individual is more important than the life of the society. Therefore society is more like a foot-race.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3740
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #80 on: July 27, 2012, 12:00:17 am »
Ignore

I'm perplexed.  Maybe I'm always perplexed.  But, so far as the basic claim that government and markets are interdependent, I fail to see how that could strike anyone as controversial.  Governments need to guarantee property rights and enforce all kinds of laws pertaining to transactions in order for markets to remain viable, government tax funds make infrastructure available that helps businesses to start up and continue to function, governments often make available a veritable bonanza of tax deductions to businesses, governments support education that gives broad swaths of the populous various levels of skills enabling them to work, governments help to address problems of external costs, and on and on.  None of this negates the efforts of individuals who build businesses, risk for them, and sometimes succeed. It just points out that markets don't--and can't--arise in a political and legal vacuum.  Even considered on their own in the abstract, market production and transaction require massive amounts of cooperative effort.  To deny any of this is to subscribe to a myth of absolute individualism that flies in the face of everything we experience and everything we do.

Now, none of this constitutes an argument for the details of any particular tax policy.  One of the only things Eric Cantor (I completely despise this man) ever said that rang somewhat true of Obama is that the latter always tries to parlay a philosophical point--a point about values--into an argument justifying tax changes, when what he needs to offer are economic arguments.  Bill Clinton always made both value arguments and economic arguments, Obama almost always only makes the former and most of the time skips the latter.  Cantor charges that, when it comes to economics, Obama just doesn't "get it." Cantor may very well be right about that too.  Unfortunately, the only thing Cantor himself "gets" as far as I'm concerned is how to be an ass.

Anyway, back to the rest of my perplexities...I have lots of them, and they all keep me quite occupied. 
Logged

LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2012, 12:31:18 am »
Ignore

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

to have some starting point for understanding the difference between possessions and private property for discussions like these, you could review some texts re: the everyday life of an average urban citizen in the Soviet Union.  you could 'own' pencils but not forests, cars but not automobile factories.

Considering my parents and grandparents were actual urban citizens of the USSR, I have far more understanding of this topic than you do and would be offended if you disagreed. I can assure you people in the USSR strived to emigrate to places like the US where people can own automobile factories. Why? Because they work better. Because forests owned by people and not the government are used more economically. And so on. Of course individuals should be able to own pencils, forests, cars, and automobile factories.

All you have to do is think, Tweed, it isn't so very hard.
This is so absurd, most people(including me) were trying to escape the right-wing regime of the 90's not socialism.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: July 27, 2012, 02:09:46 am »
Ignore

July 17, 2012

'You Didn't Build That'

On the President's burst of ideological candor.

 “If you've got a business—you didn't build that.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577533300916053684.html


Yes very typical of the left in this country to say such a thing.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5051
United States


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: July 27, 2012, 06:45:08 am »
Ignore

Well, since Obama only chose to lecture the rich, is he not saying, in effect, "You business owners, in particular, you are not making effective use of your capital; therefore, the government is going to take it from you and put it to more effective use."

It is insane to single out and lecture business people and basically accuse them of not making effective use of their capital when they are the ones who accepted the risks to go into business and actually become effective enough to hire people to help them run his/her business.  For not only were they effective enough to generate income for others, not just themselves, but they were effective enough to generate tax revenue for the government.

No, the whole point is that the idea that the capital should be 'theirs' is the problem.  Private property = slavery.

There can't be freedom without private property, opebo. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
Private property prevents freedom, personal does not. I don't expect a right winger to understand this though.

How am I free if somebody can just come and take things I need?

to have some starting point for understanding the difference between possessions and private property for discussions like these, you could review some texts re: the everyday life of an average urban citizen in the Soviet Union.  you could 'own' pencils but not forests, cars but not automobile factories.

Considering my parents and grandparents were actual urban citizens of the USSR, I have far more understanding of this topic than you do and would be offended if you disagreed. I can assure you people in the USSR strived to emigrate to places like the US where people can own automobile factories. Why? Because they work better. Because forests owned by people and not the government are used more economically. And so on. Of course individuals should be able to own pencils, forests, cars, and automobile factories.

All you have to do is think, Tweed, it isn't so very hard.
This is so absurd, most people(including me) were trying to escape the right-wing regime of the 90's not socialism.

I will agree that Yeltsin botched things up enough that nobody was any keener on staying in the '90s either. In the '90s it was just easier to get out.

EDIT: Also I think 'incompetent' is a better way to describe Yeltsin than 'right-wing'.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 06:52:39 am by Vosem »Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: July 27, 2012, 11:37:55 am »
Ignore

...society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.

Not really. In an bee-hive, the life of the colony is more important than the life of the individual bee. In a human society (for most people), the life of the individual is more important than the life of the society. Therefore society is more like a foot-race.

What?  I guess you must be joking.  In case you haven't noticed, workers are killed in their millions in order to make society function.  You can think of society as a big machine designed for killing off the masses in order to 1) continue functioning, and 2) continue ensuring a life of ease, leisure, and luxury for those at the top.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12278


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: July 27, 2012, 02:53:34 pm »
Ignore

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.

You seemed to be saying that we can decide what motives drive actors in the market, but that's pretty dubious. But it's possible that I misunderstood you.

He'll correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in his mouth, but I think what Nathan was getting at with that comment was that we should have some regulation to muzzle the market and try - to the extent that it's possible  - to harness the maximum positive and reduce the negative effects of a free market system.

I mean, let's say taxes may reduce the incentive to earn, but that still doesn't make it okay for a modern country not to have tax-funded public healthcare, and so on.

Oh, then I just misread him. That part sort of goes without saying, in my opinion. I got the impression that he views markets as a social construct that could be anything and I disagree with that assessment.

I do think the way people conceive of markets can to an extent be socially constructed or reconstructed but what I was getting at was basically Oakvale's interpretation, yes.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: July 27, 2012, 02:58:51 pm »
Ignore

...society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.

Not really. In an bee-hive, the life of the colony is more important than the life of the individual bee. In a human society (for most people), the life of the individual is more important than the life of the society. Therefore society is more like a foot-race.

What?  I guess you must be joking.  In case you haven't noticed, workers are killed in their millions in order to make society function.  You can think of society as a big machine designed for killing off the masses in order to 1) continue functioning, and 2) continue ensuring a life of ease, leisure, and luxury for those at the top.

So don't work and start your own business then. Or do you have some stupid conspiracy theory about how the fat cats are ganged up against the common man? Killing off the masses? Are you lumping us all together? You want the government to ensure that you make it in life? They'll be even more powerful than they already are. Have fun being dependent for the far left for every phase of life man. Then when you're old and sick they can pull the plug in order to cut costs so they can provide for welfare in exchange for votes and give themselves a raise with our tax dollars.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: July 27, 2012, 03:02:22 pm »
Ignore

Also, the most likely reason Obama blurted that out is because he wanted to pander to the far left by saying something they can relate to in order to make sure they vote again.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: July 27, 2012, 04:40:13 pm »
Ignore

So don't work and start your own business then.

Work and starting your own business are two different things - poors are forced to toil endless hours at jobs just to survive, myself included.  I work at least 12 hours per week.  It so happens that I also have my own business (a micro-business), but that requires hardly any 'work' at all, only investment.

Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5051
United States


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: July 27, 2012, 05:38:26 pm »
Ignore

...society is more like an ant-hill or bee-hive than a foot-race.

Not really. In an bee-hive, the life of the colony is more important than the life of the individual bee. In a human society (for most people), the life of the individual is more important than the life of the society. Therefore society is more like a foot-race.

What?  I guess you must be joking.  In case you haven't noticed, workers are killed in their millions in order to make society function.  You can think of society as a big machine designed for killing off the masses in order to 1) continue functioning, and 2) continue ensuring a life of ease, leisure, and luxury for those at the top.

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: July 27, 2012, 05:48:22 pm »
Ignore

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

In fact they are killed, Vosem, but in ways that may not be so obvious to you.  Certainly their lives are taken forcibly from them.  Society is in fact organized and predictable (and after all a machine is far from completely predictable).  And those at the top are not there by virtue of knowing anything, they're there by virtue of position-in-the-system - capital or in other words power.  Any toils related to keeping those at the top at the top are done by those they control, not by the controllers.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5051
United States


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: July 27, 2012, 06:53:38 pm »
Ignore

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

In fact they are killed, Vosem, but in ways that may not be so obvious to you.  Certainly their lives are taken forcibly from them.  Society is in fact organized and predictable (and after all a machine is far from completely predictable).  And those at the top are not there by virtue of knowing anything, they're there by virtue of position-in-the-system - capital or in other words power.  Any toils related to keeping those at the top at the top are done by those they control, not by the controllers.

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money). You don't actually explain how they are killed, so I will simply continue to maintain that they are not. Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: July 27, 2012, 07:10:34 pm »
Ignore

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money).

But don't  you see - those who 'have money' are controllers - they control the labor of those who do not have, and do not labour at all themselves.  It is a system of forcible control.

Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.

The toils I referred to are things like - managing their interests, guarding them, etc.  They require protection and assistance - hence the existence of the 'house ******' or middle class.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5051
United States


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: July 27, 2012, 09:08:18 pm »
Ignore

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money).

But don't  you see - those who 'have money' are controllers - they control the labor of those who do not have, and do not labour at all themselves.  It is a system of forcible control.

But they don't control anybody because they compete amongst one another, first of all, and second of all, how do you think they got the money in the first place? Either they labored or one of their ancestors labored to ensure they would have it.

Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.

The toils I referred to are things like - managing their interests, guarding them, etc.  They require protection and assistance

Some of them who can afford to do so hire people to manage their interests or guard them -- there's nothing wrong with that, and in the first case the people who can competently manage the interests of a really-wealthy person are generally not poor themselves.

- hence the existence of the 'house ******' or middle class.

I don't understand this at all -- could you explain?

And, I must say, opebo, you're one of my favorite people to debate on this whole forum. You have a manner of writing clear falsehoods in such a way that they're so obviously true that you're actually one of my favorite posters. I hope you see me the same way Smiley
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: July 28, 2012, 12:18:49 am »
Ignore

So don't work and start your own business then.

Work and starting your own business are two different things - poors are forced to toil endless hours at jobs just to survive, myself included.  I work at least 12 hours per week.  It so happens that I also have my own business (a micro-business), but that requires hardly any 'work' at all, only investment.



12 hours per week? Are you a free loader? I spend 12 hours a week on the toilet. Hardly any work at all is the problem. I'm not asking how much you make but if it's worth money it takes hard work.
Logged
Darius_Addicus_Gaius
Full Member
***
Posts: 138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: July 28, 2012, 12:25:34 am »
Ignore

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money).

But don't  you see - those who 'have money' are controllers - they control the labor of those who do not have, and do not labour at all themselves.  It is a system of forcible control.

Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.

The toils I referred to are things like - managing their interests, guarding them, etc.  They require protection and assistance - hence the existence of the 'house ******' or middle class.

Control the labor of those who do not have? Are you suggesting that someone else should control the labor market? Someone who gives you money? I'm not sure what your point is but it sounds typical of the Democratic Party. People fall in business if they're not smart so let's just let that happen if it's the case. Most in the private sector are smarter than the government when it comes to business though because they actually experience things first hand rather than through advisers.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47627


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: July 28, 2012, 11:18:50 am »
Ignore

But they don't control anybody because they compete amongst one another, first of all, and second of all, how do you think they got the money in the first place? Either they labored or one of their ancestors labored to ensure they would have it.

Haha, yes, JD Rockefeller worked hard in the oil pumps!  Or Carnegie in the steels-mill, or Gates/Jobs in the computer repair shop.  Please.  Anyway those without money are controlled by those who have money.  This idea you have of 'competition' is not relevant to that fact.  If I can go make $7/hour from 10 different masters, it doesn't make any difference - I'm still in poverty till I die.

Regarding the rest of my post, obviously I was referring to the black slaves who toiled in the master's house - analogous to the middle class today.

12 hours per week? Are you a free loader? I spend 12 hours a week on the toilet. Hardly any work at all is the problem. I'm not asking how much you make but if it's worth money it takes hard work.

I'm a university lecturer, DAG. I'm sorry to hear about your constipation, but I find that life has so much to offer I don't wish to waste it with toils - 12 hours per week in the classroom is already excessive.  My income is about the same as I would make in the USA - in the $1,200/month range.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: July 29, 2012, 01:39:43 pm »
Ignore

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

In fact they are killed, Vosem, but in ways that may not be so obvious to you.  Certainly their lives are taken forcibly from them.  Society is in fact organized and predictable (and after all a machine is far from completely predictable).  And those at the top are not there by virtue of knowing anything, they're there by virtue of position-in-the-system - capital or in other words power.  Any toils related to keeping those at the top at the top are done by those they control, not by the controllers.

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money). You don't actually explain how they are killed, so I will simply continue to maintain that they are not. Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.
Vosem, It's pretty easy to explain how the workers are killed, I will do that since opebo doesn't like to burden himself with specifics.  For example take Walmart, which has an annual profit of $14 billion for year of 2011 and employs 2 million workers, you can check these figures on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. That means that $7700 is the amount of money it unfairly withholds from each worker's salary. Now, we will go to the most obvious example of how Walmart kills it's workers, we know that most Wal-mart workers don't have health insurance. I am going to assume all of them don't have health insurance, since that's not very far from truth.  We know there are about 50 million uninsured workers in US, and that means 1/25 of those work in walmart. We associate about 45,000 deaths to uninsured in United states. That means walmart kills almost 2000 of its workers annually by illness. If we take other things into account, that number is a lot higher. Considering that 2000/2 million is about 1/1000, that means wal-mart will kill about 4% of it's workforce over it's life time(or maybe even higher, since many walmart workers will never be able to retire). And keep in mind Vosem, these are very low estimates.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #98 on: August 01, 2012, 01:22:06 pm »
Ignore

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

In fact they are killed, Vosem, but in ways that may not be so obvious to you.  Certainly their lives are taken forcibly from them.  Society is in fact organized and predictable (and after all a machine is far from completely predictable).  And those at the top are not there by virtue of knowing anything, they're there by virtue of position-in-the-system - capital or in other words power.  Any toils related to keeping those at the top at the top are done by those they control, not by the controllers.

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money). You don't actually explain how they are killed, so I will simply continue to maintain that they are not. Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.
Vosem, It's pretty easy to explain how the workers are killed, I will do that since opebo doesn't like to burden himself with specifics.  For example take Walmart, which has an annual profit of $14 billion for year of 2011 and employs 2 million workers, you can check these figures on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. That means that $7700 is the amount of money it unfairly withholds from each worker's salary. Now, we will go to the most obvious example of how Walmart kills it's workers, we know that most Wal-mart workers don't have health insurance. I am going to assume all of them don't have health insurance, since that's not very far from truth.  We know there are about 50 million uninsured workers in US, and that means 1/25 of those work in walmart. We associate about 45,000 deaths to uninsured in United states. That means walmart kills almost 2000 of its workers annually by illness. If we take other things into account, that number is a lot higher. Considering that 2000/2 million is about 1/1000, that means wal-mart will kill about 4% of it's workforce over it's life time(or maybe even higher, since many walmart workers will never be able to retire). And keep in mind Vosem, these are very low estimates.

Lol, are you for real? Don't you understand the role of capital in production?
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: August 02, 2012, 10:02:41 pm »
Ignore

I would simply have to say your last two sentences are lies outright; a) in the modern Western world, workers aren't killed; b) society is disorganized, difficult to predict, and totally unlike a big machine; c) those at the top have to know how to stay at the top, which is difficult. It will be impossible for us to debate if we can't agree on what the facts are, opebo.

In fact they are killed, Vosem, but in ways that may not be so obvious to you.  Certainly their lives are taken forcibly from them.  Society is in fact organized and predictable (and after all a machine is far from completely predictable).  And those at the top are not there by virtue of knowing anything, they're there by virtue of position-in-the-system - capital or in other words power.  Any toils related to keeping those at the top at the top are done by those they control, not by the controllers.

Nobody's life is taken from them forcibly. They have to work, but consider that society would collapse if nobody did any work -- somebody's got to, and those that don't have money have something clear to gain from doing work (money). You don't actually explain how they are killed, so I will simply continue to maintain that they are not. Those at the top are there by virtue of how much money they have, that's true, and I honestly can't think of a better system. There are no toils related to keeping them there -- they stay there by virtue of inertia if they are smart and know how to use their money. If they are not smart, eventually they fall (go bankrupt) no matter how many workers are on their payroll.
Vosem, It's pretty easy to explain how the workers are killed, I will do that since opebo doesn't like to burden himself with specifics.  For example take Walmart, which has an annual profit of $14 billion for year of 2011 and employs 2 million workers, you can check these figures on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. That means that $7700 is the amount of money it unfairly withholds from each worker's salary. Now, we will go to the most obvious example of how Walmart kills it's workers, we know that most Wal-mart workers don't have health insurance. I am going to assume all of them don't have health insurance, since that's not very far from truth.  We know there are about 50 million uninsured workers in US, and that means 1/25 of those work in walmart. We associate about 45,000 deaths to uninsured in United states. That means walmart kills almost 2000 of its workers annually by illness. If we take other things into account, that number is a lot higher. Considering that 2000/2 million is about 1/1000, that means wal-mart will kill about 4% of it's workforce over it's life time(or maybe even higher, since many walmart workers will never be able to retire). And keep in mind Vosem, these are very low estimates.

Lol, are you for real? Don't you understand the role of capital in production?
Wal-mart workers now posses the capital, what's the problem?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines