'You Didn't Build That'

[opebo]

Haha!  It is so incredibly bizarre to hear an american politician speak the obvious truth for once!  What a gaffe!

[opebo]

People who disagree with his point are dumbs.

Yes, but you see this is a huge problem as he is running for re-election in America.

[opebo]

If the business would not exist without you, then yes, of course you built that. You may have received aid from the government, you may not have. The government did not put in the work, you did.

wage-slaves, *snicker*. I will however give you credit for recognizing Occupy is over, something Bandit still hasn't grasped. And keep in mind this is a gaffe Romney will now try to shove in everyone's faces -- how could Obama move to the left without having his poll numbers fall, and with a Republican House blocking legislative action?

Vosem, you refute yourself in your own post - the owner of a company doesn't put in any work,  this is done for him by the wage-slaves.

Merely having large sums of capital is not 'work', you see, it is power to force others toil for you.

[opebo]

How can you sit there with a straight face and say "the owner of a company doesn't put in any work?"

If my statement is slightly hyperbolic, it is only an attempt to counteract the completely absurd levels of hyperbole used to lionize these exploiters by your side, the media, popular culture, etc.

Of course, sometimes the owner of a little shop puts in a lot of work - though normally he is wiped out by the large corporate business, in which the owner(s) do no work whatsoever.  In other words, the dominant owning class does no work, but the issue is confused in your mind because of the existence of a slowly disappearing petite bourgeoisie.

[opebo]

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

[opebo]

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

[opebo]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

[opebo]

This is a deeply stupid discussion.

Why don't you stop showing off your diplomatic immunity with all the pointless trash-talk, and actually post something?

[opebo]

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die.

Precisely, which is why they are wage-slaves.

[opebo]

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

[opebo]

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

Dude, it is an expression of preference - you like for the workers to be slaves, we don't like it.  It isn't a disputation of 'fact'.

[opebo]

It's not about preference. The statement clearly conveys a lack of understanding of what capital is and how it impacts the productive process.

Please try to read more carefully - he was criticizing a political choice - that capital be owned by powerful individuals rather than in common.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

...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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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.