Wealth Envy

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Wealth Envy

 If you've been paying attention to the news at all over the last week, you have probably seen the stories reporting that the "typical" CEO is making between 10.5 and 13 million (depending on which news report and which numbers they choose to use) and the inevitable attempt to appeal to the wealth envy of the Brian37's of the world. We are supposed to be outraged because they make roughly 300 times what the "average" worker makes. Over the last month, Brian has been right about exactly one thing, I love numbers. Numbers don't lie and you can learn a lot from them. You can however, use numbers to mislead people who are uninformed. So let's look at the numbers they use every year to gin up some wealth envy.

First of all, your boss probably doesn't make anywhere near 300 times your wage. Unless you actually work for a fortune 500 company, your CEO isn't even in the ballpark, and unless you work for one of the top 100 revenue producing Fortune 500 companies or so your CEO makes less than 300 times average. Sure, these companies hire a lot of people, but you are talking the top 100 companies out of some 5,000 that are traded in the stock market. The top 2%. With another 10,000 companies that are publicly traded you are at the top 0.6% of companies. That isn't even accounting for the myriad of private companies that exist.

In other words, you are talking about a very small elite group who have convinced the shareholders that they are the best in the world at what they do. There is a huge gap between the top and bottom even of the Fortune 500. The bottom of the Fortune 500 CEO's make a little over a million. The actual median pay for CEO's accounting for all publicly known salaries is around $800,000. That means half of CEOs make less than $800k, or roughly 20 times the average salary (as calculated by the AFLCIO. The bulk of the rest of CEO's come in between $800,000 and $2 million. If you work in corporate America, odds are your CEO is making 20-40 times the average salary, if you work for most companies your head honcho probably makes under $400k. I'm not saying that it isn't a lot of money, but it makes a lot less sensational headline, which is why liberal outlets focuse on the top 100 and less liberal outlets focus on the top 300.

It is a blatant lie that the "typical" CEO makes $10.5 million. That is like looking at all the big Hollywood names and concluding that the "typical" actor/actress makes $20 million a movie. Obviously, the vast majority of people in acting don't make anywhere near that kind of money and if you go out to Hollywood, it would be unreasonable to expect that kind of money. That is the money you could make, if you are the top few percent of your field. If you were interested in becoming a CEO and wanted to know what kind of money you could expect to negotiate for, something in the $800k range is realistic and would be an impressive career. Expecting to make $10 million+ is the equivalent of the Hollywood wannabee going out expecting to be the next big superstar. It is possible, but the reality is that few will ever achieve it. 

Second, CEO's don't actually get paid that much. All these pay packages that are reported include restricted stock. Restricted stock is an agreement by the company to issue stock to the CEO with limitations. Generally these limitations prevent the CEO from selling the stock, may include provisions for revoking the stock if specified goals are not reached and might not be voting shares until a certain period of time has passed. So when you hear about a CEO getting 20, 30 or 40 million or whatever, they are not getting that in cash. It is a lot like a sports contract, where they could get that much money if they win, but won't if they lose. Boards do this for a variety of reasons. The largest is because it is a golden leash. It ensures that the CEO has a huge vested interest in the success of the stock price by giving them skin in the game at minimal cost to the investors. The CEO who got $40 million last year, could have all that money taken away if the company tanks. It is potential future money, not money in the hand today. 

Which brings up my third point, CEO's at the top ARE overpaid. (Read that again Brian, I said CEO's at the top ARE OVERPAID). And they are overpaid for a very simple reason, CEO's aren't rich. Sure, they are rich compared to me and you, but they are not the richest people in the world. With the exception of a few like Larry Ellison who still are CEO's of companies they started, CEO's report to boards that are made up of people wealthier than they are. It is the people who own substantial amounts of voting stock that are the uber rich. They don't make more than a few bucks off their salary, they make their money buying and selling companies. Their main concern is that the stock price of the companies they own goes up. So when negotiation time comes, they really want whatever CEO they think is best for the stock price. High cash salaries come out of the bottom line, while issuing new shares of stock has a very indirect effect. For example, when a CEO gets a few million shares of stock, it might be 1/10th of 1% or less of the total pool of stock, which has virtually no effect on the stock price. It is maybe a penny a share. So while the millions of dollars means alot to the CEO, to the board making the decision it is like deciding to leave the waitress an extra penny. When one party puts greater value on an item than the other, the advantage in negotiation is biased their direction and they are likely to get a better deal than they might be willing to settle for.

Which brings up my final point, there is no reason to flip out over CEO pay- you aren't paying it. For the most part, it isn't taken from the company funds that could otherwise be allocated to other employees, expanding or anything else- which is why it is absurd to compare it to wage worker incomes which do come directly from the bottom line. It doesn't come out of revenue, so the consumers aren't paying for it. So who pays? Well whoever in the future decides they want to buy stock in the company and the current owners of stock in the company (through a lower percentage of ownership). Until someone physically purchases that stock, the CEO doesn't have the money, only potential money in what people might be willing to pay him/her for the stock. The people making the decision are the ones who are paying by giving away their ownership in the corporation. Maybe it is a foolish purchase, but these are the same people who buy $100 million mansions which are often foolish purchases in my opinion. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 My last CEO, the company

 My last CEO, the company was making around 60 million a year, got paid around 6 million a year with incentives. If we had a good year he got bonuses, if we had a bad year he got base pay. Either way I find CEO's worthless and not worth their pay.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13017
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
My only real problem is in

My only real problem is in the final paragraph, where you claim we don't pay the wages. But indirectly we do. We pay higher prices for services and objects so that the company can afford the salary. We get reduced services and sometimes even dangerously insecure services so the company can afford the wages. I might not contribute much by myself to the ceo of walmart by shopping there, but I certainly contribute.

Beyond that, I'd say most business owners aren't getting much more than their employees, and that they have to either work very hard or pay out fairly handsomely to even do that well.

It is and has always been the very top that is the problem. While they might not get as much as is on paper, they still get exponentially more than everyone else. And that doesn't even include perks that the top ceo's are generally entitled to. Like free rides, free meals, sometimes even free lodging and the like. A top tier company doesn't want its ceo living in a slum or driving a 20 year old car. The ceo is a representative of the company. It looks bad. The company wants their ceo living in a mansion, being transported by limo and private jet, because it looks good. It looks like the company is thriving. Laying off 10,000 people looks bad, but having a ceo puttering around in an old car without a suit in his closet who can't afford to take clients to exceptionally expensive restaurants looks much worse. So the company will lay off 10,000 people before it allows its ceo to lose more face than is absolutely necessary. It's much to do about appearances. And little to do with efficiency or effectiveness.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:My only real

Vastet wrote:
My only real problem is in the final paragraph, where you claim we don't pay the wages. But indirectly we do. We pay higher prices for services and objects so that the company can afford the salary. We get reduced services and sometimes even dangerously insecure services so the company can afford the wages. I might not contribute much by myself to the ceo of walmart by shopping there, but I certainly contribute.

It doesn't affect the costs of the company for producing their product or service. The CEO is primarily being paid with equity, which has nothing to do with the company's budget. It is simply an agreement among the owners to share their profits with the CEO. For example,  suppose you wanted to start a business, but didn't have money.  So I agreed to fund you with a $100,000 investment. The company is worth $100,000 and has $100k in funds to start producing widgets, and I own 100%. Now I don't have money to pay you a salary and we  need the 100k for the company, so in exchange for your special skills, I give you 50% ownership, worth $50,000. The only person paying is me. The company still  has $100k in the bank and is still worth 100k. The only difference is that next year, I only have rights to 50% of the profits and you have rights to the other half. As far as the company making widgets, nothing changes at all. It is no different at the large scale except the owners are giving away far less than 50%. If the CEOs didn't get the money, it would be included with the dividend payouts.

 

Quote:

Beyond that, I'd say most business owners aren't getting much more than their employees, and that they have to either work very hard or pay out fairly handsomely to even do that well. It is and has always been the very top that is the problem. While they might not get as much as is on paper, they still get exponentially more than everyone else. And that doesn't even include perks that the top ceo's are generally entitled to. Like free rides, free meals, sometimes even free lodging and the like. A top tier company doesn't want its ceo living in a slum or driving a 20 year old car. The ceo is a representative of the company. It looks bad. The company wants their ceo living in a mansion, being transported by limo and private jet, because it looks good. It looks like the company is thriving. Laying off 10,000 people looks bad, but having a ceo puttering around in an old car without a suit in his closet who can't afford to take clients to exceptionally expensive restaurants looks much worse. So the company will lay off 10,000 people before it allows its ceo to lose more face than is absolutely necessary. It's much to do about appearances. And little to do with efficiency or effectiveness.

The perks are included in the salary package. US tax law requires that those perks be taxed as income, which is why many CEOs in the big leagues have salaries of $1 but it actually shows up as a million or two in reports. So when you see tne 10 million figure, those benefits are included.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: My

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 My last CEO, the company was making around 60 million a year, got paid around 6 million a year with incentives. If we had a good year he got bonuses, if we had a bad year he got base pay.

That is extraordinarily high and very unusual. Even if the $60 mil is net profit, that puts the company at under a billion in revenue. The average CEO for that size company makes in the 400-500 range. The owners are idiots wasting their money.

 

Quote:

Either way I find CEO's worthless and not worth their pay.

Many employees are worthless and not worth their pay. No reason to get upset about it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4856
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 My last CEO, the company was making around 60 million a year, got paid around 6 million a year with incentives. If we had a good year he got bonuses, if we had a bad year he got base pay.

That is extraordinarily high and very unusual. Even if the $60 mil is net profit, that puts the company at under a billion in revenue. The average CEO for that size company makes in the 400-500 range. The owners are idiots wasting their money.

 

Quote:

Either way I find CEO's worthless and not worth their pay.

Many employees are worthless and not worth their pay. No reason to get upset about it.

 

I worked for a non-profit which was constantly finding ways to waste money. One year they gave away two free round trip tickets to any where in the world as "a grand prize" for a xmas party. Other items were flat screen tv's, appliances, a motorcycle, etc. Giving the CEO 6 mil was nothing compared to the waste of money during the year.

Not upset about any thing. Just voicing my opinion.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i have literally never given

i have literally never given a fuck what anybody else makes. and yes, i say that as a marxist. anybody who thinks there's a contradiction there just shouldn't open their mouths about marxism.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
No one has "wealth envey"

No one has "wealth envey" jackass.

You are so fucking self absorbed everything is a crime to you if someone else votes and wants to do things differently.

Now idiot, I like what COSTCO is doing. I like Nick Hanour's thinking. Not wanting as much as the next guy does not make me jealous of someone having more.

The way you talk about ecomics and guns is as delusional as fundies and their doomsday prophacies.

There is no point in having a three branch system of government with checks and balances and protection of dissent and voting, if we just always do what people with wealth want to do. You always sound like Marrie Antoinette.

We as in "we the people" does not mean "me and only my class".

You, "MOMMY MOMMY OTHER PEOPLE EXIST AND I DON'T LIKE IT" fucking crybaby.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
wow, you also buy into the

wow, you also buy into the marie antoinette urban legend. did you get that out of the same book you got your hypatia quotes from?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:wow, you also

iwbiek wrote:
wow, you also buy into the marie antoinette urban legend. did you get that out of the same book you got your hypatia quotes from?

Ok, I am sorry, yout got me, your avatar lead to economic stability and world peace didn't it?

You got me, I suck the dick of Un and I want to stick all theists in ovens. And Hitchens was not a weathy writer who took advantage of the open market. He loved North Korea so much he equated God to a dictator.

My bad.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:wow, you also

iwbiek wrote:
wow, you also buy into the marie antoinette urban legend. did you get that out of the same book you got your hypatia quotes from?

Please tell everyone how much you love women.

Quote:

“Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”


 

The only part of that quote I would argue with her is the "point of view", she did not have the benefit of a neutral lab or control group or peer review. But she certainly was wise in calling bullshit bullshit.

Now are you saying you love Marrie Antoinette because she was in her 1% and said fuck you to the poor?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:“Fables

Brian37 wrote:

“Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth — often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”


 

The only part of that quote I would argue with her is the "point of view"




the only part of that quote i would argue with is the attribution, because hypatia didn't say it. not a single word of hers survives. i told you that like 2 months ago, and predicted you would ignore it. surprise, surprise.


also marie antoinette never said "let them eat cake." it's a myth. i predict you'll ignore that too.


and my avatar never did anything, btw. it's a fucking avatar. jacktwat.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No one has

Brian37 wrote:

No one has "wealth envey" jackass.

Oh, so you don't actually mean it when you whine about the "pay gap"?

 

Quote:

You are so fucking self absorbed everything is a crime to you if someone else votes and wants to do things differently.

Lol. 

 

Quote:

Now idiot, I like what COSTCO is doing. I like Nick Hanour's thinking. Not wanting as much as the next guy does not make me jealous of someone having more.

Of course you do, because you don't know what they are doing and you suck the dicks of the rich as long as they say things you like.

Quote:

There is no point in having a three branch system of government with checks and balances and protection of dissent and voting, if we just always do what people with wealth want to do.

I don't think that "we" should do anything at all. Prove where I have ever suggested that we force anyone to do anything. I only have a few thousand pages of text on this site outlining my political positions and you still create strawmen. 

 

Quote:

You always sound like Marrie Antoinette.

As I pointed out to you a year ago, and iwbiek again yesterday, Marie Antoinette said nothing of the sort. Your dumb ass continues to push myths that are easily identifiable as myths with a simple google search, while constantly whining about the myths of religion. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:As I

Beyond Saving wrote:
As I pointed out to you a year ago, and iwbiek again yesterday, Marie Antoinette said nothing of the sort. Your dumb ass continues to push myths that are easily identifiable as myths with a simple google search, while constantly whining about the myths of religion.



THANK YOU!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now are you

Brian37 wrote:

Now are you saying you love Marrie Antoinette because she was in her 1% and said fuck you to the poor?

 




no, i'm saying your "quotes" from hypatia and marie antoinette are WELL KNOWN, OBVIOUS MYTHS.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13017
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Beyond Yeah but you can't

@ Beyond

Yeah but you can't say a ceo's wages are completely divorced from product and service. The sharing of profits depends on profits, which in turn depend on profitable strategies, which in turn requires a focus on labour, services, and product. By lowering wages, a ceo near guarantees more profits, and thus increases his or her paycheque. By shopping at walmart, I justify the hiring of the workers who serve me. Without them I could not shop there. By purchasing product and service, I increase the companys profits, and thus increase the ceo's wages.

It may be a convoluted path, but the end result is the same: customers pay for a ceo's wages.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:@ Beyond Yeah

Vastet wrote:
@ Beyond Yeah but you can't say a ceo's wages are completely divorced from product and service. The sharing of profits depends on profits, which in turn depend on profitable strategies, which in turn requires a focus on labour, services, and product. By lowering wages, a ceo near guarantees more profits, and thus increases his or her paycheque. By shopping at walmart, I justify the hiring of the workers who serve me. Without them I could not shop there. By purchasing product and service, I increase the companys profits, and thus increase the ceo's wages. It may be a convoluted path, but the end result is the same: customers pay for a ceo's wages.

It is a myth that business owners create jobs, only demand does that. And that demand depends on the buying power of society, wich is comprised of a majority of workers not business owners. No business owner is going to hire one more person than they absolutely have to. The only thing that forces them to hire more people is when more people come through their doors and purchase their goods. The bulk of the people doing that are not the 1%, but the middle class and working poor.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13017
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh shut up. You don't have

Oh shut up. You don't have more than the slightest, vague notion of how the economy does, doesn't, can, or can't work. Your ignorance, as usual, attempts to package complex concepts and processes into simplistic one liners that are so far off base that you create a dozen new topics every time you repeat something stupid.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i have

iwbiek wrote:
i have literally never given a fuck what anybody else makes. and yes, i say that as a marxist. anybody who thinks there's a contradiction there just shouldn't open their mouths about marxism.

You suffer from the same all or nothing/either or propositions of most humans about marxism as others do about religion.

In evolutionary reality humans are complex and diverse. I do agree economically that the buying power and demand come from workers, not business owners, so the healther the worker is and the more economically stable they are the better off that society is.

My problem with you is you fail to see how Marx got used and twisted and why it ended up with Stalin. Same stupid crap Beyond suffers from thinking that only people with weath know what is best for workers.

You cannot simply write an idea on a page and expect that idea to work 100% of the time for everyone all the time. Mixed economies protected by oversight are going to allow for diversity and are going to be less likely to be gamed.

ANYTHING ANYTHING ANYTHING, done by humans can be subject to a monopoly, any idea that might have good intent, his or yours, is still subject to flawed humans and greedy humans using those ideas to gain an advantage of power over others. That happens in all aspects of life, religion, political party and even business.

I am NOT for the ending of the private sector. And I am also not for outlawing religion. Am also for a politically diverse society.

What causes abuse of power is the same thing in any aspect of society.

 

Beyond's economic views simply give rise to a plutocracy. Your views can lead to the end of the private sector or more likely a fascsist state like China monpolizing the private sector but still maintaining one party rule.

I am not for either.

ALL FORMS OF POWER require the same thing, gaining money to keep or expand that power, be it through taxes, or investment in the global economy. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies and globally invests in banks and weapons.  China has a adapted to the private sector in what you could call "authoritarian capitalism". None of those governments of which I would want to live under.

Beyond stupidly thinks I hate wealth and anyone who owns a private business. I hate monopolies of power and abuse of power, and I do not care what sector of a society arises as the abuser. Marx suffered from the same utopian thought Beyond does, "Just do it my way and one size fits all".

The only thing I can agree with Marx on is leaning to valuing the power of the worker since those are the ones who create the most demand that keep an economy running. But I think it is a bit neive of any human to think that a diverse species can be subject to script thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek wrote:i

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
i have literally never given a fuck what anybody else makes. and yes, i say that as a marxist. anybody who thinks there's a contradiction there just shouldn't open their mouths about marxism.

You suffer from the same all or nothing/either or propositions of most humans about marxism as others do about religion.

In evolutionary reality humans are complex and diverse. I do agree economically that the buying power and demand come from workers, not business owners, so the healther the worker is and the more economically stable they are the better off that society is.

My problem with you is you fail to see how Marx got used and twisted and why it ended up with Stalin. Same stupid crap Beyond suffers from thinking that only people with weath know what is best for workers.

You cannot simply write an idea on a page and expect that idea to work 100% of the time for everyone all the time. Mixed economies protected by oversight are going to allow for diversity and are going to be less likely to be gamed.

ANYTHING ANYTHING ANYTHING, done by humans can be subject to a monopoly, any idea that might have good intent, his or yours, is still subject to flawed humans and greedy humans using those ideas to gain an advantage of power over others. That happens in all aspects of life, religion, political party and even business.

I am NOT for the ending of the private sector. And I am also not for outlawing religion. Am also for a politically diverse society.

What causes abuse of power is the same thing in any aspect of society.

 

Beyond's economic views simply give rise to a plutocracy. Your views can lead to the end of the private sector or more likely a fascsist state like China monpolizing the private sector but still maintaining one party rule.

I am not for either.

ALL FORMS OF POWER require the same thing, gaining money to keep or expand that power, be it through taxes, or investment in the global economy. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies and globally invests in banks and weapons.  China has a adapted to the private sector in what you could call "authoritarian capitalism". None of those governments of which I would want to live under.

Beyond stupidly thinks I hate wealth and anyone who owns a private business. I hate monopolies of power and abuse of power, and I do not care what sector of a society arises as the abuser. Marx suffered from the same utopian thought Beyond does, "Just do it my way and one size fits all".

The only thing I can agree with Marx on is leaning to valuing the power of the worker since those are the ones who create the most demand that keep an economy running. But I think it is a bit neive of any human to think that a diverse species can be subject to script thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




tell me my specific views on marxism. oh, that's right, you don't know them. go fuck yourself.


oh, and read some "hypatia" while you're at it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:@ Beyond Yeah

Vastet wrote:
@ Beyond Yeah but you can't say a ceo's wages are completely divorced from product and service. The sharing of profits depends on profits, which in turn depend on profitable strategies, which in turn requires a focus on labour, services, and product. By lowering wages, a ceo near guarantees more profits, and thus increases his or her paycheque. By shopping at walmart, I justify the hiring of the workers who serve me. Without them I could not shop there. By purchasing product and service, I increase the companys profits, and thus increase the ceo's wages. It may be a convoluted path, but the end result is the same: customers pay for a ceo's wages.

Well yeah, the more profit a CEO brings, generally the higher the stock value and thus a willingness on the part of major stockholders to agree to seperating from more money. The only thing I would disagree with here is the idea that lowering wages "near guarantees" more profits. It really depends on the industry, specific location, and what quality of worker is needed. It lowers expenses, but if revenue decreases that doesn't hurt the bottom line. There are countless examples of companies that have thrived because they paid wages above average market rates. But the point is, the customers are paying into the profit, which is there and will be there. The CEO getting stock options is simply determining how the profit is split up among the literally tens of thousands of entities that own Walmart. If it didn't go to the CEO, it would go to whoever else had purchased stock. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
@ Beyond Yeah but you can't say a ceo's wages are completely divorced from product and service. The sharing of profits depends on profits, which in turn depend on profitable strategies, which in turn requires a focus on labour, services, and product. By lowering wages, a ceo near guarantees more profits, and thus increases his or her paycheque. By shopping at walmart, I justify the hiring of the workers who serve me. Without them I could not shop there. By purchasing product and service, I increase the companys profits, and thus increase the ceo's wages. It may be a convoluted path, but the end result is the same: customers pay for a ceo's wages.

Well yeah, the more profit a CEO brings, generally the higher the stock value and thus a willingness on the part of major stockholders to agree to seperating from more money. The only thing I would disagree with here is the idea that lowering wages "near guarantees" more profits. It really depends on the industry, specific location, and what quality of worker is needed. It lowers expenses, but if revenue decreases that doesn't hurt the bottom line. There are countless examples of companies that have thrived because they paid wages above average market rates. But the point is, the customers are paying into the profit, which is there and will be there. The CEO getting stock options is simply determining how the profit is split up among the literally tens of thousands of entities that own Walmart. If it didn't go to the CEO, it would go to whoever else had purchased stock. 

HA, what a load of bullshit. The higher the stock price and CEO wages the more the shareholder are willing to part with their money. This is funny comming from you who not only claims to own a business but cries like a baby when others suggest that taxes go up on business owners and the rich rather than the working class and working poor. No, you simply think it works when you get what you want. Just admit it.

Yes that is why minumum wage has stagnated and trickle down has worked so well over the past 30 years,

You fucking retard, we have been playing that game for far too long.

Here is the part YOU  keep missing which I apply to not only the private sector but to religion and political party as well, ANYTHING LEFT TO ITS OWN DIVICES WILL GO OFF THE RAILS.

You are still stuck on that bullshit broken record that the private sector is not run by humans like other aspects of society which it is.

Your economic philosophy is painfully simple, "When I win it is good, when you win it is tyranny".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond stupidly thinks I hate wealth and anyone who owns a private business. I hate monopolies of power and abuse of power, and I do not care what sector of a society arises as the abuser. Marx suffered from the same utopian thought Beyond does, "Just do it my way and one size fits all".

Neither I, nor Marx, has ever said anything of the sort. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing I can agree with Marx on is leaning to valuing the power of the worker since those are the ones who create the most demand that keep an economy running.

Then you either need to read more Marx, or you are a complete idiot. There is plenty that Marx said that any intelligent person should agree with. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But I think it is a bit neive of any human to think that a diverse species can be subject to script thinking.

The only person here with a script is you. I doubt you could pass the Turing test. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: HA, what a

Brian37 wrote:

 

HA, what a load of bullshit. The higher the stock price and CEO wages the more the shareholder are willing to part with their money. This is funny comming from you who not only claims to own a business but cries like a baby when others suggest that taxes go up on business owners and the rich rather than the working class and working poor. No, you simply think it works when you get what you want. Just admit it.

Are you saying that shareholders aren't willing to pay more to people they believe make them money? What basis do you think they use to decide how much to pay a CEO?

 

Quote:

Yes that is why minumum wage has stagnated and trickle down has worked so well over the past 30 years,

What does minimum wage have to do with CEO pay? Many CEO's are paid a salary far under minimum wage ($1/year). They make all their money through the stock price. 

 

Quote:

Here is the part YOU  keep missing which I apply to not only the private sector but to religion and political party as well, ANYTHING LEFT TO ITS OWN DIVICES WILL GO OFF THE RAILS.

There is absolutely nothing in the world that has ever been, or ever will be, left to its own devices. 

 

Quote:

You are still stuck on that bullshit broken record that the private sector is not run by humans like other aspects of society which it is.

Huh? Of course businesses are ran by humans. The very basis of my entire philosophy relies precisely on the fact that businesses are ran by people and that people inevitably seek to satisfy their own desires. 

 

Quote:

Your economic philosophy is painfully simple, "When I win it is good, when you win it is tyranny".

The only thing painful is your reading comprehension. Since you aren't working now, I suggest you put some serious effort into studying reading comprehension so you don't embarrass yourself so much responding to arguments that no one has ever made. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond stupidly thinks I hate wealth and anyone who owns a private business. I hate monopolies of power and abuse of power, and I do not care what sector of a society arises as the abuser. Marx suffered from the same utopian thought Beyond does, "Just do it my way and one size fits all".

Neither I, nor Marx, has ever said anything of the sort. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing I can agree with Marx on is leaning to valuing the power of the worker since those are the ones who create the most demand that keep an economy running.

Then you either need to read more Marx, or you are a complete idiot. There is plenty that Marx said that any intelligent person should agree with. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But I think it is a bit neive of any human to think that a diverse species can be subject to script thinking.

The only person here with a script is you. I doubt you could pass the Turing test. 




"read more marx"? how about read any marx? he obviously knows literally nothing about marxist theory, yet he continues to talk as if he did. he certainly will never admit he doesn't. as i keep saying, he never admits to being wrong about anything.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13017
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You suffer

Brian37 wrote:
You suffer from the same all or nothing/either or propositions of most humans about marxism as others do about religion.

Bullshit I do.

Brian37 wrote:
In evolutionary reality humans are complex and diverse. I do agree economically that the buying power and demand come from workers, not business owners, so the healther the worker is and the more economically stable they are the better off that society is.

They can't do shit for supply or R&D though. Owners are a necessity, else there is no economy.

Brian37 wrote:
My problem with you is you fail to see how Marx got used and twisted and why it ended up with Stalin.

Then you have no problem with me. I never even read Marx. I can't say he impacted my views at all, nor that I think anything of him in any way.

Brian37 wrote:
You cannot simply write an idea on a page and expect that idea to work 100% of the time for everyone all the time.

And yet you do exactly that, constantly. Rofl.

Brian37 wrote:
Beyond's economic views simply give rise to a plutocracy. Your views can lead to the end of the private sector or more likely a fascsist state like China monpolizing the private sector but still maintaining one party rule.

It's shit like this that proves you don't know shit. Neither Beyond nor myself ascribe to such. You're a ridiculous idiot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
brian, i've explained to you

brian, i've explained to you a thousand times, yet OF COURSE you ignore it because it doesn't fit YOUR FUCKING SCRIPT. marx also "ended up with" the modern european social state, the british labour party, and lots of other things modern liberals salivate over. why do you think only "communist" countries applied marxism? because they said so? did it ever occur to you that marxism can be applied in numberless ways? of course not, because you're a dishonest piece of shit who only absorbs what fits his worldview and refuses to even acknowledge anything that doesn't fit with it. you fit every criteria of being a fanatic. you rant about black-and-white worldviews, yet your worldview is as black-and-white as any fucking theist i've ever met, and more than most.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond stupidly thinks I hate wealth and anyone who owns a private business. I hate monopolies of power and abuse of power, and I do not care what sector of a society arises as the abuser. Marx suffered from the same utopian thought Beyond does, "Just do it my way and one size fits all".

Neither I, nor Marx, has ever said anything of the sort. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing I can agree with Marx on is leaning to valuing the power of the worker since those are the ones who create the most demand that keep an economy running.

Then you either need to read more Marx, or you are a complete idiot. There is plenty that Marx said that any intelligent person should agree with. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But I think it is a bit neive of any human to think that a diverse species can be subject to script thinking.

The only person here with a script is you. I doubt you could pass the Turing test. 


"read more marx"? how about read any marx? he obviously knows literally nothing about marxist theory, yet he continues to talk as if he did. he certainly will never admit he doesn't. as i keep saying, he never admits to being wrong about anything.

 

I stand corrected.

It still strikes me as ironic that me, as close to an ideological opposite of Marx as you're going to find, ends up defending Marx from someone like Brian who goes from a flaming lefty to sounding like the most ignorant McCarthyesque republican.... even Sarah Palin has some competition. However one might disagree with Marx ideologically or his ending conclusions, he was a brilliant man who contributed a lot to our understanding of how economics work and I doubt that Smith, Hayek, Friedman or any of the other "capitalist" economist would disagree.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3748
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Wealth disparity is an

Wealth disparity is an inevitable consequence of the intense competiton for resourses. You stick a bunch of animals in a cage or limited space, a few top-dogs or alpha males will emerge to dominate the majority that are forced to live on the edge of survival. So it is also with the human animal in the 'cage' of planet earth.

Competition means winners and losers. If you think communism or socialism is the answer, the communist party bosses are then just the new top dogs instead of the capitalist CEOs.

The only rational answer is a world and societies not based on competition. That would require cooperation on eliminating population pressures.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:a few top-dogs or

EXC wrote:
a few top-dogs or alpha males

People seem so enamored by this "alpha" animal idea. No suprise then that there's no such thing : http://www.davemech.org/news.html


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
HA, what a load of bullshit. The higher the stock price and CEO wages the more the shareholder are willing to part with their money. This is funny comming from you who not only claims to own a business but cries like a baby when others suggest that taxes go up on business owners and the rich rather than the working class and working poor. No, you simply think it works when you get what you want. Just admit it.
Are you saying that shareholders aren't willing to pay more to people they believe make them money? What basis do you think they use to decide how much to pay a CEO?
 

I remember there was a wave of outrage when the details of Jack Welch's retirement package were publicized, leading to a scaling back of its benefits.  Even while most of us might find the package nauseatingly lavish -- to the point of envy (even with the baseball tickets and company jet access taken out), I never understood why anyone cared; it was G.E.'s money to spend, and Welch as chairman increased G.E.'s stock value by billions.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Wealth disparity

EXC wrote:

Wealth disparity is an inevitable consequence of the intense competiton for resourses. You stick a bunch of animals in a cage or limited space, a few top-dogs or alpha males will emerge to dominate the majority that are forced to live on the edge of survival. So it is also with the human animal in the 'cage' of planet earth.

Competition means winners and losers. If you think communism or socialism is the answer, the communist party bosses are then just the new top dogs instead of the capitalist CEOs.

The only rational answer is a world and societies not based on competition. That would require cooperation on eliminating population pressures.

 

 

Think about what you just typed here. On the one hand you pointed out competition in evolution which is a NO DUH, then  tried to postulate the idea of getting rid of it? This is the same black and white either/or proposition thinking I get from vegans and vegitarians who ignore our omnivore evolution.

Evolution produces both cruelty and compassion as much as it produces both sharing and competition. You will not get rid of any of those behaviors.

But you did touch on something I do agree with, simply shifting one power over to another. There is not one government, be it an open society, one party fascist state, theocracy, or dictatorship, that does not invest in the global private sector. You simply have either open societies or more closed societies, but the power needed to maintain either is a result of wealth.

I am angry at Beyond and have been as far as is economic view, not because he has more, or wants more, but that he lives in a bubble. But in saying that I most certainly do not think you can force the end of the private sector. I think you can only compete as workers to raise better living standards. I think Beyond is simply a bit jaded in thinking our current climate is good as far as the big boys. I think our current climate has become a race to the bottom, simply exploting workers and our environment to make a buck. But in stating that it is still a bit utopian to expect commerse to never be privately owned is absurd.

I am against monopolies of power and abuse of power. I do think the power of wealth globally is lopsided and too much of a monopoly. But in solving those problems I do not want to see the opposite wich is really nothing more than shifting wealth from one group of people to another.

So if you want to create more stability, I think economies that allow for individual desires are fine, but should not at the same time exceede a range, which right now in far too many locations in the world, do, including America.

But I love Stalin and Mao and am simply jealous of Beyond. *COUGH*

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Wealth disparity

EXC wrote:

Wealth disparity is an inevitable consequence of the intense competiton for resourses. You stick a bunch of animals in a cage or limited space, a few top-dogs or alpha males will emerge to dominate the majority that are forced to live on the edge of survival. So it is also with the human animal in the 'cage' of planet earth.

Competition means winners and losers. If you think communism or socialism is the answer, the communist party bosses are then just the new top dogs instead of the capitalist CEOs.

The only rational answer is a world and societies not based on competition. That would require cooperation on eliminating population pressures.

This is brilliant. Agree with you 100%. Humans are animals and non regulated capitalism just lets loose the human animal out there. As Betrand Russell I am also looking for proof that humans are rational, but I cannot find it.

"Competition means winners and loosers" Always! Even eliminating population pressures you would still have loosers. Because people can be extremely bad and egocentric to each other, showing no empathy. I believe that.

We think that "loosers" deserve to be loosers. By loosers we mean they deserve to eat poorly or not eat at all, live in stress and poor conditions with no access to education or healthcare (this is where the political right is moving). This is idiologically unethical for me and the main reason why I'm a socialist. People of power tend to be ruthless, so history tells us... Thus power (massive ammount of wealth) should be stopped.

This is quite a change from 100 years ago. Dangerous change. Unlucky people suddenly became loosers...

Interesting discussion though... 

I'm always fearful of ending up on an endless discussion with BeyondSaving... which always forces me to do a lot of research... but they are quite enjoyable... I'll have more time soon for that Eye-wink

I still have a tiny bit of hope that someday in the future we will trade competition for cooperation... I hope. I need to read Marx though because I know little about his theory... However I have a feeling that Oscar Wilde or Bertrand Russell were more in touch with reality than Marx... but cannot be sure until I'm confident about each others toughts

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:We think that

Teralek wrote:

We think that "loosers" deserve to be loosers. By loosers we mean they deserve to eat poorly or not eat at all, live in stress and poor conditions with no access to education or healthcare (this is where the political right is moving).

Yet in the US, everyone has access to food, education and healthcare. The only discussion with healthcare is how to pay for it, not who gets care and who doesn't. The pennyless homeless guy who walks into an emergency room gets care. I can speak from experience, because I was once the pennyless guy who ran up a $60,000 bill that they didn't even ask me to pay. The idea that people were ever being denied care here is a myth and no single example has ever been shown. The issue is solely financial and whether or not people should go broke before they get free care if they are uninsured. But, that quickly becomes one of those endless conversations. Sticking out tongue

I also dispute your contention of competition always including winners and loosers. At the micro level, yes someone always comes out relatively better. But in no way does competition necessarily mean that someone comes out with less than they had before the competition started. Someone can compete and lose, but still have more than when they started. It happens every day. I cooperate with people who are theoretically competitors all the time, because in practicality, we are not in direct competition the way athletes are. The competition is far more cerebral and abstract.  

 

Teralek wrote:

 Thus power (massive ammount of wealth) should be stopped.

Is a massive amount of wealth the equivalent of power? Is it identical in every substantive way?

 

Teralek wrote:

This is quite a change from 100 years ago. Dangerous change. Unlucky people suddenly became loosers...

Really? I think that being unlucky 100 years ago is far worse than being unlucky today. 

 

Teralek wrote:

I still have a tiny bit of hope that someday in the future we will trade competition for cooperation... I hope. 

No competition means that the consumer has absolutely no choice. As soon as you have a choice between Walmart and the farmers market, you have competition. Which one do you hope disappears? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Holly shit Beyond you really

Holly shit Beyond you really don't know what bubble you live in. You have a nice little spreadshit and script you selfishly project on the rest of the world.

"How to pay for it"

YEP and guess what, you don't personally get to decide for everyone else how WE as a nation do it. We have had 30 years of "trickle down" bullshit and all it has done is kept wages low, shipped jobs overseas, and allowed big business corporate welfare at the cost of economic stability for the rest of us. All less regulation will do at this point is throw more gas on the fire.

WE get to decide how WE pay for things. That is what voting is for.

We need higher wages, and we need to tax the fuck out of the uber rich. And only crybabies like you cry robbery when you don't get what you want.  Too fucking bad.

Vote the way you wish, but when you lose at the voting booth, don't bitch because that is how a civil society settles differences.

And again, when I point out rich people and decent businesses who ARE trying to do the right thing, you have no case.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Holly shit

Brian37 wrote:

Holly shit Beyond you really don't know what bubble you live in. You have a nice little spreadshit and script you selfishly project on the rest of the world.

You rarely even leave your home state. You don't know shit about anything beyond your sink, and you accuse me of living in a bubble? Then accuse me of projecting a script? What script?

A: Who pays for medical care should be determined by an agreement between the medical care provider and the person receiving the medical care. Whatever method they agree to is perfectly acceptable. 

B: Everyone MUST purchase an insurance policy, ALL insurance policies MUST have the same features and ALL medical care MUST be paid for through those insurance policies and ALL providers MUST accept the reimbursment rates determined by government. Anyone who violates these edicts will be fined. 

Which position is projecting a script? A or B? 

At least have the balls to be honest about your own position. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

"How to pay for it"

YEP and guess what, you don't personally get to decide for everyone else how WE as a nation do it.

Obviously not. Your side has all the guns, police and military might. I don't stand a chance, especially since you are far more willing to use violent force to achieve your goals than I am. My side has never won and my side never will win. Just because you CAN take whatever you want and I can't do shit about it doesn't make it moral or you any less of a jackass for being eager to take your pathetically small cut of the bounty while your pirate captains in DC pad their pockets.   

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

We have had 30 years of "trickle down" bullshit and all it has done is kept wages low, shipped jobs overseas, and allowed big business corporate welfare at the cost of economic stability for the rest of us. All less regulation will do at this point is throw more gas on the fire.

Well, you voted for the idiots in power. Don't whine to me when you don't like the results of your victory. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

WE get to decide how WE pay for things. That is what voting is for.

And how is that working out for you so far?

 

Brian37 wrote:

We need higher wages, and we need to tax the fuck out of the uber rich. And only crybabies like you cry robbery when you don't get what you want.  Too fucking bad.

If you need higher wages, you will get them much faster if you do something productive with your life. Obama isn't going to get you a job and neither is any other politician. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Vote the way you wish, but when you lose at the voting booth, don't bitch because that is how a civil society settles differences.

Glad I have your permission to vote. That makes me feel sooooo much better. Just because something is popular doesn't make it moral. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13017
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:WE get to

Brian37 wrote:
WE get to decide how WE pay for things. That is what voting is for.

It most certainly is not. Voting is for electing a group of dumb assholes to run a country. It is not for deciding how you'll pay for something.

Brian37 wrote:
We need higher wages, and we need to tax the fuck out of the uber rich.

That isn't even intelligent. Stomping on inflation would be a greater start than either of those options. Spending taxpayer money more efficiently and responsibly would also have greater impact.
Taxes won't solve shit, people will just invest elsewhere or leave entirely. The only way to prevent such would be a mass seizure of assets, which could never be planned so quietly that the uber rich wouldn't see it coming and get out before it was too late.
Raising wages alone will just increase prices simultaneously, and put the hammer on small business' which can't hope to compete with massive corporations. Business owners in this day and age can't afford to wait for the increased wages to result in more sales of product and services. It would certainly happen, but it'd take years to balance out. While they were waiting, tens of thousands of people would go bankrupt and millions would lose their jobs.
Your strategy would bring the US to its knees much faster than will happen under current policies. In fact, your strategy is basically just a description of the last 50 odd years writ large.
The only way to actually fix things is to deal with the inherent, unsolvable problems with the way economies work in the first place. Public enemy number one is inflation, which most economists are convinced shows a healthy economy; but actually is a way to predict how unstable an economy is and how long a society can last before it collapses.
Wages are an issue, but in the great scheme of things wages are not a huge problem. If a wage increase is to have any real effect, inflation must be dealt with first. And business owners must be protected from the massive shortfalls that many would inevitably incur, else the problems will be exasperated.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
brian accuses everyone who

brian accuses everyone who disagrees with him of thinking according to a "script," yet he's the one using the same lines so often we can all quote him. i could list them for the third or fourth time, but it's just getting embarrassing.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond stupidly thinks I hate wealth and anyone who owns a private business. I hate monopolies of power and abuse of power, and I do not care what sector of a society arises as the abuser. Marx suffered from the same utopian thought Beyond does, "Just do it my way and one size fits all".

Neither I, nor Marx, has ever said anything of the sort. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing I can agree with Marx on is leaning to valuing the power of the worker since those are the ones who create the most demand that keep an economy running.

Then you either need to read more Marx, or you are a complete idiot. There is plenty that Marx said that any intelligent person should agree with. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But I think it is a bit neive of any human to think that a diverse species can be subject to script thinking.

The only person here with a script is you. I doubt you could pass the Turing test. 

Still not getting it. You can make ANYTHING sound good on paper, but the problem with taking an idea in the real world and applying it is that you are still dealing with a diverse species in a complex world.

You wont even listen to me when I agree in theory that some of the things you advocate also sound nice. Your probem is you think life is stagnant and what works for you will work for everyone. Whatever Marx said that is a good idea was gamed and monpolized precisely becuase you cannot get rid of humans who can  and will take  an idea and create their own monopoly with that idea.

Ecosystems outside of humans are diverse as well. Humans are not above our own ecosystems and economies cannot be treated as all or nothing or either or propositions. RIGHT NOW at this point in history workers are getting screwed, not just in America but globally and our global economy is about exploitation of resources.

I cannot take you seriously when you cry robbery and advocate more deregulation which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Marx in a general sense was right about an economy being only as strong as the workers ability to make a living. But Stalin used that idea and twisted it to create his own centralized wealth which simply shifted a class monopoly to a party monopoly.

ANYTHING can be abused in life becuase humans run every aspect of life. So it is not simply a matter of saying "this works", that is a flaw in humans seeking patterns. Yes, it can work sometimes but that does not mean it works all the time, nor does it mean it works for everyone all the time.

The only thing humans really can do to give everyone space and means, is to take into account the diversity and be willing to adapt while seeking balance. Which is why you cannot understand I am NOT jealous at all of you having more as implied by the title of the thread. I do not hate the private sector, but I do hate it's abuse. All forms of power be it religious, nationalistic one party rule, and or business all require the same thing to keep power MONEY.

All workers rights or all big business rights, either way without consent or oversight creates a lopsided economic ecosystem. Right now though, the big boys are doing the greatest damage to the world. I do not want business to go way, not that I could even if I wanted to, I just want it to STOP being abusive.

I simply do not see the solutions you advocate as even being pragmatic or viable at this point in history. I do think you do act like a sore loser when others want to do things differently.

Marks missis the same point the Koch brothers did, nothing is ever either/or. But an issue of monopolies.

Now again I am going to offer you solutions.

1. Reduce the pay gap.

2. Tax the fuck out of the rich.

3. Stop shipping jobs overseas.

4. Invest here at home.

Problem with you is that you call that robbery, where as I know that by doing that it will generate MORE business. Nick Hanoure who should be your hero considering he is a BILLIONAIRE says HE is NOT the job creator. "No business owner hires one more person than they have to" He is right. And the only thing that forces a a business owner to hire more people is DEMAND, and the bulk of demand comes from workers, not business owners. So the more economically stable a worker is and the more money they make the more demand they create.

What is NOT going to happen anymore is the same economic policies Reagan set in motion in the 80s. That has been our downfall.

Nowhere in that am I negating the value of the private sector, and also nowhere in that am I negating the Marx's idea of the value of the worker. I am saying RIGHT NOW big business has become too abusive.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Marx in a

Brian37 wrote:
Marx in a general sense was right about an economy being only as strong as the workers ability to make a living.

WHAT!!!??? WHERE??? WHERE DID MARX SAY THAT, YOU NINCOMPOOP??? HE DIDN'T!


STOP TALKING ABOUT SHIT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!


Brian37 wrote:
But Stalin used that idea and twisted it to create his own centralized wealth which simply shifted a class monopoly to a party monopoly.

AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER PEOPLE USED MARX'S IDEAS TO CREATE EXTREMELY POSITIVE THINGS FOR OUR WORLD.


WHICH I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU, USING EXAMPLES, MULTIPLE TIMES.


LISTEN WHEN PEOPLE WHO KNOW MORE THAN YOU ON A CERTAIN SUBJECT TELL YOU SHIT ABOUT IT!!!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Marx in a general sense was right about an economy being only as strong as the workers ability to make a living.
WHAT!!!??? WHERE??? WHERE DID MARX SAY THAT, YOU NINCOMPOOP??? HE DIDN'T!
STOP TALKING ABOUT SHIT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!
Brian37 wrote:
But Stalin used that idea and twisted it to create his own centralized wealth which simply shifted a class monopoly to a party monopoly.
AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER PEOPLE USED MARX'S IDEAS TO CREATE EXTREMELY POSITIVE THINGS FOR OUR WORLD.
WHICH I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU, USING EXAMPLES, MULTIPLE TIMES.
LISTEN WHEN PEOPLE WHO KNOW MORE THAN YOU ON A CERTAIN SUBJECT TELL YOU SHIT ABOUT IT!!!

LISTEN DIPSHIT, for someone who wont read Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins or Victor Stenger, as to why I call religion poison, you have some fucking nerve lecturing me. The only difference between your dogmatism and religious dogmatism is that yours is economic dogmatism.

Now once again and for the ADD aflicted,

You cannot take a simplistic econmic theory and apply it to a diverse species. Saying Marx got some things right does not mean the overall impementation works all the time. No different than saying that Newton got physics right but alchemy wrong.

Any political or economic idea that does not allow for diversity is only going to set up a power vacuum to allow one abuse to be replaced by another abuse.

Marx still lead to Stalin, just like crying "free market, no regulation" lead to our great depression. ANYTHING left to it's own divices without checks and balances on it WILL go off the rails.

No matter what idea someone comes up with, that idea can be dangled like a utopia in front of others, and used to abuse those same people who buy into it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Marx still

Brian37 wrote:
Marx still lead to Stalin

MARX ALSO LED TO THE MODERN EUROPEAN SOCIAL STATE, YOU FUCKING TWAT!!!


MARX HAD NO LESS TO DO WITH THAT THAN WITH STALIN!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You cannot

Brian37 wrote:
You cannot take a simplistic econmic theory



marx is simplistic??? god, you're a fucking stupid shit-for-brains.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15572
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
You cannot take a simplistic econmic theory

marx is simplistic??? god, you're a fucking stupid shit-for-brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

from the article wrote:
He called capitalism the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit

If that is his starting point it is STILL FLAWED. Why? Because capitalism IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Gadaffie was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy whose royal family owns oil companies and invests in banks and weapons as well. China's communist party keeps it's power by its authoritarian capitalism by making money selling cheap goods with slave wages to the rest of the world.

The reall issue in that statement he DID get right was CLASS issues. Unfortunately what his idea lead to was simply wealth transfering to the bourgeosie, to the wealth of the political party itself.

NOW get this. ALL POWER AND I MEAN ALL POWER, be it held by a political party, a religion, or a business, all require income to keep and maintain. His good intent on not having labor exploited by wealth simply became labor exploited by the state itself.

There is not one westernized country or dictatorship or one party rule state on the face of this planet that does not invest in the global market.

MONOPOLIES of power are all the same and require the same thing to create and keep. All Marx did was fall prey to good intent by rightfully telling the masses they were getting screwed by wealth. And it did work but only to set up a state monopoly which Stalin utiliazed populist thought to gain a monopoly himself.

Marx was right in saying at his time "this is wrong", but was nieve in thinking his idea to correct that could not be gamed itself which is what ended up happening. It simply replaced one form of abuse with another.

Capitalism is in every fucking country on the face of this planet. What you correct is not ending the private sector, or set up one party rule. What you do is ban all monopolies of power and keep checks and balances on all aspects of society both public and private.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13017
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Every time you post you look

Every time you post you look dumber and dumber. Rofl.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
You cannot take a simplistic econmic theory

marx is simplistic??? god, you're a fucking stupid shit-for-brains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

from the article wrote:
He called capitalism the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit

If that is his starting point it is STILL FLAWED. Why? Because capitalism IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Gadaffie was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. Saudi Arabia is a theocracy whose royal family owns oil companies and invests in banks and weapons as well. China's communist party keeps it's power by its authoritarian capitalism by making money selling cheap goods with slave wages to the rest of the world.

The reall issue in that statement he DID get right was CLASS issues. Unfortunately what his idea lead to was simply wealth transfering to the bourgeosie, to the wealth of the political party itself.

NOW get this. ALL POWER AND I MEAN ALL POWER, be it held by a political party, a religion, or a business, all require income to keep and maintain. His good intent on not having labor exploited by wealth simply became labor exploited by the state itself.

There is not one westernized country or dictatorship or one party rule state on the face of this planet that does not invest in the global market.

MONOPOLIES of power are all the same and require the same thing to create and keep. All Marx did was fall prey to good intent by rightfully telling the masses they were getting screwed by wealth. And it did work but only to set up a state monopoly which Stalin utiliazed populist thought to gain a monopoly himself.

Marx was right in saying at his time "this is wrong", but was nieve in thinking his idea to correct that could not be gamed itself which is what ended up happening. It simply replaced one form of abuse with another.

Capitalism is in every fucking country on the face of this planet. What you correct is not ending the private sector, or set up one party rule. What you do is ban all monopolies of power and keep checks and balances on all aspects of society both public and private.

 




brian, you really are stupid. wikipedia. fucking wikipedia, and you just take their word for it. see, this is why you fall for shit like fake hypatia quotes.


let's learn a lesson in how to be a critical reader, shall we? wikipedia says, "he called capitalism 'the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.'" notice two things: one, only "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" is in quotes. there is no quote that says "capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." so already you have a second-hand interpretation, AT BEST. two, THERE IS NO SOURCE CITED. does this seriously not send up a red flag for you?


so we're left with the question, where did marx say that? where? beats me, and i've read a good chunk of his works. the nearest footnote to this "quote" (about four lines down) is a citation from the critique of the gotha program. where in this work does marx use the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"? NOWHERE. now, i've read the critique, but just to be sure i hopped over to the marxist internet archive where they have it in electronic form and did a search for "dictatorship." the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" is nowhere. NO-FUCKING-WHERE.


as far as i can tell (which is MUCH FARTHER THAN YOU), marx NEVER used the term "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," referring to capitalism or anything else. LENIN, however, DID refer to "bourgeois democracy" as a "dictatorship" on numerous occasions. not "capitalism," though.


so, you know what that's called, brian? it's called reading with a brain. and it's not that hard, is it? try it sometime.


now, i have TWO QUESTIONS for YOU. (and i would wager a fair amount of money i'll get NO ANSWER.)


1. WILL YOU ADMIT, UNQUALIFIEDLY, THAT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT MARX CALLING CAPITALISM THE "DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE" AND MISTAKING CAPITALISM FOR A FORM OF GOVERNMENT?


2. WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE, UNQUALIFIEDLY, THAT MARX HAD NO LESS OF A HAND IN BRINGING ABOUT THE MODERN SOCIAL STATE THAN HE DID IN BRINGING ABOUT THE STALINIST SOCIETY?


i'm waiting for you to grow some balls.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4101
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
You cannot take a simplistic econmic theory

marx is simplistic??? god, you're a fucking stupid shit-for-brains.

 

    Brian37 doesn't waste his time researching facts, because has has something even better   ...opinions, STRONG OPINIONS !!!

witty expression goes here.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:iwbiek

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
You cannot take a simplistic econmic theory

marx is simplistic??? god, you're a fucking stupid shit-for-brains.

 

    Brian37 doesn't waste his time researching facts, because has has something even better   ...opinions, STRONG OPINIONS !!!


yeah, and i love how his response was a link to the wikipedia article on marx. as if that should speak for itself. it does, however, speak volumes about brian...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Iwbiek,Do you think there is

Iwbiek,

Do you think there is a campaign to missinform people about Marx? I mean, Brian is far from being the only one thinking like this about Marx. Furthermore as you point out, Marx is missquoted on wikipedia.

Who do you think is behind this missinformation and what's the objective? Do you think this is still a remnant of the cold war, like others, who stubbornly don't go away?

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Teralek wrote:Iwbiek,Do you

Teralek wrote:

Iwbiek,

Do you think there is a campaign to missinform people about Marx? I mean, Brian is far from being the only one thinking like this about Marx. Furthermore as you point out, Marx is missquoted on wikipedia.

Who do you think is behind this missinformation and what's the objective? Do you think this is still a remnant of the cold war, like others, who stubbornly don't go away?




there might be, there might not be. either way, all one has to do is read marx for himself and make up his own mind, something brian obviously hasn't done. i tend to think it's just because of generations of miseducation. for two thirds of a century, the soviets and their disciples claimed they had the only valid interpretation of marxism and most of the world just took their word for it. most of the official ideology of the soviet camp, even after destalinization in the early '50s, came from stalin's short course (which he didn't actually write), as well as his foundations of leninism. these books were a hackneyed mishmash of scattered ideas pulled from marx, engels, lenin, and others, that were passed off as the definitive systemization of marxian thought.


now, as for brian himself, no, it has nothing to do with a campaign of misinformation. it's just another example of his sloppy, pedestrian reading, deductive reasoning, and hysterics. brian wants marx to be wrong, without taking the trouble to read marx (and, tbh, for brian it would be an intellectual strain to read marx). therefore, he seizes on the first straw that backs up his presuppositions, hoping naively for a quick victory. and therein lies the flaw in all of brian's thinking: he's looking for a victory. he sees studying as equipping himself for some grand ideological battle, not an opportunity to learn and change. he's much like a christian apologist.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 619
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
 Ok...I have done some

 Ok...

I have done some digging... I found this:

"that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat"

in a letter from Marx to Weydemeyer.

I also found saying that Marx thought that any form of governemnt is a dictatorship and he wanted a classeless society.

A dictatorship according to definition: "is a form of goverment where political authority is often monopolized by a single person or a political party, and exercised through various oppressive mechanisms"

On a classless society a "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't make sense since it assumes the existence of a single class. If the only class that exists is the "proletariat" obviously this is a dictatorship... like we have a dictatorship of humans since monkeys have no saying in our affairs...

But I think I understand what Marx wanted to say when I read the whole thing. I believe he was aware of this.

that said... a classeless society may be impossible, depending how you define "class". Or it may be what we already have in many European countries, a classless society, if your definition of class differs... this is an interesting discussion though...

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies