[CNN MONEY] Get ready to pay sales tax on Amazon - Page 25  

No, you're confused. All you have done is replaced one for the other. How you say the bourqeosise are the capitalists, well, in your socialist society the people who are now in control become the bourgeoisie. You see?
Look at all the examples of this in our very own country. The Nancy Pelosi example that I used above, for one. Do you think that for one second that the people in control of this spectacular socialist government you want will live like that of the working class? Not for one second. Socialism is for the people, NOT the socialist. Those that are in control will always exclude themselfs from what they think is best for the people.

And socialism is slavery. Look at the definition of slavery. slavery 2. the subjection of a person to another person.
When you force person A to provide his labor for the benefit of person B, without compensation for said labor, and the penalty for not doing so is either fine or imprisionment.
Sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.

Your example of Capitalism in #5 is comepletly wrong. In capitalism we sell our labor. A company buys that labor. So in your example, the factory where you make something is taken from you, is taken from you because it is not yours to begin with. It's the companies property. You have only been contracted to use your labor to assemble something that belongs to the company. You have absolutely no say in what happens to it because you don't own the product.

"The truth you believe and cling to makes you unavailable to hear anything new." – Pema Chodron

I find this particularly funny,

The 1% in America aren't doing everything they possibly can to keep themselves in power? Every society and system has it's own power structure.

He took the blue pill.

OH YEAH, this thread is getting super political!

Who's cooking up the hot dogs? Who's making the popcorn?

Makes me want to watch the series all over again

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President of the United States. The Fed is independant from the government like the Supreme Court is non-Partisan.

*Pressured*. Americans are pressured to consume? People have free will and personal responsibility, I'll leave it at that. If a company has a lot of cash reserves, it may as well loan the money out, or otherwise put it to work. Even then, GM was extremely close to going bankrupt (and would've, without a bailout), so don't act like it was hoarding too much money. Biggest expense? UNION PAY. Toyota, Kia, and Hyundai all have auto plants in the US, and they're successful because they're not crippled by absurd union wages and benefits. Instead of paying $60,000 a year for unskilled laborers, non-union car plants can pay their workers more like $35,000 a year, and still be profitable.

If you make $50,000 a year, you're single, no kids, and can't buy a $15,000 car in cash after 6 months, you should really reflect at all the bad decisions you're making in life. But also consider that cars perhaps got more expensive due to union salaries, higher safety standards, and increasing complexity.

As for socialism, so you expect a government to tell you how much you deserve to make? Take an investment bank like Goldman Sachs for example. About 40% of revenue is paid out to employees; average salary in the hundreds of thousands. They did the trades, they earned that much and more. Now, you pay them what they earned, now they're getting double the salary, but the shareholders get a 0% ROI on their millions invested - they didn't "earn" anything, they just invested capital, which apparently has no value in a socialist society. Except, what happens when you take the investments away? There's no principal for the investment bankers to trade with. No factory for the workers to work in. Etc. Take 10,000 workers in a car plant, ask them if they all want to spend $5,000 each to own the plant, split the cost of goods amongst themselves, and pay for a fraction of the R&D of a vehicle. Then tell them there's a chance they won't see a PENNY in wages that year, and they might actually lose money- they'd have to pay to work! This isn't far-fetched, companies aren't profitable 100% of the time. I'm sure they'll run back to capitalism.

You have no concept of what socialism is... I suggest you do some reading.

Especially the bolded comment is hilarious, where do you all get this idea that in socialism you do all the work and someone else gets all the benefit.
In socialism everyone works for EVERYONES benefit, that includes your own.

You're just delusional if you think that, I'm sorry.
Edited by OwnedINC - 8/5/12 at 8:58pm

Yep, the rich have all sorts of benefits in the US, like labour unions (see the 'collective bargaining' deals in professional sports, that's what they really are basically), user pays health but all hell breaks loose if those silly commoners get it right?
The NFL collective bargaining system is signficant. 51% of all revenue goes to the players.

Also you and I know wording means everything:

'Collective Bargaining' (for rich players and you paying overpriced tickets to watch them) = go go go!!
'Labour Unions' = oh noes right? (even though it benefits you).

People still beleive the 'work your way up' myth when social economic mobility hasn't gone up since the mid 1970s. Thw 'Work you way up' only works if

A) Everyone has access to the same amount of resources, such as quality of education.
B) Social mobility is high.

Both A & B is non-existant currently. Look up the story of inner city Detroit kids who demanded an education and got suspended from school.

The sad thing I'm Kiwi and I know probably more about US economic history than a lot of Americans.
It's also one of the reasons why Australia and Germany both have one of the most robust economies in the world, because the middle class is spending and has money to spend (not money from debt) and both have long established union movements. I'm noty saying they're the only reasons because that's blantantly false but it's a signficant one.

Cesaro is hitting those awkward truths. US economic history has been and still is repressive against minorities. Hands up if people know what a NINJA loan is?
Edited by chinesekiwi - 8/5/12 at 9:20pm

Let me leave this here...


Edited by A Russian :D - 8/5/12 at 10:12pm

This thread is awesome. Can't really pitch in as I'm on my phone at work, but just...amazing.

Who cares? The point remains, the US Governement does not control the Fed. Appointing a Fed Chairman does not mean a whole lot.


Yes PRESSURED. How many ads will you see in a single day? How many ads does my child see in single day? Thousands. People do have personal responsibility, and free will, but how does a system that is constantly telling them to BUY BUY BUY affect that responsibility, and freewill? When I was in School not having a cellphone was seen by peers as being poor, this type of pressure exists all around us. To pretend it does not exist is silly.

Oh jeez, the Union argument. Do you know what high paying union jobs mean? IT means loads of money in the local economies it means higher wages for those all laborers in those economies, it means a strong middle class. Look at the 1950's, that was the biggest middle class this country ever saw, what was the cause? . If the US had kept wages raising with the productivity of it's workers as it had for almost the entire history of recording those statistics, then the US would have a income of around 90k, not 44k.

Tell me how much were GM Executives making during the time period before it's implosion? Many millions, all the while they pissed their company down the drain. It's pretty galling to sit here and point the finger at Labor as the reason GM collapsed when Labor had absolutely no control over any decision made by GM. GM was very profitable, they went wrong when their LEADERS decided to chase after SUV sales and the decline in other areas. They topped it off by focusing more on giving out car loans than actually making cars. Do you think those "unskilled" laborers would have followed the same course? I say no. I just look to mondragon to see how things wold likely play out if workers actually ran things.

50k? If you make 50k you are already doing better than HALF this country. What car costs 15k for a family of 4? I guess we are buying used cars? That's fine, but keep in mind if we all bought used cars, there would be no new cars, since there's be no money to be made selling them! How could carts be getting more expensive to labor unions when just a paragraph before you pointed out how many car companies are NON union, paying significantly less?

I never said I expect the Government do do anything. I don't like Government much either. I expect workers to pay their peers what they think they deserve. Would you have a problem paying a peer more than you if that peer worked harder? Had more experience, more education? I think you would, I think it's reasonable. Now would you pay that person 400 times more? Maybe 1000x? I don't think so, there is no person on earth worth that much. But you know what? If you and your fellow workers thought it was a good idea, then you go right ahead. That is what I want. IT EXISTS NOW. Look at Mondragon. www.shiftchange.org. Those people vote on their wages, and surprisingly the wage ratio maxes out at 6-1. That is reasonable, some of the Coops do 1-1, that is reasonable too. The point is the WORKERS ARE DECIDING. Those workers invest profits into R&D and pensions. Another % goes to relocate workers to cooperatives that need work, and retraining, while the cooperative they were working at undergoes "downsizing"

You are assuming we would just stand around with our thumbs up our ass if people didn't invest money. That is stupid, and shows a weird regard for humans in general.

There is a story of a Capitalist going to Australia with a bunch of money, servants, tools, etc. When he gets there, there is land all over the place. What do you think his servants did? They left his money and tools on the beach, and went on with their lives just fine without him. He was left doing all his own work. It's an important lesson, humans are not going to stop creating just because someone can't make money on an investment. In fact I don't even see why investing money needs to be a bad thing really, It's just how it's used, and who controls it. Simply throwing money at a idea should not entitle you to do as you please with workers. Just because you "risked" Capital does not entitle you some special place in society. You are just another cog in the giant machine of society.

As for your example, watch the movie THE TAKE it will show you how much sacrifice workers will make, and how communities will help them in times of trouble. Believe me, when those workers came out of their ordeal, the last thing they did was run back to Capitalism. They took over, and threw the Capitalist out.