Capitalists may have the same mentality as Nazis: that people must be enslaved

[Revoltingest]

Do you value work just because it's hard? I think the type of work you do is far more valuable than how hard it is. You can have a job where you run in circles all day, that might be hard but doesn't deserve compensation.

You reminded me of a job I once had.
I was contracted to design a novel aerial refueling system
for the KC-135. I was leaning back in my chair with my
feet up & my eyes closed. I was working on the design.
(I often design things with my eyes closed. Mental
pictures aren't corrupted by what the eyes see.)

One of the guys from the shop was incensed.
"I wish I had your job!"
People who don't design & invent things don't
understand that it mostly takes place entirely
in one's noggin. And sometimes I'd push a pencil.

 

[Heyo]

Do you value work just because it's hard? I think the type of work you do is far more valuable than how hard it is. You can have a job where you run in circles all day, that might be hard but doesn't deserve compensation.

I borrowed the phrase "hard work" from @TagliatelliMonster together with its meaning. Long hours, hard decisions, deep thinking - non of these alone or together will make you rich.

 

[PureX]

if you become rich can we make the same generalizations about you?

We are all infected by the greed of capitalism. It's inescapable in our culture. If we tried to be more honest and fair with each other we would just be all the more exploited by those that aren't. Greed and selfishness are contagious. As soon as one of us engages in it we force everyone around us to engage in it, too, just to protect themselves from us.

 

[Revoltingest]

I borrowed the phrase "hard work" from @TagliatelliMonster together with its meaning. Long hours, hard decisions, deep thinking - non of these alone or together will make you rich.

Without them, you'd need rich parents or a lucky lottery number.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are all infected by the greed of capitalism.

But the results of it are so much better
than other kinds of greed, eg, socialism,
serfdom, communism.

 

[Heyo]

By whose standard?

By the standards of the community you live in, as I said. When everyone around you has a house and a car, you're not rich if you have that also.

Wouldn't it depend on the value of the homes and the cars you own? You can have 2 shacks worth very little, and 2 used cars practally worthless and still be poor.

Of course, isn't that obvious? Are you trying to nitpick or has that something to do with the debate?

 

[Estro Felino]

This is true.
I don't know anyone in business who thinks that way.
When profit is focused upon to the exclusion of other
important goals (eg, reducing risk, planning for the
future), a company endures the kind of debacle
that GE did (think of Jack Welch).

Microeconomics studies such dynamics:
In monopoly and oligopoly profit maximization may make sense.
But in a highly competitive market, the greedy will succumb. They will go bankrupt.

Because money is supposed to circulate....so if you fire most workers to maximize the profits, nobody will have the money to buy your goods and services, any more.

Did you study these things?

 

[Heyo]

But the results of it are so much better
than other kinds of greed, eg, socialism,
serfdom, communism.

They were, up until the late '70s, early '80s. Until then, productivity went up, revenue went up and wages went up about equally. Since then, we (and most of all, the US) have reached the stage of "late capitalism".

 

[PureX]

No I'm not misunderstanding. I know poor people who have multiple pairs of shoes, clothes, have cell phones, computers, TV's etc. you don't need these things to survive and thrive.

It depends on the culture we are living in. in THIS culture most of those things are necessary. And you're ignoring the most important thing, and that's access to real opportunity. Under capitalism, the capitalists control the commerce, with the singular goal of maximizing the profits being returned on their capital investment. So nearly all possible opportunities are under their control and aimed at the goal of serving their greed. Wealth is power (control) and so that wealth is being rewarded with more wealth. And that process is predatory because contrary to this big lie the capitalists so love to tell us all, they are NOT "creating wealth". They are capturing it. The actual value being increased in any economy at any given time is minimal. So the more of it the rich pile up for themselves, the less of it there is available to everyone else.

All of the rich people I know of have the vast majority of their wealth tied up in enterprises where it is controlled by other people; hardly hoarding.

Those other people are just their minions, serving their greed: i.e., acting on behalf of their goal to maximize the return on the capital they've invested.

Who are some of these rich people you speak of who actually hoard wealth, and how are they doing this?

All of them. Or they would not be rich.

No one single human contributes so much to the well-being of mankind that they deserve to possess or control hundreds of times more wealth than any other human. So anyone that does possess or control that much wealth is just another greedy capitalist pig.

 

[Revoltingest]

Microeconomics studies such dynamics:
In monopoly and oligopoly profit maximization may make sense.
But in a highly competitive market, the greedy will succumb. They will go bankrupt.

Because money is supposed to circulate....so if you fire most workers to maximize the profits, nobody will have the money to buy your goods and services, any more.

Did you study these things?

Study and practice.

 

[Revoltingest]

They were, up until the late '70s, early '80s.

You're saying that by the 80s, socialist
greed offered more benefit? Where?
N Korea? Cuba?

 

[Estro Felino]

Study and practice.

So...you do understand that the sub-prime crisis would have never happened, if certain greedy people had never existed?

Or rather, if they had made other decisions, other than maximizing the profits.

 

[Revoltingest]

So...you do understand...

I understand many things.
Do more than merely bring up a subject without
thoughtful commentary or questions. I've held
forth with great detail about financial crises,
causes, & cures. You've never joined in.

 

[Heyo]

I still work.
And I still disagree, regardless whether I am still active or not.
The company / stocks didn't fall out of the sky.
They are the result of my work.

*

I may have jumped the bullet there and made an assumption based on past experience with other people.
Whenever people bring up, or hint at, that dividends are "money earnings that you didn't work for", that's usually where it leads to.
My apologies if I went ahead of myself there.

People feel offended when I'm criticizing the outgrowth of late stage capitalism as if I'm criticizing them. Capitalist is an identity for them. And usually it is the small business owners, who are more victims of the systems than perpetrators.

I think that's a hard, and perhaps even subjective, concept.
If you take the spectrum from "poor" to "filthy rich", with "middle class" in between, then to the far right it is mega obvious if you are rich or not.
Those are the people with mega mansions, a yacht and a lambo and whatnot.

But the "border" between middle class and rich, is very very blurry.

It is.

So I would say that you can call yourself "rich" when you can maintain a somewhat luxurious lifestyle, while not having to worry about being able to pay the bills.
That's rather vague in a sense, but that's only because that "border" between middle class and rich is vague.

According to such a definition, I am not rich.
I might be if I would sell the company though. But at present that doesn't interest me. I want it to grow more before then.

Without knowing more about yourself, I'd say you are "well off".

You could say that about any type of inheritance. Be it in the form of buildings, other assets, stocks or just cash.
If I would have inherited the company from my parents, then it would have been the fruit of the labor of my parents.
And I don't see how it matters that the inheritance is a company vs simply a pile of cash.

The difference is that a pile of cash will be used up one day.
With a pile of stocks, the money keeps coming. And when you have enough stocks to cover more than your needs, you can invest in more stocks, which you can entail to your offspring. The initial costs and work of the founder have long been paid off, but the stocks produce money indefinitely (in theory, in reality it only produces crashes and wars).
That is what Marx called accumulation of wealth. It is one of the major flaws of the system.

As an independent, I am responsible for my pension. I'll be getting close to nothing from the state. This is not the case with my workers.
Also, I live in Belgium... you don't want to know the amount of taxes *I* (which is to say: the company) have to pay on the wages of my workers. It's basically what the workers pay on their wages, times 3.

* When do you think will your initial investment, your work and your pension be paid off? Or do you think you deserve infinite money for finite work and investment?

 

[Heyo]

You're saying that by the 80s, socialist
greed offered more benefit? Where?
N Korea? Cuba?

I'm saying that since the '80s capitalism stopped serving everyone. It was still better than all the "real existing socialisms", but it is declining to benefit the poor and the middle class. With the current trajectory, we are heading for a crash, a war or a revolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm saying that since the '80s capitalism stopped serving everyone.

You really believe that?
I'm well served by it here.
I have customers, suppliers, etc.
We all get what we bargain for.

It was still better than all the "real existing socialisms", but it is declining to benefit the poor and the middle class. With the current trajectory, we are heading for a crash, a war or a revolution.

Some things aren't fundamental to an economic system.
Helping the poor, for example.
Under socialism, government might or might not.
Under capitalism, it's the same.
I favor the UBI. Most voters here don't.

 

[Kathryn]

You are the only one who talks about Trump's "sexual prowess", and the only ones who talk about Harris' race are your beloved right-wingers.

Hey. I am a right winger and I literally never talk or even think about Harris's race.

 

[Stevicus]

I borrowed the phrase "hard work" from @TagliatelliMonster together with its meaning. Long hours, hard decisions, deep thinking - non of these alone or together will make you rich.

I think it probably comes down to various intangible factors as well. One phrase I hear a lot is "work smarter, not harder." That may be a more accurate phrase to use. Some people might have a greater aptitude for certain tasks, maybe more savvy in business. Maybe they have a talent for fast talking and wheeling and dealing.

Ultimately, the money is made the moment that you are able to persuade and convince someone to part with their hard-earned money to purchase whatever product or service you're selling. That's really where the rubber meets the road. That's where the money actually comes from.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hey. I am a right winger and I literally never talk or even think about Harris's race.

All houses are buildings, but not all buildings are houses.

 

[Kathryn]

All houses are buildings, but not all buildings are houses.

Just pointing out facts.