Interesting News, Articles & Stuff

[florduh]

Taxing rich people to fund a welfare state isn't socialism. That's capitalism. Specifically, it's correcting for the inevitable failures of capitalism.

Owner of Ohio Pizzeria Gives Full Day of Sales to Employees to Show His Gratitude

Josh Elchert held an Employee Appreciation Day at his business so that he could honor the hard work of his employees

people.com

Thanks to the community, the day was a major success, bringing in 220 orders for a total of $6,300 in sales and $1,200 in tips, according to a Facebook post shared on July 6. Divided amongst the staff and the 96 total hours they worked, each employee made $78 per hour, Elchert revealed.

If capitalists weren't leeching off of workers, we wouldn't need much in the way of welfare

Think this may have some merit?

Nope.

Revealing the True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy - Inequality.org

How the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence — while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.

inequality.org

Bill Gates's "charity" almost single handedly destroyed public education in this country. Why anyone is in favor of giving this kind of power to unelected scam artists is beyond me.

How Bill Gates Makes the World Worse Off

Billionaires giving to charity, also called philanthrocapitalism, doesn’t actually empower the world’s neediest or reduce inequality.

www.currentaffairs.org

 

[macbill]

Sean 'Diddy' Combs verdict: Combs won't be freed before sentencing​

• The judge denied bail, and Combs will remain detained until his sentencing, which has been set for this fall.

 

[sedentree]

I will read the article at length when I can. I did however scan but not enough to respond properly. It appears that the author is a socialist. No wonder he leans in that direction. I'll respond in detail after I read it.

I also took a look at the article re: it's basically just immoral to be rich. I had to stop after reading the sentence "Because every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else, the decision to retain wealth is a decision to deprive others".

Really just another socialists opinion. His statement is outlandish and makes absolutely no sense. We ( not me - I don't have that kind of money) should not be forced to give money to the poor. Many people are very charitable. This should be done via the tax system. Or how about we give the wealthy tax breaks if they contribute to government selected entities e.g homeless organizations, food banks, affordable housing agencies, etc. I don't know but lets say a wealthy person contributes 1 million dollars (or 500 million dollars) to one of the aforementioned organizations the donor may receive a tax break in kind. They would still be responsible to pay income taxes but would get some relief. The money sent directly to there organizations would bypass the governments making these payments. The total amount could be used without the governmental using some of those funds for their bureaucratic spending and administrative expenses which would reduce the net amount those charities would alternatively receive from direct payment. Think this may have some merit?

Most importantly how do I get rid of the italics?

I am not sure it is worth responding to these questions when they essentially, to me, are covered by the article which you mention you have not fully read.

When you do get around to reading it, you will see that the point is: once a person has over a specific amount of income, anything more they keep is immoral (to the author). The author goes on to say that everyone should give away everything over this imaginary ceiling eg does any single person need more than eg 100k per year - “everyone who earns anything beyond it is obligated to give the excess away in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given.”

And to paraphrase the first article, which you also state you haven’t read:
Does it make sense that human beings should care about one another and share their resources fairly in a way that ensures nobody is deprived? If you say yes, then you are a socialist.

 

[Bazinga]

Diddy has been denied bail

Diddy denied bail and now faces nervous wait for prostitution sentencing

SEAN “Diddy” Combs has been denied bail and will remain in jail while he awaits sentencing for his conviction of transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs’ defense team offe…

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

The whole situation is shocking and very bizarre with fans pouring baby oil on themselves outside court like it was all cool.

For some time now our country has been "dumbed down". Criminals have become heroes. Good folks are scoffed at. Young people (not all of course) graduating high school and/or college are unable to perform basic math functions. The list goes on and on. Diddy will probably get a wall mural somewhere depicting his hero status.

I am not sure it is worth responding to these questions when they essentially, to me, are covered by the article which you mention you have not fully read.

When you do get around to reading it, you will see that the point is: once a person has over a specific amount of income, anything more they keep is immoral (to the author). The author goes on to say that everyone should give away everything over this imaginary ceiling eg does any single person need more than eg 100k per year - “everyone who earns anything beyond it is obligated to give the excess away in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given.”

And to paraphrase the first article, which you also state you haven’t read:
Does it make sense that human beings should care about one another and share their resources fairly in a way that ensures nobody is deprived? If you say yes, then you are a socialist.

Well not quite my definition of a socialist. Being charitable and caring about the less fortunate does not make anyone a socialist. It's not the roll of the wealthy to share their wealth with the disadvantaged. Did you like my idea of the wealthy donating directly to organizations that support the needy (food banks, affordable housing organizations, etc.) and receiving a tax credit. This would encourage donations by the rich. I may be wrong but it does seem to be a win win.

Do you believe that the accumulation of wealth is immoral and that this wealth needs to be redistributed? As I previously stated, there will always be poor people. My heart goes out to them but us not my obligation to share with them. It is my pleasure to make donations to organizations that support certain segments of the needy.

Later today I'll read the articles that you were kind enough to share.

Taxing rich people to fund a welfare state isn't socialism. That's capitalism. Specifically, it's correcting for the inevitable failures of capitalism.

Owner of Ohio Pizzeria Gives Full Day of Sales to Employees to Show His Gratitude

Josh Elchert held an Employee Appreciation Day at his business so that he could honor the hard work of his employees

people.com

If capitalists weren't leeching off of workers, we wouldn't need much in the way of welfare



Nope.

Revealing the True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy - Inequality.org

How the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence — while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.

inequality.org

Bill Gates's "charity" almost single handedly destroyed public education in this country. Why anyone is in favor of giving this kind of power to unelected scam artists is beyond me.

How Bill Gates Makes the World Worse Off

Billionaires giving to charity, also called philanthrocapitalism, doesn’t actually empower the world’s neediest or reduce inequality.

www.currentaffairs.org

You are aware that I disagree with most of your positions. But damn, you provide great reading material !! I am not certain how you find it and I really appreciate you sharing. I would think that most people on this forum share my sentiment.

Okay now back to business. How anyone can criticize Bill Gates after all the money he has given away is beyond me. Socialists love no spend other people's money. They never seem satisfied with what they are demanding and always want more and then more. I do agree with the article`s problem with the charitable foundations as some of the money never makes it to the charity. That's why I suggested the donations be delivered directly to the organization.

How does capitalism leech off workers? Because of low wages or not willing to profit share?

 

[florduh]

How does capitalism leech off workers?

So, you don't understand the basics of what socialism or capitalism are, yet you're certain you hate socialism and love capitalism and want to kiss it on the mouth?

Conservatives love crying about taxes, but nobody steals from you more than your boss.

 

[sedentree]

For some time now our country has been "dumbed down". Criminals have become heroes. Good folks are scoffed at. Young people (not all of course) graduating high school and/or college are unable to perform basic math functions. The list goes on and on. Diddy will probably get a wall mural somewhere depicting his hero status.


Well not quite my definition of a socialist. Being charitable and caring about the less fortunate does not make anyone a socialist. It's not the roll of the wealthy to share their wealth with the disadvantaged. Did you like my idea of the wealthy donating directly to organizations that support the needy (food banks, affordable housing organizations, etc.) and receiving a tax credit. This would encourage donations by the rich. I may be wrong but it does seem to be a win win.

Do you believe that the accumulation of wealth is immoral and that this wealth needs to be redistributed? As I previously stated, there will always be poor people. My heart goes out to them but us not my obligation to share with them. It is my pleasure to make donations to organizations that support certain segments of the needy.

Later today I'll read the articles that you were kind enough to share.


You are aware that I disagree with most of your positions. But damn, you provide great reading material !! I am not certain how you find it and I really appreciate you sharing. I would think that most people on this forum share my sentiment.

Okay now back to business. How anyone can criticize Bill Gates after all the money he has given away is beyond me. Socialists love no spend other people's money. They never seem satisfied with what they are demanding and always want more and then more. I do agree with the article`s problem with the charitable foundations as some of the money never makes it to the charity. That's why I suggested the donations be delivered directly to the organization.

How does capitalism leech off workers? Because of low wages or not willing to profit share?

I believe you are engaging in straw man arguments. That is not to say I believe you are necessarily doing so deliberately (maybe you are, maybe you are not; I have no way to know), but it is the effect I feel when I read your responses.

 

[Bazinga]

So, you don't understand the basics of what socialism or capitalism are, yet you're certain you hate socialism and love capitalism and want to kiss it on the mouth?

Conservatives love crying about taxes, but nobody steals from you more than your boss.

I only kiss my wife on the mouth (and not that often). Well, I'm no expert in this field but I truly understand at least the basics for this discussion. I could say, that it is you that doesn't grasp the concepts of the discussion. IMHO anyone who favors pure socialism has not done adequate research.
I will say that every argument/debate has 2 sides. I am on one side and you are on the other. Doesn't mean that either one of us is evil or necessarily wrong. There isn't anything wrong with a passionate viewpoint.

The video you provided was generated by Richard Wolff. Wikipedia describes Richard David Wolff (born April 1, 1942)as an American Marxian economist. In 1988, Wolff co-founded Rethinking Marxism, a journal dedicated to exploring Marxian concepts in economics and social sciences. He is a self acclaimed Marxist. Of course, he doesn't like capitalism. I don't think he ever held a working mans job or ran a company.

The crux of his statement relies on what should folks be paid for their services since most employees provide the essential labor to run a company. This is a tough number to derive.

Let's say I decide to start my manufacturing company to make pencils. I borrow money from the bank to build the factory, buy the necessary equipment, purchase inventory, secure a building by purchase or lease, buy insurance, pay for heat, light and power, etc. In order to facilitate the loan I've used my home for collateral. Now I need to hire employees and will need to pay social security taxes, unemployment taxes (both federal and state), real estate taxes. workers compensation, perhaps even contribute to health insurance premiums. I lie away at night worried that my pencil business will fail. If so, I lose everything. What would the employee lose - a job. They don't have the proverbial skin in the game.

Now lets assume we start to be profitable even after all the expenses incurred in establishing the business. They are really great pencils. You are working for my company. Your job is not management because you have low skills (I don't mean actually mean you but you get the drift). You are the eraser installer. Yes you install the little erasers to the end of the pencil. What should you be paid. You didn't build the company, you are not on the hook for any invested funds, you essentially have no risk, etc. You do however provide the essential labor. I'll ask again how much you should be paid. I am really curious as to how you determine the proper compensation. Please do attempt to belittle me by declaring I don't under the basics of socialism/capitalism. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this scenario. For full disclosure I am college educated, been in the workforce since the age of 12. Ran a small to medium company with over 100 million dollars in sales with between 135 to 155 employees. This doesn't mean that I know everything but I put my business acumen against Richard Wollf's anytime and all the time.

You provide many sources that derive from socialist standpoints. That's fine and I try to read them all. I try to provide actual experiences from those of those who work or worked. If you haven't run a business and you have the opportunity to do so you'll find it eye opening out there in the real world.

 

[florduh]

. I lie away at night worried that my pencil business will fail. If so, I lose everything. What would the employee lose - a job. They don't have the proverbial skin in the game.

This is such bullshit. We don't execute you in this country if your business fails. You simply have to go be a worker again. Business Owners make that sound like the worst fate in the world because they know how shitty they treat their own workers.

You didn't build the company, you are not on the hook for any invested funds, you essentially have no risk, etc.

Boo hoo. If you want to make money from risk, go to a casino. Risk is not a synonym for "work".

Also, workers pay the price for the bad decisions of Business Idiots all the fucking time, what are you talking about?

I'll ask again how much you should be paid.

I think that should be democratically decided by the workers. YOU believe that a petty dictator should unilaterally decide to pay them as little as they can get away with.

If you haven't run a business and you have the opportunity to do so you'll find it eye opening out there in the real world.

Maybe you should go try and make ends meet on $15 per hour for a few years.

Most people in the "real world" do not have access to the capital necessary to start a business, Bazinga.

 

[Rodney]

I only kiss my wife on the mouth (and not that often).

Kiss her much more and in other places


This happened not far from me but never seen it myself. Is my dream to see a meteor shower

Meteor seen over Scotland's skies

What is though to be a giant meteor has been spotted over the west of Scotland.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[vapviking]

Any of the -isms mentioned will depend on the rules established by participants and the subsequent enforcement of same. A 'functional culture', if I may.
Capitalism as we know it is a bucket full of holes, tailored to reward the greediest behavior, as money can easily buy the rulemakers.
And those other -isms, in practice and over time, fail in the same ways.

As an American, I'm tired as fuck of the way its been going, and ready for some good ol' democratic socialism for a change.

 

[florduh]

Any of the -isms mentioned will depend on the rules established by participants and the subsequent enforcement of same. A 'functional culture', if I may.
Capitalism as we know it is a bucket full of holes, tailored to reward the greediest behavior, as money can easily buy the rulemakers.
And those other -isms, in practice and over time, fail in the same ways.

As an American, I'm tired as fuck of the way its been going, and ready for some good ol' democratic socialism

But if we advance past Feudalism, how are we supposed to eat? The nobility has all the farmland! God almighty said they deserve to rule over us. If you haven’t been a Lord or Baron before, you don’t understand the stress they’re under compared to the peasantry!

 

[sedentree]

The video you provided was generated by Richard Wolff. Wikipedia describes Richard David Wolff (born April 1, 1942)as an American Marxian economist. In 1988, Wolff co-founded Rethinking Marxism, a journal dedicated to exploring Marxian concepts in economics and social sciences.

Be advised that Wikipedia's contents have been reported as questionable content accuracy and reliability. Somewhere I read their content is about 80% accurate. I have no way to prove or disprove this.

 

[Bazinga]

Kiss her much more and in other places


This happened not far from me but never seen it myself. Is my dream to see a meteor shower

Meteor seen over Scotland's skies

What is though to be a giant meteor has been spotted over the west of Scotland.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wow. During my lifetime I've seen meteors. But not like these. Looks like a science fiction movie.

Agreed. However, if I'm not mistaken Mr. Wolff is a self declared Marxist. He doesn't hide it. Read what he (Wolff) writes. Just because Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source doesn't mean they are wrong. Does anyone dispute that he is a Marxist/socialist.

On another note the moderators have kindly requested that I do not post back to back. Since I'm not the brightest pencil in the box how do I fix this? Thanking you in advance. I asked the moderator but he/she has not yet responded.

 

[sedentree]

Wow. During my lifetime I've seen meteors. But not like these. Looks like a science fiction movie.

Agreed. However, if I'm not mistaken Mr. Wolff is a self declared Marxist. He doesn't hide it. Read what he (Wolff) writes. Just because Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source doesn't mean they are wrong. Does anyone dispute that he is a Marxist/socialist.

On another note the moderators have kindly requested that I do not post back to back. Since I'm not the brightest pencil in the box how do I fix this? Thanking you in advance. I asked the moderator but he/she has not yet responded.

I will mimic the behaviour I have seen displayed in your replies by ignoring your most recent points and questions and instead reiterate a point I was making when quoting you previously.

Why is it okay for you to point out to someone else that they should not rely on Wikipedia in their discussion but a short while later it seems you consider it reasonable to rely on Wikipedia to support your discussion points?

 

[olysh pops]

Did you like my idea of the wealthy donating directly to organizations that support the needy (food banks, affordable housing organizations, etc.) and receiving a tax credit. This would encourage donations by the rich. I may be wrong but it does seem to be a win win.

It's a job with a regular, high salary that enables someone to take out a bank loan to buy a car or an apartment. The gift of money from the rich is generous but one-off, with an unknown amount and date, and does not authorize a bank to lend you money.

 

[bellona0544]

I will mimic the behaviour I have seen displayed in your replies by ignoring your most recent points and questions and instead reiterate a point I was making when quoting you previously.

Why is it okay for you to point out to someone else that they should not rely on Wikipedia in their discussion but a short while later it seems you consider it reasonable to rely on Wikipedia to support your discussion points?

You are nicer than me! Thank you for trying to do work I can't with someone who believes that "there are two sides to every argument". I tend to recognize that there are almost NO single universal truths that you can claim absolutely, meaning there are WAY more than two sides to every argument, but I guess some of us having gotten around to the Ethics of Ambiguity and think there can only be a Good Side and a Bad Side.

For anyone in the Philadelphia area, picket lines are looking for strikers right now! https://6abc.com/post/city-workers-...elphia-union-dc-33-continues-strike/16917498/

This article is atrocious and the bias is obvious but it does highlight our mayor's use of strike-busting tactics like injunctions to get people back to work and using scab labor. There will be a big rally at City Hall today and there are ongoing picket lines all over the city where bodies are needed, since no more than eight union members at a time can picket most locations. (Freedom of Assembly where you at?? Lol jk I know the Constitution is a joke that holds no weight anymore).

Folks are also asking for water, ice, sun screen, aloe, and food if you can bring it to the line with you. Even if you aren't able to picket, dropping off supplies is useful for those in the area!

As a reminder to anyone who would say "How DARE those garbagemen ask for 8% raises a year!" our Mayor increased her office's budget by over 150% since taking office and added several new positions that were staffed by her friends and family, and our DC33 workers are the lowest-paid workers in the whole city with average wages of $46,000. Their wages have not even remotely kept up with inflation, even while the average staffer in the Mayor's office received a whopping 16% raise last year.

 

[vapviking]

On another note the moderators have kindly requested that I do not post back to back. Since I'm not the brightest pencil in the box how do I fix this?

For a period of, I believe, 6 hrs after you publish a post, you can "Edit" it, to either fix it or to add something new - rather than creating a new post back to back.

You will see the Edit button, until it's gone! (On my mobile, at bottom of the post, I have to reveal this edit option, by clicking on the 3 dots "..."

Of course, if someone else posts, you may follow it regardless of the time since your last.

 

[Cheebsy]

@Bazinga you can also use the quote function... Select a section of text with your mouse or finger > press the quote button that's displayed by the forum software > Go down to your post editing section and press "add quote" > Select the quote your want to add then reply to it in the normal way > Then go to the next section of text you want to reply to, select it, press quote, and do the same again.

 

[Bazinga]

Florduh. I'm surprised at your post. Your comments are just untrue almost to the point of hilarity. No one talked about executing failed business owners. So they just get a job huh? If the business fails and the owner must declare bankruptcy that's okay with you? It is in fact a terrible devasting event (unless you are Trump). The company provided jobs etc. and those employees now have lost their jobs. But the owner losing their money and assets (maybe their homes) due to bankruptcy is a good thing? You said "Business Owners make that sound like the worst fate in the world because they know how shitty they treat their own workers". I was wondering how you know this. How many business owners have you interviewed. How do you know what they think. How many businesses have you operated? Did you ever have to worry about making payroll? Of course some business owners suck and treat their employees like merde. I'm afraid that you would suggest that most businesses are like this. When I flipped burgers as a kid and was treated horribly (and paid $1.10 per hour) I simply changed jobs. I did eat a lot of burgers.

You said" Boo hoo. If you want to make money from risk, go to a casino. Risk is not a synonym for "work". Starting a business and operating a business always involves risk. Most small business fail the 1st time around. Comparing a business to a casino (I think that is what you are doing) makes absolutely no sense,

You said "Also, workers pay the price for the bad decisions of Business Idiots all the f**king time, what are you talking about?" When I made a bad business decisions (and I have) my employees still got paid. How did my employees suffer? Business owners make decisions daily and sometimes when time is of the essence their decision may be wrong. It happens in life. So in your opinion this makes them "business idiots". Have you ever made a bad decision? Of course you have - you are human.

You said "I think that should be democratically decided by the workers. YOU believe that a petty dictator should unilaterally decide to pay them as little as they can get away with". Business owners are petty dictators? Huh? You actually believe that employees should control how much they get paid. That would be catastrophic. What would employees ask to be paid? Should all financial information be available to every employee? I've given you the opportunity to express what you feel your pay should be for installing erasers and you have conveniently skirted the issue. Do you want to discuss this with other employee of the pencil factory so that the group can determine what the crew wants to earn?

Business owners as petty dictators. You're joking of course. No one ever called me a petty dictator (at least not to my face). BTW I've found that if I didn't pay a worker enough they would resign and find a better paying job. I also found no matter what you paid someone most were not satisfied. How much should I have paid a receptionist. They sometimes are the first person that a customer has contact with. I'll tell you this: A receptionist tasks deserve to be paid commensurately for for those particular job skills. I'm not paying a receptionist $50,000 per year. Not going to happen. Never going to happen.

How much should we pay the hamburger flipper?. What skills are necessary to perform these tasks? According to you the flippers should get together and democratically decide what they should be paid. I may wrong but you starting to convince me you never owned a business or were in a managerial position. Again, I could be wrong. I would love to know what you do you for a living (rhetorical - I don't expect an answer). It appears that some business at some time mistreated you and didn't pay you fairly. If so, I'm truly sorry. Take you skills (I know you have them) and move on.

As for the $15 per hour I agree with you 100%. I'm not smart enough to figure out what an adequate minimum wage should be. We both agree that $15 doesn't cut it. Do you have any thoughts on what a fair minimum wage should be?

You rightly point out that Most people in the "real world" do not have access to the capital necessary to start a business". In the scenario I presented to you I had to borrow funds from the bank in order to build my pencil factory.

I really like my discussions with you. You have you passion and appear to be kind. However, after much discussion with you it seems that you don't have much experience in the business world. A lot of your statements seem not to be based in reality. This is not criticism as I respect your passion and will continue to read and respond to your posts. But your comments are speculative. My Doctorate studies was in social science and my comments are derived by empirical experience.

Please tell me what you should be paid to install the erasers. Than we can discuss it.

For a period of, I believe, 6 hrs after you publish a post, you can "Edit" it, to either fix it or to add something new - rather than creating a new post back to back.

You will see the Edit button, until it's gone! (On my mobile, at bottom of the post, I have to reveal this edit option, by clicking on the 3 dots "..."

Of course, if someone else posts, you may follow it regardless of the time since your last.

Thanks vapviking I'll give it try. I feel stupid that I couldn't figure it out my own. Thanks again.

 

[Rodney]

I cant believe this passed.....

Live updates: Congress passes Trump spending bill after days of debate and delay

The passage of the "big, beautiful bill" marks a major victory for the president and his domestic agenda.

www.bbc.co.uk

I am not the most knowledgeable person on the ins and outs fo the whole bill but to me it seems like it is bad news for everyone who is not rich.

 

[Bazinga]

I will mimic the behaviour I have seen displayed in your replies by ignoring your most recent points and questions and instead reiterate a point I was making when quoting you previously.

Why is it okay for you to point out to someone else that they should not rely on Wikipedia in their discussion but a short while later it seems you consider it reasonable to rely on Wikipedia to support your discussion points?

You are right it's not okay. Actually I pointed out that Wikipedia (according to reports) is about 80% accurate. I have no way to determine if this is true. I am not saying that Wikipedia is the final say but keep in mind that Mr. Wolff agrees with their assessment. An accuracy of 80% is not too bad. I would not bet my life on the 80% accuracy but 8 times out 10 isn't too terrible. I stand by my position that Wikipedia needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. Again, I'm not suggesting that Wiklipedia is correct in their article. Mr. Wolff is what he claims he is, a Marxist/socialist.

I hope that clears this up and I apologize if my original post wasn't clear.

 

[florduh]

So they just get a job huh? If the business fails and the owner must declare bankruptcy that's okay with you?

Yes. You want business owners to get paid for "risk" instead of work. That's the risk. Boo hoo.

BTW I've found that if I didn't pay a worker enough they would resign and find a better paying job.

You've never heard, "meet the old boss, same as the old boss"? Every boss wants to pay their workers as little as they can get away with. That's why I posted Wolf's video. He's a teacher, who explains things simply. A valid job, btw. Even if he's a Marxist.

Also, in our shithole country, leaving a job means losing your healthcare. Because your employer controls your access to healthcare.

I may wrong but you starting to convince me you never owned a business or were in a managerial position.

You're very wrong. I've been self employed for the past 8 years. Prior to that, I was a manager at a fortune 100 Company. Funny enough, learning about socialism is what convinced me to take control over my own labor value. I'm in a lucky position though, so I understand most people can't do this.

I work with mid-sized business owners and corporate executives every single day.

Please tell me what you should be paid to install the erasers. Than we can discuss it.

Well, at the very least enough to afford a one bedroom apartment near the job, transportation, and healthcare. If the business scumbag employing them doesn't pay them at least that, they aren't "job creators" they're leeches.

Bazinga. You are a fan of The Expanse. I don't remember if the show discusses this, but the crew of the Rocinante are socialists. They split every dime their ship makes equally among the crew. And they vote democratically on what contracts they take.

In the scenario I presented to you I had to borrow funds from the bank in order to build my pencil factory.

The vast majority of people don't have the collateral necessary to take out such a loan either. They won't have that collateral EVER. Are you sure I'm the one who doesn't live in the real world?

 

[Bazinga]

Hi Bellona

You said:

You are nicer than me! Thank you for trying to do work I can't with someone who believes that "there are two sides to every argument". I tend to recognize that there are almost NO single universal truths that you can claim absolutely, meaning there are WAY more than two sides to every argument, but I guess some of us having gotten around to the Ethics of Ambiguity and think there can only be a Good Side and a Bad Side.

You can't argue with yourself. I've tried it and lost each time. Therefore you need at least 2 participants to argue. And they cannot be of the same opinion hence nothing to argue about. My statement is true with one modification (there are at LEAST 2 sides to every argument.) Is that better? Yes, I agree there can be more than 2 sides to an argument. In my experience an argument revolves a round a central issue. When the number of participants increases the tendency is to include thoughts and ideas that do not stick to the core issue. I think vanilla ice cream is the best. You think chocolate ice cream is the best. Next person says you need to stop eating ice cream and eat only yogurt. The next person says don't eat either as you should eat Jello. Our core discussion has been contaminated. This happens quite frequently with students and it's sometimes difficult to stay on course. Arguments do not necessarily mean there is a good side and a bad side. I haven't seen any posts (surely not mine) that have taken this position.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[sedentree]

You are right it's not okay. Actually I pointed out that Wikipedia (according to reports) is about 80% accurate. I have no way to determine if this is true. I am not saying that Wikipedia is the final say but keep in mind that Mr. Wolff agrees with their assessment. An accuracy of 80% is not too bad. I would not bet my life on the 80% accuracy but 8 times out 10 isn't too terrible. I stand by my position that Wikipedia needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. Again, I'm not suggesting that Wiklipedia is correct in their article. Mr. Wolff is what he claims he is, a Marxist/socialist.

I hope that clears this up and I apologize if my original post wasn't clear.

Your original post was clear, I was just attempting to point out what I saw as hypocrisy in your messaging and discussion points.

It seems to me that you are quick to dismiss Wolff and his points because he is a socialist. If not dismissal, possibly a misrepresentation or misunderstanding because I saw the video as being more about how a business owner is stealing from their employees based on the value of their labour vs their remuneration not how much these employees should be paid per se. The argument could be extended to you and your bank loan as you were basically being forced to pay way more than you borrowed I would imagine and as you have highlighted, probably had to put up something of value you own to secure the loan, and for what? To ensure some of those at the bank can “earn” bonuses.

Anyway, if as seems to be case, you are less prepared to accept arguments from socialists, I would be interested to know who you would accept criticism of capitalism from?

 

[florduh]

Seems like there's a lot of old folks around these parts so I'd pay attention to this:

Republicans Are Cutting Medicare. Not Only Medicaid, Medicare.

Passage of the Big Beautiful Bill will force mandatory sequestration that will mean half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts.

prospect.org

We already kill 50,000 Americans per year by not having universal healthcare. This stupid bill removes 17 million Americans from Medicaid, meaning at least an additional 50,000 will die every year. Who knows how many will die from the MediCARE cuts?

But at least the richest people in the history of man will pay less taxes!