Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: money or merit - what do you respect ?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 29, 2012, 5:35 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

capitalism - money makes the decision

socialism - merit makes the decision

129 Comments

129 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

capitalism - money makes the decision

socialism - merit makes the decision


I want integrity in the system

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

integrity earns merit.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

just to clarify-

in a capitalist society one buys authority,

in a socialist society one earns authority.

who do you want making the decisions ?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

So...where does the "money" come from, largely, you are forgetting a step

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It's not about the money.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

If you are "buying authority" (not necessarily true, but you used that term, so we'll stick to it) you must have money.......money does not just materialize it must "come from" somewhere, somehow, and in someway....

You are forgetting the step where the money is created, earned and made.....

THAT is by merit, whether YOU want to accept or face it, or not.....

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

If you buy a car does that qualify you to drive?Would it make a difference where the money comes from?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

It's really not the same thing, is it.....

You are talking about "earning" authority....money must be "earned" as well, and I think many of you who feel like government doesn't do enough for "The little guy", fail to understand most politicians aren't "bought" they are supported by like minded individuals.....

Those who claim to support the "little guy" seem more adept at providing excuses and maintaining that guy in his "little" life for as long as possible so that he can support those who seek power.....it's funny how after the "Great Society", "The Square Deal, The New Deal, The Fair Deal, and all the other attempts to equalize outcomes in this country we have more poor than ever, and they seem to need more than ever...

After over a hundred years of progressive programs and ideology, and trillions upon trillions of dollars collected and spent on the problem (more than ALL the wars of our nation, combined) the problem seem to only get bigger...how odd?

We have more programs and although they are supposed to help people, it seems all they do is lock people into a certain economic sector, instead of providing the initiative and resources for them to rise in lifestyle and life situation.....funny how that works

I know its tough for you guy to understand, but many of us WANT pro-commerce representation in government.......

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Oh, yuck. How many is the many? 1%?

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Hardly....the philosophical gap between the 52% who pay income taxes and the 47% that do not, and the 55% who pay for the food stamp program and the 45% who do not pay, but instead collect....is much greater than that of the 50%-2% and the 1% of income earners...

I am personally probably in the 20th percentile or perhaps a tick or two higher....and I and those in my circle of like income friends fall more in agreement with those closer to the top, than those at the bottom...

You see, the funny thing is......there are MANY more of us closer to the top who ACTUALLY "KNOW" what it is like to live at the bottom (because we HAVE, at some point in our lives)..than there are at the bottom who have ANY clue about how much the difference in effort, participation, and contribution it takes to rise from the bottom and live at a higher level......they only assume to know, or just envy and covet the lives of those who do.......

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The problem you have slammer is you measure a mans worth by how much money they have. I pity you.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

no.....that is not true....I measure each man's "worth" (as you put it) one at a time as they enter the sphere of my senses.....I don't "judge" men by the income groups they reside in, like many of your philosophical persuasion do.......there are reasons some excel while others flop and it has little to do with background or advantages.....

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Oh. Brother. So all of those people want their vote to mean nothing? I don't believe that. You, personally, don't care if your vote has been co-opted by corporations, do you? Don't you have any personal social issues that matter to you? That you want to have a say in? Is your whole world a corporate nightmare, slammers? There is more to life than the almighty dollar.

People who don't have a lot are not envious. That argument is weak. Most people place the highest value on family and love, not money. They don't need to be rich to be happy. They just need to have enough to live a dignified life.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you, again, mistake the existence and desire of "Money" or "The almighty dollar" in your words....with the value that backs it up......money is based on effort and results, and without those efforts and results there would be no value to ANY monetary system.....

Those "dollars" are exchange media for the minutes and hours of peoples lives, they are not arbitrary things......and some people add more value to their time than others and are subsequently rewarded with more value in "money"......just as if it were farming, those who put forth more effort are rewarded with larger harvests and that goes for all types of efforts and rewards including family and love...more effort gets you more reward...

Are you trying to say that the lowest income sector has more cohesive family structure and more loving relationships? You might want to check the reality on that one.....broken homes, abuse, addiction, violence, and the like are much more of an issue in the lower income sectors than they are in the upper income levels.....

You see.........and I will continue saying this, because it is true and I have seen it with my own two eyes and heard it with my own ears........the difference between success and failure in life....or rich and poor, if you like....is a philosophical one, the difference in income, and wealth are results...not causes.

I encourage you to go anywhere there is a predominant number of poor and ask them why they think they are in the situation they are in, what caused it, and if they would change it and how that change would need to take place....

then...

Find a group of wealthy people and ask the same questions..

The answers will be illustrative, I can give you a prelude:

The poor will give all manner of outside forces and outward based excuses and justifications and their solutions will involve others needing to change ..

The Wealthy will talk about personal responsibility and individual choices, goals, plans, actions and objectives....they will explain the differences in their lives after incorporating these things and how much happier and fulfilling their lives are because of those behaviors.....

Happiness and money are the products and results of right-mindedness and accepting personal responsibility.......not arbitrary things.....

Those who don't do dignified things haven't earned a dignified life......sorry if that rubs you wrong, it's just the truth

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

As I mentioned to beautifulworld in another post, there are two types of wealth: one is earned through hard work and the otherthrough profit. ..and to add the wealth gained through profit is the one that reaches extreme proportions. money is not all gained through equal portions effort .. , and this is where the unfairness in distribution of wealth is argued.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

I can't even think of how to comment to you on this. I disagree with you to an extent I cannot put into words.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you are allowed your own opinions, of course.....but not your own facts, feel free to check into what I've said....talk to poor and rich, successful and those who've failed.....

See what responses you get.....you may disagree with those too, but the reality will be apparent....

I've lived in, and been acquaintances and friends with those in all income sectors and I am telling you there is a glaring difference in philosophy that exists way beyond fiscal and physical reality.......

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

I think you place too much emphasis on your own very personal experiences, slammers. That is all I can think to say.

Have you ever read (I doubt you have) any books by Don Miguel Ruiz? They are a real easy read but they are very profound. Start with "The Four Agreements" and then read "The Mastery of Love."

Much peace and love.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

I have read the four agreements and many philosophical books, the bottom line comes from a passage in a zen based book... before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water....after enlightenment: chop wood, carry water...

there is no utopia where everyone lives happy lives without effort, you get what your efforts and results produce, no more....that is a universal maxim that only the left, and children complain against....those who have actually accepted the challenge of life and work each day for their just rewards understand the reality of things, and have no time for fantastical utopian visions, which are impossible to create, as they violate the law of nature that enforces the rule that you cannot get something for nothing......

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

You sent that to yourself, but I happened to see it. Okay. Think how you want. Maybe you could go out and motivate the poor of the world to work hard and get rich. You could become a famous motivational speaker. You could travel the world from Bangladesh to Sierra Leone to the Appalachians teaching people how to overcome their poverty on their own. I dare you.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

If people have no opportunities, they can work hard, and get nowhere financially. This doesn't mean they are failures as human beings and that they really got nowhere. Where are we trying to get to anyway? What is all your striving for the almighty dollar going to do for you? Money can't ever love you.

I'm glad you read. Good boy. Read "The Mastery of Love."

And, my God, do you see the limits you place on yourself with your thinking? You lack respect for two-thirds of the people on earth.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

we're at the thread limits...I can't respond to your comment directly

the unfortunate thing about it is you eventually have to walk away from the losers in your life to rise, commiserating with the failures will only pull you down to their level...the only people you can reach are those who make the effort to come looking for help....the rest are lost until they find some inspiration within themselves.......I am always ready and willing to help anyone who needs it, they need only ask for help....

My resources are too few, and time too valuable to try and convert the lost myself, but I have hope for them all, that out of their struggle they will find the initiative to save themselves...

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

I again say, opportunities aren't "given" they are created and earned, just like everything else in nature

I don't need money to love me, I do quite well in that sense, because, again....I've earned it, I don't "settle" for poverty of any sense in my life.....poverty is a state of mind that creates a state of being and financial result....... I don't settle for poverty of love, or money, or opportunity, or anything....I've seen the results of those who do, first hand, and I CHOOSE not to......

I've read much, my personal library consists of more than a thousand books of all types.....I am constantly working towards self development, and self education.....

I don't have any limits in my thinking, I can in short order, and with only a few questions, determine the thing that is holding a person back from realizing some measure of personal success, and help them to get past those obstacles, if they are willing....most create their identity out of their shortcomings and difficulties, rather than their gifts, skills, talents and opportunities......another stark contrast between rich/poor, success/failure

people NEED tough love to face their obstacles and impediments....

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I respect merit more so than money. An act of virtue is it's own reward. I live a moderately good life because I live in a world that requires money as the medium of trade and accepted the fact that in order to be self-sufficient I was going to have to compromise to some degree. I suppose I could say that I respect what money can do -both for good and for bad. I'm a compromised socialist. As the old song goes "You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd"

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

My observation is that merit never makes the decision in any political isms currently on the planet. There are always ruling parties or people that ultimately make the decisions and in many cases oppressing the people. Some systems work better then others but to ever think "merit" is the driving force behind a decision is naive. It's a great ideal but has never been entirely achieved. Perhaps the root of the problem has to do with how corruptible people are.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

well through socialism .. the leader is elected and the person considered best suited gains the most votes .. but in the case where the owner of a company was not elected but rather bought his position of authority .. makes a huge difference with regards earned through merit or bought by money.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

That's fine on paper and a great ideal to hold to but not true in real life. There really is no system currently that achieves election by "Merit" I remember one of my teachers in grade school talking about the Kennedy Election, When asked who they would vote for many of the female teachers stated they were voting for Kennedy. The reason they gave was his appearance. You see what one person considers to be a trait that merits election is not what another person considers to be the reason someone merits election. The problem is some reasons are shallow. Some are based on selfish reasons. There are people now that would base their vote entirely on a candidates view on abortion. It's an important and emotional opinion but not the best reason to elect an official. Merit is only as good of a reason to elect someone as the criteria to determine that merit. Unfortunately there will never be a sensible consistent set of criteria to determine that merit.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I understand your point, but when compared to leadership that has bought their position compared to elected leadership, I would vote for elected. Democracy is a peaceful war . long ago power was decided by a stronger army .. and that did not always coincide with right or wrong. now decisions are based on vote and power is given to the most vote . still not a perfect solution but much btter than the brutalities of war and would you agree, a result closer to to achieving the better principles.. because what we should be voting on is principles. And going back to leadership that has bought his leadership has no principle value other than his own personal gain. lets compare democracy to dictatorship .. dictators gained control by force , where as democracy gains control by voting on principle .. and my question of merit over money is similiar to this .. money has no principle but sometimes rules..

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I agree with what you are saying as well. There are several faults with Democracy though. The key is to educate people. The problem is not everyone wants to be educated. There is unfortunately no solution for this. Still I would take our Democratic Process over force any day of the week.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Yes democracy has its good and bad points.. I would be happy to explore a better system ..maybe one day

[-] 1 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 2 years ago

I agree with some of the feeling, but things are not that simple. It's difficult to put into practice what you (incorrectly I would say) call socialism. "Merit" can't make any decision. Decisions are always made by humans. We may want merit to be the main criteria those humans making decisions use, but that is not an easy thing to do and is as vulnerable to corruption as capitalism. There unfortunately does not exist a pure authority capable of objectively determining merit. Any body of people that pretend to be that are, in fact, lying or self-delusional.

Now if you are taking a larger view, and saying that we should guide the way we build our societies by the result in human happiness and not sheer wealth production, I agree. And I dare hope that no one seriously disagrees.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Fair comment. Thank you Socialism does have a blurred understanding by most. Does the Canadian government own and operate a single business for profit? I think not , and yet many have tagged canada a socialist country.

Many professions decisions are made by merit. Through study and research man kind has developed and progressed. I think of medical research. Or NASA. Of course everyone is limited with budget but not necessarily fueled by greed.

[-] 1 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 2 years ago

I mean that capitalism, or rather free-market economy, viewed, in my opinion, correctly, is actually intended to be a system that allows merit to emmerge and be recognized and rewarded, and it's reasonable defenders think it's the most robust structure to do so, and fairer, in the long run, than trusting appointed individuals who, no matter how competent, are still corruptible human beings. Now yes, there's a fair bit of idealism in capitalism too, despite all the "grounded in human nature" claims it's ideologues like to make (for one thing, it requires agents acting rationally and with perfect (or complete regarding particular choices) knowledge, which nobody can pretend with a straight face is remotely similar to the situation in the real world).

I think the question is still up in the air personnally, but it is completely obvious that the way capitalism is currently implemented is hilariously dysfunctional. I mean, even without all the social troubles, any system leading us as societies ever closer to ecological collapse can not, by definition, be good. It's also having a very hard time adapting to scarcity free environments, like the internet. But we can't let the people who usurp and corrupt valid ideas take ownership of them (non-existant god knows where that took us with priests and the human need for spirituality). Things like kickstarter are essentially capitalist, and also totally cool and awsome.

The notion that capitalism is strictly about wealth generation is an absurd and indefensible modern perversion. Wether necessity or inner drive is the best motivator of human work, intelligence and ingenuity seems to be, to me, the real crux of the question. I stand for the later, but it's not a simple issue.

Re. Canada : we currently have our very own mini-Bush who is fast at work to undo all that. Cause what we occidental countries really need is to be more like communist China!

Wait, what? I meant Fascist China, of course.

[-] 1 points by Renaye (522) 2 years ago

Interesting...meritocracy is a system being seriously considered by one of the larger groups of the ruling elite right now.

I think that the world has gotten to the point in evolution where no one system is going to work by itself. If history can be learned from, I would say that no one system successfully works for very long. I think that the only reasonable solution is an integration of more than one system. A system where personal freedom and rights reign supreme with regulated capitalism and socialism in certain areas of life such as healthcare and education. The question is of course a matter of degree, which the fairest people on the planet should be gathered together to come up with ideas and brought back to their respective countries and communities to be decided on, in the most transparent of methods.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The economic system is not carved in stone. It is good to have an open mind to seek and understand new ideas. Thanks for the comment.

[-] 1 points by TerryWilcox (1) 2 years ago

Interested in what you would do for money?

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FS83D7X

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

As long as we are re-defining the system could we add in a dash of humility.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.[1]

In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.

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

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Simpleminded (28) 2 years ago

why try hard when everyone gets the same reward?

socialism stinks

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

People will eventually lose heart in an unfair society. Such as capitalism.

[-] 0 points by FreedomIn2012 (-36) from Hempstead, NY 2 years ago

socialism is nor merit because if you work hard the fruits of your labor are given away to those who don't. Therefore why would you work hard?

An example:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student, but had once failed an entire class.

The students insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.”

“All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade.”

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they couldn’t make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.

To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

neither the professor nor the students knew the true meaning of socialism.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

of course they do....the Mayflower Compact was a similar socialist "commonwealth" and the results were the same....

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

in a socialist system everyone enjoys the profits of the nation.. but in a capitalist system everyone does not .. in the texas experiment the professor stated all" reward is taken away in socialism .. this is not true. in fact all reward is distributed amongst the people in socialism .. capitalism the reward is hoarded amongst the few.

But the real point of this post was to compare employers , where one employer has bought his respect [capitalism] and the other earns his respect[socialism].

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you can't equally distribute "reward" fairly.....reward belongs to those who's efforts and results produce it...

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

GDP is a national achievement.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

no...GDP is combined individual achievement....important distinction......

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Yeah I agree with you. Socialism is based upon merit some of it from taking control, some of it being illegally voted in.

You totally distort the term "merit" - just ask any cub or boy scout.

Man, where in the world do you learn these far out things???

[-] 5 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

American capitalism is mostly individual monarchy .. as you like to call entrpreneurs .. they come up with a scheme , hire a few individuals to do the work and they are in charge simply because it is their investment.. nothing at all to do with merit . and the employees obey the entrpreneur. Americans loved the monarchy system so much that they took it away from king george 3rd. so they can now all dream of being king .. the american dream.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

Good point.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Way out of line with actuality.

No one is in charge of anything simply because of their investment other than what they have paid for through that investment (say a building or a machine). Being in charge of these as the sole source of "being in charge" is like being in charge of the dirt under your feet.

If you mean operating a successful business is a monarchy, then call it what you want - but your choice of words do not coincide with the English language.

If you do not think that the customers have a great deal to do with whether that "monarch" stays in power or not - get a good book and read up on

  1. The NEW COKE
  2. The P&G logo
  3. The Chevy VOLT
  4. Wind power
  5. and all of the other failed ideas of your "monarchy"

Bernie M had a scheme. He will die in jail. The KFC guy, made great fried chicken.

Can you see the difference yet??

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Monarchy's rise and fall.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

So do businesses, actually, many times over the number of political monarchys that rise and fall.

Why is everyone so hep on destroying business. It is much more risky than snow skiing and a lot of other things that we do all the time. If someone wants to take the risk of failure to provide me with food, more power to that person, corporation or whatever.

If I had to depend upon the people in OWS or any other "tear down" group to provide me with the basis necessities of life - I would have been dead long ago.

They have nothing, are nothing and create nothing that would sustain the rest of us.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I was referring to business when I said monarchy's rise and fall.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Sorry, I was only replying to what you actually posted.

I see you as a victim in your own head, therefore, all I do is try to counter your actions to put words and thoughts into my mind. Sorry if I seem negative, but you are the one interpreting everything according to your victim mentality.

From what you post, you seem to be the "slave in rebellion" and if that is your case, more power to you. Continue to hate your masters, the businesses, etc. They will eventually go away, though you may find that you are the one who will have to move to make them do so.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I guess you believe slaves should have been content. They had food and shelter what more could they want. They should have been grateful to their masters.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Don't try to guess what I am thinking - it just isn't the proper thing for an educated person to do. Now it is my turn to "guess" that you think anyone that works for another person is a slave.

How pathetic, that your world consists of a hiearchy of persons.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Well , you are naive to say business take risk to provide you with food. your welfare is no concern of theirs.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

With your attitude towards your fellow citizen's, I really don't feel very comfortable living in the same country as you do.

If you have no idea of what business risk consists of, you probably should not be posting comments about it.

Just because my welfare might not be of specific concern to someone, does not negate the fact that risk exists.

If you want to prove your point, order 100 flats of strawberries tomorrow for delivery next Monday, set up your stand to sell them and leave them in your stand overnight. You will then get a good feeling what risk is all about. I yes, I realize that in so doing you are just another greedy capitalist who does not give any thought to my welfare.

I then can only ask, if you do not care about my welfare, why do your try to sell me food, why do you not spit on the berries, why do you sell them in a box where I can see them.

PS - if someone steals a box or two overnight - that is called risk - the same as WalMart takes when they put general merchandise out on shelves. You may be friendly, but you are not very observant. If you were, you could explain the relationship of "risk" and why the jewelry is in locked cases.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

This doesn't deserve a response.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Good. You show a little wisdom in not just opening your mouth and spouting off more about something that you do not seem to have a full understanding of.

Have a good day.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

That's the funniest comment I've read all week.

[-] -1 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

Capitalism - rewards hard work Socialism - rewards laziness

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

capitalism profits from hard work and hoards the profit from the workers.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

If you have merit you will have money. As simple as that.
And in capitalism, money goes where merit is.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Smartcapitalist, you are sounding like such an elitist here. So are you really saying that poor people (remember one-half of all Americans earn a measly $26,000 per year or less) have no merit???

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

That's not elitist, it's retarded.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

True.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Yep...According to Romney and the Republican goons, you can fuck off and die for all they care. If you are poor, you are worthless to Republicans.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Let's not let them get away with that. We need a new economic system that values labor completely differently and that works for all people not just the wealthy and corporations.

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Did you know that Stanford or Harvard did some projection where they took all the money in the world and evenly distributed it between everyone else in the world. Do you know what the projection said? It said that with in 30 years at the most, the all of the people who were rich before would be rich again, and most of the poor that were poor would be poor again.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

doing the same thing over and over again does not produce different results .. it's when you do things differently will the results change ..

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

What does that have to do with anything?

[-] 2 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

"Stanford or Harvard did some projection": boy does that sound precise! LINKS, please!

The troll responds: "You know it might have been Yale sir. I don't have the links. I cam across it once and I have not been able to find it since."

Are you quite sure it wasn't Columbia or Princeton or UCLA or Miami or .... :o)

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Pretty sure it wasn't any of those but I could be wrong. Why don't you spend time finding it?

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

"Stanford or Harvard did some projection": boy does that sound precise! LINKS, please!

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

You know it might have been Yale sir. I don't have the links. I cam across it once and I have not been able to find it since.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

How did they figure that? Seems very presumptuous of them. It would have to have been based on extrapolations based on assumptions.

Kind of like the way they valued the lives of the people who died in the Twin Towers, assuming that the dishwasher would never have made as much money as the investment banker. Know one could ever know that.

[-] -3 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Actually I agree with you in as much that you can't know it for sure unless OWS gets its way. However, I would say intelligent thought would give you possible reasons for it. 1. People who were rich know what to do to get rich. 2. People who are rich are willing to do the work that will get them rich again.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Just because someone knows how to be rich, and is willing to do the "things" that will get them rich doesn't make them more valuable as a human being, in fact, it may make them less so.

Needless to say, if you love money, make as much money as you want without harming others, and maintain the moral obligation that everyone in society has enough. We're here today, with this movement, because the greed went too far and many Americans no longer do.

[-] -2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

DIdn't say it did but I do believe you are wrong. People are worth the same almost no matter who they are or how much money they make. Excluding someone like the president. I have no problem if you don't like money, but don't tell me that money isn't important because it is and don't tell me wanting money is greedy because it isn't. I don't agree with you when you say American's no longer want money either because of it integral role it plays in this society. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it but don't make other people give it up.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

When I said "many Americans no longer do", I should have spelled it out. I thought you could induce from the previous sentence what I meant which was "Many Americans no longer have enough." This is why OWS is here. Greed outdid itself to the point that most Americans don't make enough money to get by. Where did I say that Americans no longer want money? They need enough money to live decent lives. Nobody needs to be rich. Fine if they are and if they want to be, but they don't need to be rich.

[-] -3 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

That idea is moronically socialist of you.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

It is socialist of me to say that the rich can be as rich as they like, so long as everyone has enough? No.

[-] -2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

"Nobody needs to rich" Darling, again, if you don't want to be rich you don't have to be.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

I just said that. And, I'm not your darling.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Everyone is my darling

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Okay.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

You sound like someone I know.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Save that sweet talk for GirlFriday

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

But I like to hit on everyone because I lean toward those damned dirty republicans;)

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

a/s/l?

<3 <3 <3

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

well thats what i have seen. The smart and/or hard/smart working kids I knew in school/undergrad are all doing great. Some are in law, some in finance, some in engineering and research, business, a few into medicine, one in acting even and some other professions and all doing great.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

FriendlyObserverB said it well below.

In addition, may I say that I don't value people based on their smarts or how aggressive they are in the work place. I don't care if your ultra-merited people make lots and lots of money. Who cares? But, it is when the working folks are not making enough to survive and still need food stamps and medicaid (or they go uninsured) where I have the problem. How many times do I have to tell you this? No one is saying that everyone has to make the same damn salary. It will still be a stratified society, just with everyone making "enough."

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I get your point but the argument was whether capitalism awards merit; by and large it does.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Capitalism does not reward merit to the extent that you think it does. Capitalism mainly rewards wealth. If you own the mode of production (the capital) you get wealthier. You can be a freaking idiot, who inherited the capital, and reap huge rewards! The rewards to merit (labor) are much smaller.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Has anyone done a study of the average IQ of the Forbes 500 vs the average IQ of, say, Janitors? It would be an interesting study.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

It would be. I'm sure no different. I'm sure of that.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It would be a clumsy sight to see Donald Trump attempt janitorial duties. And the results would be far from adequate. The wealthy are not skillful. They are just loud mouthed and bossy. Lacking empathy and feeling no remorse at their cold ruthless behavior. As for an intelligence test they would do poorly.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

You are doing well, FriendlyObserverA. Quite right.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

you make a lot of false assumptions......first you assume capital is largely inherited....it is not

then you assume the heirs are idiots, some are, some are not

then you assume an idiot with capital can make it grow, more likely, not

then you assume that labor = merit, which is hit and miss, some does, some doesn't.......have you ever managed people? I would conclude you haven't or you wouldn't say that, generally, labor is merit.....often labor is performed begrudgingly and without focus or excellence....

labor and compensation are a contract, as in "you do this and I will pay you, this amount" If the labor agrees, then it has no claim on an increase of compensation, unless the nature or effect of the labor is increased by the laborer....if the results of the organization of the labor is increased that is the effect of the organization, not the effect of the labor......so the "merit" in that case, belongs to the organization not to the labor.......if the labor invests more time than was originally agreed upon (overtime) the laborer is paid an increased amount..on the "merit" of the additional effort...

Your broad use of terms to disguise the reality is unfortunate.....you obviously think that the simple laborer is more meritorious that the man who directs and organizes his efforts so that the final results are magnified well beyond what the single laborer can produce.......something the laborer himself cannot do..

You clearly do not understand "merit"

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

I have never ever said that the laborer has the same merit as the manager. For goodness sake. You keep separating the two. They are both laborers!!!! They both work for the capitalist and have a labor cost.

"you obviously think that the simple laborer is more meritorious that the man who directs and organizes his efforts" No. The manager will have more merit and will be paid accordingly.

The labor part of the pie includes both the worker-bees and the managers. Managers are not always the owners. And, if they are, then the work they do and their compensation is still part of the labor costs.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

in many cases the manager is not as skilled as the laborer ..

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

You are going to make slammers mad. Mediocrity rises to the top, my mother always told me. LOL!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I tried to build a bridge with slammer, he kept tearing it down. He doesn't want to meet in the middle. I think slammer is a psychopath.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Oh well. You tried. It's all you can do in life.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

direction, organization, and management is an extension of ownership, they have the same responsibilities of ownership and are agents of production and by extension agents of the owners, not agents of labor.....

It is their job to see that the interest of the capital ownership is represented in the direction of the enterprise....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

I think you are misguided with regard to that. They are still employees and part of the labor costs regardless of how high up they are. CEO's are employees, slammers, they work for the owners.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

they all have to answer to the top , you are correct beautifulworld.

in capitalism the person at the top is the person with the money.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Thanks, FriendlyObserverB.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Depends on what kind of labor. Tightening screws is not as merit worthy as say developing software or discovering drugs

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Right. The guy that just tightens screws will make less than a software developer because his merit is less, though, I would argue that he should make enough to live a decent life!

But, what say you of the almighty capitalist? You must admit there isn't necessarily any merit there.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I agree on that. But then it depends on the definition of 'decent'.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

My definition of decent would be something like a living wage where a person could actually afford to procreate and have a family, and provide for basic things like healthcare, housing, food, transportation, education, retirement, etc.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

the arguement is really about whether your boss bought his position or earned it. does your boss earn your respect or buy it ?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

You cannot buy your way into the CEO position. If you think that way you are gravely mistaken.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

but that is wealth based on aindividual trades and abilities , which has merit in any society.. and nothing really to do with capitalism. Capitalist wealth is completly different , where wealth is enormous and built on profit not individual skill or merit .. and it is through those huge profits that control is gained .. in a capitalist society. the wealthy make the decisions .. and it is wealth gained through profit, not merit.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Where does the profit come from? Do you think Apple would be even a tenth as profitable if it's products did not have some merit? Do you think the CEOs of companies do not have merit?

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

not "no" merit......but less merit...yes

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Thank you. Now, do they have enough merit to earn enough money to live a decent life?

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

that is not a properly framed question.....first of all, what is decent, who decides that? and the assumption that just because of existence they are due a "decent life" independent of the effort required to provide the resources for that life......the "merit" will determine the lifestyle they deserve because of the effort surrender for the resources to provide for it......

No one "merits" anything they do not justly earn by equitable exchange

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

Who has decided that one-half of Americans, earning less than $26,000 per year have such little merit that they can barely scrape by, are often on food stamps, have no health insurance, etc? Surely, this many people cannot have such little merit. There is something going on in the economic system where it has been decided that the folks at the top have unlimited merit.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

the problem with the system is that those with the wealth control the decisions that affect the people, and it should not be this way .. decisions affecting the people should be left in the hands of the government . not in the hands with the most wealth. Decisions that create jobs and living wages etc. but as it stands in capitalism it is the profit of the wealthy that influence job creation ... where did they earn that merit? to have such control over the lives of the nation.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

They didn't earn it. This is why we need government. Free-wheeling capitalism, in the libertarian scenario, would leave out the masses.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

thank you

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

they have decided for themselves.....that is who decided

There are qualification necessary to exist in the marketplace, and if you set your own bar lower than those qualifications....you are not well compensated....

"The Marketplace" determines the merit, the marketplace is all of us trading our efforts with one another.....it is simply a two part barter system.....we all trade labor of various types for money with which we can trade for the labor of others.....the overall system creates the value exchange rate......so WE decide compensation levels as extensions of the Marketplace..

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21051) 2 years ago

So, the invisible hand is determining that one-half of all Americans should earn such low pay? Okay. That needs fixing, I think. Workers have very little power compared to corporations when it comes to wage setting. For them it is not a question of profit, it is a question of survival.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

money comes from the people

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

absolutely false