Forum Post: The Risk of Business
Posted 9 years ago on Dec. 26, 2014, 11:54 a.m. EST by agkaiser
(2516)
from Fredericksburg, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Friday, December 26, 2014
Individual free enterprise driven by profit motive is not working for most people. To begin with, businesses larger than one owned and operated by a single nuclear family are not the enterprises of individuals. They require a community to do the work. Only the profits are individual.
This morning I read a linkdn article about how young people, especially college students could change their behavior to fit in to an economy that no longer has so much use for them as it did forty or fifty years ago. Should we change to fit a system that wants us to do the work that they may take the profit? Worse: if they can't profit by our hard work they'd as soon let us starve! Something has gone very wrong in Americatopia. Why do the majority still support a system that's increasingly dysfunctional for we the people and only works well for the parasites at the top of the food chain of our population?
It's bad enough that we do the hard work and they take the profits. That's intolerable. That it is tolerated indicates our weakness and cowardice It gets worse. We, the human race and most individuals, are dependent for food, clothing, shelter, medicine and almost everything else on a small subset of our population who control the enterprises that employ us to make the goods and services but care not if we live or die. Their individual profit taking on the work we do to support our lives is onerous. Their indifference to the survival of unwanted or no longer needed [for their profit] employees cannot be condemned sufficiently with words. That we are lain in docile submission to their rule illustrates our peculiar self destructive insanity.
Frederick Douglass said: "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Thank you tj, for drawing so much attention to the folly of so called free market capitalism and the failure of individual profit motive to provide a sustainable economy. I know that wasn't your apparent intention but I don't try to understand conservative nonsense.
All cons are either liars or fools and most are both. Throw into that mix the fundamental dishonesty and insincerity of those who speak only to defend the greed and economic tyranny of their class and you have the neocon.
More people awaken to the truth each day and the more often those like tj spout their trite blather the sooner sincere and honest people will see that the only answer is economy of, by and for the people.
Good comment. Your synopsis of tj was very accurate.
Keep in mind we are not living in anything that remotely resembles a free market economy. This is a highly controlled, centralized disaster that is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
That was a bit of an oxymoron. The economy is already 'of, by, and for the people'. You want the opposite: you want the government to run the economy to enforce 'fairness'.
I look forward to the world going sane!
It's our only hope for long term survival.
What are the odds?
"That was a bit of an oxymoron. The economy is already 'of, by, and for the people'. You want the opposite: you want the government to run the economy to enforce 'fairness'." tj
TJ, the saddest part of what you say is that you believe it while you must know simultaneously, unless you're a non oxy moron, that it's a propaganda lie!
According to Eric Blair's novel, "1984" doublethink is:
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink#cite_note-Orwell-3
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth." - part 1; chapter 3; pg 32
Yes, doublespeak is saying the exact opposite of what you really mean, and your post about an economy controlled by the people was exactly that. You don't want the people to control the economy. They already do, and some have been a lot more successful than others, and that's what you don't want. So you want to take the economy AWAY from the people. You want the government to run it, so that everybody gets guaranteed income whether they work or not, or whatever your particular prescription for reform is.
It's interesting that you would mention 1984. In 1984, everybody was equal and nobody was rich and nobody had to worry about income or debt or housing. Everybody had a role, dictated by the government. And everybody was happy, right? From your point of view it was a utopian vision for economic reform, not a dystopian novel.
We must be on the same planet but in different dimensions.
Speaking of dimensions: there are many things that don't scale up and many more that don't scale down, just as there are critical differences of scale. But I'm talking to the wrong person. I'm an electronics engineer and the numbers are as important to me as billionaire class serving emotional, moral and philosophical propaganda are to you.
What kind of "tech" allows you to have such poor math skills that you don't understand the difference between possibility and probability of success in an economy dominated by tera banks and billionaires?
Coincidentally, I'm a software engineer with a math degree and a talent for scaling up.
If that's true you must have the skills to understand how corrupt and dangerous the government owning corporations are. You need the courage and will to apply your skills to seeing reality, instead of the fantasy free market utopia you imagine. The power of we the people to control what should be our government has been usurped. Of, by and for which people is now the relevant question.
Flip has been telling me that all government spending is socialism and therefore good, even when the money goes to private companies who make a profit. You're apparently saying basically the opposite. What's your vision for an economy of, by and for the people?
What's needed and wanted in common can be done in common of, by and for the people on a shared profit or non profit basis. What's not needed is aristocrat owned businesses or for profit privately owned finance, energy, medicine, communications or mass transportation. Large enterprizes (that require non family member help) must be employee owned and democratically operated - of, by and for the people. All can be accomplished with the will to tax the ill gotten gains of the tera banks and billionaires and make the parasites work for a living.
If you outlaw profit for corporations and mandate that all enterprise be based on co-ops like you're proposing, then why would anybody ever build a company? Workers need jobs, and companies provide those jobs. In your utopian vision, the motivation for building a company into a larger company would be eliminated. And so the motivation for creating jobs would be eliminated. So you're actually proposing the same thing that I am: that people should create their own jobs. The difference is that you want to basically mandate it, by eliminating large employers. I have the sense to realize that the individual worker is better off having the option of working for a business if they're unwilling or unable to find profitable work without working for a company, whereas you don't want anybody to have any option other than fending for themselves, since these worker collectives will never grow to employ a lot of people. Because why would they?
Where have you been the past forty years. All your fears of not providing what Americans need have been realized by outsourcing. The theories you say will provide growth and jobs have failed and America is in the tank except for the greedy few at the top and their faithful ministers of what's left of a dwindling middle class - under ten percent and falling, whereas fifty percent of us were making it in 1970 before the Chicago School Disaster took hold. Wake up! You say you have the sense but apparently don't see, hear, touch, taste, smell the failure and corruption all around you. Everything you say a cooperative society will fail to provide, the sacred capitalists you worship are already failing to provide. We can only go up from here in the real world where most people live.
Actually the economy is growing and unemployment is down. But unemployment would be prevalent under the system that you proposed, since there would be no motivation for these worker co-ops that you're proposing to grow larger. To create jobs. Your system would harm the individual worker by FORCING him to create his own business venture, even if he doesn't want to.
You're simply wrong. The real economy is shrinking. Money is not goods. An infinite amount of money growth on Wall St ledgers is possible but when the Chinese quit accepting it for the goods that are produced there and confiscate the factories from our thriving billionaire class people like you will finally either wake up or die crying that it wasn't supposed to end like that. Your worthless dollars will be no more edible than your hoarded gold. Still think the Chinese are seduced by capitalism. They're playing your masters like your masters are playing you.
GDP represents the total of all goods and services produced, and it has been growing at about five percent per year. Our economy is booming. Unemployment is under six percent.
About your proposal for economic reform: Let's imagine a restaurant owned by its workers. Why would those workers ever take the risk of opening a second restaurant? Why would any business expand and create new jobs? A restaurant owner making a profit always wants to take risks to grow the business and create new jobs because that's what business owners do: they risk their investments with the hope of increasing their revenue and also their profit. If your model, none of the workers at the original restaurant stand to increase their incomes by opening a second restaurant, so why would they take the risk?
nonsense! arrogant nonsense! arrogant and insulting nonsense! The community doesn't need owners! We the people need what the owners have stolen from our community. The existence, of owners of government, tera banks, Giga corporations and of billionaires, is a threat to the survival of the human race. The suggestion that we can't make it without the evil masters who own your soul is as lame-brained as it is offensive.
[Deleted]
very nice agk - very nice. but i do think he is a waste of time.
You couldn't answer my question and that's why the community does actually need business owners. Without them everybody would be unemployed, except for the few people willing and able to go into business for themselves. That restaurant would never expand to more than one restaurant because the expansion would be all risk with no potential benefit from the point of view of the collective owners of the restaurant. Nobody would open new restaurants. Think of all of the jobs that would not be created. Think of all of the unemployed workers. Business is not the enemy.
the tautology: individually owned businesses employ people therefore without them no one would be employed is absurd, arrogant and offensive. We don't need business owners and their profit in order to work to produce and distribute the stuff of life. That is the answer to the absurd offensive nonsensical [rhetorical] question. Do you read the comments you attack or merely respond with echoes resounding from the vacuous volume of conservative "thought."
read it this time:
nonsense! arrogant nonsense! arrogant and insulting nonsense! The community doesn't need owners! We the people need what the owners have stolen from our community. The existence, of owners of government, tera banks, Giga corporations and of billionaires, is a threat to the survival of the human race. The suggestion that we can't make it without the evil masters who own your soul is as lame-brained as it is offensive.
If workers don't need business owners then why does everybody think that workers creating their own jobs is a ridiculous idea? Who will create jobs without entrepreneurs trying to expand businesses?
Then there is the case of worker owned LIncoln Electric (they make welders). . . .
Lincoln Electric is a public company that's traded on NASDAQ. It's owned by its shareholders.
Huh, so they are. But also, to my understanding, a good portion of those shares are owned by the employees themselves through an employee stock ownership program. All Lincoln Electric employees recieve bonuses and regular dividends each year, and to my understanding while there has never been a layoff and the employees earn super compensations, they remain a very profitable and growing company even in these tough times.
Good business model that satisfies both sides of the argument???
I think a lot of the problem includes the fact that a lot of people actually believe in the economic model (Milton Freedman Chicago school et. al.) taught in most business schools. So a lot of people get taken advantage of by unscrupulus (Wall Street type) characters. By accepting and living by theories that do not really work (like that hoky demand and supply curve, or that idea of having to maximize shareholder profits) people are getting screwed and are screwing themselves. It is time to debunk bad theory.
The basic system of decentralized, local enterprise market economies works fine, it always has and always well.
The people continue to vote in fascists at every corner, making the honest small guy who would like to be your family business live's near impossible.
It is certainly a peculiar self destructive behavior for sure.
That, and their purchasing behavior is a direct slap in the face of such establishments.
The oppressors always depend on the oppressed to feel powerless, if the people knew the true power of the ballot box it could all change in a moment.
-------------->>>>>>>>>>>>
TechJunkie asks:
If you think that people who own businesses are the ones with all of the power and you resent that, then why don't you start a business?
[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1334) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 hour ago
Wha???
It should have been clear that I'm not concerned about the power of small family businesses.
It should be even more clear that I'm not jealous of the power that I don't have. Nor do I desire power over others.
It's about the systemic and existential threat to the survival of the human race presented by the masters who own our means of survival and are indifferent to us.
I have to ask: Where is your head?!
Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 hour ago
If you resent the masters then become one. It's ridiculously easy to start a business in the US. If your theory of oppression is based on the idea that business owners have all of the power then the answer is simple: start a business. Anybody can do that.
[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1334) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 hour ago
We should all be investors. That's the best business and the most profitable. When that happens no one will have to work and we'll all be rich. What a glorious world it will be when everyone takes profit from the market using sound business principles. Yes, that is the best of all possible worlds.
[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 minutes ago
Sounds like you need to start a robotics company.
agkaiser (1335) from Fredericksburg, TX 0 minutes ago
oh thank you. you've opened my eyes. you've lifted the vail. that's the master plan. robots will work and we'll all be rich. those with the power to implement your ingenious ideas will surely share the benefit with everyone just like they always have. you are indeed a genius to have thought of the solution to all the worlds problems. all we've ever needed is more capitalism.
all hail the the glorious junkie genius.
You never really did explain why you don't become a business owner yourself. You think that it's "intolerable" to work for somebody else. I agree, that's why I start businesses. The barrier to entry for starting a new business is lower in the US than anywhere else in the world. If you see employment as oppression then why don't you liberate yourself by firing your boss and going into business for yourself like millions of Americans already have? Telling me that it's impossible doesn't work since I know that it's possible since I've done it myself. You're just afraid to take the risk. And so people who are NOT afraid to take the risk have more than you. Boo hoo.
Tech junkie, you missing the big picture most people are concerned about. You seem oblivious to the insidious corruption in our govt that legislate red tape and profitability barriers for smaller businesses to compete with multinationals.
You're lucky right now because you are in a niche business. You probably run one of these freeLance ancillary tech companies for businesses that can't afford their own tech guys. Your luck is about to run out though. Soon the large tech companies will be replacing your services with wireless and cloud use systems that will bypass the need for local tech work/software development, etc. Then when your services become obsolete your will finally be able to empathise with most other small business industries.
I work for a multinational corporation that started about seven years ago and grew from a few people to over three thousand employees. You say that it's not possible but obviously I know that's wrong since we did it.
(Cloud computing increases demand for developers, not the other way around.)
I never said success was not possible. I'm concerned about probabilities, not possibilities. You happen to be in one of the few niche industries that are insulated from the rest of the crumbling middle class. Others are healthcare, MIC, federal govt, Wall st, energy companies,etc. Some people without scruples gloat about prosperity in niche industries while 80% of the economy is in terminal ruination. Or have no concern about a corrupt govt that is owned and controlled by big money while good people are exploited.
But rest assured, tech has a way of cannibalizing it's own. Sooner than you think, you will be experiencing the Walmart syndrome in your little world.
I work in tech but tech is not our industry. I'd rather not get more specific since obviously it could only be bad PR for us, even after all of the work that I spent on finding an Occupier willing to let me pay him to train on the job for a career in software development.
You work for? I thought you ran your own thing?
I was one of the people who started it. We were a tiny startup, now we're a multinational corporation. It happens.
What percentage ownership do you have in it?
FYI international isnt that hard in the tech community, Ive done work with people all over the globe as well. Are you traveling overseas? Thats kind of the gauge I judge that on, whether theres offices in multiple countries etc.
Otherwise its like Rochester Airport calling itself Rochester International because it has a flight to Canada lol.
We have brick and mortar locations in the US, the UK, India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and a few other countries. I really don't know what your point is?
Bullshit you got nothing
If you really did that you would realize how much luck is involved. Or you would be an egotistical idiot
If the same people can start ventures like that repeatedly then that's an argument against it being all about luck. There are two sides to luck: the opportunity itself, and the person who is willing and able to take advantage of it. Most of the people posting to this thread get passed over by luck since they're so defeatist that they think that it's not possible in the first place. Other people take advantage of the opportunities and become employers of those willing serfs who expect somebody else to plug them into the economy. Which are you?
You are so full of shit. You work in the back office of some video store or se such. No way did you do what you said. No way. The best part is that you are stupid enough to think others will believe you
"That isn't possible", is a very flattering response, thanks. Stroking my ego, there...
Ok, cool just seeing what you had going on. Whats the name of the company?
It's kind of obvious why I wouldn't want to name the company or even our industry here, since people here would brand us the enemy and it could only be bad for PR. Even though I invested over a year of my own time on offering somebody from this site a paid on-the-job-training gig that he used to get into a career in computer science. That doesn't matter to the zealots here. I'm still the enemy because I'm an employer, even though I create high-paying jobs.
If you think that people who own businesses are the ones with all of the power and you resent that, then why don't you start a business?
Wha???
It should have been clear that I'm not concerned about the power of small family businesses.
It should be even more clear that I'm not jealous of the power that I don't have. Nor do I desire power over others.
It's about the systemic and existential threat to the survival of the human race presented by the masters who own our means of survival and are indifferent to us.
I have to ask: Where is your head?!
Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
If you resent the masters then become one. It's ridiculously easy to start a business in the US. If your theory of oppression is based on the idea that business owners have all of the power then the answer is simple: start a business. Anybody can do that.
We should all be investors. That's the best business and the most profitable. When that happens no one will have to work and we'll all be rich. What a glorious world it will be when everyone takes profit from the market using sound business principles. Yes, that is the best of all possible worlds.
Sounds like you need to start a robotics company.
oh thank you. you've opened my eyes. you've lifted the vail. that's the master plan. robots will work and we'll all be rich. those with the power to implement your ingenious ideas will surely share the benefit with everyone just like they always have. you are indeed a genius to have thought of the solution to all the worlds problems. all we've ever needed is more capitalism.
all hail the the glorious junkie genius.
You want to pretend that business owners are some kind of impenetrable elite, but it's easy to start a business. Why would you rather complain about being oppressed by business owners than become one?
Its easy to start one. Running one is quite another task.
If a person is incapable of running a business then they can't really complain about being oppressed by people who are capable. A business owner serves a valuable role in providing employment to that person since they're unable to create a job for themselves.
As long as we start with same start, of course if there are private schools or inheritances that's not possible so it is necessary to make adjustments to make sure the system don't get out of whack if you let little imbalances to carry over say through better schools or trust funds, then the system will eventually break down, this is something I learned in great detail while operating a nuclear power plant, the American economic system is very unbalanced and it will fly apart with a rebalancing.
You wouldn't have had a job in the nuclear power industry in the first place if it hadn't been for the people who built the utility company and created your job for you.
doesn't change the fact that the system is unbalanced, it doesn't matter if a rebalancing is "just" or not it is necessary or the system will fly apart that is mathematics do you know anything of the word "balance" do you think I promote the dissolution of capital accumulation?
Those that forget balance are sure to fall.
PS I just created a multi million dollar business from nothing but money, you have no conception of how things are "built".
hey dumb ass - do you know where nuclear power came from - who developed it - - come on - use google - socialism you silly boy. along with computers and rail roads and - oh what is the point - you are just not that smart
This guy is quite easy to figure out. He works by implication, and defends the corrupt system with an implied message. That message is; The system is super, but it is 'us' that is lacking. If we want to be successful too, then we need to buck up and embrace the system. It's call it juvenile psychology.
perhaps I work from the concept the the GOP is pure evil and anyone stupid enough to increase their power within the government should be pointed out as being stupid so others are not deceived into their single minded and simple minded logic, I do work from the premiss that what actually happens in the real world matters, perhaps that's where I lose you
Correct.
we know you work to elect the GOP and why you do it and you said it all here, of course you will not comment on what you have said, it was too close to truth
https://occupywallst.org/forum/one-who-hates-the-dems-explains-their-motives-good/
If you need me to say that directly then I'll be happy to do that for you so that you don't have to keep guessing what I'm insinuating. People who are unsuccessful always seem to want to change the system instead of themselves.
I'll be very "happy" to be even more direct with you too! People whose morals are lacking, and who benefit from the rigged, corrupt system will do anything, including being deceptive to to quell the insurrection, and perpetuate the screwed up system.
Here your 'implication' is; "We are the normal, and you are the abnormal...lol
Wow that's a funny perspective. Socialists invented computers?
You spend hours and hours on here defending our corrupt system. One of its major tenets is; The banks get bailed out AND the people get screwed! Consequently, you are indeed by proxy defending, "socialism for the 1%, and capitalism for the 99%!!"
And BTW, I believe the real reason that you are back on the forum is not to be entertained. Instead, it is because TPTB are very worried. Now that's "copacetic" with me.
Nope. Not defending bank bailouts. I've even said on this very page that failing businesses should be allowed to fail and that they should not be bailed out. If you want to argue with me then you're going to have to pay attention to my message: businesses are not inherently evil, they provide jobs for people unwilling or unable to create their own.
"Nope." I don't "want to argue with...[you]," much either. You don't make sense, and you become a moving target, when you get cornered. As is the case with anyone who defends this 'corrupt system,' you use wordsmith-ing incongruities (that means you are illogical) in trying to advance your cau$e, which boils down to; You want us to agree with you that "socialsim for the 1% and capitalism for the 99%", is something that we just have to accept. No more, we never will again. I promise.
I'm not a moving target, I've been saying the same thing over and over throughout this page. None of it is about socialism for the one percent. Nothing that I have been talking about here has been about the one percent at all. If you want to argue with me then you're going to have to pay attention to what I'm saying, otherwise you're just arguing with a straw man of your own construction.
I think much of what government does is socialistic in nature. The difference now more than ever in my life-time is corporations benefit financially largely in part because they have set up a corrupt system with malfeasant politicians.
Don't many people benefit from the dredging, levee construction and maintenance of the dams that the Army Corp of Engineers does. And how about the Stuart Highway that runs through the center of Australia.. south to north, and the Alaska Highway that runs north from the lower 48? Weren't they both built with US taxpayer's dollars? (they were) And let's not forget all the neat work that was done by the WPA when the government chose to spend money on the people. Have you ever stayed at one of the lodges, or skied on the trails that they built at the state and national parks. They're still widely used.
Imagine that though, our government bailing out the people in Roosevelt's time, and setting up an accountable system with severe restrictions on what the bankers could do. Hmmm, sounds like our ancestors were radiclas too! Doesn't it?
Yes, and the system of government control over the economy, in the form of fixing prices and wages, prolonged the Great Depression. Painting a bunch of murals and building a bunch of camping lodges didn't save our econmy, it was just an elaborate government handout. Our most recent incarnation of the WPA and the CCC was a "stimulus" bill that spent A TRILLION DOLLARS and brought us... nothing. Nothing other than a trillion dollars more in debt.
for such a smart guy - who creates businesses the way others play checkers your answers are very weak. care to expand on them - how would you characterize government spending if not socialism. does it matter whether the fire dept or library or water dept? do you think all of us pooling our resources for "the common defense" is free market capitalism?
come on - you are a smart guy and smart people recognize when they make mistakes. nukes, computers, the internet and much more were socialist enterprises. that is our system - "privatized profits and socialized losses" - we see it every day in the papers. like maybe the bank bailout. so come on - own up. need more help - "There’s a wonderful phrase for how capitalism works in the real world (I’m not sure who first came up with it, but I associate it with Noam Chomsky): “The socialization of risk and cost, and the privatization of profit.”
The means of production in the defense industry is not collectively owned. The U.S. Army does not build rifles. They BUY rifles from private companies, and those companies make a profit. Calling the defense industry "socialism" is hilarious. And also revealing: you equate statism with socialism. I would have assumed that but you confirmed it overtly. To you, socialism is about the government controlling the economy instead of private industry. As opposed to being about social ownership of the means of production.
So when it's socialism for the 1%, and capitalism for the 99%, everything is copacetic in your little bitty mind!
Nope. Definitely never said or implied that.
boy you are dumber than i thought! yes you said this - "My original point was that the guy who worked in a nuclear power plant would not have had a job in the first place if not for the business that created that job for him." - and i made the point that the power plant would not be in existence without the manhatten project. now what would you like to call that?
Apparently you call that guy a socialist worker bee, even though he works for a private company that profits from his labor. Fascinating. I guess that he's not oppressed by his employer since the whole thing is socialism.
you know there are few things worse than an arrogant coward. first of all i did not say invented but you know that. do you realize that others may read what you write here. pretty obvious that you cannot deal with the simple fact that nukes, computers, the internet and much more were government tax payer funded projects. so now what would you call the manhatten project?? so now go on - attack those who are not so fortunate as you - for whatever reason. daddy wasn't rich or not so smart or maybe has a physical difficulty. go on - attack them you little weasel. what a sad little coward you are.
You said that socialism "developed" nuclear power. Your reasoning was that if its a government-funded project, then it's "socialism". I think that's really funny. And it's also pretty funny to see you spin in endless circles, forgetting what we were talking about in the first place. The topic at hand was resentment of employers, like for example the (private) utility companies that operate nuclear power plants.
no the army does not build rifles - nice try. the army takes our dollars and gives them to private industry. but that is not the point is it? you brought up the defense industry after i pointed out correctly that nukes, computers and the internet were forms of socialism and not free enterprise. maybe you would like to call it a different name - ok - give it to me. but do not pretend that nukes (that was the original comment you know) or computers were not taxpayer funded projects. now tell me what you would call that.
You said those things were brought to us by socialism. They were actually brought to us by private companies and private universities spending government money. I find it fascinating that from your perspective, it's a triumph of socialism for Grumman or Lockheed Martin or Rockwell to make billions in profit -- since it comes from government spending. Statism, socialism, what's the difference right? Yes I agree with you on that!
not socialists really (although many were) but socialism. taxpayer funding - government funded research. once profitable it is turned over to private corporations to make money. and nukes - and the internet - you are on thin ice young man. remember you are pretending to be the smart one here. one of the capable owners who create jobs- you are about to be exposed!
Here is an example from Mother Jones of what you would apparently refer to as socialism in action:
well maybe you should do some reading - nuclear power computers and the internet were all funded by socialism - taxpayer dollars. - i assume you know of arpanet. and as for von neumann - "The nascent field of computer science commanded little respect in 1946, and when von Neumann announced that he wanted to build his computer at the IAS, his colleagues turned up their noses -- the theorists at Princeton's landmark think tank didn't build things.
BIG BLUE LEGACY. Eventually, though, von Neumann secured funding, mostly from the U.S. military. That was only fitting, since his experience at Los Alamos had given him the computational background he needed to envision the potential power of an "electronic brain," as the concept was often referred to at the time.
Defense spending is socialism, got it. This is the kind of entertainment that keeps me coming back here every few months.
What do you call government funded projects
John von Neumann worked at Princeton. A private university. The Manhattan Project was not what anybody would refer to as "socialism". Your basic premise is fascinating anyway though.
keep trying - are you a lawyer? that is what is taught in good law schools - if you do not have a good argument confuse the issue. well you know the issue don't you. the nuclear power industry was your point - i added computers and internet. we can talk about the funding the "common defense" and its many troubles but first let's finish what we started ok?
Nuclear power, computers, and the Internet. All examples of things built by private companies and universities spending government money. My original point was that the guy who worked in a nuclear power plant would not have had a job in the first place if not for the business that created that job for him. Then you said some funny stuff about government spending being the same thing as socialism that didn't refute what I said about the job.
I agree to a certain extent, although I think the issue gets muddied by the multinationals that are clearly anti people on multiple different levels, versus the average business guy who does the community a lot of good (Ive worked for myself for 13 years now since I was 22)
But that being said, if the people stopped patronizing those behemoths, we could go back to a decentralized market economy that brings people together, instead of pitting them against one another.
There is certainly something to be said about being able to purchase everything you need under one roof. Whatever pitch that addresses the multi problem has to address this.
Why is a big company inherently "anti-people"? Because they're more efficient per-capita so they need fewer people to produce the same revenue? Productivity is a bad thing?
Well, its kind of always been that way. Productivity is not a bad thing, people who become too far removed from the communities they work in are.
"I don't want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers. Quote by John D Rockefeller,"
At a certain point, industry becomes something that is not interested in being a better business, but begins to look at their community as simply a being to harvest for profit.
It leads to wars, it leads to corruption in government, it leads to in house corruption, it leads to all sorts of fucked up shit.
now there is some logic for you. let's see in 1850 it might go like this - "if you are not capable of owning a plantation then you should not complain about being a slave!" - do you know where you are little boy. ows a site by and for radicals- people who think this capitalistic system is a failure. for exactly the reason you point out. wow you keep surprising me with your stupidity - maybe you are a rich tech company owner - you are dumb enough to be rich.
close your eyes genius - imagine a system where all have meaningful work. where nobody works as a "wage slave" - yea yea i know - you have to look it up. now tell me the difference between chattel slaverly and wage slavery - and didn't we fight a war to outlaw both? this is an intelligence test so be careful how you answer
All of the various 'new systems' for the New Man are a big part of the entertainment here, Mr Guevera. Keep dreaming them up and I'll keep pointing out the reasons why they won't work.
your system is the new one on the planet - how long have humans been here - how long has your capitalistic system been running - how much longer do you think it has? now how about wage slavery and chattel slavery - can you explain - use google - it should be easy for you
Trade for profit has been around for thousands of years, but this 'New Man' stuff is fairly recent.
no need to repeat tired phrases like "Some people of course never do because they want to change the whole system instead of themselves." unlike you i got it the first time. no do you know what the debate was in the old days of chattel slavery - for sure more intelligent than yours but then again i don't really blame you for that. you probably went to a "good" school where they teach what the rulers want taught.
i will give you some help - study the debate between the southern slave owners and the northern industrialists. do you need a hint - which car do you take more care of - the one you own or the one you rent from hertz? here is my boy noam
"Coming back to the United States, it has very strong roots in the American working class movements. So if you go back to, say, the 1850s, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, right around the area where I live, in Eastern Massachusetts, in the textile plants and so on, the people working on those plants were, in part, young women coming off the farm. They were called "factory girls," the women from the farms who worked in the textile plants. Some of them were Irish, immigrants in Boston and that group of people. They had an extremely rich and interesting culture. They're kind of like my uncle who never went past fourth grade -- very educated, reading modern literature. They didn't bother with European radicalism, that had no effect on them, but the general literary culture, they were very much a part of. And they developed their own conceptions of how the world ought to be organized.
They had their own newspapers. In fact, the period of the freest press in the United States was probably around the 1850s. In the 1850s, the scale of the popular press, meaning run by the factory girls in Lowell and so on, was on the scale of the commercial press or even greater. These were independent newspapers -- a lot of interesting scholarship on them, if you can read them now. They [arose] spontaneously, without any background. [The writers had] never heard of Marx or Bakunin or anyone else; they developed the same ideas. From their point of view, what they called "wage slavery," renting yourself to an owner, was not very different from the chattel slavery that they were fighting a civil war about. You have to recall that in the mid-nineteenth century, that was a common view in the United States -- for example, the position of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln's position. It's not an odd view, that there isn't much difference between selling yourself and renting yourself. So the idea of renting yourself, meaning working for wages, was degrading. It was an attack on your personal integrity. They despised the industrial system that was developing, that was destroying their culture, destroying their independence, their individuality, constraining them to be subordinate to masters.
If you find employment degrading then there is good news: you live in the easiest place in the world to become your own master. You can plug yourself directly into the economy without any master's permission. And if you're not capable of doing that or you're not willing to take the risk, then your 'master' is doing you a service by providing you with a job that you're unable or unwilling to create for yourself.
you seem incapable of rational debate. we know your views on the working poor and the under classes. the uber class has said the same thing for hundreds of years now so no need to tell us, here at ows, what you think of the "working class." what i would like is an answer - the only one possible is that you fucked up and misspoke. yes computers and nukes were developed through taxpayer funded projects, it happens - own it and then get on with your attack on the victims of our corporate capitalist system.
You shifted the goalposts from saying that nuclear power was brought to us by socialism, to saying that it was government funded. My original point was that the guy working in the nuclear power plant wouldn't have had a job without that company providing one for him. What does government funding of the Manhattan Project have to do with that guy's job, which was actually funded by utility bill payments?
true but capitalism - very new indeed - wage slavery is very new. isn't it about time you gave us a little dissertation on wage slavery and why it is better than chattel slavery. i can give you some help if you would like it - go back to the abolitionist movement. they debated the subject quite well
Wage slavery is better than plain old slavery because a wage slave is a free person who has the option of improving their situation. Some people of course never do because they want to change the whole system instead of themselves.
takes money to become an owner no? and then most fail no? how does one get enough money to start a business - no bank will give you money unless you don't need it - right?
People with less money than you are starting businesses, while you're busy telling yourself that you can't do it. You could, you just don't even try. I know a Cuban immigrant who was in the US for less than a year before he had a dozen employees for his carpentry business. He started with zero, by taking carpentry jobs using borrowed tools. How many Americans spent that year whining about not being able to start businesses while he was busy building one?
That is garbage. Horation Alger Myth. Of course, they want us to BELIEVE that it can happen to each and every one of us. But, the reality is that it can only happen to a few people in an economy that is rigged for the wealthy and corporations and that thrives on exploitation. Wake up to the realities of your nation and take off the blinders. That kind of b.s. does not help!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth
It's not bullshit, I've started businesses myself and I know how easy it is. I guess you're right though, not everybody can do it. Some people are so defeatist that they're afraid to even try.
Some businesses are easier than others. The Republicans in Florida have made it damn near impossible for a poor person to get started in the construction industry. I know because that was me while I was in school. To make it criminal to paint someone's fence while in school is straight up nazi shit.
That being said, its not impossible by any means. They have just made it a lot more difficult than it needs to be.
I've started many businesses in Florida and I have no idea what you're talking about. You can file a new S-Corp or LLC in Florida in one day for a couple of hundred dollars. Less if you skip the CPA and attorney. And you don't even need to do that to go into business.
Wow, you completely blew past the entire point.
Bubba and Gator dont have the funds to get the business going, they have a few mistakes in their past to the board wont allow them, and then by some miracle they get the license and then the workmans comp/lia/bonding gets backed up so the state takes their license away.
At this point,they have to support their families, so they keep going. Now they get popped and are facing criminal charges.
I know of people in this situation, its not a made up fairytale.
You sound fairly removed from the trades. What industry are you in?
I work in technology. And if neither Bubba nor Gator can manage to run a small contracting business then they probably shouldn't complain about the contractors who are better at it, who can provide them with jobs.
You seem to be opposed to requiring licensing for contractors but that's definitely no way to look out for the public, if that's your goal.
Well ya, duh, the filing is not a problem. Its the regulations for licensing that is the difficult part. The filing is $129, its all the bullshit nazi shit afterwards that is the real barrier to entry.
Okay, so take two hypothetical Floridian painters: Bubba and Gator. Bubba is a good painter, so after working for somebody else for a while he gets a contractor license and starts a painting business. He paints a house here and there and builds a reputation and connections and eventually gets to the point where he has more than one job that he could be doing at once.
Gator is also a painter. Gator doesn't invest in a license and incorporation, he just paints houses. He doesn't have connections to potential jobs because all he does is paint houses.
Bubba hires Gator to paint a second house while Bubba is painting the first house. Gator does a decent job, so Bubba hooks Gator up with more work. Each time, Bubba takes his cut.
Should Bubba NOT make more than Gator? Bubba is the one who took the risk and he's the one who invested his own time and money in building a business. Gator doesn't worry about that stuff, he just shows up where Bubba tells him and paints. Can Gator really complain that Bubba oppresses him?
Ok, so you are one of the barrier to entry guys. Got it.
So you bitch about regulations, but if the regulations are good in your specific opinion, then you are all for it. Gotcha.
Sometimes its not about who can run the better business that survives. Its about who can pull favors and have the connections.
Like I said, theyve made it virtually impossible for a talented person to come to our shores and get their own thing going, hit the ground running.
Thats bullshit. Toss in the fact that they made it damn near impossible to get legalized for many to begin with, and its clear that competition is not what the policy makers want at this point.
I know lots of talented people who have 'come to our shores' and built successful businesses while Americans who were born here whined about not being able to do it, and now they employ some of those Americans.
Start up businesses fail in huge numbers, maybe not as many as Rand Paul thinks. He thinks 9 out of 10, but this article says "...after four years, 50 percent of the businesses are open." Does "open" mean running a profit or a loss? Hmmm. I don't know. I'm thinking many keep going without earning much money at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/27/do-9-out-of-10-new-businesses-fail-as-rand-paul-claims/
But, I do know you are a very brilliant business person. You've been reminding us of that for many years now. It is very easy for you, so bravo to you and your hubris, lol.
You may be good at running a business but you lack a basic understanding of how a capitalist economic system works. See, not every human being can run a business in a capitalist economy, because that would spread out supply to such a point that there would be no demand. Imagine America with 300 million little corporations. You'd be right back at a subsistence economy.
I think that failed businesses include those that were filed and never really saw the light of day. That would add to that number substantially.
One of the problems of the past 40 years is that, as a nation, we have forgotten to revere the worker. The worker is the backbone of this nation. It is on the workers' back that profits are made. Capital is nothing without the labor that churns the profit.
In reality, I think a number of people here, including you, own their own businesses, and that's great, but if we all did that, supply and demand would flatten and we'd be working for our own basic survival and nothing more, subsistence only. Maybe that would be a good thing?
Hmmm not sure. Maybe at this point it could be a nice change of pace lol.
That is probably the majority, because it's really not very easy, despite the fact that some succeed at it. Our economic system is not set up for everyone to be running a business. It would flatten supply and demand and believe me, TPTB do not want that. They want big corporations exploiting and profiting off the labor of the workers who are the backbone of this system.
Its certainly not easy. If it was, everyone would be doing it, right?
Ive worked with 100s of businesses at this point. And I will say though, that its not quite as hard as some make it out to be, but its certainly not a cake walk like Techie is making out to be.
The biggest hurdle is the mental aspect imo. You have to be willing to dedicate yourself to it. Most people dont want to, and I dont blame them. Its no fun telling your girlfriend Sorry honey, but we have to go home because I have to be up in the morning.
I do get a kick out of everyone always thinking because I work for myself that I can just take off time whenever I want lol.
You are your own business whether you recognize it or not. If you work for somebody else then you're a business that has formed an exclusive partnership with another business. Our modern, information-based economy makes it easy for individual workers to plug themselves into the economy without going through a middle man. If you resent that middle man for giving you a raw deal on your exclusive partnership then you need to do some business development and find better deals. Better ways to maximize the profit on your own personal output.
If that seems impossible and you don't think that you can do it, then you really do need the middle man. You wouldn't have a job without him, since you're not capable of making one for yourself. If that's the case then stop complaining about the business that provides you with a job.
What you just described is a return to a subsistence economy because if you run a business and only earn enough for yourself to live, you have subsistence and nothing more. There is no arguing with you, because you do not understand the basics of economics. See, once a business begins earning a profit over the cost of your wages, you have capitalism. If everyone is just working for himself/herself and earning enough to survive, you have a subsistence economy. So, which is it? It's subsistence right? Because you can't have 300 million profit making companies. The population simply can't sustain that supply and demand. So, admit it, not everyone can go out and run a profit making corporation.
You're not making sense. Of course everybody can make a profit. You make a profit now as a micro business, it's just taxed by your employer. Obviously you could earn even more if you were capable of participating in the economy without working for somebody else. Cut out the middle man and take control of your own business development.
i really don't like to repeat myself but you are a dumb ass - the worst kind - you think you are smart - you cannot even read
Is it Impossible for 300 million people to earn income? Of course not. Income is profit from your labor. If you didn't depend on a middle man between you and the economy then you could earn even more, and your potential income would be unlimited instead of you hoping for the middle man to give you incremental raises periodically. Of course your potential losses would also not be limited and that's a big part of why so many people choose to work for a middle man instead of plugging themselves in directly. Those people shouldn't complain about being oppressed by the people who assume all of the risks.
boy you are a dumb bunny and an ass - that is a bad combination. and where did that business owner get the money to start his business - from daddy - and where did daddy get it. labor creates all wealth. sure some get lucky and fall into something and make enough money to start up a business but that is not how the world works. don't make me go through the stats - i have better things to do
If I had a dime for every shithead business person Ive worked with over the years, who actually does a really shitty job of running things but had the funds to start it and now makes a really shitty rate of return (but due to the scope, its still around 300k a year)...
ID BE RICH! lol.
These types of over simplified views of ones community is exactly what Im talking about with some business owners. Imagine a simplistic view like Techie, mixed with uber elitist influences and circles your entire life, hearing nothing but degrading comments about the people, minorities, etc.
Thats how we end up with tyrants.
You know how it's possible because you did it yourself. You didn't spend your daddy's money to start your tennis business. You didn't get venture capital. You had profitable work and you kept doing it and it grew from there.
Some people are not capable of doing that. Some lack skills. Some are too afraid to take a risk. Those people NEED employers because they're not capable of integrating themselves into the economy without one. Those people should stop whining about the people who create jobs for them, since they can't do it themselves.
wow - "What does government funding of the Manhattan Project have to do with that guy's job, which was actually funded by utility bill payments?" - i just ran this by my 10 yr old grandson - he is surprised that you don't understand what you are saying. ok on that note i realize that you are too stupid to be wasting my time on. all here can easily see that the rich - the owners - those who think they are the "job creators" like romney and bill gates are really sad little men who are "fooled by randomness"
You're contradicting yourself. A non-rich person depends on a business to provide him with a job -- but businesses are not job creators? If the workers were the job creators then they wouldn't need to resent business owners. That's been my point here. If you're the job creator, not the business at you work for, then create a job for yourself and stop working for somebody else. If you can't do that, then you can't really complain about being oppressed by a business owner since you depend on him to provide you with a job.
i am truly sorry - mentioning my nice steak dinner - i know you only eat rice and t noodles living as you do in bali - with your servants! now tell me again how nukes and computers were not developed with taxpayer dollars. how the manhatten project was a private enterprise. do you think you are fooling anyone?
The funding for DARPANET and the Manhattan Project have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this page, and your obsession with the idea that both are success stories of socialism is hilarious. Keep it going, I'm very entertained.
i din't ask what the topic was
...since you obviously don't care!
glad to hear you are so easily amused. government tax payer funded projects-what would you call them. that is the topic i raised to you and you responded with obvious nonsense. as for the topic of the page - i am not that interested
The topic here was the exploitation of workers by business owners.
You forgot to add - under our really sick system of wage slavery in the privatized profits socialized losses style of "capitalism" - to the end of your paragraph
He's obfuscating and side-stepping your comment, trying to avoid having to speak an unpleasant truth...
Techjunkie is trashy. His writing style and modus operandi are identical. His main objective is as a disruptor. Usually advocating for the establishment by using their short list of prescribed talking points. Always keeping things very vague and never going into deep waters with the details. Trashy wrote code, TJunkie writes code. Trashy always mentioned jart, Tjunkie mentioned jart.
The only thing missing is that trashy was hilarious when he would rip apart the Twinkle team. So far I haven't seen much humor from tjunkie though. Maybe I should talk about conspiracy theories.
TJ may be a Trashy sock puppet but it's hard to be sure. It doesn't matter to me. All cons are clones of the same reactionary knee jerk that seeks to keep the serfs under their control and working to increase their wealth. They all repeat the same old shit tirelessly and are indistinguishable from their masters. Even the sources of the shit in their heads, Koch, Rove, Heritage Foundation ... all sound the same. They divert, distract, evade, dissemble and mostly project their own foul motives, habits and actions onto those they wish to own. The projections are of course unconscious, sort of like all their brain dead ante bellum Calhounesque ideology.
i was thinking the same thing - either way he is a sad sack. not sure why he would be on ows
You're probably right (EDIT: But I would guess a banker, or a minion). I also agree that, 'one' of the new strategies is "disrupt..[ion]", brought on mostly by 'diversion.'
I've been around here for long enough to remember who Thrasmaque is, and no I'm not that guy. I'm not a sock puppet at all, I have one account here. There are thousands of my posts on this site going back over years.
You are right. He got caught making a comment he cannot back up. Not brave enough to admit to it. So now he tries to sow confusion. Well at least he has shown his true colors. I doubt anyone will take his beating up on the poor and working class seriously
And you're right too. He cannot bring himself to actually admit to the fact that he is a proponent of our current miscreant capitalism, and uses diversionary lingo and obfuscating crap to obscure his real intentions, and to forward his agenda.
It is clear that he supports this system, by him incongruously saying, "A failing business should be left to fail.." But then he says nothing about the big banks being bailed out by us, or their continuing corrupt activities, even though they are by far and away the biggest culprit. Instead he wants us to embrace the system, that he feels is inevitable, and we just need to buck up.
No matter how you cut it, that's just another implicitous way of supporting, "socialism for the 1% and capitalism fo the 99%." When he is cornered with this logic, which when extrapolated to these depraved bankers, he becomes a moving target, subtly changing and obscuring his views, but still not wanting to criticize the big players who got us here.
Instead, he is amazingly quiet about the rigged system including the malfeasant politicians and criminal eite who have set up this fascist-like system. THAT despite them most likely being the 'biggest reason' for us being here. So with his silence, he is in fact endorsing bankers who put profit before people.
We need systemic change for a just system, not to be looked at by him that we are deviants, who are unable to cut it, because we refuse to agree with him on crony capitalism!
The comment that you're talking about was when I laughed at your off-topic assertion that nuclear power and computers and the Internet were all "developed by socialism"?
TJ'll never acknowledge that in himself. The only flaws of their own that cons ever see are those they project into the decent human beings who challenge their silly shit!
I've been the one challenging ideas, and nobody here has been able to articulate how job creation would work if you eliminate private business ownership like some people here are suggesting.
what annoys me is how he beats up on working people. the idea that it is easy to start and be successful in your own business is nonsense. i have worked for myself all my adult life. lots of luck involved and also it is not for everyone. his idea is that you have no right to complain about oppressive working conditions because you can simply start your own business. no right to complain about an abusive corporate system - no right to complain about our taxpayer dollars helping huge systems of unaccountable power instead of citizens - what a crock of shit. i think serfusa is right - he is trashy - living in bali with servants and telling others to stop bitching. i am also annoyed by people who think they are smarter than others - he certainly does and he is not
Pointing out that working people are empowered to become their own bosses is not "beating up" on them. A worker can choose to spend their whole lives complaining about their employer instead of improving their situation, they have that right. That's stupid, but you have that right. Makes a lot more sense to find a better job or to create one. But I guess some people have no clue how to create a job. Those people benefit from knowing people who do. Not what I would call "exploitation", since both sides benefit.
I directly reiterated that I oppose lemon socialism, or 'private profit and socialized losses'. That was a direct response and that's the opposite of obfuscation. You're still imagining that I'm saying something other than what I'm saying: that business is not the enemy. Business creates jobs, pays income, and enables workers to put roofs over their heads and food on the table. Any worker who feels oppressed by their employer can either find another employer or become their own employer. If they're unwilling or unable to do that, then they really do need the business.
I'm opposed to lemon socialism just like apparently you are. A failing business should be left to fail, the government shouldn't prop it up. But that isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about the idea that a company oppresses workers by providing them with jobs.
I did not read past your first sentence. Not wasting my time. You know the topic. Nukes and how they became profitable. Stick to it or get lost
The topic was whether or not business is evil and whether it serves a function for workers, not whether nuclear power was "developed by socialism".
oh knock it off. first of all, as i said i understood your nonsense about workers the first time you said it. no need to repeat and repeat and repeat. now admit you are wrong - you should have stuck with the carpenter example - admit it - nuclear power is not a good industry to use to prove your point. it does just the opposite - admit it coward. and of course you are attacking poor less fortunate people - like all elites do throughout history. you are not very bright and you are a bully - bad combination!
secondly what do you think about the government handing a new technology to a huge corporation free of charge and then subsidizing their development? like here -
"President Eisenhower's “Atoms for Peace” address in 1953 and the 1954 Atomic Energy Act committed the United States to develop peaceful uses for nuclear technology, including commercial energy generation. The new National Laboratory system, established by the Manhattan Project, was maintained and expanded, and the government poured money into nuclear energy research and development.[27] Recognizing that research was not sufficient to spur the development of a nascent, capital-intensive industry, the federal government created financial incentives to spur the deployment of nuclear energy. For example, the 1957 Price Anderson Act limited the liability of nuclear energy firms in case of serious accident and helped firms secure capital with federal loan guarantees. In the favorable environment created by such incentives, more than 100 nuclear plants were built in the United States by 1973.[27]..............and here - US DOE will offer $12.6 billion in new nuclear loan guarantees Washington (Platts)--30Sep2014/1213 pm EDT/1613 GMT
The US Department of Energy plans to make available federal loan guarantees totaling $12.6 billion for uranium enrichment facilities, new nuclear reactors, small modular reactors and capacity upgrades at existing nuclear plants.
Apparently no nuclear power worker could ever be oppressed by their employer since you say that government spending is socialism. So that specific type of business is apparently not the enemy for you.
maybe that is what you were talking about - not me. i was pointing out that the private industry you were extolling - while you denigrated poor working people - were given the means of producing energy free of charge. is that the way your capitalism is supposed to work? maybe you should go back to your carpenter as an example instead of the nuclear power industry. and what about computers - the internet?
Building a nuclear power plant is obviously not "free". Near me, Florida Power & Light recently spent tens of billions just on maintenance on a single plant at Turkey Point. (I guarantee that the phrase "Turkey Point" popping up on this site set off a terrorism detector somewhere.)
I'm also not denigrating the worker, I'm pointing out that the worker is empowered, and that any worker who sees employment as slavery and unfair theft of their productivity should quit and become their own boss. And if they can't then they should realize that the business that they work for does a service to them. Business is not the enemy.
you either live in a bubble of wealth or are stupid - or both (most likely). you do not understand the lives of the working poor. from what you write it seems that you do not understand much
I've been very poor. Now I'm not poor. It would be arrogant for me to think that I'm somehow better than all of the people who are still poor. It's kind of strange for people to attack me for saying that I'm not special and that anybody could improve their situation. Apparently a basic tenet of the ideology here that I'm missing is that poor people are helpless? Somehow it would be more tolerable for me to say that I'm some kind of elite with a rare gift for improving my own life whereas most people lack that ability? That seems a lot more arrogant and offensive to me than what I've been saying.
If I were interested in wasting my time I would go back and look up our conversations. The ones where you said nuclear power and computers and the internet were developed by private enterprise. My advice is to delete your comments because tomorrow I may be bored. Right now my beautiful wife is taking me out to dinner. Very nice restaurant. I think I will have a big vodka and a steak and forget you and your sickening philosophy exist.
Enjoy your elitist meal and continue to pretend that the Information Age was brought to us by socialism. I'm aware that nothing that I could say would ever change your mind about nuclear power and computers being success stories of socialism.
Do you understand the logic of the discussion? Seems that is not your strong suit. Sophistry maybe or just blind ideology to a failed system. Not sure. either way it is clear you are none too bright and quite a waste of time.
I understand your logic that business is evil because business owners profit from the labor of workers. I've been trying to point out that business provides a valuable service to those workers as well by plugging them into the economy and giving them jobs. If you eliminate business ownership then you're going to need to find a new job creation engine or else a lot of people will be unemployed. I've pointed out that workers who feel oppressed by the businesses proving them with employment have the option of creating their own businesses and not working for anybody, but everybody seems to think that idea is ridiculous. So then how could anybody advocate for the idea of worker-owned businesses if the idea is ridiculous? How could anybody say that it's too hard for one worker to go into business for himself but it would be easier for a hundred workers to unite to do the same thing? It's even harder for that collective to get their venture off of the ground because their break-even point is much higher and because organizing a big group is complex. The people in management in our current system address that issue.
i know exactly what the comment was that started our conversation - unlike you i do not need help keeping the conversation rational. now i am waiting for the word you would use to describe a government project that is tax payer funded. i imagine i will wait quite a while since you do not want to admit you are wrong here. very weak trashy but it is what we have all come to expect from you
That would be a "public sector" project. (Not "socialism".) What does that have to do with employers exploiting workers?
hmmmm public sector project - nice one. like libraries and fire depts. and social security should be named public sector security - i think ted cruz is trying to get that done. ok thanks we are done - you have admitted (in your own cowardly way) that nukes computers and the internet were not free market projects, they were developed at tax payer expense and GIVEN free to private corporations to make profit and create (?) jobs that no citizen should complain about. well it is mostly about profit right - they are capital intensive industries. ok tell your thai maids to bring some tea and your slippers trashy and please do not bother me anymore
What does any of this have to do with exploitation of workers by employers?
PS: I did not invent the term "public sector".
i own a business - more than one actually. i know very well what is involved - should i go to the stats for failed businesses. should we discuss the fact that one must have a needed skill. your carpenter is like me - i teach tennis. started with a few lessons and kept getting more. a few years later i got lucky - the head pro left and i took over. much harder to do today - in my industry and most.
it can be done but like your carpenter one must be good at something people need and you must be personable and lucky. do not pretend that it is easy. i know too many people in the tech industry - a few years ago they all had job offers like crazy - now they are being downsized.
a real business takes a good idea and start up money. we started a solar construction company - banks would not give us a dime. my brother in law had a great idea and we funded it with our savings - lucky enough to have the money to do it. not many have any savings to speak of - do you know the stats or should i get them for you.
you might be a bit less arrogant if you want to be taken seriously. beating up on the american worker is not something that can by anyone who knows the real story ............."A report by the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) also showed that “the majority of metro areas—73 percent—had households earning salaries of less than $35,000 a year,” hardly a living wage for families facing ever-rising commodity prices.
Despite increased productivity and corporate profits, most workers’ wages have actually fallen. Biven reports, “From the first half of 2013 to the first half of 2014, real hourly wages fell for all deciles, except for a miniscule two-cent increase at the 10th percentile. Underlying this exception to the general trend at the 10th percentile is a set of state-level minimum-wage increases in the first half of 2014 in states where 40 percent of U.S. workers reside.” “As a percentage of national income, corporate profits stood at 14.2 percent in the third quarter of 2012, the largest share at any time since 1950, while the portion of income that went to employees was 61.7 percent, near its lowest point since 1966,” reported Nelson Schwartz in 2013. Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclay’s reports that “corporate earnings have risen at an annualized rate of 20.1 percent since the end of 2008, but disposable income inched ahead by 1.4 percent annually over the same period, after adjusting for inflation,” adding that “there hasn’t been a period in the last 50 years where these trends have been so pronounced
True revolutionaries have the ability to walk in the shoes of others. Great reply, flip.
well thanks beauty. i am an owner - i have always been self employed but much of it was luck. my brother in law saw a hole in the solar business and we had enough savings to fund a business, i am not against those who take risks but it is not for everyone. a mixed economy might be the best way to go but who knows. the junkie boy is an ass - i am tired of these people here. the factless one and smc - they have no business here really. ok sorry to rant - too much vodka tonight - really good polish vodka - the kind you cannot get int he liquor store. from my roofer - he has his own business - really good guy!
The truth is that most small businesses only earn enough for the owner to live, they don't create much of a profit. Some do, but most don't. Big corporations are great at exploiting labor to create a profit and what people like TechJunkie don't understand is that capital, without labor, is useless. It is the worker who creates the profit. He should have more reverence for the worker rather than belittling the worker by saying that he's fearful and unable to run a business. It's just maddening.
Enjoy your vodka.
yea i have a friend who owns a fast food business - employs maybe 10 people - he works 70 hour weeks and cannot afford health ins - the vodka is good - makes me forget the techjunkie
Let's face it. The economic system is rigged for big corporations. All is not equal, and some do better than others, but corporations are doing the best, and scoring the most profits for their shareholders.
Techjunkie is useful because we get to make our points to him, whether he gets them or not, others will.
Drink some water before going to bed :)
If I weren't here then you would have a lot less to talk about.
I do not need more nonsense to talk about. Maybe you can think of something more intelligent to discuss. Or you could go away
I probably will go away soon since this site's entertainment value wanes pretty quickly, especially now that the forum is basically dead. Until then maybe I'll give you a boogeyman to vilify for a while. Weren'the you one of the people who was around here way back when I was begging for people willing to let me pay them to get into a software development career?
Sure, lots of businesses fail. And lots of business owners keep trying. Other people don't try at all. So they have no choice other than working for somebody else.
If I can't take many people here seriously then why would I want or expect anybody here to take me seriously? I'm here for catharsis.
Wannabe troll. Can't even do that right. Sure you come to ows looking for software developers. Wow good one. I am looking for rocket scientists. Does anyone want a job as one. Very good job for those who just have a little moxie. Please stay around and tell us some more. And where do I apply for that software job???
Haha search the archives, buddy. It's all there.
i am sure i is there - doesn't mean it is not a little boy pretending. look out - i am sabu and i might be coming to get you - don't like trolls
then go away - drink more