Current Events > Major Corporations say they will turn most gains from tax cuts to shareholders

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
#102	Post #102 was unavailable or deleted.
Paper_Okami 11/29/17 8:45:27 PM #103:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Paper_Okami posted... Mal_Fet posted... Paper_Okami posted... Mal_Fet posted... Paper_Okami posted... Mal_Fet posted... Isn't this good for everyone who owns stocks (which you have no excuse not to) stocks going up only help a VERY small section of the population, it doesn't help the average person. How do you figure Everyone can (and should) invest and most retirement plans are based on the stock market https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html ^ wouldn't be the case of they invested. Just saying. they don't have any fucking money to invest most of them would if they stopped making bad decisions with money dont need to finance a brand new iphone each year. same with cars. car debt is at an all time high IIRC. people who make 30k a year are financing $30,000 cars "imma just say shit without backing it up" - Proudclad --- "Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism"- Emma Goldman "Wimmy Wham Wham Wozzle!" -Slurms MacKenzie <cite>Paper_Okami posted [p:891299979] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Paper_Okami posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Paper_Okami posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Paper_Okami posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Isn't this good for everyone who owns stocks (which you have no excuse not to)</quote> stocks going up only help a VERY small section of the population, it doesn't help the average person.</quote> How do you figure Everyone can (and should) invest and most retirement plans are based on the stock market</quote> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html</quote> ^ wouldn't be the case of they invested. Just saying.</quote> they don't have any fucking money to invest</quote> most of them would if they stopped making bad decisions with money dont need to finance a brand new iphone each year. same with cars. car debt is at an all time high IIRC. people who make 30k a year are financing $30,000 cars</quote> "imma just say shit without backing it up" - Proudclad</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 8:46:07 PM #104:	Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... You wouldn't have wealth or labor without investors. Haha, more utter bullshit from you. Can't say I'm surprised, sadly. If it's bullshit, surely you can point to highly successful companies that disrupted entire industries without investment. Surely there's a commune out there somewhere that has achieved what you want. Explain how it's bullshit. Companies and wealth exist and grow because of investors. Jobs wouldn't exist without investment from government and corporations and individuals. Wealth existed before capitalism and investment, dude. Do you have any grasp of history? the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc. explain to me how companies like Tesla or SpaceX could exist without investors --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300021] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> You wouldn't have wealth or labor without investors.</quote> Haha, more utter bullshit from you. Can't say I'm surprised, sadly.</quote> If it's bullshit, surely you can point to highly successful companies that disrupted entire industries without investment. Surely there's a commune out there somewhere that has achieved what you want. Explain how it's bullshit. Companies and wealth exist and grow because of investors. Jobs wouldn't exist without investment from government and corporations and individuals.</quote> Wealth existed before capitalism and investment, dude. Do you have any grasp of history?</quote> the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc. explain to me how companies like Tesla or SpaceX could exist without investors</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paper_Okami 11/29/17 8:47:13 PM #105:	FLUFFYGERM posted... the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc. like the GOP --- "Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism"- Emma Goldman "Wimmy Wham Wham Wozzle!" -Slurms MacKenzie <cite>Paper_Okami posted [p:891300072] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc.</quote> like the GOP</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 8:47:25 PM #106:	Paper_Okami posted... "imma just say shit without backing it up" - Proudclad you can easily google and see that all those things are true. you dont believe people are financing too many wants? --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300080] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Paper_Okami posted...</cite> <quote>"imma just say shit without backing it up" - Proudclad</quote> you can easily google and see that all those things are true. you dont believe people are financing too many wants?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 8:47:54 PM #107:	Paper_Okami posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc. like the GOP agreed tbqh --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300106] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Paper_Okami posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc.</quote> like the GOP</quote> agreed tbqh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#108	Post #108 was unavailable or deleted.
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 8:49:29 PM #109:	Antifar posted... "People living paycheck to paycheck should invest their money" is an interesting interpretation of the term "paycheck to paycheck." Why is the average household living paycheck to paycheck? --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300188] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>"People living paycheck to paycheck should invest their money" is an interesting interpretation of the term "paycheck to paycheck."</quote> Why is the average household living paycheck to paycheck?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 8:50:58 PM #110:	Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc. Duh. The point is that the wealth possessed by royalty was created through the labor of the average person. And the majority of the wealth we have now (IE record global wealth) is a result of both labor and investment. You are delusionally on the wrong side of history if you're really going to argue that investment had no role in it. Wtf. Show me the commune that achieved what you want. Surely there must be one out there where the workers united and built a Tesla or a SpaceX or Google. Edit: I'd hesitate to refer back to feudalism as proof of wealth before capitalism, btw. That's an insane argument because it's not even wealth in the general sense of the word, and because the vast majority of people are way better off thanks to capitalism. The poorest American has way more opportunity and goods/services than anything from back then. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300265] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>the average person had no wealth or nice standard of living before capitalism. only kings and royalty had those things. and they preserved them through claims of divine right, force, etc.</quote> Duh. The point is that the wealth possessed by royalty was created through the labor of the average person.</quote> And the majority of the wealth we have now (IE record global wealth) is a result of both labor and investment. You are delusionally on the wrong side of history if you're really going to argue that investment had no role in it. Wtf. Show me the commune that achieved what you want. Surely there must be one out there where the workers united and built a Tesla or a SpaceX or Google. Edit: I'd hesitate to refer back to feudalism as proof of wealth before capitalism, btw. That's an insane argument because it's not even wealth in the general sense of the word, and because the vast majority of people are way better off thanks to capitalism. The poorest American has way more opportunity and goods/services than anything from back then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/29/17 8:51:00 PM #111:	Godnorgosh posted... Wealth is created by labor, of which there is a finite supply. Wealth is created by trade. If both parties didn't receive more value in what was traded for, an exchange wouln't happen. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891300272] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>Wealth is created by labor, of which there is a finite supply. </quote> Wealth is created by trade. If both parties didn't receive more value in what was traded for, an exchange wouln't happen.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kineth 11/29/17 8:52:21 PM #112:	Antifar posted... "People living paycheck to paycheck should invest their money" is an interesting interpretation of the term "paycheck to paycheck." No kidding. --- If you're not looking for any honest discussion, agreement, meeting halfway or middle ground, don't bother arguing with me. Selfish narcissists need not apply. <cite>Kineth posted [p:891300350] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>"People living paycheck to paycheck should invest their money" is an interesting interpretation of the term "paycheck to paycheck."</quote> No kidding.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 8:53:37 PM #113:	I mean you have to be some kind of delusional to think that everyone living paycheck to paycheck is doing it because they have literally no room for cuts in their budget --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300411] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>I mean you have to be some kind of delusional to think that everyone living paycheck to paycheck is doing it because they have literally no room for cuts in their budget</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#114	Post #114 was unavailable or deleted.
#115	Post #115 was unavailable or deleted.
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 8:59:54 PM #116:	Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... And the majority of the wealth we have now (IE record global wealth) is a result of both labor and investment. You are delusionally on the wrong side of history if you're really going to argue that investment had no role in it. Wtf. Now you're just moving goalposts. Your original claim was that investment is a necessary condition for wealth creation. I explained why that was not true. Now you're weakening your claim to say that investment now has a role in wealth creation, and again, duh. No one was arguing against this. So you think that royalty forcibly seizing crops is wealth in the same way as the wealth we see all around us? Lol --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300729] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>And the majority of the wealth we have now (IE record global wealth) is a result of both labor and investment. You are delusionally on the wrong side of history if you're really going to argue that investment had no role in it. Wtf.</quote> Now you're just moving goalposts. Your original claim was that investment is a necessary condition for wealth creation. I explained why that was not true. Now you're weakening your claim to say that investment now has a role in wealth creation, and again, duh. No one was arguing against this.</quote> So you think that royalty forcibly seizing crops is wealth in the same way as the wealth we see all around us? Lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#117	Post #117 was unavailable or deleted.
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:01:27 PM #118:	Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... That's an insane argument because it's not even wealth in the general sense of the word, and because the vast majority of people are way better off thanks to capitalism. The poorest American has way more opportunity and goods/services than anything from back then. Again, no one argued otherwise. you did say wealth is created by labor. you made no effort to acknowledge investment. and youve refused to admit that modern companies like tesla and spacex couldnt exist without investment. so youre definitely arguing otherwise lol --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300807] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> That's an insane argument because it's not even wealth in the general sense of the word, and because the vast majority of people are way better off thanks to capitalism. The poorest American has way more opportunity and goods/services than anything from back then. </quote> Again, no one argued otherwise.</quote> you did say wealth is created by labor. you made no effort to acknowledge investment. and youve refused to admit that modern companies like tesla and spacex couldnt exist without investment. so youre definitely arguing otherwise lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:02:51 PM #119:	Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... And the majority of the wealth we have now (IE record global wealth) is a result of both labor and investment. You are delusionally on the wrong side of history if you're really going to argue that investment had no role in it. Wtf. Now you're just moving goalposts. Your original claim was that investment is a necessary condition for wealth creation. I explained why that was not true. Now you're weakening your claim to say that investment now has a role in wealth creation, and again, duh. No one was arguing against this. So you think that royalty forcibly seizing crops is wealth in the same way as the wealth we see all around us? Lol u wot m8 Give me an example of wealth from back in the stone age or w/e also im still waiting on your examples of communes where labor grew conscious and united and built real companies with no shareholders and investors seeing profit --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891300875] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>And the majority of the wealth we have now (IE record global wealth) is a result of both labor and investment. You are delusionally on the wrong side of history if you're really going to argue that investment had no role in it. Wtf.</quote> Now you're just moving goalposts. Your original claim was that investment is a necessary condition for wealth creation. I explained why that was not true. Now you're weakening your claim to say that investment now has a role in wealth creation, and again, duh. No one was arguing against this.</quote> So you think that royalty forcibly seizing crops is wealth in the same way as the wealth we see all around us? Lol</quote> u wot m8</quote> Give me an example of wealth from back in the stone age or w/e also im still waiting on your examples of communes where labor grew conscious and united and built real companies with no shareholders and investors seeing profit</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
courier_nv 11/29/17 9:03:29 PM #120:	wealth really didn't grow that much until the industrial revolution iirc <cite>courier_nv posted [p:891300908] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>wealth really didn't grow that much until the industrial revolution iirc</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#121	Post #121 was unavailable or deleted.
FrisbeeDude 11/29/17 9:05:18 PM #122:	FLUFFYGERM posted... I mean you have to be some kind of delusional to think that everyone living paycheck to paycheck is doing it because they have literally no room for cuts in their budget You sound like the McDonald's memo that showed employees how to budget off s McDonald's income lmfao --- No one gets in the way of my frisbee games! NO ONE! <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:891301019] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>I mean you have to be some kind of delusional to think that everyone living paycheck to paycheck is doing it because they have literally no room for cuts in their budget</quote> You sound like the McDonald's memo that showed employees how to budget off s McDonald's income lmfao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/29/17 9:06:32 PM #123:	FrisbeeDude posted... You sound like the McDonald's memo that showed employees how to budget off s McDonald's income lmfao How was that a bad thing? At all? <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891301086] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote>You sound like the McDonald's memo that showed employees how to budget off s McDonald's income lmfao</quote> How was that a bad thing? At all?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:10:22 PM #124:	Godnorgosh I'm still waiting for an example of how something like Tesla could exist without shareholders and investors --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891301302] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>Godnorgosh I'm still waiting for an example of how something like Tesla could exist without shareholders and investors</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#125	Post #125 was unavailable or deleted.
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:15:12 PM #126:	Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Godnorgosh I'm still waiting for an example of how something like Tesla could exist without shareholders and investors Through cooperative, organized labor. Labor is a necessary condition for wealth (or value) creation. Investment isn't. So where is that example of cooperative organized labor creating something like Tesla? Surely you can point to an example by now. Investment was a necessary condition for Tesla to exist. Surely you can agree that Tesla has produced wealth and value in society. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891301577] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Godnorgosh I'm still waiting for an example of how something like Tesla could exist without shareholders and investors</quote> Through cooperative, organized labor. Labor is a necessary condition for wealth (or value) creation. Investment isn't.</quote> So where is that example of cooperative organized labor creating something like Tesla? Surely you can point to an example by now. Investment was a necessary condition for Tesla to exist. Surely you can agree that Tesla has produced wealth and value in society.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#127	Post #127 was unavailable or deleted.
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:21:48 PM #128:	Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Godnorgosh posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... Godnorgosh I'm still waiting for an example of how something like Tesla could exist without shareholders and investors Through cooperative, organized labor. Labor is a necessary condition for wealth (or value) creation. Investment isn't. So where is that example of cooperative organized labor creating something like Tesla? Surely you can point to an example by now. Investment was a necessary condition for Tesla to exist. Surely you can agree that Tesla has produced wealth and value in society. You're asking me to give an example of a company similar to a company reliant on modern technology from a period before modern technology existed (before investment). There are obvious historical variables to consider other than investment. Inductive reasoning is failing you here. But surely there are companies right now that are doing things like Tesla. Companies that had no investment whatsoever and are solely the product of labor becoming conscious and self-organizing into a cooperative or collective. Surely you can point to a few examples of how that's happening in spite of capitalism and investment and shareholders. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891301971] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>Godnorgosh I'm still waiting for an example of how something like Tesla could exist without shareholders and investors</quote> Through cooperative, organized labor. Labor is a necessary condition for wealth (or value) creation. Investment isn't.</quote> So where is that example of cooperative organized labor creating something like Tesla? Surely you can point to an example by now. Investment was a necessary condition for Tesla to exist. Surely you can agree that Tesla has produced wealth and value in society.</quote> You're asking me to give an example of a company similar to a company reliant on modern technology from a period before modern technology existed (before investment). There are obvious historical variables to consider other than investment. Inductive reasoning is failing you here.</quote> But surely there are companies right now that are doing things like Tesla. Companies that had no investment whatsoever and are solely the product of labor becoming conscious and self-organizing into a cooperative or collective. Surely you can point to a few examples of how that's happening in spite of capitalism and investment and shareholders.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#129	Post #129 was unavailable or deleted.
#130	Post #130 was unavailable or deleted.
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:27:18 PM #131:	Godnorgosh posted... Not under capitalism, because a company doing similar things minus investment has an obvious disadvantage in a marketplace where it competes against a company (like Tesla) with greater resources (due to investment). But that says much more about the marketplace in which the company has to compete than it says about the concept of investment itself. The reason such a company would not survive is because investment means leverage. Profit enables companies and individuals to achieve much more together. It's what motivates most people to work hard and invest their time and energy into their labor. Without investors and the hope of profit, you don't have any leverage with which to effect great change in the world. The greatest and most positive changes we've seen were the result of capitalism. You'll never see communism achieve anywhere near the same successes, because when you take away profit and investment you have no leverage with which to develop motivation and innovation. The pace of discovery and innovation will always be higher under capitalism than if we abandon capitalism and force everyone into self-organizing cooperatives. That's why self-organizing cooperatives aren't cropping up and succeeding on their own. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891302290] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>Not under capitalism, because a company doing similar things minus investment has an obvious disadvantage in a marketplace where it competes against a company (like Tesla) with greater resources (due to investment). But that says much more about the marketplace in which the company has to compete than it says about the concept of investment itself. </quote> The reason such a company would not survive is because investment means leverage. Profit enables companies and individuals to achieve much more together. It's what motivates most people to work hard and invest their time and energy into their labor. Without investors and the hope of profit, you don't have any leverage with which to effect great change in the world. The greatest and most positive changes we've seen were the result of capitalism. You'll never see communism achieve anywhere near the same successes, because when you take away profit and investment you have no leverage with which to develop motivation and innovation. The pace of discovery and innovation will always be higher under capitalism than if we abandon capitalism and force everyone into self-organizing cooperatives. That's why self-organizing cooperatives aren't cropping up and succeeding on their own.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 11/29/17 9:32:28 PM #132:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Godnorgosh posted... Not under capitalism, because a company doing similar things minus investment has an obvious disadvantage in a marketplace where it competes against a company (like Tesla) with greater resources (due to investment). But that says much more about the marketplace in which the company has to compete than it says about the concept of investment itself. The reason such a company would not survive is because investment means leverage. Profit enables companies and individuals to achieve much more together. It's what motivates most people to work hard and invest their time and energy into their labor. Without investors and the hope of profit, you don't have any leverage with which to effect great change in the world. The greatest and most positive changes we've seen were the result of capitalism. You'll never see communism achieve anywhere near the same successes, because when you take away profit and investment you have no leverage with which to develop motivation and innovation. The pace of discovery and innovation will always be higher under capitalism than if we abandon capitalism and force everyone into self-organizing cooperatives. That's why self-organizing cooperatives aren't cropping up and succeeding on their own. FFS. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:891302565] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>Not under capitalism, because a company doing similar things minus investment has an obvious disadvantage in a marketplace where it competes against a company (like Tesla) with greater resources (due to investment). But that says much more about the marketplace in which the company has to compete than it says about the concept of investment itself. </quote> The reason such a company would not survive is because investment means leverage. Profit enables companies and individuals to achieve much more together. It's what motivates most people to work hard and invest their time and energy into their labor. Without investors and the hope of profit, you don't have any leverage with which to effect great change in the world. The greatest and most positive changes we've seen were the result of capitalism. You'll never see communism achieve anywhere near the same successes, because when you take away profit and investment you have no leverage with which to develop motivation and innovation. The pace of discovery and innovation will always be higher under capitalism than if we abandon capitalism and force everyone into self-organizing cooperatives. That's why self-organizing cooperatives aren't cropping up and succeeding on their own.</quote> FFS.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:34:09 PM #133:	yall are watching too much fucking star trek --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891302675] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>yall are watching too much fucking star trek</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 11/29/17 9:35:26 PM #134:	FLUFFYGERM posted... yall are watching too much fucking star trek Uhh did I miss the response you're directing this at or is it just a stupid statement? --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:891302734] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>yall are watching too much fucking star trek</quote> Uhh did I miss the response you're directing this at or is it just a stupid statement?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#135	Post #135 was unavailable or deleted.
courier_nv 11/29/17 9:40:30 PM #136:	nah technological growth is actually stagnating now. it was really just the industrial revolutions that kickstarted things and now we've slowed down. but hey. muh cordless iphone <cite>courier_nv posted [p:891303024] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>nah technological growth is actually stagnating now. it was really just the industrial revolutions that kickstarted things and now we've slowed down. but hey. muh cordless iphone</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:44:26 PM #137:	Godnorgosh posted... Again, I would argue that whether the company survives hinges more on what the companies it's competing against are doing rather than whether that company relies on shareholders. If other companies like Tesla have certain leverage, obviously companies in direct competition without that leverage will have a harder time. But that doesn't entail the conclusion that investment is necessary in order for a company doing the same things as Tesla to exist. Okay, so if survival depends on what the competition is doing rather than reliance on shareholders, surely we should've seen self-organizing laborers forming collectives and succeeding in spite of capitalism, right? Where are they? And if investment isn't necessary for a company doing the same things as Tesla to exist...well then, where are the other companies doing those things? The ones that don't have investors and shareholders. Godnorgosh posted... "Forced cooperative" is an oxymoron. Cooperatives are voluntary; they are made up of people with common interests working toward a common goal. The other question you have to take into consideration, even if it's true that capitalism (for example) advances technology at a more rapid pace, is whether it's really worth giving up workers' rights and a society which values the common interests of people more than the accumulation of profit by a few. It is an oxymoron, yet that's historically the only way cooperatives have ever existed. Hard socialist regimes have employed force in order to have complicit populations LOL. And I think your hypothetical is ignoring reality. Capitalism and the pursuit of profit have never been grander than over the last few hundred years, and in this time we've advanced as a species. Tremendous advancements have been made in every area of life. The poorest American has a better live than the nobility from the ancient world. And the poorest Indians and Africans are seeing faster growth and wealth development than under any other system in history. I don't think profit and rights are mutually exclusive. If anything profit enables the protection of rights. If there was no profit to be earned from property, for example, no one would care for it and the government would be free to seize it from us. But since it's profitable to many and valuable to all, property is protected through property rights. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891303250] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>Again, I would argue that whether the company survives hinges more on what the companies it's competing against are doing rather than whether that company relies on shareholders. If other companies like Tesla have certain leverage, obviously companies in direct competition without that leverage will have a harder time. But that doesn't entail the conclusion that investment is necessary in order for a company doing the same things as Tesla to exist. </quote> Okay, so if survival depends on what the competition is doing rather than reliance on shareholders, surely we should've seen self-organizing laborers forming collectives and succeeding in spite of capitalism, right? Where are they? And if investment isn't necessary for a company doing the same things as Tesla to exist...well then, where are the other companies doing those things? The ones that don't have investors and shareholders. <cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>"Forced cooperative" is an oxymoron. Cooperatives are voluntary; they are made up of people with common interests working toward a common goal. The other question you have to take into consideration, even if it's true that capitalism (for example) advances technology at a more rapid pace, is whether it's really worth giving up workers' rights and a society which values the common interests of people more than the accumulation of profit by a few. </quote> It is an oxymoron, yet that's historically the only way cooperatives have ever existed. Hard socialist regimes have employed force in order to have complicit populations LOL. And I think your hypothetical is ignoring reality. Capitalism and the pursuit of profit have never been grander than over the last few hundred years, and in this time we've advanced as a species. Tremendous advancements have been made in every area of life. The poorest American has a better live than the nobility from the ancient world. And the poorest Indians and Africans are seeing faster growth and wealth development than under any other system in history. I don't think profit and rights are mutually exclusive. If anything profit enables the protection of rights. If there was no profit to be earned from property, for example, no one would care for it and the government would be free to seize it from us. But since it's profitable to many and valuable to all, property is protected through property rights.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:44:46 PM #138:	courier_nv posted... nah technological growth is actually stagnating now. it was really just the industrial revolutions that kickstarted things and now we've slowed down. nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891303259] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>courier_nv posted...</cite> <quote>nah technological growth is actually stagnating now. it was really just the industrial revolutions that kickstarted things and now we've slowed down. </quote> nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
courier_nv 11/29/17 9:46:24 PM #139:	FLUFFYGERM posted... nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution. I severely doubt that but we will see. <cite>courier_nv posted [p:891303347] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution.</quote> I severely doubt that but we will see.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Naysaspace 11/29/17 9:47:30 PM #140:	courier_nv posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution. I severely doubt that but we will see. The way they teach this stuff in school makes it seem like it happened overnight. Industrial revolution was decades. We are in the midst of the technological revolution <cite>Naysaspace posted [p:891303407] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>courier_nv posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution.</quote> I severely doubt that but we will see.</quote> The way they teach this stuff in school makes it seem like it happened overnight. Industrial revolution was decades. We are in the midst of the technological revolution</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:47:52 PM #141:	courier_nv posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution. I severely doubt that but we will see. Why? --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891303431] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>courier_nv posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>nope, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution greater even than the industrial revolution.</quote> I severely doubt that but we will see.</quote> Why?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
courier_nv 11/29/17 9:50:29 PM #142:	because people have been saying that for decades at this point. ill believe it when i see it. <cite>courier_nv posted [p:891303561] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>because people have been saying that for decades at this point. ill believe it when i see it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 9:51:38 PM #143:	courier_nv posted... because people have been saying that for decades at this point. ill believe it when i see it. In the last ten years we've seen tremendous advancements in telecommunications, space travel, medicine, computation, etc. And it's just beginning. We've only started tapping into the latest and most powerful machine learning techniques. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891303626] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>courier_nv posted...</cite> <quote>because people have been saying that for decades at this point. ill believe it when i see it.</quote> In the last ten years we've seen tremendous advancements in telecommunications, space travel, medicine, computation, etc. And it's just beginning. We've only started tapping into the latest and most powerful machine learning techniques.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#144	Post #144 was unavailable or deleted.
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 10:06:15 PM #145:	Godnorgosh posted... They don't exist, because they live in a society in which they have to work for a wage in order to survive. The companies like Tesla don't exist because Tesla has competitive leverage that they don't have. Again, you're relying on inductive reasoning here, and it's not working out for you because it presupposes capitalist conditions. Tesla gives out their patents for free. If you agree that they have leverage, then you must also agree that the leverage was necessary for them to thrive and change the world. Hence leverage (IE profit/shareholders/investors) was necessary. What society could and would they exist in, by the way? Godnorgosh posted... But cooperatives haven't existed, if that's the case. By definition, a society relying on forced labor isn't cooperative, so you're already talking about a completely different sort of arrangement. And it will never exist. Godnorgosh posted... Marx agrees with you. I don't know anyone who denies that life now is overall better than it was in the ancient world, if for no other reason than the insane medical and technological advancements humanity has achieved since then. But that obviously doesn't mean capitalism doesn't have its own baggage that needs to be addressed so that we can advance even further. Marx died in the 1800s and could've never envisioned what this day and age would be like lol. It's almost like he's your Jesus or something. Anyway, those medical and technological advancements are thanks to profit and capitalism. And the only better system will be the technological utopia ushered in by capitalism. Which is very different from communism. Godnorgosh posted... Instead, we have a situation in which private entities are perpetually seizing land and resources from the commons to utilize for the sake of profit. And it's killing the planet, honestly. A stateless society without profit is optimal because it eschews both of these scenarios. A stateless society is a paradox. It is a contradiction. A society without profit is feudalism / the stone age. Profit is what enables the greatest number of people to thrive and have better lives. Prove me wrong. Here's some proof that investment is the most powerful leverage we have for effecting change in the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSkQa1tNmE Utterly fascinating video. You should watch it all. The TL;DR is that wind and solar are the cheapest energy forms now. Solar is the cheapest even without subsidies. We can thank the market and investment for that. Tesla/Solar City/ etc went into the game to seek profit by disrupting the industry. So did other companies. And soon we'll have the solution for the climate. Nestle sucking up public water is not capitalism. It's an egregious offense that capitalists should denounce. --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891304411] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>They don't exist, because they live in a society in which they have to work for a wage in order to survive. The companies like Tesla don't exist because Tesla has competitive leverage that they don't have. Again, you're relying on inductive reasoning here, and it's not working out for you because it presupposes capitalist conditions. </quote> Tesla gives out their patents for free. If you agree that they have leverage, then you must also agree that the leverage was necessary for them to thrive and change the world. Hence leverage (IE profit/shareholders/investors) was necessary. What society could and would they exist in, by the way? <cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>But cooperatives haven't existed, if that's the case. By definition, a society relying on forced labor isn't cooperative, so you're already talking about a completely different sort of arrangement. </quote> And it will never exist. <cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>Marx agrees with you. I don't know anyone who denies that life now is overall better than it was in the ancient world, if for no other reason than the insane medical and technological advancements humanity has achieved since then. But that obviously doesn't mean capitalism doesn't have its own baggage that needs to be addressed so that we can advance even further. </quote> Marx died in the 1800s and could've never envisioned what this day and age would be like lol. It's almost like he's your Jesus or something. Anyway, those medical and technological advancements are thanks to profit and capitalism. And the only better system will be the technological utopia ushered in by capitalism. Which is very different from communism. <cite>Godnorgosh posted...</cite> <quote>Instead, we have a situation in which private entities are perpetually seizing land and resources from the commons to utilize for the sake of profit. And it's killing the planet, honestly. A stateless society without profit is optimal because it eschews both of these scenarios. </quote> A stateless society is a paradox. It is a contradiction. A society without profit is feudalism / the stone age. Profit is what enables the greatest number of people to thrive and have better lives. Prove me wrong. Here's some proof that investment is the most powerful leverage we have for effecting change in the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSkQa1tNmE Utterly fascinating video. You should watch it all. The TL;DR is that wind and solar are the cheapest energy forms now. Solar is the cheapest even without subsidies. We can thank the market and investment for that. Tesla/Solar City/ etc went into the game to seek profit by disrupting the industry. So did other companies. And soon we'll have the solution for the climate. Nestle sucking up public water is not capitalism. It's an egregious offense that capitalists should denounce.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 10:07:05 PM #146:	@Tmaster148 do you see now that it's not just me calling them communists --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891304455] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>@Tmaster148 do you see now that it's not just me calling them communists</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 11/29/17 10:07:55 PM #147:	@Godnorgosh How would a stateless society without profit come into existence? Who would do the work that needs to be done and why would they do it? How would you ensure innovation and rapid technological advancement in a society such as that one? How would the means of production be controlled fairly and equitably across the collective? --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:891304507] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>@Godnorgosh How would a stateless society without profit come into existence? Who would do the work that needs to be done and why would they do it? How would you ensure innovation and rapid technological advancement in a society such as that one? How would the means of production be controlled fairly and equitably across the collective?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 11/29/17 10:12:48 PM #148:	@FLUFFYGERM it's amazing you feel the need to mention Marx died in the 1800s and couldn't envision what we'd become while failing to realize that capatlism wasn't started within the last decade... Ridiculous. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:891304770] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>@FLUFFYGERM it's amazing you feel the need to mention Marx died in the 1800s and couldn't envision what we'd become while failing to realize that capatlism wasn't started within the last decade... Ridiculous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/29/17 10:12:53 PM #149:	FLUFFYGERM posted... How would a stateless society without profit come into existence? Who would do the work that needs to be done and why would they do it? How would you ensure innovation and rapid technological advancement in a society such as that one? How would the means of production be controlled fairly and equitably across the collective? Not impossible, but with an extreme risk of decaying into tribalism (then feudalism) very rapidly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891304777] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>How would a stateless society without profit come into existence? Who would do the work that needs to be done and why would they do it? How would you ensure innovation and rapid technological advancement in a society such as that one? How would the means of production be controlled fairly and equitably across the collective?</quote> Not impossible, but with an extreme risk of decaying into tribalism (then feudalism) very rapidly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeeak4444 11/29/17 10:14:39 PM #150:	Let me ask you this instead. If capatalism is perfect why do you support UBI? While it would likely strengthen capatalism the reason why it would is because capatalism is unsustainable the way we're progressing. You're pretty much trying to redefine capatlism while at the same time making arguments that its current form is perfect. --- Typical gameFAQers are "Complainers that always complain about those who complain about real legitimate complaints."-Joker_X <cite>Zeeak4444 posted [p:891304881] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote>Let me ask you this instead. If capatalism is perfect why do you support UBI? While it would likely strengthen capatalism the reason why it would is because capatalism is unsustainable the way we're progressing. You're pretty much trying to redefine capatlism while at the same time making arguments that its current form is perfect.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 11/29/17 10:16:52 PM #151:	Zeeak4444 posted... Let me ask you this instead. If capatalism is perfect why do you support UBI? I don't think Proud is quite enough of fanboy to believe capitalism is all unicorns and rainbows, but let's find out... <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:891305010] in Major Corp... [t:76043731]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote>Let me ask you this instead. If capatalism is perfect why do you support UBI? </quote> I don't think Proud is quite enough of fanboy to believe capitalism is all unicorns and rainbows, but let's find out...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Major Corporations say they will turn most gains from tax cuts to shareholders (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Major Corporations say they will turn most gains from tax cuts to shareholders