People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

That makes a very big assumption that those protesting at what they perceive to be an injustice are all lazy. Also, as has already been pointed out, as inequality increases the oppotunities for people to improve their positions declines.

So the movements personified by the likes of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela shouldn't have protested? They should have just tried to improve themselves as individuals and left other individuals to try to do the same? Every man for himself?

---

Well if you are protesting about your financial position instead of trying to improve it, then yes, you are lazy in my book. Protesting about financial situations/inequalities fails to achieve anything in 99% of cases I have seen and only causes unneccessary disruptions to the rest of us whi actually do something with our lives.

Protests about racial abuse, segregation such as Apartheid etc are justified in my book and I am all for that sort of unhappiness. But I am firmly against people protesting that they want more just because others have more or they want the rich to hand over their hard earned efforts to people who have not earned it :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

the rich to hand over their hard earned efforts

---

I dispute this most heavily. The vast bulk of rich people didn't EARN it. They were either paid wages according to the forces of market forces (which is quite apart from actually earning the wage), or they accumulated wealth through investment, which means other people earnt the money for them.

Despite vast productivity gains by most wage earners, the average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978. Yet since 1978, a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11. The rewards from actually working hard and earning it have not been equal at all.

There is a very real disconnect between what people earn and what they are paid. It seems to be a tremendous lie of the right to refuse to separate the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Despite vast productivity gains by most wage earners, the average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978. Yet since 1978, a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11. The rewards from actually working hard and earning it have not been equal at all.

---

That's the key point. It's not "lazy" people being "jealous" of those who earn more. It's a fundamental economic inequality, just as protests against racial inequality were against a social inequality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I dispute this most heavily. The vast bulk of rich people didn't EARN it. They were either paid wages according to the forces of market forces (which is quite apart from actually earning the wage), or they accumulated wealth through investment, which means other people earnt the money for them.

Despite vast productivity gains by most wage earners, the average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978. Yet since 1978, a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11. The rewards from actually working hard and earning it have not been equal at all.

There is a very real disconnect between what people earn and what they are paid. It seems to be a tremendous lie of the right to refuse to separate the two.

---

So these CEO's who worked their way up to the top of the ladder and placed themselves in the right positions don't deserve their salaries? And this is because their salaries are not on par with the salaries of the lower rung workers who don't make it up to the top of the ladder?

So help me here...are we now saying stop rewarding excellence more for their efforts and start rewarding mediocrity the same as excellence? I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with that :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

That's the key point. It's not "lazy" people being "jealous" of those who earn more. It's a fundamental economic inequality, just as protests against racial inequality were against a social inequality.

---

What about CEO's who risked their homes, cars, families etc when starting their businesses by taking out loans, selling or bonding their houses, who keep companies going even in tough economic times, who stress about where the next dollar to pay the bills is going to come from etc etc? Is it not fair that they earn a higher increasing salary "percentage" to the worker who risks nothing at all?

Just curious since many here claim that the major factor in all of this is "equality" or equal opportunity.....

Just how far does this utopian concept reach? Is it equality only within large developed countries seeking "fair and just" wages and standard of living for all workers, or does this equality have a global reach?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

What about CEO's who risked their homes, cars, families etc when starting their businesses by taking out loans, selling or bonding their houses, who keep companies going even in tough economic times, who stress about where the next dollar to pay the bills is going to come from etc etc? Is it not fair that they earn a higher increasing salary "percentage" to the worker who risks nothing at all?

---

No-one here is arguing for equal wages. Of course different roles attract different salaries and that is fair. What's not fair is that, as Rollo pointed out, an average real wage has gone nowhere since 1978 while a CEO is now likely to earn 475 times that of the average worker whereas in 1978 it was only 11 times. How is that justifiable? The roles haven't changed but the salary gap has. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Maybe you can't but people smarter than you can.

---

Than you shouldn't even be dreaming about it. :rotflmao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

So these CEO's who worked their way up to the top of the ladder and placed themselves in the right positions don't deserve their salaries? And this is because their salaries are not on par with the salaries of the lower rung workers who don't make it up to the top of the ladder?

So help me here...are we now saying stop rewarding excellence more for their efforts and start rewarding mediocrity the same as excellence? I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with that :)

---

I can't make a blind person see. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

They do not and never have.
They complain about illegal aliens.
I think you are smart enough to know the difference.

---

If he was smart he wouldn't be an ultra-leftwinger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

I managed to do it. And it was not easy! Believe me, it sucked, but I did it. So what's the excuse now :)

---

Again, so what? I doubt, with all due respect, that your life and career progression are in any sense exceptional. That isn't meant in a rude way, quite genuinely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

When the German war machine was flying over Britain to bomb the cr@p out of it during the second world war, did the British say "...well we are f@#$*# so lets go home", or did they do something about it? Even when all hope seems lost, there is a way if there is a will.

---

People behave rather differently in times of war. (To all the Americans reading this, you have not, incidentally, been at war on home soil since 2001, despite what you may have been told, so this statement does not apply to you.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

For anyone, anyone who is not simply too young to know, to not know that people were not paid almost twenty dollars an hour in 1965, or that that amount could even BE ANYWHERE NEAR the average.
That person is either a moron, or has serious mental health problems.

---

Pots, kettles...

The alternative is that they could just have made an incorrect calculation. Why not go to the body whose figures were quoted and point out the error of their ways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

Protests about racial abuse, segregation such as Apartheid etc are justified in my book and I am all for that sort of unhappiness.

---

Do you mind me asking: are you South African yourself, and if so, what is the colour of your skin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I dispute this most heavily. The vast bulk of rich people didn't EARN it. They were either paid wages according to the forces of market forces (which is quite apart from actually earning the wage),.

---

No. Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

or they accumulated wealth through investment, which means other people earnt the money for them.

---

Again you fail at basic economics. It was the investments that allowed the "Other people" to work by creating the opportunity. The investor deserves every dime. They used their money. They did the homework. They took the risk.

The "other people", as you call them, invested nothing and in a free market are paid exactly what their labor is worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

So these CEO's who worked their way up to the top of the ladder and placed themselves in the right positions don't deserve their salaries?

---

Better that than a blind, slavish belief that those in positions of seniority are worthy of same, or an automatic respect for authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Better that than a blind, slavish belief that those in positions of seniority are worthy of same, or an automatic respect for authority.

---

Which is what Socialism promotes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

If he was smart he wouldn't be an ultra-leftwinger

---

Ultra-left-wing by your standards, Tony, but to anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-left-wingers here.

By the way, I wouldn't go throwing comments around about others not being 'smart' if I were you. The best-written posts here in terms of the standard of English used are not from the right-wing Americans, let's put it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

No. Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings

---

Market forces = plural. Therefore, 'market forces ARE'. Earnings = plural. Therefore, 'what are proper earnings', or, better, 'what constitutes proper earnings'. Clearly the hard-left education you no doubt believe I received in the British state school system was rather an effective method of teaching me how to write properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

There is a very real disconnect between what people earn and what they are paid. It seems to be a tremendous lie of the right to refuse to separate the two.

---

I deleted part of your post not because I do not think it is not correct in points, but a bit over simplified; although among those who pay is far above anything that could be considered "earned" by their work is actors and education heads.

The actors are the greatest hypocrites but the general populace is just too damned stupid to notice for he most part; whereas beyond that, what makes the head of universities and colleges WORTH hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
What do they do to keep college affordable for the average person and stop the curricula across the land from becoming political hack jobs?
Are they any different from the Wall Street people which the protest originally brought attention to?

That the occupy thing happened actually was necessary.

What it became is exactly what I thought it would. A dog and pony freak show for rich kids who have too much time and are given too much money by their parents.

If people who "earn" money were paid for the labor involved, then those who use shovel and swing hammers would be the ones earning the most. Not college professors who sit on their throne paid for by families struggling to keep their kids in college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Pots, kettles...

The alternative is that they could just have made an incorrect calculation. Why not go to the body whose figures were quoted and point out the error of their ways?

---

Rollo, pointed out a long time ago---- how that figure was arrived at, which was logical and fit his purpose to show how the two extremes have become way to far apart for the word greed to not be accurate to at least some degree.
For what ever reason, my computer cannot bring up that site, nor do I need to, as Rollo EXPLAINED how it was calculated.

Your responses are becoming redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Better that than a blind, slavish belief that those in positions of seniority are worthy (of)... automatic respect for authority.

---

I would say that those in government should not be given the above, as they are supposed to be employees of the citizens.

In corporations, should they be automatically be given said same- no; whereas if one does not like any forced false respect, then the one should either go elsewhere, or tolerate till one can leave, or perhaps try to force a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Ultra-left-wing by your standards, Tony, but to anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-left-wingers here.

By the way, I wouldn't go throwing comments around about others not being 'smart' if I were you. The best-written posts here in terms of the standard of English used are not from the right-wing Americans, let's put it that way.

---

To anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-right-wingers among the conservative politicians, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

That the occupy thing happened actually was necessary.

What it became is exactly what I thought it would. A dog and pony freak show for rich kids who have too much time and are given too much money by their parents.

---

Do you know anyone on the protests, Bob?

If not, if all you base your opinion on is media reporting, you are not truly qualified in this instance to comment with such certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I would say that those in government should not be given the above, as they are supposed to be employees of the citizens.

In corporations, should they be automatically be given said same- no; whereas if one does not like any forced false respect, then the one should either go elsewhere, or tolerate till one can leave, or perhaps try to force a change.

---

Fairly put, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

To anyone whose political compass is not absurdly skewed I see no ultra-right-wingers among the conservative politicians, either.

---

Not in Europe, certainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Which is what Socialism promotes!

---

No. It's Authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism can occur in both a highly Laissez-faire or a highly Socialist economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

So these CEO's who worked their way up to the top of the ladder and placed themselves in the right positions don't deserve their salaries? And this is because their salaries are not on par with the salaries of the lower rung workers who don't make it up to the top of the ladder?

So help me here...are we now saying stop rewarding excellence more for their efforts and start rewarding mediocrity the same as excellence? I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with that :)

---

Yes you are "saying stop rewarding excellence" because obviously if the average worker has made productivity gains, then the rewards of those gain should have by your logic gone to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Market forces = plural. Therefore, 'market forces ARE'. Earnings = plural. Therefore, 'what are proper earnings', or, better, 'what constitutes proper earnings'. Clearly the hard-left education you no doubt believe I received in the British state school system was rather an effective method of teaching me how to write properly.

---

I bet you got beaten up a lot in grade school. You are soooooooooo predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

No. Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings.

The "other people", as you call them, invested nothing and in a free market are paid exactly what their labor is worth.

---

Let's test the consequences of this:

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf
I know most of you won't read the report but here are the highlights:

For a typical 200 employee Wal-Mart store, the average pay of a sales clerk in 2004 was $8.50/hr, or $14,000. The Federal Govt's definition of the poverty line was $15,000 for that year.

As a result of Wal-Mart paying such poor wages, the Federal Govt for an 200 employee store paid on average:
- $108,000/yr in children's health care
- $125,000/yr in tax credits and deductions for low income families
- $42,000/yr in housing assistance

This means that the net result of Wal-Mart paying "exactly what their labor is worth" cost the US Taxpayer $2.5bn in lost taxation and transfer payments; yet at the same time they turned a profit that year of just over $8bn.

Just to make this absolutely clear, because you have said that "Market forces IS the final and only arbitrator of what is proper earnings" and that people are paid "exactly what their labor is worth", huge costs have been socialised when they could have very easily been covered by simply paying higher wages.
For someone who approves of free-market economics, it seems very strange that you want a socialist system to operate. Are you a communist in disguise?

Post #565

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

I now see we are running in circles - a dejavú all over again moment...

---

When I first discovered this thread, it was about 10 or so days in dormant status. And to think that I merely mentioned myself as being Marxist, a flashpoint occurred, and hey ‘presto-chango’ it took off. But hey, this is the People Power thread is it not? :crazy: :)




Post # 585

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

.... It's that view of the world which, in my view has to change. We simply cannot isolate ourselves in that way from our neighbours, or those halfway across the world whether we are individuals or governements.

---

:up: This is exactly what British economist Barbara Ward recommend in her international speeches and her works in writing. In order to establish global peace and tranquility, she suggested that the rich nations (us Westerners) or the ‘Northern Hemisphere’ as she referred it to, contribute to the less fortunate nations - most of which we exploited by one means or another - so that they would be able to sustain themselves and advance accordingly with us.

Which she was regarded as a distribionist, that unfortunately would be translated to, here in America at least, as communist. Though her principles were noble, they were subject to the liability of human nature, like that of communism. That of which I’ll explain in the following….




Post #600

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Tell that to the successive US administrations, some of which you will have supported, who have armed countries with which they soon afterwards have quite major fallings-out.

---

Indeed the pro-capitalists have ignored this statement, because it refers to the human toll. I have already brought this up before in one instance, so it’s fairly obvious that the subject is taboo - for obvious reasons I might add.

I must add that there was one peculiar statement, or so I feel, that you made and I wish to discover what it is that you meant:



Post #50

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Oh, there is no doubt that those advocating Communism do suffer from certain delusions way beyond those on other sides of the argument, I grant you…

---

This comment here I found to be a bit, shall we say judgemental.

On the point of clarification, I am a Marxist in the sense that I think Marx/Engels had some pretty good community-based ideas, though I would have to say that their utopian concepts were just that, concepts. As I ‘ve stated on this forum many times before, mankind cannot, in any shape or form be trusted.

Which is why from time to time, most particularly during the CP (Capital Punishment) debates and 2nd amendment debates as well, I would contest you and anyone else who continually brought up the “civilized nation” bit. Not once have I stated that those beliefs were delusional, though I certainly did imply that those notions were a myth, and in some sense, an ultimate oxymoron.

I know that communism won’t work, but it’s obvious to me, and you, and even chuck from what I detected from one of his posts, just on the principles of mankind’s innate characteristics; competition.

It’s the ultimate reason why communism won’t work, it is of course the same reason that civilized nations” will never emerge, and it is course why capitalism will crumble in such a form that it will eventually create a socialist society… or worse, economic genocide. Such as what occurred in Ireland during the famine, which Marx duly noted, and stated that at first the English were first dispensing of the Irish by means of Cromwell, whereas during the famine it was by means of cattle (on the land being sold out for commodity purposes).

So, I have to ask you, what is it that you consider more delusional?

1) those with genuine communist beliefs
2) those who believe in the notion of ‘civilized nations’
3) or those who believe in a destructive economic system, that is designed to sustain powerful, egocentric sociopaths.

I am quite sincere on this question, as I presume that you, like many others throughout the globe, know what is at stake; knowledge and the ability to recognize when freedoms are rapidly diminishing in this current age of data exploitation.

Post #44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

"psueo-patriotic"? Seriously? No, I just look at reality. Did I say everything was okay? No, just that communism is absolutely not the way to go.... The communist/socialist system by definition can not allow anyone to change station in life. Call me crazy, but I would like the opportunity to profit from my hard work. But if you would like to share your profits with me, feel free.

---

When Marx/Engels produced the Communist Manifesto in 1848, it was during a time when countries could respond to a threat from its’ neighbors in a reasonable amount of time, since most rail systems were still relatively in their infancy and mobilization of troops and equipment were for the most part transported by horse.

Since then instruments of warfare, most particularly during WWI, were rapidly improved to such an extent to it would not have been possible for a nation to completely conform to an ideology of communism without being vulnerable to a possible invasion of any sort.

Which explains why communism as Marx/Engels intended it to be understood, could not possibly be employed without some measure of a ruling class being involved in order to get the job done - should it be necessary. Hence the fact as to why Lenin, Stalin, Mao and such stayed power.

Translation: Marx and Engels had too much faith in mankind to believe that such a system could be implemented in one society (presumably Europe), let alone others.


Capitalism isn’t going anywhere - well, providing the fact that we don’t blow ourselves up to bits and pieces. Capitalism will survive, or so I believe anyways, on the grounds that:

1) we’re creatures of comfort. And in this day and age of digital nations, I think it’s fairly obvious.
2) national defense purposes
3) our species has an impetuous obsession with exploring the unknown. Which at some point, could get us into more trouble than it may be worth. One example being nuclear fusion. Another quite obviously would be the Voyager 1 spacecraft launched in 1977, with it’s Golden Record that contains pictures of the earth, information about us and the earth, and a navigation guide of some sort back to earth - bad idea. Real bad if something out there with more intelligence than us and perhaps not a cordial as well, ever discovered it.

Marx was right that capitalism would be an issue to be dealt with, it’s that he was wrong (so far) as to how it would end by means of a revolution. Well, maybe he was right about that after all, if you consider that we’re living in the era of technology revolution.

And there lies the problem. Technology. Steve Jobs might be gone, but Gates is still around, Ray Kurzweil is still active pushing AI (Artificial Intelligence), Trans Humanism, and Singularity. Combine that with Japan’s rapid advancements with robotics, and you got a increasing problem of the growth of automation. Automation that will eventually replace most workers to save on overhead costs.

Trust me, we’re going to see how popular capitalism is in the near future. Which means that our societies may have to make adjustments that most of us might not care for. The question is whether or not everyone is capable of getting on board with real world solutions. And that includes the global elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. It's Authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism can occur in both a highly Laissez-faire or a highly Socialist economy.

---

Actually a Free market/Laissez-Faire economy cannot operate under authoritative government. One the the basic tenants of the Free Market is that the Freedom of the individual over the state!

The freedom of teh individual over the state is a myth nowadays.

Maybe you meant the freedom of the corporations over the state, that is true.

This is interesting:

Quote:

---

Visitors found this page by searching for:
1965 production worker wage, aareagles people power, united states production worker wages 1965, ‎10 years ago we had steve jobs bob hope and johnny cash - now we have no jobs no hope and no cash ! blowjob, 1965 production worker hourly wages

---

Must have been a disappointment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I bet you got beaten up a lot in grade school. You are soooooooooo predictable.

---

Maybe the other children at whatever the British equivalent of 'grade school' is had better written English skills than you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The freedom of teh individual over the state is a myth nowadays.

---

As demonstrated by the anti-terrorist laws brought in by many governments including right-wing ones supported by certain individuals here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

... Must have been a disappointment.

---

Would have been even more dissappointing for that person if they read this entire thread, if not exhausting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Actually a Free market/Laissez-Faire economy cannot operate under authoritative government.

---

It may be worth your while to do some reading about Pinochet and Chile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

One the the basic tenants of the Free Market is that the Freedom of the individual over the state!

---

A free-market is one in which prices are determined by supply and demand. It has NOTHING to do with the "Freedom of the individual over the state". A free-market economy would be an unregulated one. They are different concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Tell that to the successive US administrations, some of which you will have supported, who have armed countries with which they soon afterwards have quite major fallings-out.

---

Sorry, I meant to bring this up earlier with my response to this same post of yours.

I thought this deserved attention - since we’re all shareholders here. As they say, 'Killing is our business, and business is good.’

The Arms Trade is Big Business

Quote:

---

1. That the armament firms have been active in fomenting war scares and in persuading their countries to adopt warlike policies and to increase their armaments.

2. That armament firms have attempted to bribe government officials, both at home and abroad.

3. That armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programs of various countries, in order to stimulate armament expenditure.

4. That armament firms have sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries.

5. That armament firms have organized international armament rings through which the armament race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another.

6. That armament firms have organized international armament trusts which have increased the price of armaments sold to governments.

— J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth II, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994

---

Don’t mind me folks, just tossing a little kindling on the fire to keep the place warm.

Now let’s see, what else can I bring up….? :devil: