Conquer Club

The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party and bought many other politicians to change the economic policies.

You hear it everyday from politician, we must reduce taxes on businesses, reduce income taxes, reduce and eliminate the capital gains tax. Deregulate and defund the government agencies that slow down and crimp capitalism.

What the Corporate world want is pure Capitalism, where the CEOs run the economy without interference from government oversight.

This has result in "trickle up economics" where the American worker is being squeezed to give away more of his salary and benefits [benefits? if you're lucky] and the CEOs watch their profit margins grow and their own salary and benefits grow astronomically. Funny heh? Republicans love to wave the American flags and hug the bible while their contributors treat the average American worker as disposable garbage.

We have seen companies like Whirlpool move from Michigan to Arkansas which is a "right to work" which means anti-union to increase their bottom line. Whirlpool is closing their plants in Arkansas and now have moved to the worker's paradise of China.

How treasonous is that? Profit over worker's rights and fair compensation.

Uh... trickly up economics would mean that the bottom was given money that would then trickle up.

Reagan began what we have now.. trickle down. Support the corporations and theoretically the jobs and money will flow down. Except, of course, it does not really do so.

And, worse, we get to pay for all the errors of the corporate mistakes.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Uh... trickly up economics would mean that the bottom was given money that would then trickle up.

Reagan began what we have now.. trickle down. Support the corporations and theoretically the jobs and money will flow down. Except, of course, it does not really do so.

And, worse, we get to pay for all the errors of the corporate mistakes.

That's exactly what I mean about "trickle up economics", where the many peasants give away their pennies and hand them to the few fortunate rich folks. Who would think that every year we give away [maybe we should call it charity] a few pennies more in tribute to keep our jobs in America, so the rich can become insanely richer and more powerful.

Remember folks, "Corporations are people too" so they have a Constitutional right to buy off our politicians.

GOD! bless America! YES, where the Republicans still tell all of us that America has the best healthcare system in the world!

GBU56 wrote:The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party and bought many other politicians to change the economic policies.

You hear it everyday from politician, we must reduce taxes on businesses, reduce income taxes, reduce and eliminate the capital gains tax. Deregulate and defund the government agencies that slow down and crimp capitalism.

What the Corporate world want is pure Capitalism, where the CEOs run the economy without interference from government oversight.

Many of the large businesses do not want this. Without the state-granted monopolies and beneficial regulations, the competition would destroy them. We've seen the beginning of this in the late 1890s to the 1920s. Read Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism.

Read about George Stigler's regulatory capture theory. Regulations are beneficial to a few companies.

You're mistaking "pure capitalism" for "crony/political capitalism." They're two different concepts.

GBU56 wrote:This has result in "trickle up economics" where the American worker is being squeezed to give away more of his salary and benefits [benefits? if you're lucky] and the CEOs watch their profit margins grow and their own salary and benefits grow astronomically. Funny heh? Republicans love to wave the American flags and hug the bible while their contributors treat the average American worker as disposable garbage.

We have seen companies like Whirlpool move from Michigan to Arkansas which is a "right to work" which means anti-union to increase their bottom line. Whirlpool is closing their plants in Arkansas and now have moved to the worker's paradise of China.

How treasonous is that? Profit over worker's rights and fair compensation.

A job is a contract, not a right. "Fair" compensation is totally arbitrary. Forcing companies to raise wages isn't fair to the employers who will find it marginally more difficult to compete profitably, nor is it fair to the consumers who eat the higher costs.

It's not fair that the unions in Michigan appealed to the government to force companies to raise their own wages. Doing so caused the company to move from Michigan to Arkansas. That's not fair of the union committee to do this to its members. Complaining against this move is not fair to the employees of Arkansas. The "it's not fair" argument cuts many ways.

If you think Democrats are the "people's people," then you're in for a rude awakening.

BigBallinStalin wrote:[img]Picture[/img]

I feel like doing math instead of actual work, so here are the incomes after taxes. The first set of numbers is if all income before taxes were divided into 100 units and then taxed.

Top 1: 10.71 (13% after taxes instead of 17)
2-5: 11.70 (14% instead of 15)
5-10: 9.68 (12% instead of 11)
10-25: 19.09 (23% in both examples)
25-50: 18.90 (23% instead of 21)
50-100: 12.74 (15% instead of 13)

After taxes, there are 82.82 units in peoples' pockets. Let's just say there are 82.82 billion for the sake of this experiment. Per person in a nation of 10 million gives us this:

Top 1: 3455
2-5: 943
5-10: 625
10-25: 410
25-50: 243
50-100: 82
1-100: 267

In other words, your graph is a lot of spin. You might say something about mobility between classes, which may or may not be a valid point (I see it as just another way of saying "well, there's disparity, but *points to the top income earners* there's disparity!). But I'm sure this wasn't in mind when you posted that.

There are good regulations and bad regulations, when it comes to a competitive standpoint.

In market where there are many regulations that raise the barriers to entry, power is concentrated inevitably.

GBU56 wrote:How treasonous is that? Profit over worker's rights and fair compensation.

Lemme ask you to solve a math problem.

You, having a job already, decide you'd like to earn some extra income by spending a few hours growing some tomatoes to sell. You buy a tiller, seed, fertilizer and all the things required to start your little garden. Adding in the cost of the water you use and ignoring the cost of your time, let's say the total out of pocket cost to you is $100.

After spending that money, taking all that time and effort, you end up with 100 perfectly good tomatoes.

How much should you sell those tomatoes for?
50 cents apiece?
$1 apiece?
$1.50 apiece?

How much?

The answer is, "For a profit" and no other answer is correct. If you go selling your tomatoes without recouping your cost, you will only serve to put yourself out on the street after squandering your money.

Simply selling to only recoup your cost, you waste your time. Might as well have spent time just hanging with your friends or family a little more instead of laboring in the garden.

If you ran a business and you paid a guy $10 a hour to make tennis balls. Each hour he is able to make 10 tennis balls. If you sell those tennis balls for anything less than $1 apiece, you won't be able to employ that person for very long, will you? That's not even taking into account the costs of the materials to produce the tennis balls.

Without profit, there would be no business, no worker, no production. The right of the worker does not include driving you the owner into bankruptcy. If you are unable to sell your wares at a higher cost than it takes to produce said wares, you'd quickly run out of money as sure as water runs down an open drain hole.

Anything that adds costs to producing, be it commodities, raw materials, regulations and anything else one could think to imagine, puts the workers themselves at risk of losing their jobs.

Without the prospect of profit, there is no reason to produce anything, no reason to employ anyone. Unless, of course, your goal is to give away every cent you have and end up homeless and hungry. If that's the case, then by all means, ignore the need and virtue of profit....

1. If i were operating a tomato farm that employed workers, I'd probably have them work in the fields instead of me. Employers rarely save the backbreaking labor for themselves. Which isn't to knock the hard work entrepreneurs do, most small-scale ones today are more laborers than the filthy rich capitalists the Republican Party actually cares about.

2. Corporations actually have the ability to lose money. It's called operating in the red, and while it's not sustainable long-term, it's pretty much unavoidable in the short term. Additionally, if I was going to try to recoup the cost of technological upgrades (new tiller) in each business cycle, I would have to price my tomatoes well out of the market. You take short-term losses for long-term gains.

3. I'm not quite sure what your argument is. Do you think unions take away the ability of owners to make profit? Never mind that most labor isn't unionized, and that we're still having an assault on the ability of unions to literally do anything. Do you think that employers generally pay laborers the maximum amount they can? If so, well, then there's not much I can do fer ya, besides recommend that you retake that management 101 class you liked so much.

GBU56 wrote:The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party

Only one? I see a couple of them.

patches70 wrote:How much should you sell those tomatoes for?
50 cents apiece?
$1 apiece?
$1.50 apiece?

How much?

The answer is, "For a profit" and no other answer is correct.

Actually the answer is "for whatever the market deems your tomatoes to be worth". You don't really get to decide what price you sell them for, your decision is wether you should continue making them or not given the market price and your costs.

Anyway, this whole argument is completely arbitrary, the problem being here:

How treasonous is that? Profit over worker's rights and fair compensation.

How do you define fair? That's actualy the heart of the argument.

spurgistan wrote:3. I'm not quite sure what your argument is.

OP rails against profits should not be held higher than workers. I maintain that without profits there are no workers.

spurgistan wrote:filthy rich capitalists the Republican Party actually cares about.

You should probably include the Democrat party if you were being fair.

spurgistan wrote:If i were operating a tomato farm that employed workers, I'd probably have them work in the fields instead of me

Totally fine. The workers wages are limited by what you can sell your tomatoes for. In fact, for what you could sell your tomatoes for you would not be able to pay your workers livable wages. This is something some people have trouble grasping, wages are limited to the value one can get for the effort of the laborer.

spurgistan wrote:You take short-term losses for long-term gains.

Absolutely, one would make a good business decision by taking losses in the short term for the promise of greater profits down the road. One just need have the cash on hand to make it through until then. It's a cost/benefit analysis. If the projected future earnings don't add up then one must forgo such upgrades or risk losing not only the business but the workers would also lose their jobs.

spurgistan wrote:Do you think that employers generally pay laborers the maximum amount they can?

Oh, there are plenty of jobs that have a "top pay". That's always based on projected earnings off of projected production the workers would achieve.
The maximum pay is determined by the amount of profit the business owner expects to make. The greater the profit, the greater the amount of pay that can be offered.
An owner has in his interest to pay as much as he can so as to get the best workers, especially if the owner is in the market for skilled laborers. Unskilled laborers, well, there are a lot more of them so the cost for employing them is less.
A burger flipper can be replaced easily by someone willing to flip burgers for less money.
A skilled electrician is another matter all together. Of the limited supply of such skilled workers where business owners are competing to retain said services, pay and benefits must rise.

For the worker's part, it is best to be skilled, productive and therefore being of greater value to the employer. The greater the value, the greater the wages earned will be.

Companies compete against other companies in the market share. At the same time, workers are competing against other workers for the limited number of jobs available. That's just a reality that some people like the OP seem to fail to realize.

And driving it all is profit. From business owners to workers, all are seeking profit. And there is nothing wrong with that.

spurgistan wrote:I'm not quite sure what your argument is.

You did notice the anti profit rant in the OP? If not, read it again.

patches70 wrote:

spurgistan wrote:filthy rich capitalists the Republican Party actually cares about.

You should probably include the Democrat party if you were being fair.

Without question.

GBU56 wrote:The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party

I assume you're referring to the Democrat Party, BA?

8 Largest Donor Sources - Democrat National Committee
Microsoft Corporation - $380,104
Goldman Sachs - $347,374
Time Warner - $334,485
Nix, Patterson & Roach - $318,800
Skadden, Arps et al ("Wall Street's Most Powerful Law Firm") - $302,287
Google Inc - $292,836
Susman Godfrey Llp - $263,600
Comcast Corporation - $253,304
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/cont ... 2&cmte=DNC

I never claimed to be fair.

I'd define fair compensation as that negotiated between collective labor and capital, both using the power of collusion to enforce compliance.not actually my ideal opinion, fair compensation is the worker getting back all the value the worker adds to the product. As I think I've mentioned before, I'm basically the Annoyed Peasant from Holy Grail.

saxitoxin wrote:

GBU56 wrote:The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party

I assume you're referring to the Democrat Party, BA?

8 Largest Donor Sources - Democrat National Committee
Microsoft Corporation - $380,104
Goldman Sachs - $347,374
Time Warner - $334,485
Nix, Patterson & Roach - $318,800
Skadden, Arps et al ("Wall Street's Most Powerful Law Firm") - $302,287
Google Inc - $292,836
Susman Godfrey Llp - $263,600
Comcast Corporation - $253,304
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/cont ... 2&cmte=DNC

5 Largest Pro- Mass Slaughter PACs
Boeing Co Democrat - $1,164,000 / Republican - $1,041,000
Lockheed Martin Democrat - $1,178,000 / Republican -$907,250
United Technologies Democrat - $622,000 / Republican - $471,500
BAE Systems Democrat - $418,500 / Republican - $326,000
EADS North America Democrat - $104,500 / Republican - $95,100
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

5 Largest Pro- Genocide PACs
Israeli National Action Committee Democrat - $242,850 / Republican - $117,336
Citizens Organized Democrat - $101,000 / Republican -$116,500
Californians for Good Government Democrat - $124,500 / Republican - $92,500
Alliance for Israel Democrat - $134,000 / Republican - $78,000
Republican Jewish Coalition Democrat - $0 / Republican - $176,500
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

Harvard University donates to the Democratic party? Weird.

GreecePwns wrote:Harvard University donates to the Democratic party? Weird.

employees of Harvard University

saxitoxin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

GBU56 wrote:The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party

I assume you're referring to the Democrat Party, BA?

8 Largest Donor Sources - Democrat National Committee
Microsoft Corporation - $380,104
Goldman Sachs - $347,374
Time Warner - $334,485
Nix, Patterson & Roach - $318,800
Skadden, Arps et al ("Wall Street's Most Powerful Law Firm") - $302,287
Google Inc - $292,836
Susman Godfrey Llp - $263,600
Comcast Corporation - $253,304
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/cont ... 2&cmte=DNC

5 Largest Pro- Mass Slaughter PACs
Boeing Co Democrat - $1,164,000 / Republican - $1,041,000
Lockheed Martin Democrat - $1,178,000 / Republican -$907,250
United Technologies Democrat - $622,000 / Republican - $471,500
BAE Systems Democrat - $418,500 / Republican - $326,000
EADS North America Democrat - $104,500 / Republican - $95,100
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

5 Largest Pro- Genocide PACs
Israeli National Action Committee Democrat - $242,850 / Republican - $117,336
Citizens Organized Democrat - $101,000 / Republican -$116,500
Californians for Good Government Democrat - $124,500 / Republican - $92,500
Alliance for Israel Democrat - $134,000 / Republican - $78,000
Republican Jewish Coalition Democrat - $0 / Republican - $176,500
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

5 Largest Wiretapping PACs
Qwest Democrat - $265,700 / Republican - $162,950
T-Mobile Democrat - $220,400 / Republican -$177,750
Cellular Trade Association Democrat - $176,000 / Republican - $135,000
Motorola Democrat - $191,000 / Republican - $116,500
Sprint Democrat - $138,500 / Republican - $118,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

spurgistan wrote:, fair compensation is the worker getting back all the value the worker adds to the product. As I think I've mentioned before, I'm basically the Annoyed Peasant from Holy Grail.[/size]

And you understand that this takes away every penny of profit, correct? All that is left is the bills for the building, energy and other business expenses. So basically, the business owner would have to give up all his money in the end and receives absolutely nothing.

Genius plan you got there.

I saw an OWS protester complaining on camera about how his company paid him $30 an hour running a machine and charged the customers $80 an hour (that was the base price of the stuff the guy was producing on his machine, the cost to the customer being charged at $80). He was complaining that he should be making that $80. I think to myself, "does he understand where the money to pay his wages, pay the electric bill to power his machine, the health benefits and all the other stuff comes from?"

A business owner cannot pay the worker the total amount of worth for the products being produced. Any business, large or small would quickly go straight out of business unless they have the ability to print unlimited amounts of currency.

Those who think business should pay fair wages. Start your own business and pay them those fair wages. Advertise such to the people who will buy your product or services so as to solicit their business. After all, everyone helping everyone is a good thing, right? Who cares that your product or service will be grossly overpriced. Who cares if you have to end up giving away every dime you have.

Unions, workers, business can all negotiate till the cows come home. The wages that can be earned is determined by the profits that can be realized after all expenses. No amount of wishful thinking or good intentions can get around this reality.

saxitoxin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

GBU56 wrote:The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party

I assume you're referring to the Democrat Party, BA?

8 Largest Donor Sources - Democrat National Committee
Microsoft Corporation - $380,104
Goldman Sachs - $347,374
Time Warner - $334,485
Nix, Patterson & Roach - $318,800
Skadden, Arps et al ("Wall Street's Most Powerful Law Firm") - $302,287
Google Inc - $292,836
Susman Godfrey Llp - $263,600
Comcast Corporation - $253,304
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/cont ... 2&cmte=DNC

5 Largest Pro- Mass Slaughter PACs
Boeing Co Democrat - $1,164,000 / Republican - $1,041,000
Lockheed Martin Democrat - $1,178,000 / Republican -$907,250
United Technologies Democrat - $622,000 / Republican - $471,500
BAE Systems Democrat - $418,500 / Republican - $326,000
EADS North America Democrat - $104,500 / Republican - $95,100
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

5 Largest Pro- Genocide PACs
Israeli National Action Committee Democrat - $242,850 / Republican - $117,336
Citizens Organized Democrat - $101,000 / Republican -$116,500
Californians for Good Government Democrat - $124,500 / Republican - $92,500
Alliance for Israel Democrat - $134,000 / Republican - $78,000
Republican Jewish Coalition Democrat - $0 / Republican - $176,500
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

5 Largest Wiretapping PACs
Qwest Democrat - $265,700 / Republican - $162,950
T-Mobile Democrat - $220,400 / Republican -$177,750
Cellular Trade Association Democrat - $176,000 / Republican - $135,000
Motorola Democrat - $191,000 / Republican - $116,500
Sprint Democrat - $138,500 / Republican - $118,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

Just to be fair, saxi, the Democrats have been running things for a while now. Of course they are going to receive the greater donations. When the Republicans take control then you'll see all that shift.

Just sayin' is all.

patches70 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

GBU56 wrote:The rich Corporate world in America has successfully bought a political party

I assume you're referring to the Democrat Party, BA?

8 Largest Donor Sources - Democrat National Committee
Microsoft Corporation - $380,104
Goldman Sachs - $347,374
Time Warner - $334,485
Nix, Patterson & Roach - $318,800
Skadden, Arps et al ("Wall Street's Most Powerful Law Firm") - $302,287
Google Inc - $292,836
Susman Godfrey Llp - $263,600
Comcast Corporation - $253,304
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/cont ... 2&cmte=DNC

5 Largest Pro- Mass Slaughter PACs
Boeing Co Democrat - $1,164,000 / Republican - $1,041,000
Lockheed Martin Democrat - $1,178,000 / Republican -$907,250
United Technologies Democrat - $622,000 / Republican - $471,500
BAE Systems Democrat - $418,500 / Republican - $326,000
EADS North America Democrat - $104,500 / Republican - $95,100
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

5 Largest Pro- Genocide PACs
Israeli National Action Committee Democrat - $242,850 / Republican - $117,336
Citizens Organized Democrat - $101,000 / Republican -$116,500
Californians for Good Government Democrat - $124,500 / Republican - $92,500
Alliance for Israel Democrat - $134,000 / Republican - $78,000
Republican Jewish Coalition Democrat - $0 / Republican - $176,500
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

5 Largest Wiretapping PACs
Qwest Democrat - $265,700 / Republican - $162,950
T-Mobile Democrat - $220,400 / Republican -$177,750
Cellular Trade Association Democrat - $176,000 / Republican - $135,000
Motorola Democrat - $191,000 / Republican - $116,500
Sprint Democrat - $138,500 / Republican - $118,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industr ... cycle=2010

Just to be fair, saxi, the Democrats have been running things for a while now. Of course they are going to receive the greater donations. When the Republicans take control then you'll see all that shift.

Just sayin' is all.

So you're telling me the "rich corporate world in America has successfully bought (two) political (parties)?"

The propaganda is in your head, and I am in your thread

patches70 wrote:

spurgistan wrote:, fair compensation is the worker getting back all the value the worker adds to the product. As I think I've mentioned before, I'm basically the Annoyed Peasant from Holy Grail.[/size]

And you understand that this takes away every penny of profit, correct? All that is left is the bills for the building, energy and other business expenses. So basically, the business owner would have to give up all his money in the end and receives absolutely nothing.

Genius plan you got there.

I saw an OWS protester complaining on camera about how his company paid him $30 an hour running a machine and charged the customers $80 an hour (that was the base price of the stuff the guy was producing on his machine, the cost to the customer being charged at $80). He was complaining that he should be making that $80. I think to myself, "does he understand where the money to pay his wages, pay the electric bill to power his machine, the health benefits and all the other stuff comes from?"

A business owner cannot pay the worker the total amount of worth for the products being produced. Any business, large or small would quickly go straight out of business unless they have the ability to print unlimited amounts of currency.

Those who think business should pay fair wages. Start your own business and pay them those fair wages. Advertise such to the people who will buy your product or services so as to solicit their business. After all, everyone helping everyone is a good thing, right? Who cares that your product or service will be grossly overpriced. Who cares if you have to end up giving away every dime you have.

Unions, workers, business can all negotiate till the cows come home. The wages that can be earned is determined by the profits that can be realized after all expenses. No amount of wishful thinking or good intentions can get around this reality.

If I really need to explain: my ideal plan doesn't involve capital being a separate class from labor. I know that in traditional class capitalism (worker cooperatives being an exciting development in rejecting class capitalism but still operating and competing within a capitalist system) workers can't expect to get the full value they add to products. But, in response to "given what is currently possible in the United States' political climate, what entails 'fair compensation?'" it involves conditions that aren't imposed on laborers due to phony "market conditions."

spurgistan wrote:If I really need to explain: my ideal plan doesn't involve capital being a separate class from labor. I know that in traditional class capitalism (worker cooperatives being an exciting development in rejecting class capitalism but still operating and competing within a capitalist system) workers can't expect to get the full value they add to products. But, in response to "given what is currently possible in the United States' political climate, what entails 'fair compensation?'" it involves conditions that aren't imposed on laborers due to phony "market conditions."

But, isn't it innacurate to say that the worker making a wrench produces the "full value" of the wrench? What about his use of the machines and electricity and all the other branches of the company that lead to that wrench being sold at the price it's sold for.
If he were to make the wrench in his garage it's quite unlikely he would produce the same "value" in the same time as he does at the factory.
It seems difficult to define "value" like this.
If the sales team managed to negotiate a contract with 10% higher price, did they produce that value?