Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?

Even so-called "necessities" obey the laws of supply and demand. Everyone needs gasoline, so according to you the price should never go down. The truth is that oil companies only make about $0.05 on the dollar in profit. As we have seen in recent decades, the price goes up and down as market conditions dictate, so clearly your theory is bullshit.

Corporations can dictate prices only when government enforces a monopoly.
Corporations operate as cartels in many, maybe most respects. They don't need government collusion although it's a convenient tool if they can get their guys in power.

Bullshit. Cartels have been tried ever since the advent of capitalism. They always fall apart unless the government enforces them. OPEC is the classic example. When OPEC sets a price for oil it normally lasts less than a week before all the members start cheating on it.
Have you ever worked for a large corporation? I've worked for three - close enough to the top to see what goes on. I think you have some kind of an Ayn Rand fantasy about the 'free' market.

Every Job I've had is with a large corporation. I think you're an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about basic economics. You're man-in-the-street conception of economics only makes you look stupid.
If you've worked for large corporations, it must've been as a lackey buried deep in the bowels of them
Yeah, because we know you were in the boardroom.

What a dolt.
 
o your reply.

All great wealth come from taking advantage of the work force and the market. IOW, from taking advantage of people.

It is not a matter of redistribution from above to below. It is more of a matter of the filthy rich looking to the poor and paying their fair share.

There is a graph in the O.P. If you cannot see how it shows how immoral the socio economic demographic pyramid is, then you do not know how to read one.

Go back and educate yourself, please.

So I have a transmission problem. I bring it to your transmission shop and pay you fairly for the repair. How did I take advantage of you?

If I decide to buy a car, buy a house, hire a lawn care company, nobody is taking advantage of anybody else because all parties were in agreement.

So if I apply for a job, and the job pays X amount of money and benefits, the employer is not taking advantage of me by me accepting his offer; provided he or she lives up to their end of the agreement.

All great wealth does not happen by taking advantage of anybody. Great wealth is produced by manufacturing a product or service for a profit. That's it.

I think the discussion is on a larger scale than the local transmission shops, Ray. The really big guys. The Exxon valdez "spill". The company was given a huge fine, something like 5 billion. They kept that on appeal for like 20 years till they got the fine dropped down to a couple billion. The koch brothers, who finance presidential elections, pulled a great one. Steal oil off of government land for a few decades, get hit with a fine, appeal the fine down to about 10% of the original fine. Then they can probably write off the fine. This is why we need taxpayer funded elections but won't get them because our politicians would have to vote that one in and they won't do it.

That didn't work too well for BP after the Gulf oil spill, did it?

Aside from fines, you're forgetting that Exxon got sued for billions of dollars and had to pay for the cleanup of Prudhoe Bay.

Furthermore, what do environmental issues have to do with this?
I've visited Prudhoe Bay many times. I land nearby to sport fish. Only for salmon though. NOT for rockfish, lingcod or halibut.
Where the oil hit the beach there are STILL globs of crude oil under the rocks.
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL

Yes, if I could get the same quality labor cheaper, I would use it, but I can’t because I do not dictate the cost of labor, the market does. If I could sell for more, I would, but I do not set the sale price, the market does. That is the big picture. In a market economy, all things are adjusted by the market to the extent that government regulations allow. Prices and cost are not set by an individual company, nor an individual worker, nor an individual supplier. Have you studied economics at all, or better yet, open your own small business and you’ll get it real quick.
 
o your reply.

All great wealth come from taking advantage of the work force and the market. IOW, from taking advantage of people.

It is not a matter of redistribution from above to below. It is more of a matter of the filthy rich looking to the poor and paying their fair share.

There is a graph in the O.P. If you cannot see how it shows how immoral the socio economic demographic pyramid is, then you do not know how to read one.

Go back and educate yourself, please.

So I have a transmission problem. I bring it to your transmission shop and pay you fairly for the repair. How did I take advantage of you?

If I decide to buy a car, buy a house, hire a lawn care company, nobody is taking advantage of anybody else because all parties were in agreement.

So if I apply for a job, and the job pays X amount of money and benefits, the employer is not taking advantage of me by me accepting his offer; provided he or she lives up to their end of the agreement.

All great wealth does not happen by taking advantage of anybody. Great wealth is produced by manufacturing a product or service for a profit. That's it.

I think the discussion is on a larger scale than the local transmission shops, Ray. The really big guys. The Exxon valdez "spill". The company was given a huge fine, something like 5 billion. They kept that on appeal for like 20 years till they got the fine dropped down to a couple billion. The koch brothers, who finance presidential elections, pulled a great one. Steal oil off of government land for a few decades, get hit with a fine, appeal the fine down to about 10% of the original fine. Then they can probably write off the fine. This is why we need taxpayer funded elections but won't get them because our politicians would have to vote that one in and they won't do it.

That didn't work too well for BP after the Gulf oil spill, did it?

Aside from fines, you're forgetting that Exxon got sued for billions of dollars and had to pay for the cleanup of Prudhoe Bay.

Furthermore, what do environmental issues have to do with this?
I've visited Prudhoe Bay many times. I land nearby to sport fish. Only for salmon though. NOT for rockfish, lingcod or halibut.
Where the oil hit the beach there are STILL globs of crude oil under the rocks.
Apparently it's not hurting anything if you can fish for salmon there.
 
So I have a transmission problem. I bring it to your transmission shop and pay you fairly for the repair. How did I take advantage of you?

If I decide to buy a car, buy a house, hire a lawn care company, nobody is taking advantage of anybody else because all parties were in agreement.

So if I apply for a job, and the job pays X amount of money and benefits, the employer is not taking advantage of me by me accepting his offer; provided he or she lives up to their end of the agreement.

All great wealth does not happen by taking advantage of anybody. Great wealth is produced by manufacturing a product or service for a profit. That's it.

I think the discussion is on a larger scale than the local transmission shops, Ray. The really big guys. The Exxon valdez "spill". The company was given a huge fine, something like 5 billion. They kept that on appeal for like 20 years till they got the fine dropped down to a couple billion. The koch brothers, who finance presidential elections, pulled a great one. Steal oil off of government land for a few decades, get hit with a fine, appeal the fine down to about 10% of the original fine. Then they can probably write off the fine. This is why we need taxpayer funded elections but won't get them because our politicians would have to vote that one in and they won't do it.
This was Bill Gates' business model as well.

What the fuck are you even talking about? When did Microsoft ever have any environmental issues to contend with?
Goddamn, are you just trying to be stupid? Microsoft stole IP from a ton of sources and then used litigation to stall and reduce fines to a point where the theft was profitable.

What the hell is "IP?"
Intellectual Property. Aren't you supposed to be a software developer or something?
 
When a kid like Clarence Thomas rises from poverty to become a Supreme Court Justice how can you say that "government is a tool of the oligarchs"? Only the lazy and the truly ignorant or the political tricksters would believe such nonsense.

Follow the links I put, especially that 20 year report on what laws get passed and come back and chat. That link on inherited wealth is an eye opener as well.

Your comment on a judge who likely bought his election with bribes and kick back is of no importance to me as the quality of your judiciary does not seem to be the best because of your election process for the judges.

Regards
DL

Mr Canadian, you need to learn a bit more about the greatest country on earth before you speak out. We don’t ELECT judges. They are appointed.

Here is a link I suggest you read very soon, it will keep you from embarrassing yourself anymore.
FAQs: Federal Judges

Appointment: The state's governor or legislature will choose their judges. Merit Selection: Judges are chosen by a legislative committee based on each potential judge's past performance. Some states hold "retention elections" to determine if the judge should continue to serve.

To be chosen or appointed by a voting committee is to be elected by that committee.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Regards
DL

No, election and appointment are not the same thing. In fact, Canada does not elect judges either, they are also appointed. In some states the people can vote to decide if a judge is retained at the state level, and in some jurisdiction judges can be elected by popular vote, but all federal judgeships are made by appointment which then is approved by congress. Do you understand that, eh?
 
I think the discussion is on a larger scale than the local transmission shops, Ray. The really big guys. The Exxon valdez "spill". The company was given a huge fine, something like 5 billion. They kept that on appeal for like 20 years till they got the fine dropped down to a couple billion. The koch brothers, who finance presidential elections, pulled a great one. Steal oil off of government land for a few decades, get hit with a fine, appeal the fine down to about 10% of the original fine. Then they can probably write off the fine. This is why we need taxpayer funded elections but won't get them because our politicians would have to vote that one in and they won't do it.
This was Bill Gates' business model as well.

What the fuck are you even talking about? When did Microsoft ever have any environmental issues to contend with?
Goddamn, are you just trying to be stupid? Microsoft stole IP from a ton of sources and then used litigation to stall and reduce fines to a point where the theft was profitable.

What the hell is "IP?"
Intellectual Property. Aren't you supposed to be a software developer or something?
MS had several legal battles with other software vendors, among them was Apple. MS won some and lost some. In this litigious age there's nothing shocking or unusual about that. However, your characterization about what went on stems from a partisan motive.
 
This was Bill Gates' business model as well.

What the fuck are you even talking about? When did Microsoft ever have any environmental issues to contend with?
Goddamn, are you just trying to be stupid? Microsoft stole IP from a ton of sources and then used litigation to stall and reduce fines to a point where the theft was profitable.

What the hell is "IP?"
Intellectual Property. Aren't you supposed to be a software developer or something?
MS had several legal battles with other software vendors, among them was Apple. MS won some and lost some. In this litigious age there's nothing shocking or unusual about that. However, your characterization about what went on stems from a partisan motive.
They became one of the largest corporations in the world with profits in the tens of billions of dollars, largely by stealing ideas and technologies from others. The fines they paid were about $100 million. Profitable indeed.
 
What the fuck are you even talking about? When did Microsoft ever have any environmental issues to contend with?
Goddamn, are you just trying to be stupid? Microsoft stole IP from a ton of sources and then used litigation to stall and reduce fines to a point where the theft was profitable.

What the hell is "IP?"
Intellectual Property. Aren't you supposed to be a software developer or something?
MS had several legal battles with other software vendors, among them was Apple. MS won some and lost some. In this litigious age there's nothing shocking or unusual about that. However, your characterization about what went on stems from a partisan motive.
They became one of the largest corporations in the world with profits in the tens of billions of dollars, largely by stealing ideas and technologies from others. The fines they paid were about $100 million. Profitable indeed.

Bullshit. They became the largest company in the world by selling a product that people found beneficial to their business and their lives.
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL
Like all economic ignoramuses, you believe employers can dictate any price they like for labor. They can't. They can offer to pay $1.00/hr, but they will get no takers. The price of labor is governed by the laws of supply and demand, just like the price of any other product or commodity.

The competition for labor drives up the price until the point where marginal revenue is zero, which means paying more would reduce the capitalist's gross profit rather than increase it.

Before you pontificate further on economics, you should learn something about it.

You put a false belief in me then do your one-upmanship on the lie you first put.

I have no time for such childish practices or conversations.

Regards
DL
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL

Yes, if I could get the same quality labor cheaper, I would use it, but I can’t because I do not dictate the cost of labor, the market does. If I could sell for more, I would, but I do not set the sale price, the market does. That is the big picture. In a market economy, all things are adjusted by the market to the extent that government regulations allow. Prices and cost are not set by an individual company, nor an individual worker, nor an individual supplier. Have you studied economics at all, or better yet, open your own small business and you’ll get it real quick.

The three major voices in the economic world do not agree on how the economy truly works so brow beating by us amateurs is like p ing into the wind.

Supply and demand rule and all other factors have to kowtow to those. The best product, without a buyer is junk, economically speaking. Junk, if there is a buyer for it is gold to the supplier. Think pet rock.

If you have tracked the conversations, even here where economy is not the main issue, you will note all the irreconcilable positions between interlocutors.

Regards
DL
 
When a kid like Clarence Thomas rises from poverty to become a Supreme Court Justice how can you say that "government is a tool of the oligarchs"? Only the lazy and the truly ignorant or the political tricksters would believe such nonsense.

Follow the links I put, especially that 20 year report on what laws get passed and come back and chat. That link on inherited wealth is an eye opener as well.

Your comment on a judge who likely bought his election with bribes and kick back is of no importance to me as the quality of your judiciary does not seem to be the best because of your election process for the judges.

Regards
DL

Mr Canadian, you need to learn a bit more about the greatest country on earth before you speak out. We don’t ELECT judges. They are appointed.

Here is a link I suggest you read very soon, it will keep you from embarrassing yourself anymore.
FAQs: Federal Judges

Appointment: The state's governor or legislature will choose their judges. Merit Selection: Judges are chosen by a legislative committee based on each potential judge's past performance. Some states hold "retention elections" to determine if the judge should continue to serve.

To be chosen or appointed by a voting committee is to be elected by that committee.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Regards
DL

No, election and appointment are not the same thing. In fact, Canada does not elect judges either, they are also appointed. In some states the people can vote to decide if a judge is retained at the state level, and in some jurisdiction judges can be elected by popular vote, but all federal judgeships are made by appointment which then is approved by congress. Do you understand that, eh?

Do you understand that in any competition for a position, in this case a few competing judges, be the judging person on the committee a voter or a congressman, it is their votes that the competitors are after?

Those who do the appointing in fact vote for the one they prefer. Any other way of looking at this is semantics and playing with terms that are synonymous.

Regards
DL
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL
Like all economic ignoramuses, you believe employers can dictate any price they like for labor. They can't. They can offer to pay $1.00/hr, but they will get no takers. The price of labor is governed by the laws of supply and demand, just like the price of any other product or commodity.

The competition for labor drives up the price until the point where marginal revenue is zero, which means paying more would reduce the capitalist's gross profit rather than increase it.

Before you pontificate further on economics, you should learn something about it.

You put a false belief in me then do your one-upmanship on the lie you first put.

I have no time for such childish practices or conversations.

Regards
DL
In other words, you don't want to further expose your economic ignorance.

You're not as stupid as you first appeared.
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL

Yes, if I could get the same quality labor cheaper, I would use it, but I can’t because I do not dictate the cost of labor, the market does. If I could sell for more, I would, but I do not set the sale price, the market does. That is the big picture. In a market economy, all things are adjusted by the market to the extent that government regulations allow. Prices and cost are not set by an individual company, nor an individual worker, nor an individual supplier. Have you studied economics at all, or better yet, open your own small business and you’ll get it real quick.

The three major voices in the economic world do not agree on how the economy truly works so brow beating by us amateurs is like p ing into the wind.

Supply and demand rule and all other factors have to kowtow to those. The best product, without a buyer is junk, economically speaking. Junk, if there is a buyer for it is gold to the supplier. Think pet rock.

If you have tracked the conversations, even here where economy is not the main issue, you will note all the irreconcilable positions between interlocutors.

Regards
DL

Who are "three major voices in the economic world?"
 
Goddamn, are you just trying to be stupid? Microsoft stole IP from a ton of sources and then used litigation to stall and reduce fines to a point where the theft was profitable.

What the hell is "IP?"
Intellectual Property. Aren't you supposed to be a software developer or something?
MS had several legal battles with other software vendors, among them was Apple. MS won some and lost some. In this litigious age there's nothing shocking or unusual about that. However, your characterization about what went on stems from a partisan motive.
They became one of the largest corporations in the world with profits in the tens of billions of dollars, largely by stealing ideas and technologies from others. The fines they paid were about $100 million. Profitable indeed.

Bullshit. They became the largest company in the world by selling a product that people found beneficial to their business and their lives.
People found the technology that they stole to be valuable so they bought it. Microsoft should have been fined out of existence.
 
I find the 99% offensive, they hoard more wealth than all the pour countries combined. The 99% should have their wealth confiscated and distributed to poor countries. There have a done of your own medicine.
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL

Yes, if I could get the same quality labor cheaper, I would use it, but I can’t because I do not dictate the cost of labor, the market does. If I could sell for more, I would, but I do not set the sale price, the market does. That is the big picture. In a market economy, all things are adjusted by the market to the extent that government regulations allow. Prices and cost are not set by an individual company, nor an individual worker, nor an individual supplier. Have you studied economics at all, or better yet, open your own small business and you’ll get it real quick.

The three major voices in the economic world do not agree on how the economy truly works so brow beating by us amateurs is like p ing into the wind.

Supply and demand rule and all other factors have to kowtow to those. The best product, without a buyer is junk, economically speaking. Junk, if there is a buyer for it is gold to the supplier. Think pet rock.

If you have tracked the conversations, even here where economy is not the main issue, you will note all the irreconcilable positions between interlocutors.

Regards
DL

Who are "three major voices in the economic world?"

US Army, Navy, and Air Force :badgrin:
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL

Yes, if I could get the same quality labor cheaper, I would use it, but I can’t because I do not dictate the cost of labor, the market does. If I could sell for more, I would, but I do not set the sale price, the market does. That is the big picture. In a market economy, all things are adjusted by the market to the extent that government regulations allow. Prices and cost are not set by an individual company, nor an individual worker, nor an individual supplier. Have you studied economics at all, or better yet, open your own small business and you’ll get it real quick.

The three major voices in the economic world do not agree on how the economy truly works so brow beating by us amateurs is like p ing into the wind.

Supply and demand rule and all other factors have to kowtow to those. The best product, without a buyer is junk, economically speaking. Junk, if there is a buyer for it is gold to the supplier. Think pet rock.

If you have tracked the conversations, even here where economy is not the main issue, you will note all the irreconcilable positions between interlocutors.

Regards
DL

Who are "three major voices in the economic world?"

US Army, Navy, and Air Force :badgrin:
I don't think that's what he meant.
 
[

That’s silly. The market decides what the wages will be, not the employer or employee (government mandated minimum wage excepted). I own a business and employ contract labor. I can not dictate to my installers what I will pay them, nor can they demand what ever pay they want. There is a going rate for their labor set by the market, and I have to pay that price or something very close to it, and they have to accept that price or something very close to it. If I refuse to pay that wage, they will work for someone else, if they demand a higher wage, I will use another installer.

Hogwash. Look at the large picture and not your small one.

Buy cheap, sell dear is what those who buy and sell go by. If you could get cheaper labor, you would use it. If you could sell your product for more, you would.

A company that finds a product it can do that with does not pass down it's windfall to employees not does it give the buyer a break. That is were advantage is taken by the rich.

Regards
DL
Like all economic ignoramuses, you believe employers can dictate any price they like for labor. They can't. They can offer to pay $1.00/hr, but they will get no takers. The price of labor is governed by the laws of supply and demand, just like the price of any other product or commodity.

The competition for labor drives up the price until the point where marginal revenue is zero, which means paying more would reduce the capitalist's gross profit rather than increase it.

Before you pontificate further on economics, you should learn something about it.

You put a false belief in me then do your one-upmanship on the lie you first put.

I have no time for such childish practices or conversations.

Regards
DL
In other words, you don't want to further expose your economic ignorance.

You're not as stupid as you first appeared.

Bripat- we should not waste words with this clown. I am not sure if he is a troll or an idiot, but in either case he is hopeless.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top