Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Grumblenuts]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Sorry, can't sift your response through all that whataboutery. Are you saying you believe something other than government has been protecting you from being blackmailed?

Do you think government should protect you from being fired? Should refusing to employ someone be a crime? Should threatening to fire someone be a crime?

Try to focus, son:
"my premise" <-- you admitting you started this before launching into these transparent attempts at misdirection.

Should blackmail be considered a crime? Yes or No?
If "Yes," who should protect you from being blackmailed?
If "No," what would you rely upon if blackmailed? Vigilante justice?

 

[dblack]

Let's simplify this a bit guys, and just dispense with the word you're equivocating on. I'll amend my premise to: "Government should protect us from physical violence, or the threat thereof."

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Sorry, can't sift your response through all that whataboutery. Are you saying you believe something other than government has been protecting you from being blackmailed?

Do you think government should protect you from being fired? Should refusing to employ someone be a crime? Should threatening to fire someone be a crime?

Try to focus, son:
"my premise" <-- you admitting you started this before launching into these transparent attempts at misdirection.

Should blackmail not be considered a crime? Yes or No?
If "Yes," who should protect you from being blackmailed?
If "No," what would you rely upon if blackmailed? Vigilante justice?

Ok, you're confused and off track, or perhaps just trying to confuse, and steer the discussion off track. We were discussing george's inability to understand that business owners don't have the same kind of power as government. Government is authorized to imprison you, even kill you, if you defy its mandates. Businesses are not. Unless they merge with government. Which is what you fools are advocating.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ah, you finally admit to being equivocator in chief all along. Well done.

Meanwhile, who's going to protect you from blackmail?

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Sorry, can't sift your response through all that whataboutery. Are you saying you believe something other than government has been protecting you from being blackmailed?

Do you think government should protect you from being fired? Should refusing to employ someone be a crime? Should threatening to fire someone be a crime?

Try to focus, son:
"my premise" <-- you admitting you started this before launching into these transparent attempts at misdirection.

Should blackmail not be considered a crime? Yes or No?
If "Yes," who should protect you from being blackmailed?
If "No," what would you rely upon if blackmailed? Vigilante justice?

Ok, you're confused and off track, or perhaps just trying to confuse, and steer the discussion off track. We were discussing george's inability to understand that business owners don't have the same kind of power as government. Government is authorized to imprison you, even kill you, if you defy its mandates. Businesses are not. Unless they merge with government. Which is what you fools are advocating.

So whenever challenged by simple questions that threaten to expose your logic as flawed.. CHANGE THE PREMISE.. CHANGE THE ENTIRE SUBJECT!.. FLING MUD!.. RUN AWAY!.. Anything, just DON'T ANSWER!..
Yeah, big surprise!.

 

[dblack]

Let's skip the whataboutery and cut to the chase. It's not the government's job to protect you from being fired, or to ensure that someone will bake you a cake, or make them buy the insurance you think they should have, or whatever mandate you might have on mind.

Sorry, can't sift your response through all that whataboutery. Are you saying you believe something other than government has been protecting you from being blackmailed?

Do you think government should protect you from being fired? Should refusing to employ someone be a crime? Should threatening to fire someone be a crime?

Try to focus, son:
"my premise" <-- you admitting you started this before launching into these transparent attempts at misdirection.

Should blackmail not be considered a crime? Yes or No?
If "Yes," who should protect you from being blackmailed?
If "No," what would you rely upon if blackmailed? Vigilante justice?

Ok, you're confused and off track, or perhaps just trying to confuse, and steer the discussion off track. We were discussing george's inability to understand that business owners don't have the same kind of power as government. Government is authorized to imprison you, even kill you, if you defy its mandates. Businesses are not. Unless they merge with government. Which is what you fools are advocating.

So whenever challenged by simple questions that threaten to expose your logic as flawed.. CHANGE THE PREMISE.. CHANGE THE ENTIRE SUBJECT!.. FLING MUD!.. RUN AWAY!.. Anything, just DON'T ANSWER!..
Yeah, big surprise!.

Try to focus on the topic of discussion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder how Rudy's net worth has changed since '69?
And how much of the increase has come from assisting corporate criminals like Donald Trump?

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Welcome to America.

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

"Billionaires are made billionaires through a variety of mechanisms including inheritance, finance and real estate and ownership and / or control of business enterprises.

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

"If there is a lot of money, these have a lot of monetary value. In 2008, money was in short supply. Federal Reserve policies and the Bush-Obama bailouts flooded the world with money.

"This flood of money gave the assets and enterprises the rich own trillions of dollars in monetary value.

"Welcome to America."

Now you know.
Tell Trump,

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

Rich people have a biased worldview:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.' Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"...some simple algebra...show(s) that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

This world needs fewer rich people.

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"
​

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)​

​

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

 

[Grumblenuts]

We were discussing

"Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act"

Government is authorized to

Do whatever "We" the people authorize it to do. Government is ultimately us.

Businesses are

Licensed by government which is licensed by us. Businesses are our *****, so to speak. Yet many, including their owners, think and behave like they're somehow entitled to handouts and in charge! Especially billionaires! Imagine!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Try to focus on the topic of discussion.

Please do.

Should blackmail be considered a crime? Yes or No?
If "Yes," who should protect you from being blackmailed?
If "No," what would you rely upon if blackmailed? Vigilante justice?

 

[dblack]

Government is authorized to

Do whatever "We" the people authorize it to do.

Nope. You forgot the Constitution. There are limits on what the government is authorized do, regardless of what the majority wants. And that's a great thing. That means that even if the majority of voters want to bring back slavery, they can't.

Businesses are

Licensed by government which is licensed by us. Businesses are our *****, so to speak.

LOL - well, at least you're honest about what you want. Problem is, ultimately, everyone is their own business. What you want is everyone to kneel before the power of the state. No thanks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Government is authorized to

Do whatever "We" the people authorize it to do.

Nope. You forgot the Constitution. There are limits on what the government is authorized do, regardless of what the majority wants. And that's a great thing. That means that even if the majority of voters want to bring back slavery, they can't.

It would be difficult, but remains entirely possible. Never heard of Prohibition?

ultimately, everyone is their own business. What you want is everyone to kneel before the power of the state.

No. But thanks for playing.

 

[georgephillip]

I wonder how Rudy's net worth has changed since '69?
And how much of the increase has come from assisting corporate criminals like Donald Trump?

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Welcome to America.

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

"Billionaires are made billionaires through a variety of mechanisms including inheritance, finance and real estate and ownership and / or control of business enterprises.

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

"If there is a lot of money, these have a lot of monetary value. In 2008, money was in short supply. Federal Reserve policies and the Bush-Obama bailouts flooded the world with money.

"This flood of money gave the assets and enterprises the rich own trillions of dollars in monetary value.

"Welcome to America."

Now you know.
Tell Trump,

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

Rich people have a biased worldview:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.' Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"...some simple algebra...show(s) that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

This world needs fewer rich people.

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

Math is Fun

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

"All it takes is a perspective shift. Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'

"This is because employees are essentially treated as 'outsiders' in the narrative of corporate financial statements. Kelly proposes shifting this, so that labor and capital both become considered “insiders” – full-fledged members of the corporate society, each with a claim on its profits."

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Specifically, what is your point? Do you know?

Welcome to America.

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

"Billionaires are made billionaires through a variety of mechanisms including inheritance, finance and real estate and ownership and / or control of business enterprises.

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

"If there is a lot of money, these have a lot of monetary value. In 2008, money was in short supply. Federal Reserve policies and the Bush-Obama bailouts flooded the world with money.

"This flood of money gave the assets and enterprises the rich own trillions of dollars in monetary value.

"Welcome to America."

Now you know.
Tell Trump,

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

Rich people have a biased worldview:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.' Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"...some simple algebra...show(s) that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

This world needs fewer rich people.

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

Math is Fun

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

"All it takes is a perspective shift. Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'

"This is because employees are essentially treated as 'outsiders' in the narrative of corporate financial statements. Kelly proposes shifting this, so that labor and capital both become considered “insiders” – full-fledged members of the corporate society, each with a claim on its profits."

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

Shifting the variables doesn't mean employee income will increase.

Employee income is already much, much larger than capital income.

What is the proper rate of return to the owners? Zero?

"All it takes is a perspective shift. Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet. ​

​

Hold them on the balance sheet? Like they're property? LOL! No thanks.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'

That's because employee salary and benefits are an expense.
Expenses aren't put on the balance sheet, despite the common phrase, "Commies are idiots".

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Commies are idiots".

No, illiterate, name calling idiots are idiots. From the same link:

The solution is not communism. Communism aimed for equality of outcome, when the more proper remedy is equality of opportunity. By seeking to eliminate private property altogether, it eliminated incentive, which is why it didn’t work. The goal isn’t to do away with wealth, but to redesign a system that gives illegitimate power to wealth.

Part of giving illegitimate power to wealth is not having hard upper and lower limits put on personal wealth and for-profit market share. High time poverty, surfeit wealth, and money-grubbing monopolies were all outlawed.

 

[georgephillip]

Welcome to America.

Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy

"Billionaires are made billionaires through a variety of mechanisms including inheritance, finance and real estate and ownership and / or control of business enterprises.

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

"If there is a lot of money, these have a lot of monetary value. In 2008, money was in short supply. Federal Reserve policies and the Bush-Obama bailouts flooded the world with money.

"This flood of money gave the assets and enterprises the rich own trillions of dollars in monetary value.

"Welcome to America."

Now you know.
Tell Trump,

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

Rich people have a biased worldview:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.' Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"...some simple algebra...show(s) that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

This world needs fewer rich people.

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

Math is Fun

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

"All it takes is a perspective shift. Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'

"This is because employees are essentially treated as 'outsiders' in the narrative of corporate financial statements. Kelly proposes shifting this, so that labor and capital both become considered “insiders” – full-fledged members of the corporate society, each with a claim on its profits."

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

Shifting the variables doesn't mean employee income will increase.

Employee income is already much, much larger than capital income.

What is the proper rate of return to the owners? Zero?

"All it takes is a perspective shift. Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.
​

Hold them on the balance sheet? Like they're property? LOL! No thanks.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'

That's because employee salary and benefits are an expense.
Expenses aren't put on the balance sheet, despite the common phrase, "Commies are idiots".

Employee income is already much, much larger than capital income.

10 things Republicans don't want you to know about the fiscal cliff

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

If there is no money, these have no monetary value.

It's true, if you destroy the banking system....you'll hurt rich people.

Rich people have a biased worldview:

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.' Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"...some simple algebra...show(s) that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

This world needs fewer rich people.

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

That's a lie.

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

$10,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($70,000 + $65,000)

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

$70,000 + $5000 = $150,000 - ($10,000 + $65,000)

The rewritten formula hasn't changed anything. Why bother?​

Math is Fun

"Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

"All it takes is a perspective shift. Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'

"This is because employees are essentially treated as 'outsiders' in the narrative of corporate financial statements. Kelly proposes shifting this, so that labor and capital both become considered “insiders” – full-fledged members of the corporate society, each with a claim on its profits."

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"In other words, the company could just as easily be optimized to maximize employee income.

Shifting the variables doesn't mean employee income will increase.

Employee income is already much, much larger than capital income.

What is the proper rate of return to the owners? Zero?

"All it takes is a perspective shift. Kelly then talks about the fact that employees don’t even show up on the corporate balance sheet.
​

Hold them on the balance sheet? Like they're property? LOL! No thanks.

"That’s because employees are seen as an expense, not an asset, despite the common phrase 'our employees are our greatest assets.'

That's because employee salary and benefits are an expense.
Expenses aren't put on the balance sheet, despite the common phrase, "Commies are idiots".

Employee income is already much, much larger than capital income.

10 things Republicans don't want you to know about the fiscal cliff

Tax rates dropped for everyone.

Employee income is already much, much larger than capital income.