Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[Cellblock2429]

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

/——/ Start a corporation and spend the money as you see fit, otherwise it’s none of your fu*king business.

 

[daveman]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Is it possible for you to express a coherent thought?

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Perhap$ the corporation$' lobbyist$ are writing the law$?
Has that thought crossed your "mind"?

Anyone seriously recommending Lenin has never had a thought cross their mind.

 

[peach174]

Why not stop all the pretense and just have The State take over all business?

It's already clear that you and Princess Lying Rug are Marxists, so just be done with it.

What's your problem with bringing democracy (not the state) to the workplace?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"With the Reward Work Act, the Accountable Capitalism Act is the second recent proposal to give employees a right to elect representatives on a company board of directors.

"The United States is in a minority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that gives no representation of the workforce in corporate governance.[2]

"The Bill's explanatory document states that it seeks to borrow 'from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies', by introducing that right."

That's not democracy it's forced big government socialism of management over a private company.

 

[georgephillip]

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

Remember, kids, all money belongs to the government, and government, in its great wisdom and benevolence, allows us to keep some of it.

ALL HAIL GOVERNMENT

Remember, kids, all money belongs to the government, and government, in its great wisdom and benevolence, allows us to keep some of it.

Who created your money, Wall Street or government?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

Remember, kids, all money belongs to the government, and government, in its great wisdom and benevolence, allows us to keep some of it.

ALL HAIL GOVERNMENT

Remember, kids, all money belongs to the government, and government, in its great wisdom and benevolence, allows us to keep some of it.

Who created your money, Wall Street or government?

Who gives a shit?

I earned it.

 

[daveman]

Why not stop all the pretense and just have The State take over all business?

It's already clear that you and Princess Lying Rug are Marxists, so just be done with it.

What's your problem with bringing democracy (not the state) to the workplace?

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"With the Reward Work Act, the Accountable Capitalism Act is the second recent proposal to give employees a right to elect representatives on a company board of directors.

"The United States is in a minority of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that gives no representation of the workforce in corporate governance.[2]

"The Bill's explanatory document states that it seeks to borrow 'from the successful approach in Germany and other developed economies', by introducing that right."

That's not democracy it's forced big government socialism of management over a private company.

YOUR POST MAKES BERNIE SANDERS SMILE

 

[daveman]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

Remember, kids, all money belongs to the government, and government, in its great wisdom and benevolence, allows us to keep some of it.

ALL HAIL GOVERNMENT

Remember, kids, all money belongs to the government, and government, in its great wisdom and benevolence, allows us to keep some of it.

Who created your money, Wall Street or government?

The government printed it. It's given worth by taxes, money taken from people who earned it.

You know government doesn't create wealth, right?

No. You don't know that.

 

[Andylusion]

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

How about stock buybacks that dilute the value of each share but provide executives with exorbitant bonuses? Do non-voting shares influence such perfidy?

A stock buy back, would benefit me and other stock holders. As the supply of stock goes down, the value of the stock goes up. A buy back does not dilute the value of each share. It would increase the value of the share. Again, basic economics 101. Supply and demand, determine price. If supply goes down, and demand stays the same, the value goes up.

What would dilute the value of the share, is increasing the number of shares, by selling more shares in the company, and the answer to your question is "yes". Common stock holders can vote to prevent selling more shares in the company, because selling more shares would dilute the value of each share.


As for executive bonuses: Bonuses don't pop out of the ground. They are typical part of the CEOs contract. Moreover, those bonuses are typical tied to the performance of the company.

If the company doubles in value, so that shares price double in value, is that worth a million dollar bonus? And the answer is... yes of course it is. I as a share holder doubled my money, and that's worth a huge bonus to me. Especially if the company is in financial trouble.

If I have $50,000 wrapped up in company shares, and I risk losing all my money entirely, do I want to hire a CEO to turn the company around, even if I have to promise him a $10 Million dollar bonus if he does it? Is that worth it to me? Sure. Because I'd rather end up with $100,000 in company shares, than zero.

Who are you to determine what is "exorbitant" or not? Do you own thousands on thousands of dollars in that companies shares? No? Then shut up. None ya business. Didn't you have parents that taught you that?

I'm a share holder in a number of companies. Having a CEO that makes those companies, and thus my shares more valuable, is a huge win for me. Yeah, I'm all for having bonuses.

 

[Andylusion]

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important. Politics as usual. I doubt getting them to pay up will be so detrimental that it breaks the corporation.

Yet, I do not believe we need another government agency needs to be created to watchdog corporations. We have agencies in existence now like the IRS and FTC.

Good article. I agree with a lot of what it is saying. A flat tax with no exemptions would put many lobbyists out of work. Stopping the hiding of profits offshore should be stopped as well. Yet, Congress after Congress continually fail to act, showing clearly that they are only representing those in corporate America and the rest of us are not important

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Is it possible for you to express a coherent thought?

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Perhap$ the corporation$' lobbyist$ are writing the law$?
Has that thought crossed your "mind"?

Stop voting for people who write those laws then. Why do you think I supported Trump deregulating? Less regulations that help the mega-corps, more competition in the market.

 

[daveman]

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Is it possible for you to express a coherent thought?

Ummm...if the corp is paying what the law requires, they're saying they're not above the law.

Perhap$ the corporation$' lobbyist$ are writing the law$?
Has that thought crossed your "mind"?

Stop voting for people who write those laws then. Why do you think I supported Trump deregulating? Less regulations that help the mega-corps, more competition in the market.

YOUR POST MAKES BERNIE SANDERS ANGRY

 

[Andylusion]

Her ACA would require corporations that claim the legal right of personhood to accept the moral obligations of personhood.
What's your problem with that?

Warren deciding what are "moral obligations" is a problem for me.

requires that directors have a duty to consider the interests of shareholders, employees (including of subsidiaries and suppliers), customers, the community, environment, and the long-term

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Every liberal who feels this way should definitely run their own corporations that way.
If they own 100% of the stock, they make 100% of the decisions.

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

 

[Yarddog]

You didn't answer why a senior after working for 40-50 years, should be required to stand on her feet for forty hours a week after retiring? Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Yeah, I kind of skipped over that, because it was a dumb question.

How about because they don't want to be homeless? Or how about because they don't want to starve to death?

Those seem like normal answers for why all people of any age, tend to work.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

But the real reason I ignored your question, is because it was irrelevant to the topic.

The average Social Security check is $1300 a month. That means 50% of all those on Social Security, get LESS than $1300 a month. In short, if you intend to retire on Social Security, then you intend to be impoverished until you die.

And by the way, the most likely way that they will "fix" Social Security, is by raising the retirement age. Again, you people seem to ignore a fundamental called "math".

Again, no system on the face of the Earth has avoided this problem.... the problem of "math".

Take Greece for example. The average pension in Greece is just $960 a month. Yet the Greek government, even with drastically higher taxes than the US, went bankrupt.

The idea the younger generation of workers, are just going to pay out so the older generation can be lazy.... is just simply not how life works.

My personal opinion on whether an older person should be required to work or not, doesn't matter. What matters is math. There is no money for old people to not work. Unless they want to be impoverished for life. Which is what we've seen.

Perhaps when you are a little older and wiser, you will understand?

Well, I doubt I'll ever get old enough to see your side of this argument, because I grew up in a family were work ethic was part of being a morally good Christian person.

My parents both continued to work into their 70s. In fact after they retired TWICE.... they still work. My parents have always been productive. Ironically now that they are both millionaires, they keep working. They honestly could hire people to serve them martinis on a beach for the rest of their life, and never run out of money. But instead, both of them are still working full time positions at different jobs even now.

So no, I don't think I'll ever get to the point myself, where I just sit at home, like a bloated leach on the butt of society, sucking away money from working people. I just don't see that in my future.

The only exception to that, would be if I literally am physically unable to work. And I have sympathy for those who are physically unable to work. My entire discussion asumes able bodied people. If you are able to work, I think you should, unless you are living off your own saved money.

Where did you get this idea that somehow you are owed money from other people? Answer that question. Since when are you owed anything when you don't work? No, you are not. You by virtue of existing... does not entitle you to other people's property. Sucking air, and pooping, does not mean that you are owed the money I earned.

We were discussing a senior who had already worked forty to fifty years. Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

Why would he or she be required to stand on their feet forty hours a week at Wendy's in order to avoid living in poverty?

in order to avoid living in poverty

Except that the poorest people in Capitalism end up on top. That's a statistical fact. More than half the people in the bottom 20% of wage earners, end up in the top 20% of wage earners during their life.

That's a statistical fact.

Meanwhile... you look at any country with an opposite system, and you see people are born poor, live poor, and die poor. But at least there is no capitalism.... right?

Thats a little fact they always want to ignore.

 

[Yarddog]

Who does most of the work?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Chapter 2: Lords of the Earth

"The Principle of Privilege:
Stockholders claim wealth they do little to create, much as nobles claimed privilege they did not earn.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations. Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?
If they are able, some of them might start their own company and get to do things their way.

Employees can buy stock then just like everyone else. Then they can work and they can claim wealth they do little to create .... both. See how that works?

What kind of stock? The version that comes with voting rights? Only one percent of the total value of equity on Wall Street is actually investment, i.e., new money going into firms. The remaining 99% is pure speculation. It's like buying a new car where the money goes to the car maker as opposed to buying a used car where the money goes to its previous owner.

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Again, you act like this is bad somehow. I had a friend that put a large down payment on a car, with the Walmart stock she purchased through the employee purchase program.

This entire discussion is absolutely stupid.

1. Non-voting stocks still have legal rights. You might not be able to vote on say who is on the board of directors, but most non-voting stock still can vote on things like whether the company can issue new shares. Things that directly affect the value of the stock, stock holders still have a vote on.

2. Non-voting stock still have legal rights to assets of the company. If the company were to sell off, non-voting stock still have a legal right to the companies assets. That has value.

3. Even with non-voting stock, they still have legal rights that can be used to petition the court to force a vote, if they have grounds the company is not being fair to common stock holders.

But here's the real bottom line... Non-voting stock is rare.

If *YOU* do not like non-voting stock, or stocks without dividends..... THEN DO NOT BUY THEM.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business.

Why do people like you, think somehow you know what other people should, and should not do with their own money? Mind your own business

People like my don't believe corporations deserve legal personhood without being subject to the same moral standards as human beings.

People like you are for sale to the highest bidder:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"Also, 'In the early 1980s, America's biggest companies dedicated less than half of their profits to shareholders and reinvested the rest in the company. But over the last decade, big American companies have dedicated 93% of earnings to shareholders - redirecting trillions of dollars that could have gone to workers or long-term investments. The result is that booming corporate profits and rising worker productivity have not led to rising wages.'"

Again, 401K are typically invested in stock. Union Pensions, and public pensions are typically invested in stock. Annuities and life insurance investments, are typically invested in stock.

Distributing money to shareholders is not a negative. WE are the shareholders.

And if you know that profits are being distributed to shareholders..... then go buy some stock, and be a shareholder.

Further, I don't even believe you. I looked up Walmart's Shareholder report just last year, and only about 1/8th of their profits went to shareholders. The majority of the money went into capital investments. New stores, renovating old stores, and marketing and such.

Lastly, profits rarely if ever results in rising wages. Nor should it.

Let's take a mom&pop restaurant.

They pay $10/hour to be cashier, and barely make $100,000 a year on the store.

That store can't pay much more than $10/hour, because the amount of money they bring in is just enough for them to make a decent profit from.

Now if they open an identical store elsewhere... the math is still the same. They are going to pay the cashier $10/hour. The new store itself isn't going to generate a higher profit, so they can pay the worker $20/hour to be cashier.

But the owners doubled their income. They are now collecting $200,000 a year.

Say they open 10 stores. Again, each store has identical math. The cashier is still going get paid $10/hour. But the owners with 10 stores, are generating $1,000,000 income. But the math at each store is the same. You can't pay the cashier $100/hour, because the owner is earning 10 times as much.

So the idiotic idea that worker pay should increase with CEO pay, is ridiculously idiotic and ignorant, and foolish, and the dumbest crap that the left-wing believes in. People who think that dumb, obviously have never run any kind of business ever.

Communists dont bother with little details like, how things work in an economy which is why communist countries only have one brand of anything on the grocery shelf if there is even that.

Great example! a communist would look at that and only see oppression, as the workers are only making 10 - 12 an hour. But they fail to take into account that the restaurant owners have now hired staff in every place they own. More people have work that would have otherwise had none, and in a country like the U.S. they are not fated to remain at that level. They can go to school and better themselves then advance. A communist as a damn small world view if you ask me

 

[Grumblenuts]

Children. Children? Thought about what a mess you'd make if all your fantasies could truly cum at once?

 

[georgephillip]

Many are in prison because they could not afford adequate legal representation. If you have a white skin, it is probably difficult for you to grasp the fact black and brown-skinned males (in particular) are often arrested with little or no evidence of any crime being committed.

They are then subjected to additional specious charges any competent defense attorney would easily defeat; however, public defenders don't have the same resources as prosecutors whose careers are measured solely by their "conviction" rate.

Defendants take a plea bargain only because they would rather serve five or six years in prison instead of fifteen to twenty years they would face if they went to trial on all charges leveled against them.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

Prove it. Prove that black people are sent to prison on little to no evidence. Prove it.
I actually know a public defender, and he was darn good at his job, and I never heard him complain he didn't have the resources to help people.

What's the caseload of your (alleged) acquaintance?

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"The United States criminal justice system is the largest in the world. At yearend 2015, over 6.7 million individuals1) were under some form of correctional control in the United States, including 2.2 million incarcerated in federal, state, or local prisons and jails.2)

"The U.S. is a world leader in its rate of incarceration, dwarfing the rate of nearly every other nation.3)

"Such broad statistics mask the racial disparity that pervades the U.S. criminal justice system, and for African Americans in particular.

"African Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, and they are more likely to experience lengthy prison sentences.

"African-American adults are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated than whites and Hispanics are 3.1 times as likely.4)

"As of 2001, one of every three black boys born in that year could expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as could one of every six Latinos—compared to one of every seventeen white boys.5)

"Racial and ethnic disparities among women are less substantial than among men but remain prevalent."

In a country founded by white supremacists, why would any thinking adult doubt the existence of racial discrimination in its criminal justice system?

I'm sorry but "why would any thinking adult doubt".... is not proof. That's assumption.

Further, statistics that show one person of any group, is less or more likely to be incarcerated proves nothing.

If blue people are 5 times more likely to commit a serious crime, then it is logical that blue people are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

In order to prove you prior claim, you need to prove that people who are not committing serious crimes that have been sent to prison on a vast scale.

Isolated cases of false convictions that are over turned, do not prove a system injustice. And nor do random statistics.

Prove the claim you made before. Nothing in this post did.

If blue people are 5 times more likely to commit a serious crime, then it is logical that blue people are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated.

Which factors are driving Blue people to commit more crime, racial or economic?

Shadow Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the United States Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project

"One contributing factor to the disparity in arrest rates is that racial minorities commit certain crimes at higher rates.

"Specifically, data suggests that black Americans—particularly males—tend to commit violent and property crimes at higher rates than other racial groups.9)

"Other studies, however, demonstrate that higher crime rates are better explained by socioeconomic factors than race: extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods experience higher rates of crime regardless of racial composition."

And you can thank Democrat policies for that.

And you can thank Democrat policies for that.

Thanks for proving Republicans remain blind to racial discrimination

Discrimination and racial inequality

 

[georgephillip]

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

How much could you make if you weren't a parasite?

How much could you make if you weren't a parasite?

Less than your "leaders"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See, that's a very left-wing way of looking at the world. Government is the only reason they exist? Really?

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

When Brian bought a $700 pickup truck, and own the risk of it breaking down, and paying to fix it.... what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax the purchase of the truck, so he had to pay out more than $700 for a $700 truck.

When he started hauling trash in the middle of the summer heat, in the back of his pickup, and getting his arms all scraped up doing it... what did government do to create that? Nothing.

When he hired his friends, which forced him to split the money earned from hauling trash, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but force him to spend time filling out government forms.

When he leased a place to operate his business out of, what did government do to create that? Nothing, but levy a tax on the property, which cost him a more expensive lease. (I assume you grasp that all taxes are passed on to those who rent and lease property).

When he risked thousands of dollars to pay for advertising, and hired a marketing firm to do it, what did government do to create that? Nothing except tax the sales.

When he hired more people, and opened new locations, so that now they provide jobs for 5,000 employees, and operate in 4 different countries.... what did government do to create that?

Nothing, except force the company to pay tons in taxes, from payroll to disposal taxes, to regulations on benefits, health care, and so on.

Brian Scudamore - Wikipedia

So when you say "government that makes its legal existence possible"..... that's why the rest of us, look at people like you and think....

"Only brain dead left-wingers and suicidal socialists believe that sort of mindless mythology is how life works."

Government didn't make it possible. Government does nothing but hinder and harm every successful business. The only reason you have a computer to spew your crap on, is because people overcame the obstacles put in place by government.

When Brian worked at a fast food joint until he had $700, what did government do to create that? Nothing, except tax his income which forced him to work longer to save up that $700.

Did government create the money Brian earned?
Did government charter the fast food joint to ensure Brian received his money?
Did government help Brian become literate?
How about the roads Brian travels to and from his job?
You "rugged individualists" are a real hoot.

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

I guess the only "honest work" Brian can get is with the government?

Or welfare?

How much would parasites like Brian earn without government providing the schools, road, courts, and public safety guarantees that make commerce possible?

How much could you make if you weren't a parasite?

How much could you make if you weren't a parasite?

Less than your "leaders"

Post a picture of your shrine to Castro...…..

 

[georgephillip]

Republicans AND Democrats will never bite the hands that feed them:

Corporations fracking US tax code

"Twenty-five hugely profitable U.S. companies paid their CEOs more last year than they paid Uncle Sam in taxes.

"In other words, the more CEOs dodge their civic responsibilities, the more lavishly they’re paid. That’s the key finding of a new Institute for Policy Studies report, Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, which I co-authored.
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.net/aciphex.html
buywithoutprescriptiononlinerx.com/amoxicillin.html"

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

Read more.
Troll less.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)."

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

You remember Reagan, right? He's the guy that defeated the Soviet Union.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

You remember Reagan, right? He's the guy that defeated the Soviet Union.

You mean the hero who didn't pick up a gun in WWII?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

Read more.
Troll less.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)."

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

You remember Reagan, right? He's the guy that defeated the Soviet Union.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

You remember Reagan, right? He's the guy that defeated the Soviet Union.

You mean the hero who didn't pick up a gun in WWII?

Yup, the guy who crushed the Soviet Union.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

It’s none of your fuc*king business what companies pay their CEO. Your pay to taxes paid link is idiotic. One has nothing to do with the other. You’re just playing to the stupid Lib base who are easily mislead.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law. Only brain dead conservatives and suicidal anarchists believe that sort of society is worth living in.

When a corporation pays its CEO more money than it pays the government that makes its legal existence possible, it sends a message that corporate citizens believe they are above the law.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

When you post this "fact", it sends the message that you're clueless.

Read more.
Troll less.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)."

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

You remember Reagan, right? He's the guy that defeated the Soviet Union.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan

You remember Reagan, right? He's the guy that defeated the Soviet Union.

You mean the hero who didn't pick up a gun in WWII?

/----/ Where is the link to the Reagan quote. TIA
"Because you won't get gun control by disarming law abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time."
Ronald Reagan