Warren and the Divine Right of Capital: Accountable Capitalism Act

[georgephillip]

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...…..

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

The US Elephant in the Salvadoran Room

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Viral Facebook post on CEO-worker pay ratio has obscure past

"But on the specific comparison of CEO pay and average-worker pay, we found two liberal groups -- the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies -- that have produced long-running studies of this question.

"The most recent chart from the Economic Policy Institute shows a ratio of 185 to 1 for 2009. According to the group’s calculations, the peak since the mid 1960s was almost 299 to 1. But it was never as high as high as 475 to 1."

According to the group’s calculations, the peak since the mid 1960s was almost 299 to 1.

Love that fake stat!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...…..

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

The US Elephant in the Salvadoran Room

That's not your shrine...…..

 

[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.

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.

US Media Shockingly Celebrates Life Of 9/11 “Mastermind” Zbigniew Brzezinski - THE UNHIVED MIND NEWS

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

US Media Shockingly Celebrates Life Of 9/11 “Mastermind” Zbigniew Brzezinski - THE UNHIVED MIND NEWS

We beat the Soviets...…...don't cry.

 

[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.

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

Yup, the guy who crushed the Soviet Union.

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

How many thugs and criminals got guns from Reagan in Central America?

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia

 

[daveman]

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

Doesn't have a thing to do with what I said, you incompetent buffoon.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Yup, the guy who crushed the Soviet Union.

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

How many thugs and criminals got guns from Reagan in Central America?

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia

Did you cry when Ortega got voted out?

 

[daveman]

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"

8 of the 15 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats.

They're exploiting your gullibility. And you're not bright enough to see how you're being used.

 

[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.

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?

Funny how Communist nations disarmed people...and them put them in mass graves.

Is that why Democrats want people disarmed? So they can put dissidents in the ground?

Rhetorical question. Of course it is.

 

[daveman]

 

[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.

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.

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

Noam Chomsky Quote

Chomsky's an America-hating moron, too.

 

[daveman]

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.

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.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

It's terrible that people are allowed to spend their own money as they see fit.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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

That would work IF corporations had no affect on my life which, as any sentient person knows, is far from the truth:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act was endorsed on August 15, 2018 by a group of 14 academic lawyers and economists, including Robert C. Hockett and William Lazonick.[6]

"In media coverage following Elizabeth Warren's Wall St Journal op-ed,[7] the Bill was described as 'a plan to save capitalism'[4] and a 'bold new plan to reshape American capitalism'.[8]

"In response to similar proposals in the Reward Work Act in April 2018, a Civis poll found people in the 'lean Democrat' category voted 75% in favor of placing employees on boards of directors, and just 9% opposed.

"Around 43% of the 'lean Republican' category supported the concept, while 31% opposed, and the pure Republican category saw 4% more opposed than in favor.[9]"

I love Hockett!! He's hilarious. Not much of an economist.
Lazonick…..Marxist.

It's funny that you think Marxists have the slightest clue about economics in the real world.

I love Hockett!! He's hilarious. Not much of an economist.
Lazonick…..Marxist.

It's funny that you think Marxists have the slightest clue about economics in the real world.

How much Marx have you read?
Did you understand any of it??

William Lazonick - Wikipedia

"Lazonick has been a leading critic of the neoclassical theory of the market economy that dominates the thinking and teaching of academic economists.

"Whereas neoclassical economists see well-developed markets as causes of economic prosperity, Lazonick's research shows that organizations that engage in collective and cumulative learning drive the process of economic development, with well-developed markets in land, labor, finance, and products as outcomes.

"Indeed, he argues that when these markets gain a preponderant influence in directing the allocation of resources in the economy, they undermine the organizations – family households, government agencies, and business enterprises – upon which we depend for the investments in productive capabilities that underpin stable and equitable economic growth.

"This perspective on the relation between organizations and markets in determining economic performance provides an analytical framework for formulating policies that support innovative enterprise and regulate hyperactive markets."

Tell us all about your research, Rube

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

That would work IF corporations had no affect on my life which, as any sentient person knows, is far from the truth:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act was endorsed on August 15, 2018 by a group of 14 academic lawyers and economists, including Robert C. Hockett and William Lazonick.[6]

"In media coverage following Elizabeth Warren's Wall St Journal op-ed,[7] the Bill was described as 'a plan to save capitalism'[4] and a 'bold new plan to reshape American capitalism'.[8]

"In response to similar proposals in the Reward Work Act in April 2018, a Civis poll found people in the 'lean Democrat' category voted 75% in favor of placing employees on boards of directors, and just 9% opposed.

"Around 43% of the 'lean Republican' category supported the concept, while 31% opposed, and the pure Republican category saw 4% more opposed than in favor.[9]"

I love Hockett!! He's hilarious. Not much of an economist.
Lazonick…..Marxist.

It's funny that you think Marxists have the slightest clue about economics in the real world.

I love Hockett!! He's hilarious. Not much of an economist.
Lazonick…..Marxist.

It's funny that you think Marxists have the slightest clue about economics in the real world.

How much Marx have you read?
Did you understand any of it??

William Lazonick - Wikipedia

"Lazonick has been a leading critic of the neoclassical theory of the market economy that dominates the thinking and teaching of academic economists.

"Whereas neoclassical economists see well-developed markets as causes of economic prosperity, Lazonick's research shows that organizations that engage in collective and cumulative learning drive the process of economic development, with well-developed markets in land, labor, finance, and products as outcomes.

"Indeed, he argues that when these markets gain a preponderant influence in directing the allocation of resources in the economy, they undermine the organizations – family households, government agencies, and business enterprises – upon which we depend for the investments in productive capabilities that underpin stable and equitable economic growth.

"This perspective on the relation between organizations and markets in determining economic performance provides an analytical framework for formulating policies that support innovative enterprise and regulate hyperactive markets."

Tell us all about your research, Rube

How much Marx have you read?

Which successful Marxist economies can you list?

 

[daveman]

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.

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

That would work IF corporations had no affect on my life which, as any sentient person knows, is far from the truth:

Accountable Capitalism Act - Wikipedia

"The Accountable Capitalism Act was endorsed on August 15, 2018 by a group of 14 academic lawyers and economists, including Robert C. Hockett and William Lazonick.[6]

"In media coverage following Elizabeth Warren's Wall St Journal op-ed,[7] the Bill was described as 'a plan to save capitalism'[4] and a 'bold new plan to reshape American capitalism'.[8]

"In response to similar proposals in the Reward Work Act in April 2018, a Civis poll found people in the 'lean Democrat' category voted 75% in favor of placing employees on boards of directors, and just 9% opposed.

"Around 43% of the 'lean Republican' category supported the concept, while 31% opposed, and the pure Republican category saw 4% more opposed than in favor.[9]"

I love Hockett!! He's hilarious. Not much of an economist.
Lazonick…..Marxist.

It's funny that you think Marxists have the slightest clue about economics in the real world.

I love Hockett!! He's hilarious. Not much of an economist.
Lazonick…..Marxist.

It's funny that you think Marxists have the slightest clue about economics in the real world.

How much Marx have you read?
Did you understand any of it??

William Lazonick - Wikipedia

"Lazonick has been a leading critic of the neoclassical theory of the market economy that dominates the thinking and teaching of academic economists.

"Whereas neoclassical economists see well-developed markets as causes of economic prosperity, Lazonick's research shows that organizations that engage in collective and cumulative learning drive the process of economic development, with well-developed markets in land, labor, finance, and products as outcomes.

"Indeed, he argues that when these markets gain a preponderant influence in directing the allocation of resources in the economy, they undermine the organizations – family households, government agencies, and business enterprises – upon which we depend for the investments in productive capabilities that underpin stable and equitable economic growth.

"This perspective on the relation between organizations and markets in determining economic performance provides an analytical framework for formulating policies that support innovative enterprise and regulate hyperactive markets."

Tell us all about your research, Rube

How much Marx have you read?

Which successful Marxist economies can you list?

I got this George.

"REAL COMMUNISM HS NEVER BEEN TRIED BESIDES THE UNITED STATES ALWAYS INTERFERED!!!"

 

[Yarddog]

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.

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.

Viral Facebook post on CEO-worker pay ratio has obscure past

"But on the specific comparison of CEO pay and average-worker pay, we found two liberal groups -- the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies -- that have produced long-running studies of this question.

"The most recent chart from the Economic Policy Institute shows a ratio of 185 to 1 for 2009. According to the group’s calculations, the peak since the mid 1960s was almost 299 to 1. But it was never as high as high as 475 to 1."

There's your answer! Venezuela has a better ratio than the U.S.!!! you should move there and expand your possibilities for self fulfillment. At 475 to one, you don't stand a chance to have a good life in the U.S.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Marxist economics sucks

You could've just expressed that belief directly to begin with and been done with it. George or no.

Sounds like you disagree.

No, I believe you feel "Marxist economics sucks".

Are you hoping for some Marxist economics?

Too incoherent, I'm afraid. Did you mean Marxian economics? If so, it's just a school of thought, and no, not particularly. I've read and heard plenty. But if someone like George has something related, fresh, and interesting to share I'm fine with considering it.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

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.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Report: Wal-Mart Heirs Are “Phony Philanthropists”

"'The Waltons are using their foundation to game the system. At almost no cost to themselves and with the help of financial experts, they have funneled money to their foundation from special trusts to avoid paying an estimated $3 billion in estate taxes,' Jessie Spector of Resource Generation, a group that helps wealthy young people become transformative leaders, said in a press release."

How much went to accidents of birth?

Not your money, none of your business.

How much went to accidents of birth?

Not your money, none of your business.

Society's business.

 

[dblack]

Not your money, none of your business.

Society's business.

But not government's.