|
On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such.
Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you.
tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money.
|
On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. ![[image loading]](http://cdn.myanimelist.net/images/characters/4/40379.jpg) Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening.
It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research.
|
On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research.
I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen.
|
On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money.
Ehh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything.
I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't.
|
On October 11 2011 09:28 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research. I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen.
They're not even mostly lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases of, "I get paid by the hour, not by the box!" but they're not what drive the labor force in the government. In many ways, the quality of a government job is continually stressed because there are always looming budget cuts. Teachers and police officers especially face a great deal of scrutiny every day/month/year in order to make sure nobody is being dealt the short end of the stick (compared to other people).
Also, this is the first serious talk in tax increases in the past 20 years. If you think for a second that increasing taxes is an easy task, I suggest you take a look at the political atmosphere 2+ years ago.
|
On October 11 2011 09:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money. Ehh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything. I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't.
Socialize risk, privatize gain is the name of the game.
|
raising taxes has been hard ever sense California decided being anti tax in the 80's was hip you get slide alot of shit under saying people wont have to pay as much for something without emphasizing that to do so they will get less.
|
Nice throwback to McCarthyism. I thought we'd left those dark days behind by now or is history simply repeating itself?
He said, and I quote:
People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such.
So the real question is, why are throwbacks to mass murder of "bourgeoisie" and "kulaks" acceptable?
It's really sad how much politics is driven by fear. Fear of communists, fear of terrorists, fear of unions, etc. Fear makes people easily manipulated by the rich and powerful to push through their agenda that would otherwise be seen as insane.
All your fears are 100% justified and all ours are 100% bogeymen put into our dumb heads by the rich and powerful to manipulate us.
I see.
Maybe you will see why such arguments, while convincing to you, might seem unconvincing to people who do not believe they are being manipulated.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in the end it all comes down to the power of mobile, globalizing capital seeking higher and higher short term returns squeezing the labor portion of the economy to the point that there is less blood to be sucked up, so to speak.
a less vampiric analogy is that the heart, which is the financial markets, important for pumping blood to places where it is needed, still at the end of the day is only useful insofar as it promotes a healthy person.
|
On October 11 2011 09:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:28 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research. I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen. They're not even mostly lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases of, "I get paid by the hour, not by the box!" but they're not what drive the labor force in the government. In many ways, the quality of a government job is continually stressed because there are always looming budget cuts. Teachers and police officers especially face a great deal of scrutiny every day/month/year in order to make sure nobody is being dealt the short end of the stick (compared to other people). Also, this is the first serious talk in tax increases in the past 20 years. If you think for a second that increasing taxes is an easy task, I suggest you take a look at the political atmosphere 2+ years ago.
I know it's not an easy task, but more importantly I know that changing the political climate of the united states is an even more difficult tax. I think it's a problem of democracy more so than the US in general. Power is decided by the majority, but the majority has less claim to the power than the minority (100x the case atm with this whole occupy wallstreet movement. people thinking they have the right to the money they haven't earned or inherited.)
On October 11 2011 09:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money. E hh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything. I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't.
I think that the bolded statement is wrong, and it's what this whole problem is originating from. People think that the financial sector is some joke, and that the people who work there don't stress every minute of every day about it. No matter how rich you are, it isn't easy to swallow losing 20% of your assets over the course of the day. I think it's easier not working in the financial sector, there's so much less stress..
The people that are sitting on money have the right to do whatever they want with their money. Who are you, or the government, to tell them to spend it, invest it, or shit on it? That's the beauty of the American corporate culture, we could all go down tomorrow if we wanted to. I see people crying because they want the money that people are sitting on, and I'm not empathetic with them in the same sense that I'm not empathetic with a kid crying about his neighbor in school getting a 100% on a test while he failed because he was drinking instead of studying.
|
Canada2068 Posts
So the real question is, why are throwbacks to mass murder of "bourgeoisie" and "kulaks" acceptable?
To interpret what he said to be at all similar to a mass murder of "bourgeoisie" and "kulaks" is a pretty far stretch, but I suppose his post does have too much rhetoric which can be responded to with an equally inane one-liner.
All your fears are 100% justified and all ours are 100% bogeymen put into our dumb heads by the rich and powerful to manipulate us.
I see.
Maybe you will see why such arguments, while convincing to you, might seem unconvincing to people who do not believe they are being manipulated.
Good point.
|
On October 11 2011 09:55 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:42 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:28 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research. I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen. They're not even mostly lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases of, "I get paid by the hour, not by the box!" but they're not what drive the labor force in the government. In many ways, the quality of a government job is continually stressed because there are always looming budget cuts. Teachers and police officers especially face a great deal of scrutiny every day/month/year in order to make sure nobody is being dealt the short end of the stick (compared to other people). Also, this is the first serious talk in tax increases in the past 20 years. If you think for a second that increasing taxes is an easy task, I suggest you take a look at the political atmosphere 2+ years ago. I know it's not an easy task, but more importantly I know that changing the political climate of the united states is an even more difficult tax. I think it's a problem of democracy more so than the US in general. Power is decided by the majority, but the majority has less claim to the power than the minority (100x the case atm with this whole occupy wallstreet movement. people thinking they have the right to the money they haven't earned or inherited.) Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money. E hh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything. I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't. I think that the bolded statement is wrong, and it's what this whole problem is originating from. People think that the financial sector is some joke, and that the people who work there don't stress every minute of every day about it. No matter how rich you are, it isn't easy to swallow losing 20% of your assets over the course of the day. I think it's easier not working in the financial sector, there's so much less stress.. The people that are sitting on money have the right to do whatever they want with their money. Who are you, or the government, to tell them to spend it, invest it, or shit on it? That's the beauty of the American corporate culture, we could all go down tomorrow if we wanted to. I see people crying because they want the money that people are sitting on, and I'm not empathetic with them in the same sense that I'm not empathetic with a kid crying about his neighbor in school getting a 100% on a test while he failed because he was drinking instead of studying.
Or how about the kid getting a 100 on the test because his dad is the teacher. That seems fair, right?
|
|
|
On October 11 2011 09:55 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:42 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:28 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research. I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen. They're not even mostly lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases of, "I get paid by the hour, not by the box!" but they're not what drive the labor force in the government. In many ways, the quality of a government job is continually stressed because there are always looming budget cuts. Teachers and police officers especially face a great deal of scrutiny every day/month/year in order to make sure nobody is being dealt the short end of the stick (compared to other people). Also, this is the first serious talk in tax increases in the past 20 years. If you think for a second that increasing taxes is an easy task, I suggest you take a look at the political atmosphere 2+ years ago. I know it's not an easy task, but more importantly I know that changing the political climate of the united states is an even more difficult tax. I think it's a problem of democracy more so than the US in general. Power is decided by the majority, but the majority has less claim to the power than the minority (100x the case atm with this whole occupy wallstreet movement. people thinking they have the right to the money they haven't earned or inherited.) Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money. E hh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything. I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't. I think that the bolded statement is wrong, and it's what this whole problem is originating from. People think that the financial sector is some joke, and that the people who work there don't stress every minute of every day about it. No matter how rich you are, it isn't easy to swallow losing 20% of your assets over the course of the day. I think it's easier not working in the financial sector, there's so much less stress.. The people that are sitting on money have the right to do whatever they want with their money. Who are you, or the government, to tell them to spend it, invest it, or shit on it? That's the beauty of the American corporate culture, we could all go down tomorrow if we wanted to. I see people crying because they want the money that people are sitting on, and I'm not empathetic with them in the same sense that I'm not empathetic with a kid crying about his neighbor in school getting a 100% on a test while he failed because he was drinking instead of studying.
It's maybe mentally stressful but not physically stressful you aren't going to blow out your back trading obscure names of "money", and that's not American. It's not a cowboy spirit of work hard plow you fields, tend your animals and you ill prosper, just as anti intellectualism actually has a hold in American culture part of that is from that whole book work vs actual work. It's also a matter that often they are trading money for money and without an aggressive redistribution mechanism in place you the wealthy become super wealthy and they build family empires based of just having lots of money. And when you can make charts like this without fudging numbers people feel cheated.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e6j1W.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q582W.gif)
|
On October 11 2011 10:11 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 09:55 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:42 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:28 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:On October 11 2011 04:07 aksfjh wrote:You can't pin even most of this on "unsustainable welfare states" when most of the debt created in the past decade were direct results of tax cuts....
....and the waging of new wars that were paid with American money instead of American lives. Dude, wtf does that even mean? he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research. I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen. They're not even mostly lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases of, "I get paid by the hour, not by the box!" but they're not what drive the labor force in the government. In many ways, the quality of a government job is continually stressed because there are always looming budget cuts. Teachers and police officers especially face a great deal of scrutiny every day/month/year in order to make sure nobody is being dealt the short end of the stick (compared to other people). Also, this is the first serious talk in tax increases in the past 20 years. If you think for a second that increasing taxes is an easy task, I suggest you take a look at the political atmosphere 2+ years ago. I know it's not an easy task, but more importantly I know that changing the political climate of the united states is an even more difficult tax. I think it's a problem of democracy more so than the US in general. Power is decided by the majority, but the majority has less claim to the power than the minority (100x the case atm with this whole occupy wallstreet movement. people thinking they have the right to the money they haven't earned or inherited.) On October 11 2011 09:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money. E hh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything. I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't. I think that the bolded statement is wrong, and it's what this whole problem is originating from. People think that the financial sector is some joke, and that the people who work there don't stress every minute of every day about it. No matter how rich you are, it isn't easy to swallow losing 20% of your assets over the course of the day. I think it's easier not working in the financial sector, there's so much less stress.. The people that are sitting on money have the right to do whatever they want with their money. Who are you, or the government, to tell them to spend it, invest it, or shit on it? That's the beauty of the American corporate culture, we could all go down tomorrow if we wanted to. I see people crying because they want the money that people are sitting on, and I'm not empathetic with them in the same sense that I'm not empathetic with a kid crying about his neighbor in school getting a 100% on a test while he failed because he was drinking instead of studying. Or how about the kid getting a 100 on the test because his dad is the teacher. That seems fair, right?
...how is that not fair? Unless you're saying the teacher is helping him cheat, why is it not fair for someone's parents to help them?
|
More like ... Left leaning news source reports on right leaning news source? I mean come on, politicususa quoting Media Matters? Nothing to see here.
Of course in any protest against Corporations you're gonna have druggies & homeless. No one really believes that the entire body of protestors are engaged in some kind of criminal behavior. We see the OWS group claiming Wall St. is a buncha greedy, not-working-hard millionaires and billionaires holding the common man down. Is it such a far stretch to see the opposite view, that these protestors are out of work druggies?
Don't believe either of the above two. Just the propagation of class envy through the young college generation and just-graduated generation.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On October 11 2011 10:24 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 10:11 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:55 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:42 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:28 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:20 XerrolAvengerII wrote:
[quote]Dude, wtf does that even mean?
he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research. I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen. They're not even mostly lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases of, "I get paid by the hour, not by the box!" but they're not what drive the labor force in the government. In many ways, the quality of a government job is continually stressed because there are always looming budget cuts. Teachers and police officers especially face a great deal of scrutiny every day/month/year in order to make sure nobody is being dealt the short end of the stick (compared to other people). Also, this is the first serious talk in tax increases in the past 20 years. If you think for a second that increasing taxes is an easy task, I suggest you take a look at the political atmosphere 2+ years ago. I know it's not an easy task, but more importantly I know that changing the political climate of the united states is an even more difficult tax. I think it's a problem of democracy more so than the US in general. Power is decided by the majority, but the majority has less claim to the power than the minority (100x the case atm with this whole occupy wallstreet movement. people thinking they have the right to the money they haven't earned or inherited.) On October 11 2011 09:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money. E hh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything. I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't. I think that the bolded statement is wrong, and it's what this whole problem is originating from. People think that the financial sector is some joke, and that the people who work there don't stress every minute of every day about it. No matter how rich you are, it isn't easy to swallow losing 20% of your assets over the course of the day. I think it's easier not working in the financial sector, there's so much less stress.. The people that are sitting on money have the right to do whatever they want with their money. Who are you, or the government, to tell them to spend it, invest it, or shit on it? That's the beauty of the American corporate culture, we could all go down tomorrow if we wanted to. I see people crying because they want the money that people are sitting on, and I'm not empathetic with them in the same sense that I'm not empathetic with a kid crying about his neighbor in school getting a 100% on a test while he failed because he was drinking instead of studying. Or how about the kid getting a 100 on the test because his dad is the teacher. That seems fair, right? ...how is that not fair? Unless you're saying the teacher is helping him cheat, why is it not fair for someone's parents to help them?
i think he means gettin 100 regardless of how well he did cuz his dad is the teacher and is in charge of giving the grades.
|
On October 11 2011 10:37 alffla wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 10:24 Bigtony wrote:On October 11 2011 10:11 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:55 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:42 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:28 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 07:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 04:51 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 04:31 Endymion wrote:[quote] he wants to fund the development of mobile dolls, seen in gundam wing, so that war between countries relies wholly on economic costs rather than human costs. Well the cost of war for super powers anyways. I found a photo of aksfjh off of google. Wait, I thought he (or I in this case?) was against the increased use of mobile dolls... Anyways, I was merely providing commentary on the subject. When somebody employed at Haliburton loses 3 limbs or dies, the public doesn't hear about it or care. When somebody who is in service of their country dies, it's a much bigger deal and American citizens begin to turn against the war much quicker. I can't comment either way on this, since there are benefits to both approaches and it's already said and done anyways. =/ yeah you're right, sorry it didn't hold up i guess. he's a bit of a hypocrite then because he ends up using mobile dolls in the battle before he dies. But you're wrong in terms of the Haliburton example. Everytime someone in the private sector dies, you can be damned sure that it's very public to stakeholders, just not every single person in the economy. Saftey is so highly valued in most (the ones I've been exposed to) if not all oil extraction/enrichment companies that some investors question its worth in the long term. Someone getting injured on the job is really, really bad for the PR of any company, and they tend to be very forthright about it because if they're not and the media discoveres that they aren't forthcoming about saftey issues then a fierce bloodbath will ensue. If the US military was looked at as closely as the oil industry has been since the BP spill (redundant because the blame should have been spread across half a dozen companies involved in the rigs development, construction, testing, and operations) in the gulf (and that they cared to improve as much as BP did), you would see an immediate increase in combat efficieny and overall reduction of wasteful deaths. BP could never sanely withhold corporate assets to not increase safety, or investors and employees would note it and jump ship to a competator. Where are US soldiers going to go if they don't like the military's practices? No where, they'll get court martialed if they say anything against the upper echelons. I don't mean to target you personally or your example, but I don't think people see just how much effort corporate America puts into being sustainable and being heavily tied to them I find it frightening. It's not just Haliburton and combat contractors though. It's construction, lodging, food, etc. Anything that the military can't find the people for is being filled by private contractors. Paying somebody to cook meals and answer phones in Afghanistan costs a lot simply because of risk of being there, but not because of the skill required to do it. We pay soldiers so little (sadly) that it's really cost ineffective to turn it over to profit centered entities (including people). Certainly, there is a lot of waste in the military compared to the private sector in some regards, but they tend to get more done in the way of combat operations and occupations dollar by dollar. RND is possibly the biggest culprit on the opposite, inefficiency side, investing in technologies for wars we no longer fight, then selling 5-10 year old technology to enemies to help fund said research. I also think the corporate analogy doesn't work for the military now that i think about it because corporations cut costs to maintain retained earnings while governments cut corners because they're lazy and have indefinite retained earnings from tax payers. Government controls their income and expenses, and their only risk of taxing the fuck out of the US taxpayers to make up for tax inefficiency is the risk of revolution, which won't happen. They're not even mostly lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases of, "I get paid by the hour, not by the box!" but they're not what drive the labor force in the government. In many ways, the quality of a government job is continually stressed because there are always looming budget cuts. Teachers and police officers especially face a great deal of scrutiny every day/month/year in order to make sure nobody is being dealt the short end of the stick (compared to other people). Also, this is the first serious talk in tax increases in the past 20 years. If you think for a second that increasing taxes is an easy task, I suggest you take a look at the political atmosphere 2+ years ago. I know it's not an easy task, but more importantly I know that changing the political climate of the united states is an even more difficult tax. I think it's a problem of democracy more so than the US in general. Power is decided by the majority, but the majority has less claim to the power than the minority (100x the case atm with this whole occupy wallstreet movement. people thinking they have the right to the money they haven't earned or inherited.) On October 11 2011 09:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money. E hh, you'd be pretty hard pressed to make the case that somebody making money through trading is working harder at a higher skill job than quite a few Americans with college degrees. Not saying that some don't work JUST as hard, but part of the payout of being in the financial sector is accepting a great deal of risk. The only problem was that a lot of the overall risk was mitigated when the market screwed up bad and the government felt required to come to the rescue lest there be a HUGE run on the banks and another recession. We saw people who were in charge when all this went down see little punishment for taking the wrong risks, while the punishment "trickled down" to many of the working class. Honestly, if you can't see why people are angry (or think it's stupid) at those who are still sitting on money then I question your ability to use empathy as part of a rational conclusion about anything. I will hand it to you that many people protesting are doing so while looking like hippies and irresponsible idiots, but they're suffering for their mistakes right now, while there are a lot of "investors" who aren't. I think that the bolded statement is wrong, and it's what this whole problem is originating from. People think that the financial sector is some joke, and that the people who work there don't stress every minute of every day about it. No matter how rich you are, it isn't easy to swallow losing 20% of your assets over the course of the day. I think it's easier not working in the financial sector, there's so much less stress.. The people that are sitting on money have the right to do whatever they want with their money. Who are you, or the government, to tell them to spend it, invest it, or shit on it? That's the beauty of the American corporate culture, we could all go down tomorrow if we wanted to. I see people crying because they want the money that people are sitting on, and I'm not empathetic with them in the same sense that I'm not empathetic with a kid crying about his neighbor in school getting a 100% on a test while he failed because he was drinking instead of studying. Or how about the kid getting a 100 on the test because his dad is the teacher. That seems fair, right? ...how is that not fair? Unless you're saying the teacher is helping him cheat, why is it not fair for someone's parents to help them? i think he means gettin 100 regardless of how well he did cuz his dad is the teacher and is in charge of giving the grades.
Somebody made a 100 today. 
|
On October 11 2011 09:24 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2011 08:25 Kickboxer wrote:
I can never understand why people equate riches with hard work. It's a retardedly false platitude and yet everyone and their monkey throws it around like feces and no one even objects.
Out of the ten or so people whom I personally know to be rich two are true workaholics who built businesses from the ground up and another two work about as much as the average Joe. The other six are either inbred descendents of old money who, apart from copious amounts of cocaine and their cars, don't even have hobbies let alone jobs (some of the dumbest, vilest, hopelessly empty people I've ever met) or are well known mobsters.
On the other hand a great majority of poor people I know work very hard just to make ends meet. Even my friends with amazing jobs (like district attorney or hotel manager) who are from middle class families are still middle class, with loans to pay off for run-of-the-mill housing.
I guess these schmucks who apparently "earned" their 50 million work 572 hours a day or? Society should go back to where money is earned by actually doing something productive. People who shove money from left to right and leech it out of the system aren't hard working, they are a cancer and should be treated as such. Boo fucking who then, keep your 'honor' and i'll keep my 'wrongly/unfairly obtained inheritance,' the day the government tells the private sector to seriously even consider giving money away because it was 'unfairly gained' from a poor person's perspective is the day that the US falls from grace as a corporate superpower. And then China will 'have your money,' not you. tl;dr for you illiterates out there, be that 1/10 guy who makes millions, not that 99% who qqs in a corner begging for money.
Hmm.. I guess I'll just work harder next time I'm reincarnated to be born to rich parents, because apparently you think that's the best way to succeed.
|
Hmm.. I guess I'll just work harder next time I'm reincarnated to be born to rich parents, because apparently you think that's the best way to succeed.
Better than legalized stealing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
