Inequality and the USA: A nation in denial?

SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
I'm not totally wrong about that; that salesman is choosing between zero business, and insufficient business, in that instance. If he continues that business practice, he will soon have no business. The Objective, is to NOT lose money on every deal. If you do, you'll have no business.

And you seem to have missed the fact that working a minimum wage job has a personal cost, which exceeds the compensation received. You can only volunteer to take a loss for so long, before all of your resources are depleted, and you have nothing left with which to do business.

At some point, that terrible salesman will not recoup his costs enough to purchase more stock, and then he's screwed.

You're suggesting this is the proper course, and that all is well.

In other words: you agree that the system is designed to deplete its Human Resources, until they expire. ^^
Click to expand...
If your business can not make a profit, you need a new line of business.

I'm not saying take the minimum wage job and keep it.

It is preferable to doing nothing.

If you have a stock, as a business man, that has become less valuable than your cost basis in it, you sell it and start a new course of business.

You don't stubbornly hold your stock and have no cash because you'd have to take a loss if you sold it. No, you sell it at that loss and get out.

Likewise if you find yourself with nothing to do, you take that job delivering pizza and retool your skill set to find something else.

You go to school or something.

But you don't borrow your way through school. You work a job and borrow as little as possible.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Your logic is circular and thus flawed. It also doesn't fit the facts, a more serious charge.
Click to expand...
It may be circular logic. But it's about the world. The world is circular so it works here.

The ultra rich seek to influence government. Government is headed by people, and people are susceptible to bribes and the like.

Thus completing the circle.

Rich people have always sought to influence government. It is in their interest.

I'm willing for you to prove me wrong by showing me a society that has ultra wealthy people who don't try to have the society where they reside to protect their wealth.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
If your business can not make a profit, you need a new line of business.

I'm not saying take the minimum wage job and keep it.

It is preferable to doing nothing.

If you have a stock, as a business man, that has become less valuable than your cost basis in it, you sell it and start a new course of business.

You don't stubbornly hold your stock and have no cash because you'd have to take a loss if you sold it. No, you sell it at that loss and get out.

Likewise if you find yourself with nothing to do, you take that job delivering pizza and retool your skill set to find something else.

You go to school or something.

But you don't borrow your way through school. You work a job and borrow as little as possible.
Click to expand...

or, have your parents bail you out from your dope addiction, get you a house, a car, and a job at subway, and stick to making $14 the hard way every night on craigslist's m4m section.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
or, have your parents bail you out from your dope addiction, get you a house, a car, and a job at subway, and stick to making $14 the hard way every night on craigslist's m4m section.
Click to expand...
Whatever you need to do to get by Buck. I don't judge.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
If your business can not make a profit, you need a new line of business.

I'm not saying take the minimum wage job and keep it.

It is preferable to doing nothing.

If you have a stock, as a business man, that has become less valuable than your cost basis in it, you sell it and start a new course of business.

You don't stubbornly hold your stock and have no cash because you'd have to take a loss if you sold it. No, you sell it at that loss and get out.

Likewise if you find yourself with nothing to do, you take that job delivering pizza and retool your skill set to find something else.

You go to school or something.

But you don't borrow your way through school. You work a job and borrow as little as possible.
Click to expand...
Absorbing too many losses means having nothing left to invest; including health.

When the system destroys a person (as it is arguably designed to do), that person has no further recourse.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
It may be circular logic. But it's about the world. The world is circular so it works here.

The ultra rich seek to influence government. Government is headed by people, and people are susceptible to bribes and the like.

Thus completing the circle.

Rich people have always sought to influence government. It is in their interest.

I'm willing for you to prove me wrong by showing me a society that has ultra wealthy people who don't try to have the society where they reside to protect their wealth.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they wouldn't try. I said that as American Citizens, we have the right and duty to stand for OUR rights, which include not being ripped off by the ultra wealthy.

It sounds to me like you're an apologist for the overlords. Do you get a kickback? Otherwise you're volunteering yourself- and all the rest of us- for economic slavery for free.

Did you watch the David Cay Johnston interview above? He isn't lying, all those rules were set up by HUMAN POLITICIANS, and the same people can be persuaded to fix them.

You're just too lazy to contemplate the job, so Fuck off and let someone else try instead of being so fatalistic. You know, people who take their obligations of citizenship seriously, as you obviously do not.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Arresting Officer
New Member
Messages:
0
Likes Received:
0
Trophy Points:
0
Click to expand...
Well shit, I didn't even make the list.

{Insert generic Asian joke here}
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I didn't say they wouldn't try. I said that as American Citizens, we have the right and duty to stand for OUR rights, which include not being ripped off by the ultra wealthy.

It sounds to me like you're an apologist for the overlords. Do you get a kickback? Otherwise you're volunteering yourself- and all the rest of us- for economic slavery for free.

Did you watch the David Cay Johnston interview above? He isn't lying, all those rules were set up by HUMAN POLITICIANS, and the same people can be persuaded to fix them.

You're just too lazy to contemplate the job, so Fuck off and let someone else try instead of being so fatalistic. You know, people who take their obligations of citizenship seriously, as you obviously do not.
Click to expand...
Feel ripped off by the wealthy?

Simple solution, don't buy anything made by anyone, (except perhaps the 90 year old self employed cobbler who lives down the street).

Everything is made by the wealthy, if don't like it then go live in the mountains.

Funny when you see people at Occupy all texting on their Iphones and then crying that the corporations are such dicks.

Any of you democrat fags want me to post a comparison of Obamas and Romney's donation lists from 2012?
 
pinkjackyle

pinkjackyle

Well-Known Member
yall aint got this shit figured out yet ? easier to sit on ones ass and pound buttons and complain than to actually do something . this is why it wont change
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
Absorbing too many losses means having nothing left to invest; including health.

When the system destroys a person (as it is arguably designed to do), that person has no further recourse.
Click to expand...
If you own a large number of items that have lost value to the point that you can not profit from their sell, you still sell them.

When you do so you take that money and do something different with it.

Yes, you lost money, but you will still have money after liquidation.

So if you reject the notion that some income is better than no income, what is your idea?
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
And you seem to have missed the fact that working a minimum wage job has a personal cost, which exceeds the compensation received. You can only volunteer to take a loss for so long, before all of your resources are depleted, and you have nothing left with which to do business.
Click to expand...
A person can work a couple jobs, put in 50-60 hours a week and afford to survive. Its the bullshit of working 30 hours a week at a low/no skill position and expecting that to be enough to support their ass for the rest of the week they are breathing. Make more per hour in you want that, or work more hours.


Fuck me, I cleaned shit off toilets for 31.5 hours this week and I can't' pay rent. Lets automatically assume it has nothing to do with my lack of skill and the actually service I am providing to the world, and just bitch for more pay so I can just hang out for the other 136.5 hours this week.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
If you own a large number of items that have lost value to the point that you can not profit from their sell, you still sell them.

When you do so you take that money and do something different with it.

Yes, you lost money, but you will still have money after liquidation.

So if you reject the notion that some income is better than no income, what is your idea?
Click to expand...
First part is stating the obvious, albeit vaguely. There are nearly infinite "something different" to do with whatever resources one may have; which thing is the right thing?

And i can't even ask that question, because the only ones who've ever answered it, are either trying to sell me something so they can profit, and not actually trying to help... or they give an answer that isn't compatible with my situation, because i've already lost the most important resources (health and drive), and refuse to support anything that i can identify is part of the problem.

I reject the idea that doing the same thing so many of us have already figured out doesn't work, is the right way.

And most people apparently have a pretty delusional definition of "the right way." Most don't seem to realize how lucky they've been, to not have to encounter problems that had no available solution, i.e. "stuff you can't change."

When "stuff you can't change" has eliminated all the feasible options for a minimally tolerable life, that's just that, i guess.

spandy said:
A person can work a couple jobs, put in 50-60 hours a week and afford to survive. Its the bullshit of working 30 hours a week at a low/no skill position and expecting that to be enough to support their ass for the rest of the week they are breathing. Make more per hour in you want that, or work more hours.


Fuck me, I cleaned shit off toilets for 31.5 hours this week and I can't' pay rent. Lets automatically assume it has nothing to do with my lack of skill and the actually service I am providing to the world, and just bitch for more pay so I can just hang out for the other 136.5 hours this week.
Click to expand...
A healthy person who still believes a miserable life is worth living, or still believes their insufficient wage will lead to prosperity, or is too afraid to commit suicide, you mean.

I've been struggling against problems i can't fix, for 2 decades now. I'm fucking tired of it, and i feel very unequal.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
You mean he isn't a paid for shill that is told what to write?
We call those people names like "conspiracy theorist" or "fringe journalist" or some other catchy demonizing phrase.
Click to expand...
Mmm...not quite.
What I mean is he does research beyond surfing twitter and facebook. This article is a good example, where he digs into the records and does some calculations to support what he is saying in more detail:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/economy-bush-taxcutsgrowthjobs.html

The adjective which should have been used was investigative.
Remember that stuff? It used to be common leading up to the 90s...Now it's a rarity reserved for "special" reports or programs like The Fifth Estate, etc.

 
Last edited:
skunkd0c

skunkd0c

Well-Known Member
working hard gives a worker a sense of pride and purpose
working hard is a excellent defense against the stigmatization of being called "lazy"

folk are all in this together to consume as much as possible
must consume more than last year

best thing anyone can do is go out now and buy something , anything , even if you do not really need it
buy it anyway, spending money empowers you

the more you can consume the more value you have, the more others will envy you
this can elevate your social status too

some folk have aspirations above their station
my dog is like this, he refuses to fetch the ball, he wants me to chase him, he does not understand the rules

people who clean shit from toilets can be proud too, they can still own an eye phone eventually

i do think its a little unfair that someone who cleans shit from toilets is not considered an important member of the community
even if said shit cleaner owns his own toilet cleaning empire, they will still not be important enough to counter sign my passport

perhaps when folk make a certain amount of money they should get to have special letters or a new title / status
to differentiate them from the rest of society that did not choose to be as successful
this way a toilet cleaner millionaire can have the same status as a Dr or other respected professionals

i would be happy to pay £20 to a millionaire who owns a toilet cleaning business to counter sign my passport
anyone that has chosen to be so successful should automatically attain the same credibility and respect
as my Dr who previously countersigned my passport photo

also regular citizens that do not earn enough money should wear some kind of special mark/branding
so they can be identified as underachievers
perhaps the shame and negative reinforcement well help them aspire to work harder and consume more things

lazy people are the problem
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
skunkd0c said:
lazy people are the problem
Click to expand...
This kind of perpetual ignorance is the problem;





If the problem, as you say, was people are simply lazy, then why the sharp spikes in the graphs at the exact same time?

This is why;

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech, and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978 ), is a U.S. constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. (2010), (Docket No. 08-205), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by corporations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to labor unions and other associations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. (2014), was a landmark campaign finance case before the United States Supreme Court challenging Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which imposed a biennial aggregate limit on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission


They did it in 4 steps starting in 1974. The effects took place as early as 1978, and the results are what you see today;





And a 28th amendment to the constitution to prevent this from happening in the future is the only answer;

http://www.wolf-pac.com/
 
skunkd0c

skunkd0c

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
This kind of perpetual ignorance is the problem;
Click to expand...
After clicking the link in your sig, where you and another RIU member accuse each other of being rapists for about 6 pages of a thread
https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-worlds-most-hyped-and-overrated-things.818864/page-12#post-10754902

i kind of get the impression you're not a very sharp guy
then you go and take my above post literally and post a snazzy graphic to illustrate your objection

nice twist bro
you're pulling my leg right, no one can be that dense .. well maybe a rapist ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top