The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Yeah,we're all idiots for caring about the rhetoric and support that the months-long GOP frontrunner represents and you're so smart for simultaneously saying he should be ignored and also that he'll get lots of votes.

[Y2HH]

Yeah,we're all idiots for caring about the rhetoric and support that the months-long GOP frontrunner represents and you're so smart for simultaneously saying he should be ignored and also that he'll get lots of votes.

 

I'm glad you see it, too.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because you have been played by taking the Donald seriously.

 

 

I'm glad you see it, too.

 

Now you're just trolling. No one here is taking what he says any more seriously than you are. Well, except maybe greg.

 

[Y2HH]

Now you're just trolling. No one here is taking what he says any more seriously than you are. Well, except maybe greg.

 

Well played.

[pettie4sox]

I've said several times Donald Trump is playing the game to get elected and that he'll probably renege on everything if he gets the nomination. You just can't be fanatical and expect to win the presidency. It just isn't going to happen.

[pettie4sox]

General ideological opposition to welfare state policies like universal health care and higher taxes especially on the wealthy.

 

I'm sorry but the American dream got flushed down the toilet when those rich cocksuckers started cheating.

 

They got rich off the hard working people of America, they most certainly did not earn all of their billions of dollars.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm sorry but the American dream got flushed down the toilet when those rich cocksuckers started cheating.

 

They got rich off the hard working people of America, they most certainly did not earn all of their billions of dollars.

 

Wrong.

 

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/magaz...aires-self-made

Edited December 9, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

1) They're still mostly from wealthy or at least well-off and well-connected families. Bill Gates' parents were successful, wealthy lawyers who sent him to elite schools and had connections to the CEO at IBM (who gave Microsoft their first break). Phil Knight's father was a successful lawyer-turned-publisher, though Knight's marketing genius and cheap overseas labor really is what did it for him. Buffett's father was a wealthy businessman and Congressman. Stephen Schwarzman came from successful parents as well. Aside from Knight, the rest of that article's "self-made" examples all attended elite schools.

2) A lot of those guys' wealth is built on IP law protections (Zuckerberg, Gates) or other public projects (e.g. the internet), which means they owe society for that in the first place.

3) By and large, their wealth is still derived from the labor of others (especially someone like Nike who sells shoes for hundreds of dollars that they paid laborers pennies to make). That doesn't mean these people didn't work hard or have some unique ideas that flourished, but they also had a leg up on an overwhelming majority of people.

Edited December 9, 2015 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I've said several times Donald Trump is playing the game to get elected and that he'll probably renege on everything if he gets the nomination. You just can't be fanatical and expect to win the presidency. It just isn't going to happen.

He's a got a $1 bet with someone to see just how far he can go and still stay in the lead.

[Jenksismyhero]

1) They're still mostly from wealthy or at least well-off and well-connected families.

2) A lot of those guys' wealth is built on IP law protections (Zuckerberg, Gates) or other public projects (e.g. the internet), which means they owe society for that in the first place.

3) By and large, their wealth is still derived from the labor of others.

 

Did you read the link?

 

1) Most are NOT from wealthy families, according to that study. I'm sure the vast majority come from "good" homes versus "bad" homes, but so do tens of millions of other people that don't become so insanely wealthy and successful.

 

2) Sure, but both of those guys had ideas that no one else had and/or perfected those ideas better than others. I don't think they "owe" society anything. Seems like a very odd way of looking at it. Not only do you completely devalue everything they've done/created, but it's their personal responsibility to give back to society. Liberals™.

 

3) And the same is true with literally everyone on the face of the earth with a job. You make money because you perform a service that someone else is willing to pay for. You also use the labor of others in performing your job (phones, computers, cars, electricity, water, etc.) Without them, you wouldn't earn a living.

[Y2HH]

He's a got a $1 bet with someone to see just how far he can go and still stay in the lead.

 

[StrangeSox]

Did you read the link?

 

1) Most are NOT from wealthy families, according to that study. I'm sure the vast majority come from "good" homes versus "bad" homes, but so do tens of millions of other people that don't become so insanely wealthy and successful.

 

Yes, I did. Look at their own listed examples: Bill Gates' parents were successful, wealthy lawyers who sent him to elite schools and had connections to the CEO at IBM (who gave Microsoft their first break). Phil Knight's father was a successful lawyer-turned-publisher, though Knight's marketing genius and cheap overseas labor really is what did it for him. Buffett's father was a wealthy businessman and Congressman. Stephen Schwarzman came from successful parents as well. Aside from Knight, the rest of that article's "self-made" examples all attended elite schools.

 

2) Sure, but both of those guys had ideas that no one else had and/or perfected those ideas better than others. I don't think they "owe" society anything. Seems like a very odd way of looking at it. Not only do you completely devalue everything they've done/created, but it's their personal responsibility to give back to society. Liberals™.

 

Or they were in the right place at the right time in conditions that never existed before and won't ever exist again (that one mainly applies to Gates). Society allows for intellectual property--without laws explicitly creating it, there would be no patent or copyrights and the wealth of guys like Gates and Zuckerberg and Bezos would be non-existent. Without important public spending in the first place, Facebook and Amazon aren't even a concept. For Microsoft, they repeatedly engaged in anti-trust behavior.

 

It doesn't devalue what they've done or created, but it puts the claim of "self-made" into perspective. Nobody becomes wealthy without the work of others.

 

Society created the conditions that allowed them to accumulate unfathomable amounts of wealth in the first place, so yeah, they should feel responsible to give back to society. More broadly, that sort of super-concentrated wealth is unhealthy for society in general.

 

3) And the same is true with literally everyone on the face of the earth with a job. You make money because you perform a service that someone else is willing to pay for. You also use the labor of others in performing your job (phones, computers, cars, electricity, water, etc.) Without them, you wouldn't earn a living.

 

Yes, I agree. However, for the capital class, their wealth is derived from holding wealth itself, not from labor. People who own shares in the company I work for make money off of the work I do. My work helps pay for the CEO's salary. This of course applies to everyone in the company from the top on down.

 

I'm not arguing for Marx's labor theory of value here, but just for some perspective on how "self-made" the wealthy really are.

Edited December 9, 2015 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

Yes, I did. Look at their own listed examples: Bill Gates' parents were successful, wealthy lawyers who sent him to elite schools and had connections to the CEO at IBM (who gave Microsoft their first break). Phil Knight's father was a successful lawyer-turned-publisher, though Knight's marketing genius and cheap overseas labor really is what did it for him. Buffett's father was a wealthy businessman and Congressman. Stephen Schwarzman came from successful parents as well. Aside from Knight, the rest of that article's "self-made" examples all attended elite schools.

 

 

 

Or they were in the right place at the right time in conditions that never existed before and won't ever exist again (that one mainly applies to Gates). Society allows for intellectual property--without laws explicitly creating it, there would be no patent or copyrights and the wealth of guys like Gates and Zuckerberg and Bezos would be non-existent. Without important public spending in the first place, Facebook and Amazon aren't even a concept. For Microsoft, they repeatedly engaged in anti-trust behavior.

 

It doesn't devalue what they've done or created, but it puts the claim of "self-made" into perspective. Nobody becomes wealthy without the work of others.

 

Society created the conditions that allowed them to accumulate unfathomable amounts of wealth in the first place, so yeah, they should feel responsible to give back to society. More broadly, that sort of super-concentrated wealth is unhealthy for society in general.

 

 

 

Yes, I agree. However, for the capital class, their wealth is derived from holding wealth itself, not from labor. People who own shares in the company I work for make money off of the work I do. My work helps pay for the CEO's salary. This of course applies to everyone in the company from the top on down.

 

I'm not arguing for Marx's labor theory of value here, but just for some perspective on how "self-made" the wealthy really are.

The wealthy schools/great background argument I can buy. But saying they're not self-made because society was responsible for the internet is silly. A privileged upbringing is an advantage they had that most don't. They didn't have an advantage over contemporaries just because the internet happened to exist.

[StrangeSox]

That's not an advantage they enjoyed, but it is something fundamental to the wealth they have that they didn't make. Standing on the shoulders of giants etc.

 

There's also timing /luck (if gates is born five years later we never hear of him) and survivorship bias (some OS would inevitably become the market leader, MS wasn't really groundbreaking)

 

That part is really more about other parts of society enabled them and why they "owe" something to society. Just another way of phrasing "you didn't build that."

[pettie4sox]

Wrong.

 

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/magaz...aires-self-made

 

I should have clarified and said some, not all, as generalizations like that are easy to debunk.

 

Oh, the Walton family says hello!

 

I mean taxpayers are practically paying for their gross negligence to their employees and yes they have multiple family members that are multi billionaires! Let that sink in for a minute.

 

If you hide your money in offshore accounts and send jobs overseas, you should not be allowed to sell your products in the USA. Better yet, tax the hell out of the goods coming in to compensate for their cheating. Yeah yeah, they'll just pass the buck to the consumers. Must be nice to be a rich and to rig the game. The little guy can never win.

 

 

[pettie4sox]

I'm not advocating taking the money of the rich FWIW. I just think they deserve no extra f***ing protecting. They are like coddle children and it's f***ing disgusting.

[StrangeSox]

This is why it doesn't really matter if Trump personally believes that bulls*** he's saying:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/dona...3tvcaS12G"" target="_blank">White supremacist groups see Trump bump

'He has sparked an insurgency,' Stormfront founder says.

 

Related:

 

 

[Cknolls]

I'm sorry but the American dream got flushed down the toilet when those rich cocksuckers started cheating.

 

They got rich off the hard working people of America, they most certainly did not earn all of their billions of dollars.

 

 

Who? What rich people are you referring? Trump? Gore? Zuckerberg? Gates? Steyer? Koch?

[bmags]

How are these rich people cheating more than the 19th century rich people? Was that when the american people had the american dream? When did the american dream happen?

[StrangeSox]

How are these rich people cheating more than the 19th century rich people? Was that when the american people had the american dream? When did the american dream happen?

They're not, but we created and enforced anti-trust laws and busted up monopolies in response to the Gilded Age. We're sliding back towards more and more industry consolidation these days, though.

[pettie4sox]

They're not, but we created and enforced anti-trust laws and busted up monopolies in response to the Gilded Age. We're sliding back towards more and more industry consolidation these days, though.

 

Monopolies these days are more subtle, for example the pharma industry. A little pharma company pops and is successful, big pharma will swoop in and buy them up. Granted it's not illegal but it's a way to keep new blood off the market.

 

Or big pharma will break up into different entities and claim they are not the same. It's a big giant scam.

[pettie4sox]

How are these rich people cheating more than the 19th century rich people? Was that when the american people had the american dream? When did the american dream happen?

 

Hiding money overseas and using cheap labor to make goods to sell to Americans at astronomical prices.

 

If the 19 century rich had the international world we did today, they would do the exact same thing.

[bmags]

They're not, but we created and enforced anti-trust laws and busted up monopolies in response to the Gilded Age. We're sliding back towards more and more industry consolidation these days, though.

 

We also had zero social net protections at that point. And if the goal of anti-trust laws was to prevent inequality, many of those companies ended up richer. Standard Oil quadrupled its wealth as the sum of their parts were greater than their whole.

 

It was the income tax which accomplished anything remotely like what is being discussed. The consolidation is largely happening in industries where marketshare gains are combatting margin losses.

 

We just prevented STAPLES from merging. Is this accomplishing anything?

 

 

[bmags]

Hiding money overseas and using cheap labor to make goods to sell to Americans at astronomical prices.

 

If the 19 century rich had the international world we did today, they would do the exact same thing.

 

Astronomical prices? Have you ever been to another country? Try buying electronics in south america and come talk to me.

[StrangeSox]

Hiding money overseas and using cheap labor to make goods to sell to Americans at astronomical prices.

 

If the 19 century rich had the international world we did today, they would do the exact same thing.

 

FWIW they just did that domestically in the 19th century and violently suppressed workers rights/unionization movements with the help of private "detectives agencies" and state and federal law enforcement. We also got the Lochner era in the courts where all sorts of workplace rights and worker protection laws were struck down.