Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
Like Tree46Likes

Thread: Lee Camp - on the Deep State coup and media "cheering" it on

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    302
    > just get your Facts straight...

    Sounds like you disagree with the facts. :-)

    Do you ?


    Oh wait, we are going to play word games are we now..

    > Of course 'the entire cost' of labor receives the so-called lion's share.....:roll eyes:......

    Oh so you don't disagree then !


    > But the 'Wealth' generally goes to the already well off,

    But wait, you are just saying the opposite now ?

    You can't have 'lions share' and 'wealth' as not the same thing !


    > the CEO's, their minions, and Share Holders....

    Well, I'm not a great fan of shareholders myself. (The company in question I gave as an example, doesn't actually have shareholders, just to show it is possible to run a company without them!)

    But CEO's and their minions do play a crucial role, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to get a few percentage points of the cake, especially if you are a worker and getting 90% of that cake yourself !


    > Where would the Capitalists be without LABOR creating the capital used to make wealth?

    Where would LABOR be without capitalists..

    Both groups need each other to function well.

    The only reason labour gets paid less than folk higher up the food chain is due to rarity.

    If we was all smart enough to be CEO's, then they would be so common that I imagine their pay would be barely above that of LABOR. :-)

    Or if there was a lack of LABOR and too many CEO's, then CEO's would get less !


    After all, we don't go around complaining that some sports star is getting paid a lot because they broke some world record do we..

    So why complain about CEO's who are just stars of the business world.


    We should instead be milking them for everything they are worth, the cash cow if you will.

    We want as many CEO's as we can generate, then at least, their price will go down !


    > until Labor finally gets tired of getting screwed and fights back.

    Generally the only way Labor can fight back is by becoming the one thing it supposedly hates, CEO's of their own business.

    And then the whole cycle repeats itself !


    Now, if you was instead talking about workers conditions, then I'm all for improving those as much as is affordable in a company.

    Though, you want to be careful and not ask for too much, or else some other company with less concern for its workers will put your business out of business and you will be unemployed, or worse, end up working for that worse business.

    So its a fine balancing act in not asking for too much, but enough to move things in your favour.

    Overall it isn't something we should be fighting about, because both parties want the same thing.


    Typical humans though, always wanting more than others. :-)

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    823
    Right if Labor got its fair share we wouldn't be calling for a NLRBE then?

    It's called Inequality, Social Stratification.

    The fact that people are calling for higher wages, UBI's, affordable Health Care, condemning insane CEO salaries etc. etc.. should prove to everyone that workers aren't getting a fair deal in this arrangement today.
    droneBEE likes this.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Of course, I know; this is all given stuff from the moment we're conceived into existence. There's nothing we can do about the givens; that's the essence of what a given is. Even if there are options, the choices tend to be limited; we can choose to go to war with our neighbors over limited raw resources & either kill or enslave them, or we can choose to get along with our neighbors and trade with them. It's better to choose to trade with our neighbors, because resources and the environment aren't wasted on or destroyed by bombs. We don't have any other choices yet, but with the Internet and implementation of other forms of technology we're getting closer.
    So what you're saying is that Capitalism is something 'normal', something 'natural', even maybe a part of Natural Law?

    That this Free Market Capitalism idea comes from what has always been a part of the Human Species/Civilization and is not just some invented design because it's basically intrinsical to the Universe? Same with Scarcity. That it's something normal therefore acceptable because it's part of our Economic System which is just part of "nature".

    To me none of this is normal or "real". It all goes against Natural Law and is why we have so many problems in this World. No type of Capitalism is design to comply with Natural Law hence why it's doomed to Fail. Expecting that All people will benefit(win-win) from this type of system is being out of touch with those things that truly strengthen Life.

    There's us(Humans) and the Earth. We're here to Live on it. The only questions to ask are what are the Limitations to this foundation? Where do we go? Who do we ask first? Well whatever is giving us Life should be the answer. Not some opinion, idea, theory etc.. but Planet Earth. Whatever its able to provide us with, that's what we listen to because that would be the natural thing to do aka Natural Law. We wouldn't be here if this weren't true. The Earth provides Abundance because that's the natural way, Scarcity isn't. Scarcity is Man-Made. But Planet Earth and Humans are designed to Live in Abundance with one another. It's just that their Flawed ways of thinking have deviated from this reality.

    I've come to recognize this when I philosophize about the World. I see too many deviations from Natural Law in our Cultural/Societal constructs. It's just Earth and Us together. That's all we have. Everything else is Made-Up. If we can get our Connection back with it and just focus on that, we'll be fine because it's still here providing us with everything we Need. But instead of taking it from her(Capitalism), we should just appreciate & Respect what she is able to offer us. And that's more than enough for All people on this Wonderful Planet we should be Honored to share an existence with.

    Anything else would go against to what it means to Thrive in this thing called Life.
    droneBEE likes this.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,121
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > just get your Facts straight...

    Sounds like you disagree with the facts. :-)

    Do you ?


    Oh wait, we are going to play word games are we now..

    > Of course 'the entire cost' of labor receives the so-called lion's share.....:roll eyes:......

    Oh so you don't disagree then !


    > But the 'Wealth' generally goes to the already well off,

    But wait, you are just saying the opposite now ?

    You can't have 'lions share' and 'wealth' as not the same thing !


    > the CEO's, their minions, and Share Holders....

    Well, I'm not a great fan of shareholders myself. (The company in question I gave as an example, doesn't actually have shareholders, just to show it is possible to run a company without them!)

    But CEO's and their minions do play a crucial role, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to get a few percentage points of the cake, especially if you are a worker and getting 90% of that cake yourself !


    > Where would the Capitalists be without LABOR creating the capital used to make wealth?

    Where would LABOR be without capitalists..

    Both groups need each other to function well.

    The only reason labour gets paid less than folk higher up the food chain is due to rarity.

    If we was all smart enough to be CEO's, then they would be so common that I imagine their pay would be barely above that of LABOR. :-)

    Or if there was a lack of LABOR and too many CEO's, then CEO's would get less !


    After all, we don't go around complaining that some sports star is getting paid a lot because they broke some world record do we..

    So why complain about CEO's who are just stars of the business world.


    We should instead be milking them for everything they are worth, the cash cow if you will.

    We want as many CEO's as we can generate, then at least, their price will go down !


    > until Labor finally gets tired of getting screwed and fights back.

    Generally the only way Labor can fight back is by becoming the one thing it supposedly hates, CEO's of their own business.

    And then the whole cycle repeats itself !


    Now, if you was instead talking about workers conditions, then I'm all for improving those as much as is affordable in a company.

    Though, you want to be careful and not ask for too much, or else some other company with less concern for its workers will put your business out of business and you will be unemployed, or worse, end up working for that worse business.

    So its a fine balancing act in not asking for too much, but enough to move things in your favour.

    Overall it isn't something we should be fighting about, because both parties want the same thing.


    Typical humans though, always wanting more than others. :-)
    "Typical Humans" ... always 'seeking and finding' nonsensical reasons, based on irrational thinking, due to generations of conditioning, that reinforce 'petty' divisions, instead of a common and shared purpose (individualistic self-importance always seems to get in the way)

    Ok, let's 'try' this one more time; this 'might' help develop a more comprehensive understanding of the 'dismal science' known as Economics, and also an appreciation for where I'm coming from whenever engaging in any debate about it. Without the proper understanding of the following information, rarely if ever a part of formal academics, we can/will never have a 'complete' conversation about the subject....IMHO...

    Please...Educate and 'Dare to think' for thyself....


    Understanding Economics - Site Map
    Ernest likes this.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    So what you're saying is that Capitalism is something 'normal', something 'natural', even maybe a part of Natural Law?

    That this Free Market Capitalism idea comes from what has always been a part of the Human Species/Civilization and is not just some invented design because it's basically intrinsical to the Universe?
    I don't know if trading has always been a part of the human species, but if it hasn't then it only had war & fighting over resources (that includes isolationist tribes or nations threatening each other with force), until they did begin trading.

    I've seen documentaries about one chimp group or tribe getting into a fight and killing another chimp group or tribe. Have you ever read, heard about, or seen a documentary on any chimp group or tribe approaching another chimp group or tribe in order to make a peace treaty and to trade with each other? If so, I'd drop whatever I'm doing to read about it, hear about it, or watch a documentary about it. That would be the most interesting thing I can think of given this discussion.

    I'm saying that we human beings have something superior to what even the closest primates lesser to humans have, which is the ability to not only engage in trade, but do it peacefully. Only free-market capitalism is a form of trade that can be peaceful - peaceful thus free or free thus peaceful (I don't know which, but I also don't know whether it matters which, either).

    These are the only conditions we've ever had in humanity: war, trade, and mixtures.

    War; from what I can tell war exists in one of 3 ways:

    1) different groups of people fighting over resources
    2) at least one group of people are fighting to enslave another group of people
    3) at least one group of people are trying to destroy another group of people

    We can have a conversation about how in some cases war or fighting can happen as a result of a misunderstanding, but I think we'll ultimately find that the origin that the mistake traces back to has something to do with a property, trade, or boundary dispute (meaning essentially something to do with capitalism).

    If it's capitalism, but not free-market capitalism, that leaves only one possibility that I can think of: it's a hybrid of (non free market) capitalism and war.

    When the state imposes a minimum wage law for employees on employers, that's an example of a non free market capitalist system; if a business fails or refuses to pay its employees a state mandated minimum wage, the state wages war on that business by shutting it down, seizing it, imprisoning the owner, etc.

    Look at the defunct USSR; they waged war against their own entire nation and imprisoned it by propping up walls with guards to keep everyone inside like prisoners. No surprise it eventually collapsed; how can a nation at war with itself win? Everyone loses, until they shed that system from their nation.

    Look at North Korea, practically a military nation - the unleashing of war as its most readily available "resource" to export.

    Another thing, what do you mean by civilization? Wouldn't civilization imply that people are civilized? Are people civilized (yet)?

    The only reason I can think of for a free-market capitalist nation would be subjected to war is because an outside entity is invading it & I think that would be why a free-market capitalist nation, that would supposedly be peaceful, still has a military or militia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Same with Scarcity. That it's something normal therefore acceptable because it's part of our Economic System which is just part of "nature".
    I've never said scarcity is acceptable. I think it's very unacceptable! Unfortunately, this thing that I find unacceptable is imposing itself on us unless we do something about it. It's not going to go away if we do nothing about it and pretend it doesn't exist; if we do its effects on us will get worse! I think it's also obvious that I'm opposed to forcing anyone to work; abundance is better at coming about when people are free to choose what they want to do, where they want to live, when they want to work, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    To me none of this is normal or "real". It all goes against Natural Law and is why we have so many problems in this World. No type of Capitalism is design to comply with Natural Law hence why it's doomed to Fail.
    Capitalism could arguably be said to fail all the time, yet we keep trying it again because when it fails it's "every man for himself"! It's war and neighbor fighting neighbor for what little resources remain!

    If your car fails you get it repaired or replaced; otherwise you no longer have a car. Same thing with capitalism.

    When we no longer need a car, because we no longer need a job, because we no longer need to work, because we no longer need money, because scarcity is no longer a problem (whether it's due to technology replacing labor, magic fairies waving wands to produce everything, or whatever), we no longer need to repair or replace that car. Same with capitalism.

    Capitalism is essentially no different from a car; it's just a means to an end. when we're dependent on a means to an end, and that means becomes unavailable, there's now a problem with reaching that end. I think this is simple trivial stuff & I don't et what's so difficult to understand about it.

    I don't know about no type of capitalism being designed to comply with natural law (I think there's one that might), but if that's the case then which one comes closest to complying?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Expecting that All people will benefit(win-win) from this type of system
    It's not expecting or just expecting (it's more than that); what works and doesn't work well has been observed, repeated, and documented (science & scientific method stuff).

    We can learn what to avoid, from history, or we can ignore it and repeat the same mistakes. We can be sane by expecting the same results every time we try the same thing over and over, or we can be insane by expecting different results every time we try the same thing over and over. I choose to learn from history and to be sane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    is being out of touch with those things that truly strengthen Life.
    What do you mean by "to strenthen life"? I don't know what you mean by that.

    I'm here on this forum because in our world today, we have problems with crime, corruption, war, fraud, pollution, poverty, homelessness, abject hunger, etc. Let's stick to discussing those issues as the problem and what to do about them. Let's stick to the application of the scientific method for social concern.

    If you mean finding solutions to those problems of society as meaning strengthening life, then I'm interested in strengthening life. If you mean something religious, I'm not interested.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    There's us(Humans) and the Earth. We're here to Live on it.
    I don't know about this, either. We are humans, there is the Earth, and we do live here on Earth, but what do you mean that we're here to live on it? I don't know of a reason for why we're here or why there has to be a reason for us being here or to have to be here. All I know is that we are here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    The only questions to ask are what are the Limitations to this foundation?
    Well I think that's a very good question; maybe that's why Jacque Fresco thinks that one of the first steps in making an active transition to an "RBE" is a global survey of resources & perhaps, as a result, that's why the first word in "RBE" is resource.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Where do we go?
    We go to what we know works for us. To be specific, we go to science as both a body of knowledge as well as a process that has proven itself worthy of our consideration to determine what works for us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Who do we ask first?
    Those who know about history well; science as a body of knowledge is essentially documentation of history (i.e., scientists).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Well whatever is giving us Life should be the answer. Not some opinion, idea, theory etc.. but Planet Earth. Whatever its able to provide us with, that's what we listen to because that would be the natural thing to do aka Natural Law.
    If you're referring to things such as the application of the scientific method for social concern & global survey of resources, then I would agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    We wouldn't be here if this weren't true.
    This is leading me to think that you're referring to something different from what I thought you might have been referring to. Some of us manage to survive, despite war, famine, and disease; so because of that I'm not sure what you mean, here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    The Earth provides Abundance because that's the natural way, Scarcity isn't.
    Wrong criteria (not to mention how this sounds like religious sophistry). That's not what determines abundance or scarcity; they're determined by measuring resources and comparing them to consumption & demand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Scarcity is Man-Made.
    I agree, because history has shown us that the implementation of centralized planning (state capitalism) leads to man-made scarcity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    But Planet Earth and Humans are designed to Live in Abundance with one another.
    Well, obviously if that's the case then there's a flaw in that design. What does one do when there's a flaw in a "design" (as you put it)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    It's just that their Flawed ways of thinking have deviated from this reality.
    Yes, indeed. That's why we're here to spread awareness, ain't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    I've come to recognize this when I philosophize about the World. I see too many deviations from Natural Law in our Cultural/Societal constructs. It's just Earth and Us together. That's all we have. Everything else is Made-Up. If we can get our Connection back with it and just focus on that, we'll be fine because it's still here providing us with everything we Need. But instead of taking it from her(Capitalism), we should just appreciate & Respect what she is able to offer us. And that's more than enough for All people on this Wonderful Planet we should be Honored to share an existence with.

    Anything else would go against to what it means to Thrive in this thing called Life.
    Seems reasonable to me.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    823
    Hah I see you didn't recognize my attempt at Philosophy.

    I'm generally drawn to this way of thinking and I know often times people I guess are not used to this way of thinking for themselves or even care to so I've gotten the usual Religious, Spiritual , Sophistry etc. complaints to my replies. I wish more people were interested in this form of inquiry & reasoning but I know our Communities today aren't really taught to think in this way.

    Hey Neil I know you're a man of Logic so what are your feelings about the practice of Philosophy? Do you hold it in high esteem or are you really just not that interested in it?
    droneBEE and HAL9000 like this.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,121
    ....anyone ever witness a 'Chimp' intentionally polluting its habitat? ...or any creature besides us so-called 'smart' humans?

    Human arrogance and self importance conflicts not only with basic human rights and NATURAL LAW, but with the rights of every other species we Share this place with...

    Our self obsessiveness is what we use to 'justify' our behavior......Behavior that is mostly counter-productive to any kind of meaningful evolutionary advancement....
    Neil and Ernest like this.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,121
    Let's be clear; CAPITAL is not created out of thin air, as we've been taught, nor is it created by the Wealthy, as 'they' keep telling us.

    It takes the LABOR of Human beings transforming Natural Materials (our common wealth) into products, places and services that generates WEALTH, followed by the creation of CAPITAL, the generated INTEREST or Capital Yield of which, is what is created out of 'THIN AIR' ....solely for the benefit of the Well-Off, who then charge the rest of us rent just to LIVE...

    Quite the successful Con Job, no???

    My Friends; CAPITAL could/would not exist without a willing LABOR force and most importantly, the 'control' currently held over 'our' Natural Material Resources, our common wealth ....the planet Earth....by the Greedy.....in all their various stripes....
    Last edited by droneBEE; 03-21-2017 at 07:39 AM.
    Ernest likes this.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Hah I see you didn't recognize my attempt at Philosophy.
    You could be right about that, but what do you mean by it?

    What about my attempt at philosophy - is there one to recognize from me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    I'm generally drawn to this way of thinking and I know often times people I guess are not used to this way of thinking for themselves or even care to so I've gotten the usual Religious, Spiritual , Sophistry etc. complaints to my replies. I wish more people were interested in this form of inquiry & reasoning but I know our Communities today aren't really taught to think in this way.
    LOL What does that mean? Does that mean when you say that you jumped, you didn't really jump you swam? If someone says they jumped my follow up might be "how high did you jump?" If someone says they swam my follow up would be something different, such as "how far did you swim?" If you say that you swam, but you actually jumped, and I ask "how far did you swim", then whose fault is it that the wrong question was asked?

    I take what someone writes "as is", regardless of what their intention is. My philosophy is that I only know what someone has written & I'm not here to be a mind reader.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Hey Neil I know you're a man of Logic so what are your feelings about the practice of Philosophy? Do you hold it in high esteem or are you really just not that interested in it?
    It's essential; it's the root of the knowledge tree. I would say that logic is at the core of the root, which is why it's what I try to focus on. To me it's a big deal that people be educated on it and understand it; I don't get the impression that people are getting adequate education. Why wasn't I exposed to things until I got to college, that I think everyone should be getting exposed to since the day they enter high school? I'm only barely scratching the surface on this issue.

    I don't fault them for not having received adequate education, and I'm not picky about people making mistakes. I make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. What I'm more interested in is trying to better understand where people are coming from. I don't even mind if I disagree with someone, as long as I can understand their reasoning, life's experiences, etc. that explains why there's disagreement. I also appreciate it when someone who disagrees with me is genuinely willing to listen and consider my perspective.

    The only thing I can think of that I find unfortunate or annoying (that I can think of, right now) is when I ask someone a question - I'm trying to get clarification, I'm trying to better understand the person, etc. - and for whatever reason they're unwilling to answer the question. When that happens, what comes to my mind is that they don't like the answer to that question, so they think the answer to that question won't be what it is as long as they don't answer it; it also makes me wonder if it occurs to them that reality doesn't work that way & that everyone can see what they're doing.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1