socialism

[Aunt Antifa]

Source? I've heard the opposite. Good benefits, good training, opportunities.



You have the rants and mantras down pat. Facts are that prior to the pandemic wages were growing strongly with the largest percentage gains at the lowest pay levels.

That’s great but when you say “gains” what were they over a 20 year period?

And nothing you just said undercuts anything in my post.

 

[NotreDame]

No. Amazon workers don’t make enough to create a stable financial infrastructure, and they’re treated terribly to boot. There is no real upward mobility from warehouse to exec offices either, so it’s not like they can just bootstrap it.

so go work somewhere else, right?

Wrong! That’s where your next question comes in: as Amazon gobbles up market share due to a combination of anti-competition tactics enabled by our political class, they’ve wiped out swaths of brick and mortar and other online shopping services.

Not to mention as it becomes acceptable as a “best practice” to pay starvation wages with barely any benefits, other companies embrace that too. The net result is what it is: workers have suffered through stagnant growth while c-suite and shareholders rape the hell out of the sweat equity created by the people who actually provide value.

There is no good that comes from such a concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of one person. This should be pretty obvious but crony capitalists keep telling themselves they’ll get to be Bezos some day so they celebrate the financial boot on our necks.

Ah, there you go again. Making a claim of what is not “good,” failing to provide any rationale for knowing when good is or isn’t present, and resorting to the fabled “obvious” rationale, parallel to the “self-evident” approach when they have nothing substantive to rely upon.

You have a view of disapproval of what you’ve described but no logical basis for your disapproval. That’s been a theme in everyone is your posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bullseye]

What risk did he take? And that early risk has paid off. In large (most) part thanks to the workers in the warehouse and the delivery people.

Read his history.

They bring so much more value to the company than Bezos at this point it’s not even debatable.

You poor deluded socialist.

 

[NotreDame]

Because they’re what allows him to be a billionaire and it’s the right thing to do.

“It is the right thing to do” according to whom? What? That’s the problem, the “right thing to do” isn’t agreed upon. There’s a lot of variance of what “right thing to do” is and means.

So, how exactly then do you get to the $100,000 valuation? Just picked that number out of thin air?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bullseye]

Because they’re what allows him to be a billionaire and it’s the right thing to do.

And got paid competitively for the work they do. And get a nice set of benefits

 

[trixare4kids]

Read his history.
You poor deluded socialist.

One has to remember that our peace loving Auntie A. is the same poster who called for 'burning it all down, every inch'.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So, how exactly then do you get to the $100,000 valuation? Just picked that number out of thin air?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. If you want, we can call it 200k.

So: Jeff Bezos calls you and says: I’m gonna start giving my warehouse employees 100k salaries and great benefits. And free massages. Daily.

He asks your opinion.

Go...

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Read his history.
You poor deluded socialist.

So you don’t know, you just know he’s a billionaire and because you’re a sophisticated economics knower you just assume rich guy = worked hard. Best lemonade on the block!

Ah, “socialist”. You got nuttin but wanted me to know. Very sweet of you!

White flag accepted. Enjoy your evening.

 

[Bullseye]

So you don’t know, you just know he’s a billionaire and because you’re a sophisticated economics knower you just assume rich guy = worked hard. Best lemonade on the block!

Do I know off the top of my head how he conceived and built the company? No, but I've read enough business history to know it takes a special person to build a business like amazon - most new businesses, well over 90%, don't survey five years.

Ah, “socialist”. You got nuttin but wanted me to know. Very sweet of you!

White flag accepted. Enjoy your evening.

You too.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

And got paid competitively for the work they do. And get a nice set of benefits

You are using the company’s own website to prove to me the company pays out great benefits? HAHAHAHAHA oh god god no way. No way. HAHAHAHAHA

Okay, forget this convo. We need to talk about something important:

Sir, I’m with Vets To Build The Wall, would you like to make a small contribution to our patriotic cause today?

(HAHAHAHAHAHA...literally right now..HAHAHAHA)

 

[Bullseye]

One has to remember that our peace loving Auntie A. is the same poster who called for 'burning it all down, every inch'.

I missed that!

 

[NotreDame]

My only real quarrel with folks like you is the pretense that your beliefs do not also originate from your personal subjective beliefs while you demand others make a rational case to you.

No, hunter gather behavior a millenia ago is not relevant to the idea of ownership any more than a chimp fighting another chimp to protect his banana today is.

Yet, this misses the original phrase being discussed. Which explains why you erroneously say "is not relevant." My comment is indeed relevant to the original phrase which subsequently led to a reference of hunting and gathering behavior.

Except you are. When discussing our economic system, our capitalist system, its kind of hard to dismiss the bedrock on which it is built which is the subjective notion of natural rights, property rights in particular.

I have no evidence the "bedrock on which it is built is the subjective notion of natural rights, property rights in particular." Property rights are ancient, preceding the existence of capitalism by several millennia.Property rights preceded the emergence of natural rights theory of the 1600 and 1700s by more than a few millennia. Which is to say property rights came into existence first, was in practice first, and well established for over two millennia before natural rights theory developed. Capitalism is built upon a property rights notion which is ancient, and not the result of natural rights.

The colonists inherited property rights and common law protection from England. Which is to say, the English not only brought their customs to America but they also brought the common law, including the common law idea of property and property rights, as it was their law, after all, they were English. The U.S. Constitution adopts the common law protection of property rights that had developed in England. Capitalism is subsequently built upon a property rights regime which did not originate in England, or the U.S., and as a result, is not at all established to exist on "the subjective notion of natural rights, property rights in particular." The English were not the originators of the notion of property rights but borrowed a very much old notion from the preceding pages of history.

Of course, property rights were objectively useful, and are objectively useful. Anthropologists and historians understand the notion of property rights allowed people to settle in one spot, grow food (farm) which allowed humanity to transition from the transient hunting and gathering societies and settle in one spot. With agricultural, people farming private property, and feeding not only themselves but other people, the emergence of villages, then towns, etcetera, occurs. Private property rights in more than just land to farm, such as merchants, blacksmiths, for example, is also useful, as it allows for an expanded economy, increase trade, goods, services, and with it an increase in wealth, and an increase in money.

By the time the capitalism emerges in the U.S., the people in the U.S., and elsewhere, can observe history and understand property rights objectively has been useful in every nation, including the powerful regimes of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Athens, Persia, Greece, Rome, England, France, Byzantine Empire, and so forth. So, there does exist, objectively, a basis for property rights and for people to support the existence of property rights by the time capitalism manifests in the U.S.

Yes, like your belief that Bezos or you have some natural right to property.

I have never argued for natural rights. And I do not believe in natural rights. I am not a natural rights advocate and neither do I find natural rights theory compelling. This is just another Strawman. Bezos has property interests because our law recognizes property interests. Property interests do, objectively, have utility, they are useful.

My only real quarrel with folks like you is the pretense that your beliefs do not also originate from your personal subjective beliefs while you demand others make a rational case to you.

Maybe you should not presume such a pretense exists. Take property rights as an example. I do not care for the natural rights justification for property rights. I do not at all. Rather, there exists objective justifications for property rights without some grandiose theory property rights are manna from God above. Yet, you presumed, erroneously, my justification, or the justification for property rights in the U.S., upon which capitalism is built, lacks an objective justification and is instead built upon a natural rights theory. It isn't. Property rights came long before natural rights theory, and were practiced in England many centuries before natural rights. Rather, I, like Hayek, Smith, Mises, etcetera, see a utility, a usefulness, objectively, that comes from property rights.

 

[NotreDame]

Yup. If you want, we can call it 200k.

So: Jeff Bezos calls you and says: I’m gonna start giving my warehouse employees 100k salaries and great benefits. And free massages. Daily.

He asks your opinion.

Go...

Pay whatever wage you want as allowed by law. Want to pay all of them a quarter mill? It is your world bro. Want to pay them minimum wage? Knock yourself out partna. Unlike you, I am not inclined to arbitrarily pull numbers out of thin air.

It is rational, you think it is rational to determine wages to be paid by whatever number comes to your mind? That makes sense to you?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Pay whatever wage you want as allowed by law. Want to pay all of them a quarter mill? It is your world bro. Want to pay them minimum wage? Knock yourself out partna. Unlike you, I am not inclined to arbitrarily pull numbers out of thin air.

It is rational, you think it is rational to determine wages to be paid by whatever number comes to your mind? That makes sense to you?

So you would tell Bezos he can pay his employees whatever he wants? Why are you getting hung up on the # when the point of the exercise is philosophical in nature.

Also, you’re indicating there is a “correct” number in the scenario?

 

[NotreDame]

Mistreatment.

Easy.

Mistreatment is anything inflicted by somebody on another that they wouldn't like being subjected to themselves.

Golden rule stuff.

It may be true Bezos thinks, “If I were a factory worker for Amazon, the wage being paid is not mistreatment but about right for the job and its duties.” Hence, Bezos is treating them as he envisions would be fair treatment if he were in their shoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[What if...?]

It may be true Bezos thinks, “If I were a factory worker for Amazon, the wage being paid is not mistreatment but about right for the job and its duties.” Hence, Bezos is treating them as he envisions would be fair treatment if he were in their shoes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the standard capitalist shuffle?

"How much better their lives are because they get to gaze upon our glory. Raise their rents! They will be absolutely joyous."

And of course there's the oldie but goodie: "Most slaves lived good lives"

 

[NotreDame]

So you would tell Bezos he can pay his employees whatever he wants? Why are you getting hung up on the # when the point of the exercise is philosophical in nature.

Also, you’re indicating there is a “correct” number in the scenario?

Also, you’re indicating there is a “correct” number in the scenario?

I am? How so? It is curious you make this remark because the very tenor and text of my posts is very much skeptical there is a “correct” number, and should it exist, we do not know it or have the means to know it.

Why are you getting hung up on the # when the point of the exercise is philosophical in nature.

I’m “hung up on the” number you chose. How you selected the number is the philosophical exercise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[What if...?]

No evidence the status quo is arbitrary. No argument to think it is arbitrary. (Status quo being Bezos can be a billionaire, is a billionaire, with a pay disparity.)



Excuse me? LMAO is usually reserved for people who know what they’re talking about.

Hunting and gathering herds did act in the manner I described.

Second, I didn’t say “they expressed ownership.” That’s your strawman. I said they engaged in conduct that is a fundamental basis for today’s notion of ownership, that being exclusivity in possession and use. That is relevant as it shows the idea of ownership today has elements which were conceived and practiced many millennia ago. Third, I never made any comparison to “legal system based on individual rights.” Another strawman.



I provided the answer in a prior post. Brevity requires I not repeat it in this post.



Tantalizing but irrelevant. I’m not discussing “most laws.” Second, your claim is broad, vague, and as a result, unconvincing.



That’s in the DOI. That phrase is NOT a law. Just an FYI. And I couldn’t care less about Jefferson’s appeal to natural rights in the DOI. I’m not discussing natural rights.

Ironically, however, you refer to a phrase that finds its genesis in natural rights, by natural rights thinkers, who also advocated for very limited government and staunch protection of property rights. Those same thinkers would say billionaires have a natural right of private property, which includes their wealth and income, and limited government has no damn business telling people how much is too much money. Indeed Nozick, in his famed work, built upon Lockean theory of natural rights and limited government, as did Hayek, Mises, and Jefferson.



No, I do. You do not. Subjective is based in personal belief, tastes, feelings, opinion. I believe chocolate ice cream is the best. That’s subjective. Objective is something that is real, exists, a fact, independent of our subjective perceptions or opinions. On earth, all else being equal, if an object is released, the object falls downward. That is objective, regardless of our personal perceptions or opinions, the object does fall downward.

Now, how does this relate to freedom of contract and why it was advocated by the merchant class during the beginning of the industrial revolution? Because it made them money. Regardless of anyone’s perception, contract law, freedom of contract, and enforcement made mechants money, as they can tabulate how much money was made off of a contract, and that number is real. In addition, it allows them to increase what they’ve made as they would contract with foreign entities for some specific price for raw materials, and then contract with the manufacturer for a higher price than they paid for those materials. Which they did. The profit is real. They spent 5 dollars by contract for wool, and sold it for 12 dollars by contract to a manufacturer making wool clothing. They made 7 dollars profit. That is objective. They knew the objective fact was that they’re making money.

In addition, the contract law, freedom of contract, and enforcement allowed them to contract for profits reliably. They could reliably know what they would have going out financially and coming in.

Hence, an objective reality was the basis for favoring freedom of contract. And the merchant class, which was a middle class, made good use of it, as they increased their wealth, in part, from freedom of contract.



Except, I have made none and have none on the subject matter. So, the above is a vacuous remark.

But hey, I hear Greek temples have a shortage of Pythias. Maybe you can go screw up your diving people’s thoughts there, like here. They may keep you despite your high error rate, as they have such a shortage of Pythias.



Label me unsurprised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your theory on ownership isn't really correct.

Hunter/gatherers were quite rapacious, like gorillas are. they ate everything before they moved on. It took time to replenish.

Hence their ranges were too large to "occupy and defend" as you envision. It could be days' walk from one side to the other.

What you are describing is post adoption of the sedentary lifestyle.

And our maladaptations to that radical change in lifestyle have led to most of our strife since then not imposed by the environment.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I am? How so? It is curious you make this remark because the very tenor and text of my posts is very much skeptical there is a “correct” number, and should it exist, we do not know it or have the means to know it.



I’m “hung up on the” number you chose. How you selected the number is the philosophical exercise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if Jeff Bezos wants to pay his warehouse and drivers 100k plus great Bennies, you're fine with that, correct? No objections?

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

"How much better their lives are because they get to gaze upon our glory. Raise their rents! They will be absolutely joyous."

And of course there's the oldie but goodie: "Most slaves lived good lives"

So the standard capitalist shuffle?

No idea what this phrase means, or what the phrase references.

And of course there's the oldie but goodie: "Most slaves lived good lives

You are relying upon an equivocation.

Today the word “slave” can refer to a time when people were treated as property and owned by another human being. The word “slave” has been used metaphorically in the context of wage labor in relation to capitalists. A relationship in which the laborer is argued as completely subservient to the capitalists. There’s a reason the word is used as a metaphor, because laborers are not “completely subservient.” It is argued, however, generally the capitalists cannot be avoided in a capitalist regime. People must work for the capitalist, they gave to eat, and capitalism and capitalists, it is argued, is the only game in town. Hence, the laborer is a slave, metaphorically, as they cannot escape working for the capitalist, they are “subservient” to capitalism’s drive for a profit, and capitalists’ seeking a profit.

This of course ignores the people who work for themselves, which is a possibility, and operate their own enterprise. This also ignores that experience and education permits workers, the slaves, to enhance their bargaining power, and extract concessions, higher pay, more days off, etcetera, which is paradoxical for a “slave.” They can take their experience, knowledge, expertise, elsewhere, to someone willing to pay and offer more. Hardly reflective of being “completely subservient.”

Amazon does have a program whereby there’s the option for the company to pay for college expenses, up to $12,000 over four years. Hardy a slave, one of “completely subservient.”

So, your quotes make for decent literature but flowery phrases aren’t evidence. Neither are they a reasoned argument.

So tell me, please, how you establish mistreatment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

So if Jeff Bezos wants to pay his warehouse and drivers 100k plus great Bennies, you're fine with that, correct? No objections?

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk

Yep! Who am I to tell him no without a reasoned argument or evidence to do so?

If he paid them $1,000,000 who am I to object? Upon what do I make an objection?

Who else may object and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yep! Who am I to tell him no without a reasoned argument or evidence to do so?

If he paid them $1,000,000 who am I to object? Upon what do I make an objection?

Who else may object and why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool.

Thx.

 

[john patriot]

why must we be like China! and all the other failed socialist countries! Q 2024

 

[john patriot]

democrats are they Socialist, Marxist, Communist or all of the above! Q 2024

 

[W_Heisenberg]

how can America the greatest country in the world be fooled into socialism. under socialism you will have little to no law enforcement, no borders, no social security, health care if you work, housing if you work, transportation to go and come from work, no guns, no free speech, just look at all the other failed countries who have resorted to socialism, multi-generational housing, no health care unless you work, if you don't work you will be a burden under socialism, no free programs, mandatory abortions, under socialism no more free lunch, you will have to work to receive any help from the government. Q 2024

In sign of the times, Ayn Rand Institute approved for PPP loan - Reuters

Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform took money from the Paycheck Protection Program.

a quick reminder that the party john "patriot" supporters routinely enacts and benefits from socialistic policies involving extreme government intervention into the economy, and massive transfers of wealth.