It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything

page: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I was a business consultant to millionaires who would testify on my behalf that I know how to run a business better than 90% of those who actually run businesses. So your assumptions of me have no merrit.

I disagree with most every argument being made that suggest the business owner and CEOs value to a company is somehow significantly greater than the employees.

I actually think a CEO that can't do the job of his employees is out of touch with them and has no right to his title.

As Plato said. Who should in be in charge of shipbuilding. The expert craftsman who built ships or the sophist?

The CEO is a sophist, a motivator and marketer. It is important for the CEO to motivate his staff to build quality ships and market his company's ships to the public in a positve way. But that doesn't make him qualified to lead the team building the ships.

They are simply different skillsets.

The motivator and marketer is not 100 times more valuable to an organisation than the actuall shipbuilders. If the shipbuilders are not properly represented the income disparity between the sophist and the expert will continue to grow exponentially.

The model of extreme wealth disparity always fails. People always say show me a Socialist nation thst didn't fail. Show me the Capitalist nation that didn't fail.

People like to consider themselves superior and justify a lifestyle that is 100 times more lucrative than the worker. Those who own businesses and run businesses have a skillset. Those who are employees have a skillset. No business can run without both skillsets. Why is one skillset so disproportionately compensated?

You can try to justify disproportionate compensation with whatever fine sounding argument you would like. But I have been on both sides of the spectrum and no argument will sway my opinion on this topic.

It's elitism. You can't argue for elitism in the financial world and not expect elitism to control your government. They have the same ideological roots.

The owners are every bit as replaceable as the employees. They just refuse to acknowledge it. And by this refusal justify what is unjust.


edit on 20-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The floor sweeper?

That has to be the absolute worst example you could have made. Why go to such extremes? It only invalidates your argument. Even if you fail to see how invalid it is.
edit on 20-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ok...how is that relevant to the topic? Please be specific and talk about her actual plan. Not about someone's hyperbolic generalization


The general attitude prevalent among many these days is that if you are rich ( and that mainly just means if you have more than someone else -> the person complaining about "the rich"), you did not earn that fairly. Plainly put, if you have more than they do, it isn't because you worked hard and did everything you were supposed including making smart decisions, it's because you kept others down.

This is because people have been taught that wealth and riches are a zero sum game and that there is only so much in the world. So, if I have more than you, I stole that extra from you and others unfairly, and I'm being greedy in having more than my fair share of the world's finite pie.

This is stupid.

I'll explain why.

If I go and get a tomato seed and spend time growing a tomato plant that produces lots of tomatoes. Those tomatoes have real, tangible value. They are a form of wealth. I could conceivably sell them for money or eat them or any of a variety of things. Other people will want them. They are, in short, a part of that worldly wealth pie.

According to the zero sum idea, if I have tomatoes I grew myself out of a seed that you don't have, then I stole them from you and I should be forced to give you an equal share of my tomatoes whether you did anything to help me grow them or not ... whether or not you even knew I was putting forth effort to grow a tomato plant ... whether or not you even *want* my tomatoes (you might hate them, but as they have value, you ought to at least receive the equivalent to their worth, right?).

Thing is that if I had not gone to the time, effort, and trouble to take that tiny seed and grow the plant, tend it, and see that it produced tomatoes, there wouldn't have been any ... no wealth.

And everything of worth, minus certain natural resources maybe, is like this and even those have to be pulled out of the ground and refined, so lots of time and effort still has to go into making those worth anything.

So maybe ... just maybe ... not all of what is produced is stolen. Maybe not all of wealth is zero sum. Maybe the paradigms you've been taught aren't exactly as you believe them to be.


What does this have to do with her idea?
Maybe the paradigms you've been taught aren't exactly as you believe them to be



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ok...how is that relevant to the topic? Please be specific and talk about her actual plan. Not about someone's hyperbolic generalization


well what IS her actual plan anyway ?

🍔🍟
read the link I posted



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

It has everything to do with that idea. Warren believes that everything a business makes is stolen because wealth is a zero sum game. That's why she's so keen to make sure that everyone has their fingers in the pie as though it all belongs to them.

Did you ever read the story of The Little Red Hen as a child?

Believe it or not, Warren likely thinks the Hen and her children stole the bread they worked so hard to produce from all the other farm animals who did nothing to help them at any stage of the journey from a few wheat grains to loaf of bread even though the Hen asked for their help at every stage.

Warren would say the animals are all stakeholders somehow and need to be considered and have a vote in what happens to the bread.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

wealth is a zero sum game and it's not because of the currency that's used to manage it it's because of the finite amount of resources the earth has to continue to generate it



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

The floor sweeper?

That has to be the absolute worst example you could have made. Why go to such extremes? It only invalidates your argument. Even if you fail to see how invalid it is.


And yet the floor sweeper is considered a stakeholder and would be part of helping decide what happens.

This means everyone, top to bottom, gets to help decide.

If I simplify, it's to make a point and put it on a level people can access and understand because most people don't understand what happens at the really large companies.

I did write a reply about a quality control department that gets more in depth about how that works.

Think of an employee group like the blind men examining the elephant. They only experience the small part they examine. They do not see, nor do they get the bigger picture. Expecting them to make decisions relevant to the larger day to day operations of the company as a whole, even their own department, is far-fetched. The ones who do see the bigger picture are often the ones being groomed to be upwardly mobile as it is and aren't going to be floor employees.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

the individual employee isn't getting a direct say they are voting a board member in who represent's their interest your analogy is incorrect



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ketsuko

wealth is a zero sum game and it's not because of the currency that's used to manage it it's because of the finite amount of resources the earth has to continue to generate it



No.

Mostly it's not. There are very few resources the fall into that category. As I explained, even the ones that are need a lot of effort to be pulled out of the ground before they're worth anything to anyone, so someone has to expend time and effort to make them worthwhile.

We're long past the time when you just expect to stumble on wealth lying around on the ground without someone expending some effort to bring it out.

A lot of the resources are renewable when managed properly.

The tomatoes I talk about all the time for example ...

You want something of value to show, you have to expend time and effort (work). That work produces wealth (something of value to yourself and others). Without expending work, there is no wealth.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ketsuko

the individual employee isn't getting a direct say they are voting a board member in who represent's their interest your analogy is incorrect


They are voting for a direct control in the company where they have no vested interest beyond having been hired.

Why would you hire someone if you knew they could orchestrate a hostile takeover of something you spent a ton of your own time and effort into in the form of earned wealth?



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

they are not taking direct control of the company a board member only has a vote out several other board members depending on the company who all vote and some of them count for more than 1

a seat at the board is not direct control and why shouldn't the people who work for a business be represent by anybody?

is there a difference between this and unionizing? this is probably better for business than a union and better for employee's



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

all of the earth's resources are finite and money is a tool to control those resources



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

The people who work for a business represent themselves.

When I get hired, I am entering into a contract with my employer for terms that are mutually agreed upon. If the terms alter out of range of what I find acceptable, I am not bound to continue in the employment contract. I can leave and work elsewhere.

The problem I see is that many don't like the reality of what their labor is worth in various markets.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ketsuko

all of the earth's resources are finite and money is a tool to control those resources


So basically, if everyone on earth sat on their collective butts, all the earth's resources would just mysteriously dry up anyhow? You know, because they're finite and not because it requires someone manipulating them in order to use them?



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

the reality is that the labor market is saturated with employee's and that includes skilled labor, yes there is plenty of niche markets but all jobs across the board have been devalued either through inflation or directly (most likely both)

there is an abundant supply of labor everywhere in every market and it's why people can't retire, employer's know this and are taking advantage in every way they can with predatory practices that are further bringing our markets down

I know you know this but are choosing to ignore it to tell us more about our narratives how you need to take responsibility and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and start your own business like everyone else

that's ok though the narrative won't last forever and eventually you guys will all be in the same position what would have been retiree's are facing since 2008.

I can wait it out I'm young.



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

that makes no sense, the market is a little bit more flexible than zero sum but it ends when the resources end officially

if you think they can just print money forever and continue to supply cheap currency to the markets without causing massive problems you guys are lacking a basic understanding of how the markets work

if that wasn't true then they would just print money and hand it out to everyone like they have been doing for the last ten years

but we all know they can't do that and the only way for money to be worth something is to limit it's supply and that inherently makes it a little bit more flexible than zero sum



posted on Aug, 21 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I just don't get how an unlimited supply of money can retain any value

really doesn't make any sense



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

It has everything to do with that idea. .

No, it literally doesn't. Maybe you want it to but that doesn't make it true, you just have a canned response and you're not even trying to understand her idea. That's why your response:

Maybe the paradigms you've been taught aren't exactly as you believe them to be

was more appropriate than you could have imagined. As I stated before, her idea is not wealth redistribution. Read the Vox article I posted because it gets into specifics, then we can talk about those. Until you try and understand what she's talking about, you're arguing in bad faith.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ketsuko

the individual employee isn't getting a direct say they are voting a board member in who represent's their interest your analogy is incorrect


They are voting for a direct control in the company where they have no vested interest beyond having been hired.

Why would you hire someone if you knew they could orchestrate a hostile takeover of something you spent a ton of your own time and effort into in the form of earned wealth?


Their vested interest? It's their life! The place they spend most of their time and earn money to provide for their families. It's hardly a hostile takeover, it's just someone representing their interests AS WELL. FFS it's only 40% of the board, hardly a takeover. It just gives them a seat at the bargaining table.

My grandfather got a pension that paid for the rest of his life and then his wife's after he died. Corporate culture used to be way more beneficial to workers. Now that that's gone away, CEO pay has skyrocketed, even in cases of terrible executive decisions

fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: WhateverYouSay

These companies dont give a # at all about their emoloyees and many millions of people are STUCK in positions because they can't find anything else that pays better and emoloyeers know it so they force over time down their throats ans horrible working conditions

Then they cut all their medical benefits ans the employee is trapped paying 10k-s of dollars on top of barely being able to survive

Yeah!!

Not zero sum, no one is losing in that transaction everyone is winning




top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join