Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by bad_teammate

  1. 1 minute ago, ScottishHorn said:

    Who influences those decisions made by the state?

    Special interest groups on both sides to a fine job but the poor decisions made by the state would be made anyway because those in government are morons and rely on 3rd parties to tell them what to do.

    What is it you mean by "both sides" here? Capitalist/anti-capitalist?

    Quote

     You want to tell me Maxine Waters or some other lifetime politician knows anything about high finance?

    What does Maxine Waters have to do with any of this?

    Quote

    If the government actually governed and represented the interests of all us citizens and only us citizens we wouldn't have these problems.

    Yes, you're right. Which is why your resistance to the idea of equitable wealth redistribution is so bizarre. You are licking the boots that are holding you down by the throat.

  2. Just now, ScottishHorn said:

    You could argue the state exists for the benefit of the billionaires and all citizens of this country.  The middle class isnt shrinking because of billionaires. The middle class is shrinking because of decisions made by the state.

    Who influences those decisions made by the state?

    Quote

    I would never say that about a small business owner. 

    And no one else would, either. Small business owners are thrown up as shields to protect the rule of billionaires. No one is talking about small business owners.

    Quote

    If someone inherits wealth, who cares.  In our free society,  the person that earns that money can do what he wants with it.  He was taxed.

    The inheritance tax is just a tax.

    And a lot of people care about inheritance being a tool to perpetuate wealth concentration and overall inequality.

    Self-starters:

    5a3a9081b0bcd5f7018b6300-750-563.png

  3. 47 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

    ... and I think your ideas on wealth redistribution are scary as shit. 

    Sometimes it sucks being clairvoyant. lol

    "No rational argument can be made for the actual necessity of extreme wealth. Most of the argument is very much about supposed values and turns out to be very emotional/tribal in nature."

  4. 2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

    It’s amazing how misguided you are. Every post you make has a statement that is factually wrong. I would love to witness a conversation between you and Trevor Rees-Jones and have you tell him the immense wealth he created would not have been possible without the state. 

    I would love to have that conversation, because there is no way in hell any capitalist can make money without the protection of the state. Do you seriously need it explained to you?

    Who secures his mineral rights?
    Who enforces them?
    How does he get his product from one place to the other?
    Who secures and ensures his capital?

    Capitalist enterprise is impossible without a state.

    41 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

    I think those things are okay, I know of and know personally several billionaires who are utter self starters, and I think your ideas on wealth redistribution are scary as shit. 

    Hello, I am Rex Kramer and I don't actually have any thoughts to express, but I am very scared of those who do.

    • Like 1
  5. 12 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

    Lulz. You ever heard of a little something called philanthropy?  

    And asking why billionaires “need to exist” tells me everything one needs to know about you. 

    Philanthropy is something that only needs to exist when wealth distribution is moving in the wrong direction. Redistribution of wealth is something that is going to happen in any economic system and the policies of that economic system determine the ways in which wealth is redistributed. The goal of capitalist systems is to concentrate wealth, and the existence of a billionaire class is a testament to its efficacy.

    And no, billionaires do not need to exist. And inherited billions do not need to exist. No rational argument can be made for the actual necessity of extreme wealth. Most of the argument is very much about supposed values and turns out to be very emotional/tribal in nature.

    There are dozens of extremely harmful effects of extreme wealth concentration and virtually no benefits other than to the billionaires themselves and the short-sighted and narrow-minded bootlickers who love them.

    - Elimination of the middle class
    - Dramatically outsized influence in political life
    - Reduction in worker rights and protections
    - Reduction in social mobility
    - Increase in militarism
    - Hostility in overseas relations
    - Cozying up to corrupt overseas wealth regimes

    etc...

    Quote

    I’d argue this generation of billionaires has a lot of self starters. 

    It's not really a matter of arguing, there are statistics.

    30-40% of the billionaires in America inherited their wealth almost straight-up. A significant percentage of the 60-70% left over got a nice boost from family loans/investment to start their businesses.

    Now that it's clear that billionaires are not actually self-starters in general, you can now transition to an argument as to why those things are OK, but the reality is that you're peddling an American Dream narrative that is almost entirely bullshit.

    There's an irony screaming in the face of someone who (1) loves self-starters and (2) promotes the extreme wealth concentration class but bootlickers don't have time to notice the irony of their own positions.

    • Like 1
  6. 36 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    I watched about 6 minutes of that video, Dolemite.  I can't believe you thought that absolute nonsense was actually worth posting. You're a fucking embarrassment. 

    What the hell would compel you to click on the link?? 

  7. 4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

    Obama managed a recovery despite his efforts to thwart it.  Regardless, I thrived during Obama years, but my taxes were higher.  

    Trump came in with a business friendly reputation and the markets instantly reacted after a confusing election night.  We issued a bunch of growth stock just subsequent to the election, knowing we were about to enter this environment, and put it to work.  We have been rewarded.  And my taxes were noticeably lower this year.

    But I suspect we are about to enter a recession, and there's not much he will be able to do to avoid it.  I hate his comments about OPEC, because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  Regardless of the good he apparently had a hand in, I detest everything about him, and won't vote again in '20 if he's GOP nominee.

    Brain worms.

  8. 21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    For some of the olds, this might have some resonance. My dad has been a Republican as long as I can remember, and he used to revere everything George Will said. If he came on the boob-tube back in the 80s, my dad would shush anyone in the room. He's unfortunately been brainwashed by Fox News, so I'm not sure how he'll react nowadays or even if he'll know. It all depends on whether Hannity covers it.

    This is 100% why it doesn't matter. There is no one who is on the fence now about Trump who is reachable by George Will.

    • Like 1
  9. 1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

    So the trumpkins new defense is that some bad shit happened before trump became the president. 

    Exactly. You can't say Trump is doing something if Obama did it, too. You can only criticize Trump for doing new bad things, not continuing previous bad ones.

  10. 23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Hey, I'm not sure you noticed (I have), that Anastasis tone changed today. He's been quite critical of what is happening. He had a good point here, it was misleading journalism. 

    No, it's not misleading at all. It happened under Obama and it's happening under Trump. Therefore, Trump is doing it. To say Trump is creating a zombie army is not misleading at all because that is what is happening.

    Show me something from the article that is factually incorrect. Show me something that said only Trump did it. Show me something that said Obama never did.

    It's fucking both-sidesism and it's pathetic that you guys keep falling for this shit.

  11. 20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I don't disagree, but maybe we shouldn't call the kids overmedicated during the Obama administration Trump's zombie army. 

    What about the ones over-medicated during Trump's administration you boot-licking, collaborating piece of shit?

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 1
  12. 18 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    That's a bit disingenuous.  The corporations' hands are tied because of the #metoo movement.  If you're not firing these guys immediately, you get blowback regardless of the facts.

    And the company could weather that blowback, yet they choose not to.

    She literally had zero power to fire him from anything. He lost his job(s) because he played stupid games and won stupid prizes.

    Quote

    Chloe recognized this and published for exactly that purpose.  Now it's coming out that she omitted a lot of unflattering information about herself.

    She admits to cheating in her article.

×
×
  • Create New...