Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Are Leftists ACTUALLY Interested in Unifying With Conservatives?
Comments
-
It seems like the left is too content in their interpretation of data. I believe in science, and so do a lot of conservatives, more than they perceive to. But just because studies show that global warming will likely be harmful and that we can curb it with aggressive regulations or that universal health care increases life expectancy by 6 months, doesn't mean that there should be automatica support for these policies. That's only about 10 - 20% of what there is to consider. There is the matter of principal, return on investment, economic impacts, and various other things to consider. That's the problem with the left and why they are so unwilling to compromise. They just can't see past level 1 of considerations.
However, much of the right hasn't done themselves or anyone else any favors in how they choose to combat their disagreements. They allow the left to establish the conditions for victory, and try to beat them at that game. In other words, they play the game as if these studies and stuff are the end game, and proceed to employ arguments as to why the data is wrong. Instead, they need to say "that's fine that your data says this will help. But it's unprincipled to put this burden on _____ because ______." And instead be leaders of promoting change among people individually and voluntarily, or other alternatives. They play the game all wrong, because they're either too lazy or too gutless.
That's what I see as the disconnect between the opposing parties, and the biggest obstacle to overcome in terms of being able to find compromises.
-
It’s just all envy in the end.TheKobeStopper said:
Worker ownership is the fundamental principle of socialism. Not having it is like calling yourself a Christian and not believing in Jesus.RaceBannon said:We need REAL communism shows up
-
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-sponsored entities. The sheer stupidity of your statement/argument is staggering.TheKobeStopper said:
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?Kaepsknee said:
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses.
-
No habla gibberish. You have strong feelings and no facts. What is the evidence that man produced CO2 is going to cause harmful global warming? What caused the last ice age and a mile of ice covering Chicago 12,000 years ago. Then what caused the ice age to go away? Cave man fires? What caused the Vikings to settle in Greenland during a warming period and then die out or leave as the ice came back?
The problem is morons like yourself that make basic assumptions based on feelings rather than facts. So, how much should the US spend on reducing CO2 production and what will be the result? It's not "unprincipled" to demand a cost benefit analysis. That's just basic common sense and every company does one in support of making an investment. That fact alone reveals how soft in the head you are how badly educated you are. The US produces 15% of the world's CO2. Our CO2 production is going down. The chicoms produce 30% of the world's CO2 production and it is increasing. And you want to lecture the US?
What the phuck does "instead be leaders of promoting change among people individually and voluntarily, or other alternatives" mean? How about we just let the people decide individually what they want. If they want an electric car, fine. Let them buy one without government interference. If they want to buy expensive wind and solar power, let them. Just don't give Warren Buffet billions of tax dollars to subsidize it. Don't allow state governments to demand expensive power. If I want expensive ethanol in my gas, let me. If I don't want to subsidize millionaire Iowa corn farmers based on the myth that ethanol reduces CO2 production, then let me. You are free to send them your check directly. -
Have you ever held a job?TheKobeStopper said:
I know you don’t feel good about your argument because you dragged culture war bullshit into it.WestlinnDuck said:
Sure. And if a man says he is a woman, then he is a woman. Follow the money. It ain't capitalism when the money is stolen.TheKobeStopper said:
If the workers don’t own the means of production, it isn’t socialism.WestlinnDuck said:China has state owned businesses and most other industries are controlled by the CCP. Direct ownership isn't required to be socialist. China is more brokeass broke than the US. It's more of a corrupt socialist theftocracy dependent on intellectual property theft and collusion with power brokers in the US and Europe. Just remember, you voted for the corruption. Playing for the away team.
Capitalism is literally stealing from labor. Labor creates value, the capitalist pays labor less than the value created, this is called profit. Just because you give people the illusion of choice doesn’t mean you’re not stealing from them. Do I want to get screwed by this capitalist or that capitalist or starve? Hmmmmm.
Or just read all this stuff in academics?
-
As Ronald Reagan said, he never got a job from a poor man.
-
Basically you are making disingenuous comparison and description because not every company offers profit sharing and/or stock options.TheKobeStopper said:
Worker ownership is the fundamental principle of socialism. Not having it is like calling yourself a Christian and not believing in Jesus.RaceBannon said:We need REAL communism shows up
And instead of blathering like the village idiot. Please answer the questions that are at the base of your argument.
Where do the Capitalist slaves reside?
And what has our Government taken over and made it more beneficial to the masses?
Or just be a Pigeon, like always and fly away. Your choice. -
I could wish there were REAL Christians not all these atheists trying to make Christians look bad and you can wish the same for REAL socialism but were are left with the world how it isTheKobeStopper said:
Worker ownership is the fundamental principle of socialism. Not having it is like calling yourself a Christian and not believing in Jesus.RaceBannon said:We need REAL communism shows up
And how it is, is that capitalism gives the most folks the best chance at a good life. Opportunity. Results may vary.
I'm ALL IN on improving what we have not throwing it away for something worse -
Super Capitalism?RaceBannon said:
I could wish there were REAL Christians not all these atheists trying to make Christians look bad and you can wish the same for REAL socialism but were are left with the world how it isTheKobeStopper said:
Worker ownership is the fundamental principle of socialism. Not having it is like calling yourself a Christian and not believing in Jesus.RaceBannon said:We need REAL communism shows up
And how it is, is that capitalism gives the most folks the best chance at a good life. Opportunity. Results may vary.
I'm ALL IN on improving what we have not throwing it away for something worse -
I like building on the foundation we have.
-
Yeah, and what went wrong can be tied directly to government intervention in the market.TheKobeStopper said:
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?Kaepsknee said:
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses. -
I understand. I just think the building is collapsing.RaceBannon said:I like building on the foundation we have.
-
Evidence? In February middle class wages were increasing at the fastest rate in decades. Then capitalism collapsed? Geezus you are a dumbphuck.TheKobeStopper said:
I understand. I just think the building is collapsing.RaceBannon said:I like building on the foundation we have.
-
You have an economic grasp of a 4th graderTheKobeStopper said:
As opposed to the way we currently do things where nothing ever goes wrong? 2008 ring a bell?Kaepsknee said:
Yes! Letting the Government run all Banks!!! What could go wrong????TheKobeStopper said:
Oh no, I’d view nationalizing the banks as a necessity.Bob_C said:
Basically you are advocating for ending private investment in business. The threat of quasi-nationalizing of business investments will dry that market up very quickly. Banks will help fill the gap a bit through debt, but your anger will just get transferred to them.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok, I see. So if you’re talking about compensating regular people that used money they earned to become shareholders, I’d be open to some kind of compensation. If you’re talking about giving Bezos 200 billion to compensate him for value he stole from labor, then no.Bob_C said:
Trying to understand the mechanics of whatever it is you are proposing.TheKobeStopper said:
I really don’t even understand what you think your point is here. It was obvious your question was a gotcha but I don’t get it.Bob_C said:I guess it appears then. Or is it taken?
Workers own businesses or at least a much higher percentage than they do now, does this include current existing businesses or just new ones? If it’s a new one, who and what form supplies the capital to manufacture inventory, hire new workers, etc ahead of actual earnings?
If it’s an existing one, are we transferring equity from current shareholders to the workers or recapitalizing the business in some fashion as to not dilute/steal from the existing shareholders? Where does that money come from?
Currently co ops use member investment as capital. They also have a hard time working with banks, despite co ops being a model that’s proven to work, because they are not capitalist in a capitalist system. So in a future theoretical version, if everyone was a co op then that would obviously change.
Your co op may be able to function as you describe, but it will come at the expense of general output. You need capital to build large scale anything to maintain and grow output. Less capital equals less upside on output.
I’ve done audits on a few ESOPs (essentially coops), they are all under capitalized, and the ones that have enough cash have huge bank loans. Every time an employee leaves for a new job or retires, the existing members have to buy back that employees equity shares themselves or get bank loans to buy them back. Wages can grow as giving a small raise is seen as better than losing employees and having to buy them out. But it all gets done through debt as there is never enough free capital to invest in growth. Death spiral.
The studies show they have higher productivity, more stability and room for growth. I can’t speak to the ones you specifically dealt with but on the whole they’re finding success and not at all a death spiral.
Growth would not look the same as it does for capitalism but is that a bad thing? I think if you’re looking back at how growth worked, capitalism looks strong, but if you’re looking at where we are now that system has led to mega corporations and destroying small businesses. -
You talk like a fag and your shits all retardedFenderbender123 said:It seems like the left is too content in their interpretation of data. I believe in science, and so do a lot of conservatives, more than they perceive to. But just because studies show that global warming will likely be harmful and that we can curb it with aggressive regulations or that universal health care increases life expectancy by 6 months, doesn't mean that there should be automatica support for these policies. That's only about 10 - 20% of what there is to consider. There is the matter of principal, return on investment, economic impacts, and various other things to consider. That's the problem with the left and why they are so unwilling to compromise. They just can't see past level 1 of considerations.
However, much of the right hasn't done themselves or anyone else any favors in how they choose to combat their disagreements. They allow the left to establish the conditions for victory, and try to beat them at that game. In other words, they play the game as if these studies and stuff are the end game, and proceed to employ arguments as to why the data is wrong. Instead, they need to say "that's fine that your data says this will help. But it's unprincipled to put this burden on _____ because ______." And instead be leaders of promoting change among people individually and voluntarily, or other alternatives. They play the game all wrong, because they're either too lazy or too gutless.
That's what I see as the disconnect between the opposing parties, and the biggest obstacle to overcome in terms of being able to find compromises.
