The govt, capitalism, 1st & 2nd amendments, control of people

Ok, I'm reading a lot on this forum about socialism, marxism, dastardly scoundrels trying to do whatever diabolical schemes to destroy the 1st and 2nd amendments and take away guns and control the people....a number of thoughts I would like to make to mesh together:

I consider the planet to be a corporate planet, corporations are simply money hoarding entities that exist to acquire more profits, expand territory, and create monopolies if they can. The basic pay strategy is to pay upper management, pay stockholders, squeeze labor. No need to make workers rich, keep them money hungry and coming back next week to work.

Control of the people basically comes down to a person's education level and earnings power. The equation for how much control is on a person is based on the earnings vs expenditures and how much time and money is left over after earnings vs expenditures is established. So, a rich athlete in offseason would clearly have more money and time to be out of control than a single mother with no spare time working 2 or 3 jobs to just pay the bills. Then you have the people inbetween, the average Joes who work a trade in some 8 to 5 setting, their wives probably work also because they have 2-4 kids, multiple car payments, house payments, insurance, property taxes, boats, rv's, cable bills, credit cards, loans, retirement funds, want to save money for kids college and their own retirement. Their money is largely already spoken for if they're in control.

The two main motivations for people are money and sex. The rich guy wants more money regardless how much he already has, wants to enjoy his toys and his trophy wife or mistress, wants to drink the wine and eat the steaks, drive his luxury car, ride on his yacht and come back to the mansion or beach house.

The steaks and the wine, yacht, car, houses and whatever the rich guys have don't just appear out of nowhere. It takes the average Joes to grow, raise, build, deliver and create the goods, roads and buildings the rich guy needs to enjoy his lifestyle. They are relying on the working class to provide goods and services they need to live a plush lifestyle.

If you view politicians with the same motivations of money and sex and individual greed, not some diabolical collected group trying to control the masses, much as the rich guys they're just trying to enjoy their wealth and some having affairs and whatever the position of power brings to them...

My point to all of this: So where is the need for "taking our guns"...."destroying gun owner rights and 1st amendment speech rights"...when the control over people is firmly rooted in their earning power and financial realities in their lives? They don't need our guns because the working class are stuck working and everybody including the rich need the economy to work to live the way they do.

The politicians could care less if we have guns because they're in bed with corporate america for mutual favors and monetary greed, us having guns didn't stop Bill from seeing Monica Lewinski..

The whole power issue appears to be simply what one gets from it, they're not fighting to get an 8 dollar an hour gig, it's the salary and the kickbacks and under the table stuff, the position and status that gives them sex appeal, book deals and speaking tours after office that they're looking at. Clintons claimed 27 million dollars in earnings for the public record during Hillary's run for president, do they really want or need to control people and take their guns when they just filed taxes on $27 million?

Some people say that politicians are in it for the power so they can control the people, power for the sake of power is about rapists and serial killers. Rape is about control and killers like John Wayne Gacy didn't give a shit how many dollars the kid had in his wallet. He put a loop of rope around some kids neck and then tightened the loop with a hammer handle and backed it off to sickly play with his life. Politicians are simply motivated by wealth and sex the same as everyone else.

So, where is the need for all this "control" that some people think the government and leaders are somehow trying to attain when the reality of life and economics has pretty much everyone by the balls, the corporations are bent on greed along with politicians, rich people enjoying or flaunting their wealth and average Joe and his wife heading back to work next week to pay a slew of bills?

It would appear that control of the people is needless and already taken care of, the out of control people end up paying fines, in prison or dead and are put back in control in short order.

The "one world government" is needless because the countries that have resources or wealth probably already have trade practices in place and the poor countries don't have a pot to piss in so why invite them to the party?

And the whole "agenda 11 or 21" (whichever it is) that some people claim about some big building the size of Texas being built and everyone being scooped up and detained there makes total logistical nonsense because it destroys the economy the rich people enjoy and the government can't run on the money it brings in let alone having nobody left outside to work or pay property taxes. I know a guy who talks about this all serious like they're putting shingles on the building as we speak. Really? Who's paying to build this building and what states did they confiscate under eminent domain to build this building on?

That's why I don't believe in all this "control" and "taking guns" because the control is already there, they don't need the guns because the lower and middle class are strapped to life issues and finances and the upper class could care less because they simply want the finer things in life. No need to tear down any amendments or punish anybody because it all works great.

....That's why I don't believe in all this "control" and "taking guns" because the control is already there, they don't need the guns because the lower and middle class are strapped to life issues and finances and the upper class could care less because they simply want the finer things in life. No need to tear down any amendments or punish anybody because it all works great. Originally Posted by sexykarma

Kind of a let down. Guess I was expecting something like: That's why I am ending this life with this scarf and a doorknob or something along those lines. But if they don't need to take the guns or free thought and expression, then what's to worry about. Minion on. Though ours is one of the only systems where you can create wealth, move up the food chain and have independence. Remember, no matter how bad your own existence is - somebody else has far worse than you.

SexyKarma: Corporations compete for labor. Look at the % of their total expenses that are spent on labor and it's many times what they pay to their owners in dividends.

Until recently, middle class wages had been stagnant for quite a while. This wasn't because of greedy corporations, but rather globalization and technology. Middle class workers were competing against robots and people in places like China. The other side of the coin, globalization and technology have raised billions out of poverty and improved their lot in life. I'd assume you think this is a good thing, since you express sympathy in your post for people in poor countries.

More recently, middle class wages have gone up, at least before Covid. This coincided with the unemployment rate going down to historically low levels, which meant increased competition among employers looking for labor. In part this is because of the Republicans' corporate tax cuts (which among other things leaves more money with the corporations to be spent on expansion and new jobs and makes them competitive again with foreign corporations that were paying lower taxes) and Trump's deregulatory executive orders.

What do you propose to do about the greedy corporations? If you want to do away with them, you have two choices,

(a) have individuals and families own the supermarkets, airlines, etc. Just do away with corporate ownership. This however makes it harder for the businesses to raise debt, and here in America the owners' families will have to sell the businesses when the owners die, to pay the estate tax. A corporation theoretically can exist in perpetuity, while people die.

(b) Government takes over the corporations

Really, the only choice is (b), government control, because individual or family ownership of large corporations through many generations won't work, especially when the estate tax has to be paid every time someone dies.

And who exactly owns the corporations? Two thirds of American public companies are owned by institutions, with pension and retirement funds accounting for the largest share of institutional ownership. Thus workers own a large share of corporations, and the institutions that manage their money could in many instances control them if they wanted to.

As to the theory that the wealthy sit on their asses and spend all day getting laid and counting their money, that's crap. People like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and others work their asses off. The majority of wealthy people pay taxes way out of proportion to the benefits they get from government.

Many Americans are spendthrifts. They spend what they make or more than they make. The solutions you're looking for don't involve destroying our capitalistic system, which puts control in the hands of the market instead of individuals. They involve encouraging people to save. I've harped on Singapore's system, where employers and employees make big contributions (something like 35% of a persons salary) to retirement funds that can also be used for buying a house or medical expenses.

You're blaming the huge monthly payments Americans have for credit cards, houses, cars, etc. on the corporations and the wealthy. A lot of the blame should be instead on people who overspend and rack up huge debts instead of huge savings.

Kind of a let down. Guess I was expecting something like: That's why I am ending this life with this scarf and a doorknob or something along those lines. But if they don't need to take the guns or free thought and expression, then what's to worry about. Minion on. Though ours is one of the only systems where you can create wealth, move up the food chain and have independence. Remember, no matter how bad your own existence is - somebody else has far worse than you. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

My own existence wasn't really the point, for the record, my job pays well but it takes a lot of my time. I will be able to retire someday with some retirement savings in place. People working low paying jobs have a different road to go down. No ropes around my neck...

I just wanted to bring day-to-day life and the reality of earnings and expenses to all this "control" that a lot of people associate with some mass group or government entity. When it's a bunch of individuals playing king of the hill for the almighty dollar they could give a shit less if everyone owned no guns or 1000 apiece. Some people look at the govt as some big boogeyman trying to oppress people, I see govt as more of an individual track meet for greed.

There's no motive for "control" as everyone is already controlled.

SexyKarma: Corporations compete for labor. Look at the % of their total expenses that are spent on labor and it's many times what they pay to their owners in dividends.

Until recently, middle class wages had been stagnant for quite a while. This wasn't because of greedy corporations, but rather globalization and technology. Middle class workers were competing against robots and people in places like China. The other side of the coin, globalization and technology have raised billions out of poverty and improved their lot in life. I'd assume you think this is a good thing, since you express sympathy in your post for people in poor countries.

More recently, middle class wages have gone up, at least before Covid. This coincided with the unemployment rate going down to historically low levels, which meant increased competition among employers looking for labor. In part this is because of the Republicans' corporate tax cuts (which among other things leaves more money with the corporations to be spent on expansion and new jobs and makes them competitive again with foreign corporations that were paying lower taxes) and Trump's deregulatory executive orders.

What do you propose to do about the greedy corporations? If you want to do away with them, you have two choices,

(a) have individuals and families own the supermarkets, airlines, etc. Just do away with corporate ownership. This however makes it harder for the businesses to raise debt, and here in America the owners' families will have to sell the businesses when the owners die, to pay the estate tax. A corporation theoretically can exist in perpetuity, while people die.

(b) Government takes over the corporations

Really, the only choice is (b), government control, because individual or family ownership of large corporations through many generations won't work, especially when the estate tax has to be paid every time someone dies.

And who exactly owns the corporations? Two thirds of American public companies are owned by institutions, with pension and retirement funds accounting for the largest share of institutional ownership. Thus workers own a large share of corporations, and the institutions that manage their money could in many instances control them if they wanted to.

As to the theory that the wealthy sit on their asses and spend all day getting laid and counting their money, that's crap. People like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and others work their asses off. The majority of wealthy people pay taxes way out of proportion to the benefits they get from government.

Many Americans are spendthrifts. They spend what they make or more than they make. The solutions you're looking for don't involve destroying our capitalistic system, which puts control in the hands of the market instead of individuals. They involve encouraging people to save. I've harped on Singapore's system, where employers and employees make big contributions (something like 35% of a persons salary) to retirement funds that can also be used for buying a house or medical expenses.

You're blaming the huge monthly payments Americans have for credit cards, houses, cars, etc. on the corporations and the wealthy. A lot of the blame should be instead on people who overspend and rack up huge debts instead of huge savings. Originally Posted by Tiny

Not looking to tear down corporations, I understand they're here to stay and they offer things that mom and pop stores can't offer employees, in a supply and demand system where there's always 3-4% or more unemployment and immigration people coming in then corps can pick and choose who they want and offer lower wages because if that person turns down the job offer there's more waiting outside the front door. So if Bill Gates is worth like $100 billion dollars then what is the net worth of his secretary and the janitor?

And however much Bezos, Musk, or whoever works their asses off they still want more because there's a saying in corporate america that "if you're not growing, you're dying." They may work their asses off but they're still motivated by money and sex.

Some families do spend too much and overextend their credit but how many people wait and save up to buy the home they need when they have a wife and kids to house and the starter home isn't big enough.

The system of capitalism and corporate behavior isn't much the issue here, regardless of the economic system countries employ I'm just pointing out all these conspiracy theories about control and loss of rights and gun ownership rights fall the fuck apart when people understand what actually motivates people and how much control people are already in.

I debated this with a guy who made the statement that the largest army this country had was basically the hunters and the NRA guys, I asked him if your gonna put some group of hunters up against abrams tanks and attack helicopters with night vision. It's not like a bunch of settlers hiding behind trees going up against redcoats standing out in the open shoulder to shoulder. That was old technology vs old technology with the difference being the fighting strategy. Add to that that the hunter dudes can't just drop what they're doing, let their mortgage payments go overdue to fight some revolution. These things end up looking like ruby ridge or waco with a half dozen or dozen guys camped out in some warehouse running out of food and the place ringed with cops, bullhorns and snipers.

speaking of control...

it really depends on the type of system of control you're in.

if you have the kind of control that the USSR employed, they really had control to the max.
-food shortages
-can't go anywhere you like
-can't get a job you want, you were assigned one.
-can't own property
-can't own business
-no free market
-can't be rich; perpetually poor
-no free speech
-no religion
-can't own weapons
-you work for the state

and few other things I can't think of.

same thing with a fascist system with Nazi Germany or Fascist Spain. there maybe degrees of it.
exceptions of above:
-can own property
-have free market

and theres the free market system of control which is the opposite of the 2 mentioned above.

delete

Not looking to tear down corporations, I understand they're here to stay and they offer things that mom and pop stores can't offer employees, in a supply and demand system where there's always 3-4% or more unemployment and immigration people coming in then corps can pick and choose who they want and offer lower wages because if that person turns down the job offer there's more waiting outside the front door. Originally Posted by sexykarma

How about the flip side of that? You can buy a great, large television for $500. I can go to the supermarket and stuff my cart for $150. You can buy a decent new car for $25,000. Prices are low because the businesses' costs are low, and because they're efficient. In a capitalist system, the corporation is forced to do that because of competition. This brings more prosperity to more people than any other system.

Labor is a major cost, maybe around 30% of sales on average for businesses with larger payrolls. That's a guess, I don't have good numbers. I can tell you that the net profit margin for the S&P 500 index of the largest American corporations is 9%, and they pay out about 1/3rd of that, or 3% of sales, in dividends. The money corporations don't pay on dividends is used to grow their businesses, which, among other things, creates new jobs and more demand for labor.

Anyway, labor costs are a large component of American businesses' total costs. The returns to shareholders are piddly by comparison.

I'd have no problem with, say, a $15 minimum wage in places where it makes sense. However you jack it up to $30, or give labor unions control over businesses, then the higher labor costs mean people will be laid off. Robots will replace humans, or businesses will limp along with fewer employees, or businesses will close. Unemployment will go up.

So if Bill Gates is worth like $100 billion dollars then what is the net worth of his secretary and the janitor? Originally Posted by sexykarma

That's not a very good example. Say you had a wealth tax on Gates like what Sanders designed, that hits around 8% or 9% at over a billion of net worth. So the government takes the capital away from the Gates. I guess over about 10 years it takes most of what he's got. You've reduced his incentive to create and compete, and more importantly you've starved him of the capital he could use to grow his businesses. And what has Gates done with his fortune? He's made the world a hell of a lot better than it would be if the government had confiscated his capital, through vaccines, micronutrients for Children in 3rd world countries, Malaria eradication, support for education in the USA. The federal government would have squandered the money on something like a war in Afghanistan.

And however much Bezos, Musk, or whoever works their asses off they still want more because there's a saying in corporate america that "if you're not growing, you're dying." They may work their asses off but they're still motivated by money and sex. Originally Posted by sexykarma

You or I can fuck a high class hooker every night of the year for about $250,000. Bezos or Musk could do the same. You don't see them selling stock to support lavish lifestyles. Something like 95%+ of their net worth is employed in building businesses and creating jobs. And they're going to do a hell of a lot better job of of spending their money and allocating their capital than the government, or some politicians who decide they're going to manipulate the labor market and favor particular companies.

Some families do spend too much and overextend their credit but how many people wait and save up to buy the home they need when they have a wife and kids to house and the starter home isn't big enough. Originally Posted by sexykarma

I don't buy that. The U.S. along with Australia and Canada have an immense amount of floor space per person compared to other countries. I've seen 120 square foot apartments in Asia that looked perfectly functional. We're spoiled.

The system of capitalism and corporate behavior isn't much the issue here, regardless of the economic system countries employ I'm just pointing out all these conspiracy theories about control and loss of rights and gun ownership rights fall the fuck apart when people understand what actually motivates people and how much control people are already in.

I debated this with a guy who made the statement that the largest army this country had was basically the hunters and the NRA guys, I asked him if your gonna put some group of hunters up against abrams tanks and attack helicopters with night vision. It's not like a bunch of settlers hiding behind trees going up against redcoats standing out in the open shoulder to shoulder. That was old technology vs old technology with the difference being the fighting strategy. Add to that that the hunter dudes can't just drop what they're doing, let their mortgage payments go overdue to fight some revolution. These things end up looking like ruby ridge or waco with a half dozen or dozen guys camped out in some warehouse running out of food and the place ringed with cops, bullhorns and snipers. Originally Posted by sexykarma

I don't have an argument with that really, although if someone like AOC got control and actually did what she says she's going to do, and hijacked traditional democratic institutions in the process, I might just be willing to join the armed resistance.

speaking of control...

it really depends on the type of system of control you're in.

if you have the kind of control that the USSR employed, they really had control to the max.
-food shortages
-can't go anywhere you like
-can't get a job you want, you were assigned one.
-can't own property
-can't own business
-no free market
-can't be rich; perpetually poor
-no free speech
-no religion
-can't own weapons
-you work for the state

and few other things I can't think of.

same thing with a fascist system with Nazi Germany or Fascist Spain. there maybe degrees of it.
exceptions of above:
-can own property
-have free market

and theres the free market system of control which is the opposite of the 2 mentioned above. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

No comment as to this post but to use this as an example of conspiracy thinking:

If you listen to the conspiracy people they act like the government is going to take over and revert to one of these types of governments overnight. Like all their rights and freedoms and property will be removed and it's going to be groups of 5 people chained together working in a garden. All their scenarios end like this. Sunday night it's a democracy and Monday morning the chains come out.

Too many people of wealth and influence for this to play out here, can't see all these corporations and businesses just rolling over and giving in. The politicians, CEO's and other powerful people got too good a thing going.

One of the conspiracy guys was talking to me one time, this was during Obama's last year of his second term. He said that Obama was going to declare martial law, he didn't give any specifics as to why he would actually do this, he made it sound like some foreign leader setting off a nuke just to see some fireworks....I told him that Obamacare was Obama's pet project and that hadn't been received well and failed, he has nothing more to really accomplish, that Obama was simply going to do what other presidents have done in the past, just coast to the finish line, sign a stack of pardons on the last days, move out of the white house and take a vacation. And what happened? Nothing crazy, Obama just dribbled out the clock like some basketball team up 25 points does in the last possession. He just coasted. Seen it how many times over the decades. No martial law, he just did the easy thing to do.

There's no rhyme or reason to the conspiracy theories, just make something really dreadful up that's being enforced by the big boogeyman government, forget about motives and logistics and how all this plays out and how it can even actually be accomplished, just present some spooky big brother action that's secretly being done behind our backs. And get ready to be chained up Monday morning.

Time is what you got that is in limited supply. Ironically, you do not know how much of it you have. Never forget that. Use it wisely. Focus it and your energy on whatever you deem important.

Money is a tool Everything you acquire or get rid of does not require money necessarily. Basically it is convenient for exchange of goods and services. People equate money to power. But what are either without happiness or freedom? People do use money to control (influence actually) things. But does everything have a price?

Control is leverage as much as it is influence. Work to understand the important difference between; Span of control and sphere of influence. Span are things you actually have control of, possible exception of your cat. You control if you buy the basic version of something that does the job versus buying the latest, greatest, most bells and whistle version. You control if you save aside money or not. You control where you work. Your choices are you control.

Span is entirely different though it can be used to expand your control. You use span to leverage things for your benefit. But you do not control it, you influence it. Think of a group of close friends. You do not control them, but you might be able to influence them in to helping you move that pool table from your basement, though you control which brand beer you buy to influence them.

Learning. Do this always! Be inquisitive. Remember, you can learn from school, work, others, success and failure. Always strive to learn. Critical thinking skills are, duh, critical. Keep you critical thinking skills sharp. Why does something work? How does something work? Why is someone's opinion relevant? Who says so? Why?

Then there is Math, aka numbers. Use it to calculate risk, reward, odds, likelihood and so much more. Here is a fun math calc: If you took all the wealth from all the billionaires in the country, you would have enough money to run the country for about 6 months (used to be 8 months before COVID). Or if you take all the millionaires in the US (beats me, let's say 3 million of them), that leaves 330 Million non-millionaires.

Seeing whereas there are 330million regular people, the rich got two basic choices; Do their own dirty work or reward the 330M for their effort. BTW: while not 100%, many of them are armed. So let's all play fair. But they got security. From 330Million. I don't think so.

The reason we have the first amendment is so we can express our concerns. Should they not be addressed adequately, we have a second amendment as a fall back. Also comes in handy against marauding hordes as well. This is what keeps the rich from turning people into slaves. At the moment, the rich have exported the slavery to the likes of China to make our goods. But the goods ain't no dang good if they are not purchased by the 330M people.

As to government. It is still run by people and unfortunately it has power and tragically it is pretty well corrupt (the people running it that is). Therefore, the idea to have the government be all things to all people equally, i.e. own the means of everything and everyone gets the same sized slice of pie is beyond stupid and frankly, the worst possible solution to anything. Learn how to unplug from as much of it as you can and learn the topics above, rinse and repeat - early and often.

My own existence wasn't really the point, for the record, my job pays well but it takes a lot of my time. I will be able to retire someday with some retirement savings in place. People working low paying jobs have a different road to go down. No ropes around my neck...

I just wanted to bring day-to-day life and the reality of earnings and expenses to all this "control" that a lot of people associate with some mass group or government entity. When it's a bunch of individuals playing king of the hill for the almighty dollar they could give a shit less if everyone owned no guns or 1000 apiece. Some people look at the govt as some big boogeyman trying to oppress people, I see govt as more of an individual track meet for greed.

There's no motive for "control" as everyone is already controlled. Originally Posted by sexykarma

If you took all the wealth from all the billionaires in the country, you would have enough money to run the country for about 6 months (used to be 8 months before COVID). Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

With no billionaires that means no Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Tesla, Space X, Oracle, or Walmart, and that's just looking at the 10 wealthiest people in America right now. Trading a huge chunk of American industry for six or eight months running expenses for the federal government is not a good idea. It's "killing the goose that laid the golden egg". Not only would you kill off businesses that create jobs and prosperity for all, you wouldn't be able to levy significant income taxes from the ex-billionaires, because without the capital their incomes would go way down.

speaking of control...

it really depends on the type of system of control you're in.

if you have the kind of control that the USSR employed, they really had control to the max.
-food shortages
-can't go anywhere you like
-can't get a job you want, you were assigned one.
-can't own property
-can't own business
-no free market
-can't be rich; perpetually poor
-no free speech
-no religion
-can't own weapons
-you work for the state

and few other things I can't think of.

same thing with a fascist system with Nazi Germany or Fascist Spain. there maybe degrees of it.
exceptions of above:
-can own property
-have free market

and theres the free market system of control which is the opposite of the 2 mentioned above. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Hear hear!

Clearly the world has ended if I'm in lock step agreement with you on something. I must be in Purgatory or something...

With no billionaires that means no Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Tesla, Space X, Oracle, or Walmart, and that's just looking at the 10 wealthiest people in America right now. Trading a huge chunk of American industry for six or eight months running expenses for the federal government is not a good idea. It's "killing the goose that laid the golden egg". Not only would you kill off businesses that create jobs and prosperity for all, you wouldn't be able to levy significant income taxes from the ex-billionaires, because without the capital their incomes would go way down. Originally Posted by Tiny

Welp, you ain't talked with moi about it. Try applying the group of Patriots you mention with Cloward-Piven (sp?). That is where it is effective, not against tanks. Are US soldiers really gonna smoosh Americans? There is a finite number of corrupt politicians, far more than we need and that is where our problem lay. 1st order of business is term limits. Their choice how they wish them implemented. Our choice to ensure they are term limited regardless.

...I debated this with a guy who made the statement that the largest army this country had was basically the hunters and the NRA guys, I asked him if your gonna put some group of hunters up against abrams tanks and attack helicopters with night vision. It's not like a bunch of settlers hiding behind trees going up against redcoats standing out in the open shoulder to shoulder. .. Originally Posted by sexykarma

FWIW: SK sounds like a Marxist to me. A pity what we let our edumacation system churn out over the last decade or two.