Warren Buffet nails it on inequality

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic nature of humans is they adapt to their environment.

The basic nature of humans is when they live under decent conditions they tend to be decent, and when they live under repressive conditions, like capitalism or slavery, they become hardened and less decent.

We have this little handicap that we expect systems to actually be workable. We don't like utopias.

It is delusional to think that the only thing better than immoral capitalism is utopia.

The problem is you are describing a utopia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my world the fruits of labor belong to the laborer.

Not a market wage, which is just the slimy capitalist way of saying the lowest possible wage.

If the fruits belong to the laborer, I guess the losses do to. So when a business goes under the workers should expect a big bill?

Yeah, the workers don't like that side of the equation.

My wife used to work for 50% of the collections due to her work + normal benefits.

That could be very good at times, but when things went wrong it could be bad. A bill is uncollectable--she didn't get paid, either.

- - - Updated - - -

What "slimy capitalist" of the 20th century killed remotely as many humans as communist Stalin, or communist Mao?

All over the world, people in third world cesspools are risking their lives to get to "slimy capitalist" countries most particularly
the United States. Unfortunately we have far too many ingrates like untermensche.

Yeah. I've been in a lot of countries of the world. There's a strong relationship between the amount of capitalism and how the people fare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Buffet is just an accident of the stock market, not some brilliant social planner.

The statistics say otherwise.

Most investment manger results fall within the expected distribution of chance. Beyond the end of that tail there's a substantial gap--and then Buffet. The odds against his approach being chance are pretty far out there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the fruits belong to the laborer, I guess the losses do to. So when a business goes under the workers should expect a big bill?

You seem only able to handle a certain kind of relationship and associate the idea of labor with something of less value than money. When a business goes under, it need not be because the labor one contributed was tainted. It could well be because the employer misjudged some important factor in marketing or in design. The laborer has already given of his labor. First thought and response to Untermensche focuses on failure of businesses and punishing some worker for the failure. If there was a fair relationship between the employer and the worker, the worker's sentiment would be to work with the employer to see that his business did not fail. Mistreating and demeaning the value of labor leads to failure. Failure is usually accompanied by unreasonable expectations and lack of owner attention to business fundamentals such as marketing, quality control, etc. The way it is, the owner OWNS THE DEBTS HE ACCRUES.

If the failure of the business is not the fault of labor then the success is not the product of labor.

- - - Updated - - -

And when a card counter wins over and over again at a game where the casino has a house advantage, that's just an accident of the shuffling.

How do you think what you are saying legitimizes card counters or for that matter gambling? Okay, so Buffet is a bit on the crooked side, using knowledge others are not privy to? Just what is your point? I think genius at cheating is not a virtue myself.

He's not talking about card markers or the like--illegal actions.

He's talking about card counting--simply a skill, observing what everyone sees but only the counter understands.

 

[NobleSavage]

Buffet is just an accident of the stock market, not some brilliant social planner.

The statistics say otherwise.

Most investment manger results fall within the expected distribution of chance. Beyond the end of that tail there's a substantial gap--and then Buffet. The odds against his approach being chance are pretty far out there.

He also had a very sound strategy of value investing and holding for the long term. He never promoted any get rich quick or technical analysis non-sense. He was never dazzled by bullshit and they people who listened to him with their savings did very well.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Buffet is just an accident of the stock market, not some brilliant social planner.

The statistics say otherwise.

Most investment manger results fall within the expected distribution of chance. Beyond the end of that tail there's a substantial gap--and then Buffet. The odds against his approach being chance are pretty far out there.

More importantly, thousands trust him to invest their hard earned money in order to invest. Very few have the confidence to invest into any anarchy ventures!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Unfortunately, this type of thinking has wrought all kinds of suffering. Don't get me wrong competition has its place, but if you're looking just to get ahead of your neighbor rather than to lead or inspire others and bring prosperity to the community then you are willing to do anything to keep your position as one that is better than another.This was very prevalent in the US South where poor white people "at least are better than a nigger" had used their load status position to justify all sorts of atrocities upon others.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with bettering yourself and your life.

That's old people talk--all mature and broad minded ... so community and big pictured. If one isn't particularly educated and possibly feeling some residual effects of oppression, then one needs to be more focused on individual short and medium term goals, not listening to, soaking up, and wallowing in the big idea, broad minded, civically centered speeches about what's keeping people down.

It's about focus. If you're educated, older, got some money, and genuinely care about the people in your community, then don't set people up for failure by swaying their attention from what they should be focused on. When the young pennyless minorities bask in the mindset that the barriers to success are insurmountable, they're gonna rob convenience stores--thank you community leaders. But, if you lift people up and show them how to overcome not starting out on top, they'll work, get ahead, climb, and surpass.

Just so much negative. Who needs to hear about suffering and atrocities? To remind them? I say give me the oldest wooden bat that is inferior to all the new-fangled ones on the market and let's play ball. Winning with the disadvantage makes it just that much more sweeter. Want to inspire? Dwell on what'll lift people up, not on what's keeping them down. Economic inequality, please! Drop me off naked without a dime and I can prove it won't matter. With the right frame of mind, people can overcome a little inequality.

Swing an a miss.

Oh well I tried.

 

[untermensche]

Is your claim that theft is a good thing to base a system on?

Because otherwise you wasted a lot of effort with your dull incoherence.

Dude, I understand that it's normal for religious extremists to find it dull to have their dogma challenged; but nothing I wrote was incoherent. I was perfectly clear. Perhaps you didn't even read my post before you replied to it. That would be unsurprising. If you did read it then you simply ignored what it said and decided I was saying something different from the words you read. That's all on you.

My claim, obviously, is that you claimed over and over again that capital owners' profit is theft, but you haven't offered any reason for anyone to think your claim is true. I don't believe those profits are theft. I believe you are wrong, so I challenged you to justify the premise all your posts are based on. And you replied by taking your disputed premise for granted. Instead of trying to justify your assertion you speculate that I think theft is a good thing, which means you are pretending to yourself that I already agree with your premise, even though I just explicitly challenged it. You are acting exactly like a Christian who is asked for evidence that God exists and who replies "Why are you so angry at God?" You are thereby proven guilty as charged. You are preaching a religion.

This is amusing, and a bunch of lies.

You quoted more than claims that taking the fruits of labor and replacing it with a market wage (the lowest possible wage) is theft, and I don't know how it is possible to look at it any differently.

You also compared trying to introduce morality into economics as equivalent to a religious delusion.

It is such an ignorantly pathetic analysis I don't know why I even bother to reply to it.

 

[untermensche]

The basic nature of humans is they adapt to their environment.

The basic nature of humans is when they live under decent conditions they tend to be decent, and when they live under repressive conditions, like capitalism or slavery, they become hardened and less decent.

It is delusional to think that the only thing better than immoral capitalism is utopia.

The problem is you are describing a utopia.

What am I describing?

You are like the ignorant supporter of monarchy that squealed that the sky was falling because some wanted to replace monarchy with a form of democracy.

You are a dinosaur that will be swept under the tide of history.

 

[untermensche]

In my world the fruits of labor belong to the laborer.

Not a market wage, which is just the slimy capitalist way of saying the lowest possible wage.

If the fruits belong to the laborer, I guess the losses do to. So when a business goes under the workers should expect a big bill?

This represents the master mentality well.

We steal from workers for years but that is not a problem because sometimes in our scheme to steal from workers we suffer losses too.

 

[NobleSavage]

If the fruits belong to the laborer, I guess the losses do to. So when a business goes under the workers should expect a big bill?

This represents the master mentality well.

We steal from workers for years but that is not a problem because sometimes in our scheme to steal from workers we suffer losses too.

A spectre is haunting this thread -- the spectre of untermenche.

 

[fast]

[...] taking the fruits of labor and replacing it with a market wage (the lowest possible wage) is theft, and I don't know how it is possible to look at it any differently.

I was messing around a bit earlier, but your use of "taking" and "replacing" seems odd.

 

[fast]

If the fruits belong to the laborer, I guess the losses do to. So when a business goes under the workers should expect a big bill?

This represents the master mentality well.

We steal from workers for years but that is not a problem because sometimes in our scheme to steal from workers we suffer losses too.

We steal from workers? Actually, workers steal from their employers. It's why there's a thing called loss prevention.

 

[untermensche]

This represents the master mentality well.

We steal from workers for years but that is not a problem because sometimes in our scheme to steal from workers we suffer losses too.

We steal from workers? Actually, workers steal from their employers. It's why there's a thing called loss prevention.

Are workers paid in relation to the fruits of their labor?

If so show me the formula that looks at the overall money taken in by a company and the pay of employees.

The facts are, most people are paid what is called a market wage.

This phrase is, as I said, just a slimy way of trying to put lipstick on a pig.

A market wage in actuality means, most of the time, the lowest possible wage.

Are you claiming the lowest possible wage is theft?

Are you claiming the lowest possible wage somehow magically has a relation to overall money taken in by a company?

The system flows from slavery and in the North, indentured servitude. It is a master/slave system.

And we really see what the system is in the late 1800's before the labor movements forced the capitalists to behave somewhat decently towards workers.

 

[untermensche]

This represents the master mentality well.

We steal from workers for years but that is not a problem because sometimes in our scheme to steal from workers we suffer losses too.

A spectre is haunting this thread -- the spectre of untermenche.

I notice not one syllable of refutation.

 

[Jayjay]

Nervous laughter from Michael Shermer precedes his socialist ideas being shredded by Dinesh D'Souza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEM4NKXK-iA

Shermer then agrees with D'Souza, remarking "Indeed."

"That's the problem." - Shermer

That was a hoot. D'Souza's response to question about who should pay for health care was a bizarre analogy to Obama riding a horse and stealing Michael Shermer's sandwich by gunpoint.

Note that D'Souza didn't deny that everyone should have insurance, nor did he provide a reasonable alternative as to who should pay for it.

 

[NobleSavage]

A spectre is haunting this thread -- the spectre of untermenche.

I notice not one syllable of refutation.

Don't flatter yourself. I'm adding you to my ignore list because all you do is preach and I'd recommend others reading this do so as well. It's a great feature of the forum software.

 

[untermensche]

I notice not one syllable of refutation.

Don't flatter yourself. I'm adding you to my ignore list because all you do is preach and I'd recommend others reading this do so as well. It's a great feature of the forum software.

So first you make childish comments and then like a child run away.

I am better off on your ignore list.

 

[Jayjay]

Once again, raising the minimum wage doesn't result in higher unemployment. No one has shown this in empirical studies. Auxlus made a big deal about a study that tried to say that a higher minimum wage results in slower employment growth for the first year after the wage goes up. This is considerably different than your claim that it results in higher unemployment.

If it were true that an increase in the minimum wage results in higher unemployment among minimum wage workers then the converse would have to be true, lowering the minimum wage would have to result in more minimum wage workers. We have a thirty year experiment in effectively lowering the minimum wages. In current dollars the minimum wage is $3.50 lower than it was at it highest, when LB Johnson was president. How many more minimum wage workers do we now than in 1965? Your Nobel prize awaits, but be prepared for a disappointment.

I don't think that logically follows. If you raise minimum wage, you'd expect the number of people making minimum wage to increase simply because the bar is raised: folks who were making just above the minimum would statistically become minimum-wage earners whenever the minimum is raised, even if overall unemployment increases. The number of minimum wage workers would decrease only if the number of employees in the bracket between the old and new minimum wage is less than the number of people becoming unemployed due to the minimum wage increase.

 

[untermensche]

[...] taking the fruits of labor and replacing it with a market wage (the lowest possible wage) is theft, and I don't know how it is possible to look at it any differently.

I was messing around a bit earlier, but your use of "taking" and "replacing" seems odd.

Do workers in an auto manufacturing plant own the cars (the fruits of their labor)?

Or are they paid a market wage? In the case of some auto manufacturers a better negotiated market wage.

Are the fruits taken and replaced with a market wage?