BLM leader: Looting is "reparations".

[Emily Lake]

I'll take it a step further. I do not know because I do not care. Their legal duty is to: charge as much as they can get away with regardless of cost, and squeeze as much work out of the workers as they can for as little as they can get away with in compensation (and as per the wage theft thread, often not paying at all!), So that the people who are doing none of that work can hoard power aand authority and relinquish none of it.

Why do I care about their names when I already know their job is to fuck me and leverage me out of my money to the best of their abilities? I don't need to know the devil's name to know what he stands for is fucked up and wrong.

So, is it your opinion that those who choose to rent for whatever reason are justifying the landlord meanies?

I have never in my life chosen to rent. I have rented only because I have been situationally forced to, because mortgages have a cost barrier to entry, and a time barrier to quit (though lease terms generally also have a different form of time barrier).

At any rate, some people are in situations too temporary to be able to justify the insane closing costs on a sale when they will not be in the house long enough to overcome the fucked up frontloading of interest (both of which they will necessarily be leveraged into).

These are artificial barriers designed around economic asymmetries that the common man cannot challenge because they have no leverage; we would generally reject such tactics soundly if we could. But we can't.

When a rental situation is necessary for a person's situation, all it takes is poking some holes in the asymmetrical model of ownership to bleed equity in part to the occupant. As I've stated before.

It seems like you're assuming that because you haven't chosen to rent as a preference, then it's not possible for anyone to choose to rent as a preference.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, humans did not invent ownership. Look at human societies. All of them have, and have always had, ownership. That's not a cultural development. It's species-wide. Ownership is a part of morality, and it's built-in the human mind. The origin is evolutionary.

It's also not limited to humans. Most mammals will claim territory at the very least, and will run off interlopers from other groups. Even in cases where ownership is transitory (this is mine right now while I'm using it), there is still a claim. Most dogs have toys or beds that are their toys and their beds, and they don't want other dogs to use them. They might share their toys with dogs that they consider to be "friends", but only by their choice. They will object to another dog taking their toy.

Even in the most hypothetically egalitarian human communes, there is still an assumption of personal property. These are my shoes. This is my dinner. This is my bed, in my room. This physical space is my space, for my use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have never in my life chosen to rent. I have rented only because I have been situationally forced to, because mortgages have a cost barrier to entry, and a time barrier to quit (though lease terms generally also have a different form of time barrier).

At any rate, some people are in situations too temporary to be able to justify the insane closing costs on a sale when they will not be in the house long enough to overcome the fucked up frontloading of interest (both of which they will necessarily be leveraged into).

These are artificial barriers designed around economic asymmetries that the common man cannot challenge because they have no leverage; we would generally reject such tactics soundly if we could. But we can't.

When a rental situation is necessary for a person's situation, all it takes is poking some holes in the asymmetrical model of ownership to bleed equity in part to the occupant. As I've stated before.

It seems like you're assuming that because you haven't chosen to rent as a preference, then it's not possible for anyone to choose to rent as a preference.

There's also the case of people just starting out that don't have the money in reserve for big repair bills. When you own you can get surprise 4-figure bills. Having a landlord instead means you're protected from that sort of thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have never in my life chosen to rent. I have rented only because I have been situationally forced to, because mortgages have a cost barrier to entry, and a time barrier to quit (though lease terms generally also have a different form of time barrier).

At any rate, some people are in situations too temporary to be able to justify the insane closing costs on a sale when they will not be in the house long enough to overcome the fucked up frontloading of interest (both of which they will necessarily be leveraged into).

These are artificial barriers designed around economic asymmetries that the common man cannot challenge because they have no leverage; we would generally reject such tactics soundly if we could. But we can't.

When a rental situation is necessary for a person's situation, all it takes is poking some holes in the asymmetrical model of ownership to bleed equity in part to the occupant. As I've stated before.

It seems like you're assuming that because you haven't chosen to rent as a preference, then it's not possible for anyone to choose to rent as a preference.

There's also the case of people just starting out that don't have the money in reserve for big repair bills. When you own you can get surprise 4-figure bills. Having a landlord instead means you're protected from that sort of thing.

And that isn't a problem with owning, it's a problem with an insurance scheme designed to take money and never actually insulate people against four (or five) figure repair costs.

Of course, some people do rent. Now, I'll point out that when I have discussed this, I have left a cutout for people who wish to seek rent, specifically to legally enforce what could be called "common law equity". Or has someone not been reading the thread? I'm going to go with "hasn't actually been reading the thread". It's definitely better than the only other two possible options of "arguing knowingly in bad faith", and "not smart enough to actually understand the written word".

 

[Metaphor]

I have never in my life chosen to rent. I have rented only because I have been situationally forced to, because mortgages have a cost barrier to entry, and a time barrier to quit (though lease terms generally also have a different form of time barrier).

At any rate, some people are in situations too temporary to be able to justify the insane closing costs on a sale when they will not be in the house long enough to overcome the fucked up frontloading of interest (both of which they will necessarily be leveraged into).

These are artificial barriers designed around economic asymmetries that the common man cannot challenge because they have no leverage; we would generally reject such tactics soundly if we could. But we can't.

When a rental situation is necessary for a person's situation, all it takes is poking some holes in the asymmetrical model of ownership to bleed equity in part to the occupant. As I've stated before.

It seems like you're assuming that because you haven't chosen to rent as a preference, then it's not possible for anyone to choose to rent as a preference.

In any case, it's irrelevant. I have never in my life chosen to work for money, I have been situationally forced to, because I want food and clothing and shelter and other little perks.

 

[Emily Lake]

And that isn't a problem with owning, it's a problem with an insurance scheme designed to take money and never actually insulate people against four (or five) figure repair costs.

What does this mean?

 

[Emily Lake]

In any case, it's irrelevant. I have never in my life chosen to work for money, I have been situationally forced to, because I want food and clothing and shelter and other little perks.

I like my job, quite a bit. If I won the lottery, I'd give my employer a six-month notice... and I might not even quit really. But I also know that I am not representative of most people.

I will say, however, that I have definitely chosen to work for someone else rather than for myself. I don't want to be self-employed. I strongly prefer the security of a stable paycheck, as well as the protection from income swings.

 

[Jarhyn]

And that isn't a problem with owning, it's a problem with an insurance scheme designed to take money and never actually insulate people against four (or five) figure repair costs.

What does this mean?

Exactly what the text says. You should probably take it up with your highschool English teacher.

 

[Trausti]

And that isn't a problem with owning, it's a problem with an insurance scheme designed to take money and never actually insulate people against four (or five) figure repair costs.

What does this mean?

Exactly what the text says. You should probably take it up with your highschool English teacher.

You mustn't be a homeowner.

 

[Emily Lake]

And that isn't a problem with owning, it's a problem with an insurance scheme designed to take money and never actually insulate people against four (or five) figure repair costs.

What does this mean?

Exactly what the text says. You should probably take it up with your highschool English teacher.

*Sigh* Are you always so antagonistic? I mean, can't we ever just have a conversation? Let me be more specific...

What insurance scheme are you referencing? Are you talking about Homeowners Insurance? If so, then you're correct that it's not designed to insulate people against four figure repair costs, those are considered wear and tear costs. Alternatively, Home Warranties do protect against those smaller costs. The two types of financial protection are designed for very different applications. Complaining that Homeowner's Insurance doesn't cover air conditioners and worn out window trim and roofing at the end of its life is tantamount to complaining that auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes.

Now, it's also possible that you're NOT talking about Homeowner's Insurance, and had something else in mind altogether, so now I've lectured you on something completely unrelated. Which would be why I asked you what you meant the first time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's also the case of people just starting out that don't have the money in reserve for big repair bills. When you own you can get surprise 4-figure bills. Having a landlord instead means you're protected from that sort of thing.

And that isn't a problem with owning, it's a problem with an insurance scheme designed to take money and never actually insulate people against four (or five) figure repair costs.

Of course, some people do rent. Now, I'll point out that when I have discussed this, I have left a cutout for people who wish to seek rent, specifically to legally enforce what could be called "common law equity". Or has someone not been reading the thread? I'm going to go with "hasn't actually been reading the thread". It's definitely better than the only other two possible options of "arguing knowingly in bad faith", and "not smart enough to actually understand the written word".

Insurance scheme??? Try again--I'm talking about houses, not people! If your HVAC dies it's at least a 4-figure repair bill and it's not something you can possibly do yourself. (Licenses are required because of the refrigerant.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In any case, it's irrelevant. I have never in my life chosen to work for money, I have been situationally forced to, because I want food and clothing and shelter and other little perks.

I like my job, quite a bit. If I won the lottery, I'd give my employer a six-month notice... and I might not even quit really. But I also know that I am not representative of most people.

Agreed. I do not believe either of us will voluntarily retire and I doubt she would live long if she had to retire. If I won the lottery I might decide I didn't want a job anymore but I certainly wouldn't stop writing code.

I will say, however, that I have definitely chosen to work for someone else rather than for myself. I don't want to be self-employed. I strongly prefer the security of a stable paycheck, as well as the protection from income swings.

Yup. It's not just the security, but having an employer allows you to focus on what you do best. I'm much better at writing code than at finding those who want code written and convincing them that I'm the one who should be writing their code.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's also the case of people just starting out that don't have the money in reserve for big repair bills. When you own you can get surprise 4-figure bills. Having a landlord instead means you're protected from that sort of thing.

And that isn't a problem with owning, it's a problem with an insurance scheme designed to take money and never actually insulate people against four (or five) figure repair costs.

Of course, some people do rent. Now, I'll point out that when I have discussed this, I have left a cutout for people who wish to seek rent, specifically to legally enforce what could be called "common law equity". Or has someone not been reading the thread? I'm going to go with "hasn't actually been reading the thread". It's definitely better than the only other two possible options of "arguing knowingly in bad faith", and "not smart enough to actually understand the written word".

Insurance scheme??? Try again--I'm talking about houses, not people! If your HVAC dies it's at least a 4-figure repair bill and it's not something you can possibly do yourself. (Licenses are required because of the refrigerant.)

HA! HVAC is one of the easiest things in the world to repair and no licenses are required unless you're fucking with the gas line or a boiler. It's never the gas valve, and boilers are extremely rare.

Usually, it's a card, or a small transformer, or occasionally a capacitor.

Once I had to replace a flame sensor.

And yes, insurance not actually covering any of the things that actually go wrong in a home is absolutely part of the problem.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Ah.did it now? And where did the Merchants get their wealth from, eh?

From providing services and goods that both nobles and commoners wanted. By inventing insurance and financial markets. What they didn't do was "requisition" money from anyone at all.

This is only partially accurate/relevant. The class "merchants" and historical mercantilism are/have been significantly less benign overall than the family that owns a grocery store or a restaurant. Power accumulates as wealth in any capitalist system and when that power is sufficient to control markets, it begins a cycle where r>g, where the merchants are taking rents from the larger overall market as a secondary profit source and they quite commonly use various forms of brutality to keep their monopolies. It is a feedback loop that not only institutionalizes marginalized classes but destabilizes the social structures that existed prior to the monopolies leading inevitably to cascading network failure and system collapse. Power is the issue. I suppose a social darwinian perspective could rationalize support for successive consolations and their accompanying inflicted misery on the necessary percentage of the population being excited followed by catastrophic collapse, also with its accompanying misery. But the evils of capitalism are dangerous to blind ourselves to because they are not invisible to those who are marginalized and the margins is where the seeds of self destruction are sown. If the evils are all they can see, the emergent system will reject the whole package. But whatever. Trump has a gift for making idiots suck his cock and I guess that means at least a few people are happy. But extremes are the new norm. Not seeing the evils of capitalism is actually one of the extreme positions. Extremes and intense polarization are commonly considered precursors to system collapse.

Or something

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Do you genuinely think that the only way anyone gets any wealth is by exploitation?

do you genuinely think that our current system of capitalism is even capable of functioning in its current fashion without ruthless exploitation of the most vulnerable propping the happy, moral, community minded ethical business people stereotypes that we use to allow ourselves to pretend that the global capitalist system is just as subject to Marx's any sisal the robber barons of the gilded age?

If you do, you are wrong. The trickle of those who walk away from the Omelas may leave the last inhabitants unaware of the impending return of those who walked away but in the form of an army. BLM is easy to criticize but they are right and eventually, the only ones still criticizing will be the self identified exploited and will be the legitimate targets of the emergent system. It is much smarter to listen, understand, respect, and integrate than to dismiss. But it's also easy to just believe some values that you never need to change. That's what privilege grants: the right to be wrong and never need to know.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Do you genuinely think that the only way anyone gets any wealth is by exploitation?

See: Marxist ideology.

And before I am accused of being anti-Marxist, I'm not. But I'm not a Marxist either. It's like most things, complex. Exploitation is/was part of it, yes, but only a part.

This is a decent summary of the position I basically take too. I am not sure what it would even mean to be a "marxist" in the information age, but his analysis of the systemic processes of unfettered capitalism still hold up to scrutiny. In times of peace or in the modern case, of empire, wealth concentrates exactly as Marx described and for the exact reasons he laid out. It is inevitable. The only safeguard is a common understanding that power absolutely needs to be limited and at a drastically more equal distribution than is currently in fashion

 

[Politesse]

I continue to feel very confused by how Marxism is being defined in this thread.

Could there even be such a thing as reparations in a Marxism-oriented society that took his ideas seriously? Reparations seem more like noblesse oblige than class egalitarianism or the reversal of subaltern alienation. Like, "here's a pittance of ransom money, now shut up and let me keep my extreme wealth". Neither the overbearing structure of powerful and powerless, nor any element of the labor structure that channels wealth from the productive workers to their dubiously talented owners, are challenged in any way by a one-time allocation of hush money. Reparations seem, to me, like the purest Capitalist solution to a class inequality problem that could possibly be imagined. I mean, Jesus, people died under slavery. Millions of them. Children were sold into sex slavery. Unfathomable stretches of land were requisitioned in Africa to support the trade. Just how big are these checks supposed to be? If you think a human life is worth, what, a few dozen thousand-dollar checks over a couple of years, then congratulations my peeps, you are Capitalists. Not Marxists. At all.

But I guess "Marxism" is just being taken to mean "any sort of critique of capitalism"...

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Apples and oranges, as these individuals occupy different industries and power structures. Indeed, certain specific McDonald's employees do make as much or more than any neurosurgeon.

A more relevant question would have to split this into two examples, like so:

1. When it comes to producing a burger for you, of an afternoon, does Christopher John Kempczinski truly do 1,939% more of the work as the person who actually makes the sandwich?

And

2. No one denies that neurosurgeons are unusual talents and services are valuable, but is a hospital nurses' work truly so inconsequential to the hospital that he should struggle to feed, clothe, and educate his family, while the neurosurgeon lives a comfortable upper middle class life? And, does it make sense that the neurosurgeon is only middle class, while the CEO of the insurance company that funds most of the care out-earns her to a greater degree than she outearns the nurse, despite not actually producing a product of any sort?​

Number 1 is too extreme imo. In many cases, the person serving the burger would not have a job if the guy employing him had not had the initiative to take the entrepreneurial risk of opening the restaurant.

And imo the second guy deserves more in return for that, because he (or she) has taken the necessary initiative involving a very large risk. Not 2000 times more return. But capitalism does not have to involve such high ratios. And it often doesn’t, especially in small or medium sized, non-corporate businesses, of which there are a lot, even in the USA. And they provide a lot of people with a way to earn a living as employees.

And if it makes me a capitalist to say the above then I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t see any reason to.

I have owned my own businesses since I was around 25. Capitalism makes a ton of sense to me. Markets are pretty amazing things and I don't think that it's even possible to replace them with any other decentralized structure. It may be but I haven't seen the argument. But just because some aspects of capitalism work well to spur innovation and to produce and distribute the necessary goods and services required by society does not mean that regulation is bad or that anyone should be able to own and control the same amount of resources as millions of families combined. That is a broken or at least radically unjust system. And, the social compact is a real thing. As soon as people stop agreeing to the rules, the whole system collapses

 

[Testy Calibrate]

That's what the Marxists think.

I'm not a Marxist, I just have an education.

Well, you want Reggie to be compensated for his work as much as Reginald.

Why would Reginald have bothered to make the effort, and take the risk, of starting up the business where Reggie can apply for a job?

I think your view of capitalism as being a system in which workers are exploited if they don't earn as much as an employer or owner is a bit of a caricature. Imo the problem is not so much capitalism as it is unrestricted, unregulated, extreme or toxic capitalism. There are forms of capitalism, especially outside the USA, which are not that. As every educated person surely knows.

meh. I don't think there is any capitalist system anywhere that isn't propped up by exploitation at least elsewhere in the world. The race to the bottom and all. No one from the leadership of union carbide went to jail after bhopal. No wall street ceos were held criminally liable for the documented crimes that led to the 2008 collapse.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

That's what the Marxists think.

I'm not a Marxist, I just have an education.

Then there are no wealthy self-employed people.

that's pretty dumb