BLM leader: Looting is "reparations".

[ruby sparks]

No, it makes perfect sense and isn't arbitrary.

My point is that if the owner is the CEO, then that person is a CEO, which is an executive.

I can own a boat but not be its captain, although, sometimes the owner of the boat is the captain.

Obviously, there is a difference, but the example that I responded to was the latter.

So I would say the word executive, as used without qualification initially, was imprecise, and the statement 'executives don't take risks' was incorrect. Only some executives don't take risks.

On a general note, what I'm sometimes seeing (and I don't mean from you) is that capitalism is more or less automatically taken to mean 'major' (or 'corporate'), 'free market' or sometimes 'American' capitalism rather than also including (as I think it should) the large number of small and medium-scale varieties, businesses and participants, and those types of capitalism outside America which are more moderate, such as the mixed-market capitalisms of Scandinavia, which have, by some accounts and measures, and by at least quite a bit of agreement, produced the best societies.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm baffled as to how anyone could not know who the major CEOs are; you realize they have enormous influence over your life, right? McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway. It matters who is in the top spot, they routinely make decisions that define the lives of your countrymen, more so than most presidents or celebrities and so forth could dream of doing.

Bafflement noted. All I would say though is that even if I don't always know the names, or keep up with who has moved into or out of a role somewhere, I tend to assume that when it comes to the major enterprises, there's usually people of that type at or near the top doing those sorts of things and pulling those sorts of power strings.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm baffled as to how anyone could not know who the major CEOs are; you realize they have enormous influence over your life, right? McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway. It matters who is in the top spot, they routinely make decisions that define the lives of your countrymen, more so than most presidents or celebrities and so forth could dream of doing.

Bafflement noted. All I would say though is that even if I don't always know the names, or keep up with who has moved into or out of a role somewhere, I tend to assume that when it comes to the major enterprises, there's usually people of that type at or near the top doing those sorts of things and pulling those sorts of power strings.

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.

 

[Politesse]

I'm baffled as to how anyone could not know who the major CEOs are; you realize they have enormous influence over your life, right? McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway. It matters who is in the top spot, they routinely make decisions that define the lives of your countrymen, more so than most presidents or celebrities and so forth could dream of doing.

Bafflement noted. All I would say though is that even if I don't always know the names, or keep up with who has moved into or out of a role somewhere, I tend to assume that when it comes to the major enterprises, there's usually people of that type at or near the top doing those sorts of things and pulling those sorts of power strings.

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.

Better the devil you know.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm baffled as to how anyone could not know who the major CEOs are; you realize they have enormous influence over your life, right? McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway. It matters who is in the top spot, they routinely make decisions that define the lives of your countrymen, more so than most presidents or celebrities and so forth could dream of doing.

Bafflement noted. All I would say though is that even if I don't always know the names, or keep up with who has moved into or out of a role somewhere, I tend to assume that when it comes to the major enterprises, there's usually people of that type at or near the top doing those sorts of things and pulling those sorts of power strings.

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?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

I'm not following you. If someone's situation is economically better to not buy due to short time horizon (for example); who is hurt if they decide to rent? There's nothing artificial about it.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not following you. If someone's situation is economically better to not buy due to short time horizon (for example); who is hurt if they decide to rent? There's nothing artificial about it.

I guess he's saying that the renter's money is all going to the landlord (down the drain as far as the renter is concerned). So over, say, 25 years of renting they might have paid £250,000.00 in rent and have nothing to show for it. Compared to an owner paying, let's say, the same amount per month for a mortgage on the same property. In 25 years the latter has paid the mortgage off and the house has also gone up in value, so he gets (or has) £350,000.00. So that's £350,000.00 versus nothing. I've made some reasonable assumptions there.

But if a slice of the rent contributed to equity for the renter, the renter (more renters) would be able to eventually save up enough for a deposit later, when they might want to buy (when their situation becomes more permanent or stable). Or if they never bought, they'd have built up at least some equity over the lifetime of renting. I guess the equity would have to be made portable, assuming the renter might move around.

In some ways (but not all) it's a bit like the Co-Ownership ('rent to buy') scheme we have here in Northern Ireland.

"Co-Ownership is a not-for-profit organisation that helps people get onto the property ladder who cannot do it by themselves".
https://www.co-ownership.org/rent-to-own/about-rent-to-own/

Germany is interesting. For a variety of reasons, there is a fairly low appetite for owning your own home. many people are happy to rent permanently.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm not following you. If someone's situation is economically better to not buy due to short time horizon (for example); who is hurt if they decide to rent? There's nothing artificial about it.

I guess he's saying that the renter's money is all going to the landlord (down the drain as far as the renter is concerned). So over, say, 25 years of renting they might have paid £250,000.00 in rent and have nothing to show for it. Compared to an owner paying, let's say, the same amount per month for a mortgage on the same property. In 25 years the latter has paid the mortgage off and the house has also gone up in value, so he gets (or has) £350,000.00. So that's £350,000.00 versus nothing. I've made some reasonable assumptions there.

But if a slice of the rent contributed to equity for the renter, the renter (more renters) would be able to eventually save up enough for a deposit later, when they might want to buy (when their situation becomes more permanent or stable). Or if they never bought, they'd have built up at least some equity over the lifetime of renting. I guess the equity would have to be made portable, assuming the renter might move around.

In some ways (but not all) it's a bit like the Co-Ownership ('rent to buy') scheme we have here in Northern Ireland.

"Co-Ownership is a not-for-profit organisation that helps people get onto the property ladder who cannot do it by themselves".
https://www.co-ownership.org/rent-to-own/about-rent-to-own/

Well, in most cases, I agree that if you're going to stay in an area for 25 years, you should buy. I thought that Jarhyn was describing a situation for himself that his time horizon is short term in his area, and renting makes more sense. I'm curious, in the rent to buy situation in northern Ireland, is the buyer protected if RE value goes down?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm curious, in the rent to buy situation in northern Ireland, is the buyer protected if RE value goes down?

I don't think so. I would think not. Note that it could be buyers plural, and a shared risk, when the individual (or family) buy, say, 50% and Co-ownership buy the other 50%. I've long known about the scheme, but oddly I've never delved into it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't have any examples of other systems that function anywhere near as well.

We don't have examples of any systems not run by the people who benefit most from "ownership" as it currently functions (whether by the state or by individuals, they both treat ownership as "all mine forever").

We don't have examples that force ownership to cede towards the people who do the actual living at, paying for, or the working with. We don't have those examples because we have never had the power to renegotiate a compromise on ownership itself away from rent seeking. Nobody has been able to establish a different paradigm because it is a paradigm that will absolutely NEVER directly benefit those with the most individual power, power they got originally by doing the very thing that such a model would prevent.

And while you're at it why don't you negotiate with Earth about the harmful effects of gravity.

 

[Derec]

‘I’m going to find some place to loot,’ said suspect who livestreamed himself on social media trying to break into ATM wielding a hammer, prosecutors said

Looks like Kim Foxx is finally prosecuting a looter. Helps I guess that he was videoing himself doing it. Now the other 1000 or so Chicago looters need to be arrested and prosecuted as well.

 

[Jarhyn]

We don't have any examples of other systems that function anywhere near as well.

We don't have examples of any systems not run by the people who benefit most from "ownership" as it currently functions (whether by the state or by individuals, they both treat ownership as "all mine forever").

We don't have examples that force ownership to cede towards the people who do the actual living at, paying for, or the working with. We don't have those examples because we have never had the power to renegotiate a compromise on ownership itself away from rent seeking. Nobody has been able to establish a different paradigm because it is a paradigm that will absolutely NEVER directly benefit those with the most individual power, power they got originally by doing the very thing that such a model would prevent.

And while you're at it why don't you negotiate with Earth about the harmful effects of gravity.

Humans didn't invent gravity out of nothing. We did invent ownership out of nothing.

 

[Derec]

Humans didn't invent gravity out of nothing. We did invent ownership out of nothing.

You don't believe in ownership? Can I come and take your stuff?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And while you're at it why don't you negotiate with Earth about the harmful effects of gravity.

Humans didn't invent gravity out of nothing. We did invent ownership out of nothing.

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.

 

[Trausti]

And while you're at it why don't you negotiate with Earth about the harmful effects of gravity.

Humans didn't invent gravity out of nothing. We did invent ownership out of nothing.

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.

Those who have children are in no doubt. The first words are "mommy" and "daddy." Quickly followed by "mine"!

 

[Jarhyn]

Humans didn't invent gravity out of nothing. We did invent ownership out of nothing.

You don't believe in ownership? Can I come and take your stuff?

I don't believe that what you call ownership is reasonable or functional. It doesn't mean that I don't have a concept of ownership that I DO believe is reasonable and functional.

 

[Jarhyn]

And while you're at it why don't you negotiate with Earth about the harmful effects of gravity.

Humans didn't invent gravity out of nothing. We did invent ownership out of nothing.

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.

Humans absolutely invented ownership and "evolved" only evolves "good enough for now" and "now" relates to a paradigm that functioned barely at all for ancient apes for whom might made right.

You can't use Darwinism to justify ethics. Social Darwinism fails, hard. Our fundamental moral machinery hasn't had an update since the lower Paleolithic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And while you're at it why don't you negotiate with Earth about the harmful effects of gravity.

Humans didn't invent gravity out of nothing. We did invent ownership out of nothing.

Ownership is basically the right to profit from your efforts and investments (and investment is really just stored effort.)

No profit, there will be almost none of it. Nobody has made a system that works effectively at producing investment without giving the investors the fruits of their efforts. Even Marx admitted it couldn't be done, the solution was to steal. Never mind that that doesn't produce additional investment. (Note how horribly the communist countries have fared at investment--bad at making means of production, almost hopeless at developing things. Their "R&D" was mostly industrial espionage--which was part of the downfall of the Soviet Union. They discovered that we had deliberately allowed their spies to steal subtly but seriously flawed stuff.)

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Humans absolutely invented ownership and "evolved" only evolves "good enough for now" and "now" relates to a paradigm that functioned barely at all for ancient apes for whom might made right.

You can't use Darwinism to justify ethics. Social Darwinism fails, hard. Our fundamental moral machinery hasn't had an update since the lower Paleolithic.

I'm not trying to "use Darwinism to justify ethics". I am pointing out that morality/ethics is a human thing, or a thing of humans, earlier hominids, and some other apes. It's part of our psychological makeup. We own stuff, and we are also wired to recognized ownership. In order to get rid of ownership, you would need genetic engineering on a massive scale. Such technologies are not available. And even if they become so, using them to end ownership would be a way of replacing humans with some other thing.

Our fundamental moral machinery hasn't had an update since the lower Paleolithic.

And in the lower Paleolithic there was already ownership. In fact, ownership is far older than that. And it was not invented by humans, just as moral obligations, immorality, fairness and unfairness, justice and injustice, were not invented by humans.