The U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capitalism and democracy are opposites.

 

That's kind of a stupid statement.

 

One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things.

 

My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.)

Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations".

 

Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that.

 

Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance.

 

I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power.

 

Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job.

 

Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life.

 

 

I--and others--have already thoroughly discussed the 'corporate welfare' system: socialize the costs and risks, privatize the profits. So you can lump Bill Gates into that pile of 'self made men'.

 

As to your other point: economics and politics(gov'ts) are hand in glove, not separate from each other and as soon as you drive into your corporate parking lot, you by and large give most of your rights away: it's a top down dictatorship', 'my way or the highway'. Sure, you may have a say as to 'casual Fridays', or what's in the vending machine, or who's turn it is to make coffee, but not as to how the profits are utilized, etc. It's as described in the quote.

 

A person may have stock in a company, but that person doesn't control how it's traded, you can only sell your shares. ~ 50% of U.S. workers don't have stock options or pensions.

 

Then start your own company and be self employed. You then control what you do, who does it, when you do it and how.

 

Correct, if you become the owner/employer, then you can be the dictator, you just confirmed my whole point. Of course, there are more worker run enterprises cropping up these days that are more democratic.

 

I never denied that when you work for someone else, they pretty much make the decisions. I have no problem with that and I always kind of chuckle and roll my eyes when someone does have a problem with it.

 

If you don't like it, go work for yourself. Like I said, there are tons of opportunity to do so.

 

Basically what you just said is that you hate working for someone else but you won't go and do that. You just want to sit back and complain that you are working for someone else.

 

Yeah, you kinda did attempt to deny it, but then I blew up your argument, LOL! Self employment has it's pluses and minuses, but it piggy backs on the thrust of the industrial economic situation, which is where most people are and what my point centers around.

 

Ummm...no, and if you think that then you need reading comprehension lessons. I said the smaller the company the more say you have in what happens. That is totally different than what you are claiming. (if that is even the statement you are talking about.)

 

Oh....so now you are saying owning a business has it's minuses. I thought they had all the power and rule the earth in all it's glory with no worries.

 

Now you're obfuscating.

 

Oh, give me a clear example of alleged 'smaller company' that allows the employee to have a say in on what good or service is produced, how it's produced, and how the good/service and profits and are distributed.

 

Obfuscating....that's funny.

 

Fine....

 

I have a Sales manager, VP of Production, VP of finance and a board of directors that has employees on it.

 

My sales team, through my Sales Manager gives our management team input into what products are needed on the market. We work with many outside suppliers and sources to develop those products and determine the best way to produce them. VP of production and and his team have a lot of input into how it is produced. The VP of finance has a lot of say into how it is all financed. Like most companies my size, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company in the form of equipment, advertising, labor...etc. Those decisions are made within my management team that almost all of them are not owners of the company. Going on down the chain, my maintenance manager has a lot of say into what equipment is purchased, how it is used and where it goes. Shift managers have a say in how their team is managed and they give feedback as to changes that need to be made. Very very few hiring and firing decisions are even done by ownership in this company. A common question that is constantly asked to people that are being managed..."What do you need to be able to do your job better?" Heck, come to think of it, even my house keeper has complete control over how she does her job. When she does it and what products and equipment she uses to do that job. Any major (macro) decisions that need to be made go through the board of directors (with employees on it). This includes investments, profit distribution and even employee benefits...etc.

 

My wife works for a company that has 5 departments. Those departments work basically as independent businesses. The owner of the company really doesn't do much because he has a great management team under him. He basically spends his time in public relations and doing things outside the company. Those departments have many managers that determine what work is going to be bid on, how it's bid on and how it is ultimately accomplished. They have control over their own budgets, and what income they bring in and what their departments spend it on. If a new facility is to be built or purchased in a department, that decision is done within that department with input from many people down the chain of command. Again, even in that company, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company with the department heads and their teams making the decisions as to what to do with it.

 

Now, I know people who didn't like working for her company and they went out and started their own company and they are very happy. Heck, they even subcontract back to her company and still have a relationship.

 

Hmm, sounds quasi socialistic/democratic, though the key disqualifier "people down the chain of command". Anyway, I gtg, been good rappin', as usual.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Capitalism and democracy are opposites.

 

That's kind of a stupid statement.

 

One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things.

 

My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.)

Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations".

 

Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that.

 

Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance.

 

I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power.

 

Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job.

 

Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life.

 

 

It might not control 100% of our lives but when $ buys policy it most certainly affects our lives. People with enough money can have safety standards eroded which directly affects public health. That's just one example. That's not to say "all rich people are evil." But the ones who buy off politicians so they can have laws passed just to increase their bottom line and care sh#t all for how those laws will negatively affect people, those are evil. Money should not have the power that it does in politics/policy.

 

I agree. That large amounts of money that buys influence comes from individuals, corporations, unions, AARP, environmental groups, foreign interests, NAACP, NRA...etc.

 

I don't want any of those groups having major influence on our government above what the public in general has. But, these groups have even more influence than just the money they spend on campaigns directly. These groups have an agenda. They always do. They all spend huge amounts of money "educating" people to believe what they want them to believe.

 

Let's take environmental groups. Someone like Green Peace spends huge amounts of money trying to influence the public into believing their garbage. Now, every small individual that believes that crap is now more likely to donate small amounts to the candidate that Green Peace wants in office. Make people believe that the world is coming to an end and any candidate that panders to that gets paid.

 

NRA is the same way. Make people fear that Obama is going to take their guns away and any candidate that panders to that gets paid.

 

It goes back to my statements I have said for a very long time. The media and what is in the media is a much bigger threat to our country than any individual candidate or politician can be.

[Husker_x]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capitalism and democracy are opposites.

 

That's kind of a stupid statement.

 

One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things.

 

My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.)

Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations".

 

Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that.

 

Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance.

 

I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power.

 

Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job.

 

Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life.

 

 

I--and others--have already thoroughly discussed the 'corporate welfare' system: socialize the costs and risks, privatize the profits. So you can lump Bill Gates into that pile of 'self made men'.

 

As to your other point: economics and politics(gov'ts) are hand in glove, not separate from each other and as soon as you drive into your corporate parking lot, you by and large give most of your rights away: it's a top down dictatorship', 'my way or the highway'. Sure, you may have a say as to 'casual Fridays', or what's in the vending machine, or who's turn it is to make coffee, but not as to how the profits are utilized, etc. It's as described in the quote.

 

A person may have stock in a company, but that person doesn't control how it's traded, you can only sell your shares. ~ 50% of U.S. workers don't have stock options or pensions.

 

Then start your own company and be self employed. You then control what you do, who does it, when you do it and how.

 

Correct, if you become the owner/employer, then you can be the dictator, you just confirmed my whole point. Of course, there are more worker run enterprises cropping up these days that are more democratic.

 

I never denied that when you work for someone else, they pretty much make the decisions. I have no problem with that and I always kind of chuckle and roll my eyes when someone does have a problem with it.

 

If you don't like it, go work for yourself. Like I said, there are tons of opportunity to do so.

 

Basically what you just said is that you hate working for someone else but you won't go and do that. You just want to sit back and complain that you are working for someone else.

 

Yeah, you kinda did attempt to deny it, but then I blew up your argument, LOL! Self employment has it's pluses and minuses, but it piggy backs on the thrust of the industrial economic situation, which is where most people are and what my point centers around.

 

Ummm...no, and if you think that then you need reading comprehension lessons. I said the smaller the company the more say you have in what happens. That is totally different than what you are claiming. (if that is even the statement you are talking about.)

 

Oh....so now you are saying owning a business has it's minuses. I thought they had all the power and rule the earth in all it's glory with no worries.

 

Now you're obfuscating.

 

Oh, give me a clear example of alleged 'smaller company' that allows the employee to have a say in on what good or service is produced, how it's produced, and how the good/service and profits and are distributed.

 

Obfuscating....that's funny.

 

Fine....

 

I have a Sales manager, VP of Production, VP of finance and a board of directors that has employees on it.

 

My sales team, through my Sales Manager gives our management team input into what products are needed on the market. We work with many outside suppliers and sources to develop those products and determine the best way to produce them. VP of production and and his team have a lot of input into how it is produced. The VP of finance has a lot of say into how it is all financed. Like most companies my size, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company in the form of equipment, advertising, labor...etc. Those decisions are made within my management team that almost all of them are not owners of the company. Going on down the chain, my maintenance manager has a lot of say into what equipment is purchased, how it is used and where it goes. Shift managers have a say in how their team is managed and they give feedback as to changes that need to be made. Very very few hiring and firing decisions are even done by ownership in this company. A common question that is constantly asked to people that are being managed..."What do you need to be able to do your job better?" Heck, come to think of it, even my house keeper has complete control over how she does her job. When she does it and what products and equipment she uses to do that job. Any major (macro) decisions that need to be made go through the board of directors (with employees on it). This includes investments, profit distribution and even employee benefits...etc.

 

My wife works for a company that has 5 departments. Those departments work basically as independent businesses. The owner of the company really doesn't do much because he has a great management team under him. He basically spends his time in public relations and doing things outside the company. Those departments have many managers that determine what work is going to be bid on, how it's bid on and how it is ultimately accomplished. They have control over their own budgets, and what income they bring in and what their departments spend it on. If a new facility is to be built or purchased in a department, that decision is done within that department with input from many people down the chain of command. Again, even in that company, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company with the department heads and their teams making the decisions as to what to do with it.

 

Now, I know people who didn't like working for her company and they went out and started their own company and they are very happy. Heck, they even subcontract back to her company and still have a relationship.

 

 

May I ask a question, just out of curiosity? How much more in terms of a ball-park dollar figure does the owner, who as you say contributes relatively little, make more than your wife? Not asking for salaries––but twenty grand a year, double, triple?

[BigRedBuster]

Whoa......

 

I didn't mean to imply he doesn't do anything of value to the company. I meant in the day to day operations.

 

He took over a failing family business and risked everything he had to turn it around.

 

On top of that, his business relies very heavily on community and customer support. I said that he spends most of his time doing those activities along with making sure the general goals of the business is met. That's a major contribution to the company.

 

He makes quite a bit more and I have no problem with that and neither does my wife. She makes very similar to the men in the company at a similar level.

 

He also is very generous with his personal money.

[Husker_x]

Whoa......

 

I didn't mean to imply he doesn't do anything of value to the company. I meant in the day to day operations.

 

He took over a failing family business and risked everything he had to turn it around.

 

On top of that, his business relies very heavily on community and customer support. I said that he spends most of his time doing those activities along with making sure the general goals of the business is met. That's a major contribution to the company.

 

He makes quite a bit more and I have no problem with that and neither does my wife. She makes very similar to the men in the company at a similar level.

 

He also is very generous with his personal money.

 

Super, he's a great guy who runs a good company. My question I guess is he one of these guys, or is he compensated relative to employees at a more, uh, equitable rate?

[BigRedBuster]

 

Whoa......

 

I didn't mean to imply he doesn't do anything of value to the company. I meant in the day to day operations.

 

He took over a failing family business and risked everything he had to turn it around.

 

On top of that, his business relies very heavily on community and customer support. I said that he spends most of his time doing those activities along with making sure the general goals of the business is met. That's a major contribution to the company.

 

He makes quite a bit more and I have no problem with that and neither does my wife. She makes very similar to the men in the company at a similar level.

 

He also is very generous with his personal money.

 

Super, he's a great guy who runs a good company. My question I guess is he one of these guys, or is he compensated relative to employees at a more, uh, equitable rate?

 

I have absolutely no clue what he makes and quite frankly, I don't give a flying rip and neither do the people that I know that work there.