FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
TYT - May Day, and why the bottom 90% should be outraged

TYT - May Day, and why the bottom 90% should be outraged

(6:28) A new study suggests that if you're poor today, you have less chance of getting rich than in the 1980s. But it gets worse. Cenk Uygur breaks it down at The Young Turks. wolf-pac.com

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
how the f does kevin T get so many positive comments? is he that funny?
ReplyVote up (117)down (86)
Original comment
how the f does kevin T get so many positive comments? is he that funny?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
Cenk says Americans are the ones that should be protesting because of the CEO vs Worker pay spread for the Fortune 500 companies. Cenk is obviously out of touch with reality because not all jobs are equal so the pay should not be equal. The CEO is responsible for billions of revenue and expenses whereas a typical worker is not. Generally speaking, you get paid what the company thinks your skills are worth. So a Janitor's worth to the company is not as important as a CEO's worth. You can easily replace a janitor and see no difference in the direction or profitability of the company. Change the CEO and that can make or break a company. For those of you that think you deserve more pay, then apply for jobs with more responsibilities and perhaps with hard work you can one day get promoted to an executive level and then possibly a CEO too. Unfortunately, the majority of you reading this will be satisfied with the status quo and not do anything to better your career but you'll blame the government or corporate America for your own laziness.
ReplyVote up (99)down (128)
Original comment
Cenk says Americans are the ones that should be protesting because of the CEO vs Worker pay spread for the Fortune 500 companies. Cenk is obviously out of touch with reality because not all jobs are equal so the pay should not be equal. The CEO is responsible for billions of revenue and expenses whereas a typical worker is not. Generally speaking, you get paid what the company thinks your skills are worth. So a Janitor's worth to the company is not as important as a CEO's worth. You can easily replace a janitor and see no difference in the direction or profitability of the company. Change the CEO and that can make or break a company. For those of you that think you deserve more pay, then apply for jobs with more responsibilities and perhaps with hard work you can one day get promoted to an executive level and then possibly a CEO too. Unfortunately, the majority of you reading this will be satisfied with the status quo and not do anything to better your career but you'll blame the government or corporate America for your own laziness.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
you said """"T he CEO is responsible for billions of revenue and expenses whereas a typical worker is not. Generally speaking, you get paid what the company thinks your skills are worth. So a Janitor's worth to the company is not as important as a CEO's worth. You can easily replace a janitor and see no difference in the direction or profitability of the company. Change the CEO and that can make or break a company.""" ;" But the same principle applied to the time period between 1917 to 1981 (as presented in the video) as they did for the period between 1981 to 2012 (see the video). Are you implying that between 1981 to 2012 people got so lazy that their productivity decreased from 69% to 4% and the CEO's got so hard working that their productivity increased from 31% to 94% ? i hope you do realize that this alleged hypothesis of yours is mathematically impossible, so if your simple explanation of "everybody is lazy but the CEO's" doesn't explain this huge gap, than what does?
ReplyVote up (89)down (124)
Original comment
you said """"T he CEO is responsible for billions of revenue and expenses whereas a typical worker is not. Generally speaking, you get paid what the company thinks your skills are worth. So a Janitor's worth to the company is not as important as a CEO's worth. You can easily replace a janitor and see no difference in the direction or profitability of the company. Change the CEO and that can make or break a company.""" ;" But the same principle applied to the time period between 1917 to 1981 (as presented in the video) as they did for the period between 1981 to 2012 (see the video). Are you implying that between 1981 to 2012 people got so lazy that their productivity decreased from 69% to 4% and the CEO's got so hard working that their productivity increased from 31% to 94% ? i hope you do realize that this alleged hypothesis of yours is mathematically impossible, so if your simple explanation of "everybody is lazy but the CEO's" doesn't explain this huge gap, than what does?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
A couple comments. First, I think you misread what I said. The companies pay what they believe the employee is worth. So if they are being paid 20 million a year, the company believes that person is worth that to them. That 20 million to a CEO could bring in a couple extra billion in profit so that's a great investment in top talent. Now regarding your time period of 1917 to 1982, did those corporations make as much revenue as they do today? Doubtful. Was there as much competition in the market place that required a higher skilled CEO to move the company into the correct direction? It's difficult to compare different time periods like that because companies are changing every year. The corporation that I work for has new technologies, missions, and directions every year that are communicated from the top down. Think I create my goals and tell my boss what they are and he rolls them up until they get to the CEO? No, they come from the CEO and they roll down to the individual workers.
ReplyVote up (138)down (97)
Original comment
A couple comments. First, I think you misread what I said. The companies pay what they believe the employee is worth. So if they are being paid 20 million a year, the company believes that person is worth that to them. That 20 million to a CEO could bring in a couple extra billion in profit so that's a great investment in top talent. Now regarding your time period of 1917 to 1982, did those corporations make as much revenue as they do today? Doubtful. Was there as much competition in the market place that required a higher skilled CEO to move the company into the correct direction? It's difficult to compare different time periods like that because companies are changing every year. The corporation that I work for has new technologies, missions, and directions every year that are communicated from the top down. Think I create my goals and tell my boss what they are and he rolls them up until they get to the CEO? No, they come from the CEO and they roll down to the individual workers.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
you seem to think that the CEO is somewhat of an all knowing master of the company, who doesn't really need the aid of the highly skilled engineers and other people who work for him, because he can do it all by himself. The companies pay as much as the Laws let them pay. Lobbying made it so that the laws let the companies pay them unlimited amounts of money. This is what CEO's do on a regular basis, no exceptions: """“Corz ine engaged in risky trading strategies that strained the company’s liquidity and could not be properly monitored by the company’s inadequate controls and procedures,” Mr. Freeh said.""" the quote is from an article regarding MF Global LINK . Do you know what CEO's get to be CEO's? it's as you said " a great investment in top talent" if by talent you mean lack of ethic, lack of morality, lack of mercy, lack of decency, greed, lack of empathy and the will to do anything it takes do be the best without going to jail, including murder. These are the people you defend, sociopaths, and MF Global is just an example, i can give you way more of them.
ReplyVote up (144)down (139)
Original comment
you seem to think that the CEO is somewhat of an all knowing master of the company, who doesn't really need the aid of the highly skilled engineers and other people who work for him, because he can do it all by himself. The companies pay as much as the Laws let them pay. Lobbying made it so that the laws let the companies pay them unlimited amounts of money. This is what CEO's do on a regular basis, no exceptions: """“Corz ine engaged in risky trading strategies that strained the company’s liquidity and could not be properly monitored by the company’s inadequate controls and procedures,” Mr. Freeh said.""" the quote is from an article regarding MF Global LINK . Do you know what CEO's get to be CEO's? it's as you said " a great investment in top talent" if by talent you mean lack of ethic, lack of morality, lack of mercy, lack of decency, greed, lack of empathy and the will to do anything it takes do be the best without going to jail, including murder. These are the people you defend, sociopaths, and MF Global is just an example, i can give you way more of them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
So you picked a company that has a CEO with bad performance. That's great he was caught and they can do something about it. Imagine if that corporation was government controlled. Would you sue the government? So the board of directors have the option to now fire that CEO and hire someone else. If I do a bad job, I can be fired too. And, by the way, the CEOs do not get paid unlimited amounts of money. Their salaries are fixed with bonuses for good performance and are published in the annual reports for everyone to see. Many of them are granted stocks or stock options so there is an incentive for the CEO to do a good job or their stock prices will decrease and they will earn less. Regarding the engineers that work for the company, I doubt they are getting paid minimum wage. Their worth to the company is higher than that so they will pay a competitive wage to assist in the prevention of turnover. If there was an overabundance of engineers then the supply and demand philosophy would kick in and the salary would be based upon the maximum the business is willing to pay and how little the engineer is wiling to do the job. I'm also not sure what you're referring to when you say "including murder." I bet there are more lower level people working for the lower incomes that commit murder than the higher ranking CEOs.
ReplyVote up (141)down (109)
Original comment
So you picked a company that has a CEO with bad performance. That's great he was caught and they can do something about it. Imagine if that corporation was government controlled. Would you sue the government? So the board of directors have the option to now fire that CEO and hire someone else. If I do a bad job, I can be fired too. And, by the way, the CEOs do not get paid unlimited amounts of money. Their salaries are fixed with bonuses for good performance and are published in the annual reports for everyone to see. Many of them are granted stocks or stock options so there is an incentive for the CEO to do a good job or their stock prices will decrease and they will earn less. Regarding the engineers that work for the company, I doubt they are getting paid minimum wage. Their worth to the company is higher than that so they will pay a competitive wage to assist in the prevention of turnover. If there was an overabundance of engineers then the supply and demand philosophy would kick in and the salary would be based upon the maximum the business is willing to pay and how little the engineer is wiling to do the job. I'm also not sure what you're referring to when you say "including murder." I bet there are more lower level people working for the lower incomes that commit murder than the higher ranking CEOs.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
you are right! the CEO's you so passionately defend are a rare talent indeed. They have to be very intelligent, very well educated in the economic, financial, administrative, technological fields and , at the same time, they have to be sociopaths with a complete lack of: empathy, morality, mercy and decency. While there are a lot of people out there who are highly intelligent and who are also very and who posses the first set of qualities required for a CEO... there are very few people who also posses the second set of ""qualities&quo t;" enumerated above, and for that second set of "qualities" they get to be paid handsomely. You were right and i was wrong, i apologize. (murder can be committed and it can be ordered. I bet there are more higher level people working for the higher incomes that order an assassination than the lower level people of the world).
ReplyVote up (145)down (146)
Original comment
you are right! the CEO's you so passionately defend are a rare talent indeed. They have to be very intelligent, very well educated in the economic, financial, administrative, technological fields and , at the same time, they have to be sociopaths with a complete lack of: empathy, morality, mercy and decency. While there are a lot of people out there who are highly intelligent and who are also very and who posses the first set of qualities required for a CEO... there are very few people who also posses the second set of ""qualities&quo t;" enumerated above, and for that second set of "qualities" they get to be paid handsomely. You were right and i was wrong, i apologize. (murder can be committed and it can be ordered. I bet there are more higher level people working for the higher incomes that order an assassination than the lower level people of the world).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
CEOs "have to be sociopaths with a complete lack of: empathy, morality, mercy and decency" - That is your opinion but I'd like to point out that there are many CEOs that are good and decent people. Just because you have pointed out a few that did the wrong thing does not mean all CEOs are like that.
ReplyVote up (108)down (144)
Original comment
CEOs "have to be sociopaths with a complete lack of: empathy, morality, mercy and decency" - That is your opinion but I'd like to point out that there are many CEOs that are good and decent people. Just because you have pointed out a few that did the wrong thing does not mean all CEOs are like that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
you are right, not all of them are, but some of them are. I wonder if the CEO's of the companies involved in the ISDAfix scandal and in the LIBOR , etc etc are sociopaths? i bet the CEO of your corporate bank is a sociopath and i i bet that the CEO of the corporation i work for is also a amoral sociopath. Were the CEO's of the companies that lobbied for "free for all mortgages with variable interest" at the senate and at President Bush, sociopaths? i think yes! were the senators that agreed to such madness Sociopaths? of course. As i mentioned in a previous comment on some other boreme post power not only corrupts but it also attracts the corruptible. Does a CEO have enough power to be corrupted? Does the CEO position attract corruptible amoral people? the answer to those questions is YES! i bet that if you were to make a study about the percentage of sociopathic and Amoral CEO's and compare it to the percentage of sociopathic and amoral structural engineers or doctors or any other high skilled job, you will find that the Percentage of the Sociopathic CEO's dwarfs the other percentages.
ReplyVote up (101)down (123)
Original comment
you are right, not all of them are, but some of them are. I wonder if the CEO's of the companies involved in the ISDAfix scandal and in the LIBOR , etc etc are sociopaths? i bet the CEO of your corporate bank is a sociopath and i i bet that the CEO of the corporation i work for is also a amoral sociopath. Were the CEO's of the companies that lobbied for "free for all mortgages with variable interest" at the senate and at President Bush, sociopaths? i think yes! were the senators that agreed to such madness Sociopaths? of course. As i mentioned in a previous comment on some other boreme post power not only corrupts but it also attracts the corruptible. Does a CEO have enough power to be corrupted? Does the CEO position attract corruptible amoral people? the answer to those questions is YES! i bet that if you were to make a study about the percentage of sociopathic and Amoral CEO's and compare it to the percentage of sociopathic and amoral structural engineers or doctors or any other high skilled job, you will find that the Percentage of the Sociopathic CEO's dwarfs the other percentages.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1664 days ago)
See what I mean about your posts either being rude or you trying to be funny? You cannot lump all people into the same bucket because they all have the same job title. You said you bet my CEO is a sociopath but you don't even know which company I work for. I believe my CEO is doing a very good job so I do not agree with your statements. The CEO is also not a dictator of a corporation. It could be of a privately owned company but definitely not a publicly owned corporation. Yes they have a lot of power but many decisions have to be approved by the board of directors. And even some decisions have to be approved by government agencies like mergers. And then some have to be approved by the shareholders by votes. Since I am also a stock holder, I get to vote on who I want as the board of directors and those are the people with the most power. They can fire the CEO.
ReplyVote up (98)down (163)
Original comment
See what I mean about your posts either being rude or you trying to be funny? You cannot lump all people into the same bucket because they all have the same job title. You said you bet my CEO is a sociopath but you don't even know which company I work for. I believe my CEO is doing a very good job so I do not agree with your statements. The CEO is also not a dictator of a corporation. It could be of a privately owned company but definitely not a publicly owned corporation. Yes they have a lot of power but many decisions have to be approved by the board of directors. And even some decisions have to be approved by government agencies like mergers. And then some have to be approved by the shareholders by votes. Since I am also a stock holder, I get to vote on who I want as the board of directors and those are the people with the most power. They can fire the CEO.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
the theory of it is nice and all, but in today's world everybody can see that the theory does not apply. We can all see that in order to be the best and win, you have use dirty tricks. This is not a new thing, this ha been going on since the beginning of human society, the unwritten laws of power. I don't need to know for what bank you work for since i already know that you work for one of the major banks of the world, which were involved in multiple scandals such as the ISDAfix and the LIBOR ones (and i am sure that these examples are jut the tip of the iceberg) so your CEO is most definitely a sociopath. I would guess that you stand behind the theory so vehemently because you want to believe that the people at the top are good people just like you and me, who want to see joy and happiness around them, but that's not the case. The people at the top of the food chain (pulling the strings of power) are there because they have no scruples on top of being very intelligent-sociopaths; I think that you fail to understand that at the top of the food chain of a unregulated world you will always find the biggest, most vicious, most dangerous individual among the predators. I think that you fail to see this because you wish for the theory to be true whilst failing to see that there are people out there who are only interested in power and wealth,regardless of the consequences and the damage, who don't play by the rules you hold so dear. It's either that or you're bullsh itting me.
ReplyVote up (148)down (100)
Original comment
the theory of it is nice and all, but in today's world everybody can see that the theory does not apply. We can all see that in order to be the best and win, you have use dirty tricks. This is not a new thing, this ha been going on since the beginning of human society, the unwritten laws of power. I don't need to know for what bank you work for since i already know that you work for one of the major banks of the world, which were involved in multiple scandals such as the ISDAfix and the LIBOR ones (and i am sure that these examples are jut the tip of the iceberg) so your CEO is most definitely a sociopath. I would guess that you stand behind the theory so vehemently because you want to believe that the people at the top are good people just like you and me, who want to see joy and happiness around them, but that's not the case. The people at the top of the food chain (pulling the strings of power) are there because they have no scruples on top of being very intelligent-sociopaths; I think that you fail to understand that at the top of the food chain of a unregulated world you will always find the biggest, most vicious, most dangerous individual among the predators. I think that you fail to see this because you wish for the theory to be true whilst failing to see that there are people out there who are only interested in power and wealth,regardless of the consequences and the damage, who don't play by the rules you hold so dear. It's either that or you're bullsh itting me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
PS: did you actually watch what cenk has to say in this video? did you watch it and though that he doesn't know what he's talking about when he says he wants to amend the constitution? oh wait... i forgot, you endorse the decision of the supreme court in the case of Citizens United VS FEC that states that corporations are people... with feelings, and needs, and emotions, who bleed when you cut them, who die when they get old, who have kids and grand kids... how could i forget you endorse this decision. Sorry for asking you about watching the video.
ReplyVote up (101)down (113)
Original comment
PS: did you actually watch what cenk has to say in this video? did you watch it and though that he doesn't know what he's talking about when he says he wants to amend the constitution? oh wait... i forgot, you endorse the decision of the supreme court in the case of Citizens United VS FEC that states that corporations are people... with feelings, and needs, and emotions, who bleed when you cut them, who die when they get old, who have kids and grand kids... how could i forget you endorse this decision. Sorry for asking you about watching the video.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1664 days ago)
I support the supreme court's decision about corporations having the 1st amendment rights of free speech and can spend money in TV advertisements supporting whatever they want to.
ReplyVote up (156)down (134)
Original comment
I support the supreme court's decision about corporations having the 1st amendment rights of free speech and can spend money in TV advertisements supporting whatever they want to.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
i understand. Please consider the following :""A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[34] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens read part of his 90 page dissent from the bench.[35] Stevens concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He wrote: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."""&q uot;" LINK . even though you support the decision... would you vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that clearly states that the first amendment refers only to individual human beings and not corporations and PACs?
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
i understand. Please consider the following :""A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[34] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens read part of his 90 page dissent from the bench.[35] Stevens concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the majority opinion. The dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He wrote: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."""&q uot;" LINK . even though you support the decision... would you vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that clearly states that the first amendment refers only to individual human beings and not corporations and PACs?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: KEVIN T (1666 days ago)
Stupid Reds. Communism doesn't work since people hate other people and are selfish. Any good videos? Look at this Indian twit.
ReplyVote up (122)down (171)
Original comment
Stupid Reds. Communism doesn't work since people hate other people and are selfish. Any good videos? Look at this Indian twit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1665 days ago)
"Communism doesn't work since people hate other people and are selfish" ??? But I thought that was why capitalism doesn't work.
ReplyVote up (104)down (110)
Original comment
"Communism doesn't work since people hate other people and are selfish" ??? But I thought that was why capitalism doesn't work.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
Capitalism is working. Why would you think it isn't? Capitalism is built around "every man for himself" and works because you get out of society what you put into it. If you contribute by working hard or picking a career requiring special educations, you get more of the pie. If you are lazy, you get very little of the pie. This encourages people to do as much as they can by competing with others for that slice of the pie. In the other extreme, communism does not work because everyone gets the same out of society regardless of what they put into it. A janitor would get a government provided house just like a surgeon so there is no encouragement to work hard or to get an elite job that requires years of education. In the real world, humans like to be better than everyone else and you get this opportunity with capitalism.
ReplyVote up (140)down (132)
Original comment
Capitalism is working. Why would you think it isn't? Capitalism is built around "every man for himself" and works because you get out of society what you put into it. If you contribute by working hard or picking a career requiring special educations, you get more of the pie. If you are lazy, you get very little of the pie. This encourages people to do as much as they can by competing with others for that slice of the pie. In the other extreme, communism does not work because everyone gets the same out of society regardless of what they put into it. A janitor would get a government provided house just like a surgeon so there is no encouragement to work hard or to get an elite job that requires years of education. In the real world, humans like to be better than everyone else and you get this opportunity with capitalism.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: KEVIN T (1665 days ago)
Good on you mate.
ReplyVote up (122)down (133)
Original comment
Good on you mate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1665 days ago)
Capitalism is not and has never, worked. How many banking crashes have we had now? Anyway, capitalism is the equivalent of a cow (handful of elites) pouring a few litres of it's 1m gallon cream reserve into a bucket. Then putting all the mice (over 90% of people in the world, people like you) into that bucket hoping that some of the mice run so much as to turn that cream into butter, enabling it's escape from drowning. The thing is, the escapee mice think they are smart, not knowing that all along they never had to be put in the cream in the first place. Read Animal farm, which animal do you think you are cengland0?
ReplyVote up (90)down (128)
Original comment
Capitalism is not and has never, worked. How many banking crashes have we had now? Anyway, capitalism is the equivalent of a cow (handful of elites) pouring a few litres of it's 1m gallon cream reserve into a bucket. Then putting all the mice (over 90% of people in the world, people like you) into that bucket hoping that some of the mice run so much as to turn that cream into butter, enabling it's escape from drowning. The thing is, the escapee mice think they are smart, not knowing that all along they never had to be put in the cream in the first place. Read Animal farm, which animal do you think you are cengland0?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
if capitalism is so good, then what do you call this system you have in the USA right now that is so obviously bad, as you could see in the TYT video presented above? what do you call this system you have there? because it's sure not the capitalism you presented. How do you call it Cary?
ReplyVote up (103)down (143)
Original comment
if capitalism is so good, then what do you call this system you have in the USA right now that is so obviously bad, as you could see in the TYT video presented above? what do you call this system you have there? because it's sure not the capitalism you presented. How do you call it Cary?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
The system we have is a blend between capitalism and socialism. There are a couple government controlled sectors and I would rather see those privatized to be closer to true capitalism. In general, the large corporations are owned by the public and not by the government so it is capitalism. Even our healthcare system is capitalistic but we do have a socialism aspect to it where the government will help subsidize the costs of healthcare for elderly, poor, or disabled persons. I believe it would be better to be a pure capitalistic society with the exception for assisting disabled people (because it may not have been their fault they were born that way). The elderly should prepare for their retirement so the government doesn't have to do it for them. If they fail to do that while they are working, then they should suffer the consequences when they are older. Don't tell me that they cannot afford a savings account because they are technically paying into a fund managed by our Social Security system anyway. It's a forced savings account but it should be optional and let the elderly that didn't save when they were younger work the rest of their life. Everyone needs to be accountable for their own actions with less government control. Keep the local police and the national defense but get rid of nearly everything else. That includes the fire department. If your house is on fire, you can call one of many privatized fire departments and then you pay them for their services. If you have kids, you should pay to put your kids in any of several competing schools and you pay for your own kid's education. The government should stop subsidizing wheat farmers because there are people that do not eat wheat and shouldn't have to pay tax dollars to make the price lower for those people that do eat it. Hope this answers your question. If you have any others, please let me know.
ReplyVote up (102)down (142)
Original comment
The system we have is a blend between capitalism and socialism. There are a couple government controlled sectors and I would rather see those privatized to be closer to true capitalism. In general, the large corporations are owned by the public and not by the government so it is capitalism. Even our healthcare system is capitalistic but we do have a socialism aspect to it where the government will help subsidize the costs of healthcare for elderly, poor, or disabled persons. I believe it would be better to be a pure capitalistic society with the exception for assisting disabled people (because it may not have been their fault they were born that way). The elderly should prepare for their retirement so the government doesn't have to do it for them. If they fail to do that while they are working, then they should suffer the consequences when they are older. Don't tell me that they cannot afford a savings account because they are technically paying into a fund managed by our Social Security system anyway. It's a forced savings account but it should be optional and let the elderly that didn't save when they were younger work the rest of their life. Everyone needs to be accountable for their own actions with less government control. Keep the local police and the national defense but get rid of nearly everything else. That includes the fire department. If your house is on fire, you can call one of many privatized fire departments and then you pay them for their services. If you have kids, you should pay to put your kids in any of several competing schools and you pay for your own kid's education. The government should stop subsidizing wheat farmers because there are people that do not eat wheat and shouldn't have to pay tax dollars to make the price lower for those people that do eat it. Hope this answers your question. If you have any others, please let me know.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
your definition of capitalism, along with your examples of pure capitalist policies, is associated by most people with the way things were in a time called ""the middle ages"", including me. I don't want to go back to the middle ages Cary and the rest of the world doesn't want that either.
ReplyVote up (143)down (80)
Original comment
your definition of capitalism, along with your examples of pure capitalist policies, is associated by most people with the way things were in a time called ""the middle ages"", including me. I don't want to go back to the middle ages Cary and the rest of the world doesn't want that either.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
Then what would you consider the perfect society keeping in mind human nature?
ReplyVote up (101)down (126)
Original comment
Then what would you consider the perfect society keeping in mind human nature?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
Iran has it figured out. A moral leader who is in control of the army, elected by the top moral leaders of the country, kind of like the way the Vatican gets to elect the pope. A moral leader elected for life, who's role is to overlook and Veto (if he wants) the decisions taken by the democratically elected parliament and approved by the democratically elected executive president. This moral leader will have to work his way up the hierarchy the same way a priest works his way up to becoming the pope LINK . The only problem i have with this system is the Religion side of it; This Moral leader will have to be the most erudite among all leaders who have studied the Ethics LINK of the society he wishes to rule over, along with economics, military strategy, diplomacy, money, administration, etc, everything a leader needs to know in order to rule over a country. If the Ethics at the basis of such a system will be based on Human rights, scientific and atheistic principles, i would support it. If the Morality/ideology of such a system is Catholicism or Islam or any other religion then i will be against it.
ReplyVote up (120)down (120)
Original comment
Iran has it figured out. A moral leader who is in control of the army, elected by the top moral leaders of the country, kind of like the way the Vatican gets to elect the pope. A moral leader elected for life, who's role is to overlook and Veto (if he wants) the decisions taken by the democratically elected parliament and approved by the democratically elected executive president. This moral leader will have to work his way up the hierarchy the same way a priest works his way up to becoming the pope LINK . The only problem i have with this system is the Religion side of it; This Moral leader will have to be the most erudite among all leaders who have studied the Ethics LINK of the society he wishes to rule over, along with economics, military strategy, diplomacy, money, administration, etc, everything a leader needs to know in order to rule over a country. If the Ethics at the basis of such a system will be based on Human rights, scientific and atheistic principles, i would support it. If the Morality/ideology of such a system is Catholicism or Islam or any other religion then i will be against it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
Iran? You have got to be kidding. I'm not even going to dignify this with an appropriate response as that is a complete waste of my time.
ReplyVote up (103)down (79)
Original comment
Iran? You have got to be kidding. I'm not even going to dignify this with an appropriate response as that is a complete waste of my time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
I've mentioned the Vatican several times, but i see that my suspicions about you are true: you choose to see only what pleases you. You couldn't dignify my comment even if you wanted to since you do not posses the capacity. And i am quite certain that my comment doesn't need you to dignify it. I don't know why i waste my time with you either since i already know that everything you say comes from the tea party right wing extremist ideology.
ReplyVote up (109)down (107)
Original comment
I've mentioned the Vatican several times, but i see that my suspicions about you are true: you choose to see only what pleases you. You couldn't dignify my comment even if you wanted to since you do not posses the capacity. And i am quite certain that my comment doesn't need you to dignify it. I don't know why i waste my time with you either since i already know that everything you say comes from the tea party right wing extremist ideology.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1664 days ago)
I'm sorry you feel this way about me but the fact is that I'm actually a very busy person. I cannot always respond to every message immediately. Not only do I have a full time job, I have two businesses as well. I do extra activities to earn additional money too. For example, I bought the inventory of a company that was going out of business so I'm in the process of trying to sell off that inventory. This takes time. Then, Mrs. cengland0 wants a lot of my time too. Boreme takes a back seat to all these other events. Anyway, now to address your Vatican idea, I still do not like the idea about the Pope being in office for the rest of his life. He is a dictator in that office. As for our President, he cannot create laws, that comes from our congress and the President's executive power is basically either sign those laws or veto them. This is by design to prevent a single person from becoming tyrannical. So even though I don't like our current President, I can hardly blame him for what is happening because he doesn't have much control over the economy or laws. One last point about this, is the Pope is a religious leader and happens to be the dictator of the Vatican country; however, those are technically two separate positions. They could, one day, be two different people but it is highly unlikely.
ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment
I'm sorry you feel this way about me but the fact is that I'm actually a very busy person. I cannot always respond to every message immediately. Not only do I have a full time job, I have two businesses as well. I do extra activities to earn additional money too. For example, I bought the inventory of a company that was going out of business so I'm in the process of trying to sell off that inventory. This takes time. Then, Mrs. cengland0 wants a lot of my time too. Boreme takes a back seat to all these other events. Anyway, now to address your Vatican idea, I still do not like the idea about the Pope being in office for the rest of his life. He is a dictator in that office. As for our President, he cannot create laws, that comes from our congress and the President's executive power is basically either sign those laws or veto them. This is by design to prevent a single person from becoming tyrannical. So even though I don't like our current President, I can hardly blame him for what is happening because he doesn't have much control over the economy or laws. One last point about this, is the Pope is a religious leader and happens to be the dictator of the Vatican country; however, those are technically two separate positions. They could, one day, be two different people but it is highly unlikely.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
you don't have to explain to me "the pope" i linked you to the video. If instead of religion, the ethics that stands at the base of such an institution (the vatican) would be founded on scientific, secular, equitable, humanist principles, i would surely stand behind it. The governing system would be a combination of what the Vatican has with what Iran has. I don't care if some people are against the idea of a dictator/monarch or not, i would stand behind such a man and such a system as long as the ethics of it is as previously mentioned. My second choice is what Cenk proposed. Now regarding your personal situation i have to say that i find it hard to believe that you have a full time job and two businesses and you also manage to play with your ducks and post videos about them on youtube; I say this because i also have full time job and it requires me to work on average between 10 and 12 hours a day (supply and demand, if i don't do it ... someone else will) and if you add the 1 hour in the morning and one in the evening comute you will have a daily average of 12 to 14 hours of time dedicated to the full time job; If you add to that having to come to work on saturdays and sundays at least 2 times a month (supply and demand) you will start to understand why i find it difficult to believe that you have a full time job and you also manage 2 other businesses. But if what you're saying is true...then i have to say that it's a very sad thing that someone, anyone, has to work as much as you do in order to live decently whilst the top 1% cheated the rest of us out of hard earned wealth.
ReplyVote up (74)down (103)
Original comment
you don't have to explain to me "the pope" i linked you to the video. If instead of religion, the ethics that stands at the base of such an institution (the vatican) would be founded on scientific, secular, equitable, humanist principles, i would surely stand behind it. The governing system would be a combination of what the Vatican has with what Iran has. I don't care if some people are against the idea of a dictator/monarch or not, i would stand behind such a man and such a system as long as the ethics of it is as previously mentioned. My second choice is what Cenk proposed. Now regarding your personal situation i have to say that i find it hard to believe that you have a full time job and two businesses and you also manage to play with your ducks and post videos about them on youtube; I say this because i also have full time job and it requires me to work on average between 10 and 12 hours a day (supply and demand, if i don't do it ... someone else will) and if you add the 1 hour in the morning and one in the evening comute you will have a daily average of 12 to 14 hours of time dedicated to the full time job; If you add to that having to come to work on saturdays and sundays at least 2 times a month (supply and demand) you will start to understand why i find it difficult to believe that you have a full time job and you also manage 2 other businesses. But if what you're saying is true...then i have to say that it's a very sad thing that someone, anyone, has to work as much as you do in order to live decently whilst the top 1% cheated the rest of us out of hard earned wealth.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1664 days ago)
You made a couple assumptions. First one is that you're assuming I commute to work. Have you considered that I could possibly work from home? Second, you assume that I have a full time job and own two businesses just to live decently. Have you considered that maybe I am already living very comfortably and any money received above and beyond what I need on a monthly basis gets saved for retirement? Regarding the number of hours worked, I am not an hourly employee so I'm not required to work a particular number of hours. All that is required is that my goals get accomplished by the deadlines.
ReplyVote up (103)down (73)
Original comment
You made a couple assumptions. First one is that you're assuming I commute to work. Have you considered that I could possibly work from home? Second, you assume that I have a full time job and own two businesses just to live decently. Have you considered that maybe I am already living very comfortably and any money received above and beyond what I need on a monthly basis gets saved for retirement? Regarding the number of hours worked, I am not an hourly employee so I'm not required to work a particular number of hours. All that is required is that my goals get accomplished by the deadlines.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
duly noted. but you did say ""Not only do I have a full time job, I have two businesses as well."" most people have full time jobs that require them to work full time (8 hours a day) . Most people commute to work. Most people who "do extra activities to earn additional money" do so because they don't earn enough. I guess you're not most people; i guess you are among those few people who have the time for a full time job, and 2 businesses and extra activity. I could almost say that you're among the 10%. I hope you can understand why i made those assumptions: i considered you to be just like the majority of hard working men and women out there, which you're obviously not (part of the majority) since you brought to my attention the exception from the norm and implied that it applies to you. My apologies. I can also understand now why you think that capitalism is the best way for the future, i mean, it worked out for you just fine... luck had nothing to do with it, it was all because of your hard work; you could have achieved the same things you achieved so far even if you would have been born in Somalia. It would sure be a shame if those retirement funds of yours would end up like those deposits in Cyprus... or those of MF global... but you probably know better than to put yourself in a situation like that... i mean you're an insider at one of the worlds biggest banks. Tough luck for the rest of us.
ReplyVote up (101)down (106)
Original comment
duly noted. but you did say ""Not only do I have a full time job, I have two businesses as well."" most people have full time jobs that require them to work full time (8 hours a day) . Most people commute to work. Most people who "do extra activities to earn additional money" do so because they don't earn enough. I guess you're not most people; i guess you are among those few people who have the time for a full time job, and 2 businesses and extra activity. I could almost say that you're among the 10%. I hope you can understand why i made those assumptions: i considered you to be just like the majority of hard working men and women out there, which you're obviously not (part of the majority) since you brought to my attention the exception from the norm and implied that it applies to you. My apologies. I can also understand now why you think that capitalism is the best way for the future, i mean, it worked out for you just fine... luck had nothing to do with it, it was all because of your hard work; you could have achieved the same things you achieved so far even if you would have been born in Somalia. It would sure be a shame if those retirement funds of yours would end up like those deposits in Cyprus... or those of MF global... but you probably know better than to put yourself in a situation like that... i mean you're an insider at one of the worlds biggest banks. Tough luck for the rest of us.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1663 days ago)
I'm proud to be an American and I'm glad I was not born in Somalia. I love the capitalism of America because I was given a chance to compete against others and experience the "American Dream." Regarding if you believe me or not about my working situation, I really don't care. I was just letting you know that I am a very busy person and cannot always respond back right away. So it doesn't really matter what makes me busy. You seem to be pretty resourceful so you can look me up on Dunn and Bradstreet to find my LLC but my DBA is not listed there. I've mentioned before what kind of businesses I'm in (to show that I'm an expert in those fields) so you can easily do the research to prove or disprove me if you want.
ReplyVote up (60)down (118)
Original comment
I'm proud to be an American and I'm glad I was not born in Somalia. I love the capitalism of America because I was given a chance to compete against others and experience the "American Dream." Regarding if you believe me or not about my working situation, I really don't care. I was just letting you know that I am a very busy person and cannot always respond back right away. So it doesn't really matter what makes me busy. You seem to be pretty resourceful so you can look me up on Dunn and Bradstreet to find my LLC but my DBA is not listed there. I've mentioned before what kind of businesses I'm in (to show that I'm an expert in those fields) so you can easily do the research to prove or disprove me if you want.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1663 days ago)
neah, i'll take your word for it, i believe you. But i also believe that you're not part of the 90%
ReplyVote up (96)down (105)
Original comment
neah, i'll take your word for it, i believe you. But i also believe that you're not part of the 90%
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
...and i consider myself among the very very very lucky ones... for having the opportunity of working 10, 12 hours a day for one of the major corporations of the world. 70% of My fellow human beings all across the planet would kill to be in my position...since most of them have nothing... probably because they're too lazy...
ReplyVote up (76)down (101)
Original comment
...and i consider myself among the very very very lucky ones... for having the opportunity of working 10, 12 hours a day for one of the major corporations of the world. 70% of My fellow human beings all across the planet would kill to be in my position...since most of them have nothing... probably because they're too lazy...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1665 days ago)
Some unexpected comedy today - guest123456789's model society, Iran, and now you are a professor of ethics. As an expert, can you comment on these 2 statements - 1: It would not be ethical for a corporation to expand oil extraction from Canadian tar sands knowing that climate change will destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions, probably billions of people. - 2: It would not be ethical for the profits from that oil extraction to be spent on a new yacht, rather than mending the lives of those that climate change destroys.
ReplyVote up (64)down (104)
Original comment
Some unexpected comedy today - guest123456789's model society, Iran, and now you are a professor of ethics. As an expert, can you comment on these 2 statements - 1: It would not be ethical for a corporation to expand oil extraction from Canadian tar sands knowing that climate change will destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions, probably billions of people. - 2: It would not be ethical for the profits from that oil extraction to be spent on a new yacht, rather than mending the lives of those that climate change destroys.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
i mentioned Iran because the way the Ayatollah is chosen is similar to the way the pope is chosen, but unlike the Vatican, Iran's moral leader is also the head of the army and has great power over other aspects of the country, mainly the moral principles of the citizens of Iran. I have also mentioned that i would be against any leader who will impose religious morality such as the Pope or the Ayatollah , since i am an atheist, but, at the same time i mentioned that if such a leader would have scientific, humanistic and secular principles i would support him or her. I find it weird that both you and cengland0 chose to see only the word "Iran". Yes , their system is good in principle, but what holds them back is Islam. Replace Islam with the secular, scientific humanistic type of ethics and you will have a very good system. I never said that my model society is Iran, it could never be Iran since they are Muslim and i am an Atheist; What i did appreciate was the ruling system.
ReplyVote up (112)down (55)
Original comment
i mentioned Iran because the way the Ayatollah is chosen is similar to the way the pope is chosen, but unlike the Vatican, Iran's moral leader is also the head of the army and has great power over other aspects of the country, mainly the moral principles of the citizens of Iran. I have also mentioned that i would be against any leader who will impose religious morality such as the Pope or the Ayatollah , since i am an atheist, but, at the same time i mentioned that if such a leader would have scientific, humanistic and secular principles i would support him or her. I find it weird that both you and cengland0 chose to see only the word "Iran". Yes , their system is good in principle, but what holds them back is Islam. Replace Islam with the secular, scientific humanistic type of ethics and you will have a very good system. I never said that my model society is Iran, it could never be Iran since they are Muslim and i am an Atheist; What i did appreciate was the ruling system.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
It's not only the word "Iran" that shocked us about your statement. It's that you feel the best government is a dictatorship for life. You could start out with an ethical one but then what happens if that person changes? This is why an American President is re-elected every 4 years and they can only serve two terms. No single person should have as much power over a country as you are giving them in your comment.
ReplyVote up (81)down (107)
Original comment
It's not only the word "Iran" that shocked us about your statement. It's that you feel the best government is a dictatorship for life. You could start out with an ethical one but then what happens if that person changes? This is why an American President is re-elected every 4 years and they can only serve two terms. No single person should have as much power over a country as you are giving them in your comment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
i disagree. It wasn't always 2 terms. At a certain point in time it was more than 2 terms, remember FDR. They had to limit it to 2 terms because the people loved him so much. I wouldn't call it a dictatorship, i would call it a constitutional monarchy, who's king doesn't inherit the throne but earns it by being the most ethical and most just secular humanist there is.
ReplyVote up (66)down (117)
Original comment
i disagree. It wasn't always 2 terms. At a certain point in time it was more than 2 terms, remember FDR. They had to limit it to 2 terms because the people loved him so much. I wouldn't call it a dictatorship, i would call it a constitutional monarchy, who's king doesn't inherit the throne but earns it by being the most ethical and most just secular humanist there is.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about current events. Currently the President is limited to 2 terms. Obviously we discovered a problem with long term executives so we placed limits. What you are calling a person that earns a life long executive position based on ethics is still a dictator. Technically speaking, a monarchy is still a dictator. A monarchy has succession of power based on birth right but a dictatorship does not necessarily have the same.
ReplyVote up (107)down (101)
Original comment
I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about current events. Currently the President is limited to 2 terms. Obviously we discovered a problem with long term executives so we placed limits. What you are calling a person that earns a life long executive position based on ethics is still a dictator. Technically speaking, a monarchy is still a dictator. A monarchy has succession of power based on birth right but a dictatorship does not necessarily have the same.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
i still disagree. i still think this system is best. i look at the monarchs of the world LINK and i see countries that are much more well off thank democratic republics, especially the European ones. If those monarchs would also be the ethical elected leader of the country, it would be even better. The problem discovered in regards to long term executives was that one of those executives might end the corporate powers of the society. It happened with FDR, it happened with Chavez, and it also Happened in Ecuador with Rafael Correa, and that is unacceptable to the corporations of the world, who would see their profits shrink.
ReplyVote up (97)down (122)
Original comment
i still disagree. i still think this system is best. i look at the monarchs of the world LINK and i see countries that are much more well off thank democratic republics, especially the European ones. If those monarchs would also be the ethical elected leader of the country, it would be even better. The problem discovered in regards to long term executives was that one of those executives might end the corporate powers of the society. It happened with FDR, it happened with Chavez, and it also Happened in Ecuador with Rafael Correa, and that is unacceptable to the corporations of the world, who would see their profits shrink.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1665 days ago)
I think talking about systems is the wrong way to look at problem. Society is always evolving, so what matters is the direction we're going in - the ultimate goal being survival, with a secondary goal - the right to a pleasant life. I know it's much more complicated than that, but having a system that encourages the selfish into positions of power, is not likely to create a pleasant society. The other big problem is that the super selfish have gained enormous power in a globalised world, and this is not just affecting society's pleasantness, but also its very existence. In an increasingly unpredictable world, I say - get the money out of politics and educate the people - see where that leads us.
ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment
I think talking about systems is the wrong way to look at problem. Society is always evolving, so what matters is the direction we're going in - the ultimate goal being survival, with a secondary goal - the right to a pleasant life. I know it's much more complicated than that, but having a system that encourages the selfish into positions of power, is not likely to create a pleasant society. The other big problem is that the super selfish have gained enormous power in a globalised world, and this is not just affecting society's pleasantness, but also its very existence. In an increasingly unpredictable world, I say - get the money out of politics and educate the people - see where that leads us.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
what you just said is my second choice, and the one with more chances to succeed. i'm with Cenk 90 % on this one. 90 and not 100 because you all know what my first choice is. (was my first choice predicted in the bible?)
ReplyVote up (112)down (56)
Original comment
what you just said is my second choice, and the one with more chances to succeed. i'm with Cenk 90 % on this one. 90 and not 100 because you all know what my first choice is. (was my first choice predicted in the bible?)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1664 days ago)
When you use the word "selfish" you're saying that all hard working billionaires are selfish. At least that's the tone of your message. Many of these people have foundations that give away large chucks of their money so I wouldn't consider them to be selfish. The one problem with getting money out of politics is that a poor person could never get elected because they could not afford to pay for the TV advertisements required for people to notice them and to hear their messages. So you either have to have the public fund anyone that wishes to run with our tax dollars (which I personally don't like) or have the ability to collect donations to help pay for the costs of running for office.
ReplyVote up (119)down (79)
Original comment
When you use the word "selfish" you're saying that all hard working billionaires are selfish. At least that's the tone of your message. Many of these people have foundations that give away large chucks of their money so I wouldn't consider them to be selfish. The one problem with getting money out of politics is that a poor person could never get elected because they could not afford to pay for the TV advertisements required for people to notice them and to hear their messages. So you either have to have the public fund anyone that wishes to run with our tax dollars (which I personally don't like) or have the ability to collect donations to help pay for the costs of running for office.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1664 days ago)
you said: ""When you use the word "selfish" you're saying that all hard working billionaires are selfish.""" ;" i disagree. i think that what he meant to say was ""having a system that encourages the selfish into positions of power, is not likely to create a pleasant society"" and he also meant to say ""The other big problem is that the super selfish have gained enormous power in a globalised world, and this is not just affecting society's pleasantness, but also its very existence""&quo t;" . Notice that nobody mentioned billionaires, he said the super selfish have gained enormous power. Nobody can deny what bill Gates and other philanthropic billionaires are doing. Super selfish can also mean senators, Putin, the leaders of the communist party of china, lobbyist, mafia don's etc. I find it odd that when you saw the word "selfish" you immediately thought of billionaires and how they are the root of all evil.
ReplyVote up (115)down (52)
Original comment
you said: ""When you use the word "selfish" you're saying that all hard working billionaires are selfish.""" ;" i disagree. i think that what he meant to say was ""having a system that encourages the selfish into positions of power, is not likely to create a pleasant society"" and he also meant to say ""The other big problem is that the super selfish have gained enormous power in a globalised world, and this is not just affecting society's pleasantness, but also its very existence""&quo t;" . Notice that nobody mentioned billionaires, he said the super selfish have gained enormous power. Nobody can deny what bill Gates and other philanthropic billionaires are doing. Super selfish can also mean senators, Putin, the leaders of the communist party of china, lobbyist, mafia don's etc. I find it odd that when you saw the word "selfish" you immediately thought of billionaires and how they are the root of all evil.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
1. If you were correct then it wouldn't be ethical but as it turns out, there are thousands of livelihoods that are better because of the tar sands project. These people are now employed. The documents that I provided links to on the tar sands video forum proved that there were no downstream environmental impacts like was stated in the video so you have incorrect information. 2) When you profit from a business venture, it is ethical to purchase a new yacht if that "floats your boat" (see what I did there? A little humor). Why should anyone else have a say in what that person decides to spend their money on? If they want to buy a larger mansion or spend it on a collection of old cars, we shouldn't care because it's their money.
ReplyVote up (105)down (100)
Original comment
1. If you were correct then it wouldn't be ethical but as it turns out, there are thousands of livelihoods that are better because of the tar sands project. These people are now employed. The documents that I provided links to on the tar sands video forum proved that there were no downstream environmental impacts like was stated in the video so you have incorrect information. 2) When you profit from a business venture, it is ethical to purchase a new yacht if that "floats your boat" (see what I did there? A little humor). Why should anyone else have a say in what that person decides to spend their money on? If they want to buy a larger mansion or spend it on a collection of old cars, we shouldn't care because it's their money.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
defining ethics: According to Tomas Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law", and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[2] Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[2] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[3] The general meaning of ethics: rational, optimal (regarded as the best solution of the given options) and appropriate decision brought on the basis of common sense. This does not exclude the possibility of destruction if it is necessary and if it does not take place as the result of intentional malice. If, for example, there is the threat of physical conflict and one has no other solution, it is acceptable to cause the necessary extent of injury, out of self-defence. Thus ethics does not provide rules like morals but it can be used as a means to determine moral values (attitudes or behaviours giving priority to social values, e.g. ethics or morals). LINK
ReplyVote up (77)down (101)
Original comment
defining ethics: According to Tomas Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law", and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[2] Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[2] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[3] The general meaning of ethics: rational, optimal (regarded as the best solution of the given options) and appropriate decision brought on the basis of common sense. This does not exclude the possibility of destruction if it is necessary and if it does not take place as the result of intentional malice. If, for example, there is the threat of physical conflict and one has no other solution, it is acceptable to cause the necessary extent of injury, out of self-defence. Thus ethics does not provide rules like morals but it can be used as a means to determine moral values (attitudes or behaviours giving priority to social values, e.g. ethics or morals). LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
Thanks for your definition of what you think "ethics" means. Because of one of my jobs, I take ethics training every year and it goes deeper than your canned definition so I feel I am pretty close to an expert on this issue. I've taken ethics courses at least 23 times now and have taught it a couple times too. I've created web based training courses for this particular curriculum as well. Ethics is not a set of concepts and principles that determine what helps or harms sentient creatures. One example is that it might not be ethical to accept a dinner invitation from a vendor as this could be perceived as giving favoritism to that vendor and if someone found out about it, they might think that this vendor was selected because of this reason and not because of their prices, skills, and other criteria used to make the decision. It could look like a bribe even if it isn't one. It would not be ethical for you to be the one in control of your spouses salary in a large corporation. I could go on and on about this subject but you should get the idea by now.
ReplyVote up (109)down (55)
Original comment
Thanks for your definition of what you think "ethics" means. Because of one of my jobs, I take ethics training every year and it goes deeper than your canned definition so I feel I am pretty close to an expert on this issue. I've taken ethics courses at least 23 times now and have taught it a couple times too. I've created web based training courses for this particular curriculum as well. Ethics is not a set of concepts and principles that determine what helps or harms sentient creatures. One example is that it might not be ethical to accept a dinner invitation from a vendor as this could be perceived as giving favoritism to that vendor and if someone found out about it, they might think that this vendor was selected because of this reason and not because of their prices, skills, and other criteria used to make the decision. It could look like a bribe even if it isn't one. It would not be ethical for you to be the one in control of your spouses salary in a large corporation. I could go on and on about this subject but you should get the idea by now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
i am sure that 23 corporate classes on Ethics, one every year do not make you an expert on ethics. My example was taken out of wikipedia. I'm sure that you expect me to believe that you are a far more reliable source of information than wikipedia. I am now certain that you know nothing about ethics.
ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment
i am sure that 23 corporate classes on Ethics, one every year do not make you an expert on ethics. My example was taken out of wikipedia. I'm sure that you expect me to believe that you are a far more reliable source of information than wikipedia. I am now certain that you know nothing about ethics.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
Didn't you know that Wikipedia is not the foremost authority on the subjects? The articles are written and modified by the public and those people may or may not be subject matter experts.
ReplyVote up (103)down (61)
Original comment
Didn't you know that Wikipedia is not the foremost authority on the subjects? The articles are written and modified by the public and those people may or may not be subject matter experts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
...which is why i posted the other link, to which you decided to respond that you're not going to read because it's not worth your time...
ReplyVote up (101)down (64)
Original comment
...which is why i posted the other link, to which you decided to respond that you're not going to read because it's not worth your time...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
If you state why I'm wrong in one of my statements and then posted the link to backup your claim, I would read the part that supports your claim. You didn't say that I was wrong or give me any reason why I should visit that link.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
If you state why I'm wrong in one of my statements and then posted the link to backup your claim, I would read the part that supports your claim. You didn't say that I was wrong or give me any reason why I should visit that link.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
it was a comment made to one of my own comment as a continuation of my original comment. Boreme doesn't let me edit my comments like facebook does, so when i want to add something i just have to comment on my own comment. I find it odd that you don't read all of my comments when i respond to one of your posts, but choose to respond only to those you like the most.
ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment
it was a comment made to one of my own comment as a continuation of my original comment. Boreme doesn't let me edit my comments like facebook does, so when i want to add something i just have to comment on my own comment. I find it odd that you don't read all of my comments when i respond to one of your posts, but choose to respond only to those you like the most.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1664 days ago)
I have decided that I will not respond to all posts. It has nothing to do if I agree or disagree but more about if I think the poster is being rude or just trying to be funny. In this particular situation, I do not see a post from you that shows any ethics comment from you other than the link so I have no response to give.
ReplyVote up (87)down (133)
Original comment
I have decided that I will not respond to all posts. It has nothing to do if I agree or disagree but more about if I think the poster is being rude or just trying to be funny. In this particular situation, I do not see a post from you that shows any ethics comment from you other than the link so I have no response to give.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
ReplyVote up (50)down (101)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
I told you in a previous thread that I'm not going to read pages that you link to unless I need it for verification of something you said. You may make a statement and provide a link to backup your statement but I'm not going to just visit a link for the fun of it.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
I told you in a previous thread that I'm not going to read pages that you link to unless I need it for verification of something you said. You may make a statement and provide a link to backup your statement but I'm not going to just visit a link for the fun of it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
i don't really care anymore mister England. All you have is right wing tea party extremist rhetoric. It's getting old fast.
ReplyVote up (101)down (50)
Original comment
i don't really care anymore mister England. All you have is right wing tea party extremist rhetoric. It's getting old fast.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1665 days ago)
I agree, it is getting old. So stop replying to my messages and the conversation will eventually fizzle out.
ReplyVote up (106)down (55)
Original comment
I agree, it is getting old. So stop replying to my messages and the conversation will eventually fizzle out.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1665 days ago)
lol, ok :)))
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
lol, ok :)))
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
sorry for the late post but mankind has got this far by working for the good of the group your everyone for himself view (capitalism)will cause in time man to take very big steps backwards eg what kind of man watches another mans house burn down because he cant get ins??what kind of man lets there kids(your future)go without schooling because they cant affort to pay for schooling??what kind of man lets the old die because there savings have run out??history tells us we will have a natural/man made problem how long will your every man for himself last you???you may think you are safe because you have a gun but someone will have a bigger gun and have the same view and you/both of you are now shot.also i think you have said you are in banking a skill that would no longer be needed i also think you have other skills to help you carry on with your every man for himself idea but you cant know everything and in time you would not be around for very long.the only group to be still here are people who work for the good of the group???
ReplyVote up (90)down (121)
Original comment
sorry for the late post but mankind has got this far by working for the good of the group your everyone for himself view (capitalism)will cause in time man to take very big steps backwards eg what kind of man watches another mans house burn down because he cant get ins??what kind of man lets there kids(your future)go without schooling because they cant affort to pay for schooling??what kind of man lets the old die because there savings have run out??history tells us we will have a natural/man made problem how long will your every man for himself last you???you may think you are safe because you have a gun but someone will have a bigger gun and have the same view and you/both of you are now shot.also i think you have said you are in banking a skill that would no longer be needed i also think you have other skills to help you carry on with your every man for himself idea but you cant know everything and in time you would not be around for very long.the only group to be still here are people who work for the good of the group???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
There is no better system than capitalism so it's what we use that this time. It's the best way for people to get out of society what they put into it. Lazy people do not get as much of the pie as hard working people. Or, those that take risk by investing can reap higher rewards but with risk comes the possibility you could lose all your pie. One of my jobs is in banking but I'm diversified enough that if I were to lose that job I have others to fall back on. The capitalistic societies have a nice way of dealing with sectors that are no longer needed. In your example, if banking is not needed in the future, the highly paid CEOs are smart enough to venture into other sectors. This hasn't happened yet but I can tell you from experiences I had with another company called AT&T. They were once a monopoly providing both local and long distance telephone services. I believe it was in 1983 when Judge Greene broke the company up into 7 baby bell companies providing local service. AT&T got to keep the long distance part of the company. AT&T was forced, by law, to allow competing companies to use their hardware to provide long distance services and MCI and Sprint were two main players in the long distance market. AT&T began losing market share and needed to diversify but were forbidden by law to enter into the local telephone market again until there was sufficient competition in long distance. Other companies could charge whatever they wanted for their service while AT&T was forced to charge higher rates because they were still regulated and the competition was unregulated. AT&T then started up a credit card company, created call centers (like Transtech), and beefed up their hardware part of the business. They eventually bought Cellular 1 and got into the cellphone business. Finally, they trivestiture‎d and sold 2/3rd of their company to raise capital so they can re-enter the local market. They are now an internet company, a local telephone company, a long distance company, a wireless company, a television broadcast company, home security company, and probably more. Companies must adapt like this to stay afloat and those stagnant companies will eventually fall. Full disclosure: I worked many years at AT&T and will be getting a management level pension from them when I reach retirement age. The trivestiture event affected me and that's why I no longer work for AT&T.
ReplyVote up (135)down (111)
Original comment
There is no better system than capitalism so it's what we use that this time. It's the best way for people to get out of society what they put into it. Lazy people do not get as much of the pie as hard working people. Or, those that take risk by investing can reap higher rewards but with risk comes the possibility you could lose all your pie. One of my jobs is in banking but I'm diversified enough that if I were to lose that job I have others to fall back on. The capitalistic societies have a nice way of dealing with sectors that are no longer needed. In your example, if banking is not needed in the future, the highly paid CEOs are smart enough to venture into other sectors. This hasn't happened yet but I can tell you from experiences I had with another company called AT&T. They were once a monopoly providing both local and long distance telephone services. I believe it was in 1983 when Judge Greene broke the company up into 7 baby bell companies providing local service. AT&T got to keep the long distance part of the company. AT&T was forced, by law, to allow competing companies to use their hardware to provide long distance services and MCI and Sprint were two main players in the long distance market. AT&T began losing market share and needed to diversify but were forbidden by law to enter into the local telephone market again until there was sufficient competition in long distance. Other companies could charge whatever they wanted for their service while AT&T was forced to charge higher rates because they were still regulated and the competition was unregulated. AT&T then started up a credit card company, created call centers (like Transtech), and beefed up their hardware part of the business. They eventually bought Cellular 1 and got into the cellphone business. Finally, they trivestiture‎d and sold 2/3rd of their company to raise capital so they can re-enter the local market. They are now an internet company, a local telephone company, a long distance company, a wireless company, a television broadcast company, home security company, and probably more. Companies must adapt like this to stay afloat and those stagnant companies will eventually fall. Full disclosure: I worked many years at AT&T and will be getting a management level pension from them when I reach retirement age. The trivestiture event affected me and that's why I no longer work for AT&T.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
there is no better system then capitalism only because you know nothing else because thats what the people at the top what you to know.its like god people believe in god and nothing else could be there other than god because the people at the top tell them there is a god.its the same way you are about capitalism.capitalism is a monster eating and distroying everything in time.and the people at the top know this as you said the monster at&t became had to be stopped.if at&t which was using capitalism to grow why was the need for at to be stopped?? i guess as you know first hand why i bet i get a long answer to why but the question a would realy like an answer to is again if at&t was using capitalism to grow why did the people at the top stop it if capitalism is there god as it where??
ReplyVote up (146)down (74)
Original comment
there is no better system then capitalism only because you know nothing else because thats what the people at the top what you to know.its like god people believe in god and nothing else could be there other than god because the people at the top tell them there is a god.its the same way you are about capitalism.capitalism is a monster eating and distroying everything in time.and the people at the top know this as you said the monster at&t became had to be stopped.if at&t which was using capitalism to grow why was the need for at to be stopped?? i guess as you know first hand why i bet i get a long answer to why but the question a would realy like an answer to is again if at&t was using capitalism to grow why did the people at the top stop it if capitalism is there god as it where??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
You still have not stated any system better than capitalism and you're right that it's the only one that I know that is best at this time. So educate me on what is better. Regarding why AT&T was forced to break up, a summary is here: In the 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission suspected that the American Telephone & Telegraph Company was using monopoly profits from its Western Electric subsidiary to subsidize the costs of its network, which was contrary to U.S. antitrust law. The case was filed by the United States Department of Justice in 1974. And after looking it up, it appears the decision was made in 1982 and not 1983. That was such a long time ago but at least I got close on a guess.
ReplyVote up (114)down (143)
Original comment
You still have not stated any system better than capitalism and you're right that it's the only one that I know that is best at this time. So educate me on what is better. Regarding why AT&T was forced to break up, a summary is here: In the 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission suspected that the American Telephone & Telegraph Company was using monopoly profits from its Western Electric subsidiary to subsidize the costs of its network, which was contrary to U.S. antitrust law. The case was filed by the United States Department of Justice in 1974. And after looking it up, it appears the decision was made in 1982 and not 1983. That was such a long time ago but at least I got close on a guess.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1661 days ago)
Latest comment: walden two b f skinner as posted on another post today
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
Latest comment: walden two b f skinner as posted on another post today
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Scotty hates Kevin T (1665 days ago)
Indian? You mean the Turkish Cenk? you do realise that there are like, more than 4 countries outside of the USA?
ReplyVote up (86)down (150)
Original comment
Indian? You mean the Turkish Cenk? you do realise that there are like, more than 4 countries outside of the USA?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: KEVIN T (1665 days ago)
Hope your Mum gets a cyst in her eggs.
ReplyVote up (159)down (131)
Original comment
Hope your Mum gets a cyst in her eggs.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: THE TROLL!! (1665 days ago)
do you remember that time when you showed me that porn video you made with your mum where she shi tted all over your face and you smeared it all over your di ck and then when you were about to cum you cut off her left arm and took a bite out of it? that was good fapping material, i enjoyed that you sick bast ard! (and that's how you troll...noob)
ReplyVote up (116)down (128)
Original comment
do you remember that time when you showed me that porn video you made with your mum where she shi tted all over your face and you smeared it all over your di ck and then when you were about to cum you cut off her left arm and took a bite out of it? that was good fapping material, i enjoyed that you sick bast ard! (and that's how you troll...noob)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Gordon Brown - Pentagon misled UK over weapons of mass destruction
Gordon Brown - Pentagon misled UK over weapons of mass destruction
TYT - Death date announced for internet
TYT - Death date announced for internet
David Pakman - Trump made millions laundering drug money
David Pakman - Trump made millions laundering drug money
Worst foods to eat at a restaurant, according to chefs
Worst foods to eat at a restaurant, according to chefs
Bill Maher - Checking in on Jared
Bill Maher - Checking in on Jared