91–100 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably far fewer since implementing many capitalism-inspired reforms than when under a stricter form of communism. Why do you ask?
What makes you think that capitalism inspired reforms are responsible when the most capitalistic country has the most homeless people? Do you have any sources for that information?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TIL that an independent contractor with his own tools has no capital. LOL.
That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The specifics may differ but I do not agree that leaders of big business have "better things to do" than try to influence the President; a lot of time and money is spent on government influence operations.
> a lot of time and money is spent I guess on reflection my parent description is not quite right, but your comment brings up maybe the real distinction: if you were a true oligarch, you wouldn't have do that, you would just have government influence, or, at least have it 'quite easily' for some definition of easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a…
Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
I'll also have to remember that Capitalism is all about owning physical tools, not anything about making money from people doing work for you. So if I contract freelance kitchen staff to make and sell food for me, when they show up with their own knives, they are the capitalists, not me. Interesting!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a…
Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a lot of time and money is spent I guess on reflection my parent description is not quite right, but your comment brings up maybe the real distinction: if you were a true oligarch, you wouldn't have do that, you would just have government influence, or, at least have it 'quite easily' for some definition of easily.
Spending lots of money counts as easy if you're ridiculously wealthy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called a laborer. Frequently they own their own tools. "Capital", in this context, means the ownership of the means of production (classically factories, but in this century as much pointed to data, land, and regulatory capture). Specifically, the means of production that you do not operate. If you must do labor for a living, you are not a capital owner. Stop identifying with the class of owners when you are a…
Ownership of property and profit from labor are the foundations of Capitalism. Following capital as it trickles up is interesting but is only a part of the larger picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spending lots of money counts as easy if you're ridiculously wealthy
It's not actually easy though. If someone airdropped you 100M and told you to spend it on some policy initiative, you, UtopiaPunk, would probably not be able to figure out how to move that money to a successful political end in DC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
Not so hard to do, being a working man myself. Are you not a working man? My lived experience is that I have more in common with people flipping burgers than flying in private jets, but maybe you disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving the goalposts when the definitions don't fit your argument isn't going to change anything. Denying the lived experience of working men does not endear you to them. Try talking with working men instead of down to them next time.
I'll have to remember this trick - when I don't understand the meaning of something, just say that the meaning is wrong and that they're being condescending I'll also have to remember that Capitalism is all about owning physical tools, not anything about making money from people doing work for you. So if I contract freelance kitchen staff to make and sell food for me, when they show up with their own knives, they are…