|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
You'd be surprised by how dumb most rich people are FYI
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:
That sounds an awful lot like exploitation. "Gee, Juan, sure would be a shame to have to terminate your employment and send you back home. Most people would be grateful just to have a job at all in this economy..."
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I agree to an extent, but let's not forget that banks in the 00's sowed the seeds of their own demise by looking at only the next quarter/year's profits. You give way too much credit to "capitalists" by assuming they know what the gently caress they're doing as a monolithic entity It was bad for business, but the people involved got off scot free and made more money than god doing it. Mission Accomplished. CelestialScribe posted:You are insane. This is not how rich people think. So is this guy like Calibanibal if Calibanibal wasn't a phenomenal poster and also had a concussion? e: on the off chance you're not just a bad gimmick please tell me more about how Real Rich People Actually Think and also maybe tell me that America doesn't have a problem with money infesting politics. e2: <3 u calibanibal Marxalot fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:48
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:It was bad for business, but the people involved got off scot free and made more money than god doing it. Mission Accomplished. They also crashed the economy and the stock market looking out for just themselves. Thanks for making my point for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Slavery is a mutually beneficial arrangement, because slaveowners would rather get free labor than have to murder all their recalcitrant slaves, and the slaves would rather work then get murdered. Everybody wins. I am smart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I agree to an extent, but let's not forget that banks in the 00's sowed the seeds of their own demise by looking at only the next quarter/year's profits. You give way too much credit to "capitalists" by assuming they know what the gently caress they're doing as a monolithic entity oxsnard posted:They also crashed the economy and the stock market looking out for just themselves. Thanks for making my point for me They crashed the economy and didn't care very much because they knew that they'd bought the government, and hence the government would bail them out. The net result was that the capitalist class obtained even more power and money than before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:54
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:They also crashed the economy and the stock market looking out for just themselves. Thanks for making my point for me Are you arguing that capital would not oppose M4A (which it is, lmao) because it would be against the interests of the country at large or what
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:54
|
|
|
the_steve posted:That sounds an awful lot like exploitation. Yeah it's literally applicable to any situation where the situation is "beneficial" to the person being exploited only because of systematic control by the exploiters. You could just as easily say it about people working 39.5 hours or right-to-work or no-union or gig economy "independent contractors". Thinking that it's somehow a counterexample to "businesses routinely do illegal poo poo to exploit you" because the business is paying you is the most NPR neolib "well actually, they pay you!" take. Invariably, people who start hand wringing about Sanders or leftists not understanding the economy or having a plan are either (a) disingenuous exploiters themselves or (b) people who've absorbed the media handwringing about it as being the educated, informed, professional opinion and think trotting it out against Sanders is demonstrating their informed status.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:They crashed the economy and didn't care very much because they knew that they'd bought the government, and hence the government would bail them out. The net result was that the capitalist class obtained even more power and money than before. That was never a forgone conclusion. Yes, they are encouraged to act recklessly by the system but this wasn't a Machiavellian plan or something. jfc Marxalot posted:Are you arguing that capital would not oppose M4A (which it is, lmao) because it would be against the interests of the country at large or what No they're mostly opposed for it now. But there's got to be a tipping point when medical costs go up 5-10% per year. That's my point oxsnard fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 11:57
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:That was never a forgone conclusion. Yes, they are encouraged to act recklessly by the system but this wasn't a Machiavellian plan or something. jfc They literally coined the term "Greenspan Put" in the late 90s before the big tech bubble burst. The '08 crash was no different. e: (oh god we're posting too fast) oxsnard posted:
Your costs going up 10% is someone else's 10% revenue increase leading to a pretty hot stock. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:00
|
|
|
Hmmmm yes I suppose the CEOs of all the companies not in finance that went bankrupt or lost billions said "we shall let this happen as it is in the benefit of us capitalists for the long term"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:That was never a forgone conclusion. Bahaha Of course it was they own both parties
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:That was never a forgone conclusion. Yes, they are encouraged to act recklessly by the system but this wasn't a Machiavellian plan or something. jfc It always was a foregone conclusion. Also you're the only one who's even mentioned the idea of a Machiavellian plan existing so far. oxsnard posted:No they're mostly opposed for it now. But there's got to be a tipping point when medical costs go up 5-10% per year. That's my point There isn't. If healthcare costs go up too much they'll just start giving people cheaper and shittier healthcare plans. E: oxsnard posted:Hmmmm yes I suppose the CEOs of all the companies not in finance that went bankrupt or lost billions said "we shall let this happen as it is in the benefit of us capitalists for the long term" In the vast majority of cases, the CEO:s and the owners are different people. This is pretty basic stuff, and frankly it doesn't really reflect well on you that you keep flubbing these things. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
sameoxsnard posted:Hmmmm yes I suppose the CEOs of all the companies not in finance that went bankrupt or lost billions said "we shall let this happen as it is in the benefit of us capitalists for the long term" I don't think anyone ITC will disagree that right wing political policy is ultimately self destructive in general, but a lot of people make enormous amounts of money because of it. They're not -that- stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Hmmmm yes I suppose the CEOs of all the companies not in finance that went bankrupt or lost billions said "we shall let this happen as it is in the benefit of us capitalists for the long term" CEOs don't care if their companies lose billions, they often do it on purpose because firing people, destroying the business, and looting the remains increases their personal wealth and power faster than running a successful firm. Billionaires made bank off the recession buying everyone's depressed assets
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:CEOs don't care if their companies lose billions, they often do it on purpose because firing people, destroying the business, and looting the remains increases their personal wealth and power faster than running a successful firm. Lol omg. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:12
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:
This is an insanely dumb argument
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:13
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Lol omg. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/toys-r-us-bankruptcy-private-equity/561758/ quote:Less attention was paid to the albatross that Bain, KKR, and Vornado had placed around the company’s neck. Toys “R” Us had a debt load of $1.86 billion before it was bought out. Immediately after the deal, it shouldered more than $5 billion in debt. And though sales had slumped before the deal, they held relatively steady after it, even when the Great Recession hit. The company generated $11.2 billion in sales in the 12 months before the deal; in the 12 months before November 2017, it generated $11.1 billion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:21
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:This is an insanely dumb argument Why is "people make money when you pay $60,000 for a knee replacement" such a hot take today?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Lol omg. Google Eddie Lampert.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
Because Jeff Bezos is paying for that knee and believe it or not, sometimes capitalists fight other capitalists
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:30
|
|
|
The US is a plutocracy where capitalists dictate government policy regardless of popular will or the outcomes of elections. It's obviously stupid to argue that capitalists want single payer because of the demonstrable savings it offers to all their businesses, but somehow they're frustrated by the political system they control. If 99% of capitalists really cared more about saving money for their businesses at the expense of other capitalists than they do about their class interests we'd have had single payer 50 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
poo poo, I wish capitalists cared about their personal wellbeing instead of their class interests, if that were the case we wouldn't be accelerating this train towards climate apocalypse
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Your costs going up 10% is someone else's 10% revenue increase leading to a pretty hot stock. If you're a CEO with a bunch of money in stocks, you (or more likely, your money manager), are going to sell your stock in health insurance companies the second there's an inkling of a notion of a chance of a M4A plan passing. You then take that money and put it into a combination of consumer staples (if it DOES cause a recession, people still buy toothpaste), entertainment and vacation (if it doesn't, middle class people will use that 3K savings per year on that trip to Disney or Vegas they've kept putting off), and blue chip dividend stocks. And you keep making money. Sure, you lose some control over your employees. But there are still some benefits to be had...no more having to sign off each year on some plan you had to have a group of people negotiate for you, no more stupid "wellness" programs nobody cares about, no more having to have a group of HR people sitting around listening to people bitch about the plans you offer. One check to the US Treasury each year, and if someone complains, you tell them to write their Congressman. Man, if I'm a CEO, I'm salivating at the prospect of M4A. So much less BS. And I may be able to tax loophole my way out of paying for it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
e: ^^^ CEOs are just managers, also everyone else is trying to do the same thing. Grats your stocks just crashed. e2: that's literally what happened in europe when everyone suddenly realized that greek debt could be a problem around 2010ish  e3: Also, I've never argued that it wouldn't be a long term benefit to the economy, or that we would never recover. I've been saying that this would inconvenience rich assholes, which is why it will never happen. Even if it is in the long term interests of said rich assholes. oxsnard posted:Because Jeff Bezos is paying for that knee and believe it or not, sometimes capitalists fight other capitalists Jeff Bezos, that man who famously is pro M4A and who would most certainly be pleased to hear that he has to pay 70% tax on all forms of income so that those employees he keeps working in abusive conditions can get a knee replacement after they gently caress themselves up working in his warehouses. Something tells me that psychopath probably doesn't have your best interests at heart either. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
Where did I defend Bezos? He's an absolute oval office. Again thanks for making my point for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Where did I defend Bezos? He's an absolute oval office. Again thanks for making my point for me  I'm really trying not to be a dick, but do you know how the economy works? Or is this a fundamental misunderstanding as to what universal healthcare means? Are you saying that the richest man in the world would be pro M4A because it would be mildly better for the long term stability of Amazon's payroll if he and people like him foot the bill for everyone? Am I being rused?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Where did I defend Bezos? He's an absolute oval office. Again thanks for making my point for me "Rich assholes will support Medicare For All because it will save most of their businesses money." "Then why doesn't Jeff Bezos support it." "Because he's a rich rear end in a top hat who doesn't care about saving his business money if it erodes his personal wealth and power over his workers in the bargain!"  Hmmmm Hmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Where did I defend Bezos? He's an absolute oval office. Again thanks for making my point for me Not trying to be rude here, but from what I'm seeing here you don't even have a point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:You are insane. This is not how rich people think. This is how rich people think https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyBx4luwImQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
It’s true that Bernie’s transaction tax needs improvement. We should just hang the bankers and nationalise their assets, AOOGGAH!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Not trying to be rude here, but from what I'm seeing here you don't even have a point. My point is that capitalists, while being greedy fucks, will advocate for lower healthcare costs once it materially benefits them. HC costs can't just keep lapping GDP forever. Either it all burns down or the other non-healthcare businesses will collectively stop it. M4A is probably the easiest route
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The US is a plutocracy where capitalists dictate government policy regardless of popular will or the outcomes of elections. Yup. Like yes single payer would be objectively better for the bottom lines of most businesses, but it would also 1) be a big change, which businesses find scary inherently 2) remove a lot of business bargaining power dominance over workers who would no longer be dependent on employment for health care 3) lead to a rise in entrepreneurship (documented from Europe's example) which would harm entrenched business interests All in all some might be persuaded but a lot of capitalists won't be and haven't been for those reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
^^^ I still agree with most of this, I'm just saying there's a tipping point where the actual costs outweigh those other benefits and was musing if/when we get thereMarxalot posted:
You said that capitalists in non-healthcare industry will continue to allow higher healthcare costs, despite it being a giant drag on their bottom line, because they might own some healthcare stocks. And I am the one who doesn't "know how the economy works" K
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:You said that capitalists in non-healthcare industry will continue to allow higher healthcare costs, despite it being a giant drag on their bottom line, because they might own some healthcare stocks. And I am the one who doesn't "know how the economy works" yes, you do not understand how the economy or capitalism itself works
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:My point is that capitalists, while being greedy fucks, will advocate for lower healthcare costs once it materially benefits them. HC costs can't just keep lapping GDP forever. Either it all burns down or the other non-healthcare businesses will collectively stop it. M4A is probably the easiest route As I already mentioned, they'll just start giving employees cheaper and shittier healthcare plans if costs rise to an intolerable level, because as long as there's no universal healthcare they've got a massive leverage over the workers. You're saying that they'd throw away this leverage for no reason instead of using it to cut costs, and a quick cursory look at how capitalism works should be all the evidence you need that they'll pick the latter option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:My point is that capitalists, while being greedy fucks, will advocate for lower healthcare costs once it materially benefits them. HC costs can't just keep lapping GDP forever. Either it all burns down or the other non-healthcare businesses will collectively stop it. M4A is probably the easiest route they’ll just stop offering health benefits, the capitalist has no qualms about their employees dying of a tooth ache
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:As I already mentioned, they'll just start giving employees cheaper and shittier healthcare plans if costs rise to an intolerable level, because as long as there's no universal healthcare they've got a massive leverage over the workers. You're saying that they'd throw away this leverage for no reason instead of using it to cut costs, and a quick cursory look at how capitalism works should be all the evidence you need that they'll pick the latter option. Is leverage really that high? I mean conceptually, I agree with the premise, but why are job-to-job transfers at an all time high? Also, if companies start paying less for HC, that's a giant drag on GDP and healthcare stocks, which, as we've established ITT is Bad For Capitalism™
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:They also crashed the economy and the stock market looking out for just themselves. Thanks for making my point for me lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:^^^ I still agree with most of this, I'm just saying there's a tipping point where the actual costs outweigh those other benefits and was musing if/when we get there I'd repeat what everyone else is saying about your employer just increasing your insurance premiums/giving employees worse plans, but that's boring. Extremely true and why my premiums are about $400 a month for just me, but boring. Why would someone want 10-20% lower payroll costs for a company they have a partial stake in when it means they'll lose a significant chunk of their income in the form of taxes? Oh god are we going to  people like the Koch brothers out of existence now? Or is the fundamental misunderstanding here that you don't realize M4A doesn't just mean that we would go back to having $200/mo premiums?Raskolnikov38 posted:they’ll just stop offering health benefits, the capitalist has no qualms about their employees dying of a tooth ache Literally watched a man die of lung cancer at work due to this. We had a $7000 deductible and I think he made like $14/hr. America owns. e: *incoherent screaming about demanding affordable access to employee-employer based healthcare solutions while wearing a Kamela 2020 shirt* Marxalot fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 13:57
|
|