How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street

[MachZer0]

I like to see corporations succeed as well. But in a way that is more about people than profits.

.

Profits benefit people

 

[Umaro]

Profits benefit people

Only if it's fairly shared. Since 2009 88% of wealth growth has gone to corporate profits, and only slightly more than 1% has gone to wages. These profits are not benefiting the people.

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress

 

[MachZer0]

Only if it's fairly shared. Since 2009 88% of wealth growth has gone to corporate profits, and only slightly more than 1% has gone to wages. These profits are not benefiting the people.

Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages | ThinkProgress

To look at such a short period of time would seem to be myopic regarding this discussion. Take any number of corporations that started with little or nothing, made profits, expanded, made even more profits and expanded even more. Apple comes to mind as does Microsoft and even the dreaded Walmart. Corporate profits have benefited millions of employees.

 

[lordbt]

I like to see corporations succeed as well. But in a way that is more about people than profits.

.

Then you start one and run it that way. I suspect that rather early on in your planning stage you will come to the realization that corporations exist for the purpose of making profit.

 

[Umaro]

Then you start one and run it that way. I suspect that rather early on in your planning stage you will come to the realization that corporations exist for the purpose of making profit.

Corporations exist to make profit for the stock holders and the owners. Why shouldn't it be that corporations exist to make profit for the stock holders, the owners, and the employees? It used to be that way with everyone's income rising by about the same percentages, but somewhere along the line the workers got booted out of the group. Why is that?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Corporations exist to make profit for the stock holders and the owners. Why shouldn't it be that corporations exist to make profit for the stock holders, the owners, and the employees? It used to be that way with everyone's income rising by about the same percentages, but somewhere along the line the workers got booted out of the group. Why is that?

Not to mention the premise that "corporations exist to make profit." does not mean "corporations exist to make profit while the slow accumulation of laws and incidents involving poorly created regulation,etc has resulted in a severe income inequality shift. Working at intended!"

Appologists arguing the latter or either liars, opportunists or delusion.

We have broken capitalism=/=capitalism baaaaaaaad!

 

[MachZer0]

Corporations exist to make profit for the stock holders and the owners. Why shouldn't it be that corporations exist to make profit for the stock holders, the owners, and the employees?

They do, and workers see it in the form of wages, benefits and opportunities to move up

It used to be that way with everyone's income rising by about the same percentages, but somewhere along the line the workers got booted out of the group. Why is that?

Sorry, but the corporations still have workers who are still getting wages, benefits and have opportunities for advancement

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Meaning that you don't hold yourself to the same criteria as you do others, namely J.P. Morgan?

Yes, I like to see corporations succeed. It's good for all of us.

Your question is a non sequitur.

Profits benefit people

They sure do. The people at the top that are cashing in. Good observation.

 

[heymikey80]

Your question is a non sequitur.

And your answer is special pleading.

They sure do. The people at the top that are cashing in. Good observation.

Cashing in on good investment sense. You're saying that's wrong?

Send in your income and see how you like it. (that's tu quoque, but it's also a great informal test of seriousness).

 

[MachZer0]

Your question is a non sequitur.

If you recall, I said I was asking out of curiosity. I wonder why one would want a current company to fail because of former alleged sins.

They sure do. The people at the top that are cashing in. Good observation.

And not only do the employees on down the line benefit, the consumer does as well.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

And your answer is special pleading.

Cashing in on good investment sense. You're saying that's wrong?

Send in your income and see how you like it. (that's tu quoque, but it's also a great informal test of seriousness).

If I made 100 million a year (just a random figure, nice round number) and sent in 80 million of it...I wouldn't miss it.

See what I'm getting at here?

 

[MachZer0]

If I made 100 million a year (just a random figure, nice round number) and sent in 80 million of it...I wouldn't miss it.

See what I'm getting at here?

It's all relative. I'm sure there's a little extra you could send in now that you wouldn't miss. Or is it only others you want to force your will upon.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

It's all relative.

 

[heymikey80]

If I made 100 million a year (just a random figure, nice round number) and sent in 80 million of it...I wouldn't miss it.

See what I'm getting at here?

Horse Puckey. If you saw how it was being wasted, you wouldn't do this.

You might give it to charities you considered worthy of the name. But it wouldn't go to the government.

If you were sued for $50M of it, (1/3 more going to lawyers to respond to the suit in the courts) you also wouldn't "send it in".

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Horse Puckey. If you saw how it was being wasted, you wouldn't do this.

You might give it to charities you considered worthy of the name. But it wouldn't go to the government.

If you were sued for $50M of it, (1/3 more going to lawyers to respond to the suit in the courts) you also wouldn't "send it in".

I was using your terminology. Apparently I shouldn't have. I did not mean send it back to the government. And I didn't realize that's what you meant.

Sorry for being unclear.

Let me just reword that completely.

If I made 100 million a year (just a random figure, nice round number) and all of a sudden I started making 20 million, I'd still be doing quite well for myself.

See what I'm getting at here?

 

[heymikey80]

I was using your terminology. Apparently I shouldn't have. I did not mean send it back to the government. And I didn't realize that's what you meant.

Sorry for being unclear.

Let me just reword that completely.

If I made 100 million a year (just a random figure, nice round number) and all of a sudden I started making 20 million, I'd still be doing quite well for myself.

See what I'm getting at here?

Once again:

If you were sued for $50M and had to pay $16M to defend against it (a normal scenario in today's legal system), you wouldn't be happy with suddenly being paid $20M.

Game & Set. Care for a match?

Google of [CEO Lawsuit] "about 48M results"

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Once again:

If you were sued for $50M and had to pay $16M to defend against it (a normal scenario in today's legal system), you wouldn't be happy with suddenly being paid $20M.

Game & Set. Care for a match?

Google of [CEO Lawsuit] "about 48M results"

Why are you throwing a random lawsuit into my example? You're missing the point.

 

[heymikey80]

The point being what? That you wouldn't worry so much if you weren't at risk of a lawsuit?

Mmm. I'm sure there are a lot of CEOs who would agree with you, but the risk remains even if you neglect it. That's the point of reality.

 

[WalksWithChrist]

The point being what? That you wouldn't worry so much if you weren't at risk of a lawsuit?

Mmm. I'm sure there are a lot of CEOs who would agree with you, but the risk remains even if you neglect it. That's the point of reality.

No. All I was saying is that if you went from being a 100 million millionaire to a 20 million millionaire you're still rich.

That's all.

 

[Rion]

If I made 100 million a year (just a random figure, nice round number) and sent in 80 million of it...I wouldn't miss it.

See what I'm getting at here?

Neither would I. However, neither of us has the right to force other people to do the same. That's stealing, plain and simple. Just because you don't keep the money you stole doesn't make it a lesser sin.