^^ yup, that was disgusting. america doesn't give a shit about brown or black people (or its own people for that matter)... it will sacrifice their babies (using blackmail) just so american companies can make money, the same companies which give money to politicians. the worst most corrupt and crooked people on the planet, but under the guise of legitimate companies.

fuck trump and fuck america.

*******************************************

i came to post this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44885983

what unchecked capitalism and greed leads to.

(luxury fashion goods manufacturers burn unsold stock at year end rather than sell it for cheaper)

7/20/2018 11:52:44 PM

https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1045038141978169344

9/27/2018 4:06:55 PM

Is that...........is that the real Steak-umm twitter acct??? Lmao

Steak-umms woke AF.

9/27/2018 4:27:49 PM

yeah lol. i'm into it. i know this is a weird marketing campaign for young people but

a. this is a pretty sincere essay
b. weird shit like this reaches normal people and not just leftist twitter
c. if this is the kind of marketing that works for millennials & gen Z these days...nice.

[Edited on September 27, 2018 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2018 5:00:05 PM

Quote :

"MAKING ENDS MEAT"

Steak-umm you so crazy.

[Edited on September 27, 2018 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2018 5:11:37 PM

I liked it too, mostly because it’s sincere (^^) and sometimes a little self-deprecating.


But (to be contrarian) , I’m still wary of “corporate social justice campaigns,” or really them dabbling in it at all. Letting movements/protests/morals become transactional or consumption-oriented is just a mistake. Greenwashing has been a mixed bag ( not all bad) but ultimately it’s been small potatoes IMO.

9/27/2018 8:25:25 PM

for sure.

9/27/2018 11:36:31 PM

$10s of billions in Trump’s corporate tax cuts, which were promptly funneled into stock repurchases to artificially inflate stock prices, have evaporated in the past week. Wasted potential so Johnny CEO could make those 3rd quarter numbers.

10/10/2018 7:13:12 PM

https://www.ft.com/content/bfb69d30-ce44-11e8-b276-b9069bde0956

Quote :

" Last year, Sonia Mercado took an $18 an hour cleaning job with Cushman & Wakefield in New Hampshire. When she left to work for a rival company, the $3.4bn real estate services giant sued her for breaking a non-compete agreement. The UK-based multinational sued Ms Mercado, who was a “janitorial supervisor”, in September in federal court in Boston. Cushman’s lawyers argued it would be “irreparably harmed, the extent of which cannot be readily calculated”, if the non-compete agreement were not enforced. "

Wasn’t sure where to drop this one, but a billion dollar multinational is suing a “janitorial supervisor” to enforce a non-compete agreement claiming they’ll be irreparably harmed if she takes a job that pays slightly better with one of their competitors. Completely upside down.

10/17/2018 10:34:53 PM

10/21/2018 1:12:39 PM

^ Capitalism would sell him a gun to make any white man's desire to lynch him, once again, the white man's problem. Good luck selling guns to oppressed minorities in Venezuela or the Soviet Union.

I seriously doubt he would be happier if the manufactures were government owned and you needed Donald J Trump's permission to get a gun.

[Edited on October 23, 2018 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/23/2018 12:43:29 PM

Yeah that helped Philando Castile.

10/23/2018 12:49:59 PM

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." -Karl Marx

"There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." - Ronald Reagan

And funnily enough, even the NRA agreed with Ronald Reagan because the Black Panthers were open carrying.

10/23/2018 1:04:18 PM

eh Not getting involved

[Edited on October 23, 2018 at 1:06 PM. Reason : Ggg]

10/23/2018 1:05:18 PM

^^ What's your point? Karl Marx wrote one true statement at some point in his long writing career while Ronald Reagan, the President and leader of the State followed the tradition of his fellow state leaders in the Soviet Union and Cuba in suggesting the people should disarm and surrender themselves to the state to do with them as it sees fit?

If only the U.S. were sufficiently socialist, there wouldn't have been any private gun manufacturers for anyone to lament citizens were carrying them around in public.

10/23/2018 3:24:43 PM

Capitalism can not exist without exploitation

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/may/18/how-to-stop-the-global-inequality-machine

Quote :

"After colonialism, western powers often intervened to topple pro-worker leaders in the south – like Salvador Allende, Mohammad Mossadegh, and Jacobo Árbenz – replacing them with rulers who would keep labour cheap and exploitable. During the 1980s and 1990s, structural adjustment programmes imposed by the IMF caused wages to collapse across the south. Today, many trade agreements compel developing countries to restrict unions and worker protections. And because globalisation allows companies to move easily across borders, employers can chill their workers’ wage demands by threatening to pull up stakes and move somewhere cheaper. All of this conspires to keep wages in the south artificially low. And it doesn’t help that developing countries have the deck stacked against them at the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. Because rich countries have all the power in these institutions, they get to make the rules that shape export prices and wages in the rest of the world."

[Edited on November 29, 2018 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2018 1:39:07 PM

^That quoute is not discribing capitalism

12/4/2018 2:06:39 AM

You don't agree that the structural adjustment programmes of globalisation keep labour cheap?

[Edited on December 4, 2018 at 3:36 AM. Reason : centre]

12/4/2018 3:34:33 AM

Not really. These nations usually don't have feudal wage caps. Therefore, it is quite simply low productivity keeping worker wages down. Low productivity is a product of low worker skill development and low capital investment. The first is usually a product of a dysfunctional education system and the second is usually a product of institutional dysfunction. Education and institutions (fair courts, sane law enforcement, wise laws, stable currency) are products of the state that the governments in these countries are either incapable of providing or refuse to provide.

Having state run businesses isn't going to make workers well off when the state run schools can't even manage to teach their students to type and state run police forces keep stealing their stuff.

12/4/2018 10:18:45 AM

Quote :

" Therefore, it is quite simply low productivity keeping worker wages down."

If this is truly your belief then there is no arguing with you.

Right now corporate profits (from production) are through the roof, while the best you can argue about wages is that they're stagnant.

12/4/2018 10:21:19 AM

LoneSnark is not arguing in good faith, that's the only thing I can assume at this point.

Quote :

"^That quoute is not discribing capitalism"

Capitalists seek to maximize profit, and since profit is derived from unpaid labor, globalization in a capitalist world automatically becomes a system of global exploitation. As labor becomes more expensive in the US due to rising standards of living, capitalists will shift their labor costs to other countries, as well as lobby for trade deals and other legislation to keep those costs cheap.

Neoliberals and libertarians love to say that capitalism has reduced extreme poverty. That's true, but only because capitalists require workers' bodies to be capable of labor, at a minimum, and because they need to maintain the illusion of being charitable to avoid global revolt. Workers are still very poor in relation to owners, and the gap continues to widen.

[Edited on December 4, 2018 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2018 10:34:07 AM

Quote :

"Right now corporate profits (from production) are through the roof, while the best you can argue about wages is that they're stagnant."

Well, "through the roof" is apparently another way of saying "higher than the historical norm but gradually falling back towards the modern average." They made it up to 11.8% of GDP under Obama and are now back under 10% of GDP. No evidence of a conspiracy to steal the economic pie. Given the regulatory changes of the 21st century (patents, trade restrictions, land use restrictions, financial regulations, etc.etc), we'd expect profits to be up, and they are. Almost double the lows set under the deregulatory era of Reagan and Clinton. But this is not because capitalists are greedier or fighting harder today. All this extra profit is flowing from the government, the very entity you here want to imply we need even more of to fight this scourge of profits that it itself created.

Quote :

"That's true, but only because capitalists require workers' bodies to be capable of labor, at a minimum, and because they need to maintain the illusion of being charitable to avoid global revolt."

Hilarious. You seriously think the world's business owners get together each year and decide what the global poverty rate is going to be in 10 years? Bull-shit. Poverty is not down because today's capitalists are more charitable. They're greedy today, they were greedy last-year. They pay their workforce only what they must to get them to do the job. If that pay isn't enough to keep them alive, then they replace them once they can't work anymore. However, 3rd world productivity has gone up, so their incomes have increased. No global conspiracy needed.

[Edited on December 4, 2018 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/4/2018 12:19:45 PM

Only on TWW would "historically high global profits" be considered a bad thing.

Let's return to the stagnant heyday of the 1930's, when global profits were at a historical low!

[Edited on December 4, 2018 at 12:26 PM. Reason : 30s dummy]

12/4/2018 12:24:30 PM

Again, profits are a result of underpaid labor. So historically high profits means historically high exploitation.

Wages are a cost, and arguably the most important one. Low wages = high profits.

Keep licking those boots.

12/4/2018 12:32:29 PM

Quote :

"Only on TWW would "historically high global profits" be considered a bad thing."

Well, short-term collapse in profits is a bad thing. But, long-run high global profits is a strong sign that restraints on competition have become a chronic problem, which is most certainly a bad thing in my opinion.

Quote :

"Again, profits are a result of underpaid labor. So historically high profits means historically high exploitation."

Profits are more commonly the result of overly high prices. High prices = high profits. If we restore competition through deregulation then profits will fall back to more reasonable levels.

[Edited on December 4, 2018 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/4/2018 12:34:03 PM

Quote :

"Profits are more commonly the result of overly high prices. High prices = high profits. "

Why do you think those high prices are possible?

Quote :

"If we restore competition through deregulation then profits will fall back to more reasonable levels. "

This baseless assumption by libertarians is really getting old. Without a massive redistribution of resources, this would only further entrench money and power into the mega-rich capitalist class. We do not have the resources to compete with their accumulated wealth and ownership of the means of production. They will use their pile of money and resources to continue to exploit and innovate, and we will never catch up.

And even if we started out on a completely even playing field (which is absolutely impossible), geographical location, genetics, and luck (among others) will sort us out into winners and losers in a capitalist "free market."

[Edited on December 4, 2018 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2018 12:46:38 PM

Quote :

"Why do you think those high prices are possible?"

Do.. do you think high prices are due to low cost of production?

Dude, it's clear you don't have the even an elementary understanding of basic economics, much less
concepts like price elasticity. Just sit this one out, bud.

12/4/2018 1:38:11 PM

lol no you fucking moron, I'm asking why LoneSnark believes artificially high prices exist to the extent that they do.

and btw profit from artificially high prices is still unpaid labor

[Edited on December 4, 2018 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2018 1:53:48 PM

Quote :

"This baseless assumption by libertarians is really getting old. Without a massive redistribution of resources, this would only further entrench money and power into the mega-rich capitalist class."

The capitalist class does not consist of one set of people that know each and like each other. When the mega-corporation known as Tandy began selling IBM clones in the 1980s, they were not members of the working class. They made their money in leather products and retail elsewhere in the economy and were clearly entrenched in the "mega-rich capitalist class". However, they used that money and the lax patent and regulatory environment of the time to bring competition to the PC market, driving down prices and ultimately driving IBM, another set of the "mega-rich capitalist class" into near bankruptcy.

A modern equivalent we do not have. Apple, Google, Samsung, they are reaping huge profits in the smart phone markets, yet any attempt by other members of the "mega-rich capitalist class", say Wal-Mart, that attempted to bring competition to the smart phone market would be sued into oblivion in accordance with current government policies.

Quote :

"And even if we started out on a completely even playing field (which is absolutely impossible), geographical location, genetics, and luck (among others) will sort us out into winners and losers in a capitalist "free market.""

Yes, losers, living a life of luxury unheard of by the kings of old. The exception is our genuinely poor, which aren't poor because their boss kept their money. They're generally poor because they don't work as much as everyone else. If you raised compensation among the poorest quintile of households to that of the middle quintile, you'd only increase their incomes by 50%. However, if you increased the hours worked of the poorest quintile of households to that of the middle quintile, you'd triple their incomes. So, given that the capitalist class is not gaining income from the poor not working, the poor are poor because they don't produce very much. That their boss took a cut is not what is hurting them.
http://www.aei.org/publication/explaining-us-income-inequality-by-household-demographics-2017-edition-2/

12/4/2018 3:01:04 PM

1. Capitalists only produce through exploited labor. They owe everything to workers.

2. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Quote :

"Yes, losers, living a life of luxury unheard of by the kings of old."

Can't wait for the capitalist class to attain immortality and live in eco-domes while the other 99% of us die at age 75 on a barely hospitable planet. But we should be grateful because we aren't dying of the bubonic plague.

boot

licker

12/4/2018 3:13:06 PM

Quote :

"1. Capitalists only produce through exploited labor. They owe everything to workers."

No disagreement here. Of course, workers only produce through exploited capital. They owe everything to capitalists.

As you said nothing about anything I said, I suppose you didn't disagree with any of this. I'm glad we could reach accord

12/4/2018 3:24:59 PM

Quote :

"Can't wait for the capitalist class to attain immortality and live in eco-domes while the other 99% of us die at age 75 on a barely hospitable planet. But we should be grateful because we aren't dying of the bubonic plague."

Actually, fewer of us are dying from cancer as well. Cancer deaths are at their lowest rate in 25 years, down 25% since 1991. Now this is a very general statistic, and there is a lot more behind these numbers, but it shows that there has been significant improvement in the treatment and cure of one of the leading causes of death for all people. Not just some made up "capitalist class".

In fact, the price of 50 key commodities fell by nearly 2/3 since 1980 on this "barely hospitable planet". All while the human population has grown by nearly 70%.

Quote :

"Measured by global average hourly income, the price of a representative basket of 50 key commodities — food, energy, minerals and so forth — fell by nearly two-thirds between (1980) and 2017. Measured by the time it takes to buy the basket, the Earth’s resources have become 380 percent more abundant as the human population grew by 69 percent."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-fall-for-the-doomsday-predictions/2019/01/08/46a4ced2-1361-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b94e4bcd2331

1/9/2019 2:12:43 PM

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16860994/life-expectancy-us-income-inequality

And are you a climate change denier?

1/9/2019 2:34:16 PM

What does any of that have to do with my post above?

1/9/2019 3:33:44 PM

^ more to your point ^^ how does low prices show the world is more hospitable? China has low prices on everything but go outside in Beijing and go for a run and swim in a river outside their "ecodomes" aka malls. Price does not relate to the environment. It only if a resource is seen as running out.

[Edited on January 9, 2019 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2019 3:45:32 PM

Quote :

"What does any of that have to do with my post above?"

The point of that post you quoted is that the life expectancy gap is growing while climate change is threatening the planet.

The logical conclusion of capitalism is for this to continue to get worse, to the point where we're in a situation I described.

[Edited on January 9, 2019 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2019 3:58:25 PM

You cant take three data points, present it as a trend, and blame the economic system that has led to a 2.5x increase in life expectancy over the past 200 years.

There is no argument that climate change impacts life expectancy (as it has done from the beginning of time). But none of the primary causes of death can be correlated to climate change. And even if they could, the logical conclusion of capitalism IS finding new supplies, and inventing more efficient ways to grow and use them, and dreaming up alternatives to those that become scarce.

1/9/2019 5:01:31 PM

You're claiming capitalism is responsible for a 2.5x life expectancy over 200 years or do you want to walk that back?

1/9/2019 5:20:08 PM

Our increase in lifespan is mostly due to government-funded medical research and healthcare accessibility, not capitalism.

[Edited on January 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2019 5:51:36 PM

Quote :

"And even if they could, the logical conclusion of capitalism IS finding new supplies, and inventing more efficient ways to grow and use them, and dreaming up alternatives to those that become scarce."

Yeah, no. The only reason we're in this mess is because capitalists decided they could get richer sucking oil out of the desert using 19th century technology instead of building solar panels on top of them.

1/9/2019 6:15:31 PM

^ And you think a state-owned economy would have made a different decision?

I suppose you may be right, after-all, the Venezuelan government has clearly decided they would rather their people starve than pump their precious oil out of their ground.

For me, personally, clear-cutting rainforest for solar panels is worse for the planet than burning oil. But I can imagine that could be an unpopular position.

1/10/2019 1:04:16 PM

Quote :

"For me, personally, clear-cutting rainforest for solar panels is worse for the planet than burning oil. But I can imagine that could be an unpopular position."

lol

yes, you nailed it, those are the 2 options. either rainforests and oil or no rainforests and solar.

good job

:thumbs up:

1/10/2019 1:12:04 PM

Venezuela is 70% private and has also been subject to numerous sanctions and destabilization efforts over the years.

1/10/2019 1:59:34 PM

also, just to clarify, rainforests are clear cut for oil. that's a thing. it's not called "amazon crude" because they deliver it in 2 days with a prime account.

1/10/2019 2:44:47 PM

[user]LoneStrawman[/user]

1/10/2019 2:52:10 PM

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/10/18171912/tucker-carlson-fox-news-populism-conservatism-trump-gop

Quote :

"Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism. America’s “ruling class,” Carlson says, are the “mercenaries” behind the failures of the middle class — including sinking marriage rates — and “the ugliest parts of our financial system.” He went on: “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.” He concluded with a demand for “a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don’t accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement.”...."

1/10/2019 2:55:20 PM

Quote :

"yes, you nailed it, those are the 2 options. either rainforests and oil or no rainforests and solar."

Solar absolutely consumes more acreage per kw than oil production.

That said, I can see a capitalist system cutting rainforest to build solar if doing so made any economic sense, so these are really two completely different issues and should be treated as such. Especially since it clearly is NOT the case that Venezuela has thrown all in with solar and has therefore consciously cut oil production. No, fact is by putting a corrupt government with socialist ideology in charge of an entire industry has rendered it dysfunctional, as should be expected.

Quote :

"Venezuela is 70% private"

Venezuela used to be far more private, and its economy worked far better and the people were far better off back right before Chavez. Odd how a socialist government can so easily kill off the capitalist economy but for some reason just can't manage to grow the socialist economy to replace it. Almost as if socialist ideology is a poor way to organize economic activity.

1/11/2019 12:50:34 AM

Socialism is so ineffective that it has been the US’s mortal enemy for the last century and we’ve dedicated massive resources to ensuring that it fails in as many countries as possible.

You’re so fucking disingenuous lmao

1/11/2019 9:35:27 AM

You're missing it, bud. You're assumption is wrong. Socialism has not been a mortal enemy of the US. Authoritarian regimes that result as a natural conclusion of socialism is the mortal enemy of the US.

1/11/2019 9:54:22 AM

Hahahahaha

1/11/2019 10:11:51 AM