They wouldn't need any representation in a non-existent system, so that doesn't make any sense. We're presuming that they created the system for this argument.
Can you live on minimum wage? (Calculator)
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is more organic and multi-generaltional.
When does the State emerge from the Tribe? When one system unites all the tribes.
The hierarchies enlarge until they must share resources and so become a threat to each other.
That's the necessity called the State and quite literally the way all States in the USA came to be.
A Tribe is a collection of Families, and a collection of Tribes and their stuff is a County, Pile them together and that is a State in the Union.
These Families are the proto-business corporations in Timber, Rail, Steel, Cotton, etc, whatever they do in those Counties.
So, we see, the Rule of Law and Representative Govt as the way we protect ourselves from these Big Families' warlordism, and how the Big Families protect themselves, by having a recourse in Law, so they don't have the blood feud.
It really is as simple as that. That's how we got here and that is what we still do on a very grand scale, indeed.
When does the State emerge from the Tribe? When one system unites all the tribes.
The hierarchies enlarge until they must share resources and so become a threat to each other.
That's the necessity called the State and quite literally the way all States in the USA came to be.
A Tribe is a collection of Families, and a collection of Tribes and their stuff is a County, Pile them together and that is a State in the Union.
These Families are the proto-business corporations in Timber, Rail, Steel, Cotton, etc, whatever they do in those Counties.
So, we see, the Rule of Law and Representative Govt as the way we protect ourselves from these Big Families' warlordism, and how the Big Families protect themselves, by having a recourse in Law, so they don't have the blood feud.
It really is as simple as that. That's how we got here and that is what we still do on a very grand scale, indeed.
Last edited:
regulatory "regimes"?..are you talking about government regulatory? or commissions that represent the corporation?
let me just say when it comes to corporations, it is all about the undiluted penny the company can deliver each earnings call every quarter..there is never rhyme or reason..the ONLY thing that matters is the stockholder.
why would they take you behind closed doors, beat you down..fear for your employment.. then go out to the floor and hand out ice cream?..smiles, smiles everyone..welcome to "Fantasy..." you get the picture.
that being said, no one ever said they're smart..they're righties.
Any kind of regulatory system--a federal government agency with regulatory power (like the EPA) or a state commission with such power (like an insurance board). His premise is that they're self-created, so it doesn't matter what it is.
You're making my case about why the regulatory systems weren't self-created. Corporations would only commit themselves to constant compliance costs if there was an appropriate return versus the alternative. My argument was that it's far cheaper for them to voluntarily comply than to create a regulatory system that will dog them for all time at a higher cost.
it is cheaper if they would comply in the first place however, they don't.
i've said this a hundred times.. corporations/employers left to their own devices will abuse the system short changing employees and consumers along the way..nobody said they were smart about it.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
yet you dont seem to feel the same about a really large employer...the gubberment...which is kind of incorporated military industrial complex and all that jazz.
It's typically not cheaper to comply in the first place if there is some probability of not getting caught. That's how decisions actually get made. If the cleanup cost is $500 million and the cost otherwise will be $2 billion, I'm not interested in cleaning up unless there's more than a 25% chance of it being a problem. This is very smart. In the long run I save tons of money, and that's why it happens all the time.
no shit..but didn't you just ask.."if it was cheaper?"..jesus christ make up your mind..
sample conversation with client when i was with kushy fortune 500:
hello! hello! schuylaar? (not my real name)
hey successful 3 ID pizzarant guy!
i'm in trouble!
why?
well, my dishwasher is suing me.
why?
because i didn't pay him overtime.
did he work overtime?
well..y-y-y-yes..but that was supposed to be covered in the "cash" i gave him..the flat $200/week for 75 hours..then he started to complain he wasn't being paid enough..so i told him that if he didn't like it he could leave..now the state of florida unemployment division is investigating me and this guy has an attorney who has contacted all my other employees in order to form class action against me.
(schuylaar turns and looks at the audience)
epilogue: $60k for attorney's fees, back wages, taxes, penalties and interest for one minimum wage employee
Last edited:
How can you possibly say "No shit"? You just said corporations weren't smart in not cleaning up after themselves in the first place, which is the opposite of what I said.
Nor am I actually asking what's cheaper, it was rhetorical. I stated my position to Abandonconflict immediately, which is that corporations cleaning up after themselves would be cheaper to them than creating complex regulatory schemes for themselves.
The point is that corporations didn't create the regulatory schemes. They wouldn't have imposed those costs on themselves. Other people created the regulatory schemes to punish and otherwise act against corporate bad behavior. I think we're in agreement on that point, you seem to just still be confused about what was being argued.
My mind is made up. Self cleanup is cheaper than complicated regulatory system. That's what I keep repeating over and over again. Got it yet?
Please note that I am NOT arguing self cleanup is the ideal solution or anything like that. I believe in the regulatory system. The sole point was that corporations did not create and do not have absolute power over those systems.
Sucks for that guy, sure, but millions of other people got away with it and they saved billions of dollars. That's why people are willing to gamble.sample conversation with client when i was with kushy fortune 500:
hello! hello! schuylaar? (not my real name)
hey successful 3 ID pizzarant guy!
i'm in trouble!
why?
well, my dishwasher is suing me.
why?
because i didn't pay him overtime.
did he work overtime?
well..y-y-y-yes..but that was supposed to be covered in the "cash" i gave him..the flat $200/week for 75 hours..then he started to complain he wasn't being paid enough..so i told him that if he didn't like it he could leave..now the state of florida unemployment division is investigating me and this guy has an attorney who has contacted all my other employees in order to form class action against me.
(schuylaar turns and looks at the audience)
epilogue: $60k for attorney's fees, back wages, taxes, penalties and interest for one minimum wage employee
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Have you figured out how hedging activity in the physical market accounts for the supposed discrepancy in the silver trading numbers yet?Just out of interest... You taken delivery on a Comex cert yet?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I'm horny, so give me both. Lots of both.Have you figured out if you're a top or a bottom yet?
Eye of Horus
Well-Known Member
I think if you tried you could live with no wage, people do it all the time.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
true...they call it income now.
Eye of Horus
Well-Known Member
I thought it was called starving