Obama OK With INSANE Banker Bonuses

[youtube]JSrWoD8h0cQ[/youtube]

Good clip, this is some bullshit, again.



Like always, they're either totally incompetent or actively fucking us all on purpose.


Seriously guys, don't make this a partisan issue. The right does the same shit when they have the power. It's about the level of authority. The zero accountability. The United States of Corporate America.

What are we gonna do about this?

the title of this thread is kind of misleading.

It's nobody's business but the stockholders what any bank pays its people.

It's nobody's business but the stockholders what any bank pays its people.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The stockholders are at the top of a pyramid held up by 99% of the population. The ability to trade stocks comes from the profit made by cheap labor, whether you live in China or the US, that profit belongs to the individuals that worked for it. Think about it. That money is ours whether it comes from taxes or not.

buttery420 said:

I disagree. The stockholders are at the top of a pyramid held up by 99% of the population. The ability to trade stocks comes from the profit made by cheap labor, whether you live in China or the US, that profit belongs to the individuals that worked for it. Think about it. That money is ours whether it comes from taxes or not.

Click to expand...

That's one of the lamest posts I've ever seen. You quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

That's one of the lamest posts I've ever seen. You quite literally don't know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate??

buttery420 said:

.....profit belongs to the individuals that worked for it.

Click to expand...

this is the same absurd talking point that has been a major component of anarchist and marxist philosophy for as long as anyone can remember and it's a load of crap. it entirely discounts the value of the risk involved in investment, which represents the past labor of others. it ignores the organizational value of management, without which labor becomes nearly pointless. though it is true that goods and services could not be provided without the labor involved, labor in itself is worthless without direction and an initial investment to provide purpose to any enterprise.

the idea that only the workers add value to society is nothing more than an attempt to curry favor with the masses by philosophical malcontents and the ivory tower few. those stockholders you scorn provide the necessary tools, materials and environment to turn the labor of the workers into a viable commodity and they deserve some recompense for that service. the workers contract for their labor and become just another raw material in the chain of production. it may seem cruel to consider them as such, but they have already sold what they have of value, their labor, for an agreed upon portion of the profit and deserve nothing more than that contract allows.

this is the same absurd talking point that has been a major component of anarchist and marxist philosophy for as long as anyone can remember and it's a load of crap.
Based on your distorted view of the value of labor.

it entirely discounts the value of the risk involved in investment, which represents the past labor of others. it ignores the organizational value of management, without which labor becomes nearly pointless.
The risk of loosing money, not life. Investment of stolen profits. The organizational value of management?
In certain circumstances it does have value but no more so than the physical labor put into producing a product.

though it is true that goods and services could not be provided without the labor involved, labor in itself is worthless without direction and an initial investment to provide purpose to any enterprise.
So what you are suggesting is that workers are pretty much helpless, unable to work unless they have an individual dictating action, this is a fallacy. It's called self-organization and it's certainly possible.

the idea that only only the workers add value to society is nothing more than an attempt to curry favor with the masses by philosophical malcontents and the ivory tower few.
I'm not a politician and don't want to 'curry favor with the masses' I want I better quality of life, I want a better world.

those stockholders you scorn provide the necessary tools, materials and environment to turn the labor of the workers into a viable commodity and they deserve some recompense for that service.
Who made whose tools, mined for those materials?

the workers contract for their labor and become just another raw material in the chain of production. it may seem cruel to consider them as such, but they have already sold what they have of value, their labor, for an agreed upon portion of the profit and deserve nothing more than that contract allows.

The thing is that the people 'organising' the production of these goods take 90% of the value of a workers labour away.

When you go learn what marginal revenue product of labor means, I'll discuss it with you. Right now your talk is the equivalent of aliens and bigfoot.

The marginal revenue productivity theory of wages, also referred to as the marginal revenue product of labor, is the change in total revenue earned by a firm that results from employing one more unit of labor. It is a neoclassical model that determines, under some conditions, the optimal number of workers to employ at an exogenously determined market wage rate.[1]

Click to expand...

-wiki
This is based on the capitalist mode of production, and frankly I don't see what it has to do with the argument I'm putting forward?

Buttery420, I am embarassed for you. You don't understand anything about basic economics. Yet you have opinions; how can this be?

buttery420 said:

this is the same absurd talking point that has been a major component of anarchist and marxist philosophy for as long as anyone can remember and it's a load of crap.
Based on your distorted view of the value of labor.

it entirely discounts the value of the risk involved in investment, which represents the past labor of others. it ignores the organizational value of management, without which labor becomes nearly pointless.
The risk of loosing money, not life. Investment of stolen profits. The organizational value of management?
In certain circumstances it does have value but no more so than the physical labor put into producing a product.

though it is true that goods and services could not be provided without the labor involved, labor in itself is worthless without direction and an initial investment to provide purpose to any enterprise.
So what you are suggesting is that workers are pretty much helpless, unable to work unless they have an individual dictating action, this is a fallacy. It's called self-organization and it's certainly possible.

the idea that only only the workers add value to society is nothing more than an attempt to curry favor with the masses by philosophical malcontents and the ivory tower few.
I'm not a politician and don't want to 'curry favor with the masses' I want I better quality of life, I want a better world.

those stockholders you scorn provide the necessary tools, materials and environment to turn the labor of the workers into a viable commodity and they deserve some recompense for that service.
Who made whose tools, mined for those materials?

the workers contract for their labor and become just another raw material in the chain of production. it may seem cruel to consider them as such, but they have already sold what they have of value, their labor, for an agreed upon portion of the profit and deserve nothing more than that contract allows.

The thing is that the people 'organising' the production of these goods take 90% of the value of a workers labour away.

Click to expand...

buttery420 said:

-wiki
This is based on the capitalist mode of production, and frankly I don't see what it has to do with the argument I'm putting forward?

Click to expand...

You're right. That is common sense and you are in a different place entirely. You know, I'd like to see gravity lessened a little (I hear it is hardest on blacks and women). Maybe the government could work on regulating that, too.

buttery420 said:

The risk of loosing money, not life. Investment of stolen profits.

Click to expand...

here we go with the downtrodden masses tripe again. that mere money represents an individual's ability to survive and to make life better for himself and those around him. in most cases, that investment began with the proceeds of labor or risk and is not merely unearned wealth. you can cite examples of thieves and robber barons all day long, but they will always be far fewer than the number of men and women who came by their wealth honestly and risked it in an investment in hopes of some return.

In certain circumstances it does have value but no more so than the physical labor put into producing a product.

Click to expand...

i can dig ditches all day long, but that labor is worthless unless there is some purpose for them. that purpose is the value that the direction of management provides.

It's called self-organization and it's certainly possible.

Click to expand...

of course it's possible, but how often does this really happen? how often do workers organize an enterprise, agree to a course of action and carry through? most business begins with the vision of an individual or a small group of individuals who are willing to risk failure and the loss of capital in order to produce and/or provide something. i applaud communal effort and see it as a goal worth striving for, but that takes a consensus that is willing to risk failure when most of us would rather take the easier road that insures a steady, if meager, income.

Who made whose tools, mined for those materials?

Click to expand...

did they receive compensation for that labor and those materials? unless you are willing to relinquish all concept of ownership, even over your own body and mind, you cannot honestly arrive at some arbitrary point at which ownership ceases to exist. when i remodel a kitchen and am paid for my work, i relinquish my control over that kitchen. so too does any labor or material become someone else's property once recompense is received.

The thing is that the people 'organizing' the production of these goods take 90% of the value of a workers labor away.

Click to expand...

i'll ignore your arbitrary 90% figure for now and merely state that the value of that labor was not "taken away", but that its providers were compensated at an agreed upon rate and that value was added to the value of the whole. the labor wasn't stolen. unless slavery was involved, the labor was contracted for and provided. nothing more, nothing less.

You're right. That is common sense and you are in a different place entirely. You know, I'd like to see gravity lessened a little (I hear it is hardest on blacks and women). Maybe the government could work on regulating that, too.

Click to expand...

Can you not provide any sort of intellectual argument whatsoever? Why all the sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks? Well here comes mine, unfortunately you've fallen victim to the egotistical end-of-history theory promoted by the west. There is simply no debating someone like you. Once the Soviet Union was defeated by capitalism it was realized that this will always be the predominant mode of production. We proved those commies wrong, and that's the way it will always be. How dogmatic...I feel sorry for you.

here we go with the downtrodden masses tripe again. that mere money represents an individual's ability to survive and to make life better for himself and those around him. in most cases, that investment began with the proceeds of labor or risk and is not merely unearned wealth. you can cite examples of thieves and robber barons all day long, but they will always be far fewer than the number of men and women who came by their wealth honestly and risked it in an investment in hopes of some return.

Click to expand...

The system we live in means everything for those without enough, life and death, is based on money. The individuals taking 'risks' in the stock market is not nearly a comparison.

i can dig ditches all day long, but that labor is worthless unless there is some purpose for them. that purpose is the value that the direction of management provides.

Click to expand...

Like I said self-organization is more than effective when done right.

of course it's possible, but how often does this really happen? how often do workers organize an enterprise, agree to a course of action and carry through? most business begins with the vision of an individual or a small group of individuals who are willing to risk failure and the loss of capital in order to produce and/or provide something.

Click to expand...

This is the mentality promoted by a hierarchical system. It is extremely difficult to do when capitalism is the predominant mode of production.

but that takes a consensus that is willing to risk failure when most of us would rather take the easier road that insures a steady, if meager, income.

Click to expand...

The thing is you probably belong to the middle class, you're comfortable at the moment but what if that changes. What if there is a great depression, the political landscape changes and you are struggling to survive, many more people are willing to take this risk under these circumstances and we're talking about a great proportion of the world who are in these circumstances. This brings about revolution and change.

did they receive compensation for that labor and those materials?

Click to expand...

Probably not enough...

unless you are willing to relinquish all concept of ownership, even over your own body and mind, you cannot honestly arrive at some arbitrary point at which ownership ceases to exist.

Click to expand...

This isn't black and white. I don't think the concept of ownership should cease to exist, just certain types, like industry.

when i remodel a kitchen and am paid for my work, i relinquish my control over that kitchen. so too does any labor or material become someone else's property once recompense is received.

Click to expand...

Very true, but you also relinquish control of a large majority of what is rightfully yours, to the owner of the company. That's a large majority of your hard work and time.

i'll ignore your arbitrary 90% figure for now and merely state that the value of that labor was not "taken away", but that its providers were compensated at an agreed upon rate and that value was added to the value of the whole. the labor wasn't stolen. unless slavery was involved, the labor was contracted for and provided. nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

Wages are very rarely agreed upon, and even if you have some sort of negotiation all the power is in the employers hands.

you seem to have bought into a philosophy that glorifies the mediocre while denigrating success and excellence and i'm afraid there is no cure for this except a healthy dose of reality.

yes, there are powerful men and women who prey upon the weak. this is not an economic matter or a political matter, but a simple fact of our humanity. when the weak band together to prey upon the powerful, this is no improvement over our condition but merely a realignment of power. mob mentality is no better than the opinion of the individual. in most cases it is more vile and animalistic than the desires of the one and it is certainly more difficult to reverse once it goes awry.

greed is not the exclusive domain of those capitalist pigs, it is a survival mechanism and its effects can only be minimized by the conscious effort of the individual. no communal effort can ever replace the individual's responsibility to accept the consequences of his actions or force him toward altruism. the "capitalist mode of production" does not preclude communal activity. it, in fact, can be made to encourage it by placing the means of production in the hands of individuals, allowing them to band together if they wish and create an enterprise whose profits can enrich them all.

force directed against the individual is the enemy. the armed might of a coercive government, the force of our own fears of failure, the demands of conformity and the pressures of society and tradition all conspire to force the individual away from deciding his own destiny. only the individual can overcome those forces. all else is nothing but excuses.

Ages of experience testify that the only way society can be improved is by the individualist method ..., that is, the method of each 'one' doing his very best to improve 'one'.