Posts by placidwolf27

Edward Murphy4 said:So, basically, you have no clue what you want?😁

I had an idea back in 2004 or 2005, if I recall correctly...

How does one actually "know what they want out of life"?
Is it a matter of constructing elaborate plans—identifying with some specific archetype, projecting oneself into a hypothetical scenario, or perhaps adhering to a rigid set of values you're desperately trying to manifest? Or maybe it’s just a reaction to a current, undesirable reality that you're clawing your way out of... or perhaps an emotional fixation on a single, specific outcome?
I suppose my question is really about the underlying logic—what criteria do we even use when choosing "Option B" over "Option A"... why do we crave one thing over another, or how does the process of developing a concrete desire even begin?

The law sets the floor for the minimum wage, but that’s just the baseline...

Everything else is dictated by the market—it fluctuates constantly. You won't find anyone paying significantly above the going rate, nor will you see anyone offering excessive bonuses beyond what's necessary to stay competitive.

At least, that's how things function in a healthy, functioning economy. Here in America, things have always been a bit skewed, and now, with everything currently unfolding
...
Ultimately, it isn't really about the owner as an individual, but rather the business entity itself.

I mean, an owner's personal whims don't dictate whether they can actually afford the payroll this month, or if they decide to raise or lower wages. It’s more about the macro decisions—whether they move production to Mexico where labor costs are lower, or perhaps go as far as investing heavily in manufacturing plants in China.

That’s all governed by federal law

The real question—and there's always a catch—is how much influence an owner (and I’m certainly not talking about some guy on Main Street here) can actually exert over those regulations...

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Nah, I don't think individuals hoarding stuff is some natural state of being. It's more like a byproduct of how people act, I guess. And if you tried to stop it by any means necessary, it would probably just lead to stagnation, or maybe even a total step backward.

But the issue isn't about preventing it at all costs...
nor is it even really about the individual accumulation itself

Without specifically engineered, intentionally organized, and consciously maintained systems of accumulation—on the scale we see today—modernity simply wouldn't function. It's much like how modern mass production wouldn't be possible without specialized technological frameworks. And please, let's skip the tautologies—like saying "man can use a hammer because he has the innate capacity to build one"—that doesn't really hold water when discussing "human nature" anymore...

You can certainly take a broad generalization derived from some vague assumption about "divine human nature" and try to force it onto a highly specific, complex system, but that rarely yields anything remotely logical...

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I was just using that as a starting point for the argument. I wasn't talking to you specifically.

But hey, if there's no way to register, how is that irrelevant? Wealth piling up is basically just a side effect of progress. We tried doing things differently before and it didn't exactly work out.

Still, I'd love to see someone actually map out a redistribution model. Like, what’s the most efficient way to pull that off without ending up right back where we started in a few years?

It doesn't matter... certain disparities in ability or whatever aren't an explanation or an excuse for the systemic mess we see today. There isn't much connection between the two, aside from the obvious assumption that people will grab whatever slice of the pie they can based on their skill sets...

What exactly "didn't work"? Are you talking about economic growth?

There are efficient ways to handle this—more or less direct approaches exist...

It just seems to me—perhaps implicitly in your posts—that you view this as some sort of natural state... as if this is just how things go, or how humans are inherently wired... or something like that...

Karen Rodriguez3 said:You don't need a PhD to realize we aren't all cut from the same cloth when it comes to talent. Right?
If you take someone who’s naturally driven, capable, and works harder than most, and you constantly force them to split everything they achieve with people who can't help or—let's be real—people who just won't, it won't take long before that high-achiever just says, "screw this, let someone else carry the load."
It's a total simplification, I know, but honestly, it's pretty straightforward.

We really ought to pause and consider that this has nothing to do with the current debate over wealth accumulation, nor does it touch upon the idea of hypothetical redistribution...

Besides, who ever actually claimed that all people possess equal capability in the first place?

Scott Hall39 said:There is no such thing as "cash." We're talking about equity in a company that an owner built from the ground up. There isn't some vault where they sit around bathing in dollar bills. They use that wealth to generate more wealth through reinvestment, which benefits the rest of the world to varying degrees. It depends on how they invest and how you define "development." But honestly, that concentrated capital has far more growth potential than the combined assets of a bunch of middle-class people of the same scale. Most regular people just spend their money on houses and cars. Massive fortunes are often poured back into developing new technologies.

So, wealth is just a tool.

Motivation? It can be philanthropic. I'll build even more wealth just so I have more to donate. As for the luxury lifestyle—yachts, private jets, designer clothes, mansions—you get used to that stuff easily. You could ask any moderately wealthy person: what do you actually need? You can live fine without half the clothes in your closet, jewelry, or fancy cars. A luxury lifestyle is a slippery slope toward habit.

Even if someone spends money like Bloomberg on expensive yachts, someone else is building those yachts, and someone else is getting paid because of those activities. That said, what American billionaires do—from Rockefeller to Carnegie and beyond—by donating and founding universities, clearly has a much larger developmental impact.
Without the ultra-wealthy, things wouldn't be possible; the average person would spend those billions entirely differently, and the government hasn't exactly shown much interest in managing capital allocation that way. And even when they do, you have to wonder how much they were just copying the private sector's lead!

A tool for what, exactly?
To generate even more wealth—private wealth, presumably—because no one is quite that foolish...
The reality is that the primary driver is corporate; private individuals just extract whatever surplus remains from the system...

Why do people spend money on cars, or any other consumer goods at all?
Just because they feel like it?
Does it really have nothing to do with their mindset, their worldview, their culture, or how their society is organized?
Aren't those internal factors shaped by media influence, while the latter ones are managed by the government and various partners?

Your logic is transparent—you're suggesting that for useful work to actually happen, resources must first be concentrated somewhere to ensure they're used efficiently...

And historically speaking, you aren't wrong—private wealth has frequently acted as one of the main engines of progress...

The issue lies in this underlying assumption that it *has* to be this way—as if no one else could possibly replicate that effect... because apparently, if you gave ordinary people that cash, they’d just waste it on junk, like candy or cigarettes, right?

Then there's the secondary complication: control, and patents...
While the majority might benefit from new technology, the production, consumption, and overall operation of it are strictly bound by the specific conditions under which it was born...
Specifically, the means required for the development of both current and future tech remain under the ownership of a tiny handful of corporations, while the rest of the population simply consumes it...

So, you end up with a small minority holding all the cards, giving them the power to innovate, while everyone else stands in line for the next iPhone, coughs up cash for overpriced prescriptions, and eats patented corn...

See? That's where things get messy...

Even mining companies can drive technological advancement—it happens constantly, sometimes even making the news—but the question remains: where exactly do they get the capital to fund such development?

Karen Rodriguez3 said:I’d love for you to walk me through how that would even work in practice, you know? Like, how do we avoid holding back the most driven, smartest, or most capable people...
Because honestly, that isn't just some capitalist myth or something invented in the modern era.

How exactly would that prevent the "advanced and intelligent" from doing their thing?

Are we suggesting that having a larger pool of Capital available to a broader segment of society somehow breaks the system?
Is the concern that a higher number of "capable" individuals wouldn't be able to fight for their slice of the pie or build something meaningful?

Or perhaps it's about preventing control over development—and its ultimate results—from being concentrated solely in the hands of a few individuals and massive corporate entities... if that power were decentralized, wouldn't a much wider array of "advanced" minds be able to influence and contribute to progress, while ensuring a greater number of people and organizations actually benefit from what is created?

Scott Hall39 said:I went back and read your earlier post where you claim that the wealthy and politicians are basically one and the same. Honestly, things aren't that simple. There are way more players involved, though you're right about one thing: they’re constantly at each other's throats. You've got party against party, internal power struggles, industry versus industry, and endless competition within sectors. It’s a mess of partial interests all fighting for a seat at the table. You can't just boil everything down to a bunch of rich politicians. A politician has to play nice with the public during elections—back in Victoria's era, a 5% tax rate would have been considered insanely high, just look at how far we've come since then. The Church holds power. Voters hold power. Various ideologues hold power. The academic community holds significant power. Unions have power. And then there's the media. The media is an interesting example because even though they're mostly owned by massive corporations in most developed nations, plenty of research suggests a lean toward leftist ideas. Granted, it's still within the capitalist system—what Americans would call "liberal"—but looking at the big picture, it's a direct hit against the wealthy elite!

What you're talking about is clear to me, but honestly, it's fascinating how dynamic and multi-layered that entire system actually is...

You don't quite grasp the sense in which I used the term "class."

A class consists of a massive number of people...
Depending on the population being discussed, that could mean hundreds of thousands, millions, tens, or even hundreds of millions...

Of course, a million people isn't a perfectly homogeneous group sharing the same last name and serial number, but depending on their social standing and their share of ownership, their interests overlap to some degree...
If, out of those million people, say, 30,000 of them hold all the primary positions in a nation—even if they are split into ten different factions and maintain private armies to fight one another—they still control that state. In essence, they created it; they won't allow it to be run in a way that ignores their interests. They can compete with each other as much as they want, they can shoot at each other, they can tear things apart into six pieces and endure five years of civil war, but there is always a ruling segment of the population... they always govern according to their interests, which are collective and class-based, making them organized—and they utilize laws, political power, and every other form of capital at their disposal to do it...

And everything you say is correct—the media is powerful, the Church is powerful, and voters are more powerful than they realize, though certainly less so than the elite...

But what I am saying is also true; beyond that, every media conglomerate has a CEO, and for him, the system is essentially bottomless...

Look...
The company my neighbor worked for went under, but someone else opened a new one (I think that one's gone too, but that's beside the point)...

The bank where my aunt kept her money failed, so people just moved their funds to a new one...

The political party my distant cousin belonged to collapsed, so people formed a new one...

The country where I was born failed, and people built a new one...

My grandfather was born in a country four generations before me, lived to be nearly a hundred...

I have citizenship papers, I have an ID card—without those, you can't get a driver's license, a job, or avoid getting hauled into a police station if you get caught drunk... that is what citizenship is...

I finished public elementary and high school; I have a monthly transit pass, health insurance, and a Social Security number—all those benefits are great, thanks to God for the benefits...

And that is the state—as far as benefits, education, healthcare, and protection go...

When this one fails, people will just make another one, but for families like the Kennedys, the money will always stay in the account—unless a massive catastrophe wipes out half of Europe along with Switzerland, but even then, I suspect they'd manage to keep something...

you can take his word for it

you know how they used to rig the water systems back in the day to suit certain interests
in those reservoirs, the largest drainage points were always positioned most strategically
so when a drought hits, most people find themselves running dry first
even if that small minority ends up split into sixteen different warring factions over the scraps

someone had to consciously design that reservoir—plan the layout, oversee the construction, and build it from the ground up... because without it, you don't have basic infrastructure. You don't have water. And without water, you don't have him, nor the workers, the military, or the consumers who serve him... not even the horse pulling his carriage
he had to engineer the very conditions required for his way of life, which meant ensuring organized conditions for everyone else he needs to sustain that lifestyle

and there you have it... that’s what a state actually is

Scott Hall39 said:No, I agree with that. But those benefits aren't reserved just for the "classes" you keep talking about; the whole of society benefits. To claim otherwise is just a blatant lie.

Are you suggesting that calling it a "distortion of truth" is what happens when any specific demographic—no matter how fractured they might seem internally—seizes power and begins governing solely to serve their own interests and those of their allies? They do it systematically, of course, by leveraging the political infrastructure and institutionalized power handed to them...

Look, let's move past the conspiracy theories and the big oil companies for a moment. Just look at your own government—the most basic level of things. Wherever you happen to be living right now, somewhere in the States, surely you aren't too far from home...

The benefits of having an orderly, functional system could potentially extend to everyone involved in it—that part isn't even up for debate. The real question—the one that actually matters—is the nature of the system itself...

Scott Hall39 said:If you don't have a state, people's rights are totally vulnerable, so your argument falls apart. You can't just force reality into a narrow little box and call it the truth!

Which thesis exactly?

Are you suggesting the state is the essential foundation upon which society organizes its laws—and by extension, property, the market, and individual rights?

In a setup like this, the President isn't just some mindless puppet—he’s a vital operator sitting at the center of everything. Behind him stands an entire organization performing critical functions; we're talking about a homogeneous system here. In this kind of structure, nobody is really "buying" anyone or acting as a mere "servant"—it's simply a division of labor. Within this framework, corporate directors and big-bankers serve the system just as much as they are bought by it... money is merely the tool, the capital used to grease the wheels.

Just look at how Berlusconi runs Italy...
A hundred of his people rotate through nearly every major position in the country—from Parliament and the executive branch right down to the lead corporations. He even has his own banks—believe me—and controls half the media landscape.

At that level, no one bothers asking who is a politician and who is something else entirely. They all have their designated spots within the organization and perform their roles; one month they might be shuffled around to become CEOs, and a month prior they were sitting in Congress... they couldn't care less.
That's what you call rotation—and in their world, political positions are just as much a tool as cash or media control... you can't have one without the others.

Scott Hall39 said:Things are way more complicated than people think; there isn't just one single center of power. If money were the only thing that mattered, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution wouldn't even exist. Plus, no billionaire can actually compete with the raw power held by certain politicians. Look at Rockefeller and Standard Oil—that's a perfect example. Theodor Roosevelt stepped in and absolutely tore them apart. Their wealth was many times greater than anything any modern billionaire holds today. Then you have inheritance taxes, which systematically dismantled powerful dynasties like the Rothschilds—not to mention the Russian oligarchs hiding behind prison bars. Power sits in the hands of politicians, even if the balance of power is always shifting between them, the wealthy, and every other group in society.

This makes no sense. What exactly do you mean by that?

state power is the linchpin
without the state, capitalism simply cannot function—in a sense, the government provides the fundamental infrastructure that prevents the whole system from collapsing... it's through laws and direct interventions that the market is kept upright; corporations and banks are essentially just service providers, warehouses, and processing plants within that framework.

that being said, we are still talking about the same ruling class—even if their influence is spread across multiple centers of power, and even if specialized elites compete for control over that power...

the key to understanding this entire dynamic is realizing that the tracks and the train, much like the signals and the switches—and everyone operating them—are all part of the exact same system. Even if a train derails occasionally here or there, the entire mechanism works in unison to keep everything moving toward its intended purpose...

Anthony Garcia19 said:You've got it wrong. Power lives wherever the money is. Politicians only hold a tiny slice of that influence—they just act as the middleman to carry out orders from the real centers of power.
You know, you actually have a point there. If you're broke, that's a real problem!

Some of the wealthiest people out there actually live pretty modestly. They aren't flashy; they just genuinely love what they do, and that passion is what keeps them moving forward.

As long as they keep all that cash for themselves, they’re exactly the "problem" we're talking about here.

In reality, we're looking at virtually identical segments of the population—they just differ by their chosen career paths or current roles. It's nothing more than a social division of labor; some hold political sway, others control the finances, while some manage physical resources, information, or technology... there is a constant, shifting tension among them, much like any other group, yet they compete individually while maintaining their collective status through organization... it's all quite logical, really...

Peter Baker57 said:After reading all of this, I’ve got one final thought to toss out there.

If I actually had billions of dollars, I’d be terrified of losing them. Based on what I'm seeing here, I get the distinct impression most of you would tear me limb from limb just to get a piece of the action... 😁

You might find that amusing, but let's not forget you're also a participant in a conflict that has been dragging on for millennia...

but that's probably drifting too far off topic now...

Anthony Garcia19 said:So, it actually *is* a psychological issue, isn't it? 😉
At least for those who should be recognizing the full scope of this situation—and its impact on the country—but they won't. Instead, they hide behind legal loopholes designed specifically to protect the very people who caused the damage in the first place.

It's actually more about sociology, if you ask me.

The opening post essentially asks why certain people are receiving so much money—but those specific individuals aren't the core issue. The real problem lies in how the general population thinks and behaves, rather than focusing on isolated cases or individual pathologies. That was my point, anyway... even if it is technically a psychological question too, the original poster just didn't phrase it quite right...

This isn't some debate about morality—nor is it a matter for a psychologist to untangle...

That isn't really an individual matter...
The issue doesn't lie within some fleeting cognitive-emotional lapse of an individual—nor does it stem from their specific psychological cravings for one thing or another—that's simply a given... a fundamental part of being human, much like the very anatomy of the individual itself...

The individual who accumulates wealth does so simply because that is their designated function within a framework designed specifically for accumulation—the system itself is engineered to ensure such outcomes...
He’ll just do whatever he can get away with... if that's even possible...

Nothing indirect can ever truly compel an individual in such a position to exercise any semblance of "responsible" stewardship over funds—not really...
Capital exists for one purpose alone—to grow. It is accumulated through whatever means prove most efficient for that expansion... Period. This concept of "responsibility"—whether we’re talking about corporate social responsibility, moral imperatives, or some vague sense of social sensitivity—simply isn't a functional variable in the equation. An individual might struggle with their own conscience, perhaps they cheated someone or made a mess of things and now they're feeling the weight of regret—but that internal turmoil doesn't change the fundamental mechanics of how the system operates... It remains indifferent to the soul of the actor.

"Responsible management" at that particular level—it implies a certain standard of collective accountability, organization, and discipline... or perhaps a system of penalties for those who fail to meet them. Or, more cynically, it suggests that absolutely no one is actually in charge at all...

In other words—the fundamental issue isn't that an individual shouldn't be tasked with accumulating wealth—the real failure lies in the total absence of anyone whose actual job it is to break their legs and strip them of every asset the moment they commit embezzlement. A few months in a federal penitentiary? That’s just a revolving door... it changes absolutely nothing about the systemic rot.

The fundamental issue—if we can even call it that anymore—is a complete and utter lack of awareness regarding the true "nature" of the work itself...
An act like that isn't just a mistake—it is a deliberate, calculated sabotage of an entire society...
The penalty ought to be strictly proportional... if we are truly aiming for any semblance of justice here.

I’ve come to realize that there is a certain, quiet satisfaction in my tendency to retreat—to simply slip away from the noise... I find that I actually quite enjoy those moments when none of my people seem to notice I'm gone.

Sometimes I’ll make the trek out to the other side of town just to grab a massive plate of cheesesteak sliders—real comfort food—and actually sit down to enjoy a meal and a cold beer in peace... then, on the way back, I might pick up a quick gyro for the road. It’s the little things that keep the wheels turning...

Everything at home is just... an absolute headache right now. It's constant, unrelenting chaos...

Angela Newman33 said:Honestly, they’ve driven me so insane that I’m basically dodging any possible family get-together if there's even a slight chance I can slip away.

This whole thing with chasing down plates and dishes has become my literal nightmare—they just keep coming in endless waves, hitting me one after another.

There’s actually one more thing on my end—just another little detail to throw into the mix.

People keep acting like they totally forgot I’m vegetarian—they'll just hand me a slice of pepperoni pizza like, "Oh, here, it's no big deal..." It’s honestly kind of ridiculous. I haven't touched meat in 17 years... you'd think people would have figured it out by now. 😵

Honestly, nothing beats dealing with some old lady trying to play me—she’s out here insisting there’s zero meat in everything I'm eating, acting like I've lost my mind or something. Like, excuse me? As if I wouldn't notice the sheer amount of fat just floating on top... please.

My exes always seemed to "forget" that I don't eat meat... honestly, I spent half my weekends eating plain risotto because they just couldn't be bothered to remember—and we were only together for six years.
Back in the day, I used to swing by their place for lunch with a baggie of soup just so I’d actually have something decent to eat.

Back in the day, the old folks used to pull the same exact stunt... they'd invite me over for lunch and then basically tell me, "Oh, there's plenty of stuff in the fridge, just whip something up for yourself."
Either they call me in to help out at the BBQ—and then I just end up standing there watching everyone else eat—or whatever.

And then they just give me these pitying looks every thirty seconds—like, seriously?—asking if I’m sure I don't want anything to eat.

Honestly, I’m about two seconds away from filing some official paperwork declaring that I’m officially off the grid when it comes to food—like, just tell everyone I'm not eating anything anywhere so they can all collectively pout and finally leave me alone.

Heh... my parents would literally chase me down with dishes in hand.

In truth, after a certain point—once I reached the stage where I simply couldn't or wouldn't eat anymore—I realized that no amount of protesting, demands, pleas, or demonstrations would actually change anything. My plan was simple: just run away...

Of course, that wasn't an option, because Mom and Dad would just start the pursuit again.

Mind you, they weren't just trying to corner me so they could force me back to the table... one of them would quite literally be sprinting after me, clutching a saucer and a spoon...

And I wasn't even that small of a kid—so this isn't some fond childhood memory of playing games. It wasn't fun. It was just maddening... I think I was already starting elementary school by then, or maybe finishing up preschool, or something along those lines...

Actually, looking back, it’s not even that funny...