Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j996yr3 wrote
Reply to comment by PG-Glasshouse in Eversource doubles pay for CEO as 'skyrocketing' electric bills hit customers by WellSeasonedUsername
You also are confused at what capitalism actually is. Now we are getting into the government controlled school system discussion. You are right in the sense that the government has no business educating or feeding our children and the motive of the current government to remove parental rights has nothing to do with capitalism. You either have a free market or you don't. So what's your point? Social prescribed means? Everyone of a taxpayer funded support system? Let's entertain that for a moment, who are the taxpayers employed by? What is their product or service? Do people willingly exchange their money for that product or service? If the answer to that question is no then you have an insolvent socially funded wallet. If the answer is yes then you agree that capitalism is necessary. It also all you've ever known. Everything you purchase willingly is free market enterprise. I don't get your point! It doesn't make one. Terrible response.
SecretLadyMe t1_j99v2g4 wrote
If we truly had a free market, then labor would be as powerful as the ownership class because labor is also a commodity. If we truly had a free market, the railroad worker strike would not have been interrupted by the government. You are buying into the propaganda that is destroying the quality of life for everyone.
phantompenis2 t1_j9a6va5 wrote
it actually sounds like you're making the same point as the person you're responding to
Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a8883 wrote
Interpret how you wish.. That isn't the point I made. She argued that capitalism ruins people's lives. That is incorrect. Especially if you are a beneficiary of that system. So you downvote the comment because you disagreed with it, đ
phantompenis2 t1_j9a8p0e wrote
no, they're saying under a free market such disasters would have been avoided. that's a common argument libertarians make. i didn't down vote you, mr sensitive, im a free marketer
SecretLadyMe t1_j9adr60 wrote
I'm most definitely NOT a libertarian. And I'm saying if we listened to the rail workers (and their concern for their own lives and working conditions) over corporate interest (to maximize profits) then yes, maybe the recent disasters would have been avoided. Maximizing profits at the expense of human life is disgusting.
Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a6k3w wrote
You mean the system that's worked for 100s and hundreds of years? Do you think that an employee of a business, who trades his time for money, deserves all of the same benefits as these owner of the company he's employed under? Where has the employee risked his financial wellbeing to deserve the same as the business owner? Why would it be expedient for anyone to run a business where you make the same as your employees? Does that employee do the same amount of work as the CEO keeping the business going? The sooner you accept that it costs money to live in this world and you have to earn a paycheck to live in it the better off you are. The alternative, isn't an alternative at all (social universal basic income), it is impossible for everyone to be a dependent somebody pays. You don't have to work a job if you're living in the wilderness, but you will work to survive. Nothing is possible without some trade. And I don't think capitalism is ruining anyone's life, including yours. That phone or computer you are using to argue your point is part of that system. Did your phone ruin your life? This is the mentality of the perpetual student. A growing debt and a wealth of useless knowledge un-applicable or translateable to the work force. So yes capitalism represents a free society. You were taught to think otherwise because of global bureaucratic ambitions of you your handlers.
madnessdanz t1_j9a7web wrote
>system that's worked for 100s and hundreds of years?
That's not a long time, at all.
And you seem to be confusing the definition of capitalism, and production?
You can have the production of goods without capitalism.
ogcrusader1095 t1_j9ad71j wrote
So Iâm going to start by saying that just because an institution has stood for X amount of time does not mean it is inherently beneficial. I also would like to say that working class people do deserve higher monitory compensation for the work and the capital that they bring in. There is no capital being produced without the worker. The only thing that the employer has âriskedâ is becoming a park of the working class while the worker is held at borderline poverty to make sure they understand that if they canât work they will become a part of the homeless population. Now tell me u/Salty-Leg-9037, in what world is it ok to have one man collect the salary and benefits of hundreds of workers simply because he âownsâ the company. He risks only becoming a worker if his business fails. Capitalism only works if there is free and abundant competition, which there is none in todayâs society. It has become a monopolist market and there are no real competitors, meaning the price on everything is increasing, wages are dropping, the wealth gap is unparalleled and children are starving to death. But I guess its because they donât work hard enough and pick up extra hours right? Or is it that they didnât take that financial risk? Give me one good reason why families and veterans and children are starving and freezing to death while capital owners continue to make more and more profits.
SecretLadyMe t1_j9ade5c wrote
I didn't say make the same money. I said workers would have control over their labor. They would have more ability to decide what they are willing to work for and the conditions they demand. You know, by organizing and unions and such.
We also wouldn't have bailouts for business and then allow them to buy back stocks and post big bonuses for the c-suite and layoff for the general workers.
ninjacereal t1_j999bqz wrote
No bigot the solution to issues created by government regulations is more government regulations.
PG-Glasshouse t1_j99aqtb wrote
School is funded by taxes. This one aspect of school (lunches) is not funded by taxes, it is run as a business. That is an example of deregulation not regulation. That aspect run as a business is conveniently provided with a legal mechanism that can remove children from their families if they canât come up with enough money for the product.
What you are observing here is a private entity, that abuses the legal system to do what capitalism does best. Shoot the free market in the back of the head because a free market isnât the most profitable kind of market and so capitalism does not need it. These laws were written for a reason and it wasnât to provide regulation.
My question is instead of a system that destroys families if they canât satisfy the profit motive, why donât we just cover lunch with taxes too? With what money? The same money weâre spending to commission a new fighter even though the F-35 just rolled off the line.
When the government does something because capitalism has bought your representatives that thing isnât the government itâs still being done by capitalism.
Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99bulh wrote
See this I can agree with? Why, is the correct question. Here in CT we are too used to be being over-governed. School lunch should be free, 100%. The problem is (and capitalism isn't a factor here) the State allocates certain funding levels for schools. As you know, our state's schools are horribly underfunded. In my home town we didn't even have a high school. The problem herein lies with the school systems themselves. Why would they provide funding for food when they can attract teachers with salary? And because our education budget is always so short and we currently have low education expectations in general. They have no choice to charge for food. This is a cyclical problem and until it's roots are addressed it will continue. I have a young son I'm raising here, and I'm DEEPLY concerned about his schooling coming up. I am more than likely sending him to a catholic school, I will gladly pay for his education in a system I have a say in and his lunch is paid for. That's the difference. This state is horribly broken but sadly the voters continuously determine the status quo. Until that changes, nothing will change.
PG-Glasshouse t1_j99ebpt wrote
> They have no choice to charge for food.
This is untrue, no part of our education system being underfunded is because the money is not there.
It does not matter how much is privatized because the budget will always get cut further and no savings will materialize. Itâs two pincers of the same claw.
Lunch accounts for 0.25% of the schools cost? Well the parents are now paying that 0.25% and funding was cut by another 3%. I guess we better find something else to privatize since funding is so low and we need more money to pay salaries.
This is the goal of privatization and the means by which it captures public institutions. It never stops.
A. Divert taxes from school funding through lobbying.
B. All of a sudden schools canât afford materials/expertise (this creates the inadequacies in the education system you mentioned).
C. Introduce a private entity that will alleviate funding shortages through providing some of these things by charging parents directly and make a killing doing it.
D. Lobby to cut funding for education again so you can do it all over.
Congratulations you have âsolvedâ a problem with capitalism.
The state ended 2021 with a 14% surplus, the surplus is currently sitting at over 3 billion for this fiscal year. CT is not a state short on money.
Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99el33 wrote
Negative. All of it not true. I'm involved in local government and your claim is unsubstantiated, the figures you provided are not factual. But I am enjoying the dialogue.
PG-Glasshouse t1_j99fpdp wrote
> Negative. All of it not true. Iâm involved in local government and your claim is unsubstantiated, the figures you provided are not factual.
Please do not lie.
The figures I provided are not âfactualâ because they are representations of values that only need to be larger or smaller to prove the point. They are not designed to be exact values pulled from your specific middle schools financial report. If the lunch program cost 70% of the budget, cuts to education would still quickly move to negate the savings of privatization. Letâs call it an 80% cut because the specific numbers in that example literally do not matter. No matter how much money is saved by privatization it will never make up the shortfall created by continuing to cut even more education funding and it isnât supposed to.
Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j9a755j wrote
It's not a lie my dude. It's common sense. When you can reason with yourself and understand that there are some things you may not understand. It's extremely easy to see that feelings or dislike for something doesn't make it untrue. The truth is actually extremely uncomfortable at times, but the truth is what the truth is. I'm sorry to say that you are still incorrect.
smartypants4all t1_j9ayljn wrote
Holy shit, look in a fucking mirror.
ninjacereal t1_j99dent wrote
Not only is school funded by taxes, parents are compelled to send their kids even if it's against their will.
But if you think school lunch not being free as a "deregulation" (I don't think that word means what you think it means) that's cool.
What it actually is, is regulation trying to fix regulation trying to fix regulation. It has nothing to do with capitalism tho. It's the state assumimg power that was never granted.
PG-Glasshouse t1_j99gwbu wrote
> Not only is school funded by taxes, parents are compelled to send their kids even if itâs against their will.
So everything about school is handled by the government, except for this which is managed as a business.
Why is this specifically managed as a business when all the other aspects are taxpayer funded?
When you take a public institution and privatize aspects of it you are deregulating those aspects by transferring control from the government to private entities.
> What it actually is, is regulation trying to fix regulation trying to fix regulation.
Privatization is not an example of regulation. The public school system is not a wild capitalist horse yearning to be free, it was designed as a social service. You are turning a social service into a business, not freeing a business from the stifles of regulation.
> It has nothing to do with capitalism tho.
The private company providing lunches that parents have to pay money to under penalty of the aforementioned, so that it can generate a profit in exchange for goods and services⌠is not capitalism?
> Itâs the state assumimg power that was never granted.
Say the line SovCit.
p.s. you are being detained
phantompenis2 t1_j9a7l13 wrote
>The private company providing lunches that parents have to pay money to under penalty of the aforementioned, so that it can generate a profit in exchange for goods and services⌠is not capitalism?
capitalism doesn't punish you for not buying something. i don't get a fine for not shopping at walmart or mcdonalds. are walmart and mcdonalds then not participating in capitalism?
ninjacereal t1_j9bx055 wrote
You authoritarians are a scary breed.
PG-Glasshouse t1_j9bxnhz wrote
Public education is fascism, feudalism is freedom eh?
ninjacereal t1_j9c57m1 wrote
Funded by men with guns threatening to throw you in a cage and take your home if you don't, regardless of if your kids attend that school.
Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99aabi wrote
You smoke crack for a living don't you?
ninjacereal t1_j99d7hh wrote
Is this... Your best?
Salty-Leg-9037 t1_j99drtd wrote
Was your misdirected comment your best? I'm guessing yes, since it was a narcissistic preconceived response with an ideologue viewpoint. Your response lacked intelligence and vaguely flung a half intelligent insult that was baseless. But if it made you feel better I guess that's all that matters now in a feelings based society isn't it? I think your comment claiming I was was a bigot was rooted more in in your self interest than in actual diagnostic dialog wasn't it?
phantompenis2 t1_j9a7szd wrote
did you tell chatgpt to write an angsty, pseudo-intellectual reddit comment? because damn that things getting good
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments