@no1marauder saidI knew the Founders, young man. And YOU are not a Founder. (lift from Lloyd Bentsen_)
Your ignorance and stubborn adherence to it is quite remarkable:
"We the People of the United States,"
US Constitution, Preamble
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"
" whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for ...[text shortened]... good People of these Colonies"
US Declaration of Independence
You find the Founders "creepy"?
Is everyone getting this? Get this guy, elevating the term people from a neutral description into some kind of moral authority, he literally speaks authoritatively .. The PEOPLE!!!!!
He is in my mind invoking a sacred collective, if I know my english and philosophical concepts. Pontificating in a condescending way .....the Marx thing, In-your-face.
Marx made it up like a collective abstraction, derived from collectivism, I guess. We individualist Americans protect actual individuals, we do not romanticize a noun, a collective noun if you will. And It hink Marauder here does it to incite a bit of emotion....like Marx did!!!!!!!!!!
So does your hyping of the word people mean that they are officially in charge now!? Should I address them as Your Collective Highnesses from now on??
@wildgrass saidYeah whatever. Also, if they sit in their 40th story office at a computer and move money around, they LOAN it to people on the street for their businesses. I already said this it is a fact so what is your point.If I decide to open a business, I don’t have that kind of money sitting around.
You do if you work in finance. This article mentions private equity firms:
"Private equity firms control trillions of dollars, very little of which is invested directly in companies that will use the funds to grow. Mostly, those trillions are used to conduct leveraged buyouts, ...[text shortened]... e, and you find yet more gamesmanship and financial engineering, rather than the creation of value."
Ohl,and if it is Schwab or the like, your pension funds and 401ks own a part of it. You make money in your sleep. Well, Maraduer and his crowd will put an end to that. At the end of the day, ideally we will all end up in the same place. Well ,about 92% of us will,, but I don't plan to be one myself.
Hey, have you seen the way that Marauder capitalizes the People? Creepy.
@AverageJoe1 saidAmazing that Marx made up the capitalization of "the People" when the Founders used it decades earlier in the US' formative documents.
I knew the Founders, young man. And YOU are not a Founder. (lift from Lloyd Bentsen_)
Is everyone getting this? Get this guy, elevating the term people from a neutral description into some kind of moral authority, he literally speaks authoritatively .. The PEOPLE!!!!!
He is in my mind invoking a sacred collective, if I know my english and philosophical concepts. ...[text shortened]... ey are officially in charge now!? Should I address them as Your Collective Highnesses from now on??
I haven't read any Marx in a while, but I have my doubts he ever did so; he almost always talked in terms of subgroups (proletariat, bourgeoisie, etc. etc.).
Again your ignorance and stubborn refusal to admit such basic errors is remarkable.
@no1marauder saidThe diff is that the phrase 'we the People' is a legal reference, or a legal source of Sovereignty of the US. It identifies who ratified the document. Marx and other ideas use that phrase invoking it as a moral authority which would override institutions. You seem to use that phrase all the time rhetorically every time you write it, when the founders were established in constitutional authority. People like you use it as an emotional dig, which are not the same thing.
Amazing that Marx made up the capitalization of "the People" when the Founders used it decades earlier in the US' formative documents.
I haven't read any Marx in a while, but I have my doubts he ever did so; he almost always talked in terms of subgroups (proletariat, bourgeoisie, etc. etc.).
Again your ignorance and stubborn refusal to admit such basic errors is remarkable.
So you see, you write about tenets of socialism all the time imbuing the memory of marx, begetting the phrase the People.
Leave that to descendants of the Founders. This is a random forum.
Give it a rest. If you write that the people were gong down to Five points to rally, would you say 'the People', or, ,,,,,,,hey marauder,you can't kid a kidder..........or would you say 'the people'.
Or this one. If the citizens of my town were going to vote............"Hey everyone, after voting, the people are going to gather at the church.
( and a friendly suggestion,.....dump the esq)
@AverageJoe1 saidI use it as the Founders did and they used it before the Constitution was ever written. Again, I'm unaware of Marx ever capitalizing "the People" though, of course, he did not write in English.
The diff is that the phrase 'we the People' is a legal reference, or a legal source of Sovereignty of the US. It identifies who ratified the document. Marx and other ideas use that phrase invoking it as a moral authority which would override institutions. You seem to use that phrase all the time rhetorically every time you write it, when the founders were established in ...[text shortened]... ing, the people are going to gather at the church.
( and a friendly suggestion,.....dump the esq)
I have no idea what present practice is, but when I was sworn in as a lawyer many years it was quite common to add "Esq" to your letterhead, business cards, etc. I still retain it for nostalgia purposes if nothing else.
@no1marauder saidLook it up. Pretentious. Just doing you a favor. In ngotitaoins, it jus might have someone post up on you unnecessarilly.
I use it as the Founders did and they used it before the Constitution was ever written. Again, I'm unaware of Marx ever capitalizing "the People" though, of course, he did not write in English.
I have no idea what present practice is, but when I was sworn in as a lawyer many years it was quite common to add "Esq" to your letterhead, business cards, etc. I still retain it for nostalgia purposes if nothing else.
@AverageJoe1 saidI looked it up:
Look it up. Pretentious. Just doing you a favor. In ngotitaoins, it jus might have someone post up on you unnecessarilly.
" the term “Esquire” still matters today because it serves as an important shorthand for verifying professional credentials and adhering to formal decorum in legal settings. When a letter arrives from “A. Miller, Esq.,” the recipient knows immediately that the correspondence comes from a licensed attorney and must be treated as a formal legal document.
It is used as a formal courtesy, especially when corresponding with opposing counsel or clients, helping to maintain the dignified and serious nature of the legal process. Its use is an implicit recognition of the standards and ethics of the profession."
https://weareiu.com/why-lawyers-use-esquire-and-what-it-really-means/
Think I'll keep it.
@wildgrass saidThey are all getting paid exactly what they deserve.
Half of small business owners make less per year than an entry level job at a hedge fund.
@no1marauder saidpretentoous. I know not ONE lawyer who applies the term to themselves. I swear. On granny's life..YOu see, a good lawyer, he don't have to. Hell, he don't WANT to.
I looked it up:
" the term “Esquire” still matters today because it serves as an important shorthand for verifying professional credentials and adhering to formal decorum in legal settings. When a letter arrives from “A. Miller, Esq.,” the recipient knows immediately that the correspondence comes from a licensed attorney and must be treated as a formal legal document. ...[text shortened]... on."
https://weareiu.com/why-lawyers-use-esquire-and-what-it-really-means/
Think I'll keep it.
'a formal courtesy'? One can pay courtesy to himself!??!!? Hellp me Rhonda
@AverageJoe1 saidHow many lawyers do you meet at the high school you attend?
pretentoous. I know not ONE lawyer who applies the term to themselves. I swear. On granny's life..YOu see, a good lawyer, he don't have to. Hell, he don't WANT to.
'a formal courtesy'? One can pay courtesy to himself!??!!? Hellp me Rhonda
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidNo such thing exists:
According to the Free Market.
"The free market doesn’t exist. Every market has some rules
and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market
looks free only because we so unconditionaly accept its
underlying restrictions that we fail to see them. How ‘free’ a
market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political
definition. The usual claim by free-market economists that
they are trying to defend the market from politicaly
motivated interference by the government is false.
Government is always involved and those free-marketeers
are as politica ly motivated as anyone. Overcoming the myth
that there is such a thing as an objectively defined ‘free
market’ is the first step towards understanding capitalism."
https://www.rethinkeconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/23things-24-33.pdf
@Rajk999 saidThe free market rewards scams, but only in the absence of a coherent regulatory body that prohibit things that harm others.
According to the Free Market.
The only reason why finance as an industry commands the highest gross domestic product of any industry in America, even though it doesn't provide a tangible product at all, is because the rules governing its activities are too permissive.
Goldman Sachs, the bank we taxpayers had to bail out? Less than a tenth of its financial loans "goes toward building anything new. The rest funds debt refinancing, balance sheet restructuring and mergers and acquisitions."
The free market is a scam. The effects are not benign.
Financialization contributes to the breakdown in solidarity among citizens, with disastrous ramifications in the political arena, and weakens national security, with serious consequences abroad. It promotes reckless practices within financial markets that even in recent memory plunged the economy into deep recession. The capitalists driving financialization and promoting its results have become capitalism’s worst enemy. Every consumer and every worker in the United States feels the effects.
@wildgrass saidIts a scam only in your mind because you do not understand what the free market does. Its not about morals, or even distribution of income and feeling sorry for the poor. Its about who and what gives the maximum return on investment for scarce resources. After you have that then the government can do the necssary to ensure it gets shared around.
The free market rewards scams, but only in the absence of a coherent regulatory body that prohibit things that harm others.
The only reason why finance as an industry commands the highest gross domestic product of any industry in America, even though it doesn't provide a tangible product at all, is because the rules governing its activities are too permissive.
Goldman ...[text shortened]... alism’s worst enemy. Every consumer and every worker in the United States feels the effects.[/quote]