1 edit
@no1marauder saidSure. Money is just medium of exchange. And a contract, written or oral, between you and me...it only has value because you and I say so.
Money is funny looking pieces of paper. It has value only because we say so.
No lawyers don't produce anything tangible either. Most of the money that flows to them in the US does so from the wealthy and corporations so that they can figure out ways to get them wealthier by using the innumerable ways the system favors them.
Now, since you say above that stockbrokers don't produce anything tangible, that we could get rid of them. But THEN you say, here, that Lawyers don't produce anything tangible.
So following your logic, if stockbrokers and lawyers 'magically disappear' tomorrow, we can get along without them?????? Because they don't produce anything that is tangible???? Could you elaborate on this for a moment, we cannot got past it until it makes sense.
Then we can gleefully apply 'the wealthy and corporations' to the scenario.
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidA contract has value IF a society will enforce it. It is up to the People who form that society what contracts will be enforced and what ones won't.
Sure. Money is just medium of exchange. And a contract, written or oral, between you and me...it only has value because you and I say so.
Now, since you say above that stockbrokers don't produce anything tangible, that we could get rid of them. But THEN you say, here, that Lawyers don't produce anything tangible.
So following your logic, if stockbrokers and ...[text shortened]... til it makes sense.
Then we can gleefully apply 'the wealthy and corporations' to the scenario.
You have too limited a view; you think that because things are the way they are that it is inconceivable they could be otherwise. Human societies did and some still do, got along fine without stockbrokers, lawyers, hedge fund managers, etc. for the vast majority of Man's existence.
Your original point was about "producers" and "non-producers". My point is much of the wealth in the US system flows to people who don't actually produce anything. And I'm not talking about those who are marginalized by the system.
Let's say you have a country where 5% of the People own 2/3 of the wealth. The professions that most of the wealthy will most value will be those that make them more wealthy. This valuation will have nothing to do with production of anything tangible. Therefore, stockbrokers, corporate lawyers and hedge fund managers will be highly valued and compensated while a teacher won't be.
That country is the US; the top 1% have 40% of the wealth and the top 5% two-thirds of it. https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
1 edit
@averagejoe1 said“ Can you tell us all how, without a broker such as ETrade, I could have otherwise done that? Don't go esoteric, now, too early in the morning for philosophy.”
Really? You might want to re-think this comment. Me, I just opened an E-Trade account for my granddaughter as a graduation present, to teach her about investing. To make money in her sleep. Can you tell us all how, without a broker such as ETrade, I could have otherwise done that? Don't go esoteric, now, too early in the morning for philosophy.
PS< Marauder. P ...[text shortened]... best course, and charges him $500/hour, lawyer has not produced anything tangible.
Get a grip.
An algorithm?
Stockbrokers are exploiters not producers.. farmers and steelworkers are producers.
@no1marauder saidMarauder explains the nexus of contracts, which, when agreed upon, are of value to the parties. Now, where were we...
A contract has value IF a society will enforce it. It is up to the People who form that society what contracts will be enforced and what ones won't.
You have too limited a view; you think that because things are the way they are that it is inconceivable they could be otherwise. Human societies did and some still do, got along fine without stockbrokers, lawyers, hedge f ...[text shortened]... don't actually produce anything. And I'm not talking about those who are marginalized by the system.
“OTHER HUMAN SOCIETIES “. I can only speak to mine, our biz practices, our laws, our courts. You start to lose an argument, and like all liberals, you go into talking about other societies, giving me a headache. Why can liberals not stay on a subject, a point. Why don’t you tell us that new guinea does not have stock brokers and that they seem to get along just fine. I have actually read where you have stated that the USA should be more like Finland or Denmark which is a really a big laugh to we Republicans. Anyway I don’t know how to respond to all of this, when the issue was quite simple a few posts back. You stated that lawyers and stockbrokers do not produce anything tangible . I think we lost some readers when you wrote that. Then here you say money flows to those who do not produce in the system of the USA. So I guess the only way to rectify that would be to have everyone get up in the morning and put on some rough gloves to go out and chop trees or whatever the hell you want them to do so that they can make money. Query: does this mean that I cannot have a stock portfolio which makes money for me while I am sleeping? I’ll wake up having more money than I did when I went to bed. Marauder, you cannot have it both ways. You gonna negate the dividends that your grandaddy lives on.??
Libs. You are all over the place. But I will give you this, you are true to form for Marxism.
@kevcvs57 saidThat’s what Marauder says. Your point?
“ Can you tell us all how, without a broker such as ETrade, I could have otherwise done that? Don't go esoteric, now, too early in the morning for philosophy.”
An algorithm?
Stockbrokers are exploiters not producers.. farmers and steelworkers are producers.
@averagejoe1 saidThis is just raving, Joe.
Marauder explains the nexus of contracts, which, when agreed upon, are of value to the parties. Now, where were we...
“OTHER HUMAN SOCIETIES “. I can only speak to mine, our biz practices, our laws, our courts. You start to lose an argument, and like all liberals, you go into talking about other societies, giving me a headache. Why can liberals not stay on a subject, ...[text shortened]...
Libs. You are all over the place. But I will give you this, you are true to form for Marxism.
No, I do not accept that the social system and laws in the US are optimal and neither do you.
You obviously also, like most right wingers here, have no idea what someone who is a "Marxist" believes. I've explained in detail my beliefs and they are certainly not "Marxist".
@averagejoe1 saidNo points, just facts, the stock market is vehicle for taking money out of the system and distorting the financial value of stuff in the investors favour. Hence the bubbles and crashes.
That’s what Marauder says. Your point?
@no1marauder saidMarx, get to your point. Shall we divide up all the wealth so that every one is (economically) equal???? OK, THEN what?!?!? C’mon, a straight answer please. And who will i ask for a job? And if Suzianne, Kev and i end up working for the same guy, won’t that guy be making more than we are, starting everything all over again?
Let's say you have a country where 5% of the People own 2/3 of the wealth. The professions that most of the wealthy will most value will be those that make them more wealthy. This valuation will have nothing to do with production of anything tangible. Therefore, stockbrokers, corporate lawyers and hedge fund managers will be highly valued and compensated while a teacher ...[text shortened]... e 40% of the wealth and the top 5% two-thirds of it. https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/
@averagejoe1 saidIn case you forgot, we were discussing this:
That’s what Marauder says. Your point?
AJ: So, in a nutshell, to leave the question hanging, neither commented upon nor elaborated, would admit that you all truly want the producers in this country (USA) to support the non-producers.
My response is that is exactly what is happening now; what you consider "producers" who hold the majority of wealth in this country don't actually "produce" anything tangible.
You haven't really addressed that point while screeching that everybody who doesn't agree with you is a "Marxist".
@averagejoe1 saidIn an ideal world, you'd work for yourself or in a collective where you'd have an equal say in management decisions.
Marx, get to your point. Shall we divide up all the wealth so that every one is (economically) equal???? OK, THEN what?!?!? C’mon, a straight answer please. And who will i ask for a job? And if Suzianne, Kev and i end up working for the same guy, won’t that guy be making more than we are, starting everything all over again?
@no1marauder saidYour “ideal world”, you say, is to work for myself. You want me, assuming that i know how to build, to build a house, working for myself? How will I hold up a 2-by-4 and hammer it at the same time.... all while holding a level? Maybe you could define Work For Myself? I cant build a house by myself. So if you let me hire a couple guys, and then i am asked to start 4 more houses, I’d have to horr more help? Then what would that lead to? Me make more than the plumber on the job? You absolutely fail at closing your points. You say idealistic things, but do not understand extenuating circumstances.
In an ideal world, you'd work for yourself or in a collective where you'd have an equal say in management decisions.
@averagejoe1 saidAJ: does this mean that I cannot have a stock portfolio which makes money for me while I am sleeping?
Marauder explains the nexus of contracts, which, when agreed upon, are of value to the parties. Now, where were we...
“OTHER HUMAN SOCIETIES “. I can only speak to mine, our biz practices, our laws, our courts. You start to lose an argument, and like all liberals, you go into talking about other societies, giving me a headache. Why can liberals not stay on a subject, ...[text shortened]...
Libs. You are all over the place. But I will give you this, you are true to form for Marxism.
We must have grown up in different "cultures", Joe; where I was from you were expected to work to make money.
@averagejoe1 saidYou act like this has never occurred to you. No surprise there.
? What in the hell?
Do you still believe in 'trickle-down'? Oh, wait, you don't care what happens to money because it stops at your wallet.