Re: Transportation and the energy economy, was Re: Just an FYI....Atlanta Police stalk Critical Mass

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g805kq$is3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7qpt2$jg3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7k8na$slf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7gh17$5hk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7g4rm$rgm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7efml$mal$4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
In article <g7dgji$ksn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, junker@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
Tom Sherman wrote:

I thought I was using very mild and restrained language.
And you were.

Most of the wealthy people I know (and I know a few) are very politically active, to their own detriment if they are not.
I know many from my business and community work. Most of the wealthy people I know put a lot more effort and money into charity work than political activities.

It is only charitable if it is anonymous. Otherwise it is self-promotion/advertising. Say what you will about Islam, but Muhammad was correct on that point.
That's laughably naive about what, and who, supports the non-profit sector. Anonymous donors would not be able to leverage their own personal donations to persuade their peers to give. Most fundraising campaigns start by finding high profile "leadership donors" who will step up to set a good example for their friends and colleagues. These leaders are invaluable in getting the ball rolling, and are essential to the success of many fundraising efforts.

And the last time I looked, nobody has yet discovered how to be invisible -- or to serve on the board of non profit organization anonymously. If we took all the movers and shakers who serve on non-
profit boards out of the equation to preserve their anonymity, these organizations would be suffer devastating losses of leadership, vision, ability and networking.
Why does someone have to be a donor to serve on a board?
Who said they did? Certainly not me!

Then why did you bring up a totally irrelevant point?
Serving on a board is far from irrelevant. Nobody, no matter how much money they have, has more than 7 days in every week. They may be able to give millions, but their time is finite and limited. And in many cases, their talents are invaluable to the organizations they serve. They don't serve on these boards to promote themselves or advertise -- they do it because they are community minded, good citizens.
That in and of itself does not necessarily constitute a charitable act.
So, in your opinion, it is not necessarily charitable to contribute one's time and talents on a regular basis to support a worthwhile cause?? You're clutching at straws.
Charity refers to helping the indigent. There can be other worthwhile causes (that improve the quality of life), but they are not charity. For example, converting an abandoned strip mine to a park with mountain biking trails would improve quality of life, but not be a charitable act.
And your point is . . . ?

Now, one more time. So, in your opinion, it is not necessarily charitable to contribute one's time and talents on a regular basis to support a worthwhile cause, such as a hospital foundation, the United Way, UNICEF, and similar organizations? What's your answer?
That would depend on the motive. If the contribution was made for the sake of appearing charitable, or if the person doing so made an effort to advertise the fact, then it would not be a charitable act.

What evidence do you have that wealthy people who contribute money and time on a regular basis do so for the sake of appearing charitable?

When their names appear on "thank you" lists, that is a pretty good indication. These lists usually have multiple people named "Anonymous" on them.

For example, here's the list of Directors for the United Way of NYC. Which of them are contributing their time to appear charitable, and which are doing it out of genuine concern for the well-being of people in their community?

How should I know - I do not live in NYC (whew!) and do not follow the social scene.

Susan L. Burden

Joseph A. Cabrera
Executive Vice President
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.

Harry D. Carson

Anthony M. Carvette
President & Chief Operating Officer
Structure Tone, Inc.

William S. Conway
Senior Executive Vice President
& Chief Marketing Officer
Mutual of America

Marianne D. Cooper
Vice President
Public Sector Americas
IBM Corporation

Lesley Daniels Webster

Stephen J. Dannhauser
Chairman
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Donald F. Donahue
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation

André Dua
Principal
McKinsey & Company

Gerald P. FitzGerald
President
Aviation Perspectives LLC

Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr.
Healing of the Nations

Dr. Matthew Goldstein
Chancellor
The City University of New York

Thomas S. Johnson
Retired Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
GreenPoint Financial Corp. & GreenPoint Bank

Terry J. Lundgren
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Macy's Inc.

Andrew J. Parsons
Director Emeritus
McKinsey & Company, Inc.

Karen B. Peetz
Executive Vice President, Corporate Trust Services
The Bank of New York Mellon

Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta

Karl B. Rodney
Publisher
CARIB NEWS

Rossana Rosado
Publisher & Chief Executive Officer
El Diario-La Prensa

Rabbi Peter J. Rubinstein
Senior Rabbi
Central Synagogue

Nancy Wackstein
Executive Director
United Neighborhood Houses of New York

Randi Weingarten
President
United Federation of Teachers


Cheryle A. Wills
President
JALAD Group

Which of these people have you smeared with your stereotypes?

I'll bet you don't know. And that's my point. You're smearing all of them with your stereotyping comments.

Java Man has a logic understanding problem if he thinks I have "smeared" all of them. For example, if someone volunteers to help with maintenance of the local ATB trails, I would consider that a positive act, but not a charitable act.

Why is this so hard for Rick the Java Man to understand?

Why is it so hard for you to stop smearing people about whom you know nothing, simply because they're rich?

To be extremely rich, they have taken more than their fair share from society. Have anyone of them cured or prevented a major social ill primarily through their own talents and labor - then they would deserve considerable riches through their contribution. Please show one such example.

Furthermore, most non-profit organizations do not serve those who can not take care of themselves.
Most? On what do you base that? And what about the ones that do? Ones with which I'm familiar, like Parkinsons Society of Canada, Society for Children and Youth, Salvation Army, Vancouver Food Cooperative, etc, etc?

The list of non-profit organizations is extensive - special interest clubs, social networking organization, professional societies, etc, most of which have nothing to do with what are normally considered charitable works.
So what? That doesn't detract from the many people who contribute their time and money to charitable organizations that do good work for people who need help.
More points irrelevant to the point of discussion, which is that most non-profit organizations are NOT charities.
The point of discussion is much simpler than that, and you're rapidly proving my point -- that you continue to deny charitable work done by individuals, and to denigrate the character of many, for one simple and unfair reason -- that they are wealthy. That's blatant and malicious stereotyping.
I never wrote that.
I never claimed you wrote it. But you implied it. And you have denigrated charitable work done by individuals, and the character of many, simply because of their wealth.

I never implied that, and to claim so is mistaken or a lie. Or maybe the Java Man can read minds like "Dear Carl" does?

Please desist with the dishonest debating tactics.
It's not dishonest. You implied it.

No I did not, and to continue claiming so is an (false) accusation of lying.

Now Java Man is falsely accusing me of lying.

You've made sweeping and unflattering generalizations about wealthy people continually throughout this thread, and have offered no evidence to back up your claims.

No, Java Man simply refuses to follow the logic, because it counters his built in social conditioning.

That is stereotyping. You actually know very little about what the very rich do, but you are prepared to make sweeping generalizations about their motives and actions.

I know the rich take more from society than they give. I also know that in the supposed democracies, the vast majority of the rich support political positions that enrich themselves further at the expense of people who work for a living.

But if you'll come right out and admit that many wealthy people make large charitable donations because they are community minded, and that many wealthy people donate their precious time and considerable talents to charitable causes for the same reason, I'll withdraw my charge.

Why should I admit this when there is no evidence for it being true?

Why do you smear millions of people without evidence that what you're saying applies to them?

See above. Duh.

Of course, since you believe only anonymous acts can be charitable, you wouldn't know about any of them, and therefore there's no evidence of them, correct? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You've defined the context to maintain your illusions.

Taking more than one's contribution has nothing to do with charitable acts. Duh.

Are the rich giving away enough of their wealth that they have to decrease their discretionary spending on themselves? If not, they are merely giving away part of their wealth that is so immense that they do not need it.

With a few notable exceptions, the very rich support right-wing policies that increase the power and wealth of the rich at the expense of others. Unless you believe that the rich are too stupid to know this and are simply being fooled by the politicians they support?

So how about it? Are you willing to admit it?

Why should I admit to something for which there is no proof, and many indications to the contrary? That would be illogical.

No, that would be ignorance of the facts.

So now Java Man presents himself as arbiter of the facts?

A rich person could do a charitable act, but only if it is anonymous. A public act is a form of self-promotion.
Now you're making up your own definition of charity. S
No, the definition I am using is accepted by billions of people.

Since it is impossible to contribute one's time and talents anonymously, and contributing one's time and talents to help others IS charitable, those billions of people are wrong.

Now Java Man has smeared billions of people. Pot, kettle, black.

It is only "Western" society that generally confuses self-promotion and conscious salving with charity.

Perhaps you'd be happier in "Eastern" society?

In practical terms, I was never given a chance to find out.

Also note that committing a charitable act is a good thing when considered by itself, it is only one factor in determining the overall good. If a person makes billions of dollars exploiting persons in another country, but donate hundreds of thousands to charity in his/her own country, the latter act is still charitable, but does not balance out the crime of the former.
So what? Are you saying that the majority of wealthy Americans exploit people in other countries?
Indeed they do, since the international financial and trade structures run by the World Bank, IMF and WTO work to exploit persons in developing nations. And these organizations are run by the same corporate interests that provide the basis of the wealth of the rich USians.

And what would the "basis of the wealth" of rich Americans be, according to you?

Please read more carefully. The answer is in what I wrote.

And the organization that serve the truly needy should not exist, since their very existence indicates that the society has failed in its moral duty to guarantee provision for those people.
Tell the people who put their time and effort into operating these worthwhile societies that their efforts "should not exist" and maybe they'll quit. ;-)
Do not play stupid. Organized society has a DUTY (as the Western European countries have partially realized) to care for the indigent. But no, some would rather deny their responsibilities so as to make others dependent on their "charity", which is not charity at all, but just another means to power.
So your bottom line is that wealthy people who serve on charitable boards and make charitable donations are just making the indigent dependent as a means of weeding power? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You win the "glass half empty" award of the week!
Did not the feudal lord hold the power of life and death over the serfs?
Feudal lords and serfs? I think you've spent too much time playing Dungeons and Dragons.
I think 1983 was the last year I participated in D&D games on a regular basis.

The point is that while the names may change, the behavior does not. The lust for power over others does not disappear just because a country makes a public proclamation that it is a classless democracy.

The modern quest for power among the permanent upper class is nothing more than neo-feudalism. The lust for power among some knows no bounds.
Is that in the script for D&D?
No, that is behavior of certain hominids over at least the last 7000 years or so.

They must work very hard to fend off codes, rules, laws, ordinances, and statutes that would reduce their wealthy lifestyle to poverty. If they sit on their hands all hell would break loose.
Right. What's wrong with these people? They act as though they believe they have a right to keep what they've earned!

Earned? How are they so much more productive on a personal level to contribute that much more to the benefit of society?

Good question. They provide ideas, vision and leadership, and they take significant risks with their time and often their money, to start and/or grow businesses that provide useful products and services for society, as well as jobs for many employees. Take them out of the equation and we'd be worse off.

Yes, it takes a lot of vision and leadership to use inherited money to make more money by hiring others to do the work.
Are you saying you believe that most wealthy people inherited their money??? One wonders where you get your information.

Look at any list of who the richest people are, and how the came by their money.
Provide the list.
Take a look at this list: <http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/richlist07_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html>.


Notice how many are listed as inheritance.
In the first 4 pages, less than 4% are listed as inheritance. What's your point?

Yes, but many more of those are inheritance based, if one looks further.
How many more? What percentage of the total? Let's see what small percentage it takes before you're prepared to stereotype an entire group of people.
Where is your list of self-made people? The barriers to entry to the upper classes are immense (and intentionally so). To think that most of the rich are self-made solely on their merits of intelligence and commitment to work is ridiculous.

Don't try to dodge the question. You used the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, and crowed "Notice how many are listed as inheritance."

When I pointed out that less than 4% on the first 4 pages were listed as inheritance, you countered with "Yes, but many more of those are inheritance based, if one looks further."

I asked you what percentage of the list got their money from inheritance. YOU DECLINED TO ANSWER, YET YOU REMAIN WILLING TO STEREOTYPE ALL WEALTHY PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THEM WARRANT YOUR CRITICISM.

Well, they sure as hell are NOT making the money working overtime at an hourly job, solving a major problem of society, or anything else through their own labor, but instead are taking a large share of the profits of the labor of many.

Then look at how many married into money, are members of families that run businesses established several generations ago, came from a background that would allow entrance into the proper prep schools and private colleges to make connections with the "right" people, etc.
Make a list of 400 Americans chosen at random, with the only stipulation being that they have the same age distribution as the Forbes list. Many of them will also have been given or inherited money from parents, and many of those who went to college will have been supported by their parents.

But how many of those will derive almost all their income from inherited wealth? Very few, no?
How many? It's your list. You're making the claims. Is it the majority of the list? What is the percentage? Are you stereotyping all the rest because of the actions of the minority? Give is a glimpse into the logic behind your labels.
Why are you arguing for notions so ridiculous that they are hardly worth considering?

You still haven't answered the question.

Why should I answer silly questions?

Outside of professional athletics, one does not gain entry into the positions that would allow one to become wealthy without the right social connections. Those who become rich on the basis of innovation that provides an added value to society are a tiny minority.

I see you've also defined this so you can squirm out of it by using your own definitions. "An added value to society"? Who decides? If people buy a service or product, do you accept their judgement that it "adds value" to for them? Or are you the only judge of what "adds value"?

If Java Man can not understand the concept of adding value, he should re-educate himself before continuing the discussion.

How about you? Did you, or do you expect to, inherit anything from your parents?
Neither of my parents has any real estate holdings, significant cash reserves, financial instruments, etc.
So, they don't own a home that you may inherit?

Both my parents live with other people who have the ownership of the property. In fact, when I had to drop out of college for medical reasons, I did not have any place to go, so I worked two jobs (about 70 hours a week on average) just to pay for medical bills, rent and food.

Right now I would get an almost 20 year old automobile (cash value ~$500) a few bicycles, some tools, etc. All together, it might pay most of the cremation expenses.
How noble of you!
Not noble, just a fact.

At least I can say that I have earned everything I have. Can you say the same?

I certainly can.

Then why are you arguing against your class interests?

So you never got a single thing through family connections?

As a famous example, Donald Trump is listed as making his money through real estate. What is not listed is that his father was a multi-millionaire real estate developer, which certainly gave Mr. Trump advantages that someone growing up in a trailer park would not have.

Furthermore, some of these people are far less than ethical.
Again, on a list of 400 Americans chosen at random, with the only stipulation being that they have the same age distribution as the Forbes list, you'll also find may who are "far less than ethical".

So what does this unethical strawman have to do with the discussion at hand?
Everything. You've singled out an entire group of people for being "far less than ethical", but you have no evidence that they're any different from another group which you fail to criticize only because they aren't wealthy. Ergo, you're stereotyping.
Nonsense. If they are taking more than what they contribute to the added value of an enterprise, they are being unethical. Simple logic, really.

Oh, that sticky question rears its head again! How do you propose to define people's contribution to the value of an enterprise? You still haven't provided an answer that makes sense.

I am sorry if Java Man can not figure out what each person in an enterprise contributes.

One member of the list (who I will not name due to ongoing litigation) is a complete *** who uses LLCs to screw over contractors working on his developments. Easy to make money when you only pay 70-80% of the agree upon contract amounts.
Again, any list of 400 Americans chosen at random is likely to include some who are engaged in litigation or being prosecuted.

So what? The strawman is complaining about being dragged out of bed.
It's not a strawman at all. It shows how you're treating wealthy people differently from others.
Are you being obtuse?

No, just persistent. You continue to apply a negative stereotype to an entire group of people, smearing all those to whom it doesn't apply. And you're apparently willing to continue to smear them.

Java Man makes up his own (non)facts, and then asks questions based on the false premises. How is that a way to continue a discussion?


The ownership of unearned wealth IS a moral issue, particularly when it is an the expense of the suffering of others.

What is "unearned wealth"?

Wealth that does not come from one's own labor. Duh.

The ethics and honesty of the wealthy aren't much different, on average than other Americans in the same age distribution.

Ignoring the ethics of taking more than one's fair share of the fruits of labor.
If you'd finally come through with your suggestion on how to value people's contributions, we might have something to talk about. Will you finally do so?
Being obtuse again? The fair share is what one's labor contributes to added value. DUH!

Please be specific. How do you value labour? Is the janitor's hour of labour equivalent in value to the CEO's? How about the secretary vs. the engineer? How about the receptionist vs. the salesman? How do you value their contributions?

For someone who claims to have business experience, Java Man certainly asks a lot of simple questions.

Since many companies are well run by persons making a upper middle class income, why could these same people not run larger companies at the same salary? Does it really require compensation in the ten of millions per year to retain a competent manager? Why do even the incompetent CEO's of large companies still receive compensation in the tens of millions, when better managers could be had for less than 5% of the salary? Are not overpaid top managers then taking more than what they contribute?

You also seem to be under the impression that leaders just "hire others to do the work", and there's nothing much to it. Why do you think most businesses fail? Hint: running a successful business ain't easy. And growing one into a multi-billion dollar business is frightfully difficult and beyond the capabilities of all but a very few.
Or just collusion and monopolistic practices.
Generalizations. Be specific. Why not post a list of successful companies with high growth rates, and note which ones got their through collusion and monopolistic practices?
Start out with Standard Oil, and John D. using extortion to force smaller companies to sell out on his terms.
And you extrapolate that to all companies? Another fine example of stereotyping.
In the free market, the company that treats its workers the worst will have a competitive advantage. The extrapolation from there is obvious.
First, we don't have a free market. It's a regulated market.
It is a market with rules to benefit certain parties at the expense of others.

And I suppose OSHA regulations, environmental regulations, and consumer safety regulations exist to benefit corporations, right? ;-)

If the right wing has its way, all those would be eliminated. Furthermore, those are only secondary regulations that have no real effect on the way the economy is structured. I would have thought a business person would realize that.

Look at the regulations (and lack thereof) concerning the use of capital.

And second, I don't accept your naive belief that treating workers worse confers a competitive advantage. There are some industries in which that is true, but there are far more industries where it isn't.
Really? Which industries are those?

Take an economics course or two and perhaps you'll gain some insight into this.

When there is a surplus of labor (as the international bankers make sure there is), workers have to accept bad treatment, since they need the wages for survival (why the right hates social safety nets). This allows employers to drive down wages and still keep employees. When services and products are chosen solely on cost, the company with the lowest paid workers will win. This is even happening in occupations that used to be considered professional.

As for the rest, why should I do your work for you?
It's not my work. You're the one making the claims about the evils of corporations and the wealthy. And how do you back it up? You name two companies and use them to smear all the rest.

Someone is ignoring the fundamental point of taking more than one's share of the wealth created by labor.
Who would that be? I'd love to discuss it with you, but you still refuse to tell us how you would value people's contribution.
See above.

Show me an example of someone who has contributed so much to a companies success without using the skilled labor of subordinates, the public infrastructure, etc.
Show me a successful company that came into being without the vision, leadership and personal risk of a smart and determined founder.
Plenty of corporations have been created as spin offs of other corporations, by mergers, etc - all games played by holders of capital.
You make it sound so easy! Why aren't you rich? ;-)

Because I did not start out with inherited capital - DUH!

Sure, blame it on your parents! ;-)

Neither did Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Ralph Lauren, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Ellison, Paul Allen, Kirk Kerkorian, David Geffen, Jack Taylor, or David Murdock. But they're all billionaires.

Did they start out as white trash sharecroppers, with all the social disadvantages that implies? Have they alway ONLY taken what they contributed to an enterprise in the form of labor?

Why are they so outnumbered by old money billionaires?

Believe me, it's harder than it looks. You obviously have no idea how difficult it is to create a successful business.
Pretty easy to inherit a successful business, eh?

It's just as easy to run an inherited business into the ground. The business landscape is littered with failure stories in which "son inherits thriving business and tanks it".

HAH! Proof that the rich are not genetically superior.

The really rich put the money in trust funds and hire expensive lawyers to make sure their spoiled offspring can not deplete the family fortune.

Could a successful company be built in a state of anarchy in a country with no infrastructure? Is that why we see so many successful corporations develop in states like Afghanistan and Somalia - they should be great places since there is no effective government regulation?
Straw man.

Says the expert in strawmen?

No, it is not an irrelevant point.
I said it was a strawman, not an irrelevant point. Learn the difference.

Who made you God so your word became fact?

If you disagree with the accepted definition of "strawman", feel free to create a new word for your new idea.

It is not at all a straw man to point out that a functional society is necessary for a business to do well.

I would never argue to the contrary. Companies benefit greatly from the infrastructure of a well developed economy.

But the companies wish to transfer the burden to paying for the infrastructure to labor.

No successful large scale businesses have ever been created without the conditions of a stable society providing supporting infrastructure, contrary to the false myth of the USian right that claims financial success is solely due to the acts of the individual.
Whose myth? Yours? Please don't make such things up.

Listen to the damn radio or television some time.

Ah, that explains your misunderstandings! ;-)

My misunderstanding of what propaganda the right wing promotes as policy to the public? Don't be silly.

The claim is made by the pundits on the payroll of the rich that the rich are more deserving of wealth than other people. Some so called Christian ministers have also pandered to the rich by promoting a similar idea - God rewards the morally worthy with wealth (and forget what that Jesus guy actually said on the matter).

The right wing commentators invariably promote the idea that the rich should pay less in taxes because paying more is punishing them for their "achievements"; which ignores the contributions of labor and society.

So what? The left wing commentators promote the idea that earned wealth should be expropriated by the state. But neither side is completely "right" or "wrong". Ideology will not help to create and manage an economy to maximize quality of life for citizens of the country.

When one ideology dominates the mainstream media, it works to create an economy that supports the backers of that ideology.

Many of the so called Christian denominations promote the idea that the rich have been rewarded by God for their moral superiority.

And your point is . . . ?

The point is obvious.

And I'd advise you to stop making such absolute statements. There are successful large scale businesses in many countries with little or no infrastructure.
Afghanistan? Somalia?

Foreign corporations extracting natural resources does not count.

Hey, the development of infrastructure has to start somewhere! What industrial policy would you adopt if you were the president of an underdeveloped country?

It would NOT be to let the foreign companies extract the wealth of natural resources, dump subsidized products and impose austerity measures in return for minimal compensation that mostly goes to a tiny upper class. The neo-liberal policies have been a failure to improve people's lives in developing countries, which is why the world is turning against them (e.g. election results in South and Central America during the last decade).

The US did NOT support free trade until it had fully developed as an industrial country.

Yet, the propaganda of the rich decries government and regulation as a great evil that holds corporations down.
Oh, really? Back it up. What propaganda? Don't just make the claim -- support it.

Open your eyes! Where have you been the last 40 years - in a hole in the ground?
Working in businesses, learning how difficult it is to create successful businesses, and how much vision, energy, leadership, guts and risk it takes.

How many of those people who work hard actually become rich? The small percentage should indicate how the playing field is tilted.

No, the small percentage indicates HOW DIFFICULT IT IS to become rich. It takes hard work, persistence, drive, energy, imagination, ideas, self-discipline and a healthy dose of luck.

And the willingness to take more than one contributes to the enterprise.

Where have you been?

Working hard to make holders of capital rich.

Google "Grover Norquist", "Club for Growth", "American Enterprise Institute", "Heritage Foundation", "Cato Institute" and the website of almost every Republican politician.

S H E E S H ! ! !

Again, show me one successful company that developed without the aid of government services paid for by taxes.
Straw man. Nobody is claiming that corporations don't benefit from the infrastructure of a well-developed economic nation.
They certainly do when they try to justify lower taxes for the wealthiest members of society. Stop hiding under a rock.
You have not yet established that tax rates are fair, nor have you defined how you propose to value the contribution of leaders, entrepreneurs, inventors, creators, investors, and labourers. You simply recite your mantra.
Of course progressive taxes are fair, since the rich benefit far more financially from the organization of society than the poor do.

And of course, Java Man has failed to establish the opposite.

I'll start providing explanations when you do. You can start with something more than your "fair share is what one's labor contributes to added value".

I am not going to provide Java Man the education in added value. He should be capable of doing his own research.

You may want to do a little research on this question before you get to far into it. Defining the "value" contributed by labour, capital, IP, etc. is no easy feat. Why do you think the vast majority of developed countries use a market to assign value? Are you aware of any countries which use non-market systems to value these contributions, and that also benefit from high quality of life for its citizens? If you do, please list them.

Is Java Man not aware that markets can be distorted? For example, wages for most are set by the market, while wages of top executives are set by committees of other top executives who are well familiar with the principle of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours".

Show me one person whose vision and leadership is worth a billion dollars in compensation.
First, I don't know of any corporate leader makes a billion dollars in compensation. Maybe you do?

I know of people who started businesses, maintained control of most of the shares, and ended up with billions in share value. But that happened because they grew their companies into multi-billion dollar corporations. The odds against that are so long that they're rare anomalies requiring a measure of luck, a truckload of hard work, and a lot of talent. But let me guess -- you object to that, too, right?
You forgot ruthlessness and exploitation.
You forgot everything positive.
[Yawn]. Are you rich and apologizing for yourself, or have you just let yourself be indoctrinated by the propaganda?
Any bets on how long it will be before you accuse me of being a Nazi?
Godwin's Rule anyone?
What you did above also has a right wing equivalent. If I stooped to your tactics, I'd ask if you are simply bitter because you were poor, stupid and lazy. I don't see you that way, though. I see as an honest guy with an altruistic streak, but who has been sucked in by propaganda about the evils of corporations and the wealthy.
Dude, I have worked in enough shitty jobs in the past to see how people are exploited.

Right. Capitalism is a system under which man exploits man. Communism is just the opposite.

Name one true communist society. The former USSR and its sphere of influence, China, Vietnam, Cuba, et al do NOT count, since they were all based on the Leninist model of a party ruling elite replacing the former aristocratic or corporatist elite. There were likely some prehistoric societies that approached true communism, but by definition these are not documented.

I have opened my eyes and stopped believing all the propaganda fed to me in the public schools, by the politicians and the mainstream media commentators.

The examples of those who have more than enough harming others so they can have even more are so numerous that any other conclusion would be foolish.

Exploitation occurs everywhere, in every country, under every system. If you think there's a system somewhere in which people AREN'T exploited, please cite it.

Some are much less exploitative than others.

Show me a system where the rich do not try to further increase their power and control.

There are notable exceptions, to be sure. The increasing numbers of examples of CEOs (rather than founders) being compensated thousands of times more than their employees, and receiving huge bonuses even when their companies are losing money, is scandalous. But it's stereotyping when you condemn someone for membership in a "class" rather than for their actions as individuals.

Again, who has contributed a thousand or a million times more to society than the average person? And would their contributions cease to exist for a lesser monetary reward? No one in history has made extreme wealth through invention or discovery - everyone of them has done it by gaming the system to overvalue capital and undervalue labor.
How do you propose to measure the value of what someone has contributed to society? Your argument is meaningless without a cogent explanation of that.
I am sorry if you can not grasp this simple concept.
Feeble excuse for your inability to support your own argument. If you say the current system of valuing people's contribution is wrong, surely you must have a specific alternative? Why is it my responsibility to support your argument?

Contributions to society can be made in the form of adding value to natural resources or by providing necessary goods and services. Name persons who have done the former on a significant scale SOLELY through the fruits of their own labor, and NOT the labor of others. Yet, the rewards most societies provide for producing these goods and services go dis-proportionally to a small ownership class, and not to those (labor) who make the provision of these goods and services a reality.

Name one person who has become rich without using the labor of others.
There's nothing wrong with becoming rich using the labour of others when the others are paid appropriately for their contributions. And note that I've never said or implied that NO ONE ever got rich without exploiting others.

But how often are the others paid appropriately for their labor? Not often, since the playing field is uneven. Labor starves in a short amount of time without work, while the holders of capital can do nothing the rest of their lives and live off the interest of relatively safe investments such as government bonds.
You still haven't defined how to value the contributions of the various players in the economy.
See above.

Now you have no need to wonder why the rich oppose having a social safety net.

Now, how about answering the question you've been ducking since the beginning? What alternative are you offering to the current system of valuing people's contribution?

Each paid for their labor contribution to the whole.

And what does THAT mean?

Do you have problems with the concept of added value? I thought that a businessperson such as you claim to be above would have a very good idea how much the labor of each employee contributes to the success of the whole.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAA!

You've got a lot of homework to do before you even begin to understand the problems of assigning value to the contribution of labour, capital, innovation, infrastructure, etc. to the value of a product, service or corporation.

If you ever studied algebra, you may remember the problem of having more unknowns than equations? In such cases, there is no single "right answer", but many possible solutions. Such is the case with assigning value to the various factors of production.

But if you think you've got THE answer, press on -- a Nobel Prize in economics awaits you.

See above on the issue of compensation of top executives, which is NOT determined by market forces.

In the end, the fact remains that implementing the policies promoted by the right over the last three decades in the US has greatly increase the wealth of a few at the expense of labor being less compensated then 3 decades ago, despite much higher productivity.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
.