When plunder is confused with profit - all of society looses

I watched a video that was posted in another thread about the 5 myths of inequality and one of the main points was that those who make profit (the result of providing a valued product/service to society) are valued by society and that society "owes" them and those who engage in plunder (basically taking ill-gotten gains like milking gov subsidies, tax evasion, theft, etc) remove or steal goods from society and these people are a detriment to society. Their example was of Steve Jobs producing Apple products and making lots of $$ was an example of profit and that society owed him for this. This video tried to make it sound like it was a black and white issue as to who was good and bad and that anyone making a profit was good for society.

Well this is an extremely naive view of how the system works and doesn't take into account the mode or method by which companies make their profit. For example before Apple and most other tech companies moved their production off shore, there were hundreds of thousands of people in the US working in this field in good paying jobs making these high end products, and that was actually something the companies took pride in! Then the jobs moved to Asia and they found that instead of making a 40% profit margin (or whatever it was) they could make a 60-70% profit margin.

So lets say an Ipod made in the US produced a profit of $40, one made in Asia would make $70. Now that may be good for the CEO and share holders (which is an EXTREMELY SMALL number of people who actually benefit), the cost is that a HUGE number of US workers now lost their jobs, where there were 20,000 well paid Apple workers in production facilities, now they are all unemployed. The company now has higher profits which they use tax loop holes, off-shoring, etc to keep from paying taxes (had they been made in the US, they would pay more taxes AND STILL be profitable) - and they horde the $ off-shore where it is doing no one any good except Jobs & Apple being able to claim wealth.

This is plunder from US workers who help build this company. The amount of lost wages from the 20,000 workers is plunder from the US economy where these people would have spent the money, raising the level of living for places they spent their money. Many of these workers had to go on government programs to survive which means the government (US population through taxation) is paying for Apples increased profit by off shoring their product. The US economy is hit 3x when a company does what Apple did - loosing jobs, workers on unemployment and benefits, tax loopholes & off shoring profits.

Whenever you see people talking about how great these companies are they are for doing what they do and how noble they are and that their profit is unquestionable are nothing more than shills for large capitalists.

This plunder also goes for companies like Walmart, McDonalds, Airlines, large farmers and many others who can only function (at least with their current profit margins) by paying workers poverty level wages which are then subsidized through government aid /welfare. If a Walmart working is making $8.25/hr and gets $1600/month in gov aid (housing, food/SNAP/EBT/, Healthcare, utilities, etc) that is $19,200 per year that employee receives from the government to survive (and makes $16,500/ yr in wages if 40 hrs/wk 50 wks / year) - that means that this company is subsidized $19K per year for each employee.

Now you may say that these companies wouldn't survive without these profits. Well a company can survive fine with a zero profit as long as all wages/salaries, costs, expenses, etc are covered - profits are icing on the cake if you will. It has become an addiction in some companies and they refuse to accept lower profits than the year before so they will do anything (including harm workers, US citizens, etc) to keep these profit levels.

Plunder also comes in the form in most all government subsidies anywhere from farmers making ethanol or growing soy, though it is a bit different when the subsidy is in place due to foreign competition where production is subsidized by a foreign government and THAT is where tariffs should be imposed on the foreign country and not make use of subsidies. That is just a way to steal from the tax payer and make the foreign company/country richer.

The law concerning corporations is that they exist to make a profit for the investors which can be done regardless of the country they operate in. Since they have no national loyalty I believe they shouldn't have any say within our National government. Giving people jobs is a good for a all of society, I believe that too.

Like you, I think undeserved profits are a cancer and burden on society. It's the corporate structure itself with zero personal accountability that is the heart of the issue. They have done so much damage not just to society but how our government operates and what laws are created through their influence.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The law concerning corporations is that they exist to make a profit for the investors which can be done regardless of the country they operate in. Since they have no national loyalty I believe they shouldn't have any say within our National government. Giving people jobs is a good for a all of society, I believe that too.

Like you, I think undeserved profits are a cancer and burden on society. It's the corporate structure itself with zero personal accountability that is the heart of the issue. They have done so much damage not just to society but how our government operates and what laws are created through their influence.

That is an excellent point, all of them, the influence of corps on politics/laws especially. Another issue with corps is they don't have responsibility for the environment it seems, unless they want to stay in business then they do their best to look like they care. Who do you hold accountable for damage to thousands of acres or an aquifer once all the profit has been sucked out the corporation, assets sold off and people walk away with huge profits - who is left with the cleanup? The corporation? Nope, they just vanish into thin air with a stroke of a pen.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The environmental damage question is a big reason I was glad Trump dropped the TPP, as it would have alleviated corporations from any responsibility for it. China is a toxic waste dump and it will rue the day it allowed profit to come before health. Glad we averted that incoming missile.

Great thread. In recent months I've heard the supposed conservatives claim trump is interfering with free-market capitalism by renegotiating and tarrifing products. I don't understand their concepts of free market capitalism when the majority of countries we deal with have policies, laws, and practices that undermine what they refer to as free market.

take for example even a country that has a lower minimum wage per capita than us would be in fact incompatible with our minimum wages thus making it not a capitalism of equal footing.

Unless all laws are made the same per capita between two trade partners then in itself it would ruin the concept of a free and fair market.

Not to mention what these giant corps do to any competition. The environment is now such that anyone wanting to enter the market already needs to have corporate financial backing or they'll be priced out and squashed like bugs.

Once upon a time anyone with vision and a good product had a chance, nowadays (barring some giant fluke of nature) they just have to be content being a wage slave like everyone else.

Well this is an extremely naive view of how the system works and doesn't take into account the mode or method by which companies make their profit

Yes they make a lot of money in undeserving ways such as bogus charges, polluting, making people work through breaks, and of course paying the people who just sit in meetings far more than the people actually working. I know, I work in a fortune 100 company.

Now the problem is the Corporations can bribe the politicians pretty much openly with very little qualm by the people over them because they are often also bribed.

We have to get away from the 3rd world technique of bribery. The best way I know how is to make it very short term limits.

Here is a plan:


I would propose a system where we elect state reps that live near us and do things like go to their kid's ball game with us and buy groceries where we do.

Give them 4 years. At the end of 4 years they will vote a member from within the elected State Legislature they work for the new State Senators. The State Senator gets 4 years and he is done. From either group they could run for US Congress.

Don't let it get too far away from the local citizens picking their representative. We can't vet them as well as we can in small groups. These people become power hungry from being near it like the ring does to you in the "Lord of the Rings".

US Congressmen would only from State Representative/State Senators vetted earlier, four years, and at the end of that period they would vote a US Senator who gets 4 years.

Let anybody who is a citizen and appropriately files to do so, run for Governor or POTUS two terms as now.

That would save money on elections for the State Senatorial level up to US Senator. We get new people at the bottom, have less money being spent on campaigns, and no long term way for the DNC/ RNC uniparty to control the narrative. Because we start with our neighbors we trust and they pick from there. They don't need to gain power to be effective but they need to be honestly chosen from the neighborhoods.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Is it plunder? I think you just outlined that US workers are less competitive than overseas workers. If you want to live in a country that has a strong currency, you need to deliver proportional value. That means that to be competitive, one American needs to be worth 30 Chinese.

a reply to: Saiker

Isolationism is for people who preach competition, but get upset when they're not competitive enough to win the game. Basically, it's for losers.

originally posted by: Osirisvset
Not to mention what these giant corps do to any competition. The environment is now such that anyone wanting to enter the market already needs to have corporate financial backing or they'll be priced out and squashed like bugs.

Once upon a time anyone with vision and a good product had a chance, nowadays (barring some giant fluke of nature) they just have to be content being a wage slave like everyone else.

BS. New companies form up every day.

Look at Bird Rides. The company has only been around since last September, is already turning a profit, and has a stock valuation of $2 billion dollars. That's a good product, with a good revenue model, and good marketing.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Is it plunder? I think you just outlined that US workers are less competitive than overseas workers. If you want to live in a country that has a strong currency, you need to deliver proportional value. That means that to be competitive, one American needs to be worth 30 Chinese.

What is it exactly that makes US workers less competitive than overseas workers? The exchange rates of currency? If say American company’s paid American workers the equivalent of Chinese workers then American workers wouldn’t be able to afford to live in America.

How do you propose one American worker can deliver the equivalent output of 3 let alone 30 Chinese workers? Or are you suggesting that Americans should seek work in China?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
How do you propose one American worker can deliver the equivalent output of 3 let alone 30 Chinese workers? Or are you suggesting that Americans should seek work in China?

Be more productive. Better educations will allow you to better solve problems.

a reply to: Aazadan

A better education does not have any effect whatsoever on exchange rates, and China keeps their currency artificially low so they can remain the factory to the world.

I don’t think you’ve really thought this through?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Aazadan

A better education does not have any effect whatsoever on exchange rates, and China keeps their currency artificially low so they can remain the factory to the world.

I don’t think you’ve really thought this through?

But, it does determine how talented you need to be as a worker. If you live in a country with 10 times the cost of living, you need to be 10 times as productive to break even.

a reply to: Aazadan

Skills and actual experience are more valued by employers than education. Unless you have neither then they will consider your education.

If you live in a country or area with 10x the cost of living as another, your pay should reflect that as it’s all relative.

Until AI and robots take over most jobs that is, then they will either have to give those displaced from work a UI or face a revolution.

The first thing that needs to be done before you can create a system that rewards people that deserve to be rewarded, and eliminates detrimental activity, is that you need a government that actually gives a sh*t.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Aazadan

Skills and actual experience are more valued by employers than education. Unless you have neither then they will consider your education.

If you live in a country or area with 10x the cost of living as another, your pay should reflect that as it’s all relative.

Until AI and robots take over most jobs that is, then they will either have to give those displaced from work a UI or face a revolution.

Experience matters, yes. But any time you're breaking new ground and innovating there is no such thing as experience, therefore you need to fall back on education. Education is the foundation of everything.

As far as cost of living goes. Cost of living is local, markets are global. You don't sell products only to others living in an area with a similar cost of living. Anything worth producing can also be exported. As a result, wages matter a lot. In my field for example, I produce software. Someone in India can produce that same software and sell it for the exact same amount as me to the exact same clients. Except, they can fund a nice lifestyle for 1/20 the income that I can. As a result, I have to be 20 times as productive. This doesn't bother me, with enough education one person can out perform an entire team but a lot of people seem to have trouble coming to grips with that fact in other fields.

If you want to live in a country that's supposed to be the home for the best and brightest people in the human race, then you need to prove you're on par with the best in your field. Otherwise you'll be left behind.

a reply to: Aazadan

So you can out perform an entire team in your line of work you say, well that’s good for you but I don’t see how that has any bearing on other lines of work skilled or otherwise. There are people in 3rd world countries just as educated and capable as anyone else in 1st world countries.

You hit the problem on the head when you say someone producing the exact same product as you for exactly the same price yet they can afford a nice lifestyle for 1/20th the income you can. Now what usually happens is they produce the exact same product as you but sell it at half the price and still afford a decent lifestyle at 1/10 th of the income you would need. In other words you can’t compete if that happens.

That’s what the issue is with globalisation. Now there are companies out there that produce high quality products in 1st world countries and do well, such as Stille but this is because there is a demand for the high quality long lasting product and that’s a good thing. But these same companies are also able to sell there products cheaper to third world countries than they do to first world countries in most cases.

The globalists though, only care about profit margins and its all driven by pure greed.
If countries were on a level playing field with regards to the value of their respective currency’s then we would get fair trade. It would hurt 1st world countries initially but then things would balance out.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
You hit the problem on the head when you say someone producing the exact same product as you for exactly the same price yet they can afford a nice lifestyle for 1/20th the income you can. Now what usually happens is they produce the exact same product as you but sell it at half the price and still afford a decent lifestyle at 1/10 th of the income you would need. In other words you can’t compete if that happens.

Competition exists to create losers. If you don't want to be the loser, innovate and do things better. That's the price of living in a developed country.

Fair trade does not mean equality. It means a handful of companies produce the most competitive products and take most of the market share.