The ongoing X and Elon Musk Transgressions Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

Still interesting in that if we have a surplus as you state, then don’t agree to work for the wage offered.

The billionaire absolutely does pay. Where do you think that money comes from that you received to live? He actually pays for everything you do. Did you earn it? Yes. Do you get the right to steward it and direct what it goes to each month? Yes. But that money came from his increase that you both agreed to that increased the companies abilities to perform a service(s) that people are willing to buy. Do you not recall ever asking for you it employer to talk to your bank to let them know that yes you do make enough each month working for them to prove you can pay that mortgage? Or even rent?

I don’t think many of you realize the pressure that comes on an employer when they realize they have to ensure the company increases or earns enough each month to pay *you* as you rely on them to give you a wage to cover your own debts you incurred.

Look at it this way. You can quit your job, and the money you earn from said billionaire or employer quits coming in. Now you scramble to find a way to replace that monthly income so you can pay your house. Who inadvertently was paying it for you?

The point is not all billionaires are bad, nor are all good. To think however that the state has anyones best interest in mind is ludicrous and to fund the beast even more when they have shown zero capability to steward what they already bring in none of us would agree is a wise decision.

That’s the main point. Scream people make too much all you want. The solution offered is ludicrous. It’s like Ontarios last premier coming to alberta to scold us for how we manage our provincial funds when she receives Billions from our province and is in even more debt than alberta. Living off of welfare shows the lack of stewardship Ontario has as a province. And you want billionaires to give more money to the state? Look after your own affairs first before asking for more handouts. Sadly, every generation by and large shows they are terrible stewards. The state absolutely should not get the idea of excess wealth 100% of whatever is made over $1B.

Dude just went ahead and deepthroated the entire boot.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

Still interesting in that if we have a surplus as you state, then don’t agree to work for the wage offered.

The billionaire absolutely does pay. Where do you think that money comes from that you received to live? He actually pays for everything you do. Did you earn it? Yes. Do you get the right to steward it and direct what it goes to each month? Yes. But that money came from his increase that you both agreed to that increased the companies abilities to perform a service(s) that people are willing to buy. Do you not recall ever asking for you it employer to talk to your bank to let them know that yes you do make enough each month working for them to prove you can pay that mortgage? Or even rent?

I don’t think many of you realize the pressure that comes on an employer when they realize they have to ensure the company increases or earns enough each month to pay *you* as you rely on them to give you a wage to cover your own debts you incurred.

Look at it this way. You can quit your job, and the money you earn from said billionaire or employer quits coming in. Now you scramble to find a way to replace that monthly income so you can pay your house. Who inadvertently was paying it for you?

The point is not all billionaires are bad, nor are all good. To think however that the state has anyones best interest in mind is ludicrous and to fund the beast even more when they have shown zero capability to steward what they already bring in none of us would agree is a wise decision.

That’s the main point. Scream people make too much all you want. The solution offered is ludicrous. It’s like Ontarios last premier coming to alberta to scold us for how we manage our provincial funds when she receives Billions from our province and is in even more debt than alberta. Living off of welfare shows the lack of stewardship Ontario has as a province. And you want billionaires to give more money to the state? Look after your own affairs first before asking for more handouts. Sadly, every generation by and large shows they are terrible stewards. The state absolutely should not get the idea of excess wealth 100% of whatever is made over $1B.

Not at all interested in a discussion on this insanity, I just wanted to point out that this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever come across on CP, and I once read an entire thread about a dude standing in his sink.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

lol on the billionaire paying for your mortgage. What is the absolute no-brainer, first thing a billionaire will do when a company is losing money or making less than they bargained for?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

lol on the billionaire paying for your mortgage. What is the absolute no-brainer, first thing a billionaire will do when a company is losing money or making less than they bargained for?

My billionaire said I had to remove sports from my cable package.

[Matata]

You guys are lucky, my billionaire wants me to eat crickets, own nothing and vote for big govt.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

Still interesting in that if we have a surplus as you state, then don’t agree to work for the wage offered.

The billionaire absolutely does pay. Where do you think that money comes from that you received to live? He actually pays for everything you do. Did you earn it? Yes. Do you get the right to steward it and direct what it goes to each month? Yes. But that money came from his increase that you both agreed to that increased the companies abilities to perform a service(s) that people are willing to buy. Do you not recall ever asking for you it employer to talk to your bank to let them know that yes you do make enough each month working for them to prove you can pay that mortgage? Or even rent?

I don’t think many of you realize the pressure that comes on an employer when they realize they have to ensure the company increases or earns enough each month to pay *you* as you rely on them to give you a wage to cover your own debts you incurred.

Look at it this way. You can quit your job, and the money you earn from said billionaire or employer quits coming in. Now you scramble to find a way to replace that monthly income so you can pay your house. Who inadvertently was paying it for you?

The point is not all billionaires are bad, nor are all good. To think however that the state has anyones best interest in mind is ludicrous and to fund the beast even more when they have shown zero capability to steward what they already bring in none of us would agree is a wise decision.

That’s the main point. Scream people make too much all you want. The solution offered is ludicrous. It’s like Ontarios last premier coming to alberta to scold us for how we manage our provincial funds when she receives Billions from our province and is in even more debt than alberta. Living off of welfare shows the lack of stewardship Ontario has as a province. And you want billionaires to give more money to the state? Look after your own affairs first before asking for more handouts. Sadly, every generation by and large shows they are terrible stewards. The state absolutely should not get the idea of excess wealth 100% of whatever is made over $1B.

The money for me to lives comes from my exchange to labour for money. The money to exchange comes from a consumer buying the product my labour produces.

If I quit the Billionaires profit from my labour needs to be replaced.

I can exist without the billionaire the billionaire can’t exist without the bottom of the pyramid. The billionaire is the accidental creation of unrestrained capitalism where individual motivation allocates capital and labour.

Capitalisms without regulation end result is 1 billionaire and one company as the optimal strategy is to own all means of production continue to merge and prevent competition from arising. The Billionaire is not required to motivate people to pursue efficiency and excellence.

If your issue is the state how about just a redistribution dividend that is paid to everyone?

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not at all interested in a discussion on this insanity, I just wanted to point out that this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever come across on CP, and I once read an entire thread about a dude standing in his sink.

I'm going to need a link for that!

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I'm going to need a link for that!

Just look for any thread started by “polak”.

[STAMPEDRED]

Originally Posted by GGG

The money for me to lives comes from my exchange to labour for money. The money to exchange comes from a consumer buying the product my labour produces.

If I quit the Billionaires profit from my labour needs to be replaced.

I can exist without the billionaire the billionaire can’t exist without the bottom of the pyramid. The billionaire is the accidental creation of unrestrained capitalism where individual motivation allocates capital and labour.

Capitalisms without regulation end result is 1 billionaire and one company as the optimal strategy is to own all means of production continue to merge and prevent competition from arising. The Billionaire is not required to motivate people to pursue efficiency and excellence.

If your issue is the state how about just a redistribution dividend that is paid to everyone?

Because it’s called socialism, and it’s never worked. The money has to come from somewhere. Capitalism has its flaws: flawed people.

Look at it this way:

One guy heads up an organization to help feed the poor the world over. He sees the richest billionaire and says dude you have way too much excess. Take $2B (or was it $6B??) and give it to us so we can actually end world hunger.

Billionaire says yes. One condition. Have the way you will distribute the funds done through open source accounting.

Guy says hold your horses, let’s discuss this in private.

I thought world hunger was a serious issue and it could be solved with a measly $2B (or $6B)? You bring it out publicly and then want to discuss it privately?

Capitalism create the ability for one billionaire to donate his ‘over surplus’ of billions as the original post said should be the limit, to do this grand work. Yet t he other party didn’t want to keep it all in the general domain of open source accountability.

The state brings in billions. Why has the state not solved world hunger? Seeing as they are in incredible levels of debt, there is no surplus to fully eradicate world hunger. Who is the terrible steward? Both the state, and the guy who runs the organization that supposedly wants people to be able to eat and it go hungry. Capitalism was willing to end world hunger , yet the greedy socialists showed their true colors and didn’t care about the hungry. But I do agree capitalism has its flaws.


As for the billionaire comments in other responses. Put whoever in there that you want as opposed to a billionaire. Your employer pays your pay check. They inadvertently pay for your mortgage, living expenses, your free cash etc. Again, why would any lender want to know your employment status because they know that is what will determine if you can pay them back or not. Unless you work for the government or the like through a union job, it’s capitalism that’s will create your paycheck.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Always trust a man who writes in sentence paragraphs

[Monahammer]

You keep repeating this point of the billionaire paying the mortgage of the worker... but do you not see how you can easily use this same extremely faulty logic to say that you pay for your own mortgage through the billionaire and back to yourself any time you buy one of the products produced by said billionaire's company?

If you're going to be asinine enough to use logic like this, at least bear it out to an extent. Don't just pick an arbitrary point to stop. Then maybe you'll see that it's absolute nonsense before trying to build an argument around it.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

Still interesting in that if we have a surplus as you state, then don’t agree to work for the wage offered.

The billionaire absolutely does pay. Where do you think that money comes from that you received to live? He actually pays for everything you do. Did you earn it? Yes. Do you get the right to steward it and direct what it goes to each month? Yes. But that money came from his increase that you both agreed to that increased the companies abilities to perform a service(s) that people are willing to buy. Do you not recall ever asking for you it employer to talk to your bank to let them know that yes you do make enough each month working for them to prove you can pay that mortgage? Or even rent?

I don’t think many of you realize the pressure that comes on an employer when they realize they have to ensure the company increases or earns enough each month to pay *you* as you rely on them to give you a wage to cover your own debts you incurred.

Look at it this way. You can quit your job, and the money you earn from said billionaire or employer quits coming in. Now you scramble to find a way to replace that monthly income so you can pay your house. Who inadvertently was paying it for you?

The point is not all billionaires are bad, nor are all good. To think however that the state has anyones best interest in mind is ludicrous and to fund the beast even more when they have shown zero capability to steward what they already bring in none of us would agree is a wise decision.

That’s the main point. Scream people make too much all you want. The solution offered is ludicrous. It’s like Ontarios last premier coming to alberta to scold us for how we manage our provincial funds when she receives Billions from our province and is in even more debt than alberta. Living off of welfare shows the lack of stewardship Ontario has as a province. And you want billionaires to give more money to the state? Look after your own affairs first before asking for more handouts. Sadly, every generation by and large shows they are terrible stewards. The state absolutely should not get the idea of excess wealth 100% of whatever is made over $1B.

Billionaires aren't inherently bad, and they hire a lot of people and create a lot of value. Good for them, they've earned a BILLION dollars. I can't even fathom how much money that is.

Why do they need 2,3, 5, 10, or 100 BILLION?

[Wormius]

It’s not even billionaires, everyone has the capability to create some wealth for another person. Are all of the employers in Calgary billionaires? No.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

Because it’s called socialism, and it’s never worked. The money has to come from somewhere. Capitalism has its flaws: flawed people.

Look at it this way:

One guy heads up an organization to help feed the poor the world over. He sees the richest billionaire and says dude you have way too much excess. Take $2B (or was it $6B??) and give it to us so we can actually end world hunger.

Billionaire says yes. One condition. Have the way you will distribute the funds done through open source accounting.

Guy says hold your horses, let’s discuss this in private.

I thought world hunger was a serious issue and it could be solved with a measly $2B (or $6B)? You bring it out publicly and then want to discuss it privately?

Capitalism create the ability for one billionaire to donate his ‘over surplus’ of billions as the original post said should be the limit, to do this grand work. Yet t he other party didn’t want to keep it all in the general domain of open source accountability.

The state brings in billions. Why has the state not solved world hunger? Seeing as they are in incredible levels of debt, there is no surplus to fully eradicate world hunger. Who is the terrible steward? Both the state, and the guy who runs the organization that supposedly wants people to be able to eat and it go hungry. Capitalism was willing to end world hunger , yet the greedy socialists showed their true colors and didn’t care about the hungry. But I do agree capitalism has its flaws.


As for the billionaire comments in other responses. Put whoever in there that you want as opposed to a billionaire. Your employer pays your pay check. They inadvertently pay for your mortgage, living expenses, your free cash etc. Again, why would any lender want to know your employment status because they know that is what will determine if you can pay them back or not. Unless you work for the government or the like through a union job, it’s capitalism that’s will create your paycheck.

Limiting the maximum wealth of anyone person to 1 billion dollars is not socialism it’s regulated capitalism. Do you oppose all regulation which protects the common good or is it just ones with the redistribution of wealth. Are you against the concept of progressive taxation? Where does this idea that the billionaire earned it and the government can’t be trusted start and end. Do you go full libertarian no public Ed, no health care? If not then really all we are talking about is a few degrees right or left of Center on the pure socialism to pure capitalism scale.

You claim that socialism doesn’t work but at the same time unregulated capitalism doesn’t work. All of the current 1st world countries use regulated capitalism with wealth distribution and social safety nets to advance society.

You haven’t identified the harm is losing the billionaire. You keep having the flow of money backwards. It all starts from energy being extracted from the earth or human labour and goes from there. Money is just a battery for labour, it is a store of past work that was done. Labour pays for things. Proof of employment proves the value of your labour.

No one is proposing to end capitalism as a means of distributing capital and labour. It’s just one additional regulation on capitalism to mitigate a negative affect of wealth concentration.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I'm going to need a link for that!

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=158118


First Google result for "Calgary Puck, Polak, sink"

[Fuzz]

Stampedred isn't really worth having a discussion with. Their knowledge of all things financial(and perhaps otherwise) is so irredeemably flawed, you will never make any progress explaining reality to them. Not worth the effort.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Stampedred isn't really worth having a discussion with. Their knowledge of all things financial(and perhaps otherwise) is so irredeemably flawed, you will never make any progress explaining reality to them. Not worth the effort.

Jack Mintz would give him an A+

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Stampedred isn't really worth having a discussion with. Their knowledge of all things financial(and perhaps otherwise) is so irredeemably flawed, you will never make any progress explaining reality to them. Not worth the effort.

I’m always fascinated that people accept the idea that the flow of wealth is billionaire down and not peon up. I don’t think many people really think about or think about what money is.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm always fascinated that people accept the idea that the flow of wealth is billionaire down and peon up. I don't think many people really think about or think about what money is.

I'm always fascinated that people will defend the tilted scales that allows this wealth consolidation, even though they will never experience that side of the scale themselves. "How could you cut taxes on billionaires?! It's a travesty! it's unfair!" Meanwhile, they'll end up dying broke in their trailer. But at least they defended those billionaires from paying more than their fair share.

[burn_this_city]

Temporarily embarrassed billionaires.