Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Styxhexenhammer666"
channel.
-
33
-
24
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joehorton5067 "people will spend money according to their income" - the issue is that if you're on the bottom, most of your income is spent on essentials like food, housing, car/gas if you need one to get to work, electricity, water, etc. and those are fixed expenditures you can't simply "not spend on" unless you want them to live in abject conditions.
"Someone making $60,000 doesn't buy a $500,000 home" - That's an absurd example, as 60k a year is not ever near the bottom.
"Someone earning $40,000 a year doesn't rent a penthouse." - Even more absurd. How about a realistic example where someone making the federal min wage has to blow a huge chunk of their paycheck on a small apartment rent and bills alone?
"Likewise, you don't go to a restaurant where the tab is going to be a.couple of hundred bucks." - Every example you give is more and more out of touch with reality. You're using high/high-middle-class expenditures and contrasting them to lower-middle-class wages. How about you pick a city, check rents for apartments outside the city center and then contrast that shit to the federal minimum wage? You wouldn't even go to restaurants, period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TDMFAN "you don't seem to understand that Capitalism doesn't promote the most efficient business models at all" - You don't seem to understand this isn't what's at stake. I couldn't give less of a shit about which business is the most efficient. You said something was demonstrable, and I want the demonstration. If you're unable, or unwilling, to demonstrate something then maybe don't call it demonstrable. I asked twice now.
"Also I said that people will resist them." - Again, why? After all of what's been revealed, people would resist the corrupt systems all over the world. Pentagon papers, Wikileaks, Panama Papers, Afghanistan Papers.... But they'll keep going good little tax cattle and stuffing their money in the pockets of the people above them. People will literally cry that you only want to lift the quarantine restrictions because you worship billionaires, when the fact is that the most affected were small businesses and the billionaires kept making money even when everyone is under house arrest. I hate to bring up such a cliché quote but a person is smart, but people are dumb. And they'll believe the most retarded, ass-backwards things as long as you can tell the lie convincingly.
If I can offer a better deal than a co-op, why would people resist? They're not resisting right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TDMFAN "you cry about one of the sources being a co-op organisation" - No, I merely pointed out that in a very surface level exposé on co-ops, the paper is literally published by a promoter of co-ops business.
"it'd be like me moaning about Economics professors praising Capitalism, 'b-b-buh it's in their interest!!1'" - But there's multiple schools of economics. The real analogy would be a paper touting the superiority of Austrian economics published by a department that is ran by Austrians. Come the fuck on.
"sell them your labour for less than the value you're actually producing" - This is nonsense, but it pretty much requires its own thread. When someone else owns the means of production, you cannot even start to produce that value unless you access said means. The only way to solve this conundrum is the easy way out and take an anti-property stance. To which many people will say, to hell with that.
"Fact is that the majority of people want to be their own boss or at the very least have a say in how the business they work for runs" - But consider that the majority doesn't want the responsibility of being in that position. If you're the boss, your neck is on the line. You're the manager that Karen is going to be calling all the time. Look, of course people want a say on how the business runs. I have seen some of the dumbest decisions being made by people in managing positions. The beautiful part is that when I get complaints I can say "it's the rules coming from above" and never get in trouble. Allow me to make decisions, and suddenly I have to make calls that can affect the business and face the consequences. I can work with decisions that make the business less efficient, but I can't work having to second-guessing everything I do. My heart will give out before my mid 30s if that's how I have to live my day.
"as opposed to if the workers - who actually know what's going on" - HA! I don't know shit, my dude. I know what's "going on" in a limited area around me, and that's a perspective that bureaucrats lack, but I also don't know whatever the fuck is happening right outside my attention, what's going on at different departments, I don't know what's going on at marketing, IT, in the warehouse or even the distributor level. Your pretend world where the gentle laborer is omniscient about all aspects of business and has an accurate perspective that allows him to make better decisions is simply as untrue as bureaucrats having any idea what goes on at the ground level.
"'Going under' is completely irrelevant dude. Businesses will always go under as the market dictates." - So, one of the metrics used in the studies you posted to argue that co-ops are slightly more efficient than conventional businesses... doesn't matter?
"you seem awfully eager to defend pointless hierarchy in businesses" - It's only pointless when you don't understand business. Let me put it this way. A soldier might be on the battlefield, but it doesn't mean he has the vision to command an entire army. You can claim a general is a dipshit because he's back in a safe position while ordering troops around, but the hierarchy sure as shit isn't pointless when compared to having a 35 ASVAB scoring 18 year old infantryman trying to lead a war.
"you've been duped by the LIKES OF Shapiro" - Shapiro isn't even the first to "defend" hierarchies (I don't even know if he ever debated such a concept) or have a unique take on capitalism. If I have been duped, it had to be by the way I was raised, personal observation and my time in college attempting to get a degree. To think that people think differently because of one man (whoever he is) is such a dismissive, shitty thing to argue. I don't like the analogy because it sounds infantilizing, but just because there's shitty parents and parents who forgot how it was like to be a child, it doesn't mean we need to uproot families and put kids in charge of the household.
"say that worker-coops and flat organisation wasn't any more or less efficient than other models of organisation, what's the point in not doing them then?" - I never said we shouldn't. You confuse opposition to a claim of superiority with complete disbelief in the concept.
1
-
1
-
@TDMFAN "Not sure how it's difficult to get that it wasn't the co-op organisation doing the research itself" - Then there's no need to point to the organization when they have done none of the work.
"So basically Capitalism is the OG 'Coomies promising utopia but ultimately failing to deliver," - We're reaching levels of rationalization that shouldn't be possible. Capitalism always existed. It's like evolution. It didn't get "invented" by Darwin.
"Yes but if you're in a worker-coop, then you share that responsibility along with any financial liabilities - so instead of a business going bust and one person losing, say, $1 million - ten people like $100,000 each." - Buddy, I don't have the financial structure to lose 100k like that.
"An easily assigned role, or people can even take turns. It's not often bosses actually engage with customers, moreso lower management who do that." - You don't understand my point. You're responsible for the choices you make. So when the choice you've made in the interest of the business collides with the interests of the customer, something's gotta give. If your choices were "best for business" but ended up blowing back with negative customer response you're the one damaging the company. You're bringing the heat away from the bureaucrats and making workers face the negative consequences of mismanagement.
"Except that won't stop you from copping the abuse." - I'm the one abusing customers by ignoring what they say and repeating that I'm just following orders. It's like the Nuremberg trials except I'm winning.
"If you're in a worker-coop, then you'll be able to brainstorm ideas together" - Too slow, leads to contradicting decisions.
"you could have someone in the coop who has studied business management and so on whose duty it is to do all that stuff for you" - So the solution for effective co-ops is to have people who studied to become bureaucrats making choices for the workers.
"...this might blow your mind dude, but the people who know what's going on in those other departments are co-workers" - And this might blow your mind, but they're ignorant about everything else that isn't on their department as well.
"I get it dude, you PERSONALLY just want to cruise by not advancing in any way." - lmao I bring up how unrealistic your ideas are and you make this personal again.
"Obviously in flat organisations and worker-coops, the workers/worker-owners have ALREADY learned all this." - But that isn't the case. Like I mentioned several posts ago, co-ops include companies with defined hierarchical structures. A worker isn't expected to learn anything, he is simply allowed a vote on who gets to be the manager.
"I guess we can't all be willing to improve ourselves" - That's the thing. My self-improvement is completely unrelated to how I make a living. It's amazing that the one criticizing capitalism is the one trying to make "you're not willing to pull yourself up by the bootstraps" into an insult. My self-improvement does not match whatever companies or society wants. Meanwhile you see self-improvement as a rat race.
"If a market dies then any business involved in it will die too. As I said, there's other forms of efficiency which I was referring to. Why you've chosen to focus on that particular one is beyond me." - Because... that's the metric that makes co-ops look better??? The whole reason you linked me the studies???
"Shit I guess that's why we keep having to bail out big businesses in order to keep the global economy afloat... those amazing generals man." - Nice strawman. Next time argue that the soldier can indeed lead an army or just skip ahead and take the L.
"If we actually sat back and let big businesses collapse" - You mean... CAPITALISM????
"Oh and boy, has this SARS 2.0 thing done some amazing work at setting the stage or what?" - Are you kidding me? It destroyed small businesses while allowing massive corporations to be the only ones remaining open for business.
"there's nothing preventing workers from learning how to replace upper management" - Except for natural disadvantages, there isn't.
"I mean yeah, superior efficiency. Demonstrated." - Except you didn't, and the way it was better demonstrated was by a small difference in the percentage of businesses that go under every year, which you said that doesn't even matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1