This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Labor Day 2012: The Future Of Work

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Labor Day 2012: The Future of Work

Technology and the Web are destroying far more jobs than they create. We will need to develop a "Third Way" based on community rather than the Market or the State to adapt to this reality.

What better day to ponder the future of work than Labor Day? Long-time correspondent Robert Z. recently shared an essay on just this topic entitled Understanding the 'New' Economy.

The underlying political and financial assumption of the Status Quo is that technology will ultimately create more jobs than it destroys. Bob's insightful essay disputes that assumption:

Over the past 15 years, the global economy has experienced structural changes to a degree not seen in nearly 150 years. Put simply, the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s has given way to a post-industrial economy. In this post-industrial economy, technology has now evolved to the point where it destroys more jobs than it creates.


Still, most people are Luddites to some extent. Human nature is to resist dramatic change, either actively or passively, until we have no other choice. If you don’t believe that, just listen to our presidential candidates.


Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will give us happy talk about maintaining entitlement benefits (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid) that cannot possibly be sustained. They will talk about energy self-sufficiency. They will talk about creating jobs. They will tell us that we can somehow ‘grow’ our way out of our economic distress. But neither candidate will admit that technology now destroys more jobs than it creates, because to do so would be to commit political suicide. The fact is that none of the happy talk will ever come true. Instead, the Federal Government, with the tacit approval of both major political parties, continues to run trillion-dollar-plus deficits year after year in a futile attempt to spend our way out of our economic problems and to sustain an economic model that cannot be sustained.


Those who believe that bringing manufacturing back to the US will also bring back jobs are trying to fight a war that has already been fought and lost. Why? The answer is technology. It’s actually a fairly simple process now to bring production of many items back to the US, simply because of automation and robotics. A factory filled with robots can operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, so long as the raw material inputs keep flowing into the factory. Robots don’t take breaks, don’t make mistakes, don’t call in sick, don’t take vacations, don’t require expensive health insurance, and don’t receive paychecks. A fully automated robotic manufacturing facility might require only 100 workers, while a traditional assembly line facility might utilize 3,000 workers. That’s a huge difference in the number of jobs. The simple fact is that most of the lost manufacturing jobs are never coming back.


What about all the marketing, administrative, accounting, and IT jobs that we think can’t be outsourced or automated? Well, retail enterprises now tailor any number of special offers directly to individual customers by mining data from reward programs. That doesn’t take an expensive ad budget or a huge marketing department, since it’s all automated. Have you ever noticed that most of the advertising you see while you surf the Web is tailored to things you might be interested in buying? That’s all automated – huge numbers of marketing professionals are just not needed.


In the accounting world, ‘lean accounting’ attempts to streamline accounting processes and eliminate accounting inefficiencies. A byproduct of ‘lean accounting’ is often greater use of technology and a significant reduction in the number of accountants and accounting clerks. In the IT (Information Technology) sector, computer algorithms for high-frequency stock trading (HFT) have become so complex that specialized software now writes new HFT programs and algorithms. That reduces job opportunities for programmers. The net result of all these examples is not job creation. It’s job destruction.


How about government jobs and government-related jobs? Well, think about the US defense budget. It’s a huge example. We surely do not need as many tanks and fighter jets as we used to, now that we have remote-controlled drones to do many of the jobs required. And with the availability of these drones, we might not need as many aircraft carriers, ships, or military personnel either.


What about the Post Office? Do we really need daily mail service in an electronic world?


The point is that as we let go of old methodologies, whether in the private sector or in government, huge numbers of jobs simply disappear. As a society, we need to admit that ‘free-market’ capitalism is not going to bring back these lost jobs. Thanks to technology, society is capable of meeting basic human needs (food, clothing, shelter, transportation) with far fewer workers percentage-wise than were needed in the past. But as a society, we also need to admit that socialistic solutions won’t work either, simply because human nature is to take care of ourselves and our families first. Once we have provided for ourselves and our families, very few of us are both willing and able to provide for every stranger that might knock on our door seeking assistance.


As a nation, we must at some point address any number of major economic issues, including the massive overhang of debt (public and private) that cannot possibly be repaid and demands for future entitlement payments that cannot possibly be met. As a society, we ought to admit that we cannot borrow our way to prosperity. Unless interest rates are zero forever and creditors are willing to forego scheduled repayments forever, borrowing our way to prosperity is a mathematical impossibility.


One point is certain. Even if we find the political will to deal with the mathematics of our economic problems, we will never find long-term solutions to our economic issues until we recognize the profound economic changes wrought by technological advances. This is especially true with respect to our traditional view of a job and a paycheck. While it is true that new opportunities will always exist, these opportunities may not be as plentiful as the jobs of the past once were. And these opportunities will generally require more advanced skills than many of the jobs of the past. Technology has fundamentally changed the nature of paying work, and it is also one of the major economic issues of our time.


About the author:

Bob Z., of Vancouver, Washington, is a Corporate Finance executive who retired in 2007 from an upper management position with a Fortune 500 corporation.

Thank you, Bob, for your forthright appraisal of technology and jobs. The decline in labor's share of the GDP (gross domestic product) is sobering:

Here are some other points to consider:

1. The build-out of a new technology creates a large but temporary number of jobs. This has been the case for some time: the construction of the railroads created a jobs boom that soon disappeared in a financial bust as rail was over-built and profits were non-existent for many of the extraneous or duplicate lines.

Telephony and telecom followed similar arcs, and did the build-out of the Internet infrastructure.

2. Technology maturation leads to diminishing return on labor as incremental advances in productivity are capital-intensive. Semiconductor manufacturing is a good example; fabrication facilities (fabs) cost upwards of $2 billion each even as the number of workers need to operate the fab declines. Profit margins on many high-technology products are razor-thin, flat-screen displays being a prime example, and diminishing margins further pressure labor costs.

3. Software is leading the next-generation industrial revolution, automating many tasks that were considered "safe" from automation. As Bob pointed out, this includes securities trading and accounting. (I would add tax preparation for the majority of tax situations.) Can the law, academia and government remain immune? Unlikely.

4. Although few dare contemplate this, the low-hanging fruit of technology may have already been plucked. Take healthcare as an example: antibiotics and vaccines virtually eliminated many diseases at a very low cost per dose (though some diseases are coming back due to unvaccinated host populations and bacterial adaptation).

Antibiotics are "one size fits all" technologies: they act basically the same on every target bacteria and in every host. Compare that universality to the spectrum of individual responses to cancer treatments and other medications: one size does not fit all, and many of the most profitable drugs of the past few decades treated symptoms, not the underlying illness.

It is increasingly clear that there is no "magic pill" that kills all cancers, or even specific cancers in all patients. Lifestyle diseases such as diabetes appear impervious to "magic bullet" cures, as the causal factors of the disease are complex. The same can be said of diseases of aging and environmental factors.

In other words, the notion that tens of billions of dollars in high-tech research will yield "one size fits all" low-cost treatments of complex diseases has been shown to be problematic, and very possibly a fantasy.

5. The Internet is destroying vast income streams that once supported tens of thousands of jobs in industries from finance to music. Craigslist has gutted the once-immense income stream from newspapers, and web-based marketing has shredded print-media advert page counts. Global competition and pressure to maintain profits and margins relentlessly drive enterprises to slash payrolls.

6. As I have discussed here many times over the years, the rising costs of taxes, benefits and regulations have squeezed small businesses. In response, many small companies rely on automation and software to perform tasks that until recently required a human worker.

Those small businesses that cannot prosper via technology are going under, and the risks posed by ever-higher costs have raised entry barriers to starting a small business. These trends are visible in this chart:

The array of web-based tools available to entrepreneurs now is astonishing. Why take on the risks of hiring people when you can do the work yourself with low-cost web tools and software? For many small enterprises, that is the only way to survive.

Advanced societies face a dilemma that cannot be solved by more debt or more technology: how to distribute not just the output of the economy, but the work and responsibility so that everyone has an opportunity to contribute and earn their keep.

Those who have plowed through my books know that I see community as the only viable way forward. Many aspects of human life cannot be turned into a "market opportunity," nor can they be taken over by the insolvent central-planning Central State. Paying people to stay home and rot is not a solution, but neither is paying people more than they produce in competitive markets. There is a "Third Way," but we've lost the skills and infrastructure required. Of the three elements of civil society, the Market and the State have crowded out Community. We either re-discover the labor-value of community or we devolve further into a potentially "death spiral" social and financial instability.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:18 | 2757970 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

France celebrates labor day with economic implosion.

Asked on Radio J about the number of job seekers hitting 2.99 million in July, Sapin said there was no doubt the number had risen beyond that.

"What will next year's unemployment rate be? Nobody knows. We have already hit three million. The numbers you are talking about, which are the numbers for July, are already outdated," Sapin said.

French riots in 3...2...

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:18 | 2757978 taniquetil
taniquetil's picture

The only way to fix this is to tax the rich at 95%. How else can we be sure that they pay their fair share?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:29 | 2757988 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

German economy in freefall:

The German export industry - one of the main pillars of the country's economy - dropped to its lowest point since 2009 in August, sparking fears that the euro crisis is finally catching up with one of Europe's stronger nations.

German sheeple to be fleeced of yet another trillion euros to bail out the hidden PIIG:

Eastern Germany needs €1,000 billion in investment to bring it in line with the economic power of the west by 2030, the Thuringia state economy minister said on Monday.

Germany comes out of the closet and expresses full blown support for Ogolfer:

A former German foreign minister has voiced concern for German-American relations in the approach to the US presidential election. Re-electing President Barack Obama would be the “better option” for Europe, he said in an interview.

Is the german Gestapo training the TSA?


The world is soon approaching it's Sobibor moment, is that why the power elite are in panic mode?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:38 | 2758025 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Reading this article made me very, very angry. Let me tell you Randian meanies something ... I’ve done my own research, and I can tell you that the “free market” does nothing for the poor whatsoever. You morons really think the solution is even fewer regulations on big corporations? Are you saying corporations should pay less tax to the government and have fewer regulations??? You libertarians are so pathetic. Awww boo hoo, what about the poor “job creators” ... whaaa whaaa. You have to be kidding me.

Unlike sycophantic libertarians, I truly care about the poor, and I know after years of pain staking research I’ve come to the conclusion that discrediting free market myths and anti-government slander is the most productive use of my time. I’m serious about solving the problem of poverty, and I know the only way to do it is by

  1. Increasing the minimum wage
  2. Increasing taxes
  3. Giving more legislative privileges to unions
  4. Increasing the number of regulations on businesses

The progressive revolution isn’t just a movement, it’s a way of life. I encourage all ZHers join me in my quest for a better future, and to be a force for good in the world, not evil.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:38 | 2758043 Likstane
Likstane's picture

Stale....let it go...

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:57 | 2758085 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Bruce Willis suddenly finds out that he doesn't own his purchased music and launches legal action against hedgefund hotel AAPL.

How long will it take him to find out he doesn't own his aquired land.....and his birthright given freedom???

Several reports over the weekend, including from The Sun and the Daily Mail, are claiming that actor Bruce Willis is considering taking legal action against Apple to address the issue of transferability of iTunes Store music purchases. According to the reports, Willis wants his daughters to be able to inherit his iTunes music upon his death, but Apple's terms prohibit any transfer of ownership.

The Hollywood action hero is said to be considering legal action against technology giant Apple over his desire to leave his digital music collection to his daughters.

If he succeeds, he could benefit not just himself and his family but the millions who have purchased songs from Apple’s iTunes Store.

Willis has discovered that, like anyone who has bought music online, he does not actually own the tracks but is instead ‘borrowing’ them under a licence.

As an alternative to legal action against Apple, Willis is also said to be considering setting up a family trust to own his iTunes music.


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:05 | 2758114 centerline
centerline's picture

The real funny thing is how Apple traps people into maintaining Apple products because of this sort of licensing action.

Don't people ask questions first?  Holy shit.  Dumb motherfuckers so enamored by the latest i-centrifugal bubble puppy thing to keep up with the Joneses that they wind up cornered.  Monkey trap.  Lolololol.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:02 | 2758274 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

But the reason I like my iPhone is because I can use it with just one hand since my other hand is stuck in this hole that has some juicy morsels inside - if I could only get them out to see what they were...

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:30 | 2758335 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

The author doesn't clearly explain exactly why we shouldn't just pay people "to rot at home" as he puts it, if it can be afforded.


I know some people see work as some sort of value in itself, and that's fine for them. Others, like me, regard work as a means to an end, a way to fund my free time.


So the author just assumes everyone has his Protestant work ethic and could not stand being without work in an automated society.


However, the problem won't be lack of work, it will be lack of money. We could pay everyone enough to live, but that's not enough because people always want more. So the author is wrong, it will never be about distribution of work, it will always be about the distribution of output.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:46 | 2758596 markmotive
markmotive's picture

As America declines into oblivion...

Happy labor day. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 02:12 | 2759459 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

markmotive, I have to ask: why did you choose as your avatar the flag of the, in my opinion, second most evil government in the world?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 18:02 | 2758776 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The author misses the obvious conclusion that market competition, unhindered by government, would drive costs of manufacturing, and consequently costs of products, to an absolute minimum. People will live at little expense if government essentially disappears.

Arthur C. Clarke made a comment that said something like one era's technology is another era's magic.

So I'll offer two questions:

Why doesn't a tree grow up into a three-bedroom house or a conch into a sailboat?

And how much would they cost if that could happen?




Mon, 09/03/2012 - 20:41 | 2759083 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Clarke's quotation was:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 22:00 | 2759223 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Look up the Artist:  Jacek Yerka

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 23:31 | 2766916 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 21:29 | 2759157 brettd
brettd's picture

It seems the whole conversation is about what the worker makes.

Not the value the worker brings to the task. 

It's gotta be a two way street, friends.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 22:09 | 2759233 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture


Cool people (and many of my friends, cool and otherwise) hate Wal-Mart and sneer at those who shop there.  It is one thing to choose not to shop there.  But to view as evil, an enterprise that has figured out a way to do something more cheaply than its competitors and pass on the savings to consumers, is a sign that something is deeply wrong with the way we explain to our children and students what capitalism is about and why it's a good thing.

I have no idea who Charles Platt is.  I'm sure he has biases.  But his story (HT: Blackadder, in a comment on this Blogging Heads episode) of his experience should be read and re-read.  Haters of Wal-Mart have trouble explaining why hundreds of people apply for jobs at Wal-Mart whenever there is an opening or continue to want to work for them when they move, as Platt describes when he goes to his training session:

A week later, I found myself in an elite group of 10 successful applicants convening for two (paid) days of training in the same claustrophobic, windowless room.  As we introduced ourselves, I discovered that more than half had already worked at other Wal-Marts.  Having relocated to this area, they were eager for more of the same.

Why?  Gradually the answer became clear.  Imagine that you are young and relatively unskilled, lacking academic qualifications.  Which would you prefer:  standing behind the register at a local gas station, or doing the same thing in the most aggressively successful retailer in the world, where ruthless expansion is a way of life, creating a constant demand for people to fill low-level managerial positions?  A future at Wal-Mart may sound a less-than-stellar prospect, but it's a whole lot better than no future at all.

In addition, despite its huge size, the corporation turned out to have an eerie resemblance to a Silicon Valley startup.  There was the same gung-ho spirit, same lack of dogma, same lax dress code, same informality – and same interest in owning a piece of the company.  All of my coworkers accepted the offer to buy Wal-Mart stock by setting aside $2 of every paycheck.

Platt's account of what he experienced is entertaining
and informative. His economics is good too:

My starting wage was so low (around $7 per hour), a modest increment still didn't leave me with enough to live on comfortably, but when I looked at the alternatives, many of them were worse.  Coworkers assured me that the nearest Target paid its hourly full-timers less than Wal-Mart, while fast-food franchises were at the bottom of everyone's list.

I found myself reaching an inescapable conclusion. Low wages are not a Wal-Mart problem.  They are an industry-wide problem, afflicting all unskilled entry-level jobs, and the reason should be obvious.

In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do.  This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians.  They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers.  If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand.[/quote]

[quote]To my mind, the real scandal is not that a large corporation doesn't pay people more.  The scandal is that so many people have so little economic value. Despite (or because of) a free public school
system, millions of teenagers enter the work force without marketable skills.  So why would anyone expect them to be well paid?[/quote]

Emphasis added by moi.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 23:39 | 2759340 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

There are so many reasons to hate Wal-Mart and not shop there:

- Decimitates small businesses in towns they move into

- Still offers lower payer and poorer benefits than even other retail competitors

- Vicious anti-union behavior with a long history and checkered history of constant labor violations including mandatory overtime, not paying overtime, break violations, wrongful terminations, gender discrimination, etc.  

- Extorts and is very aggressive at getting local tax breaks and all kinds of development perks

- Promotes a culture where we most things as cheap but of mixed-quality and durability

- Profound effect on producers who sell to them as they constantly have to producer cheaper items

- A business that has a very mixed record of supporting the community they reside in


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 23:53 | 2759359 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Good article Stycho. I once argued for a Walmart distribution center in a smallish town paper against the usual opposition. Let me add one more positive thing that is true about Walmart and similar stores. There is this new somewhat elitist preference for small mom and pop stores and often they are the only ones allowed in downtown trendy or revitalized areas. Walmarts, if allowed at all are forced to the peripheral areas. Let's say you are this same relatively unskilled fresh out of high school person looking at your options. Perhaps there are lots of well loved mom and pop small businesses in your town. What are the odds that mom and pop who are certainly more humane than the invisible corporate vultures of Walmart pay any better than Walmart? What are the odds the pay is the same or worse? Now, let's say you decide to work at the mom and pop shop because it's cool and they are in fact nice people. What are your promotion prospects? Little to none as mom and pop are going to run the place till they die and then that spoiled moron, Jr. who is studying underwater basket weaving at local U. will take over...and he doesn't like you already.

Contrast that with starting as a cashier or stocker at Walmart. There are virtually infinite numbers of midlevel advancement opportunities up to the top itself. Plus, the chain is large and if you want to move to Florida or Peoria there is one there you can transfer to. If you work for an immediate supervisor who is a jerk you can get another department or store. Perhaps you move over to automotive and have more fun or you try something new like operating the fork lift which pays way more. So, you can be elitist and romantic about mom and pop stores and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but there is far more opportunity at that big box store for someone with a little ambition.

What also seems to correlate is that anti-Walmart types are most often liberals and democrats. The act like Walmart is a bigger oppressor than the leviathan government they favor. Last I checked Walmart did not threaten to raise my taxes, put a red light camera on the corner or force me to get a license, registration, smog certificate and proof of insurance for any of my property. Moronic liberal-statists want more State and less Walmart. When the DMV opens an extra line after I draw number 666 (while seeing 333 on the board) like Walmart would I will consider their arguments.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 01:46 | 2759446 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

"there is far more opportunity at that big box store for someone with a little ambition."

So long as they have ONLY "a little ambition".

The prospect of living as a wage serf in such a shitty environment as a Wal-Mart is one of the slowest, most painful suicides I can imagine.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 02:06 | 2759455 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

"so many people have so little economic value.... enter the work force without marketable skills."

Yes.  That's a problem; those sheeple are absolutely and terminally useless; they shouldn't have even been born because their parents are exactly the same genetic rejects.  Giving them Wal-Marts to work at might prevent some social unrest, but it does nothing to solve the fundamental problem of idiocracy.  These irresponsible breeders need to be sterilized, if not culled, and the best way to accomplish that is to get them to do it themselves, with relentless ad campaigns encouraging the dignity and nobility euthanasia (read: suicide clinics in every town, everyone welcome, including your stupid, fat, depressed children) and harshly condemning reproduction by those who have bad genes (fat, stupid, ugly, lazy, weak, etc).  It would be a challenging process of social change, but damn, it would be entertaining.

My other point of response is almost a corrolary: a potentially primary reason to hate Wal-Mart is not because of it's business model but, rather, because of abhorrence toward their grotesque customers and brainless-sheeple-serf workers.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 05:54 | 2759566 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

So you would off the fat weak guy with a 160 IQ?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 11:32 | 2760493 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

So, what do you think of Jews, slavs, the disabled, and the proles? Who should be left in your ideal?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:00 | 2758272 Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture



This is how stupid fucking liberals become conservative.

All of a sudden they become the fucked.

What a dolt.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:19 | 2758306 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

LOL because conservatives are on the frontline against the corporate copyright mafia?


Just give up on the tired right-left shit. "Conservatives" in the US are not for liberty, they are for drones, war on drugs, censorship, repression, crony-corporate power controlling you, SWAT teams kicking down your door in the middle of the night.


Conservatives are more anti-liberty than the liberals even. How the fuck can you not see this?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:20 | 2758521 LMAOLORI
Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:18 | 2758311 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

One does not simply roll one's window up at Bruce Willis when he's packing.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:30 | 2758340 My Days Are Get...
My Days Are Getting Fewer's picture

Good for Bruce to go after Apple.


But, what contemporary music has any reedeming value.  In 10 years, 95% of Bruce's collection will never be listened to.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 18:28 | 2758824 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Mr. Willis is a doofus if he thinks he "owns" anyone's music - publishing rights are a struggle between the artist & the publishing / recording companies, to see who gets the biggest piece of the royalties pie.

back in the vinyl days, you could "loan" your music to a friend. . . then came cassette mix tapes combining faves to share. . . oh noes!  "home taping is killing music !!" (read: profits). . . next CDs pumped up the (biz) volume, but then folks got hold of the technology to burn 'n' share.

"music" companies will always complain of loss of monies when people share music - but to believe that anyone "owns" another's music, particularly downloads from a virtual "store" is nonsense - you've paid for the right to repeated listening, and not a "collection" that can be passed to anyone, a "virtual" music collection is just that, it doesn't exist as matter.

even for narcissists like Willis.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 18:38 | 2758830 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

If he really thinks of  his music collection as a legacy for his children he's pathetic. What makes him think they want it? Wonder if he still treasures, and listens to, his mother's old Partridge Family albums and his dad's Tijuana Brass collection?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 19:28 | 2758934 billsykes
billsykes's picture

I employ the rule of 3, if I buy something digital I DRM it first, keep 1 copy for myself and share the file 2x. Not always but when I can.

my beef is w. ebooks, I cannot sell them, I have to buy them at a higher cost new physical books in most cases, if X (amazon, b&n, etc) decides to pull my purchase, they can with no notice and I cannot share them with anyone. 

My response, fuck you greedy bastards, be fair set a realistic price for the product and I will buy. 

It's not that I cannot afford a $15 book its that a used physical one is $2 or a new hardcover one $9- its the essence of it. 

(no, if you don't like it then buy the physical quips, we are smarter than that here)

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 21:29 | 2759159 Bobbyrib
Bobbyrib's picture

I don't like the ideas of e-books either. With a physical copy of a book, I can keep it indefinitely as long as I have the space and it isn't somehow destroyed. If I have an e-book, I would have to lend them my over-priced garbage e-book reader so that they can read it and the information (the book) could be made inaccessible at any time.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 05:14 | 2759542 StandardDeviant
StandardDeviant's picture

Exactly.  Richard Stallman wrote a cautionary tale back in 1997 about this sort of thing, called "The Right to Read".  It's short; well worth a look.

You're not entirely stuck, though.  Removing DRM from e-books is not that difficult; a quick Google search will do the trick.  Wired, for example, posted this how-to guide for Kindle a while ago.  Calibre is your friend.

(But local laws may not be, depending on which country you live in.  "Lend" at your own risk.)

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 20:27 | 2762717 billsykes
billsykes's picture

Its about portability and the content, and that I am aware that my ego may want to buy books that look impressive on the shelf. Ever move 20 boxes of books? I have, once. never again. I love the look of a shelf of books, with a railed ladder- even better. 

Most stuff I read now is business stuff, not applicable in 10yrs, art or fiction is really a fraction of what I read anymore.  Its also about search-ability. like a pdf search as opposed to which book is it in, and then where in the book is it.


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:48 | 2758054 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Some  /religio/communist scum beer-o-crat/scribe came up with this gag-making piece of programming:


"Work is Worship"


The rest is history. Or rather, from there on, rest was history.



Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:50 | 2758081 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Oh regional Indian

"Work is Worship"

Not too far off. I've read about Zen monks who say no work no food.

People focus on the end result instead of the work at hand, the destination instead of the trip.

Jim Morrison said that orgasm was the death of sex.

And everyone knows idle hands do the devils work.

Maybe work isn't worship so much as meditation.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:01 | 2758101 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

One of the best, most intense experiences of my life was watching a zen monk slice 30 stalks of celery.

That was not work. It was pure worship.


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:06 | 2758118 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Oh regional Indian

No. it was being there.

No worship involved just doing with a focused mind.

Your day should be spent doing the mundane with focus, being there.

People just don't get that.

Then again it is a whole different way of being, not thinking as many confuse the two.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:37 | 2758374 Acet
Acet's picture

Yes - this is very insightful.

The human brain is capable of some wonderful things without the need of pseudo-religious or chemical crutches.

That said, if it makes it easier some to use the worship mumbo-jumbo as crutch to achieve focus and getting the mind purelly on the present, they might as well use it. Just beware that if you avoid the crutch and find in yourself the way to trigger that state at will, it will be far easier to use it whenever and wherever you need it.


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:10 | 2758127 centerline
centerline's picture

And appreciation.  So much lost today.  I admit it takes serious effort every day in this world to just maintain a particular altitude, let alone achieve escape velocity.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 17:50 | 2758757 ArmchairRevolut...
ArmchairRevolutionary's picture

Did you happen to be tripping on acid at the time?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 19:12 | 2758908 post turtle saver
post turtle saver's picture

"keine Arbeit, kein Essen"

Zen Monks, Nazi prison camp guards... same result.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:45 | 2758414 DosZap
DosZap's picture

and this is the damnation of the times of the is a barbaric civilization adamant on conquest, control, and exploitation....

I call BS, especially from America's record of ALL.

To our detriment in almost every case.

I cannot name one country we colonized,or seized total control over after destroying in war.Just the opposite, we rebuilt the same shit better out of taxpayers pockets,and the majority turned on us after the fact.

America has always been demonized for our role,NAME one country who has given more as a people or country to the poor(and the not so poor).

Check the charitable giving records of us compared to any other everyone,some who did not even need it.


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 17:54 | 2758765 ArmchairRevolut...
ArmchairRevolutionary's picture

I think that is quite incorrect. We have a pretty strong record of toppling governments and placing favorable dictators in power for the purpose of extracting wealth.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 21:43 | 2759195 brettd
brettd's picture

So the Arabs just shipped us the oil for free?


Tue, 09/04/2012 - 02:17 | 2759460 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

Thirty-year UST, almost the same.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 23:44 | 2759347 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

You assume that all other countries remotely want the 'American' lifestyle and gov't or ridiculously assume that we haven't and don't continue to committ our share of atrocities while there.  There are many too many Americans though who share this deluded, warped, and moral revisionist history of American abroad the last century or so.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:41 | 2758056 ChickenTikka
ChickenTikka's picture

Was this a joke? You're on the wrong forum dude.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:47 | 2758232 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

He always does this... people took him seriously for a long time... now everyone finally is starting to realize that he is /sarc.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:42 | 2758057 ChickenTikka
ChickenTikka's picture

Was this a joke? You're on the wrong forum dude.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:18 | 2758158 Debugas
Debugas's picture

you are right about the problems but you are wrong with your solutions.

the real solution is more equal redistribution of capital

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 22:36 | 2759272 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Sure, hand a 9-year old kid a circular saw and expect a rocking chair in return...check yer premises.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:43 | 2758220 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Your research lacks rigor and is obviously myopic. You probably researched places that only agree with your point of view. Let me help a little even though I am sure you don't want it.

First, libertarianism is not primarily about economics although they are inseperable. It is about liberty. It is not about "How to make everyone rich". That is never going to happen. Never. Not under your plan, either. You cannot solve poverty and that is the snipe you chase. You can only minimize it.  Libertarianism is about liberty, first! Surprised? We ask ourselves important simple questions like, "Do you own yourself and your labor?" and my new favorite, "Is your purpose on earth to be ruled by others?" (Maybe my original?) Your answer to both of those...if you are honest is, "No, and yes."

Second, there is no evidence your ideas work. In fact, if you have actually done your research all countries who try forms of what you suggest fail. Always and everywhere. The problem is your ideas go against human nature. The end result of your ideas as you poo poo libertarians is that freedom is bad for us and we need someone to control us. Let us hope those who control us for our own good are angels. All the bad people are in the private sector so let's filter them and get the good people in power...real power to do what you like. I personally like do gooder statists like Corzine, Blagovich, Spitzer, etc. They show us the way and how good people end up at the top of the power pyramid.

Third, there are no sycophantic libertarians. This shows you really don't know any. Getting libertarians together is like herding cats. Everyone actually thinks for themselves which is dangerous for the state and makes us very difficult to organize for any meaningful and long lasting political purposes. By nature we do not like government or want anything from it except our freedom. You want "stuff". Actually, you really want other people's stuff to assuage your own conscience. Go and dedicate your own life to curing poverty and give all you have to the poor as so many religious people have done. You are free to do that...for now. You statists always want others to do it while you park your yatchs in the lowest tax states. Better, yet, go work in a sugar plantation in Cuba where they have resolved income inequality.

Last, I will ask you my favorite two collectivist questions. These are serious questions for you to answer. One, "How many regulations on people, corporations, private businesses, etc. till all evil is abolished?" Two, "At what tax rate (you want higher) will all social ills, including the poverty you care about be eliminated?"

For anyone who is thinking for themselves and reading this you instinctively know the answers to these two questions. Here are the corollary questions you will like better. One, "How many regulations do we need till we are stifled, strangled and thoroughly miserable?" Two, "How high can taxes go till we are all impoverished and unwilling to work?" Those numbers we know better and we are probably very close to the limit.

So, collectivists always find big problems with freedom and how it needs to be curbed for our common benefit. Libertarians see more historical problems with government and how it needs to be curbed for our very survival. Take your pick of the two. Make your choice.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:24 | 2758324 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Good laughters.

What so? Yes, 'Americans' run a business of extorting the weak, farming the poor.

'Americans' could not care less than the poor, the weak are not organized. On the very contrary, disorganization is something valued by extorters and farmers.

And while libertarians (aka insecure 'American' middle class) wonder if their purpose is to be ruled, other 'Americans' know their destiny is to rule over others.

And in 'Americanism', it means dilution of responsibility as the consent of the governed allows.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:31 | 2758338 akak
akak's picture

The babblings of a newborn child make more sense than your idiotic and bigoted ramblings, you hypocritical, American-hating Chinese troll.

Shut the fuck up.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:42 | 2758399 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Again, 'Americans' are not required to understand reports about 'Americanism'.

'Americanism' does not depend on the reports to be 'Americanism'

And that is a good thing: 'Americans' are duplicitous by nature and keep claiming they cant understand what 'Americanism' is.

Their denial is dismissed by their actions though as 'Americanism' is as 'American' do.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:53 | 2758442 akak
akak's picture

Hypocrisy and bigotry are as hypocrisy and bigotry do.

And you are the undisputed master of both.

Now shut the fuck up.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:40 | 2758581 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Hypocrisy? On what ground? Chinese citizenism? Or to be said, fantasy...

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:39 | 2758382 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Retarded roadside crapping troll is retarded.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:42 | 2758404 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

I am glad you got a good laugh. Is there a point or rational argument somewhere in those ramblings? There is no truth to any point you make.  Will you tell us your personal choice about owning yourself versus the State owning you? Do you prefer being ruled or making your own choices? Would you like to rule and make choices for others?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:41 | 2758584 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Rational argument? Not even.

Only straigthforward observations.

Here's another: you do not own yourself. You are yourself.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:52 | 2758618 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous admitted:

Rational argument? Not even.

Finally a shred of truth leaks out. Of course, his paymasters at the Chinese Citizenism Ministry of Truth will not be pleased by this.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 17:53 | 2758762 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

You are not yourself if you do not own yourself. Slaves take the choices of masters. They and their lives are not their own. Their labor is owned by the master or the State. If you own your labor you can price it and trade it as you please. No one can take it without your permission.

Let me put it more simply for you, who makes the choices in your life, you or the State? If it is you and you captain your own ship then you are free. If the State makes your choices, restricts your choices or gives permission for your choices, then you are the property of the State and they have plans for your ship. You are an economic unit in their bigger plan for you and the country. That is why they call you, "the masses". You have no distinct identity or signficance. You are part of the collective.

Which do you prefer for yourself? Tell us?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 20:22 | 2759037 daveedollar
daveedollar's picture

Whoa!  Great post FreedomGuy!

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 23:52 | 2759361 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

So the only two possible solutions for society are extreme liberterianism or statist control of property or production?  What a ridiculous and bogus view of history and civilization. 


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 23:59 | 2759377 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Is it so ridiculous? How about I meet you halfway. Societies are always and constantly changing. They are always moving and going somewhere. Germany seemed to have more liberty after the Kaiser and none after the Fuhrer. Modern societies are never static, at least outside some aboriginal tribes perhaps. So, your choices are you are moving left to more statism (the West) or you are moving right toward liberty (the East). Being static in the middle is nearly impossible for very long. Would that appeal more to your sensibilities and extensive knowledge of history?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:53 | 2758439 Cortez the Killer
Cortez the Killer's picture

Fuck the poor

100 overpaid union workers arent worth the patent on one assembly line robot

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 17:14 | 2758673 Slightly Insane
Slightly Insane's picture

You Sir, do nothing to support any of the assertions you have made.  Define for me what makes a person "poor".

I see that you have swallowed the Kool-Aide and have also taken the "ignorance" pill.  Poverty is a frame of mind.

Since the beginning of time, there has always been a stratafication in whatever economy exists.  I know of no poor "starving to death" today.  Even the folks that I know who are on "food stamps" have put themselves there by the unwise choices that they made earlier in life.  The only way for a person to get out of their shitty lot in life is through education, and application of that education.  The Government handing them foodstamps merely placates the recipient.  It does nothing to "change" their lot in life.  Minimum wage is definitely not the issue .... if that were the case we could raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour and the problem would be solved, right?  Increasing taxes removes capital, hence property from the individual (who earned it) and gives it to the "state" who now spends it on mostly unwise things.  If the problem could be solved by taxes, shit, raise them to 100% and see what that does.  You assume that the "state" who has neither the talent, nor the wisdom to properly deploy capital in an efficient manner would do a better job then the individual.  If that were the case, then the former Soviet Union would have been a world leader in everything under the son.   Once you remove "property rights", via taxation .... you will have removed the incentive to take risks, work hard, study hard, ecetera .... such that you will create a society of lazy people.  This bull about strengthening "unions" ... is just that.  You want the unions to have special privaledges afforded to no other entity?  Are you nuts?  And for your last point, raising regulations .... why not create 1000 new regulations a day, and make the first regulation that all businesses must comply with all new regulations or be forced to close.  Where would the jobs be then DUMMY.  What you are suggesting you idiot is full blown totalitarianism.  From the looks of it Communism.  I promise you that if you get your wish, I will lay my wealth on the table against yours that you will be one of the first "useful idiots" who gets put down.  The regime will have absolutely no use for stupid people .... as you will be a warm body consuming resources which are in short supply.  You will either be starved, or executed, as shills for communism are always the first ones consumed in the transformation.  Anyone with an IQ above 100 can understand the flaws of every single statement you had made,  without assistance.  In a totalitarian regime, anyone with an IQ below 100 is given the shittiest jobs there are, as long as they are needed.  The excess are eliminated.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 17:29 | 2758719 Whiner
Whiner's picture

Is that you MDB or did someone hi-jack your moniker? You started off with too much emotion for a fake, statist troll. The you lapsed trite. Get back in that gov-speak, phony positive monotone. I'll give you one more chance, the I'm junking you.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 18:00 | 2758772 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture



Me: [Rings Bell] Ding, ding, ding. MillionDollarBonus_ comes running from the thickets.

MillionDollarBonus_: meow

Me: Your no longer able to roam the property.

MillionDollarBonus_: meow??

Me: That’s right you four legged fuck. We Just received notice from the Government. I have been instructed to feed you only Purina® Cat Chow® Indoor Formula. Apparently, the neighbors have been complaining over your sudden hairball discharge on their property grounds.

MillionDollarBonus_: meow???

Me: I have been slapped with a fee. The Government has mandated me to enroll you into compulsive hairball therapy treatment classes.

MillionDollarBonus_: meow????

Me: My dear friend, you either control yourself or find that your hairball dependent illness is going to be ended with a lake, bag, bricks and twisty tie..

MillionDollarBonus_: meow??????

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 17:12 | 2761877 whartman
whartman's picture


"I’m serious about solving the problem of poverty, and I know the only way to do it is by

  1. Increasing the minimum wage
  2. Increasing taxes
  3. Giving more legislative privileges to unions
  4. Increasing the number of regulations on businesses"

Increasing the minimum wage results, always and everywhere, in increased poverty.  It removes the "bottom steps from the ladder", preventing those with minimal skills from being offered a job.  Ultimately, a business cannot pay its employees more than the value of the products produced, minus other (non-labor) expenses such as materials, rent, etc.  So raising the minimum wage cannot raise people's pay, overall, beyond the value of their efforts.  It forces businesses to automate more and pay a smaller number of more skilled workers.

Increasing taxes takes money from employers which could be used for wages, thus decreasing payments to employees.  It transfers the money to the government, which in practice hires fewer people for the same amount of money (it overpay them relative to private businesses).  This reduces total employment, thus increasing poverty.

Giving more legislative privileges to unions increases the pay of union members, which increases the poverty of those who are not union members by increasing the costs of the products and services produced by union members.

Increasing the number of business regulations increases business costs, which reduces payroll, which increases poverty.

So your "way of life" is a perfect plan to increase poverty.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:27 | 2758001 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

Advanced societies face a dilemma that cannot be solved by more debt or more technology: how to distribute not just the output of the economy, but the work and responsibility so that everyone has an opportunity to contribute and earn their keep.

Great in theory. Enter the schmucks...Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etal...

95% tax seems low.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:25 | 2758173 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Check out what happened to those considered useless eaters under the Nazi regime.  The Jews weren't the only ones summarily disposed of, you know.  They emptied their state-run asylums and rid themselves of the disabled and insane and mentally retarded and old. They rounded up Gypsies and gays and drunken derelicts and anyone else they considered undesirable.  Ezekiel Emmanual (Rham's brother), actually used that exact term, useless eaters, and applied it to Alzheimer's patients (he feels they should be disposed of rather then allowed to eat up a disproportunate amount of resources).  It is an apt term, of course, and I can certainly see the logic of such actions, as none of my immediate relations currently carry that diagnosis, but we have been down that road before and it that leads to the ovens and the death camps.  If you can't find work (and there really isn't much work to go around and many jobs are just make-work), and aren't a productive member of society, or are nearing the end of your productive life, you are superfluous and I think you can bet that a bureaucrat somewhere is considering the many advantages that would accrue to the state in the case of your untimely demise. I am also sure that, as always, there are many who would be happy to carry out such things.  

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:32 | 2758189 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

What?  You dispute what I wrote or do you just not like that I pointed it out?  Once I get a designated number of down arrows does someone pay me a visit in the night and haul me away?  

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:40 | 2758212 centerline
centerline's picture

Green arrow from me.  Your statement above is mostly fact.  And those who don't learn from history.... well.  Let's just say it is easy to see how some things repeat.  Just takes enough time and the right conditions.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:52 | 2758436 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I gave you a down arrow because that type of behavior is basic to ALL governments.

It just takes the right circumstances show it.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:08 | 2758477 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Oh, yes, other governments, in other places, at other times, but no one wants to look too closely at the steps our government is taking right here and now and extrapolate to the logical conclusion.  

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:57 | 2758265 KK Tipton
KK Tipton's picture

"I think you can bet that a bureaucrat somewhere is considering the many advantages that would accrue to the state in the case of your untimely demise"


This sad deal is what happens when you equate "the state" with the people.
A bureaucrat type would be dumb enough to do this.
Or brainwashed/programmed enough.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:05 | 2758481 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

If I remember correctly, virtually all participants in the Milgram Experiments shocked the test subject to 300 volts, and about 65% went all the way to 450 volts.

If people weren't wired to be obedient to the State, the state may not exist and it certainly wouldn't be as deadly.

No pass for "the people".



Tue, 09/04/2012 - 00:42 | 2759418 wiebern
wiebern's picture

Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, ...

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:30 | 2758336 trilliontroll
trilliontroll's picture

I am also sure that, as always, there are many who would be happy to carry out such things. 

enemy at the gates : a group of german soldiers trying to carry out such things in stalingrad

with a russian ("subhuman being") sniper not willing to let them just be happy.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:37 | 2758376 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Take out the officers first, if you can.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 21:20 | 2759148 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

  If you can't find work (and there really isn't much work to go around and many jobs are just make-work), and aren't a productive member of society, or are nearing the end of your productive life, you are superfluous and I think you can bet that a bureaucrat somewhere is considering the many advantages that would accrue to the state in the case of your untimely demise.

Already happening. A doctor in Britain has devised a 'protocol' of a starvation diet for the terminally ill. In Canada, government boards calculate the cost of specific treatments vs. the 'benefit', and deny treatments as a result. "Death panels" are not some Republican myth; they are growing and thriving everywhere there is socialized medicine.

Libertarianism and free markets are messy, chaotic, and produce uneven results, but they have the desire for the life as their basis. Marxism may seem more orderly and more equal in result, but it produces less for all, and has death as its ultimate goal.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 00:00 | 2759376 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

How do you equate free markets with in anyway to the santctity of life?  You are making connections between economic concepts and moral ones that simply are spurious.

As for actual history, the reality of 'free markets = free society' is convulated and not necessarily true either?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 00:32 | 2759406 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

There is a difference in letting nature take its inevitable course without excessive resistance and loading children with Down's syndrome into the back of a panel truck, hooking the exhaust up to a hose, connecting it to an opening in the back of the truck and letting it run.  

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:38 | 2758044 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


Dude you have it so wrong. We need to TAX WEALTH. Anything you own is wealth, car,property, savings, so on. Tax it all at say a flat 5%.

That way the poor pay and the rich pay. Everyone pays. Because every possesion  which defines wealth is taxed no one escapes.

No loopholes, no deductions, just a straight tax on individual wealth.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:02 | 2758104 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

That is not a tax- it is a straight forward confiscation.  Taxation is added to activities/transactions as a gov ´cut´ of the action.  When you start allowing the State to take a piece of inaction then property rights are exposed as a myth. 

The rate of the tax and the target of the tax are red herrings, subject to the whims of those in power.   So unless YOU don`t mind paying 100% of what you think is yours, and being a financial slave of the State, then your notion is short-sighted. 


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:11 | 2758129 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Urban Redneck

All rights are a myth.

There was a little book titled Rape of the A.P.E ( American Protestant Ethic). It was humor.

The author pointed out you can't give the property you own to a foriegn country.

If we need to be taxed to pay for roads and such make it a fair and equal tax on wealth.

Not income, and no loopholes.

Everyone pays their share.

Price of admission to be a citizen.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:45 | 2758225 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

More like the price of admission to be a slave

One can bequeath property to a foreign State, it is done all the time, however, it is an ACTION which the State might natuarally want it cut of.

Getting back to my question- you then agree that YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM when your master, the State, decides that your share, and the price of your citizenship, is that your house, your car, your 401(k), the clothes off your back, and the gold fillings in your teeth, should be transferred to me since I can provide greater utility to the oligarchs, and the the price of my services...


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:46 | 2758415 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Obviously world government has become synonymous with organized crime.  That needs to change, and God-willing, it will.

The question then is, how do the honest people clean up this mess?  The answer, as Gully Foyle has clearly stated, is to tax wealth.  Because the top 1% have amassed such a massive proportion of the planet's wealth there is no point in taxing income.  The annual income compared to the accumulated wealth is miniscule.  Wealth disparity is a bigger problem than even income disparity. 

The other route would be to take everyone ([that is a psychopathic billionaire oligarch) to court, but then its a very messy business involving shell companies, going through 150+ years worth of documents and records, a Judge deciding the amount that is 'taxed' or more appropriately, rightfully returned to society.  Because the majority of this wealth was acquired criminally, understand.  Lying, cheating, stealing.  Fraud.  Murder.  Monopoly.  Preferential Court Treatment.  Drug Smuggling (which they keep illegal to maintain profitability). Insider trading.  Usury.  And just plain old creating money out of thin air.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:51 | 2758430 Herd Redirectio...
Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Also, how much tax the government earns is important (it determines the level of wealth distribution and in theory the operating budget of the gov't), but so is HOW THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS taxpayer money.

Does it all go to cronies?  Corporate subsidies?  No-bid contracts?  Companies you own long-term call options on?  Or is it being spent on providing basic nutrition, hygiene and education?


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:49 | 2758607 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture


It's stolen money, whatever its spent on.

Like the mafia giving money to a charity makes everything okay?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:45 | 2758593 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The top 1% have gotten fabulously rich in a totally government run world.

That's what makes it possible.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:51 | 2758614 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Short answer- transactional/transfer taxes are the only way.

My objection to wealth taxes isn`t just libertarian, it`s also mathematical.

1) The rich will always have other options, until you show up at their house in the middle of the night with torches and long knives, if you buy the "no loopholes" argument then you are on the outside with no window to look in and see how the game is played.

2) The biggest existing stores of "wealth" are already offshore in vehicles (trusts and corporations) are not subject to US jurisdiction or taxation, and assuming the tax advisors actualy knew what they were doing- they will never be subject to US jurisdiction since they aren`t US owned.

3) Wealth taxes fuck and enslave the lower classes since the bulk of their wealth is in real estate (and a primary residence doesn`t create a revenue stream for the owner). So in a ZIRP environment, where does gramps come up with dough to pay the tax man, since Social Security barely covers food & utilities.  He can only earn so much as a wage slave greeter at Walmart before Uncle Sam starts reducing is SS checks.  I guess he can go hawk his hard-earned house to bankster with one of those reverse mortgages... 

4) Whereas an accredited investor (with 1,000,000 plus in liquidity) has access to a positive return on capital, which the poor guy doesn`t, even after paying the tax man, and without lifting a finger to actually "work".

5) So the rich still get richer but the poor now get much poorer much faster



Very Rounded Numbers...
a 5% Wealth Tax (Assuming fair, equal, no loopholes, etc.)

Middle Class Median Working Family
Median Household Income 50,000
Tax (assuming iPads aren´t eaten) 2,000
Median Household Savings (MM&IRA) 50,000
Tax 2,500
Median Home Value (and probably underwater) 200,000
Tax 10,000

Total Federal Wealth Tax on the hypothetical median household 14,500
Comparable EFFECTIVE Federal Income Tax Rate 29%

vs current currupt system, that same median family is the 15% marginal bracket, with a 13% effective rate, before deductions and credits which reduce that rate (and if he is on the just below the median, then his net obligation should be about 0 under the current system)

Now consider a 99-weeker (who has not yet been evicted by the big mean bankers) over 99 weeks they have to pay their government tax master 25,000 for the priveledge of staying in their home, or face the prospect of an eviction and propery seizure by the State which has sovereign immunity and makes the banksters look downright warm and cuddly.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 19:33 | 2758940 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

No tax is the answer,
Unless you want the whole cycle to begin again you need to turn your mind toward finding ways to fund society that are not confiscatory and arbitrary.

Any new taxes from now on will be wasted on weapons and social security.

Governments are always and everywhere in need of more money, that is the nature of government.

The only answer is to starve the beast into submission, and keep it there.

That is one reason why the US Constitution specified gold and silver as the only money. It was a form of restraint on the government.

More taxes will only feed the beast and prolong the sheeples suffering...

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 00:04 | 2759379 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

So there shouldn't be any taxes of any kind and there is no role at all for the state in any civil matters?  This blog seemingly attracts so many nitwits. 

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:23 | 2758174 Debugas
Debugas's picture

indeed taxing capital and not labour would help but the question remains - who will decide how to spend collected taxes and what for

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:36 | 2758570 seek
seek's picture

When you print fiat to cover expenses, taxing wealth is exactly what's occurring. They're already taxing wealth, probably upwards of 10% per annum based on a realistic CPI rather than the published fiction. And that's on top of income taxes, property taxes, and everything else -- federal, state, local and corporate taxes combined are about 35% of GDP, but this covers only 63% of spending.

The remaining 37% is borrowed (AKA printed by fed or stolen from future production) and in doing so devalues the wealth of everyone.

Thanks to the Laffer curve and Hauser limit, even adding direct wealth taxes will never fix this problem.

Everyone is already paying. The reason we have a world on the verge of a financial implosion is because there's literally nothing left to take, because the government and banking system are already skimming so much there's not enough left to be redistributed among the people, let alone earned (with taxes paid) by them.

We're just straight-up fucked until a system reset occurs and either spending collapses, a sizable portion of the population is killed, and/or the grift from government and finance is reduced.


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:37 | 2758573 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Make all interactions with government, including taxes, voluntary.

That way we'll see how many hunter-gatherers really want to support their fellow tribesmen.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:57 | 2758094 CH1
CH1's picture

The only way to fix this is to tax the rich at 95%. How else can we be sure that they pay their fair share?

Yeah, but then we'll have to chain them to their desks, so they can't run away!

Go long shackles!

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:16 | 2758304 Jason T
Jason T's picture

Thout Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbor's .... 



Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:43 | 2758405 LMAOLORI
Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:17 | 2758515 Lester
Lester's picture

Bobby Z had me going, until he cited "vaccinations" as an effective medical procedure and benevolent technology that has benefited mankind...

Fucker is simply ignorant.  The shit like mercury and other poisons that comprise the ingredients of "vaccinations" along with live culture viruses, are extremely detrimental to public health.

Fucker seems to believe there is capital to fund the robotics.  
Capitalist merchandisers of robotics price their wares at just under the human worker overall expense to pirate a profit.  Mgmt is next to be roboticized as AI don't take much to figure the smartest methodology to achieve goals.

Z seems to think all the USA and global citizens are facing is happenstance and by-product of technological advance.  He is a fucking idiot...


The vaccines, GMO diet, Monsanto, corn for ethanol, bovine hormones, and all other "progress" of business is intended to hasten your demise; if not kill you outright.  WTF is being sprayed in the atmosphere?  Why is Government continually betraying the fiduciary duty it owes to citizens via The Constitution?  Why has Govt allowed the nation to be looted and plundered?  What goes on in DC makes Last Exit To Brooklyn read like a Disney Vacation.


I am literally sick of these motherfuckers who continue to deny the betrayal and treason that are at the root of our national situation.





Tue, 09/04/2012 - 00:12 | 2759387 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

So we would be better if society was subject to the various diseases that would greatly increase infant morality, reduce life span, and in some cases leave those afflicted with lifetime disability (e.g., polio)?

The fact that '6' people gave you a thumbs up is surprising and troubling?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 02:00 | 2759440 gwiss
gwiss's picture

You would do well to study the inserts of the vaccinations you are so eagerly recommending, meaning the roll of small print paper that comes inside the box with the vial.  You can find them online from each vaccine company website.  You have to understand a few things to make them make sense, such as titers, but once you do, you will find that the companies are very open about the actual efficacy (meaning lack of) that their product provides.  They simply count on misinformed public opinion to insist on continuing down the path of what is clearly a failed medical experiment, because they are quite certain that none of the lay public has any capacity or even desire to understand the information that the vaccine manufacturers put out about their own product.  Now that the meme of "vaccination is good medicine" has been firmly implanted into the general public, all they have to do is continue to provide the stuff and the social meme does all  the marketing for them.


For example, if you study the insert for the Sanofi Pasteur flu shot called Fluzone, you will find the following standard boiler plate disclaimers, understanding that a titer means concentration of antibodies: 1) "Specific levels of
hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titer post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccines have not been correlated with protection from influenza virus infection" and 2) "In some human studies, antibody titers >1:40 have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50% of subjects."  This tells you that the end goal for Sanofi is not clinical protection against flu, which they don't test for, but rather production of antibodies regardless if those antibodies are effective or not, and that even at the maximum titer that they measure, which is 1:40, inactivated flu virus vaccines have historically produced 50% protection from flu in the best case scenario, meaning that was the best protection rate that any study in the discipline of flu immunology ever produced, which is why they quote it.


Next, scroll down to the tables that show seroconversion, meaning the rate at which Fluzone creates antibodies, and you will find that for the 2008-9 series in adults, this produced 60% seroconversion for H1N1 and 75% for H3N2, which are two types of flu A, and 54% for flu B.  Flu B is the dangerous one.  Flu A is easily spread but does not cause death at near the rate that flu B does.  So, for flu B, you have a 54% chance of seroconversion, but remember that even if you seroconvert, the best study they have says this will protect you 50% of the time, and thus this vaccine will keep you from getting flu B 27% of the time.  Which means that it fails to keep you from getting flu B 73% of the time.  Stellar success rate, no?


And, think about what you are doing:  injecting a cultured virus directly into your bloodstream (that's why it's an intramuscular injection, so that it can be rapidly absorbed by the plentiful blood supply to muscle) and hoping to God that the culture medium wasn't contaminated, although you could never prove it even if it was.  In this way you not only bypass the design of your immune system to have mucous membrane passed infections hit IgA first, but also completely fail to stimulate cell mediated immunity, which is half of your immune system.  At best, this technique stimulates humoral immunity, which fades quickly, which is why vaccinations need to be repeated for the rest of your life.


Or, you could accept that fact that you have a kick ass immune system designed to keep cave men alive despite being infested with worms and parasites and all sorts of injuries treated by rubbing dirt in them, and that perhaps a better tactic would be to try to help your immune system do what it was designed to do rather than take it over and control it from the top down.  In this case, you would focus on things like enough vitamin D, healthy fats, minimal stress, lots of water, exercise, and sleep.  And, when you did get sick, you would do what your body tells you to, which is curl up and rest and run fevers, which helps your immune system beat the invader, rather than once again fighting your immune system by defeating its ability to run a fever with motrin or tylenol so that you can go out and burn energy doing something other than fighting off the infection, like work.  Granted, this functional and physiological approach does not coexist well with our current lifestyle, but don't you think that should be telling you something?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:17 | 2757972 taniquetil
taniquetil's picture

Looks like all of those businesses are not DOING THEIR FAIR SHARE to hire AMERICAN WORKERS.


BY LAW, every business, FOR THE GREATER GOOD, for every 10 workers they hire, must hire an additional two workers. One to dig a hole and one to fill it back in. This is the only way that businessmen can contribute their fair share to society.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:28 | 2758003 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

US flag is made in china.


American business doesn't want to hire unless one is a low wage slave.


American workers are republican voting idiots who are easily pleased with bread (junk fat foods) and circuses (sports, dancing with stars, etc.)



Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:43 | 2758041 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

China (who now owns Sweden) scraps legendary griffin logo from new Saab cars.

After months of negotiations, electric car consortium and new Saab owner Nevs has reached an agreement about the Saab brand name and logo, thereby concluding the sale of the bankrupt automaker once and for all.

”We are so pleased that the deal has been signed and that we now can execute and implement our business plan” said Mattias Bergman from Nevs to news agency TT.

The electric car consortium National Electric Vehicle Sweden AB, or Nevs, a joint venture between China's National Modern Energy Holdings and the Japanese fund Sun Investment, reached an agreement with the Saab Defence Group and truck manufacturer Scania about the Saab brand, thereby concluding the purchase of the iconic brand for an undisclosed sum.

According to the agreement, the electric cars can be called Saab but the company cannot use the old griffin logo, which has been shared with the Saab defence and aeronautics group and Scania trucks, which all used to be part of the same corporate group.

Swedish socialist government starts its very own "helicopter Ben" as destitute scandinavians on the edge of starvation (and rioting) are showered with millions of krona.


The government has decided to award to 200 million kronor ($30 million) in performance based subsidies to boost fifteen of Sweden’s suburbs grappling with social exclusion. 

“It’s unlikely that they all perform to the same level. Some districts will be receiving more and others less,” minister for integration, Erik Ullenhag, told daily Svenska Dagbladet (SvD).

Rinkeby and Tensta in Stockholm, as well as Herrgården and Hjällbo in Malmö are examples of the fifteen city districts chosen to receive the promised cash injection. The subsidy - which is performance based - will be awarded for three criteria: how the areas deal with education, employment, and social benefits.

According to the paper, all the districts will receive some financial help, but those that do best in combatting social exclusion will receive the highest subsidies.

Evita Peron would blush at the thought of modern politicians following on her footsteps....

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:09 | 2758126 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Don't cry for me you fucking Americans.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:14 | 2758144 akak
akak's picture


Downarrowed for AnAnonymousistic Sockpuppetism.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 18:42 | 2758834 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Sorry, was that too abstract for you?

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:00 | 2758271 KK Tipton
KK Tipton's picture

I'm socially excluded...


Or however they say it in Sweden.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:07 | 2758288 DosZap
DosZap's picture

American workers are republican voting idiots who are easily pleased with bread (junk fat foods) and circuses (sports, dancing with stars, etc.)


And just think, all this time I thought Omama was a Democrat!!.

Silly me.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 17:24 | 2758704 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The hunter-gatherer/liberals are slowly morphing into pharonic/conservatives.

It's inevitable - they are embedded in the pharonic (modern) culture.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:51 | 2758040 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture




Did you forget your sarc tag???

The way things are going there is little hope this is the change you end up with 





Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:40 | 2758050 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture


"One to dig a hole and one to fill it back in."

Still beats government construction jobs where one giuy does the work and three others stand around.

And management drives around all day with a clip board and a nod to the good job being done.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:04 | 2758280 DosZap
DosZap's picture

BY LAW, every business, FOR THE GREATER GOOD, for every 10 workers they hire, must hire an additional two workers. One to dig a hole and one to fill it back in. This is the only way that businessmen can contribute their fair share to society.

You just described the .goobers specs............10 watching, 2 working.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:34 | 2758365 1100-TACTICAL-12
1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

This sort of conumdrum usually works itself out. Usually has one or two W's involved, proceeded with the word civil or followed with I,II,This time being III... 

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:24 | 2757993 savagegoose
savagegoose's picture

so who builds these robots? need to ask them for work ;)

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:31 | 2758018 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

no demand = even robots are out of work



Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:46 | 2758074 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



No jobs no comsumers to buy the products

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:45 | 2758227 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

"Death Spiral"

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 16:25 | 2758540 TheSilverJournal
TheSilverJournal's picture

This is wrong thinking peoplz. If a bunch of robots build stuff, all the stuff they build will get consumed. What can't get consumed is the stuff that is not built. In order to consume, you trade one product for the product you would like to consume. Therefore, the only question at hand should be how to make a profit, because then your making more of what people want for below the cost of what they're willing to pay.

More demand doesn't bring supply. Demand is infinite. People's desires, what they demand, is truly infinite. The trick is to create more supply. The best way to keep supply growing is through profit and the free market.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 21:19 | 2759146 TheSilverJournal
TheSilverJournal's picture

What's up with the down vote? I guess somebody thinks that if you just wish for something bad enough, somebody creates it for you.

The fact is that YOU MUST CREATE SOMETHING FIRST in order to trade for what you want. Demand is infinite. Supply is finite. Got it?

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 04:40 | 2759519 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

I didn't vote you down, but hungry people, or dead people, need only food, water, and shelter (or nothing but a grave).

The consumerist society will have a tragic crash, as it did in previous World Wars and decades and millenia.

You need food and infrastructrure and demand to built robots; we are destroying food and infrastructure and demand.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:53 | 2758246 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I think you have your own private troll.  Might I recommend Purina Brand Troll Nuggets; leaves them with a glossy coat.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:35 | 2758030 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Actually ,you guessed it.

80% of industrial robots are built by : industrial robots.

Welcome to Skynet, and have a nice day.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:40 | 2758049 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Beat me to it.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:47 | 2758075 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Winston Churchill

You understand that someone needs to program the bots. Someone needs to be there when problems arise.

Everything technological breaks down at some point and needs a live person to repair it.

I thought a number of small Japanese business bought robots and worked them in garages and small shops.

The difference between the unemployed and those earning money is just how fucking motivated they are.

A local house painter told me that when he was younger he was driving with his uncle and the uncle pointed out how many homes needed painting. Thus his choice of profession.

Everyone has the ability to make a buck from some shitty job no one else wants to do.

I know lots of people with trucks who make money hauling crap to the dump.

I know lots of young people who sit on their asses and play video games all day while bitching how bad they have it.

Motivation puts food in your belly.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:06 | 2758116 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Oh yeah... I'm sure all those people on welfare could just take a semester at the community college and be able to design and program robots.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:07 | 2758121 CH1
CH1's picture

Motivation puts food in your belly.

Lack of food (i.e., hunger) creates motivation.

Sadly, this may be the only way to motivate millions of people currently engaged in work-avoidance.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:29 | 2758333 ali-ali-al-qomfri
ali-ali-al-qomfri's picture

America used to be the bread basket of the world, but with government subsidies/incentives that was changed (ref. china). As I understand the number play In 1900 97% of American’s were rural farmers, putting food in their bellies and others, today less than 2% are farming (not including farmville app bs)

But farming is not glamorous and high-tech/high–finance are glitzy, educated 'professions'.

Now 97% of Americans are un-fit (mentally and physically) to farm for themselves even if they were give an acre to work, they couldn’t , wouldn’t do it.

You want jobs farm; farming is as much a 'profession' or way of life as anything else. But I mean real and nutritious food, for local consumption not trucked across the country and not gmo posion. All schools should graduate kids that can count, read, write and harvest.


The security of the nation is set with good food supply,

not billion dollar weapon systems scattered around the world.

1 F-15=$30Mil++ and an ROI of Zero.  

but $30mil in farm set-ups will ROI within 6 month and compound for multiple generations.

confession/disclaimer: I am not a farmer but I fix farm tools and equipment.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 21:18 | 2759144 BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

A point of order: in order to pay the property taxes for my little suburban lot, I would have to sell NINE THOUSAND ears of corn, or fifteen hundred pounds of bell peppers, or seven hundred and fifty avacados. That's just to stop the city from confiscating my land. Add to that what food I would need to eat myself, and barter for my own needs.

We could return to a nation a gentlemen farmers, if the government could be downsized.

Tue, 09/04/2012 - 00:22 | 2759394 MeBizarro
MeBizarro's picture

The reason that labor in agriculture decreased is because agriculture became highly mechanized and we had the 'Green Revolution.'  It also meant that yields per acre greatly increased, price of food plummeted, etc. 

If you solution is that Americans should go back to working by hand on small plots of land, you have a recipe for economic backwardness.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:13 | 2758138 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture


See my post below.

The great American job job disapeared just after the great American worker vanished.

Not the other way round.Is that American exceptionalism ?

Saw the exact thing in the UK,so it just an observation about human nature,not


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 15:03 | 2758276 centerline
centerline's picture

I feel that pain.  But, you and Gully are sadly just pissing in the wind here.  Yeah, you are both correct - but at the lowest level of the conversation.  There is alot to be said there.  But how about asking why?  Why did it play out this way?  Who was pulling the strings?  Why is the system set up like it is?


Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:17 | 2758155 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

In San Francisco, any shitty job no one else wants to do is taken by illegal aliens.

Thus, there are no "survival" jobs for the unemployed. You either work in your profession or you are unemployed. And no 26 year old retail manager is going to hire you if you're "old".

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:20 | 2758162 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

Unfortunately, if you do not have any money... you cannot buy a truck to haul things to the dump.  Once a person is caught in the web of subsistance welfare... it is nearly impossible to get out.  And wages at entry-level positions are such that a person working these types of jobs can never save any capital.  However, your general point holds, people who spend a substantial amount of time on public assistance lose the skills (and motivation) necessary to do anything productive.  I will agree with that, but to blame poor people and suggest that they are somehow less than human is something straight out of Dickens.  Maybe you should go back and read your Dickens.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:26 | 2757999 johny2
johny2's picture

more games and food vouchers, the people will demand.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:29 | 2758006 sangell
sangell's picture

Prior to WW 1 , more people were employed as domestic servants in the UK than any other occupation. This could be an option to put large numbers of the idle poor to work today. Today the more affluent are taxed heavily to allow government to subsidize the unemployed with benefits. Besides the cost of running welfare and entitlement programs the taxpayers receive nothing in return for the money. If taxes on the wealthy were reduced the wealthy could again hire the idle poor as maids, cooks,  chauffeurs in large numbers. Not only would this provide useful employment for people it would also provide the 'role models' and instruction in etiquette, proper dress and grammar so lacking in many of today's underclass.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:58 | 2758096 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

I do not know what current conditions are in the UK.

I had a business there employing 25 back in the 1980's.,

As an employer in the US now I find it just about impossible to hire anyone, except

recent immigrants, that have the slightest motivation to work.

It was difficult before the onset of the current depression.Now its impossible.

I am not alone,every business that I supply ,or supplys me, is saying the same

As a businessman I have had to adjust my priciing downwards to just get work.

The western world population has  been spoiled into the standard of living that the

credit binge supplied.Until realistic expectations are replaced with reality,nobody is going to

work,let alone in service to the wealthy.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:04 | 2758109 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Or you could increase wages. It works both ways.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:09 | 2758123 CH1
CH1's picture

Easy to say, not easy to do.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:17 | 2758156 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Then let's blame the real problem. We have a failed, centrally planned economy.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:21 | 2758165 CH1
CH1's picture

Well.... yeah!

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:14 | 2758142 CH1
CH1's picture

As an employer in the US now I find it just about impossible to...

I used to employ people, and ran from it screaming.

Now I employ no one, and have structured my commercial activities so that I won't employ anyone ever again.

Being an employer is to be everyone's whipping boy: The guv hassles and drains you mercilessly, employees treat you like a thief (and they thieve from you!), and the only protection is to buy one or more congressmen.

I'm out. I don't care if I make less money - my life is now my own.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:32 | 2758193 Debugas
Debugas's picture

it is a norm almost everywhere these days

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 14:50 | 2758238 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Considering that 50% of marriages end in divorce these adult children have 2 homes to live in.  Excessive wealth if you ask me.

Mon, 09/03/2012 - 13:30 | 2758012 Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

Fuck work. Post-scarcity, beetchez.



Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!