NY Times Op-Ed: Beware Rich People Who Say They Want to Change the World

[tshile]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The problem isn't that they donate. Its that they think creating charter schools is the answer to fixing public schools. Not paying taxes to help public schools.

 

Well part of the problem is the the public school system appears to waste a lot of money and not do a good job. They just keep asking for more money. 

 

I do not think charter schools are the answer. But where I live the public school system gets a lot of money and the results are not that great and their only public response to criticism is that they need more money. 

 

I rememebr when fairfax county public schools said they were broke and needed more money a few years ago 

one of the richest school systems in the nutty, just poorly mismanaged 

[Bozo the kKklown]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Well part of the problem is the the public school system appears to waste a lot of money and not do a good job. They just keep asking for more money. 

 

I do not think charter schools are the answer. But where I live the public school system gets a lot of money and the results are not that great and their only public response to criticism is that they need more money. 

 

I rememebr when fairfax county public schools said they were broke and needed more money a few years ago 

one of the richest school systems in the nutty, just poorly mismanaged 

 

Of course, but there is also a nefarious effort to screw up social goods so that we can ask for rich people to give money instead of fixing those structural issues. Sort of like how they say Obamacare is bad or terrible worse while simultaneously passing laws to make it worse.

[NoCalMike]

When the top marginal tax rate was above 70% were the wealthy still wealthy?  I think so.  Somehow they didn't struggle with how to continue to be wealthy back then.  Now, I know someone will say "but they never really paid all of that."  Ok sure, but then why was there a need to slash the top marginal rate in the first place? How low does it need to be cut before they are "broken from the gov'ts regulatory handcuffs"

 

Tax policy of the past was not constructed to "punish" the wealthy, it's not like 100% of that tax money went into the bank accounts of everyone else.  It was made to discourage the funneling of the revenue upwards where it would just go sit in a bank account accumulating more decimal points, which helps exactly no one.   Is investing in your workers, a punishment?   Seemed like there was a time when a company's employees were valued more.  Whether it was salary, benefits, perks, bones, pensions, etc etc etc......who exactly was that punishing besides a bank account of a share holder?  Again, we aren't talking about money that isn't there.  How many stories do we read about wages staying stagnant while share holders are showered with bonuses and whatever else.   

 

The system that built the strong middle class is broken, and it's largely been aided every step of the way by a gov't that's been paid off to get out of the way if not outright write laws to help.

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

Public schools need to be managed better, but a hedge fund guy who told people to invest in their money into charter schools because the profits are crazy isn't the answer either. (the superintendent of the LA school system is a hedge fund guy who said that)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

In pursuit of honest conversation, it should also be noted that Amazon has helped many small businesses by greatly expanding their customer base.  There are things that I have bought on Amazon that are made and sold by small businesses that I would have never come across if it weren't for them being listed on Amazon.

 

 

My point wasnt that amazon was evil, but that people (including the poor) appreciate the value it provides more that the wealth they can create (through saving) and that’s how bezos got super rich. He didn’t take anything. 

 

We also the cost saving of Amazon’s robots and scale more than we value keeping middle income jobs in place. We value the cheep Chinese goods more than American made goods (which aren’t necessarily any higher quality but cost more because the inputs cost more).  

 

 

[NoCalMike]

I don't know if we value cheap chinese goods more, but people also have budgetary restrictions.  Wal-Mart might be the cheap store on the block but you can still easily drop a couple hundred on a trip to "pick up a few things" if you aren't careful or use a strict list when shopping.

 

I don't know anyone who prefers to shop at Wal-Mart, a lot do it out of necessity. Whether it is a small town that Wal Mart has ravaged, or in a suburb where people are struggling paycheck to paycheck.

 

It's a complex issue, with no easy answers regardless of what angle you approach it from.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Small businesses are often forced to goto Amazon.

 

how so?

 

 

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

And then Amazon notices popular products selling from those small businesses and then sells Amazon labeled versions of those products to undercut them.

 

 

And Americans value this undercutting more that they value paying “what’s fair”.... amazon isn’t evil for fulfilling a demand that people have.

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

 

amazon isn’t evil for fulfilling a demand that people have.

 

Heroin dealers fulfill a demand.

Pimps fulfill a demand.

Rogue arms dealers fulfill a demand.

The biblical version of Satan fulfills all kinds of demands.

[NoCalMike]

There's demand, and then there's looking into how & why demand for the lowest common denominator has become the demand in the first place.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Aren't we expecting a little too much if we're asking a company NOT to find a demand and profit from fulfilling it? After all, this is more complex than some rich miser sitting in his mansion counting his gold pieces. These companies have so many people who expect and demand profitability that it's unfair to people in those positions (shareholders, etc.) if Amazon simply turned their backs on ways to make money. 

[Fresh8686]

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Aren't we expecting a little too much if we're asking a company NOT to find a demand and profit from fulfilling it? After all, this is more complex than some rich miser sitting in his mansion counting his gold pieces. These companies have so many people who expect and demand profitability that it's unfair to people in those positions (shareholders, etc.) if Amazon simply turned their backs on ways to make money. 

No we're not. How you make a profit is a huge consideration. The damage it might cause in pursuits of those profits, social costs, environmental costs, and economic costs of course.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Fresh8686 said:

No we're not. How you make a profit is a huge consideration. The damage it might cause in pursuits of those profits, social costs, environmental costs, and economic costs of course.

 

But if you're playing by the rules (I believe they are) and can sell something for less than your competitor, why shouldn't you? 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

 

18 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Heroin dealers fulfill a demand.

Pimps fulfill a demand.

Rogue arms dealers fulfill a demand.

The biblical version of Satan fulfills all kinds of demands.

 

And?

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

There's demand, and then there's looking into how & why demand for the lowest common denominator has become the demand in the first place.  

 

Self interest.

[NoCalMike]

Well isn't that also sort of why it used to seem more frowned upon for a company to grow so big it creates a monopoly?  

[Fresh8686]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

But if you're playing by the rules (I believe they are) and can sell something for less than your competitor, why shouldn't you? 

Just so I'm clear, are you asking that if the rules don't specifically have consequences for damage caused, why shouldn't a company cause that damage in the pursuit of profits?

Personally, I avoid causing damage regardless of whether or not there is a rule barring it. Also, I think Trump provides a good example of the damage that can be done via the violation of "norms" of good behavior/integrity that are not specifically codified into law and the importance of elevating our responsibility beyond the explicit letter of the law.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Fresh8686 said:

Just so I'm clear, are you asking that if the rules don't specifically have consequences for damage caused, why shouldn't a company cause that damage in the pursuit of profits?

Personally, I avoid causing damage regardless of whether or not there is a rule barring it. Also, I think Trump provides a good example of the damage that can be done via the violation of "norms" of good behavior/integrity that are not specifically codified into law and the importance of elevating our responsibility beyond the explicit letter of the law.

 

Of course not...we aren't talking about dumping toxic waste into a river here. 

 

I think it's a leap to say that any time a company sells a product for less than another company it's causing damage. How do we know the good (providing something at a lower cost to the consumer) doesn't outweigh the bad (making life tougher on a competitor)? 

 

 

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Yeah, I definitely want laws changed to stop this. I think that is the ultimate goal.

 

The Tweet thread I shared in hte second post was full of "liberals" who think the Koch brothers are good. I wont say all of them because I do not know all of them, but I would wager its a huge sum.

 

Aye, one is too many.  Good is such a relative term, Koch brothers are net negative, they are not our friends.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

14 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Well isn't that also sort of why it used to seem more frowned upon for a company to grow so big it creates a monopoly?  

 

Fair enough. If you want to to go down that route breaking up a larger company into smaller ones is less efficient and will lower gdp but it might allow the bottom to grow.

 

the poor aren’t getting poorer, the rich are getting richer. I know that @PeterMP said that the people are working more hours but it’s only a 15 percent difference, and it doesn’t say who is working more. So it’s interesting but it would need more information to be convincing.

[Bozo the kKklown]

29 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Aren't we expecting a little too much if we're asking a company NOT to find a demand and profit from fulfilling it? After all, this is more complex than some rich miser sitting in his mansion counting his gold pieces. These companies have so many people who expect and demand profitability that it's unfair to people in those positions (shareholders, etc.) if Amazon simply turned their backs on ways to make money. 

that's why we have laws and regulations

18 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I think it's a leap to say that any time a company sells a product for less than another company it's causing damage. How do we know the good (providing something at a lower cost to the consumer) doesn't outweigh the bad (making life tougher on a competitor)? 

What happens when its a larger company doing it to a small business? That small business only sells X while the larger company dabbles in X.

 

The small business loses, and thus competition is gone. Larger company now slowly raises price on X to be higher than what the defunct small business originally sold it. Now there is no competition to check the large company.

 

We used to have laws and regulations that protected consumers and small businesses but our country votes against its interests.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

that's why we have laws and regulations

What happens when its a larger company doing it to a small business? That small business only sells X while the larger company dabbles in X.

 

The small business loses, and thus competition is gone. Larger company now slowly raises price on X to be higher than what the defunct small business originally sold it. Now there is no competition to check the large company.

 

Then there is suddenly a market for another small business to challenge the large company in the selling of X. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Then there is suddenly a market for another small business to challenge the large company in the selling of X. 

Except you need capital to start a business.

 

Banks have been hoarding money since 2008 after they caused the collapse to happen.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

What happens when its a larger company doing it to a small business? That small business only sells X while the larger company dabbles in X.

 

The small business loses, and thus competition is gone. Larger company now slowly raises price on X to be higher than what the defunct small business originally sold it. Now there is no competition to check the large company.

 

You are correct, Until someone new says, hey greet company is selling something I can make for $1 for 10 dollars. I can sell it for $7, make a lot of money.

 

thats why the larger company keeps the price at an unsustainable price for a stand alone company. (Eg, cheap) If the large company only makes a little from everything it sells it makes a lot.  It can even make a profit at a lower price than a stand alone company can because of scale and scope. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Except you need capital to start a business.

 

Banks have been hoarding money since 2008 after they caused the collapse to happen.

 

I don't really get the point you're making...

 

I'm not saying that everyone on this planet has an equal opportunity to start a business. If you haven't saved up any money and aren't eligible for a loan, I don't know how to help. But, my point is that the market will allow for someone to challenge the large company unless it continues to sell the product at the lowest price. 

[Fresh8686]

19 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Of course not...we aren't talking about dumping toxic waste into a river here. 

 

I think it's a leap to say that any time a company sells a product for less than another company it's causing damage. How do we know the good (providing something at a lower cost to the consumer) doesn't outweigh the bad (making life tougher on a competitor)? 

 

 

 

No one is saying that last part though. Or at least I'm not. And depending on what kind of company we are talking about we might just be talking about dumping toxic waste into a river. Trump's EPA did just try to roll back major regulations over water pollution via limiting the scope of Obama's Clean Water Act in December.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675477583/trump-epa-proposes-big-changes-to-federal-water-protections

What I am saying is that a company should practice responsibility to make sure their pursuit of profits do not incur social, health, environmental, and economic damage even if there is no law specifically barring them from doing so.

You have to have that spirit of responsibility in a society or else it becomes a race to the bottom. It can't just be "what can I legally get away with".

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

What I am saying is that a company should practice responsibility to make sure their pursuit of profits do not incur social, health, environmental, and economic damage even if there is no law specifically barring them from doing so.
 

 

I think we agree...I guess it's the classification of these damages that is tough to quantify. 

 

If I start a company that sells oven mitts and ultimately can offer an equal product for less than John's Mitts down the street, do I hold back for fear that putting John out of business will lead to social or economic damage? Where do we draw the line between survival of the fittest and these damages? 

 

Again - in my scenario I'm not doing anything illegal or underhanded (like hiring children to make my oven mitts for pennies).