Yup, no question. Every successful organization is the product of the non-work of lucky psychopaths. Have you considered getting a little help with that twisted world view of yours? You might actually be a happier person if you gave up thinking that the world is populated by comic book super villains that only you can see.
But in most cases, people who have "made it" are very risk averse
That's after they've "made it," because they don't want to destroy what they've made. Are you more risk-tolerant about a campfire on an empty dirt lot, or on the same lot with the house you've finally finished building there? I see.
As does Code Pink, as does Black Lives Matter, as does every other political/social movement. So what? Why shouldn't everybody and every organization that considers itself to be more successful if it has more interest from more people... you know... try to make that happen? So what?
Maybe one of Amazon's competitors, which offers the same sort of services and huge range of products with similar pricing and delivery should do exactly the same thing. Oh, right - nobody else has bothered to do grow a competing business yet.
As does every cereal manufacturer - no, wait, they're trying to hook you while you're still a little kid.
So does that mean I get a school voucher to use that money to send my kids to private school?
Why should it mean that? People who don't even HAVE any kids pay just as much as you do. If you want your special snowflake to be an Extreme Special Snowflake, that's on you and your wallet.
You're (knowingly, of course) fighting a straw man, here. The GOP doesn't want it "fixed," they simply want them not to lie about it. The last thing anyone needs is the unconstitutional "fairness doctrine" back in the role of government control over speech.
The point is that it doesn't matter that you don't use FB. You should still care about this because they have an enormous footprint on our culture at this point. It's not congressional grandstanding to expose active, deliberate deceit in that area, especially as it relates to the ongoing public discourse that shapes the recurring renewal of our elected government's legislative and executive branches. It actually matters that they're trying to suppress one half of the country's communication while bolstering the other, and pretending that they're being neutral... more importantly, actively lying about the mechanisms at work.
Who gives a shit about what Facebook puts on their news page?
Well, when one of the largest communications platforms in the world tells its enormous number of users that it's using a process driven by its users postings to identify what that huge number of people find to be important, and it turns out that they're actually lying, and are manipulating that collection of information for purely partisan/ideological reasons at the expense of half of their US audience... then maybe BOTH halves of that audience would like to know that they're being deceived, don't you think? If FB wants to be the Huffington Post and grind political axes in one particular direction, fine. But don't - especially as a publicly-held company - lie about it.
You may not believe this, but there is such a thing as an actual fact.
So, for example, you know that you are not discussing actual facts when you talk about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," right? That's fine, you can BS if you want, but try being a bit less finger-waggy about what other people say if you're going to spin like that. Especially when it's so transparent.
No, but people who discover that one of the biggest communication platforms in the world are being completely deceptive about how they're promoting or suppressing news, at their camp's expense, DO have an interest in simply exposing the deception. The only person trotting out the "we need big government" concept here is you. Pretty feeble straw man attempt, there.
No, it's more a matter of people modding because they know that someone's making a succinct, accurate observation. I replied, above, to a bunch of context-free political spin aimed at trying to distract people from reality. There's no need to go into details because anyone capable of some critical thinking is already well aware that such assertions are pure spin and fiction, and those that aren't capable of critical thinking either don't care, or can't be helped anyway and probably have had the koolaid in their systems for years. We're talking about the administration that is now clumsily trying to walk back its recent crowing about how fortunate they are that most journalists are young and uncritical, which made it easier for them to be fooled into supporting a weak Obama policy position, getting them positive coverage they could only get from a gullible and uninformed media. This is something they consider to be an achievement. That list of Obama legacy stuff is a parade of just such items, bolstered and amplified by an uncritical, ignorant press. Point that out is hardly necessary, but it's worth it sometimes when someone makes a post like that as if they actually mean it.
For a guy that crows about "honour" you sure do lie, make stuff up, and toss around a bunch of crap for no particular reason except to hear yourself talk. Why is that?
Yes, it's a shame that the Japanese government was so willing to see so many of their own innocent people die. That is entirely, 100%, on them. Luckily the US was able to use the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to greatly reduce the number of people that the Japanese government would otherwise have sacrificed in horrible, bloody, flaming "conventional" fighting before it was over. But yes, go ahead and shed tears for those victims of the government that the Japanese people allowed to run them into the ruin they experienced. It's a shame. Good thing the US was able to end it abruptly and save so many lives.
But you seem to try to turn anyone that disagrees with you into "lefty ranters'.
Nope, just the ones trying to prop up the notions championed by the political left. These include, for example, those that would tie an employer's hands as we've seen done in places like socialist-minded France. That's exactly the context in which this thread is being discussed... that it's cool for an employee to seek, keep, or step away from a job as their personal circumstances and bottom line dictate, but it's Eeeeeeevil for the person who owns (for example) the small consultancy or other operation where they work to exercise that exact same flexibility for the same reasons. There's only one political camp that holds positions like that, and which shriek at business owners who point out the hypocrisy.
How amazing that your argument starts right away with a personal attack
Fascinating. You call someone a delusional sociopath, and then are amazed when someone comments on the way you behave? Still, I suppose your amazement that someone isn't content to let you off that insulting hook you put yourself on is consistent with how entitled you feel about the actual subject matter at hand.
I gave you the definition of Global economy and you simply pretend that it didn't happen.
Right. Because it was pure nonsense. We have a global economy because trade is conducted across the globe by pretty much every culture that isn't still in the stone age, or which hasn't joined the North Korea club of crazy (and even they have global trading partners after a fashion). That's a global economy: economic activity what takes place globally. Get it? If people in the only did business with Canada and Mexico, we'd be talking about our participation in a continental economy. But that hasn't been true for North America since Asians who walked over 20,000 years ago (and became the "Native Americans") stopped being the only economic activity here. We've had a truly global economy for well over 500 years. Your strange desire to wish it away would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous.
You jump to asinine arguments about what the Government role is for protecting the Nation
No, I responded to a completely information-free assertion that the government should do something by asking WHAT specifically the government should do. I even gave some examples, which are based on the long history of governments trying to make international competition and trade magically go away. You of course have avoided providing any specifics about what the US government should do to make people in India charge you more for writing HTML or answering a phone call... crickets chirping.
completely ignore presented factual people like Henry Ford who defined the country
No, I specifically pointed out that the US prosperity that rose so dramatically at that time was the result the lack of competition for similar manufacturing services from anywhere else. That lack of competition ended decades ago, and no other places are far, far more effective at much of that sort of work. It's called competition. Henry Ford faced none of it (for the type of products he was making), but you're chalking that up instead to... what? Fantasies about government intervention keeping the rest of the world's comparable products at bay? There were no such comparable products and they didn't appear until decades later. Now they exist.
Lastly, I don't speak Troll myself but I sure do recognize the dialect. Given that you are Trolling you go pound a bag of sand up your ass.
Yeah, I can see how - given your complete lack of ability to understand that there actually are other countries with companies making competing products that people anywhere in the world can buy (you know, because there are global mechanisms in place to make that trade, that economic activity, happen) - that you'd resort to calling anyone who points out your ignorance a "troll." Here's the thing, though. Imagine you're a third party reading this thread. Who's the troll - the person who says that someone pointing out that there is in fact global trade occurring is a delusional sociopath, or the person who simply describes it for what it is? You're the troll, buddy, and you've got some serious emotional issues to deal with. But first, open a couple of history books, and next time you're in a store, note where the products you're buying come from (and look at a globe while you think about it.
The problem is that you seem like a fullofhimself asshole who would be a nightmare to work for. Just stop posting now.
Always nice to see that the people who hate the businesses they want money from will trot out some juvenile ad hominem in a lame attempt to distract and avoid answering the simple question. Let's try that again:
Would you be willing to trade your expectation that an employer can't stop employing you for your not having the liberty to go get a different job when you want to, for your own reasons?
So, answer the question. If you say yes, you're an idiot unless you're suggesting that the employment contract that forces both parties to be essentially married is remarkably lucrative - what are you, a famous sports figure, perhaps? If you say no, you're agreeing with me, that both parties should enjoy the same flexibility.
If your employee wants flexibility to move somewhere else, something that would annoy you....
Why would it annoy me? I'm perfectly happy to see someone find greener pastures if someone else can afford to spend more on their services than I can. Why would I hold that against them? You're deliberately trying to avoid the point, which that other commenters here think the employer should NOT have the right to end that relationship, but that the employee SHOULD be able to.
If you want the flexibility to get rid of them, which would financially destroy them...
Why are you so unwilling to grasp that some businesses (and thus eveyone involved) can be financially destroyed if they can't adjust how many employees they pay, as their business revenue or projects come and go? You've clearly never had to run a business, and are laboring under the comic-book level fantasy that every business is just floating on a giant bucket of money and that when they reduce staff (or move to another place, or sell some or all of the business, or anything else disruptive) that it's just because they're villains who love to destroy lives. You can't possibly be that immature and uninformed, so that means you have to know you're just spouting nonsense in order to score cheap (cowardly, anonymous) points.
...and you don't see the difference
Here, let's see if we can get this into the brain that you're pretending doesn't understand reality:
One person starts a company. A one-woman graphics shop. She becomes successful through some good contracts and reaches a point where she needs to hire someone to help with the workload. Some of the contracts finish, and the economy is such that her level of work and the competition demand that she either reduces her overhead, or the business will be financially ruined. You seem to think it would be better for her and her employee to both lose everything than for her to go back to being a one-person operation in order to preserve the business and her income while she works to land some new contracts and eventually hire again (instead of NEVER hiring again because she had to close the business, because the overhead was unsustainable while paying a second salary to an underused employee that doesn't have enough billable work to do).
Who's the asshole here? Me (or any other business owner that does what's necessary to keep the business viable), or you, who think it should be destroyed if it can't continuously lose money on payroll that's bigger than revenue?
So you're raging against some unseen but ever present entity?
No, I'm pointing out that just because I don't hire people like that doesn't mean I don't encounter them every day. As you do, too, even though you're trying to change the subject in order to avoid acknowledging that.
Sounds like a conservative straw man to me.
Yeah, I'm sure you've NEVER heard lefty ranters shouting anti-business platitudes before. Maybe you're lucky, maybe you've never had to actually walk through an Occupy camp blocking the entrance to some poor guy's business, shouting at him about how he's a sellout for participating in Eeeeeevil capitalism... um, but do you mind if we use your bathroom?
The delusion of the "Global Economy" is all the validation we need to know you are exactly that. A global economy would mean that workers are all on par.
Wow, you really HAVE been at the Kool Aid, haven't you.
So I suppose you're also going to insist that we don't even have a "national" economy, right? You are confusing central control of everyone's lives and business with "the economy." Classic brainwashed lefty nonsense. Why do you think that local laws being different in, say, Germany... mean that the US and Germany aren't participating in overlapping (gasp! international! on the same globe!) economies? Are you that sheltered there, in your Safe Space at your middle school, where your parents have gone to such great lengths to make sure your tender little mind hasn't been made to feel icky, uncomfortable feelings caused by seeing reality? Do you really think that trade between nations doesn't exist, just because the market for a person serving food in Mumbai doesn't place the same value in dollars as it does for a waiter in Manhattan or Paris's 6th Arrondissement?
Your creepy desire for control over ever culture and everyone's lives and entrepreneurial efforts has blinded you to the fact that trade still happens even when you don't like the fact that different cultures approach their affairs in different ways. I imagine you'd probably be shocked to discover how people live in, say, rural Montana. And they'd laugh you out of the room when you tell them that they're not part of the economy because they don't live each day according to your vision of what constitutes an economy.
Slashdot Mirror
psychopathy and dumb luck
Yup, no question. Every successful organization is the product of the non-work of lucky psychopaths. Have you considered getting a little help with that twisted world view of yours? You might actually be a happier person if you gave up thinking that the world is populated by comic book super villains that only you can see.
But in most cases, people who have "made it" are very risk averse
That's after they've "made it," because they don't want to destroy what they've made. Are you more risk-tolerant about a campfire on an empty dirt lot, or on the same lot with the house you've finally finished building there? I see.
Yup, that Bezos, he's useless. Everything that he's built, you could have done that. Why didn't you, by the way? Please be specific.
You really aren't very happy that Soros is every bit as creepy as he's portrayed, are you?
Those terrorists sound like idiotic schoolchildren that have no idea how things work.
Yeah, or Bernie Sanders supporters. Eat the rich! We'll all finally become prosperous and everything will go our way! Because, rich people.
"They just want to hook you when you're 20."
...
...
...
... you know ... try to make that happen? So what?
As does Apple
As does Microsoft
As does Google
As does Code Pink, as does Black Lives Matter, as does every other political/social movement. So what? Why shouldn't everybody and every organization that considers itself to be more successful if it has more interest from more people
Maybe one of Amazon's competitors, which offers the same sort of services and huge range of products with similar pricing and delivery should do exactly the same thing. Oh, right - nobody else has bothered to do grow a competing business yet. As does every cereal manufacturer - no, wait, they're trying to hook you while you're still a little kid.
So does that mean I get a school voucher to use that money to send my kids to private school?
Why should it mean that? People who don't even HAVE any kids pay just as much as you do. If you want your special snowflake to be an Extreme Special Snowflake, that's on you and your wallet.
Hearing of it and putting your BS spin on its role are two different things.
You're (knowingly, of course) fighting a straw man, here. The GOP doesn't want it "fixed," they simply want them not to lie about it. The last thing anyone needs is the unconstitutional "fairness doctrine" back in the role of government control over speech.
The point is that it doesn't matter that you don't use FB. You should still care about this because they have an enormous footprint on our culture at this point. It's not congressional grandstanding to expose active, deliberate deceit in that area, especially as it relates to the ongoing public discourse that shapes the recurring renewal of our elected government's legislative and executive branches. It actually matters that they're trying to suppress one half of the country's communication while bolstering the other, and pretending that they're being neutral... more importantly, actively lying about the mechanisms at work.
But of course the liberal side of the bunch would NEVER issue press releases or spin anything. Right. Are you even listening to yourself?
Who gives a shit about what Facebook puts on their news page?
Well, when one of the largest communications platforms in the world tells its enormous number of users that it's using a process driven by its users postings to identify what that huge number of people find to be important, and it turns out that they're actually lying, and are manipulating that collection of information for purely partisan/ideological reasons at the expense of half of their US audience ... then maybe BOTH halves of that audience would like to know that they're being deceived, don't you think? If FB wants to be the Huffington Post and grind political axes in one particular direction, fine. But don't - especially as a publicly-held company - lie about it.
You may not believe this, but there is such a thing as an actual fact.
So, for example, you know that you are not discussing actual facts when you talk about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," right? That's fine, you can BS if you want, but try being a bit less finger-waggy about what other people say if you're going to spin like that. Especially when it's so transparent.
No, but people who discover that one of the biggest communication platforms in the world are being completely deceptive about how they're promoting or suppressing news, at their camp's expense, DO have an interest in simply exposing the deception. The only person trotting out the "we need big government" concept here is you. Pretty feeble straw man attempt, there.
No, it's more a matter of people modding because they know that someone's making a succinct, accurate observation. I replied, above, to a bunch of context-free political spin aimed at trying to distract people from reality. There's no need to go into details because anyone capable of some critical thinking is already well aware that such assertions are pure spin and fiction, and those that aren't capable of critical thinking either don't care, or can't be helped anyway and probably have had the koolaid in their systems for years. We're talking about the administration that is now clumsily trying to walk back its recent crowing about how fortunate they are that most journalists are young and uncritical, which made it easier for them to be fooled into supporting a weak Obama policy position, getting them positive coverage they could only get from a gullible and uninformed media. This is something they consider to be an achievement. That list of Obama legacy stuff is a parade of just such items, bolstered and amplified by an uncritical, ignorant press. Point that out is hardly necessary, but it's worth it sometimes when someone makes a post like that as if they actually mean it.
For a guy that crows about "honour" you sure do lie, make stuff up, and toss around a bunch of crap for no particular reason except to hear yourself talk. Why is that?
No tears shed even for the innocent killed?
Yes, it's a shame that the Japanese government was so willing to see so many of their own innocent people die. That is entirely, 100%, on them. Luckily the US was able to use the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to greatly reduce the number of people that the Japanese government would otherwise have sacrificed in horrible, bloody, flaming "conventional" fighting before it was over. But yes, go ahead and shed tears for those victims of the government that the Japanese people allowed to run them into the ruin they experienced. It's a shame. Good thing the US was able to end it abruptly and save so many lives.
That all sounds lovely. Complete fiction, but so nice sounding.
But you seem to try to turn anyone that disagrees with you into "lefty ranters'.
Nope, just the ones trying to prop up the notions championed by the political left. These include, for example, those that would tie an employer's hands as we've seen done in places like socialist-minded France. That's exactly the context in which this thread is being discussed ... that it's cool for an employee to seek, keep, or step away from a job as their personal circumstances and bottom line dictate, but it's Eeeeeeevil for the person who owns (for example) the small consultancy or other operation where they work to exercise that exact same flexibility for the same reasons. There's only one political camp that holds positions like that, and which shriek at business owners who point out the hypocrisy.
How amazing that your argument starts right away with a personal attack
Fascinating. You call someone a delusional sociopath, and then are amazed when someone comments on the way you behave? Still, I suppose your amazement that someone isn't content to let you off that insulting hook you put yourself on is consistent with how entitled you feel about the actual subject matter at hand.
I gave you the definition of Global economy and you simply pretend that it didn't happen.
Right. Because it was pure nonsense. We have a global economy because trade is conducted across the globe by pretty much every culture that isn't still in the stone age, or which hasn't joined the North Korea club of crazy (and even they have global trading partners after a fashion). That's a global economy: economic activity what takes place globally. Get it? If people in the only did business with Canada and Mexico, we'd be talking about our participation in a continental economy. But that hasn't been true for North America since Asians who walked over 20,000 years ago (and became the "Native Americans") stopped being the only economic activity here. We've had a truly global economy for well over 500 years. Your strange desire to wish it away would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous.
You jump to asinine arguments about what the Government role is for protecting the Nation
No, I responded to a completely information-free assertion that the government should do something by asking WHAT specifically the government should do. I even gave some examples, which are based on the long history of governments trying to make international competition and trade magically go away. You of course have avoided providing any specifics about what the US government should do to make people in India charge you more for writing HTML or answering a phone call ... crickets chirping.
completely ignore presented factual people like Henry Ford who defined the country
No, I specifically pointed out that the US prosperity that rose so dramatically at that time was the result the lack of competition for similar manufacturing services from anywhere else. That lack of competition ended decades ago, and no other places are far, far more effective at much of that sort of work. It's called competition. Henry Ford faced none of it (for the type of products he was making), but you're chalking that up instead to ... what? Fantasies about government intervention keeping the rest of the world's comparable products at bay? There were no such comparable products and they didn't appear until decades later. Now they exist.
Lastly, I don't speak Troll myself but I sure do recognize the dialect. Given that you are Trolling you go pound a bag of sand up your ass.
Yeah, I can see how - given your complete lack of ability to understand that there actually are other countries with companies making competing products that people anywhere in the world can buy (you know, because there are global mechanisms in place to make that trade, that economic activity, happen) - that you'd resort to calling anyone who points out your ignorance a "troll." Here's the thing, though. Imagine you're a third party reading this thread. Who's the troll - the person who says that someone pointing out that there is in fact global trade occurring is a delusional sociopath, or the person who simply describes it for what it is? You're the troll, buddy, and you've got some serious emotional issues to deal with. But first, open a couple of history books, and next time you're in a store, note where the products you're buying come from (and look at a globe while you think about it.
Right. But not the New York Times, right? I see.
What's the problem, exactly?
The problem is that you seem like a fullofhimself asshole who would be a nightmare to work for. Just stop posting now.
Always nice to see that the people who hate the businesses they want money from will trot out some juvenile ad hominem in a lame attempt to distract and avoid answering the simple question. Let's try that again:
Would you be willing to trade your expectation that an employer can't stop employing you for your not having the liberty to go get a different job when you want to, for your own reasons?
So, answer the question. If you say yes, you're an idiot unless you're suggesting that the employment contract that forces both parties to be essentially married is remarkably lucrative - what are you, a famous sports figure, perhaps? If you say no, you're agreeing with me, that both parties should enjoy the same flexibility.
If your employee wants flexibility to move somewhere else, something that would annoy you....
Why would it annoy me? I'm perfectly happy to see someone find greener pastures if someone else can afford to spend more on their services than I can. Why would I hold that against them? You're deliberately trying to avoid the point, which that other commenters here think the employer should NOT have the right to end that relationship, but that the employee SHOULD be able to.
If you want the flexibility to get rid of them, which would financially destroy them...
Why are you so unwilling to grasp that some businesses (and thus eveyone involved) can be financially destroyed if they can't adjust how many employees they pay, as their business revenue or projects come and go? You've clearly never had to run a business, and are laboring under the comic-book level fantasy that every business is just floating on a giant bucket of money and that when they reduce staff (or move to another place, or sell some or all of the business, or anything else disruptive) that it's just because they're villains who love to destroy lives. You can't possibly be that immature and uninformed, so that means you have to know you're just spouting nonsense in order to score cheap (cowardly, anonymous) points.
...and you don't see the difference
Here, let's see if we can get this into the brain that you're pretending doesn't understand reality:
One person starts a company. A one-woman graphics shop. She becomes successful through some good contracts and reaches a point where she needs to hire someone to help with the workload. Some of the contracts finish, and the economy is such that her level of work and the competition demand that she either reduces her overhead, or the business will be financially ruined. You seem to think it would be better for her and her employee to both lose everything than for her to go back to being a one-person operation in order to preserve the business and her income while she works to land some new contracts and eventually hire again (instead of NEVER hiring again because she had to close the business, because the overhead was unsustainable while paying a second salary to an underused employee that doesn't have enough billable work to do).
Who's the asshole here? Me (or any other business owner that does what's necessary to keep the business viable), or you, who think it should be destroyed if it can't continuously lose money on payroll that's bigger than revenue?
So you're raging against some unseen but ever present entity?
No, I'm pointing out that just because I don't hire people like that doesn't mean I don't encounter them every day. As you do, too, even though you're trying to change the subject in order to avoid acknowledging that.
Sounds like a conservative straw man to me.
Yeah, I'm sure you've NEVER heard lefty ranters shouting anti-business platitudes before. Maybe you're lucky, maybe you've never had to actually walk through an Occupy camp blocking the entrance to some poor guy's business, shouting at him about how he's a sellout for participating in Eeeeeevil capitalism ... um, but do you mind if we use your bathroom?
The delusion of the "Global Economy" is all the validation we need to know you are exactly that. A global economy would mean that workers are all on par.
Wow, you really HAVE been at the Kool Aid, haven't you.
... mean that the US and Germany aren't participating in overlapping (gasp! international! on the same globe!) economies? Are you that sheltered there, in your Safe Space at your middle school, where your parents have gone to such great lengths to make sure your tender little mind hasn't been made to feel icky, uncomfortable feelings caused by seeing reality? Do you really think that trade between nations doesn't exist, just because the market for a person serving food in Mumbai doesn't place the same value in dollars as it does for a waiter in Manhattan or Paris's 6th Arrondissement?
So I suppose you're also going to insist that we don't even have a "national" economy, right? You are confusing central control of everyone's lives and business with "the economy." Classic brainwashed lefty nonsense. Why do you think that local laws being different in, say, Germany
Your creepy desire for control over ever culture and everyone's lives and entrepreneurial efforts has blinded you to the fact that trade still happens even when you don't like the fact that different cultures approach their affairs in different ways. I imagine you'd probably be shocked to discover how people live in, say, rural Montana. And they'd laugh you out of the room when you tell them that they're not part of the economy because they don't live each day according to your vision of what constitutes an economy.