Full hard brexit. But at least its red white and blue.

Reactions
532 227 7
#36
Therese May calls early elections to solidify support of the government. Right. Because it's not like both parties are still deeply divided or anything. What kind of signal can anyone send when all parties are still unclear with how or what?
It'll probably reduce UKIP presence in the House, but likely increase Scottish Nationalist and LibDems. Labour probably won't manage to get into gear fast enough, the Tories were probably briefed ahead of time and will roll out a "unified" "for Britain" "support May" campaign ASAP.
 
Reactions
903 369 25
#39
Could you imagine in the US if elections could just happen early? CNN would die of happiness.
 
Reactions
903 369 25
#42
Does she have the votes to push the election through?
From what I read, the main opposition party is going to support it, on the grounds that opposing it sends a clear signal that they know they're incredibly unpopular
 
Reactions
211 27 1
#43
It'll probably reduce UKIP presence in the House, but likely increase Scottish Nationalist and LibDems. Labour probably won't manage to get into gear fast enough, the Tories were probably briefed ahead of time and will roll out a "unified" "for Britain" "support May" campaign ASAP.
UKIP don't have any MP's atm. Difficult to see where SNP can increase their numbers - they only stand in Scottish seats & already have 54 out of 59 there. Lib Dems have to improve. No way they could do so badly twice in a row.

Labour might be happy to have a disaster as that's their best chance of finally getting rid of Corbyn as leader.
 
Reactions
973 314 5
#44
Corbyn is a political cockroach. It will take a nuclear apocalypse to dislodge him.
 
Reactions
759 224 5
#45
From what I read, the main opposition party is going to support it, on the grounds that opposing it sends a clear signal that they know they're incredibly unpopular
Passed 522 to 13, so yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Reactions
254 22 6
#47
Dark, I gotta give it to ya, you're digging up Gold this morning. Possibly platinum!
 
Reactions
211 27 1
#54
And after business leaders have reminded everyone that the UK leaving the EU without some sort of a deal will lead to businesses either drastically cutting back on investment in the UK if not outright leaving, Boris Johnson has given a calm, measured response to this.

No, wait. What he actually said was "Fuck business." Yes, that's a direct quote. :facepalm:
 
Reactions
529 66 10
#55
"It's only the free market when it goes my way!" - free market advocates everywhere
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
1,713 763 13
#56
To be fair, I'd rather see "Fuck business." than the crony capitalism shit going on currently in the US. I mean, right now everything is tilted in favor of the corporation over the individual.
 
Reactions
1,821 530 14
#57
Turns out most corporations have more money than most individuals.
Who knew?

—Patrick
 
Reactions
286 35 1
#58
And after business leaders have reminded everyone that the UK leaving the EU without some sort of a deal will lead to businesses either drastically cutting back on investment in the UK if not outright leaving, Boris Johnson has given a calm, measured response to this.

No, wait. What he actually said was "Fuck business." Yes, that's a direct quote. :facepalm:
Because Brexit was never ever ever about trade.
 
Reactions
529 66 10
#59
To be fair, I'd rather see "Fuck business." than the crony capitalism shit going on currently in the US. I mean, right now everything is tilted in favor of the corporation over the individual.
Sure, but that's not what this is, he's simply taking money/influence from other companies... remember the Murdoch thing.
 
Reactions
1,821 530 14
#61
Hey look, collections of MORE THAN ONE PERSON (on average) have more money than just ONE PERSON!

Who knew?
So then the question becomes...when a corporation pulls from a pool of money generated by N people, what percentage of N gets to decide where all that money goes? How faithfully should it reflect the breakdown of the desires of N people? In other words...who gets to drive this thing?

--Patrick
 
Reactions
254 22 6
#62
So then the question becomes...when a corporation pulls from a pool of money generated by N people, what percentage of N gets to decide where all that money goes? How faithfully should it reflect the breakdown of the desires of N people? In other words...who gets to drive this thing?
IMO the root cause of the craziness is that Corps are "legal persons" in some ways, rather than their shareholders being directly responsible for their conduct, and/or funds, but that's a long-standing gripe. I personally liked the person who said "I'll believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas executes one."

On another level though, once you've paid a worker who cut your grass, why should you determine what he/she does with such money? It's THEIRS. You do NOT have a say in how they spend/invest/"waste" it. But I may be misreading your previous post (or misreading the one before that too).
 
Reactions
1,821 530 14
#63
once you've paid a worker who cut your grass, why should you determine what he/she does with such money? It's THEIRS. You do NOT have a say in how they spend/invest/"waste" it. But I may be misreading your previous post (or misreading the one before that too).
There's that chance, yes.

The question is more one of, in a company where 10% (or less) of the employees control 90% of that company's resources and influence, when we hear that CompanyA has donated 20mil to some cause, exactly whose interest is being served? Especially since in a corporation, there's no real way for employees to "vote."

--Patrick
 
Reactions
254 22 6
#66
So then the question becomes...when a corporation pulls from a pool of money generated by N people, what percentage of N gets to decide where all that money goes? How faithfully should it reflect the breakdown of the desires of N people? In other words...who gets to drive this thing?
The question is more one of, in a company where 10% (or less) of the employees control 90% of that company's resources and influence, when we hear that CompanyA has donated 20mil to some cause, exactly whose interest is being served? Especially since in a corporation, there's no real way for employees to "vote."
Patrick, what's your opinion on the following:

A factory owner pays her workers $150 per coat they produce. She then collects and sells those coats at $200 each to a distributor. The materials cost $100 per coat. Costs of the factory, tools (replacement over time), etc, are important but let's say that per worker they are $10 per coat.

Is the factory owner stealing $50 of value from the workers?


I ask this, because a variant of this is often a "parable" of communist thought, and it seemed to "echo" from the "money generated by N people" that you said above, at least to me.
 
Reactions
593 199 4
#67
Patrick, what's your opinion on the following:

A factory owner pays her workers $150 per coat they produce. She then collects and sells those coats at $200 each to a distributor. The materials cost $100 per coat. Costs of the factory, tools (replacement over time), etc, are important but let's say that per worker they are $10 per coat.

Is the factory owner stealing $50 of value from the workers?

I ask this, because a variant of this is often a "parable" of communist thought, and it seemed to "echo" from the "money generated by N people" that you said above, at least to me.
Is the employee paying for the materials to make the coat, or is the factory owner just terrible at business?
 
Reactions
254 22 6
#68
Is the employee paying for the materials to make the coat, or is the factory owner just terrible at business?
Because the example was from memory, and I'm bad at repeating it, let's say the worker pays that, and the tools cost.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
1,769 243 3
#69
I ask this, because a variant of this is often a "parable" of communist thought, and it seemed to "echo" from the "money generated by N people" that you said above, at least to me.
Regardless of how flawed the conclusion drawn from that "parable" is, it still brings up an important point: We severely undervalue human capital. That's one of the biggest problems with capitalism that I can see. (That and the mistaken notion that the purpose of business is to make as much money as possible. No, the purpose is the fair and equitable exchange of goods, services, and/or currency.)

It's kinda weird, mass produced capital comes off the line with a kind of built-in "union" of sorts. Every Chevy off the line is part of a "Chevy union of automobiles", with all the collective bargaining that comes with that. Generally speaking, none of those vehicles are going to rush out to undercut all the others. Every time human labor has been replaced by robot labor, the robots came with a union. They get paid up front (unless they're rented, or have a maintenance contract), but they still got collective bargaining.

It's not a perfect analogy, since robots and cars aren't human, but humans need more advocates standing up for just how much human capital is worth, and how little people get paid, mainly because people are ready and willing to severely undercut each other, because you have to work to live. Even though Chevy has competition with Ford, Subaru, and others, they're still looking for the long term, and no one in the car business is interested in having the price move so low that it's unsustainable. However, there are a lot of humans willing to take unsustainable jobs, just because that's better than nothing.

And, getting back to the subject at hand, big corporations very often have a vested interest in keeping human capital undervalued, and will often use their money to fund a political voice demanding that we continue to undervalue human capital. So I see @PatrThom 's point, that the money these workers should be valued at is going to speak in the political realm, very often against the worker's best interests.
 
Reactions
1,821 530 14
#70
The parable you present is only tangent to my point.

Let me try one:

A priest shepherds a small town, and looks after its spiritual well-being. He baptizes the born, comforts the sick, and delivers rites to the departed. If he delivers a sermon on the evils of the violence and corruptive influence of cable television, is it truly because he believes God disapproves of these influences? Or is it perhaps because his cousin owns the local video rental place?
I see @PatrThom 's point, that the money these workers should be valued at is going to speak in the political realm, very often against the worker's best interests.
It's more about how if a company DOES decide to take a stand, any kind of stand, the influence generated by many will be concentrated and directed by only a few, and as such there is enormous potential for abuse, arrogance, and as Pez says, a tendency for the deciders to consider their own personal interests over those of the workers, or even over the company itself.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Top