Topic: Libertarians Are Sociopaths - page 3. (Read 11648 times)

Curiously, you know how many stock options Steve Jobs died with?  ALL OF THEM!

Every stock option he received came at the expense of other stock holders. None came at the expense of employees. Each option was worthless when he received it. (Options are the right to purchase stock at the current market price.) They only increased in value because he 1) revived a dying company, 2) saved countless jobs and 3) created multitudes more. The value of his options rose 600 million dollars in the past year alone, even though he received zero additional options.

He cashed out none of them. Had he chosen to cash out those options, every penny of the money would have come from new Apple investors. Zero of it would have come at the expense of Chinese laborers.


Yeah, I'm sure you think he was a insignificant greedy bastard leaching off the work products of others. I just happen to think you are wrong.

I'm very much a conservationist anarchist/libertarian. I believe in freedom, but please try to keep it safe and respectable. I don't want to embarrass my mother with my anarchist antics.

Reeeeely?!? Spread the wealth conservatively.


And as far from reality as you can get.

And exactly how many millions of dollars in stock options does the average Chinese laborer get?

Back when corporate taxes were higher, they re-invested revenue back into the business, not just pay dividends that would also be taxed higher. That's why American industries were growing and a middle-class prospered. Back then Americans bought goods made in America, not by child labor in other countries. With higher taxes a CEO would have to be pretty damn stupid to "squirrel money away" like they do now because they would have to pay higher taxes on that money than they do now.

OK, now Steve Jobs' salary at Apple was $1 a year. I'm pretty sure that's less than lots of unskilled Chinese labor.

I am talking about salaries of executives of corps like HP, General Electric, Apple, etc, compared to wages of the people these global corporations employ around the world. US corporations don't just maufactore and sell in US anymore, remember? So comparing corporate and CEO profits, which increased due to corps expanding their markets and production to the entire world, with incomes of only one of the countries is somewhat unfair. I could just as easily say that the salary of GE CEO went up by 400%, but the salary of a factory worker in China went up from $0.30 to $4.00, going up 1,400%, and make a completely different graph.


Actually, taxes have little to zero to do with it. Salaries are paid out before taxes are calculated, so in a situation where a $6,000,000 salary is being paid, with $20,000,000 remaining as pure profit, the only thing a 70% tax rate will change compared to a 30% tax rate is how much of that profit the corp will have left to give out as dividents to stockholders/retirees. In fact, raising taxes will only give corporations more incentives to squirrel money away before they calculate their final profits, whether it's to CEO bonuses, or tax deductible interest loans. Those excessive CEO salaries are actually a result of corps competing for good CEOs (very few around to chose from), and keep raising their incentives to try to attract ones of their competitors.

Sounds like a ghetto.

So nobody is going to consider the fact that wages are irrelevant when a loaf of bread costs $20 and housing is limited to $800 a month? Nope? I see.

Wages in countries are the responsibility of their people. Why compare their wages to American wages? In most countries the executive wages compared to base level workers is around 10:1 but in the USA it is 100:1 or more.


Those excessive CEOs wages are the result of eliminating the corporate tax rates that worked under Nixon by Reagan.

Wages are not the only relevant fact. What truly matters in the end is the cost-of-living which inflates in an inefficient, stagnant economy.

You are being WAY too Americacentric. Those salaries and profits didn't go up on the backs of American labor alone. If you want to be fair, compare the rise in salaries of executives to the wages of Americans and every other country we've out sourced to in the last 30 years. You will likely find that average wages in all those countries have gone up tenfold.

Also, if CEO wages are your concern, then your problem is with corporate shareholders alone. Not governments and not corporations. Don't want excessive CEO salaries? Don't buy the stock, or buy it and vote against those CEO contracts.

Of course they do. It's to their advantage, and naturally the most profitable companies will have used every advantage available to them, even illegal or immoral ones if they think they can get away with them. Taking away that one advantage doesn't destroy the very nature of their profit motive and the horrible things that makes them do.  It doesn't prevent them from making enough money to buy up their competitors and become truly huge. And if you want to talk concentration of wealth and power, wouldn't that problem get even worse under your completely impotent government where big business executives become the uncontested most powerful group in society?

No, I'm not.  I'm not one to believe that the absence of government is a stable or desirable condition.  Nor am I under any illusions about the downsides.


Government creates the concentration of wealth and power that attracts that 'profit driven need'.  Every one of the most profitable corporations on Earth have very cozy relationships with large Western governments.  Including Apple, despite Steve Jobs well hidden contempt for politicos.

Hahaha goddamn.

Yes, please bitcoin2crash, tell me about the viability of being a hunter-gatherer in a world with the population density of a modern industrial society. I remember Atlas spouting that same line about how we won't truly be free until most of us are living in tin-roofed shacks without electricity and working 18 hours a day for peanuts, but hey, no taxes!

That's more of that famous libertarian "freedom" and "choice" for you. Be a wage slave OR live like it's 500 B.C. in a world where that's impossible! The field is wide open!

If Adam Smith himself can recognize the greed and inequality inherent in capitalism, why can't you?

Do you really think that in the absence of statist governments there's no other way to obtain food and shelter except to get a job working for a large company? How do you think humans have survived for most of their existence, being Walmart greeters?

Are you really so ideologically blinded to think that in the absence of government, CEOs will turn into little fluffy bunnies that will always do what's best for the people? 

All of the stuff I'm talking about is driven by the need for greater and greater profits. How does removing government change that equation?

Are you really so ideologically blinded to not see the collusion of corporate and government power that has greatly contributed to that very same stat you're referring to?

I have a real world example of American wages staying stagnant for 30 years now while executive salaries spiral out of control and the rich gobble up a larger and larger portion of the wealth. People should not live and die by the whims of market forces. I'd rather have stability. Decent wages are great until unemployment starts to crop up and businesses realize they can get more for less because people are desperate.


Why would you ever assume they wouldn't? When most of the problems I talk about are associated with business making as much money as possible, how does a stateless society change that?

Why do you assume things would be the same as they are now (with massive states) in a stateless society?