For most people, passive income is a bit of extra pocket change that requires minimal effort to earn to supplement a main source of income. For Steve Ballmer, it’s $1 billion.
Here’s a better shower thought: the government exists to govern you, not to serve you. When you pay taxes, you fund new mansions for the ruling class. When you invest into the business instead, you create new jobs, new tech and your future.
Workers have unelected bosses dictating the majority of their waking lives. Most companies literally tell you what you can and cannot wear (dress code policy), when you can and cannot eat (designated breaks), and what you can and cannot say online (social media policies). All so they can control you to extract wealth and buy super yachts.
Look at the list of wealthiest US politicians. I cannot find a single one that didn’t make their money extracting it from workers or inheritance. Abuse of office happens; abuse of workers’ surplus is the standard.
Can you explain how you’ve come to that conclusion? It flies in the face of pretty much every sociologist for the last 200 years. Even Adam Smith, distinguished people by gentleman, farmer, and merchant with clear class distinctions between each, even if the term hadn’t entered into the mainstream use yet.
I think you’re using a different definition of class to the standard. Once again, I want to point out you are disagreeing with pretty much EVERY major academic on this subject, including, but not limited to:
So this is a “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” situation? The whole point of Capitalism is actually in the name: those with capital (i.e. capitalists) control those without capital (i.e. workers).
You’ve decided that Adam Smith (the founding father of capitalism), the London School of Economics, Princeton, Harvard, etc are wrong. I wish I had half your confidence.
Last reply because there’s no discussing someone that just goes “nuhuh just is” despite asking for sources and clarification.
Here’s a better shower thought: the government exists to govern you, not to serve you. When you pay taxes, you fund new mansions for the ruling class. When you invest into the business instead, you create new jobs, new tech and your future.
Workers have unelected bosses dictating the majority of their waking lives. Most companies literally tell you what you can and cannot wear (dress code policy), when you can and cannot eat (designated breaks), and what you can and cannot say online (social media policies). All so they can control you to extract wealth and buy super yachts.
Look at the list of wealthiest US politicians. I cannot find a single one that didn’t make their money extracting it from workers or inheritance. Abuse of office happens; abuse of workers’ surplus is the standard.
There are no workers or other classes in capitalism.
Can you explain how you’ve come to that conclusion? It flies in the face of pretty much every sociologist for the last 200 years. Even Adam Smith, distinguished people by gentleman, farmer, and merchant with clear class distinctions between each, even if the term hadn’t entered into the mainstream use yet.
Removed by mod
I think you’re using a different definition of class to the standard. Once again, I want to point out you are disagreeing with pretty much EVERY major academic on this subject, including, but not limited to:
Princeton
LSE
Harvard
So I’m curious as to where you got this notion from? Even Adam Smith distinguished social strata.
These academics peddle their own agenda. The reality is that there can’t be classes in a capitalist society. That’s the whole point of capitalism.
So this is a “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” situation? The whole point of Capitalism is actually in the name: those with capital (i.e. capitalists) control those without capital (i.e. workers).
You’ve decided that Adam Smith (the founding father of capitalism), the London School of Economics, Princeton, Harvard, etc are wrong. I wish I had half your confidence.
Last reply because there’s no discussing someone that just goes “nuhuh just is” despite asking for sources and clarification.
Removed by mod
I also present to you: the BBC trying to redefine (note, not remove) class in 2013: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2013/newsspec_5093/index.stm