Televangelists - Last Week Tonight
-
that's interesting, that corporations who employ thousands aren't really technically places of employment. Apparently they're places where laborers reside and toil away for their whole lives primarily for the benefit of investors. That is an interesting take on the economy. Explains a lot though. Maybe we shouldn't look at corporations as "job creators" then? Seeing as their just investment houses and all...
-
I think you might be confusing a corporation with a charity. Or possibly a hybrid like the WPA
WSS
-
So they shouldn't be considered as "job creators". Cause companies that consider themselves job creators, ie economy stimulators, first and foremost...are the companies that should get old fashioneds regularly from govt. I really did think the purpose behind companies was to employ as many people as the business model would allow and make money for everyone involved in the endeavor.
-
Not charities. Gainful employers.
-
Talk about contrary. The corporation's job is to produce a product for profit. To this end they must hire workers.
But they should hire as many workers as they need. Not more. Do you disagree?
You see it's not the other way around. Ie their job is not to hire workers and then figure out something to make and Cell at a profit.
WSS
-
of course I agree their reason for starting is a business idea. They produce that product "FOR PROFIT"...completely with you. But they do this business within our economy to contribute to it. Otherwise who are the consumers? If "we" aren't gainfully employed, who buys their shit? The less and less people a company employs, the less useful it is to the economy overall. Caveats to that are companies that start up to create a technology that then leads to other companies being able to create capital within our system, and yes workers are capital. Because workers than buy shit. People who don't work tend not to buy much shit, do you not agree?
-
And when people aren't buying a whole lot of shit, what happens to our economy?
-
Wow Cal, jbluhm's post went right over your head. I think you missed his point completely
And again, you're still reaching incredibly hard on the "point" you're trying to make. I posted a video that shined a light on some negative aspects of Christianity (conmen that parade as preachers [tho the whole thing is one big con] and the dumb/desperate/mindless followers that eat up the con). You didn't like that apparently, so you posted engineering disasters over the course of centuries. Apparently trying to equate thr two, though they aren't alike in any way. Other posters here seem to agree too.
It was a desperate reach of an apparent attack of something I do. It pretty much failed spectacularly too. As much as you want the two to be the same, they aren't. Accidents aren't cons.
Then you calling everyone a liberal that disagrees with you about anything is just the icing on the cake.
I posted a video that shined a light on some negative aspects of Christianity
Stuart
No you didn't. Fleecing people is not an "aspect of Christianity", negative or otherwise.
There are con-men in the automotive repair industry, con-men MD's in the medical profession, con-men lawyers etc...
Negative aspects are the "downside" or unfavorable results or conditions that present themselves even if company policy, ethics etc., are adhered to.
You as a libfuck should be well versed in the "negative aspects" or "downside" of fracking for example, right Woody?
The "downside" or "negative aspect" of hiring a lawyer may be that his fees may be more than the lawsuit is worth...catching on Woody?
News for you Woody...There pretty much is consensus among all ideologies across the board that televangelists are scam artists.
Your thread is trivial and inconsequential. You created it because the urge to bash Christianity was just to strong to overcome this time.
-
of course I agree their reason for starting is a business idea. They produce that product "FOR PROFIT"...completely with you. But they do this business within our economy to contribute to it. Otherwise who are the consumers? If "we" aren't gainfully employed, who buys their shit? The less and less people a company employs, the less useful it is to the economy overall. Caveats to that are companies that start up to create a technology that then leads to other companies being able to create capital within our system, and yes workers are capital. Because workers than buy shit. People who don't work tend not to buy much shit, do you not agree?
of course I agree their reason for starting is a business idea. They produce that product "FOR PROFIT"...completely with you. But they do this business within our economy to contribute to it. Otherwise who are the consumers? If "we" aren't gainfully employed, who buys their shit? The less and less people a company employs, the less useful it is to the economy overall. Caveats to that are companies that start up to create a technology that then leads to other companies being able to create capital within our system, and yes workers are capital. Because workers than buy shit. People who don't work tend not to buy much shit, do you not agree?
To an extent. We do have welfare. People spend their welfare checks on things. And it's not a zero-sum game not everybody works but not everybody buys whatever I'm making. And for instance if you are retired or living off your investments the return you get from the stock in my widget factory is your salary. You can spend that on my widgets should you care to.
I don't see that we were in disagreement in that. I need 100 men to make widgets and I sell them for a profit.
If I have 150 men I break even and 200 men I lose money. So I need to make my widgets with a hundred workers.
WSS
-
of course I agree their reason for starting is a business idea. They produce that product "FOR PROFIT"...completely with you. But they do this business within our economy to contribute to it. Otherwise who are the consumers? If "we" aren't gainfully employed, who buys their shit? The less and less people a company employs, the less useful it is to the economy overall. Caveats to that are companies that start up to create a technology that then leads to other companies being able to create capital within our system, and yes workers are capital. Because workers than buy shit. People who don't work tend not to buy much shit, do you not agree?
To an extent. We do have welfare. People spend their welfare checks on things. And it's not a zero-sum game not everybody works but not everybody buys whatever I'm making. And for instance if you are retired or living off your investments the return you get from the stock in my widget factory is your salary. You can spend that on my widgets should you care to.
I don't see that we were in disagreement in that. I need 100 men to make widgets and I sell them for a profit.
If I have 150 men I break even and 200 men I lose money. So I need to make my widgets with a hundred workers.
WSS
To an extent. We do have welfare. People spend their welfare checks on things. And it's not a zero-sum game not everybody works but not everybody buys whatever I'm making. And for instance if you are retired or living off your investments the return you get from the stock in my widget factory is your salary. You can spend that on my widgets should you care to.
I don't see that we were in disagreement in that. I need 100 men to make widgets and I sell them for a profit.
If I have 150 men I break even and 200 men I lose money. So I need to make my widgets with a hundred workers.
WSS
yeah we agree then, I never meant to suggest companies hire more workers than their business model permits. There's some grey areas there where companies "could" hire more workers...or actually just not fire the ones they already have....but do so because the execs want to cash out. I think Hostess comes to mind.
But in the end companies/corporations exist to create economy, ie wealth for their employees and owners. These new existential definitions of what corporations are concern me, we already have seen what "corporations are people too" has done to campaign finance. It's destroyed our democracy. We're projected to spend almost $5B this election cycle.
-
Of course that's true but if you sacrifice profit even if it's to hire more workers can you trust your fellow American investors to still buy stock in your company and overlook the lower returns?
It reminds me of an argument I was having with a hard left guy who was bitching about the cheap piece of China shit he got at Walmart. Dude, don't you see the irony there? You could have gone right down the road and purchased one made in the USA for about 30% more but you prefer to bitch?
WSS
-
Of course that's true but if you sacrifice profit even if it's to hire more workers can you trust your fellow American investors to still buy stock in your company and overlook the lower returns?
It reminds me of an argument I was having with a hard left guy who was bitching about the cheap piece of China shit he got at Walmart. Dude, don't you see the irony there? You could have gone right down the road and purchased one made in the USA for about 30% more but you prefer to bitch?
WSS
. Dude, don't you see the irony there? You could have gone right down the road and purchased one made in the USA for about 30% more but you prefer to bitch?
WSS
oh I hate that shit. I barely shop at Walmart "period". Sometimes i'll admit it's hard to know where something comes from. But shop at Walmart of all places, and bitch about something being from china? f
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login