Republican Party, Teabag Party and the Libertarian Party absolutely SUCK!

[Palehorse]

The consumer.

Wrong!

[me]

How is that wrong?  You can have workers with a place to work making products but if you don't have a consumer or the consumer can't afford the product both the worker and the place to work will no longer exist because there will be no need for them since there will be no need for the product.  It's called supply and demand.

[The Troll]

How is that wrong?  You can have workers with a place to work making products but if you don't have a consumer or the consumer can't afford the product both the worker and the place to work will no longer exist because there will be no need for them since there will be no need for the product.  It's called supply and demand.

  It's all in Bruce Spingsten latest song    Gambling man rolls the dice, workman pays the bills/it's easy and fat on banker's hill/the banker man grows fat and the working man grown thin 

  He wrote it and I believe it.  Bruce.   

[Palehorse]

  It's all in Bruce Spingsten latest song    Gambling man rolls the dice, workman pays the bills/it's easy and fat on banker's hill/the banker man grows fat and the working man grown thin 

  He wrote it and I believe it.  Bruce.   

I'll be damned. . . A man your age listening to the Boss? You are a real life renaissance man aren't you!

[me]

How is that wrong?  You can have workers with a place to work making products but if you don't have a consumer or the consumer can't afford the product both the worker and the place to work will no longer exist because there will be no need for them since there will be no need for the product.  It's called supply and demand.

Without the consumer neither the worker or the corporation have value.  How simple is that.  They are all valuable to each other. 

[Palehorse]

Without the consumer neither the worker or the corporation have value.  How simple is that.  They are all valuable to each other.

Still wrong. . . Consumers do not change the thing or add value to it. (Not at the owner/management/labor level).

[me]

Still wrong. . . Consumers do not change the thing or add value to it. (Not at the owner/management/labor level).

If the consumers aren't consuming there ends up  being no company so, yes, it also effects the owner manager level. Now if the consumer is consuming the product there needs to be more product which causes the need for more workers which causes the need for more management and the owner is making more money and can expand.  Now, on the other hand if the owner isn't paying the managers enough he can't get good ones which makes the worker unhappy so he doesn't do a good job which makes the owner, or should make the owner want to hire better management, which makes the workers happy and they produce more making the owner happy and more money.  Oops, owner isn't paying workers what they think they're worth owner say's well, you are doing a good job so I'll go along and increase your pay workers are happy but owner is making less to reinvest into the company, profit margin went down. 

See where I'm going with this?  Probably don't because it's too simple and not strewn with big $20 words.

The consumer needs the work, the worker needs the company, the company/owner needs the worker to make money to be able to furnish the worker a place to work, this includes management.  Without one there is no need for the other. 

Monetarily speaking the owner is worth more to the worker because he has more invested and at stake in the whole thing and without his investment there would be no place for the worker to work nor would there be anything to work with.  If the worker isn't treated properly he won't work and if the owner can't make a profit he won't furnish a place for the worker.  Simple as that, they need each other equally as do both need a consumer.

How many different ways does it have to be spelled out?  It's not rocket science.

[The Troll]

  Yep, you're so right.  If the workers work good and produce quality products and services the corporation will raise their wages and benefits and both will be very happy. 

  But here in America the business owners and the corporations don't want to pay good wages of good benefits.  In a predatory capitalist society they want to make the cheapest product and the cheapest material and labor price and sell at the highest price that the public will bare.  Take the oil companies and gasoline prices for example.  So the 1%ers can make huge profits and the owners and the corporations make so much money that the workers grow bony.  You know what you get when you work your fingers to the bone, BONEY FINGERS.

  I know you have never seen any graphs that show the difference in the wages of American workers and the  profit the super rich and the corporations make in hard cold cash.   The 1%ers take 60% of the money made in America.  Why, because you read nothing but Fox News and Republican blogs paid for by the Koch brother and the others in the !%ers.  You swallow there sheeple food.  You're like the frog put in a pot of cold water and a fire in it.  You won't know you going to boiled until it's to late.  If you were put in a pot of boiling water you would do everything to jump out.

  I challenge you to watch MSNBC from 8 to 10 PM for a week with an open mind, nice try Troll, and try to catch them in a lie.  I think you would get your eyes opened if you have a brain at all.  Girl the !%ers have bought the politicians, Fox News and the election process.  What is so bad you stand there eating sheeple food and can see the wolf creeping up on you.

  From what a have read you and Henry never came from a rich family, but from a hard working laboring class of good people.  Where you got this ass kissing of the rich I don't know, it must be self inflicted.  Brain washing of your own brain.  It just don't make common sense you or anyone from the working class, who had never had it really really good from the owner class and the 1%ers why you want to kiss their big fat over blown rich ass. 

  I know this is a case of futility and your have wired your brain by yourself.  Since I am not a brain surgeon.  It's your life and I don't want to live in a country that is controlled by your ilk.  The god damn Republican Party and 1%ers.   

  May your live as long as you want and not want as long as you live.  But I really don't think the Republican Party and the 1%ers want you to have what I just said.   

[The Troll]

  Here is something, I WANT TO KNOW is what happen to the half Billion dollars that Mitch Daniels and his crack team of government experts lost for the state of Indiana.  Plus the 500 million dollars they screwed the town and cities of Indiana out of.   

  Again and again and again------------>

[Palehorse]

If the consumers aren't consuming there ends up  being no company so, yes, it also effects the owner manager level. Now if the consumer is consuming the product there needs to be more product which causes the need for more workers which causes the need for more management and the owner is making more money and can expand.  Now, on the other hand if the owner isn't paying the managers enough he can't get good ones which makes the worker unhappy so he doesn't do a good job which makes the owner, or should make the owner want to hire better management, which makes the workers happy and they produce more making the owner happy and more money.  Oops, owner isn't paying workers what they think they're worth owner say's well, you are doing a good job so I'll go along and increase your pay workers are happy but owner is making less to reinvest into the company, profit margin went down. 

See where I'm going with this?  Probably don't because it's too simple and not strewn with big $20 words.

The consumer needs the work, the worker needs the company, the company/owner needs the worker to make money to be able to furnish the worker a place to work, this includes management.  Without one there is no need for the other. 

Monetarily speaking the owner is worth more to the worker because he has more invested and at stake in the whole thing and without his investment there would be no place for the worker to work nor would there be anything to work with.  If the worker isn't treated properly he won't work and if the owner can't make a profit he won't furnish a place for the worker.  Simple as that, they need each other equally as do both need a consumer.

How many different ways does it have to be spelled out?  It's not rocket science.

Outside of the scope of the question entirely. In the employer / employee relationship, which entity adds value to the thing?

[me]

Outside of the scope of the question entirely. In the employer / employee relationship, which entity adds value to the thing?

Both equally, they need each other and there is no set answer to the question.  Chicken, egg.

[Palehorse]

Both equally, they need each other and there is no set answer to the question.  Chicken, egg.

Nope. . . wrong again. . .

Here's a hint:

Yes folks, Labor, is who creates the value in the Capital/Labor relationship - not Capital.

Capital can hold all land, money, and natural resources yet all those are useless and idle without Labor.

Now in light of that revelation, two questions:

1) In our current economic system, why should Capital deserve anywhere near the lion's share of benefit from that system?

2) In a general sense without referring to our current economic system, why should Capital have either have capital or power?

[The Troll]

Both equally, they need each other and there is no set answer to the question.  Chicken, egg.

  What some people don't understand that under the Predatory Capitalist system the owners of the money, the land,  the business, the buildings, the machines make their money off the backs of the workers.  For them no workers no money.    Things that will not feed them.  For they will starve.   

  The workers here in American who don't own part of the money, land, business and machines are WAGE SLAVES.

   We slave for the wages that the rich, who own the corporations, will begrudging give out.  The most work and labor for the least amount of dollars.     You will never be rich if your working in the lower 90% of a business or corporation you are working for.     You're the wage slaves who are making the 1%ers richer.  :trustme;

[me]

Nope. . . wrong again. . .

Here's a hint:

I kind of thought that's what you were getting at, corporation bashing.   I answered the question the way you originally asked it. 

1) In our current economic system, why should Capital deserve anywhere near the lion's share of benefit from that system?  Yes, because they are still the ones taking all the risks.   Who should get the "lions" share IYO? 

2) In a general sense without referring to our current economic system, why should Capital have either have capital or power? What kind of "power" are you referring to?  For that matter what kind of "capital" are you referring to?  Equity, cash stash, equipment?   

[Palehorse]

I kind of thought that's what you were getting at, corporation bashing.   I answered the question the way you originally asked it.

You are totally hopeless. . .