Mental Illness and White Liberals

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yeah, CmdrKing, that sounds about right. =/

[Darth Wedgius]

I keep coming down to a couple things.

(1) People die trying to sneak into the USA, and other capitalist nations.
(2) Marxism has failed repeatedly. The most successful Marxist countries are those where they've stopped being Marxist, like the PRC.

I know the left has a strong tendency toward mental illness (see the OP for this post) but this seems especially nuts.

Can we take one of those countries people are fleeing from and make those Marxist instead?

[GreyICE]

I know the left has a strong tendency toward mental illness (see the OP for this post) but this seems especially nuts.

Darth, do you really think white supremacists do good research? Like really truly? Actually, why are you reading white supremacists in the first place?

Also laughing hysterically at the idea that not bailing out large corporations is Marxism. That's what Karl Marx stood for friends, letting the free market pick winners and losers.

[CmdrKing]

One of the more distinct branches of Marxist thought is anarcho-syndicalism, which basically is “what if every corporation was owned by the workers union in evenly divided shares” as a quick and dirty organizational chart.

The main Marxist objection to corporate bailouts is how little of the money makes it back to the workers, not the fact the government is intervening to keep people working.

[GreyICE]

One of the more distinct branches of Marxist thought is anarcho-syndicalism, which basically is “what if every corporation was owned by the workers union in evenly divided shares” as a quick and dirty organizational chart.

The main Marxist objection to corporate bailouts is how little of the money makes it back to the workers, not the fact the government is intervening to keep people working.

Amazing, we found something that both Marxists and free market capitalists think is beyond stupid. I mean besides white supremacy. Because I feel like as long as we're in this thread, we probably should mention how incredibly stupid white supremacy is. If everyone (except fascists, but fuck fascists) think it's stupid, maybe we shouldn't do it.

Most free market capitalists are a lot more straightforward than marxists - if you want to give people money to spur demand... just give them money. It's really actually that simple. Don't try to attach any moral strings to it, don't filter it through corporations like they're the nation's kidneys and try to drench workers in their yellow trickle, just give them the money. They spend it, that spurs demand. Wow.

This system of trying to pick corporate winners just prompts up bad management at the cost of everyone - their competitors who are well managed, their workers who have to live with bad management, the consumers who buy sub-par products produced by bad management. The only people who win are the idiots who drove a company into the ground.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I've actually never come across any explicit association between Marxism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. Granted, I'm not quite clear on what the difference is specifically.

[ProfessorDetective]

One of the more distinct branches of Marxist thought is anarcho-syndicalism, which basically is “what if every corporation was owned by the workers union in evenly divided shares” as a quick and dirty organizational chart.

The main Marxist objection to corporate bailouts is how little of the money makes it back to the workers, not the fact the government is intervening to keep people working.

Amazing, we found something that both Marxists and free market capitalists think is beyond stupid. I mean besides white supremacy. Because I feel like as long as we're in this thread, we probably should mention how incredibly stupid white supremacy is. If everyone (except fascists, but fuck fascists) think it's stupid, maybe we shouldn't do it.

Most free market capitalists are a lot more straightforward than marxists - if you want to give people money to spur demand... just give them money. It's really actually that simple. Don't try to attach any moral strings to it, don't filter it through corporations like they're the nation's kidneys and try to drench workers in their yellow trickle, just give them the money. They spend it, that spurs demand. Wow.

This system of trying to pick corporate winners just prompts up bad management at the cost of everyone - their competitors who are well managed, their workers who have to live with bad management, the consumers who buy sub-par products produced by bad management. The only people who win are the idiots who drove a company into the ground.

Sadly, those bad managers have a bad habit of becoming nearly unstoppable CEOs who'll tank a company, get a golden parachute out of the deal, and then somehow get the CEO position at another corp. to just do it again.

Or the corp. just somehow NEVER FAILS... The big third-party game publishers like EA and Activstion being good examples. EA's got Madden and Star Wars while Activision's got CoD, WoW, and Candy Crush. No amount of bad management can kill that much guaranteed cash, sadly. And any boycott you try to set up will NEVER beat the folks who just want their damn football, guns, and/or gem puzzles.

[GreyICE]

Sadly, those bad managers have a bad habit of becoming nearly unstoppable CEOs who'll tank a company, get a golden parachute out of the deal, and then somehow get the CEO position at another corp. to just do it again.

Or the corp. just somehow NEVER FAILS... The big third-party game publishers like EA and Activstion being good examples. EA's got Madden and Star Wars while Activision's got CoD, WoW, and Candy Crush. No amount of bad management can kill that much guaranteed cash, sadly. And any boycott you try to set up will NEVER beat the folks who just want their damn football, guns, and/or gem puzzles.

The key is that those executives work hand-in-hand with governments at every level, local, state, federal, to regulate themselves favorably. For instance, simply witness this flavor of legal chicanary:

EA EA, +0.01% reported fiscal second-quarter net income of $854 million, or $2.89 a share, versus $255 million, which amounts to 83 cents a share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenue rose to $1.35 billion, versus $1.29 billion in the year-ago quarter.

During the quarter, EA recognized an income-tax benefit of $1.71 billion, or $5.74 a share, during fiscal 2020. In the fiscal second quarter, EA recognized $625 million, or $2.11 a share. The tax benefit occurred because the company transferred some of its intellectual property to its Swiss subsidiary and that country changed its tax rates. There was also a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that affected how EA accounts for stock-based compensation expenses.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tax-gain-bolsters-electronic-arts-profits-shares-rise-2019-10-29

They were actually making more in tax breaks than they were making in actual revenue. On a less ridiculous but equally sordid note, Montreal pays 37.5% of all salaries for video game companies (in the form of tax breaks) which means EA only pays 62.5% of their own employee's salary.

In 2004, Congress passed a tax deduction for companies that export, but didn't specifically mention video-game companies. In 2005 EA paid a Washington lobbying firm $60,000 to convince the Treasury Department to add video-game companies and their revenue earned from online subscriptions to the bill. In 2010 this deduction accounted for 9 percent of EA's production costs.

https://www.engadget.com/2011-09-11-nyt-video-game-companies-take-lucrative-advantage-of-us-tax-cod.html

EA's yearly profits spike by 198% to $3 billion thanks to tax benefit

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72344/eas-yearly-profits-spike-by-198-to-3-billion-thanks-tax-benefit/index.html

So EA is literally incapable of failure, because their revenue streams are structured in such a way that they are heavily subsidized by governments. With them working hand-in-hand with governments, they cannot fail. Their strategy of strategic acquisitions and dissolving of companies guarantees the only thing they need - a constant revenue stream. It doesn't matter if that revenue stream is actually making a profit, because it's revenue - they can use incentives and breaks to cut the costs, as long as they get reasonable revenue. It's basically the Uwe Boll tax scam.

Oh and they're small potatoes. You can only imagine the shit oil companies get up to. EA's net worth is $22 billion. Oil companies have quarterly revenues that dwarf that.

[ProfessorDetective]

Sadly, those bad managers have a bad habit of becoming nearly unstoppable CEOs who'll tank a company, get a golden parachute out of the deal, and then somehow get the CEO position at another corp. to just do it again.

Or the corp. just somehow NEVER FAILS... The big third-party game publishers like EA and Activstion being good examples. EA's got Madden and Star Wars while Activision's got CoD, WoW, and Candy Crush. No amount of bad management can kill that much guaranteed cash, sadly. And any boycott you try to set up will NEVER beat the folks who just want their damn football, guns, and/or gem puzzles.

The key is that those executives work hand-in-hand with governments at every level, local, state, federal, to regulate themselves favorably. For instance, simply witness this flavor of legal chicanary:

EA EA, +0.01% reported fiscal second-quarter net income of $854 million, or $2.89 a share, versus $255 million, which amounts to 83 cents a share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenue rose to $1.35 billion, versus $1.29 billion in the year-ago quarter.

During the quarter, EA recognized an income-tax benefit of $1.71 billion, or $5.74 a share, during fiscal 2020. In the fiscal second quarter, EA recognized $625 million, or $2.11 a share. The tax benefit occurred because the company transferred some of its intellectual property to its Swiss subsidiary and that country changed its tax rates. There was also a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that affected how EA accounts for stock-based compensation expenses.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tax-gain-bolsters-electronic-arts-profits-shares-rise-2019-10-29

They were actually making more in tax breaks than they were making in actual revenue. On a less ridiculous but equally sordid note, Montreal pays 37.5% of all salaries for video game companies (in the form of tax breaks) which means EA only pays 62.5% of their own employee's salary.

In 2004, Congress passed a tax deduction for companies that export, but didn't specifically mention video-game companies. In 2005 EA paid a Washington lobbying firm $60,000 to convince the Treasury Department to add video-game companies and their revenue earned from online subscriptions to the bill. In 2010 this deduction accounted for 9 percent of EA's production costs.

https://www.engadget.com/2011-09-11-nyt-video-game-companies-take-lucrative-advantage-of-us-tax-cod.html

EA's yearly profits spike by 198% to $3 billion thanks to tax benefit

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/72344/eas-yearly-profits-spike-by-198-to-3-billion-thanks-tax-benefit/index.html

So EA is literally incapable of failure, because their revenue streams are structured in such a way that they are heavily subsidized by governments. With them working hand-in-hand with governments, they cannot fail. Their strategy of strategic acquisitions and dissolving of companies guarantees the only thing they need - a constant revenue stream. It doesn't matter if that revenue stream is actually making a profit, because it's revenue - they can use incentives and breaks to cut the costs, as long as they get reasonable revenue. It's basically the Uwe Boll tax scam.

Oh and they're small potatoes. You can only imagine the shit oil companies get up to. EA's net worth is $22 billion. Oil companies have quarterly revenues that dwarf that.

And they're usually technically a subsidiary of a holding company whose only presence is a PO Box in Panama or an empty basement office in Stockholm. I'd say we need to close these loopholes, but they aren't loopholes. The system actually ISN'T broken...

[CharlesPhipps]

Just so I'm clear:

Was the thread's topic that White Liberals were mentally ill? If so, because they were working against the interest of their own interest in the name of morality or some other less "this was written by a Sith Lord" idea?