5 ms·

I believe the technical term is liability. Workers are liabilities. You are right. A part of capitalism is to increase the assets and reduce liabilities.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Which is why it cannot help but create its own downfall. But before that we will have to end up with that unholy alliance between government and industry called fascism, as that will be the final attempt to extract wealth from a society that has been drained, by tapping directly into taxes collected by the government. You simply cannot have a system that needs consumers to spend money when its in every single companies best interest to pay as little, preferably nothing, to those whose business and expertise you need to survive. You can expand to other nations as a temporary solution but in the end you will run out of people to sell stuff to.
- Melchizedek 8y ago
  Not to mention the unholy alliance between the contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism. The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation, and the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity (whether it has been called social democracy, christian democracy or something else). This is now going down the drain.
  - Intermernet 8y ago
    > the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity Can you give me some examples? I'm honestly curious as I can't think of any off the top of my head.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      DPRK? Nope... China? Erm...
    - Melchizedek 8y ago
      Sweden (as it used to be). By "populist nationalists" I mean what they really are, not necessarily what they call themselves. The Swedish Social Democrats of old are a good example who in practice created a national welfare state, often even with explicitly nationalist rhetoric.
  - weregiraffe 8y ago
    > contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism To anyone who is not in the loop (of the alt-right/4chan jargon), "globalism" is currently a code-word for "Jews".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      WTF?!
    - Melchizedek 8y ago
      No, globalism means globalism and has nothing to do with Jews. This is simply an attempt by (extremely well financed) globalists to smear anti-globalists with antisemitism.
  - weregiraffe 8y ago
    >The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise, the nation in question immediately attempts to build a global empire for itself, by subjugating other nations. France of Napoleon. Germany of Bismark. Japan of Meiji. Germany of Hitler. USSR. Current day USA. Human dignity, my ass. PS. Arabs of Muhammad and Mongols of Genghis also qualify.
    - Kaveren 8y ago
      The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind, this kind of reckless hyperbole is not productive to discourse. Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany. There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.
      - weregiraffe 8y ago
        >The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire. For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
        Kaveren 8y ago
        The US isn't forcing economic interactions of its liking anywhere.
        int_19h 8y ago
        US has routinely interfered in politics of Central and South American countries - including military assistance for local anti-democratic forces, and in some cases (e.g. Dominican Republic), outright military occupation - to protect its economic interests there. Here's just one example - I picked this one because it is directly related to the term "banana republic", since the intervention was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
  - Brometheus 8y ago
    Would say the neoliberal right-wingers are the driving force behind it...
aetherson 8y ago
This comment suggests that you are trying to support a political point by using obfuscated technical terms you do not understand. "Workers" do not show up on a balance sheet: they are neither an asset not a liability "technically." There may be a payroll liability briefly, though it will then be paid out and taken off the books. Accrued vacation is a liability, which is why we have "unlimited PTO" policies. It is impossible, in double entry bookkeeping, to "increase assets and reduce liabilities." Every asset must be balanced with a liability. That's the fundamental basis of that accounting system. To the extent that we're speaking metaphorically, workers are assets. To the extent that we're speaking technically, it's clear that you tried to apply jargon that you didn't understand to confuse others.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago

Which is why it cannot help but create its own downfall. But before that we will have to end up with that unholy alliance between government and industry called fascism, as that will be the final attempt to extract wealth from a society that has been drained, by tapping directly into taxes collected by the government. You simply cannot have a system that needs consumers to spend money when its in every single companies best interest to pay as little, preferably nothing, to those whose business and expertise you need to survive. You can expand to other nations as a temporary solution but in the end you will run out of people to sell stuff to.

Melchizedek 8y ago
Not to mention the unholy alliance between the contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism. The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation, and the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity (whether it has been called social democracy, christian democracy or something else). This is now going down the drain.
- Intermernet 8y ago
  > the populist nationalism of a few nation states has been the only example ever known of an economic system that has upheld basic human dignity Can you give me some examples? I'm honestly curious as I can't think of any off the top of my head.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    DPRK? Nope... China? Erm...
  - Melchizedek 8y ago
    Sweden (as it used to be). By "populist nationalists" I mean what they really are, not necessarily what they call themselves. The Swedish Social Democrats of old are a good example who in practice created a national welfare state, often even with explicitly nationalist rhetoric.
- weregiraffe 8y ago
  > contemporary elite "left" and capital, called globalism To anyone who is not in the loop (of the alt-right/4chan jargon), "globalism" is currently a code-word for "Jews".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    WTF?!
  - Melchizedek 8y ago
    No, globalism means globalism and has nothing to do with Jews. This is simply an attempt by (extremely well financed) globalists to smear anti-globalists with antisemitism.
- weregiraffe 8y ago
  >The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise, the nation in question immediately attempts to build a global empire for itself, by subjugating other nations. France of Napoleon. Germany of Bismark. Japan of Meiji. Germany of Hitler. USSR. Current day USA. Human dignity, my ass. PS. Arabs of Muhammad and Mongols of Genghis also qualify.
  - Kaveren 8y ago
    The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind, this kind of reckless hyperbole is not productive to discourse. Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany. There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.
    - weregiraffe 8y ago
      >The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire. For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
      - Kaveren 8y ago
        The US isn't forcing economic interactions of its liking anywhere.
        int_19h 8y ago
        US has routinely interfered in politics of Central and South American countries - including military assistance for local anti-democratic forces, and in some cases (e.g. Dominican Republic), outright military occupation - to protect its economic interests there. Here's just one example - I picked this one because it is directly related to the term "banana republic", since the intervention was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
- Brometheus 8y ago
  Would say the neoliberal right-wingers are the driving force behind it...

aetherson 8y ago

This comment suggests that you are trying to support a political point by using obfuscated technical terms you do not understand. "Workers" do not show up on a balance sheet: they are neither an asset not a liability "technically." There may be a payroll liability briefly, though it will then be paid out and taken off the books. Accrued vacation is a liability, which is why we have "unlimited PTO" policies. It is impossible, in double entry bookkeeping, to "increase assets and reduce liabilities." Every asset must be balanced with a liability. That's the fundamental basis of that accounting system. To the extent that we're speaking metaphorically, workers are assets. To the extent that we're speaking technically, it's clear that you tried to apply jargon that you didn't understand to confuse others.