'You Didn't Build That'

[Vosem]

Gustaf is perfectly right, as usual.

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

'Credit'?  The only reason he could order them about so was because he had Power - he could kill them.  It is no different with the present controllers, Vosem.  I've no objection to your congratulating them for the blood on their hands, if that's your taste.

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money, an act that has been a key part of functioning societies for thousands of years. Ironically, nowadays Ludwig's legacy brings tourism to Bavaria, and tourism is one of the key reasons Bavaria is the richest part of Germany today. There's no blood on Ludwig's hands.

The reason he is nevertheless the builder, even if he never touched a brick and mortar and hired workers to do it, is simply that had he not decided that should be built it wouldn't've been.

So, in exactly the same way that mad King Ludwig 'built' this:

He was an idiot for doing so, but yes, the chief person behind the building of the castle was Mad King Ludwig. The workers deserve some credit, of course, but he deserves more.

Lol.  The King didn't lay a single stone in building of the castle, so all the credit goes to the worker.

The worker wouldn't've built it if the King hadn't payed for it to be designed and then built. More credit goes to the King than anyone else. Some credit goes to the worker, but certainly not all or even most. (Also, as I recall Ludwig personally laid the cornerstone on Neuschwanstein, so he did lay at least that one.)

The worker would have built it or an equally impressive structure if there was no King and all the capital(fruits of labor) were in the rightful hands of the worker. The designer is also most likely a worker(engineer & architect).

Neither Christian Jank nor Eduard Riedel were workers -- in the 19th century Europe architect was very much an upper-class or middle-upper-class job. And, no, of course the worker wouldn't've -- they wouldn't've gotten anything for it without the King, because they're reason for participating in the construction was that the King was giving them money.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is a deeply stupid discussion.

[opebo]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

[opebo]

This is a deeply stupid discussion.

Why don't you stop showing off your diplomatic immunity with all the pointless trash-talk, and actually post something?

[Vosem]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Must Federer share his credit for winning Wimbledon with the tennis balls because he couldn't have done it without some tennis balls?

Without other people interested in watching him hit a ball on overtrodden plot of grass, would he really have accomplished anything?  Federer didn't invent the sport or get people to start paying money to see it played. James Naismith, the inventor of basketball, would be a far more suitable subject for your counterargument.

[opebo]

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die.

Precisely, which is why they are wage-slaves.

[Vosem]

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die.

Precisely, which is why they are wage-slaves.

Being required to work doesn't make you a slave because you can pick who you decide to work for. In the long run, even Ludwig himself went bankrupt.

[Return of the Mack]

To suggest that government is responsible for the success of people who take risks and generate jobs, is one of the dumbest things a POTUS has ever said.

[RI]

Ugh. Why can't people just see that it takes a confluence of both a situation and an individual(s) to make something happen? Without either one, whatever that something is can not be and falls apart; they are both necessary, but neither independently is sufficient.

[All Along The Watchtower]

To suggest that government is responsible for the success of people who take risks and generate jobs, is one of the dumbest things a POTUS has ever said.

[Return of the Mack]

Strawman, eh?  Cue the transcript:

" But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.  So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.

     There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  (Applause.)

     If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

----

He clearly attempted to justify raising taxes on business owners because, in his own words, business owners didn't build their businesses, someone else made that happen, and that someone is the government.

What a complete and utter joke this president is.

[You kip if you want to...]

If you disagree, you're demeaning your own career because it's true.

[Vosem]

If you disagree, you're demeaning your own career because it's true.

That's better.

[LastVoter]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

[Oakvale]

It might be worth taking a step back and actually examining whether this "gaffe" took place - we're clearly not getting anywhere discussing the merits or lack thereof of the statement.

Dave Weigel takes another look at the "gaffe" in question, with the appropriate sense of despair that he's actually having to analyse this stuff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Return of the Mack]

So Obama is telling a business owner, let's say a paint store owner for argument sake, that the roads weren't built by his business?!  Then where did the money come from to build the road if not from tax revenue generated through sales and employees of the business?

Business is the goose laying the golden eggs, not government.

And something else to ponder...if government is the engine for job creation, then why did government give the businesses to the ones who currently have them?!  Obama just stated business owners are not smarter and do not work harder (read the full text of his quote that I posted earlier)...so if government is responsible for success of the business owner, what exactly is determining winners and losers if not the government?  And if government is paving our way, then why is Obama lecturing business owners instead of lecturing the government?!

The speech is insane on so many levels and shows he has no concept of the utilization of capital within capitalism.

[Gustaf]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

[opebo]

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

[Gustaf]

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

[Return of the Mack]

I would just like to thank the government for choosing to give me, of all people, the stuff that I have.

[Vosem]

The reason he could order them about so was because they agreed to let him do it in exchange for money

No, they do it because if they don't they will die.  Money is just a method for coercion, Vosem.

They could refuse to work for Ludwig and attempt to get a job somewhere else. In the long run, of course, unless you inherit a substantial sum, if you don't work you will die. (And even if you do, if you are careless with it you can waste it quite quickly -- as I recall some music singer spent $55 million in six months? Can't remember who, though).

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.

Everybody having the same amount isn't fair, though. At all. And, no, of course they wouldn't've for absolutely no short-term gain.

[opebo]

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

Dude, it is an expression of preference - you like for the workers to be slaves, we don't like it.  It isn't a disputation of 'fact'.

[Gustaf]

How many times do we need to explain this, if capital was fairly distributed, the workers would have built some public housing or some other useful project like a road or an aqueduct or whatever was popular at the time.
tl; dr: capital is an artificial concept that is made up to rob workers from fruits of their labor.

Hahaha, what? Are you trolling or do you actually think like this?

Everybody not on the deluded right-wing thinks like this Gustaf.  Its the obvious reality.

I know plenty of left-wing people who understand economics. None of them would ever make a statement that ridiculous.

Dude, it is an expression of preference - you like for the workers to be slaves, we don't like it.  It isn't a disputation of 'fact'.

It's not about preference. The statement clearly conveys a lack of understanding of what capital is and how it impacts the productive process.

[opebo]

It's not about preference. The statement clearly conveys a lack of understanding of what capital is and how it impacts the productive process.

Please try to read more carefully - he was criticizing a political choice - that capital be owned by powerful individuals rather than in common.