Movies RoboCop’s Corporate Dystopia

[Jack Reacheround]

Free the markets!!!! Let them know it's Christmas time!!!!

Free markets.
Free Tibet.
Free Willy.

 

[William Huggins]

Free markets.
Free Tibet.
Free Willy.

Some has to pay for freedom.........

 

[TheNinja]

You’re literally saying “lefties always fall for the corporate takeover angle when corporations took over the government.”

And yes, government is the answer. It was the answer in the 1930s. It is the answer again today. The “market will regulate itself” is only applicable to specific instances of perfect competition (which doesn’t exist), and only in a vacuum where there is one market and no other markets.

Please....no more government. They've done a bang up job these last 50 years haven't they? Just look at what has happened and what is happening in California? It's a total mess b/c government. Anyway, I know this isn't the war room.
And yes, a lot of the old movies have turned out to be pretty accurate predictions of the future.

 

[TheNinja]

Some has to pay for freedom.........

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

 

[KeepingItReal]

The Alien franchise, Bladerunner, and others are also set in a dystopian corporate ruled future.

Make no mistake about it. That’s where we are headed.

There is a reason all of these movies were made in the 80s. And that is because it’s when the deregulation of American corporations began, and income distribution began shifting so as to be skewed toward the upper 20%, a trend that has continued to this day. So much so that a guy is now a trillionaire.

We can stop it. The problem is that everyone is too stupid. So they get led around by their noses, convinced that their black, Mexican, trans, or Asian neighbor is the reason behind their misery, not the billionaire picking their pockets the whole time he’a telling them who to blame for it.

In USD? No, there is no trillionaire in USD. Income distribution sounds nice, it had a nice ring to it, it just has nothing to do with reality. First contracts are made deciding what the work and pay will be, and if both sides come to an agreement then people earn their money for working. There is nothing to be distributed before both sides come to an agreement on what the work and pay will be. Income is earned not distributed in the world of work. If you have divident paying stocks then that income is distributed.

I don't know about the top 20% but the top 10% have gotten poorer since 1989 according to the Federal Reserve wealth data. In 1989 they had about 66% of the wealth and in 2025 they have 55%.

Any ways none of this matters because except for a very select few people nobody stays in those top wealth or income brackets. Talking about top the 20%, 10%, or 1% of people as if they are some fixed group or people is sheer nonsense. People can and some do move in and out of those groups in their lifetime.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

In USD? No, there is no trillionaire in USD. Income distribution sounds nice, it had a nice ring to it, it just has nothing to do with reality. First contracts are made deciding what the work and pay will be, and if both sides come to an agreement then people earn their money for working. There is nothing to be distributed before both sides come to an agreement on what the work and pay will be. Income is earned not distributed in the world of work. If you have divident paying stocks then that income is distributed.

I don't know about the top 20% but the top 10% have gotten poorer since 1989 according to the Federal Reserve wealth data. In 1989 they had about 66% of the wealth and in 2025 they have 55%.

Any ways none of this matters because except for a very select few people nobody stays in those top wealth or income brackets. Talking about top the 20%, 10%, or 1% of people as if they are some fixed group or people is sheer nonsense. People can and some do move in and out of those groups in their lifetime.

Yeah, so all this contract stuff is just you talking about stuff you think you know which is completely irrelevant.

Income distribution is a measurable thing. And they do measure it. They have measured it.

They (economists) use what’s known as the Lorenz curve. From that they calculate the Gini coefficient.

You can look it up. The higher the coefficient, the more skewed income or wealth distribution is. The US’s Gini coefficient has continued to climb to levels at which we are in company with countries like Angola, and other places nobody wants to live. Go ahead. Look up the US Gini coefficient historical data.
And then lookup the Gino coefficient for countries where they have a higher quality of life, like Denmark. Compare the two.

And you’re just lying, or more likely repeating something some moron lied to you about regarding the top 1% owning a smaller portion of the wealth now than they did in 1989.

The Fed - Table: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

Edit: if you’re talking about a matter of percentage, yes the top 1% own a larger share than they did in 1989.
You can just google search Wealth distribution in the US.
But the Gini coefficient is how that is calculated.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Please....no more government. They've done a bang up job these last 50 years haven't they? Just look at what has happened and what is happening in California? It's a total mess b/c government. Anyway, I know this isn't the war room.
And yes, a lot of the old movies have turned out to be pretty accurate predictions of the future.

I’m sorry to tell you, but you have been absolutely brainwashed.
Rob oil was satire. But satire is usually a warning. You’ve fallen for the propaganda. California is fine. I live here. That’s how we’re able to subsidize all the red states with our tax money. Because they are failed libertarian experiments.

 

[KeepingItReal]

Yeah, so all this contract stuff is just you talking about stuff you think you know which is completely irrelevant.

Income distribution is a measurable thing. And they do measure it. They have measured it.

They (economists) use what’s known as the Lorenz curve. From that they calculate the Gini coefficient.

You can look it up. The higher the coefficient, the more skewed income or wealth distribution is. The US’s Gini coefficient has continued to climb to levels at which we are in company with countries like Angola, and other places nobody wants to live. Go ahead. Look up the US Gini coefficient historical data.
And then lookup the Gino coefficient for countries where they have a higher quality of life, like Denmark. Compare the two.

And you’re just lying, or more likely repeating something some moron lied to you about regarding the top 1% owning a smaller portion of the wealth now than they did in 1989.

The Fed - Table: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

Edit: if you’re talking about a matter of percentage, yes the top 1% own a larger share than they did in 1989.
You can just google search Wealth distribution in the US.
But the Gini coefficient is how that is calculated.

Yes economists call it a distribution, and it is a distribution on some statisticians chart. In reality income is earned and wealth is accumulated through earnings (aside from inheritances).

I'm wasn't arguing about the 1%, I was arguing about the 10%.
Anyways I just looked at the chart again and I didn't go all the way back 1989 Q3, so my numbers were off. The top 10% are 7% richer today than they were then. To put it in perspective, their wealth went up 0.00194% every year, which isn't totally outrageous.

 

[Uber_Noober]

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

How old are you?
Because I expect that if you don’t understand the massive deregulatory effort that took place, it’s because you are too young to remember the world prior to the 2000s.

There has been a massive amount of deregulation of American business beginning in the 1980s and carrying on through to today.
Airlines are a great example. They used to be very regulated. And air travel was much better as a result. More room in the cabin, more direct routes to more destinations, no overbooking, etc.

Antitrust is another example. Monopolies used to be broken up so that there was more competition, which is better for the consumer.

Most of the businesses in your city used to be privately owned - gyms, grocery stores, video rental stores, etc.
Deregulating corporations Les to all of those being put out of business by wal-mart, Blockbuster, etc.

NAFTA is another one. Destroyed the US manufacturing industry and the rust belt.

So when you say “The government has been growing,” that doesn’t really mean anything unless you can explain in what way it has been “growing.”

More federal employees? Has the increase in federal employees outpaced the growth of the population? By how much?

More agencies? Does that matter if they are enforcing fewer regulations?

Spending more?

Or do you mean the one way that actually matters, more laws intruding upon what personal choices you can make for yourself?

Ancient. Filled with the wisdom of zillion years.


Deregulation led to more airlines and cheaper tickets.


Yes antitrust was used more often historically.


How did deregulation do that?


Pretty much every way imaginable the government has been growing.

Dvd renting is such a niche it does not matter to most people, Blockbuster is dead so.... What is the link between the growth of Walmart and deregulation?

Destroyed is a bit of an exaggeration.

Do i need to go on? It has grown outside of government with HR compliance, college administrative staff, all the new departments of government under Bush, TSA...

They are enforcing fewer regulations compared to what decade exactly?

Spending does not matter just laws intruding on personal choices?

 

[ChickenBrother]

I like it!!!

 

[wannabetoughguy]

I'm 38 and Robocop is my favorite movie of all time. Been watching it for as long as I can remember.

 

[TheNinja]

I’m sorry to tell you, but you have been absolutely brainwashed.
Rob oil was satire. But satire is usually a warning. You’ve fallen for the propaganda. California is fine. I live here. That’s how we’re able to subsidize all the red states with our tax money. Because they are failed libertarian experiments.

I live here too. It's terrible. Taxes out of control. Housing too high. Business and people leaving the state in bunches. Homelessness is crazy in the cities. Wasting billions on a bullet train to nowhere. Insane anti-2A laws. Anway, not getting too much into politics but if you honest think California is better now than it was 30 years ago you are crazy.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

I’m sorry to tell you, but you have been absolutely brainwashed.
Rob oil was satire. But satire is usually a warning. You’ve fallen for the propaganda. California is fine. I live here. That’s how we’re able to subsidize all the red states with our tax money. Because they are failed libertarian experiments.

Libertarian? How many libertarian governors who call themselves that?

You wanna tell me every red state is a failure? Seriously?

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Libertarian? How many libertarian governors who call themselves that?

You wanna tell me every red state is a failure? Seriously?

Most are. That’s they they take more money from the federal government than they contribute.

Also, why do they have such high rates of crime?

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I live here too. It's terrible. Taxes out of control. Housing too high. Business and people leaving the state in bunches. Homelessness is crazy in the cities. Wasting billions on a bullet train to nowhere. Insane anti-2A laws. Anway, not getting too much into politics but if you honest think California is better now than it was 30 years ago you are crazy.

I’m sorry, but were you even alive 30 years ago? I was.
I was 14. I couldn’t go anywhere without having to run or fight. It was insane.

But not because of California. That was, like most problems you would Try to frame as only democratic, a national problem. Crime was crazy all over the country.

Maybe you should watch Freakonomics. They give you a bit part of the answer for why crime was so crazy back then. And then maybe listen to their podcast. I wouldn’t recommend much of it as they divulge pretty far from actual economics. But there is an episode in which they do talk about the late 80s/early 90s crime rates and expand on research already done.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

Most are. That’s they they take more money from the federal government than they contribute.

Also, why do they have such high rates of crime?

Than why don't most call themselves that?

The US has high rates of crime in general.

 

[TheNinja]

I’m sorry, but were you even alive 30 years ago? I was.
I was 14. I couldn’t go anywhere without having to run or fight. It was insane.

But not because of California. That was, like most problems you would Try to frame as only democratic, a national problem. Crime was crazy all over the country.

Maybe you should watch Freakonomics. They give you a bit part of the answer for why crime was so crazy back then. And then maybe listen to their podcast. I wouldn’t recommend much of it as they divulge pretty far from actual economics. But there is an episode in which they do talk about the late 80s/early 90s crime rates and expand on research already done.

I'm older than you my friend. I haven't heard of Freakonomics but may check it out if I get some time. I never heard of it before. I just know that when I used to visit San Francisco I didn't have to constantly dodge homeless or worry about my car window getting smashed if I parked longer than 5 minutes. Now, I don't even go into the city. It's a shithole.....literally.

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

Robocop is a drama (don't be put off by the thumbnail, this vid is awesome)

 

[Jesus X]

Everything being a subscription now is corporate dystopia then you add in creepy things like flock cameras. We have private armies,firemen and police too.