MARCELL DAREUS POWER

i think food stamps, unemployment insurance, medicaid... probably a few others... but i was referring to risk of investment ( which is the most common defense when being critical of capitalism imo), not the risk of life in general, which applies to all people in many different ways... this is why i hate msnbc yes it is... which it should be... i prefer a work requirement, ie full employment, to end the stigma of welfare, and to allow people dignity and the ability to have food, shelter, transportation... nothing should ever be free

you can run out of the 3 wide... and go no huddle... be aggressive!

oh jesus christ...

the reason the scenario of someone losing their life savings starting a business is appealing to capitalists is because it does reveal real risk, the problem is that risk does not justify profits for capital, why? because returns on capital are from use value, not capital. otherwise capital sold would simply be worth the initial capital...( thats the advantage of hiring someone instead of doing the work yourself.) the division of labor takes value away from the person actually adding work to the capital( hence unpaid labor and therefore exploitation).... reason being, surplus value is extracted to create profit and overhead, and there is no difference between capital investment and labor investment fundamentally... corporations in a market, are still collective institutions, and non labor income like i said before was created by the courts, otherwise labor wouldnt have allowed a such exploitation. - wiki - anarchist faq anarchist faq also see limited liability of investors... "Costs and risks are socialised," in other words, "and the profit is privatised." -Noam Chomsky "Appeals of risk to justify capitalism simply exposes that system as little more than a massive casino. In order for such a system to be fair, the participants must have approximately equal chances of winning. However, with massive inequality the wealthy face little chance of loosing. For example, if a millionaire and a pauper both repeatedly bet a pound on the outcome of a coin toss, the millionaire will always win as the pauper has so little reserve money that even a minor run of bad luck will bankrupt him. Ultimately, "the capitalist investment game (as a whole and usually in its various parts) is positive sum. In most years more money is made in the financial markets than is lost. How is this possible? It is possible only because those who engage in real productive activity receive less than that to which they would be entitled were they fully compensated for what they produce. The reward, allegedly for risk, derives from this discrepancy." [David Schweickart, Op. Cit., p. 38] In other words, people would not risk their money unless they could make a profit and the willingness to risk is dependent on current and expected profit levels and so cannot explain them. To focus on risk simply obscures the influence that property has upon the ability to enter a given industry (i.e. to take a risk in the first place) and so distracts attention away from the essential aspects of how profits are actually generated (i.e. away from production and its hierarchical organisation under capitalism). So risk does not explain how surplus value is generated nor is its origin. Moreover, as the risk people face and the return they get is dependent on the wealth they have, it cannot be used to justify this distribution. Quite the opposite, as return and risk are usually inversely related. If risk was the source of surplus value or justified it, the riskiest investment and poorest investor would receive the highest returns and this is not the case. In summary, the "risk" defence of capitalism does not convince." - anarchist faq http://infoshop.org/...ectionC2#secc29

it's bush's fault

the post was erased... but i linked the intro of the 5 arguments against risk in capitalism(c29)... you can read the rest and respond if you want?

this is !@#$ing hilarious... lmmfao! tasker- i will break down the arguments... http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionC2#secc29 - anarchist faq- c29- do profits reflect a reward for risk? "So does "risk" explain or justify non-labour income? No, anarchists argue. This is for five reasons. Firstly, the returns on property income are utterly independent on the amount of risk involved. Secondly, all human acts involve risk of some kind and so why should property owners gain exclusively from it? Thirdly, risk as such it not rewarded, only successful risks are and what constitutes success is dependent on production, i.e. exploiting labour. Fourthly, most "risk" related non-labour income today plays no part in aiding production and, indeed, is simply not that risky due to state intervention. Fifthly, risk in this context is not independent of owning capital and, consequently, the arguments against "waiting" and innovation apply equally to this rationale. In other words, "risk" is simply yet another excuse to reward the rich for being wealthy."

do you sign hagan or some wr to the 53 as the inactive 6th wr? or do you plan on the free agency of spencer johnson next year and activate clifton geathers... seems geathers is a better talent, jmo with our 5 wr, and dickerson, i think we go with geathers!

I'm not going to argue with you about someone else's work. If I want to argue against their work, I'll argue with them. What you've done isn't citation, citation involves the extraction of information for the purpose of making an independent original argument. You've stolen someone else's work and then doled out reading assignments. Furthermore, it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who isn't conversationally presenting their own ideas, but rather is cut/pasting other people's treatises and demanding they be disproved. Jackass. ok... dude....

lmmfao

no problemo dude... my bad

empty, vapid rhetoric... romeny doesnt do the same thing? argue ideas, not the lowest form of stupid general rhetorical comments...

greatest movie ever! the dude abides!

no I'm not going to argue with you about someone else's work. If I want to argue against their work, I'll argue with them. What you've done isn't citation, citation involves the extraction of information for the purpose of making an independent original argument. You've stolen someone else's work and then doled out reading assignments. Furthermore, it's impossible to have a discussion with someone who isn't conversationally presenting their own ideas, but rather is cut/pasting other people's treatises and demanding they be disproved. Jackass. its called reading and responding... u started being the jackass, jackass!

its called a citation... reason being, because its not my work...lol the 5 pts are there to respond to... ok, go

distraction, and not offering an argument... the work was cited at the top, in response to the topic of risk. thats the point of a citation..lol please justify.... thats not an argument... its called a citation of ideas... thats the point of a citation or providing an article you find interesting or relevant to the topic... read top for citation. more ad hom, distraction... please respond to the 5 argument against capital risk... You haven't read or studied enough to understand them. yes, you implied that noam is a hypocrite because he made money from his work, which is what happens in a real market. people make ****, and people buy ****... lol what you are trying to justify, to help you out smartass, ( is the extraction of surplus value through hired labor), this is fundamentally a function of the state, and not markets... ie the idea that ones capital deserves interest simply because you allowed someone to use it. strangely, the argument ignores surplus value because that obviously reveals that labor gets the short end of the stick. the capital return is bigger than the original capital( without work) and the labor return in wages is less than the final market product minus capital... im arguing this is not the act of markets but the state enforcing and protecting extraction, otherwise workers would not allow this to happen... why would you want less than what you put in... this is why most anarchists, communists, and socialists want community banks that are democratic and dont operate on the premise of profit... yes co-ops would operate and compete in a market ( as would the individuals in those co-ops) ... which is different from capital hierarchy enforced by the state through rent and interest... See, this is what I'm talking about... you don't even understand the terms you're using, much less the concepts they describe.

heath played 5 games with jags, cb... brown is a wr/te/hb role

ya know, i wouldnt really change fitz. probably a little more 2 tes, and pounding it, safe throws... parcells style... but not too conservative... as long as we stay healthy, we are going to put some pts up, its the run d and pass rush that needs to be top 5 in order for us to get to the dance

discuss...

1- its not a utopia 2- i believe in these ideas and cited them. 3- yes i have pondered these ideas, and the arguments of risk imo dont work, from what ive read on both sides... but you can offer more ideas and we can discuss them... yes, its not my intellectual work, thats why its cited...lol generally thats the point of citation... 4- chomsky does this thing called work, he writes books and then sells them. and pays market value for publishing, and distribution. you are equating markets with capital hierarchy, which are not the same thing...

HELL YEAH! getting tired of ppp

i just wish, and i know this is idealism, politicians would just debate ideology. obama will never admit he will save medicare at all cost, and ryan will never admit hes not pro medicare... either way, the discourse get clouded in a stupid numbers game...

mangold was hurt, hunter sucked ass, i think dabrick was banged up.... not a fair assesment... i think kyle will be good, but slauson is not bad man...

their oline is still damn good guys... the only weak spot is howard, who is big and long... come on guys, its going to be tough