Jauronimo
-
Posts
13,845 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jauronimo
-
-
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/05/trayvon-martin-day-declared-at-d-c-elementary-school-76327.html
"In an effort to better educate students and their parents about race relations and social injustice, a D.C. elementary school has declared Friday “Trayvon Martin Day.”
What the hell is going on in schools? Trayvon day, threatening to put kids in jail for anti-Obama sentiment. Insanity! What next, giving our kids free Fisting Kits? Where does it stop?
-
I like Krugman's model. I'm ready to go. Are you ready to go? Because we are going to bomb Western Europe into the stone age, gang rape Nanjing and the rest of China, reduce India to a colonial backwater, let the Germans loose on the Ruskies, and then level Germany, and take a victory lap all across the developing world, with bombs.
With the rest of the world in rubble and the global economy a thing of the past, we will be only manufacturer left in the game. And since investors have no where else to turn, all we have to do is tighten up on the banks and raise the top tax rate to 70% and let the prosperity begin! Let World War III begin.
-
land and capital are not deserving of profits. they are non-productive. ( the land will just sit there)..... this is permission, not work. ie, non labor income. and all the external cost or overhead you just explained can be paid by what labor produces.
and i never said investment was wrong, rather getting non-labor, free wealth was unjustified....
I never suggested that profits be given to the land or buried in the field. That would just be silly.
Your base assumption that operating a business is not work because the land owner is not in the field is fallacious. Labor does not guarantee profit. Overhead costs can be paid for by what labor produces, except for when they can't. If your assumption were true, no business would ever shutter or file for bankruptcy protection.
So either investment is labor, or investment should reap no rewards? The bolded makes no sense. As I've shown you, there is no such thing as free wealth as profit, either by operating a business or investment is not guaranteed. While you scrutinize the winners in the game, you make no mention of the losers. You love to talk about the "free wealth" stolen by the Apple shareholder from the Chinese slave labor, but what about the parasite who lost his shirt going long NFLX? Tell him about his free wealth. Even though the investor's $300 became $70 in one week, labor got paid in full on Friday.
-
I'm feeling charitable today, so I'll provide something resembling an actual response now that you've brought actual economic concepts to the discussion, Marcel.
I'm sure you already know that the marginal productivity curve operates under the assumptions that long run profits are equal to 0 in equilibrium, right? So even under this diabolical, profit maximization scheme (which isn't exactly that at all, but more of a concept of efficiency where you look for optimal levels of labor and capital which explains economies of scale) you still earn no profit in the long-term. Therefore it follows that paying labor an increasing share of the marginal product will plunge the business into a long run loss, and we are still discussing the textbook example where fixed and variable costs are predictable, and perfect efficiencies are attainable.
Lets examine your land owner example a little more closely and translate it to real life. The land owner is entitled to the lion share of the profits, but since when are profits guaranteed? That 40 bushel income lookes a little lighter when you factor in debt service and property taxation, market risk (this is a commodity), cap ex (tools, buildings), administrative costs like hiring, bookkeeping, legal, benefits, rent, repairs, maintenance. Looking slightly less rosy and we haven't even mentioned sales risk. Who says you can sell all your wheat at any price? When the land owner's risk does pay off you say the profits should be shared, but when the land owner takes a loss, he should eat it?
Profit is far from certain, but the laborer still gets paid on Friday. If the laborer wants a share of the profits then they should also take a share in the losses. You can't have it both ways. How many unskilled workers do you think will sign on for that level of fairness? I think more people would prefer the current model and mitigate their earnings risk.
It seems to me that your beliefs are only applicable, and loosely at that, to those who have inherited profitable enterprises or the career investor. I'm not going to even attempt to explain how active investors are integral to efficient markets until you can comprehend the basic assumptions of your marginal productivity model.
-
But someone sold you the hammer, didn't they? So the creation of your labor actually belongs to the guy at Home Depot that sold you the hammer.
You really are dense, Tom.
How did the hammer get to home depot, magic? What about the wholesaler and truck driver who arranged for the sale of the hammer and logistics to home depot. And at least half of the profit belongs to the trans-oceanic shipping company that delivered the hammer to the wholesaler across the high seas at great peril. And what about the guy who made the hammer in the hammer factory in Indonesia? Surely he deserves some of the profit. And then theres the guy that forged the iron, the guy who lathed the wooden handle, the guy who mined the iron ore, the guy who cut down the tree, and all manner of logistics and middlemen that we know as the supply chain. Clearly, they deserve a cut, don't they? How hard could it possibly be to facilitate this sort of per unit universal profit share?
Instead, management reaps the whole gross margin on any unit sold, because there are no fixed costs, variable costs, taxes or costs of borrowing. Management just sits upstairs with their 80 hour work weeks getting rich on the broken backs of the humble laborer. Why? Equity, thats why. No more equity, all debt funding. Thats the ideal capital structure. Lever up with bank debt, thats what I always say. When we can cast off our chains and overthrow those parasitic shareholders, we will herald in an age of prosperity never before seen by mankind.
-
As a Bills fan I am frothing at the mouth when I think of the potential in this defense for 2012. I cna't help but fantasize about this team going 11-5, with a top 10 defense and the playoffs for the first time in a dozen, and yes I know that I am looking too far down the road with that, even when I start to think of...
...after the season.
I doubt Buffalo would make Wanny the highest paid DC in the League (what would that be, about 4 million?), and I doubt they are going to promise him the HC job, especially when you consider that Gailey and Wannstedt are roughly the same age.
That being said I think teams are going to come at him hard to be a HC and I am not sure how much reason there would be for him to stay if this is potentially his last go around at the top spot.
It is just frustrating as a Bills fan to think of the possiblity of finally putting together a multi-year run, just knowing that you aren't like other franchises that get to keep their good people, at least for a couple of years.
...unless the Bills are so close after 2012 where someone could reasonably think, "yeah, I think we can win the whole thing next year, AND my prospects will be even greater."
Sounds like I am whinning, but really I am still thrilled. This just sort of popped in my head.
GO BILLS!
I'm worried that the weather one year from today will be super nice, because if it is I'll be at work and unable to golf, and maybe that was the day I was going to hit a hole in one!!
Correct. Now that you've identified the problem, the next step is having the discipline not to share your irrational concerns with the rest of the world.
-
So then I guess most people in the financial world do make hiring decisions the same way Chef does. That explains a lot.
Yes, it explains how people with actual responsibility, who will be judged on their quantifiable results at the end of every business day, take hiring decisions a lot more seriously than some glorified admin working at a low rent school or hospital. You get no bonus points for taking a chance on someone with a neck tat and it working out. And if it doesn't work out you may very well be screwing your own bonus, tarnishing your reputation, or jeopardizing your career. Why would I take that chance?
Why don't you get a neck tat and test your theory that common sense and risk management are limited to the world finance. While you're at it, why don't you survey people with neck ink and figure out what the rest of us already know. In college I met approximately 0 people with neck tattoos. In my professional life I've met 0 people with neck tattoos. When I swing by other offices for meetings or to meet up with friends, 0 neck tattoos. Is this the biggest case of discrimination ever or are those with neck tattoos overwhelmingly lacking corporate aspirations?
-
I've got one word for you.....plastics.
or
What do I have to do to put you in a beard today?
-
you ignored a key tenet, the division of labor. all labor does produce capital, yet the capitalist is in charge(ie the state protecting the reward for doing nothing), not labor. this is why the capitalist is a freeloader and not labor. ie, the slave owner owns capital, and slaves produce everything, yet the slave owner is in charge.
you put words in my mouth.... i said capital is finite. and capital is unproductive. this is shown in the flaw of marginal productivity theory. in the case of walmart starting a new business/or just expanding, then yes, all that capital is produced by labor. as walmart gets bigger, all capital is then generated by labor. meaning the capitalist is the freeloader.
if you want, i would even argue only labor is productive and capital is not.
the problem is initial capital. i dont have that ability.( workers are not in charge ). and even with the remote chance i got the money to buy a hypothetical bike shop or any small general store to compete with walmart, the co-op could not deliver prices as low as walmart.
you see, capital can be a 100$ investment. but that is a finite value and will not sustain walmart. in fact, the 100$ is useless and produces nothing without the returns of labor, ie exploitation and extraction... but labor keeps working and working and working, while the capitalist does nothing. its a pyramid scheme. its a power structure with an assinine notion of private property that expands and never stops. this logical end would mean someone could conceptually spend 1$ and then own the world simply because they gave capital. its a joke...
like the earlier example noted, which is ironic because the poster didnt realize this hurts capitalism, if someone drives me to work, even one time, do they now own my business. another example would be someone buying a candybar at walmart, do they now own all walmart? that is just ridiculous, yet thats exactly what marginal productivity theory states in capitalism....
this is what you (tom) said.---- at least here is what you should have said, because the above made no sense at all.
"you just spent the whole thread explaining all capital is generated by labor, and anyone who wants infinite profits for finite capital is just a freeloader. ie non labor income.
but you cant start your own company for lack of capital.
so basically, youre saying gaining infinte profits from no work is being a freeloader."
yes!!!! because im not in charge of my labor. lol.....
sorry i had to make your last statement resemble actual logic and sense....
you need to understand that the state enforces the reward for doing nothing. ie, allowing someone to use your tools is not a productive act. its simply an act of structural power and advantage. ie marginal productiviy theory is incoherent and is facutally not productive. permission is not work, its hierarchy. a hammer, land, money, rent, none of this produces anything without returns on labor. a hammer or land will not produce anything by itself.
this is the major distinction between private possesion and private property. private property here means the means of production, not a car, or personal hosue, candybar, etc.
land, rent, and interest are forms of arbitrary power, not productivity.
Who is the nameless, faceless capitalist in all your ridiculous examples? Shareholders or management?
-
It's amazing how many fights I've witnessed in movie theaters. Now, punching a 10 year old in the face is a bit much....I think I would have thrown a soda in his face and walked out.
Do you see what happens, Larry?
-
because i dont have the capital.......
and here in my small town it would be impossible for me to compete with the cheap prices of walmart. i dont have capital in slave ridden china... Exploit your local labor. Do we have to spoon feed this to you? Everywhere you look there is unskilled labor just begging to be exploited. So maybe you'll only make $500 off of each bike instead of $920 since you have to pay more for labor and sell your product for less, but you still are cheating labor out of an incredible amount of wealth. And as long as you're exploiting labor to the tune of $500 per bike, how can you not amass a fortune?
This your own model, for Christ's sake. What don't you understand about your own model?
-
I stopped sharing my HIV results with my partners. I think the mystery really helps keep the excitement and thrill in my love life. Girls love danger.
-
Not to be that guy but canola oil has lots of health issues. Olive oil works just as well and is about the same price. Do yourself a favor stick with the olive oil
Olive oil has a low smoke point, you moron. How can you deep fry, stir fry, or perform any high heat cooking with olive oil? Get your head out of your ass!
-
Why not start your own bike company?
Theres no margin in the bike business. Why do that when you can loan a guy a toolbelt and own the damn city?
-
On a scale of Damn Yankees to Chickenfoot, how do they compare to the Traveling Wilburys?
-
I think a person who would not hire an employee based on the fact they have a tattoo on their neck rather than on their record and ability to advise isn't very smart. Now, if you can refute my point and add some substance to the conversation please do.
Its universally known that visible ink doesn't exactly dazzle prospective employers in the corporate world. Since its no secret that neck or face ink is a poor career move, choosing to get a neck tat is a clear indication of that individual's career aspirations. And its just downright trashy.
Hiring, training, and basically carrying a new employee who is unlikely to produce in their first 6 months, is a major investment. When you're making the decision and your money is on the line, we'll see how willing you are to choose between neck tat guy and an equally qualified applicant who looks the part.
Reminds me of a book I've been picking up more and more lately, Life at the Bottom, where Dalrymple describes liberal pride in non-judgmentalism as to the point of pure stupidity.
-
I can't believe Romney is 65 years old. Wow that hair dye had me fooled. Perhaps he should put some dye on those ridiculous temples. His dye job is just another "etch-a-sketch" attempt to reinvent himself.
Romney's hair dye is the equivalent of Palin's lip stick on a pig.
Tell that to Obama's dye job and Biden's face lift.
-
If someone scores well from an accredited university, and performs well on the entrance exam and they show a financial need than certainly they should be given the loans to graduate. Very few graduate degrees default on their loans.
My issue is with the "for profit" businesses like University of Phoenix, & Virginina College. So many of their students are not qualified. Many students are "sold" by their "admissions counselors aka salespeople & taught how to get government student loans. My problem is these university's by and large result in 90% of the federal student loan defaults. So in essence the buck stops with the Federal Student Loans these kids are getting for their "unaccredited" or below merit degree's. Many don't finish and many who do do not have the skills their diplomas claim they have. This is another government institution getting ripped off by greedy private for profit business in the veil of higher education.
What does this have to do with anything that I've posted?
-
please do not insult me and assume where i come from. i was in the military for 4 years and worked my ass off. before that i did roof jobs with my uncle and worked fast food. my parents couldnt afford college so i joined the military-(i didnt want to do this, ie, not my choice)....
1- yes people make bad choices, some people are lazy, some people commit crime, others do whatever. im talking about good people, so here, you are irrelevant. i never said there should be a free ride, or no accountability.
2- the nature of exploitation through how money is loaned, and how capital structure works, is on a level of ignorance that is borderline ubiquitous...
so many people are taken advantage of simply because they dont know they are being ripped off.
3- i reject your analysis that unskilled work has a real choice. im not talking about choice in the sense that they could be a chemist one day. im talking about power to influence their wages and autonomy in the workplace. to their actual work value on a market. if that person has a problem, they are fired.
so, the choice is, accept exploitation to keep the 10-15$ and hr, or get fired and not eat or at a minimum, face a strong possibilty of being evicted from his/her apartment. at an absolute minimum, you logically must admit, you take a big risk quitting your job.
there is a difference between choice, and autonomy/desire/moral agency.
this is just flat on its face wrong and disturbing when you look at sweat shops overseas. the choice there is on most levels work or die. this is not a free choice.
4- again, given the choice, workers would rather make what they are actually worth. obviously.
- 70% of the workforce hates their job. they literally hate it. so, why do they work there? you need to square that problem.
How is the nature of money lending ignorant? Nice sentence.
I was not aware that unskilled labor had no choice in the matter and were required to remain unskilled until their last dying breath. Furthermore, why would you expect an unskilled highly replaceable laborer to have any ability whatsoever to command a better wage? That's the nature of supply and demand. Unskilled labor is highly substitutable and plentiful, which means they have no bargaining power. Want to increase your bargaining power? Stop being so readily replaceable.
If everyone loved or even liked their job, they wouldn't have to pay you to do it. You'd pay them. Do you think African bushmen like going days without food and water and risking their lives for food? You do what you must to live. The only problem to be squared is your notion of the way things should be.
-
He should be arrested for not getting a damn haircut. !@#$ing pseudo-hippie.
A scarf would go a long way toward cleaning up his image, but the hair has got to go.
-
What is the recommended percent of independent board members???
75%?
-
it would be in labors interest to stay in business. why would a person destroy themselves?
its a situation where, hypothetically, every 6 months, labor will see the data, and see what they need to invest, to expand, and then they would vote on it. on a much more micro level its similar to when a peson is selling a car or donut. you wouldnt sell the donut for a million dollars. duh...
you could also compartmentalize bureaucracy and create more efficiency.
btw, im not advocating a utopia, and there is no perfect system.
I don't know. Ask Greece why the common man would continue to vote for short term gratification and certain death. Then look at the programs which are being proposed in the U.S. How willing have unions been to take a haircut and accept terms necessary to save their company from bankruptcy? Why do people engage in all sorts of self-destructive behavior? I don't know why, and I don't need to know why. I just need to know that they do, willfully and frequently, even in the face of cold hard facts.
Compartmentalize? You mean like corporate governance, a board of directors, proxy voting, compensation committees?
-
Where was the concern about the principal agent problem with regards to CEOs - check out the changes in Stockholder, Labor, and CEO compensation from the 1950s to now and tell me which is the outlier.
I'd say CEO compensation is out of hand. Vikram Pandit just got millions while Citi scraped the bottom of the barrel.
But what does this have to do with whether all labor should have a say in free cash flow?
-
of course it changes man. its not set in stone.
im simply saying the left over take home should be voted on democratically.
Why?
What about when there is no left over take home? What if labor does not have the best interests of the firm at heart? How do you suggest companies deal with the principal agent problem posed when labor outvotes management to give themselves a raise every year, and huge pension packages? When the company loses money should labor take a prorata pay cut? Should all pay be strictly performance based? Profit or starve?
Facebook Douche Renounces American Citizenship
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Except that it doesn't. Not always, not even usually, rarely does this relationship hold. I see you've abandoned the marginal productivity argument, and gone back to your cave to find your power animal, which is "land isn't productive." Fine work.
Dry your tears, Marcel. Since all the money is fake, as you've stated, then the capitalist welfare must also be imaginary.