meazza Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 And if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear? Pencils and drawings? Wtf? And who said anything about the lumberjack owning a house? Jesus Christ you've got to be smoking some great **** because you make absolutely no sense whatsoever. You keep recycling the same crap to make your argument but your argument blows dead goats. Wow. Just wow. Because he's a troll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Because he's a troll... He is owning DC Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 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. i literally never said any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 He is owning DC Tom. I think we have very different definitions of owning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) 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. 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.... Edited May 25, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 MDP- Can you please define what you meant by 'democratically decided upon' some pages back? I'd like to understand, specifically, what you meant by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) MDP- Can you please define what you meant by 'democratically decided upon' some pages back? I'd like to understand, specifically, what you meant by that. in simplistic terms, people should have a say based on the proportion they are affected by someone else. some examples might be 50+1, another example might be just 1 person, and some examples might envolve consensus. this doesnt have to be anal. in theory, if you want to blast a boombox down the street, others are affected, and should have some say. note* not every decision affecting others should be democratic. that would be anal. it really just depends on the example. if you want, listen to michael albert on youtube. or read his books. he explains this... Edited May 25, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited May 25, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I think we have very different definitions of owning. Maybe, but right now, Tom's his B word and for some reason Tom likes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) in simplistic terms, people should have a say based on the proportion they are affected by someone else. some examples might be 50+1, another example might be just 1 person, and some examples might envolve consensus. this doesnt have to be anal. in theory, if you want to blast a boombox down the street, others are affected, and should have some say. note* not every decision affecting others should be democratic. that would be anal. it really just depends on the example. if you want, listen to michael albert on youtube. or read his books. he explains this... Well, I'd like to get YOUR thoughts on this, because for all intents and purposes, this really defines the issue. The idea of 'say' is nice, but what does it actually mean? What do you mean by employees have a 'say', specifically? Use this example: Some sort of manufacturing company, started by a guy 20 years ago that has grown from 10 employees to 250. No private investors. "Management" includes the CEO/Owner a CFO, COO and a Business Development guy. Edited May 25, 2012 by jjamie12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 in simplistic terms, people should have a say based on the proportion they are affected by someone else. some examples might be 50+1, another example might be just 1 person, and some examples might envolve consensus. this doesnt have to be anal. in theory, if you want to blast a boombox down the street, others are affected, and should have some say. note* not every decision affecting others should be democratic. that would be anal. it really just depends on the example. if you want, listen to michael albert on youtube. or read his books. he explains this... People have a say all the time. Let me give you an example: CJ - I would like to offer you a job. It pays $10 per hour MDR - I feel I should get $20 an hour. CJ - I'm sorry, the position pays $10 per hour MDR - But I feel I'm worth $20 per hour CJ - Not here. I'm sorry, the offer of employment is no longer on the table for you. Have a great day! See how that works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 He is owning DC Tom. Owning in the sense of "owning"? Or just capitalizing on Tom's laborious posts? MDP owning Tom in this case is like Marvis Frazier "owning" Mike Tyson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Owning in the sense of "owning"? Or just capitalizing on Tom's laborious posts? MDP owning Tom in this case is like Marvis Frazier "owning" Mike Tyson. My link Eventually MDP will bite off Tom's ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Eventually MDP will bite off Tom's ear. Eventually a mod will no longer be amused and MDP will go from owned to pwnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Eventually a mod will no longer be amused and MDP will go from owned to pwnd Darin does have a temper when he gets around to using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Owning in the sense of "owning"? Or just capitalizing on Tom's laborious posts? MDP owning Tom in this case is like Marvis Frazier "owning" Mike Tyson. Owning in the sense of wasting my time. He couldn't truly own me, since he can't derive profit from my labor in his world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Darin does have a temper when he gets around to using it. Yes his multi-quote attacks are entertaining though I don't think he'll have the patience to read through all the garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well, I'd like to get YOUR thoughts on this, because for all intents and purposes, this really defines the issue. The idea of 'say' is nice, but what does it actually mean? What do you mean by employees have a 'say', specifically? Use this example: Some sort of manufacturing company, started by a guy 20 years ago that has grown from 10 employees to 250. No private investors. "Management" includes the CEO/Owner a CFO, COO and a Business Development guy. i dont see a problem with this. as long as someone isnt getting a free ride. we dont live in a utopia, but we should avoid this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts