OCinBuffalo Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) germany many have the greatest most efficient economy in the world per capita... Until Germany pays for its own defense, this is merely an illusion. Until you accept this fact, you are merely naive. Who's stopping Russia, or China for that matter, from rolling their tanks? The EU? Where would dumbass Chomsky be if that were to happen? He'd be the same place he already is: hiding out on some college campus, hoping that nobody remembers all the dumbass videos he made. And we already have empirical evidence of this in: Where are all the college professors, the "dream team", who made up Obama's "economic council"? There were all going to show us how "intelligent () and reasonable () people manage the economy", so where are they? Answer: back hiding out on college campuses they came from, hoping nobody remembers how badly the ideas they have been preaching for 30 years FAILed. But yeah, we should listen to college professors/the non-responsible, whose job it is to never actually solve anything, or be responsible for anything. When confronted with the need to get something done today: Its always better to listen to some non-responsible person talk theory...than it is to listen to a seasoned professional speak from experience. Hehe. And that's just it: you and Chomsky have something in common, neither of you have any experience being responsible, in economics, high finance, or business in general. The good news for you is: you can change that. The question for you is: why are you listening to a guy who can't? Edited May 27, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 Until Germany pays for its own defense, this is merely an illusion. Until you accept this fact, you are merely naive. Who's stopping Russia, or China for that matter, from rolling their tanks? The EU? Where would dumbass Chomsky be if that were to happen? He'd be the same place he already is: hiding out on some college campus, hoping that nobody remembers all the dumbass videos he made. And we already have empirical evidence of this in: Where are all the college professors, the "dream team", who made up Obama's "economic council"? There were all going to show us how "intelligent () and reasonable () people manage the economy", so where are they? Answer: back hiding out on college campuses they came from, hoping nobody remembers how badly the ideas they have been preaching for 30 years FAILed. But yeah, we should listen to college professors/the non-responsible, whose job it is to never actually solve anything, or be responsible for anything. When confronted with the need to get something done today: Its always better to listen to some non-responsible person talk theory...than it is to listen to a seasoned professional speak from experience. Hehe. And that's just it: you and Chomsky have something in common, neither of you have any experience being responsible, in economics, high finance, or business in general. The good news for you is: you can change that. The question for you is: why are you listening to a guy who can't? were just as bad as those countries. read persepolis. not going to argue with you on obama, i dont agree with his policies. hes all talk, but same as the old boss... chomsky always quotes the responsible and shows reasons on why they are wrong or right.... this is equivalent to the idea that because i was not in stalins cabinet, i could never see where he went wrong. really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 there is risk relative to wealth. so if your worth millions and billions, there is little/no risk. risk gets smaller as you get richer. its proportional... risk relative to banking is zero. " there is no consideration "... the money is made out of thin air. as ive already explained, capital is not productive. so while the raw materials must be paid for, (only raw materials should be paid for). so take the land example. obviously the land owner bought the land. in some cases they didnt, but lets not deal with inheritance for now. assuming this, to make it simple, this land cost 100,000$. the profits generated by actual work will quickly take over this price. it will happen fast depending on demand. this non-labor income is systematic and is taking advantage of unpaid labor. as far as the risk in buying the land, 1- the loan from the bank- the real source is no risk. the money is made up... 2- the loan taken out by the person is taking potential risk, not actual risk. actual risk belongs to labor because that work can never be gained back. whereas, the person taking out the loan has not done anything except take out fake money. 3- assuming the person takes acutal risk and owns the land and just has to pay property taxes, im not sure this is great either. that person would just stop farming. but since the land is already theirs, it cant be taken, unless they cant pay property taxes. again, this risk would belong to labor and only labor after that land value was surpassed by labor production. 4- assuming this is a building, and is owned. it would be harder to pay and illogical to pay property taxes on a restaurant that nobody goes to. but of course this could be sold at some point. this wouldnt be irrational. no matter how you look at it, labor after a quick period, swallows all risk, because the labor they put in is never "owned", and they are losing more each day not geting paid for work. this is where surplus value comes from. in fact, the longer a business is operating, and the longer that person works there, the higher the risk each day. rent has the same concept if you want a more salient example.... its simply a structure to allow non-labor income. ie, welfare for the capitalist. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 (edited) 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. no, i said all wealth is created by work/labor. money exchanges that labor. when you print fake money, or use the fractional reserve system, labor/capital is bought for free. this devalues work through inflation, and this has no real consideration because its coming from nothing. this is why austrian economists wanted all currency backed in gold. or at the very least a set ratio. otherwise, bubbles develop and **** gets crazy. this can create incredible contraction when this debt, (ie the money supply), is not real. yes, land is not productive, the land represents finite work to buy the land. this labor will quickly surpass this. the reason marginal productivity doesnt work is founded on capital not being productive. its simply permission, ie arbitrary. labor is not getting paid for their full labor, this surpasses the capital value. nullifying the whole concept by simple math. if capital was productive, then we wouldnt need labor. the land would just farm itself, and distribute goods itself. its like letting someone borrow a bike. imagine for some odd reason there are only so many bikes, ( like land)... that value of that bike is 100$. which was bought for. the bike owner than lets someone ride that bike around and pick people up on the back. he gets paid 10$ an hr from what he produces. the people pay him. only he must give 30% to the owner. this is unpaid labor after 33 hrs. that 30% could eventually add up to a thousand bikes, maybe way more... yet that labor is lost through state power and protection of theft. this is why all risk belongs to the labourer after initial capital is met. this is why rent, interest, and capital are all exploitative. it allows someone to get rich without working. its a reward for doing nothing. because capital and land are finite, and labor cant be kept separate, the labourer has to work for capital, in a capitalist system. this just doesnt affect class, it affects politics, social issues, race, lobbying, corporatism, media, etc. he who holds the money,( land and capital ), holds the power and will make the rules. this is even more extreme with banks. for a small example, this is why many doctrines in islam think interest is a sin. its not just exploitation, its theft, ie a moral/ethical issue. Edited May 27, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 Until Germany pays for its own defense, this is merely an illusion. Until you accept this fact, you are merely naive. Who's stopping Russia, or China for that matter, from rolling their tanks? The EU? Where would dumbass Chomsky be if that were to happen? He'd be the same place he already is: hiding out on some college campus, hoping that nobody remembers all the dumbass videos he made. And we already have empirical evidence of this in: Where are all the college professors, the "dream team", who made up Obama's "economic council"? There were all going to show us how "intelligent () and reasonable () people manage the economy", so where are they? Answer: back hiding out on college campuses they came from, hoping nobody remembers how badly the ideas they have been preaching for 30 years FAILed. But yeah, we should listen to college professors/the non-responsible, whose job it is to never actually solve anything, or be responsible for anything. When confronted with the need to get something done today: Its always better to listen to some non-responsible person talk theory...than it is to listen to a seasoned professional speak from experience. Hehe. And that's just it: you and Chomsky have something in common, neither of you have any experience being responsible, in economics, high finance, or business in general. The good news for you is: you can change that. The question for you is: why are you listening to a guy who can't? they do pay for their defense, they give huge amounts in taxes to nato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) were just as bad as those countries. read persepolis. not going to argue with you on obama, i dont agree with his policies. hes all talk, but same as the old boss... chomsky always quotes the responsible and shows reasons on why they are wrong or right.... this is equivalent to the idea that because i was not in stalins cabinet, i could never see where he went wrong. really? they do pay for their defense, they give huge amounts in taxes to nato. One thing you've made clear: when you double respond to my posts, with a 4 hour gap in between, on a holiday weekend? That means that at the very least they are making you think. Therefore, they are operating as designed, and so are you. Perhaps Darin shouldn't kill you after all. It is as I said in my first response: guys like you suck because we will have to spend a long time de-turding you. This board is easily up to the challenge, the question is whether we want to bother. Edited May 28, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 One thing you've made clear: when you double respond to my posts, with a 4 hour gap in between, on a holiday weekend? That means that at the very least they are making you think. The clearest evidence yet that you're an incurable narcissist is your believe that you can possibly make MDP think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The clearest evidence yet that you're an incurable narcissist Pot meet kettle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The clearest evidence yet that you're an incurable narcissist is your believe that you can possibly make MDP think. Not anything like arguing with him at length in all of his troll posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 The clearest evidence yet that you're an incurable narcissist is your believe that you can possibly make MDP think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 because you need to start a business to make money, and without certain skill you cant... No, I already have a job. I work for a company. I'm asking why I would ever start my own since my fellow workers and I can just vote the profits of my current company to ourselves? there are market forces that will force them to pay. otherwise they will go out of business. ie a doctor, or lawyer. the janitor cant become a lawyer so he knows for his protection and protection of workers, he needs to pay his lawyer. generally speaking this would also take consensus. so why would a lawyer vote himself out of money? " i vote to get paid nothing"... this logically doesnt make sense. the 51 could vote the 49 dont get paid. and then nobody gets paid.... I'm struggling to understand what you're talking about in the first part of this quote, so I'll only respond to the last few lines. I *thought* we were talking about capitalists and capitalism. We're talking about the 95 voting themselves 95% (or 90 or whatever) of the profits. While that may strike you as 'fair', there would be no incentive to start new companies that disrupt the status quo and continue to generate wealth and ever higher and higher living standards for people. Again: Why would I start a new company when I can take no risk and vote myself (and my worker buddies) all of the upside in my current company? If I start my own company, it might fail (lose any money I saved), and even if it succeeds, I am still in no better position than I was before because the people that work for me can 'vote' to take the upside of the new business? Why would I ever do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Pot meet kettle I'm not a narcissist. I'm an egomaniac. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) No, I already have a job. I work for a company. I'm asking why I would ever start my own since my fellow workers and I can just vote the profits of my current company to ourselves? you and your workers would go out of business. just because you start something, ie with capital or w/e, doesnt mean you sit back and do nothing and still get paid. we already talked about how capital is unproductive and after that initial capital is paid off, then there is no reason for that authority to be in place. but again, if you are a higher up, and you offer something actually needed, then the association will keep you. there is no free ride. e.g. if there is a higher up rep who handles business allocation and accounting, yeah, he might get paid more because of market forces, but without him/her, their business would fail. I'm struggling to understand what you're talking about in the first part of this quote, so I'll only respond to the last few lines. I *thought* we were talking about capitalists and capitalism. We're talking about the 95 voting themselves 95% (or 90 or whatever) of the profits. While that may strike you as 'fair', there would be no incentive to start new companies that disrupt the status quo and continue to generate wealth and ever higher and higher living standards for people. 1 person never starts a company, usually a large collection of people do. so even for something like a small bar, you still need 6-10 people. just because you bring capital doesnt mean you stop working. mathematically you realize that the unpaid labor will surpass my initial capital. this value,( ie surplus), that is more than capital continually grows and belongs to labor. so the state would protect capital until labor pays it off. its a collective process. in other words, people can pay you for your land/capital, or they can work it off collectively. i personally dont see a problem with letting the market determing that price/profit. Again: Why would I start a new company when I can take no risk and vote myself (and my worker buddies) all of the upside in my current company? If I start my own company, it might fail (lose any money I saved), and even if it succeeds, I am still in no better position than I was before because the people that work for me can 'vote' to take the upside of the new business? Why would I ever do that? people will start business. real risk is just how the world works. nothing is guaranteed. there is always a possibility, depending on your situation, say a middle class person and workers losing out. thats just part of a market. if your hot dogs suck, then hey, im sorry. the vote doesnt take place until initial capital is paid for. ie raw materials are paid for. if not, that would be stealing. people would start for a profit. i have no problem with interest, as long as its coming from real work, ie real money. the fractional reserve system and fed do not do this. this is like me printing out counterfeit money and then loaning it out on interest. im making money doing nothing, and im devaluing other real labor. ie inflation... Edited May 28, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Although this thread makes me want to eat my brain, it is a little nostalgic. It takes me back to when I was a young college know-it-all and thought my friends and I were brilliant because we could do mental gymnastics and make the absurd sound plausible and make arguments no one else did. Of course I grew to realized that no one else was making those arguments because, although clever, they were substantively retarded. Those were good times though. Young, reckless, and stupid is a good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 people will start business. real risk is just how the world works. nothing is guaranteed. there is always a possibility, depending on your situation, say a middle class person and workers losing out. thats just part of a market. if your hot dogs suck, then hey, im sorry. Let's try a real-world example. I'm a 19 year old kid going to Harvard. I've got lots of great opportunities with good established companies in the future. I've got this great idea for something called a 'personal computer'. Why would I quit college and pay money to start this new business (let's give it a fun name! How about we call it Microsoft!) when the people who will eventually work for me get to vote away the upside in this business? Keep in mind that it's not clear at this point in time that anyone even wants a pc, let alone would pay for one. Why wouldn't I just go to work for IBM and sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Although this thread makes me want to eat my brain, it is a little nostalgic. It takes me back to when I was a young college know-it-all and thought my friends and I were brilliant because we could do mental gymnastics and make the absurd sound plausible and make arguments no one else did. Of course I grew to realized that no one else was making those arguments because, although clever, they were substantively retarded. Those were good times though. Young, reckless, and stupid is a good time. Im not a know it all. its not just theory. its actually practiced... Let's try a real-world example. I'm a 19 year old kid going to Harvard. I've got lots of great opportunities with good established companies in the future. I've got this great idea for something called a 'personal computer'. Why would I quit college and pay money to start this new business (let's give it a fun name! How about we call it Microsoft!) when the people who will eventually work for me get to vote away the upside in this business? Keep in mind that it's not clear at this point in time that anyone even wants a pc, let alone would pay for one. Why wouldn't I just go to work for IBM and sit in a cubicle for 8 hours a day? they cant vote you out unless- a- you are not working. b- the capital plus whatever profit in the market is paid off. the same thing happens with a board of directors. why is this so hard for you to understand. the only thing we are changing is protecting the surplus value and the excess property for labor. in other words, now labor has a say... you can sell an idea on a market. but you still need capital and labor. you need material, you need smart engineers, you need people who put the **** together, you need to either pay a shipping company or let them be part of the co-op also. you need a part time lawyer, etc etc. you are ignoring every part of making a business and then asking, why cant i not work and get rich??? :blink: you are ignoring how the state plays a role in this process... Edited May 28, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I'm not a narcissist. I'm an egomaniac. Big difference. Yup. Egomaniacs oftentimes hate themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) b- the capital plus whatever profit in the market is paid off. I don't really know what this means (Frankly, it's really hard to follow most of what you've written over the last 5-6 posts. You appear to be responding to me, but then keep jumping all over the place. First you are against capitalism. Then you talk about worker councils which exist inside of capitalism. Now you're back to 'paying off capital'). Here's the point -- Incentives matter. In the scenarios that you've created, there is no incentive for anyone to ever start a business, since the people you hire can just vote themselves the upside (after 'Capital' is 'paid off' -- again whatever that means. I don't think you fully understand the context in which your own arguments would or could exist, to be honest). You don't seem to understand that however 'fair' the outcomes would be in your utopia, innovation would completely stagnate. Incentives matter. This is the difference between reading a book thinking "Hey! This is fair!" and then realizing what those kinds of ideas would look like in the world where people live, respond, and work. The reason that the 'state' (I'm assuming you mean the law) plays this role is because, by and large, most people seem to realize that incentives matter. That innovation, wealth creation, and ever higher standards of living come from investment. From trial and error. From success and failure. None of which would exist without making sure that the 'capitalists' get the upside of their investment. Without upside, there is no investment. Edited May 29, 2012 by jjamie12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) I don't really know what this means (Frankly, it's really hard to follow most of what you've written over the last 5-6 posts. You appear to be responding to me, but then keep jumping all over the place. First you are against capitalism. Then you talk about worker councils which exist inside of capitalism. Now you're back to 'paying off capital'). Here's the point -- Incentives matter. In the scenarios that you've created, there is no incentive for anyone to ever start a business, since the people you hire can just vote themselves the upside (after 'Capital' is 'paid off' -- again whatever that means. I don't think you fully understand the context in which your own arguments would or could exist, to be honest). You don't seem to understand that however 'fair' the outcomes would be in your utopia, innovation would completely stagnate. Incentives matter. This is the difference between reading a book thinking "Hey! This is fair!" and then realizing what those kinds of ideas would look like in the world where people live, respond, and work. The reason that the 'state' (I'm assuming you mean the law) plays this role is because, by and large, most people seem to realize that incentives matter. That innovation, wealth creation, and ever higher standards of living come from investment. From trial and error. From success and failure. None of which would exist without making sure that the 'capitalists' get the upside of their investment. Without upside, there is no investment. the incentive is profit depending on what the market wants for your product... the incentive is profit, just like with interest. capital and money invested are the same thing. the both represent the value of labor in a market. i said im against capital hierachy, (ie free money), but for free markets with some basic rules of the road. there are many different structures that can exist in markets.... there are no utopias, only better and worse political systems... labor in any system creates the higher standard of living. all the surplus value is created by labor. this is literally fact. e.g. --- when you give me 5$ and i pay you back 7$, you still dont own all my labor. same with a hammer. when i pay you back the value of the hammer plus interest, this does not mean you own all my labor and can claim the houses i create. i paid you back already the value plus more of the hammer. same goes for land or any other form of investment or capital... you dont get to sit back forever, not work, and claim what i work for. there is another name for that, feudalism.... how else do you think the kennedy family got rich buying all that land in chicago.... Edited May 29, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Business and innovation will flourish when all incentive to start a business is removed. And when the incentive to loan money is finally abolished, a new Golden Age will commence. You heard it here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts