|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted February 20, 2009 09:04 PM |
|
|
I'm a large-scale socialist of equality and respect, and cooperation. Large-scale because I do not limit this to humanity 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 23, 2009 02:09 PM |
|
|
QFT:
Quote:
You have 2 happy human beings on the planet!
Person A produces 6 Meat!
Person B produces 6 Bread!
They trade 3 of each so they both enjoy 3 bread + 3 meat!
Person A decides he wants to make profits!
So he wants 2 Bread for every piece of Meat!
Person A gets 4 Meat and 4 Bread!
Person B doesn't make profits! He gets 2 Meat and 2 Bread!
Person B is a very sad person!
Alright where were we, other than finding the conclusion that Mvass has no conscience is underlined?
Seriously though, Mvass has enlighted me: I used to think -everybody- had a sense of conscience, but now I know it is a trait not bustowed on every single living being at all.
So... yeah.... Thank you, Mvass 
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2009 03:13 PM |
|
|
You're not even trying any more. There are so many problems with that example, they're too many to count.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 25, 2009 04:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You're not even trying any more. There are so many problems with that example, they're too many to count.
Please tell us, its after all a capitalistic system in practis.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2009 10:35 PM |
|
|
Okay.
First, this starts out with the assumption that Person A does not deserve to have more than Person B. This assumption is completely irrelevant. Who says that meat and bread have equal value? What if A values meat more than B values bread?
Second, it would seem that, from the example, meat and bread are of equal value. So if A would want two bread for every piece of meat, he would not get any bread at all.
Third, the net outcome does not change. Six meat and six bread are produced and consumed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 25, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First, this starts out with the assumption that Person A does not deserve to have more than Person B.
Who the hell decides that? Doesn't Person B decide that? (since they are the only dudes on the planet).
Actually Moonlith's point is pretty valid except for productivity, the way I see it, which is flawed as well (there's no way around it in capitalism, especially not with "private" banks lol  ).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2009 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who the hell decides that? Doesn't Person B decide that?
No one decides that - unless there's some kind of authoritarian central planner.
And Moonlith's point is even more invalid due to my second point. If A is able to change the deal, and B agrees to it, then before the deal, B was "exploiting" A.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 01:00 AM |
|
|
|
What if person B has some nasty illness and needs to consume meat in order to survive?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 03:53 AM |
|
|
"Need" is a bad determinant of how much a person should get, anyway.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 04:01 AM |
|
|
If you go higher than your needs to survive, you'll get addicted (used to) that, so you'll "increase" your needs. Consequently you'll need a lot more to be satisfied than a starving child, for example. Healthy people need a lot more to be satisfied than an ill person.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 04:13 AM |
|
|
Yes, but "needs" have nothing to do with how much somebody deserves something.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 11:40 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 11:46, 27 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
"Need" is a bad determinant of how much a person should get, anyway.
So if a man has to consume one pill per day in order not to die of a terminal illness, that doesn't mean that he should get that pill?
What's a good determinant then? Profit?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 11:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If A is able to change the deal, and B agrees to it, then before the deal, B was "exploiting" A.
But what neutral party decides the new deal is better?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 02:38 PM |
|
|
Bak:
There is no determinant, at least not one relevant to economics.
del_diablo:
No one except A and B should be determining how good the deal is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 07:29 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 19:29, 27 Feb 2009.
|
There's no determinants?
Who determines who receives how much money then? Who determines who gets fired? Who determines how much profit another well-placed war brings?
And you didn't answer my question about the man dying of a terminal illness.
If there is one pill left, and people interested in it are a poor dying man and a rich man who needs it for his personal collection of rarities, who gets the pill?
Capitalism is a cruel god, though benevolent to his priests.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 07:47 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 19:53, 27 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
Third, the net outcome does not change. Six meat and six bread are produced and consumed.
So the fact 50% of the population consumes 66% of the products simply because they want to make profits is irrelevant?
But that isn't even my point.
My point is, if 50% of the population wants to make profits and consumes 66%, the other 50% can ONLY consume 33%.
AKA: one person's profits come directly from other people. AKA: It naturally divides people into seperate classes, most prominently the rich and the poor. So you think that's a good thing huh?
Now mind you, that's a question I am still debating with myself. Of course I think arrogant rich kids who think they are better than others just because they have money should get horrible diseases and suffer their entire life, but at the same time, I think it would be rather boring if everyone was exactly equal.
And who validated person A's right to declare himself more "productive" or important? Naturally, person B did, by agreeing with it. I really think person B is a stupid ignorant sheep.
Quote:
You're not even trying any more.
Should I? I thought I was just a troll? You think trolls should try? O.o I'm confused here.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
Who determines who receives how much money then?
Individuals themselves, thorough the collective results of their individual choices.
Quote:
If there is one pill left, and people interested in it are a poor dying man and a rich man who needs it for his personal collection of rarities, who gets the pill?
Questions of morality have nothing to do with economics.
Moonlith:
Quote:
My point is, if 50% of the population wants to make profits and consumes 66%, the other 50% can ONLY consume 33%.
To look at it in percentages is extremely deceptive. You have to look at actual numbers - because the pie grows. Let's say, in one situation, 100 people have fifty productivity points - so the total productivity is 5000. Now, in the second situation, inequality is permitted - so let's say 40 people have 60 productivity points, and 60 have 45. Then the total productivity is 5100 - which is better than in the first situation. There is no inherent value in economic equality.
Quote:
And who validated person A's right to declare himself more "productive" or important? Naturally, person B did, by agreeing with it. I really think person B is a stupid ignorant sheep.
If you have a problem with it, you should take it up with Person B. Oh wait! If person B objects to it, then he's considering himself just as productive as A! What a selfish idiot with no conscience! 
Quote:
Should I? I thought I was just a troll? You think trolls should try?
A good troll would be somewhat more subtle.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 12:41 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:43, 28 Feb 2009.
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
AKA: one person's profits come directly from other people.
I'm not sure why you think this is such a profound point you're making. Of course one person's profits have to come from other people, unless horses are buying your goods. The economy is a closed system. If I make a profit, it's because I have sold something (an object or service) to someone else. Thus when I gain two dollars in net profit from selling a widget, the person who buys a widget has two dollars less. However, you're "point", such as it is, neglects the fact, again, that it is essentially a CLOSED SYSTEM. Ok, so while, as a widget-seller, my profit comes from other people, while I'm taking in money, I'm also losing widgets. And while consumers LOSE MONEY, they GAIN WIDGETS. So was there really a net gain by either party? Well, that's dependent on the future value of widgets and money, as well as the respective values each person assigns to those items. But if you think that it's unfair that the widget-seller is profiting unfairly from the transaction, THEN DO NOT BUY WIDGETS, or BUY THEM FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
A more pertinent issue is why you think something is wrong with that system. Nobody is FORCING you to buy widgets. The price of widgets is set by the demand for them. And certainly, a government could regulate/tax widgets to such a point that it takes almost no money to purchase one (i.e., devaluing widgets), or that it becomes prohibitively expensive to produce them, but then nobody would have an impetus to make and sell them, and so there'd be no widgets on the market to regulate. A point that seems to elude people who think there's something wrong with capitalism.
Quote:
AKA: It naturally divides people into seperate classes, most prominently the rich and the poor. So you think that's a good thing huh?
You're trying to assign a value judgement to something that's natural. Let me ask you this: do you think it's a good thing that humans have evolved to live in houses, read books, enjoy music and drive cars, and dogs have not? Is it a "good thing" that wolves "profit" off of deer, who in turn "profit" off of grass? Is it a "good thing" that some people are smart, or athletic, or beautiful, while other are dumb, clumsy or ugly? In that regard, would you consider it a "good thing" to genetically engineer everyone to have exactly the same skills and physical appearance?
Quote:
Of course I think arrogant rich kids who think they are better than others just because they have money should get horrible diseases and suffer their entire life..
A better question is: why do you care what other people think?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 12:59 AM |
|
|
Still, however, if the pill was in your hands - who would you give it to?
Everything we do or don't do is related to morality, MVass. The veils of "business" or "the system" or "necessary sacrifice", just like the mask of "duty" or "just following orders" a soldier puts on after he shoots a civilian, is just our way of tricking a mind into sleeping well at night after doing something it knows is wrong.
But... Whom would you give the pill, and whom would capitalism give the pill?
The answers are different, aren't they?
Are you afraid of them being different?
All of us - every human being on Earth, religious or not - needs something to believe in; from Christianity to communism. Some hope to benefit himself and others. You found capitalism and I understand that you need to defend it at all costs - it's not just a system to you, it's something you trust, it's where you put your hopes in. And so, every time it collides with your thoughts, you make your mind adapt to it and embrace it. Sometimes, in order to reach that, you shove things like morals aside (maybe they're outdated anyway? Maybe there's no room for morals if we are to lead a modern, efficient society? It's all for the greater good). Yet sometimes, the primordial sense of righteousness, the sheer, absolute feeling of something being right and something being wrong - not in the long run, not after careful planning, but right there and then - simply surfaces, and you deny it. And that's causing pain somewhere deep inside the mind, MVass. That's perhaps one of the greatest things eons of evolution have accomplished - conscience.
You need to wonder whether it's worth it; whether sometimes, beliefs should adapt to us, and not us to them.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 01:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A more pertinent issue is why you think something is wrong with that system. Nobody is FORCING you to buy widgets.
I have a problem when this gets down to big property (or land or whatever), especially when it comes to big facilities that are used to make lots of $$$$. Let's just say, someone born tomorrow in an average family certainly wasn't responsible for the dude's wealth who got into that position (most likely CEO), yet the "kid" will still be affected by his effects and influence.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
