|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 28, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
Still, however, if the pill was in your hands - who would you give it to?
I'd give it to the sick guy, of course.
Quote:
But... Whom would you give the pill, and whom would capitalism give the pill?
Capitalism doesn't "give" anything to anybody. Under capitalism, people have to earn money by being productive, and then they may spend that money on whatever they may like.
And I find your analogy between capitalism and religion rather amusing.  It gave me a laugh. But, of course, you're completely wrong. My "primordial sense of righteousness" arises whenever I see a snow with 8 kids stealing food out of the mouth of a productive guy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 08:43 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 08:48, 28 Feb 2009.
|
You'd give it to the sick guy?
Aw. I smell conscience.
However, wouldn't that be counter-productive (in the sense that you miss out on a profitable opportunity)? And would you do it even if it would mean trouble with your superiors, who wanted you to take it to the rich man? Capitalism isn't able to "give", of course, but people who represent capitalism are.
Why would you discard the theory that capitalism is a religion just like that? They're quite similar at least.
You actually believe that the world would be a better place if
-everyone were capitalists
-everyone abides by a set of rules set by the theory of capitalism
-everyone worked hard to keep the system
In your opinion, salvation is reached through capitalist consumerism, and that's your faith.
Oh and infidels have no place in your society 
So, in a way... It's actually hard to miss the similarities.
Of course I could be completely wrong again, but wasn't the point of capitalism that a "productive" guy has enough food regardless of someone else having children? And those children having food regardless of their parents?
Or should you let those children starve because their mother was thoughtless?
Maybe that woman gave birth to eight individuals which are all bound to become productive one day. Which you'll never really know if you shun them aside and crush any chances they could have in life.
That's not your primordial righteousness, that's the DEY TOOK OUR JERBS mentality usually gained from the mixture of the environment and selfishness.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 03:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, wouldn't that be counter-productive (in the sense that you miss out on a profitable opportunity)?
Tell me, if I chose to make money from that transaction, what would I do with it? In the end, I'd use it to obtain pleasure in some form. Yet I would obtain pleasure from giving it to the sick guy - most likely more than I would from the money I'd get from selling it to the rich guy.
Plus, it may even be considered profitable. If the guy is really productive and then gets sick, it's in my interest that he get better.
Quote:
And would you do it even if it would mean trouble with your superiors, who wanted you to take it to the rich man?
Does the pill belong to me or to my superiors? If it belongs to them, then I have no right to give it to the sick man, much as I may dislike that. If it belongs to me, then it'd be none of their business what I do with it.
Quote:
-everyone worked hard to keep the system
Nope, just merely not to wreck it.
Quote:
In your opinion, salvation is reached through capitalist consumerism, and that's your faith.
Umm... did you miss everything I said about consumerism?  And I never said anything about salvation.
Quote:
Of course I could be completely wrong again, but wasn't the point of capitalism that a "productive" guy has enough food regardless of someone else having children? And those children having food regardless of their parents?
The first point, yes. The second point... not exactly, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so that's not what I think. But children, parents, and the state is a separate debate in itself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 04:05 PM |
|
|
So you would obtain greater pleasure from helping a person than having material gain. That's all I wanted to reach.
Right, I'm out of here then. 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 05:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Capitalism doesn't "give" anything to anybody.
Who gets the moon then?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
Capitalism is not a person. It can't give anything to anyone. As for the moon, whenever that becomes recognized in property rights, then someone will own it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 07:02 PM |
|
|
You don't get it. I don't care how someone owns it, but if he uses capitalism to keep it (or "sell" it) then capitalism must "give" it to him, so to speak. You can't, let's say, have a socialist government take everyone's property, give it to a certain individual, then suddenly becoming capitalist (where everyone can have property again) BUT the dude owns **** and you must get it from HIM.
Who will get it? How will someone get it? In fact this applies to ALL property? How? He buys it? From WHO?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Capitalism is not a person. It can't give anything to anyone. As for the moon, whenever that becomes recognized in property rights, then someone will own it.
First to properly colonize/mineing/etc the moon will be the closest to ownership for the respective area.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 28, 2009 10:03 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Property is a naturally arising relationship between individuals, stuff, and other individuals. In the beginning, people used stuff that they had, but did not worry about whether they owned it or not. Eventually, though, this became problematic, as some strong guy would take a large amount of stuff and then not let anybody else use it. Thus, the concept of property was created, so that people who obtain stuff keep it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 01, 2009 01:21 AM |
|
|
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't ask you for a definition of property or a history lesson 
I said, if initial stuff (and even the productive ones -- where they get the materials?) is not OWNED by ANYONE, then who is the seller? No one, of course, but someone who happens to claim it (or even worse, BOUGHT from the GOVERNMENT -- which means bought from the PEOPLE, so to speak, which means EXPLOITING the people).
How can you CLAIM something and then put a price tag on it? How can you buy from the government? Isn't it obvious that capitalism DECIDES, almost literally? (I mean, bigger cash = bigger chances to buy off stuff from the "government").
Trade between two individuals is one thing, which you constantly emphasize, but this practical example is out of proportion in exploitation or unfairness. Period.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2009 02:17 AM |
|
|
The first requirements for property was that it was unclaimed by anybody else and that you were capable of using/occupying it. Then, of course, property became more complicated.
And when people first started claiming property, the government didn't own everything that wasn't private.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 01, 2009 02:57 AM |
|
|
I'm not saying the government is an angel, but at least it doesn't put a price tag (and if it does, it's back again to what's above: buying property from the government  ). The government is supposed to represent the people aka EVERYONE.
How come "everyone" decides to sell something at a price for SOMEONE -- I didn't sign up anywhere for that. If anything, it shouldn't even be able to be bought. But of course after it is, we are supposed to respect that guy's property, even if he doesn't want to sell it. Give me a break He shouldn't have it in the first place.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2009 04:05 AM |
|
|
Sorry, but other people (not just the government!) said he should be allowed to have it. And the government is supposed to represent the people, right?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 02:08 PM |
|
|
@ Con:
Quote:
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.
It would be a closed system if it didn't use profits.
Suppose there is 500 billion in circulation. In order to have a properly running closed system, all goods and services exchanged need to sum up to a worth 500 billion as well, WITHOUT profits.
The moment you add profits, you begin to extract more money from the pool than can be healthily extracted. In other words, the moment someone starts getting profits, someone else is starting to get DEBTS. And I don't find that a good way to work around things.
The whole point of a central bank is to increase the money supply to actually match the total value of all products and services. The fact you have profits and a bank that loans out more and more money at will is basic evidence of a poorly run financial system, and lack of common sense.
Quote:
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.
Newsflash: EVERY goddamned item you can possibly buy has profits added to its price. I -can't- buy them from someone else without profits.
And not buying food is not an option.
Quote:
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?
I think you are mixing up "necessary consumption" with "profits". Wolves don't 'profit' off of deer, they kill just as much as they need to do live, and nothing goes to waste. They don't kill deer when they aren't hungry. Same goes for deer and grass.
And as I told you, I am still debating with myself wether I'd actually prefer a fully equal system or a system that still has devisions.
In either case though, it can be done much better than we have seen in our history. The way in general people treat each other can only be deemed as retarded.
Quote:
A better question is: why do you care what other people think?
Because every single person who claims they -don't- care what other people think is a liar.
@ MVass:
Quote:
Property is a naturally arising relationship between individuals, stuff, and other individuals. In the beginning, people used stuff that they had, but did not worry about whether they owned it or not. Eventually, though, this became problematic, as some strong guy would take a large amount of stuff and then not let anybody else use it. Thus, the concept of property was created, so that people who obtain stuff keep it.
There is no such thing as "property", not in the objective sense. You don't 'own' anything.
The only reason you can assert ownership is because your ENVIRONMENT acknowledges your claim to it. And we live in a society where we don't like stealing (even though it happens at mass scale in the big financial world, but that aside).
You can claim a house is yours, but when your environment doesn't acknowledge it, you really can't do anything.
But what still sickens me most is your idea that somehow human beings are the only ones who have the "right" to claim property. The moment we get to some unoccupied space on earth we have a full right to claim it as ours, right? Disregarding what else lived there. Because only sentient beings have rights, right?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 02:27 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
In order to have a properly running closed system, all goods and services exchanged need to sum up to a worth 500 billion as well, WITHOUT profits.
lrn2flutteringveilofmoney
Suppose I take $1 worth of materials, use them in some way, and then sell the product for $2. And someone buys it. That means that I have just created $1 of value.
Quote:
In other words, the moment someone starts getting profits, someone else is starting to get DEBTS.
Nope. Completely wrong. I don't even know where you're getting this idea.
But you are correct about property - I only have it because the people around me acknowledge it, and I acknowledge theirs.
Quote:
Because only sentient beings have rights, right?
Yes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 02:31 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 14:33, 02 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
Suppose I take $1 worth of materials, use them in some way, and then sell the product for $2. And someone buys it. That means that I have just created $1 of value.
And WHO is supposed to create the actual MONEY for it ? Moreover, where does it COME from?
Creating extra value might be fine, but the money STILL needs to come from somewhere. And if that comes through LOANS (the only POSSIBLE way by which extra money comes into circulation in current capitalistic systems), you still have a system where adding value automaticly creates DEBTS.
Quote:
Because only sentient beings have rights, right?
Yes.
Ahhhh we've been through this so many times already, you heartless little superior tyrant you
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 02:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the only POSSIBLE way by which extra money comes into circulation in current capitalistic systems
Seingorage
Quote:
you still have a system where adding value automaticly creates DEBTS.
No, it doesn't. The Federal Reserve isn't a typical bank.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 02:52 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 15:07, 02 Mar 2009.
|
Alright let's try and get this clear.
Person A has 2 dollars
Person B has 2 dollars
Person C has 2 dollars
Each person buys ground recources for 1 dollar and then sells the product for 2 dollar.
Person A sells to person B and ends up with 3 dollars.
person B sells to person C and ends up with 2 dollars.
Person C sells to person A and ends up with 2 dollars.
And after that exchange, person A has 2 dollars left.
A closed system without profits, the 1 dollar in added value is the cost of labour, not profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would you see this system working if we include profits? You can't have all 3 people make profits because no one would be able to pay for it. For example:
Each person buys ground recources for 1 dollar and then sells the product for 3 dollars.
Person A sells to person B and ends up with 4 dollars.
Person B sells to person C and ends up with 3 dollars.
Person C sells to person A and ends up with 3 dollars.
And after that exchange, person A has 3 dollars left.
Right? No.
We established they only had 2 dollars each. So where the hell did they get the money from to actually pay for it? It just doesn't work.
I'm talking about the cash you can hold in your hands. Yes you can say "They paid for it by making their own revenue bigger and thus increasing their income" but if that's the case, the whole idea of increasing value seems utter bullsnow since wether the product costs 3 or 2, its the same idiotic circle in which NO ONE PROFITS.
Does this lead to the inevitable conclusion profits only occur when one person benefits it and others don't? In my opinion it does, since as we've seen, no one is making more than others if all get 'profits'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So lets assume person A is the only one making profits.
Person A sells to person B and ends up with 4 dollars.
Person B sells to person C and ends up with 1 dollar.
Person C sells to person A and ends up with 2 dollars.
And after that exchange, person A has 3 dollars left.
Are you catching my drift? Now where am I going with this point? Beats me, I've long since seen the reason why I argue with you other than for the sake of argueing
Oh right I remember, I want to get an understanding of the financial cirquit.
Needless to say, in this same profit system, the next year things get more dire for person B.
Person A has 3 dollars.
Person B has 1 dollar.
Person C has 2 dollars.
Person A sells to person B and ends up with 5 dollars.
Person B sells to person C and ends up with 0 dollars.
Person C sells to person A and ends up with 2 dollars.
And after that exchange, person A has 4 dollars left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wether or not you can actually do something about it or not is completely irrelevant. yes Person B can study and become better and make profits himself, but that is all irrelevant when the system ITSELF exploits people for the sake of providing profits for another.
Now I remember the point I was trying to make In order for one person to make profits, someone else is gradually slipping into debts, because sooner or later, person B has to loan something to pay. Unless you want a society in which nobody buys anything?
---Edit--- I think this is actually one of my better posts, or at least one that makes sense O.o
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 02:53 PM |
|
|
|
Why do sentient beings have rights?
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 03:03 PM |
|
|
Because Sentient beings give them rights That and Mvass thinks sentient beings are superior, neglecting the fact it also yields more responsibility.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
