|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted July 27, 2010 02:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If you're content (which you show by not complaining and simply working) with what you're earning, clearly you don't think your labor is worth a lot of fruit.
Let me put it in other words; if your labor entitles you to 50 units of fruit, you're basicly letting your boss keep 47. THAT's Capitalism, and THAT's where profit comes from; exploitation of the poor, weak and dumb.
Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. I am "the boss." An evil capitalist pig exploiting the poor workers with opportunities for employment.
And there are far more costs associeated with doing business than just labor, though labor is usually the highest cost of business.
In capitalism one trades his labor for wages. Someone agrees to work for me for a set amount of money, hourly or salary. There is no exploitation there. I do not hold a gun to their head and force them to come to work for me.
In exchange for their labor I pay them money and "benefits." I am the one risking my money, not them. If my company goes belly up they have lost nothing (other than they draw unemployment until they find another job.) On the other hand, if my company goes belly up I lose a significant portion of my property.
In order to be able to start my own business I worked several jobs at a time to save money and I made other sacrifices.
And no, I don't think I get to keep all the wealth I am entitled to. The loony leftists in the government think that just because I worked hard and took risks to get ahead I should be punished by having more of my money taken from me to give to those who will not work or who refust to work enough to provide for themselves and their families.
You see, I do not believe it is moral to rob one person to "give" to another person. If you think someone should have more money you should work more yourself and give your own money to the person instead of stealing mine to give to him.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 03:43 AM |
|
|
I haven't kept up with reading this thread, but I just saw this quote in Elodin's post.
Quote:
Let me put it in other words; if your labor entitles you to 50 units of fruit, you're basicly letting your boss keep 47. THAT's Capitalism, and THAT's where profit comes from; exploitation of the poor, weak and dumb.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You don't seriously believe that do you? Seriously? Wow! Just wow!
That statement is so amazingly far off that it shows your total lack of knowledge about business or capitalism. It also shows that you didn't make any attempt to think it through before making the statement.
The boss keeps 47 out of 50?????? I would say that if he keeps 1 out of 50 then he has a good profitable business going. Some businesses operate on more profit than that and some on less profit, but 47 out of 50 is so totally off that your statement has absolutely no meaning.
If some publicly traded company even made as much as 10 out of 50, the price of that stock would go through the ceiling because of all the investors trying to get a piece of it.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 04:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Gee, maybe the idea that I am the only one entitled to the fruit of my labor. That you don't have a right to use a politician to force me to support you while you sit on your butt and I bust mine.
so you can only think capitalism in opposition to socialism/communism? they all have flaws anyways.
Quote:
And then again, it may not benefit a capitalist system because consumerists just fuel markets that aren't built to last or markets that will just create more shiny objects without substance, like the people who buy 3D television sets and those glasses.
that's actually a common strategy to produce items that aren't built to last, or to launch new trends that will last for maximum 6 months
Quote:
In capitalism one trades his labor for wages. Someone agrees to work for me for a set amount of money, hourly or salary. There is no exploitation there. I do not hold a gun to their head and force them to come to work for me.
unemployment is kept high to be used as a mean of pressure.
"not happy with what I have to offer? well, there are plenty of others people who would like to work for me"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 04:35 AM |
|
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 05:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
unemployment is kept high to be used as a mean of pressure.
"not happy with what I have to offer? well, there are plenty of others people who would like to work for me"
No, companies hire people when they need them, and they don't hire people when they don't need them. It's as simple as that.
As to the second part, the opposite happens also. There are cases when the employee can tell the employer "if you don't want to pay me that much there are other companies that will"....and it would be true. This can happen any time there is a shortage of workers in a particular industry or location.
Heck, I even remember times when companies that traditionally paid minimum wage like McDonalds couldn't get enough employees and the wages went way up as a result of it. I've seen the going rate for those jobs at more than double the minimum wage with extra benefits thrown in on top of that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 07:55 AM |
|
|
Is there any difference between your "consumertist" and your normal human being living in a capitalist society?
Let's for a moment imagine the consumerist, buying for BUYING'S sake (and not for the thing as such). Where's the difference? I don't see it. If you have fun OBTAINING shiny baubles and spend money for it, why is that worse than obtaining SHINY BAUBLES, having fun with them? Having fun is having fun, and spending money is spending money - the money is kept within the economic circuit.
What about saving?
If everyone was saving their surplus money, economy would break down one way or another, devaluating the surplus money. Even money has a value only if there is either stuff to buy for or there is a demand for it.
So actually saving is made possible only because lots of money are spent (unnecessarily). Not to mention the fact that people don't save to die with a small fortune - they save for a certain purpose: a house, a car, a stereo, a computer, a holiday; and the odd investment to make more money.
See it from a different angle: not from the BUYING angle, but from the waste (or sell) away angle. If you sell your old, WORKING, something (or give it away, like clothing), you are not satisfied with that stuff anymore, and the time span you WAS satisfied doesn't matter, IF the thing is still in good working order. The ONLY reason you give it away is, there is something better or different on offer, that offers more or renewed satisfacton.
Which means, consumerism comes into play each time we buy a replacement for something that doesn't need a replacement, since it still does what it was (with satisfaction) bought for in the first place.
A note on collectors to Mvass: you were no real collector. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 08:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If you have fun OBTAINING shiny baubles and spend money for it, why is that worse than obtaining SHINY BAUBLES, having fun with them?
It's worse because there's less fun that way. If you obtain happiness from buying something, you will be much less happy than if you obtain happiness from having something.
Quote:
If everyone was saving their surplus money, economy would break down one way or another, devaluating the surplus money. Even money has a value only if there is either stuff to buy for or there is a demand for it.
Huh? You do realise that "saving" doesn't necessarily mean stuffing money under your mattress, right? Put some money in the bank, some in bonds, some in mutual funds, etc. All of that is saving too - saving in investments.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you have fun OBTAINING shiny baubles and spend money for it, why is that worse than obtaining SHINY BAUBLES, having fun with them?
It's worse because there's less fun that way. If you obtain happiness from buying something, you will be much less happy than if you obtain happiness from having something.
No, that's wrong - there is no way to compare "fun". You have it or you don't. Worse - there is no rule saying you should have fun buying something. Take a video game - why should it be "fun" to sit before s silver screen and do something with pixels?
In short - "fun" is completely subjective, not quantifiable and not comparable. It's like comparing th orgasms of men with those of women - is any one of them "more fun"? Wrong question.
And "having somthing" isn't fun as such - I have a fine wastebin, but that's not fun. I have computer games as well, but I woudn't have any less fun plaing them, if I had only borrowed them.
Quote:
If everyone was saving their surplus money, economy would break down one way or another, devaluating the surplus money. Even money has a value only if there is either stuff to buy for or there is a demand for it.
Huh? You do realise that "saving" doesn't necessarily mean stuffing money under your mattress, right? Put some money in the bank, some in bonds, some in mutual funds, etc. All of that is saving too - saving in investments.
Nah, it's a bit more complicated. If you save, you give someone else your money (comparable to labor) to work with it, as they see fit, provided they pay you an interest rate. What the others are doing with that money, is of o matter - they may borrow it a "consumerist" to buy a new TV - doesn't matter.
Of course the interest rate is usually just making up for inflation, so you actually do not gain anything, except that you accumulate money without loss in value.
That's dfferent only if you invest DIRECTLY into an enterprise, buy shares or fonds, (that is, an assorment of shares).
However - that's not SAVING, since your money isn't guaranteed to survive or even become more. You take part in the entrepreneurs's risks and profits which is quite the contrary of saving, in fact as well as in purpose.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 09:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, that's wrong - there is no way to compare "fun".
Sure you can. You can compare how long it lasts, and to other times you've had fun.
Quote:
Of course the interest rate is usually just making up for inflation
No, it's making up for you giving up your money and delaying consumption. Interest rates indicate time preference.
Quote:
However - that's not SAVING, since your money isn't guaranteed to survive or even become more.
By that logic, there's no such thing as saving at all. If you put money in a bank, that bank could easily collapse, or the government could withhold your money, or something like that. If you put cash under your mattress, inflation will certainly chew away at it. Etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 10:24 AM |
|
|
You're straining my nerves, Mvass.Quote:
Quote:
No, that's wrong - there is no way to compare "fun".
Sure you can. You can compare how long it lasts, and to other times you've had fun.
Repetitio non placet, that's why fun is diminishing every time you repeat something, where the fun isn't coming from simple bodily functions. That's why only NEW experiences will give a maximum of fun but that's true for BUYING as well, if BUYING is he actual fun.
Comparisons make no sense. If you buy your first car, used or not, it's fun to turn the keys the first time. By your second car, if it's roughly the same, it will be less fun. And so on.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course the interest rate is usually just making up for inflation
No, it's making up for you giving up your money and delaying consumption. Interest rates indicate time preference.
Apples and peaches. ou don't get the interest rate because you delay something, as you don't get your salary because you dn't do something else. You get a interest rate because you allow OTHERS to ake immediate use of the money. However, ou do not make a PROFIT that way, since the interest rate is just covering the price difference that comes with the delay.
Look at cars, here it absolutely makes no sense to save for one, since interest rates for for loans are quite low, while car prices are rising pretty massively: If yyou WANT to buy a car you don't save money buy SAVING and buying in 5 years time.
Quote:
Quote:
However - that's not SAVING, since your money isn't guaranteed to survive or even become more.
By that logic, there's no such thing as saving at all. If you put money in a bank, that bank could easily collapse, or the government could withhold your money, or something like that. If you put cash under your mattress, inflation will certainly chew away at it. Etc.
That makes me think you can't follow anymore or at least arearguing for arguing's sake. You should know that you make no point here.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 11:05 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 11:08, 27 Jul 2010.
|
Quote:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You don't seriously believe that do you? Seriously? Wow! Just wow!
That statement is so amazingly far off that it shows your total lack of knowledge about business or capitalism. It also shows that you didn't make any attempt to think it through before making the statement.
The boss keeps 47 out of 50?????? I would say that if he keeps 1 out of 50 then he has a good profitable business going. Some businesses operate on more profit than that and some on less profit, but 47 out of 50 is so totally off that your statement has absolutely no meaning.
If some publicly traded company even made as much as 10 out of 50, the price of that stock would go through the ceiling because of all the investors trying to get a piece of it.
You had to get some frustration out of your system huh?  As it is, you're missing the point entirely.
The point was people in capitalistic societies are earning way less money than they are entitled to. And no, you DON'T have a choice; because the next business will offer you just as little.
Or did you really think profits are earned through hard labor from the boss alone?
"Oh but if a company doesn't generate enough profits they won't be able to invest and they won't be able to grow and blablabla"
Well that's the retardism of the system. Basicly the entire workforce passes off a great deal of 'fruit of the labor' and hands it over to the boss supposedly for the benefit of the company so they may also maintain their jobs. But don't you see the flaw? It's the boss that is actually reaping the only benefits whereas the workforce gets nothing other than enough money to keep on living and working. Under the pretence of "it being a lot of responsibility".
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 11:18 AM |
|
|
It's way past my bedtime, but one last quickie before I log out.
Just wanted to say that your argument was better before you made the edit
And no one liners? Gratz!
Ok, off to bed.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 12:25 PM |
|
|
I'm utterly blown away by your amazing counter, that was just mindblowing! You have me in a corner, there is no way I could ever counter this! How will I ever live with this shame?
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 12:57 PM |
|
|
You'll have to convert to capitalism to wash the shame. 
I have one, just one complaint about capitalism. It ain't fair.
With no regulations, those who succeded will grow even stronger in next generation, forming bigger and bigger companies, eventually too big for any serious competition to be able to endanger them. They will have enough money to buy those little competitors that show enough potential to be a threat, and absorb them. The rest sucks anyway so no big deal.
The regulations provided by socialdemocratic country are NEEDED in order for those corporations to be somehow limited in what they CAN do. All pure capitalism probably ends up as corporatism because, nothing on a FREE market can stop those already powerful.
Besides, you know, it's hardly fair when you are rich and I'm not cause your dad was a success and mine was a failure. Equal start, my ***.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 02:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well that's the retardism of the system. Basicly the entire workforce passes off a great deal of 'fruit of the labor' and hands it over to the boss supposedly for the benefit of the company so they may also maintain their jobs. But don't you see the flaw? It's the boss that is actually reaping the only benefits whereas the workforce gets nothing other than enough money to keep on living and working. Under the pretence of "it being a lot of responsibility".
Wow, you really think Americans only make enough money to survive? There are no homeowners, boat owners, computer owners, ect, except for company owners? No one but bosses go on vacations, out to movies, ect? You have a very warped view of America.
The ratardation of Marxism is that the State-god steals from the productive members of society to give to those who chose to be unproductive. Marxism results in less productive and less resourceful people.
Quote:
I have one, just one complaint about capitalism. It ain't fair.
Sure it is fair. You have the opportunity to work several jobs and start your own business just like I did. Don't whine about others taking initiative to work harder/more and about others being willing to take risks in order to start and run a business. Unfortunately socialism only offers economic slavery to the State-god.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 04:37 PM |
|
|
people who are born in a rich family sure have to do a lots of effort to succeed. they are given everything. they can just slacken off and still be more successful than 90% of people.
Quote:
Quote:
unemployment is kept high to be used as a mean of pressure.
"not happy with what I have to offer? well, there are plenty of others people who would like to work for me"
No, companies hire people when they need them, and they don't hire people when they don't need them. It's as simple as that.
As to the second part, the opposite happens also. There are cases when the employee can tell the employer "if you don't want to pay me that much there are other companies that will"....and it would be true. This can happen any time there is a shortage of workers in a particular industry or location.
I don't know how it is in your country, but in France, it's so damn hard for most people to find a job that they just take whatever they are given. moreover, being unemployed causes a great shame and psychological pain to most people, so yes, that's used as a mean of pressure, people would accept almost anything just so that they aren't unemployed...
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 04:50 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 16:53, 27 Jul 2010.
|
Quote:
Sure it is fair. You have the opportunity to work several jobs...
And of course there are several jobs to take for everyone, that's why we do not have any unemployment rate in any country in the world
It's like saying: In a Ponzi scheme, everyone will become a milionaire.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 05:09 PM |
|
|
I'm sorry, angelito, but that's just socialist propaganda.
There are multiple jobs for everyone, work is there for everyone who really wants to work and looks for work. Only the lazy bums claim there's no work available, because they actually do not want to work hard.
Instead they just complain and take the money, the communal fate-dog rocks from the part-burping, honey people, so they can keep crazy mums.
Oops, something went wrong with the fascist sentences construction kit.
Ah, no matter. It's just bla anyway.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 05:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wow, you really think Americans only make enough money to survive? There are no homeowners, boat owners, computer owners, ect, except for company owners? No one but bosses go on vacations, out to movies, ect? You have a very warped view of America.
I wasn't talking about America, duh? I was talking about the essence of capitalism. Of course everyone is getting a few luxury boons, but it could be more than that.
Aside that, though, I'd rather not spend money that technically comes from exploiting the underside of socities and those around it.
Quote:
The ratardation of Marxism is that the State-god steals from the productive members of society to give to those who chose to be unproductive. Marxism results in less productive and less resourceful people.
I wasn't talking about Marxism either. Why is it when someone is opposed to Capitalism that automaticly must mean "he's a dreaded commie!"? That's just stupid.
Quote:
Sure it is fair. You have the opportunity to work several jobs and start your own business just like I did. Don't whine about others taking initiative to work harder/more and about others being willing to take risks in order to start and run a business.
Do tell me... Since when did it become a boon to living standards to be "able" to work more than one job, since when did it become such a great thing to "needing to work hard"? If humanity is aiming for a better society, isn't that the opposite direction?
Quote:
Unfortunately socialism only offers economic slavery to the State-god.
And capitalism offers economic slavery to the bankers. With the difference that in Socialism the state = the people, which I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring. Which is also very very stupid.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 05:44 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
that's why fun is diminishing every time you repeat something
This is only true for certain sources of fun. There are ways that do not suffer from diminishing returns, and don't depend on doing something new. Indeed, diminishing returns is one of the flaws of consumerism, but they can be avoided for the purposes of fun - by not being a consumerist.
Quote:
However, ou do not make a PROFIT that way, since the interest rate is just covering the price difference that comes with the delay.
Expected inflation is one component of the nominal interest rate, but not the only one. The other is the real interest rate - the amount of money you get for being willing to defer consumption. Otherwise, the interest rate would always be equal to expected inflation, which it isn't.
Quote:
it absolutely makes no sense to save for one, since interest rates for for loans are quite low
I'd bet there's some government subsidy for car loans.
Quote:
You should know that you make no point here.
So you have no response.
DF:
Actually, there are numerous studies that show that the amount of wealth that comes through inheritance is severely exaggerated. Also, history shows that your example about monopolies just isn't true - Standard Oil tried it, and failed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
