Quote :

"ow you're gonna say the cook could just start his own but if he did he can't afford to go buy a whole kitchen and as a result would have overhead of around 80 instead of 20 so he would still end up making equal or less than he already made because of competition from his old boss. "

So what you're saying is that purchasing and owning equipment is expensive and requires additional money beyond the costs associated with using that equipment? And if someone were to provide that equipment, they would need money to pay for that equipment, like perhaps $40? So look at it this way. The CEO got paid his $20, and the $40 extra that the cook didn't get is actually his rent fee for having access to the equipment that the CEO owns. In all, the cook gets his $20, and gets to use equipment for half the cost it would cost him to own that equipment outright, and gets paid better than if he owned the equipment outright. The CEO gets paid for renting the equipment, ensuring its working condition, ensuring that the foods the cook makes get sold, etc. Everyone seems to come out ahead in this. Your example seems to be a pretty strong argument for why capitalism works so well.

Also this:

Quote :

"I'm just taking this opportunity to make it clear and publically known that I'm laughing at you, because you are a fucking idiot."

x2

2/28/2010 9:58:25 PM

No because this particular kitchen is probably costing the ceo something like 10 dollars. He's simply stealing the other 30 from the cook just because he owns the means to cook and the cook can't afford to buy his own means. Kind of like having a monopoly on the means of production except instead of one person its an entire class with this monopoly. The working class does all the work and people who own the means of production steal a good amount of thier wages.

2/28/2010 10:46:00 PM

Quote :

"The CEO got paid his $20, and the $40 extra that the cook didn't get is actually his rent fee for having access to the equipment that the CEO owns. In all, the cook gets his $20, and gets to use equipment for half the cost it would cost him to own that equipment outright, and gets paid better than if he owned the equipment outright. The CEO gets paid for renting the equipment, ensuring its working condition, ensuring that the foods the cook makes get sold, etc."

In addition one can assume that the cook is more likely to sell his cake because he's working for an established bakery and can put a recognized brand name on his cake. The CEO got to his position by building the brand and by making good business decisions that got him to the point where he's employing others to make cakes instead of just baking them all himself. If the cook is an industrious worker then theres no reason that he can't be promoted to a position of overseeing other cooks in a few years and ultimately find himself in a position akin to that of the CEO down the road.

Quote :

"No because this particular kitchen is probably costing the ceo something like 10 dollars."

Oh, nevermind, you're using absurdly low numbers because you have no idea what you're talking about. For some reason people are paying $100 per cake from some little shithole with decrepit equipment that spends no money on equipment or advertising and rents incredibly cheap kitchen space in cracktown.

Quote :

"Kind of like having a monopoly on the means of production except instead of one person its an entire class with this monopoly."

If your example were realistic (which it isn't) anyone with half a brain would see how unhappy all of the cooks are with their situation and open their own bakery that offered better wages and use their superior benefits to hire the best cooks away from your cracktown bakery. People would flock to this bakery because they don't risk getting shot while going to pick up a cake thats full of used needles and spit and the owner would make a killing based on bulk sales even though their personal margins were lower.

Of course, everyone knows that this is how the modern job market works except you, who needs to stop reading Upton Sinclair for insight on how a 21st century economy works.

2/28/2010 11:07:38 PM

I know thats how it works but I'm saying it isn't right because until a company runs without profit, money will alwyas be stolen from the working class to make the high ups fat. If the cook truly loves cooking he will stay a cook. If the cook is greedy, conniving and sly, yes he will try and move up.

Quote :

"Oh, nevermind, you're using absurdly low numbers because you have no idea what you're talking about. For some reason people are paying $100 per cake from some little shithole with decrepit equipment that spends no money on equipment or advertising and rents incredibly cheap kitchen space in cracktown."

all those numbers are per cake. on a 100 dollar cake price it costed the corperation 10 dollars of overhead to make the cake. That is a really HIGH number not cracklow like you say.

Quote :

"If the cook is an industrious worker then theres no reason that he can't be promoted to a position of overseeing other cooks in a few years and ultimately find himself in a position akin to that of the CEO down the road. "

How well someone does the job has nothing to do with these politics. we all know that. In the end, efficiency is sacrificed as people try and crab their way to the top.

Quote :

"If your example were realistic (which it isn't) anyone with half a brain would see how unhappy all of the cooks are with their situation and open their own bakery that offered better wages and use their superior benefits to hire the best cooks away from your cracktown bakery. "

this won't happen in capitalism because if it did you would have a profitless company that ran even and fairly treated its workers. not possible.

the only reason for going in business is to rent out the means of working to someone and stealing most of the income from their labor. thats what its all about and exactly why its worse than forced slavery in many cases.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 11:26 PM. Reason : without the beatings.]

2/28/2010 11:25:00 PM

Quote :

"The CEO got paid his $20, and the $40 extra that the cook didn't get is actually his rent fee for having access to the equipment that the CEO owns."

He may own the means of production, but he doesn't produce anything himself, thus many would argue that wealth is improperly allocated.

Quote :

"Everyone seems to come out ahead in this"

Compared to what?

Quote :

"He's simply stealing the other 30 from the cook just because he owns the means to cook and the cook can't afford to buy his own means."

By owning the means of production he is able to pay the cook less than the value of his labor.

Quote :

"Of course, everyone knows that this is how the modern job market works except you, who needs to stop reading Upton Sinclair for insight on how a 21st century economy works."

I'd describe it more as Marx, in the context of when it was written it's easy to see why it is so focused on comparing capitalism with feudalism, but there are a good number of parts that can readily be applied to today's economic climate.

Additionally I am kind of surprised I've been out-communisted on this board.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2010 11:26:35 PM

Quote :

"If the cook truly loves cooking he will stay a cook. If the cook is greedy, conniving and sly, yes he will try and move up."

If he loves cooking he'll find the bakery that pays him the best and offers the best benefits for his time and effort. It's one hell of a stretch to call someone "greedy, conniving and sly" for seeking promotion.

Quote :

"all those numbers are per cake. on a 100 dollar cake price it costed the corperation 10 dollars of overhead to make the cake. That is a really HIGH number not cracklow like you say."

No, it's incredibly low for a business. If you were talking about a mom cooking for a bake sale then you might be closer.

Quote :

"How well someone does the job has nothing to do with these politics. we all know that. In the end, efficiency is sacrificed as people try and crab their way to the top."

Efficiency still trumps politics in any well run business.

Quote :

"this won't happen in capitalism because if it did you would have a profitless company that ran even and fairly treated its workers. not possible."

Companies can treat the workers wonderfully and still turn a profit.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/

Quote :

"the only reason for going in business is to rent out the means of working to someone and stealing most of the income from their labor. thats what its all about and exactly why its worse than forced slavery in many cases."

You're arguing that business is inherently evil.

2/28/2010 11:43:39 PM

profit is being extracted from somewhere. either unfair wages unfair prices or some other type of exploitation. profit just doesn't come out of the blue.

Quote :

" Efficiency still trumps politics in any well run business. "

perceived efficiency is far from actual efficiency. perceived efficiency gets you promoted. actual efficiency doesn't necessarily get you anywhere.

Quote :

"No, it's incredibly low for a business. If you were talking about a mom cooking for a bake sale then you might be closer."

go back and read. ten dollars of overhead and 20 dollars for the cake costs. you have them merged into the whole 10 dollars. of the 100 dollar price, 70 is revenue before wages.

Quote :

"It's one hell of a stretch to call someone "greedy, conniving and sly" for seeking promotion."

no i said he would be greedy for seeking an executive position far away from the kitchen.

Quote :

"You're arguing that business is inherently evil. "

anytime your goal is to make as much money as possible, its evil. The money made could have gone into higher wages for workers or lower prices for the pitiful customers. Instead, it goes to you making profit for more luxuries, power and ability to exploit. Evil.

2/28/2010 11:50:45 PM

Quote :

"No because this particular kitchen is probably costing the ceo something like 10 dollars. He's simply stealing the other 30 from the cook just because he owns the means to cook and the cook can't afford to buy his own means."

So, in your magical fantasy world, somehow, when the cook wants to buy his own equipment, it will cost him $80 to buy, own and maintain the equipment, but somehow this magical CEO managed to get it for $10 / cake? If this is true, then surely the fact that this magical CEO can get equipment for 1/8th the cost of anyone else is surely worth a little extra is it not? I mean, by your own example, no one else can apparently do this, and even with him charging $40 rent, that's still 50% less than owning outright, which is quite significant here in the real world. Hell, if I could get a house somewhere for half the rent I'm paying now, I could care less if the guy I'm renting from is pocketing 90% of what I pay him as pure profit, because I'm still getting my rent for 50 fucking percent less than I can get anywhere else.

Quote :

" this won't happen in capitalism because if it did you would have a profitless company that ran even and fairly treated its workers. not possible."

I know of thousands of co-ops that would beg to differ.

Quote :

"He may own the means of production, but he doesn't produce anything himself, thus many would argue that wealth is improperly allocated. "

Are you kidding? He produced a bakery at 50% of the cost that anyone else could. This guy is like a fucking magic unicorn. And a baker can not produce without a bakery.

Quote :

"Compared to what?"

Compared to the CEO either starving or having to bake and sell his own cakes and the baker having to pony up $80 in overhead costs just to earn less than his current $20 / cake wage that he earns now. Never mind that he would then also be competing with the CEO for customers, lowering his chances of selling any one individual cake before it goes bad and becomes a loss. Never mind that if the baker owns his own equipment and doesn't sell a damn thing, he still has to pay for the upkeep of his bakery, where as working for the CEO, that becomes the CEO's problem. Sure he may lose his job, but not selling cakes and not having to pay for upkeep is better than not selling cakes and having to pay for upkeep.

Quote :

"By owning the means of production he is able to pay the cook less than the value of his labor."

Per the alias' example, the cook is getting paid more here then the cook would owning his own equipment, therefore if anything he's getting paid more than the value of his labor. Of course as we all know, the value of his labor is precisely what he is willing to sell his time for and what the CEO (or anyone were he selling cakes on his own) is willing to pay.

Quote :

"Additionally I am kind of surprised I've been out-communisted on this board."

Not really out-communisted, just out-stupided; the alias doesn't hold a candle to your ability to at least hold a coherent argument.

Quote :

"profit is being extracted from somewhere. either unfair wages unfair prices or some other type of exploitation. profit just doesn't come out of the blue."

Profit comes from producing something that someone else values in such a way that you each mutually exchange that which you find less valuable for that which you find more. The cook makes a profit on his investment in the cake, and the CEO makes a profit on his investment in the equipment and cook. The consumer make a profit on their investment in the purchase of the cake, and everyone is better off than they were before the cake was sold.

Quote :

"anytime your goal is to make as much money as possible, its evil. The money made could have gone into higher wages for workers or lower prices for the pitiful customers. Instead, it goes to you making profit for more luxuries, power and ability to exploit. Evil."

The cook in seeking higher wages has a goal to make as much money as possible, the customer has the equal goal of not spending as much money as possible (the other side of making as much as possible) Are they not evil too?


[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:07 AM. Reason : sadf]

3/1/2010 12:00:36 AM

Quote :

"perceived efficiency gets you promoted. actual efficiency doesn't necessarily get you anywhere."

Fortunately it's incredibly easy to quantify actual efficiency.

Quote :

"ten dollars of overhead and 20 dollars for the cake costs. you have them merged into the whole 10 dollars. of the 100 dollar price, 70 is revenue before wages."

No shit. It's still surprisingly low.

Quote :

"no i said he would be greedy for seeking an executive position far away from the kitchen."

Or he wants to put his kids through college and he can't on cake money. What a greedy dickwad.

Quote :

"The money made could have gone into higher wages for workers or lower prices for the pitiful customers. Instead, it goes to you making profit for more luxuries, power and ability to exploit."

Skilled workers are a valuable commodity and will work for whoever offers them the most competitive benefit package. The "pitiful customers" will spend their money on the most competitively priced goods. If a company can't offer good compensation for their employees or good prices for their customers then someone else will and they will suffer because of it. You're imagining a world where companies exist in a vacuum in their respective sectors.

3/1/2010 12:11:03 AM

Quote :

" Of course as we all know, the value of his labor is precisely what he is willing to sell his time for and what the CEO (or anyone were he selling cakes on his own) is willing to pay."

only by capitalisms definition

Quote :

"Are you kidding? He produced a bakery at 50% of the cost that anyone else could. This guy is like a fucking magic unicorn. And a baker can not produce without a bakery. "

no he simply bought a bunch of stoves and things at the same time for a cheaper unit price than a small scale business could ever be offered. Plus, since the banks operate on the same type of greed, they charge the ceo much less on loans than they would the single businessperson thus making things cheaper for those with more money. Then the fact that they have more money is already making it easier. Its compounded by all these things. Its not magic, its how capitalism works. walmart can run a everything store much cheaper than you can.

Quote :

"I mean, by your own example, no one else can apparently do this, and even with him charging $40 rent, that's still 50% less than owning outright, which is quite significant here in the real world. Hell, if I could get a house somewhere for half the rent I'm paying now, I could care less if the guy I'm renting from is pocketing 90% of what I pay him as pure profit, because I'm still getting my rent for 50 fucking percent less than I can get anywhere else."

If all the people owned all the apartments and all the kitchen then they could do it and rent the aparments for 90% less. The middle man (ceo) could simply be eliminated.

Quote :

"The consumer make a profit on their investment in the purchase of the cake, and everyone is better off than they were before the cake was sold."

everyone is not as better off as they could have been without the profit. the cook put in work valued greater than the wage he received and the customer paid a higher price than what it costed to make the product.

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM. Reason : middle man is the only one who wins]

Quote :

"The cook in seeking higher wages has a goal to make as much money as possible, the customer has the equal goal of not spending as much money as possible (the other side of making as much as possible) Are they not evil too? "

no because the customer is just trying to get something to eat and the cook is trying to get paid for his labor. what is the middle man trying to do? get money without working

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:16 AM. Reason : his money is doing the work. ]

Quote :

"Or he wants to put his kids through college and he can't on cake money. What a greedy dickwad. "

wouldnt be an issue if profit money went into a fund for all kids to have education

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:17 AM. Reason : said profit money]

Quote :

"If a company can't offer good compensation for their employees or good prices for their customers then someone else will and they will suffer because of it. You're imagining a world where companies exist in a vacuum in their respective sectors."

it is a vaccum relatively because all of these competitors are still making a profit. its just the lesser of evils type of thing. Its kind of like how people were saying public healthcare would drive all the insurance companies out of business.

also they dont have to offer good compensation because theres more people looking for work than there are jobs. people will be underpaid before they starve which is why its poverty. now, you may have something remotely close to a point if there were substantially more jobs out there than potential workers

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:20 AM. Reason : but there isn't. ]

3/1/2010 12:12:22 AM

Quote :

"only by capitalisms definition"

How else pray tell do you expect to determine the value of his labor? If the baker owned his own bakery, and say it was provided free and clear to him by the magical bakery fairies. When the baker decides his labor is worth $280 and thus sells his cakes for $300, what do you suppose happens? Do the people just pay it? If so, how are the people now better off than they were when they could get cakes for $100? Do the people merely pay $100? If so, is the baker then being underpaid, or do the magical money fairies cover the extra $280? Or perhaps the baker doesn't get paid at all? Then how is he any better than when he was getting $20 for his labor? And what happens when another baker (who has his own bakery courtesy of the bakery fairies) decides that his labor is only worth $80? Now he sells cakes for $100. Does the first baker go out of business? Does he lower his labor prices, and if so is he then not being paid less than the worth of his labor? Do the money fairies just pay him $280 to not produce cakes, if so, how is he better than the CEO? Or perhaps do the magical bakery fairies not allow the second baker to open a bakery? Then is not the second baker being denied his freedoms and as fair wage for his labor? And are not the people worse off for having to pay for $300 cakes merely to satiate the greed of one baker?

Quote :

"no he simply bought a bunch of stoves and things at the same time for a cheaper unit price than a small scale business could ever be offered."

So in other words he produced a bakery? Or do you not suppose that the cook merely assembles a bunch of raw ingredients at the same time for a cheaper unit price than a single mother could ever hope for?

Quote :

"Plus, since the banks operate on the same type of greed, they charge the ceo much less on loans than they would the single businessperson thus making things cheaper for those with more money. Then the fact that they have more money is already making it easier. Its compounded by all these things. Its not magic, its how capitalism works. walmart can run a everything store much cheaper than you can."

Which is why I let walmart run the everything store and I go and do the things I want to do. In the end, i am happier as I don't have to run an everything store, and the CEOs and workers at walmart are happier because they get paid to provide me a service I would rather not provide myself.

Further are you suggesting that if the CEO did not have money to start, then he is somehow less evil?

Question: Is it evil to hire someone to clean your house? Is the house cleaner evil for charging me more than the cost of cleaning supplies and some livable yearly wage / 365 / 24 * hours worked?

Quote :

"If all the people owned all the apartments and all the kitchen then they could do it and rent the aparments for 90% less. The middle man (ceo) could simply be eliminated."

And nothing in the world prevents all of these people from doing just that. Other than of course the difficulty in getting 200 some people to all agree on what units to purchase at what cost and getting them all to trust each other enough to tie up their money in a 30 year collective mortgage on a property that they would all be individually responsible for should any one of these 200 people prove to be negligent or delinquent.

Quote :

"everyone is not as better off as they could have been without the profit. the cook put in work valued greater than the wage he received and the customer paid a higher price than what it costed to make the product."

By your own admission the cook is paid a higher wage than if he owned his own means of production. He is therefore more valued (and paid at a higher value) as an employee than as a self employed cook. You keep saying his work is valued higher than the wage received, but who is determining that value?

As to the customer, he will always pay more than the cost to make the product, as the cook needs to eat.

Quote :

"no because the customer is just trying to get something to eat and the cook is trying to get paid for his labor. what is the middle man trying to do? get money without working"

You said that when you goal is to make as much money as possible, you are evil. Both the cook and the customer are trying to get as much money as possible for themselves, therefore by your statement they are evil. As to the CEO, he's trying to get paid for providing a bakery in which the cook can produce his cakes and get paid a (higher than self employed) wage and the customer can get something to eat. Without the CEO, the cook gets paid less, and the customer at best pays the same, if not more.

Quote :

"his money is doing the work."

And that money was earned how? By producing things, either in the form of indirect goods like bakeries, or direct good like cakes. He did not get the money from magical money fairies.

Quote :

"also they dont have to offer good compensation because theres more people looking for work than there are jobs. people will be underpaid before they starve which is why its poverty. now, you may have something remotely close to a point if there were substantially more jobs out there than potential workers"

Ah, but are their more cooks than their are jobs for cooks? And if there are more workers than jobs, perhaps some of those workers should instead become job providers? Why do they not band together and own their own bakeries as you say would be better for them all?



[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:53 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/1/2010 12:29:23 AM

First off, I'm not working with the imaginary math of the bakery example here, I don't want to have to scan back through the thread. Additionally I am going to use the term "owner" rather than CEO, as a CEO does produce labor and add value, just as the cook does.

Quote :

"And a baker can not produce without a bakery."

True, but there are many ways for a bakery to exist besides the feudalistic model of owner and serf.

Quote :

"Compared to the CEO either starving or having to bake and sell his own cakes"

So then you think it is better that the Owner lives off of his ownership of things rather than his labor like everyone else? Wouldn't you think society is better if everyone is working?

Quote :

"Never mind that he would then also be competing with the CEO for customers, lowering his chances of selling any one individual cake before it goes bad and becomes a loss."

Increased competition would only drive the product closer to the real market price.

Quote :

"the value of his labor is precisely what he is willing to sell his time for and what the CEO (or anyone were he selling cakes on his own) is willing to pay."

Not really, the Owner is only a broker for the cook's labor, he sells the cook's labor just as the cook does, he just marks up the price without any value added.

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ]

3/1/2010 12:55:13 AM

Quote :

"wouldnt be an issue if profit money went into a fund for all kids to have education"

Oh neat. You responded with a completely irrelevant hypothetical.

Quote :

"it is a vaccum relatively because all of these competitors are still making a profit."

You completely fail to understand. They're called "competitors" for a reason. If I opened a bakery next door selling the same cake for $95 then your $100 cake store would have to lower prices or go out of business. In fact, you'd want to go ahead and cut your price to $94 and then watch as I cut my price to $93. This is how competition keeps prices down.

Quote :

"also they dont have to offer good compensation because theres more people looking for work than there are jobs."

I said that skilled workers are a valuable commodity. As skill increases so does value. A responsible worker should enrich and educate themself in such a way as to become a more valuable commodity and thus enhance their worth to an employer. In short, a good cook will get hired before a bad cook and an experienced cook will get hired before a green cook.

3/1/2010 12:55:56 AM

Quote :

"How else pray tell do you expect to determine the value of his labor? If the baker owned his own bakery, and say it was provided free and clear to him by the magical bakery fairies. When the baker decides his labor is worth $280 and thus sells his cakes for $300, what do you suppose happens? Do the people just pay it? If so, how are the people now better off than they were when they could get cakes for $100? Do the people merely pay $100? If so, is the baker then being underpaid, or do the magical money fairies cover the extra $280? Or perhaps the baker doesn't get paid at all? Then how is he any better than when he was getting $20 for his labor? And what happens when another baker (who has his own bakery courtesy of the bakery fairies) decides that his labor is only worth $80? Now he sells cakes for $100. Does the first baker go out of business? Does he lower his labor prices, and if so is he then not being paid less than the worth of his labor? Do the money fairies just pay him $280 to not produce cakes, if so, how is he better than the CEO? Or perhaps do the magical bakery fairies not allow the second baker to open a bakery? Then is not the second baker being denied his freedoms and as fair wage for his labor? And are not the people worse off for having to pay for $300 cakes merely to satiate the greed of one baker?"

No, instead of that company profiting 60 on the 100 dollar cake that 60 could be split 3 ways 20 can be paid for management and the cake could be sold for 80 (20 less) and the cook could make 20 more (double).

Quote :

"So in other words he produced a bakery? Or do you not suppose that the cook merely assembles a bunch of raw ingredients at the same time for a cheaper unit price than a single mother could ever hope for? "

or he simply bought a bunch of already-assembled bakeries from someone who already was inbusiness. point is, his money did the work, he did nothing.

Quote :

"Question: Is it evil to hire someone to clean your house? "

no

Quote :

"And nothing in the world prevents all of these people from doing just that. Other than of course the difficulty in getting 200 some people to all agree on what units to purchase at what cost and getting them all to trust each other enough to tie up their money in a 30 year collective mortgage on a property that they would all be individually responsible for should any one of these 200 people prove to be negligent or delinquent."

and this is what the government is for

Quote :

"By your own admission the cook is paid a higher wage than if he owned his own means of production. He is therefore more valued (and paid at a higher value) as an employee than as a self employed cook. You keep saying his work is valued higher than the wage received, but who is determining that value? As to the customer, he will always pay more than the cost to make the product, as the cook needs to eat."

please refer to my above breakdown in this same post

Quote :

"You said that when you goal is to make as much money as possible, you are evil. Both the cook and the customer are trying to get as much money as possible for themselves, therefore by your statement they are evil"

different because the ceo is trying to get as much money as possible off the work of others without inputting work in each individual sale. He's simply profiting off of holding the kitchen hostage.

Quote :

"And that money was earned how? By producing things, either in the form of indirect goods like bakeries, or direct good like cakes. He did not get the money from magical money fairies."

no money is being "earned" by extracting hefty %s of income from the work of cooks in return for allowing them to work. Thereby inslaving them because they don't really have a choice towork on their own since it would cost too much overhead to actually sale cakes.

if the ceo was gone it wouldnt be slavery because the cook could sale cakes for 200 and still make money. Problem there is the cakes are 200. the customers would be making more in this scenario to pay more for the cakes but it would be more efficient if the government took the place of the ceo and that excess profit was split amongst the 3 parties

Quote :

"Why do they not band together and own their own bakeries as you say would be better for them all? "

something like a union? again, this would be taken care of by the government providing all the capitol.

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 12:58 AM. Reason : triple win]

Quote :

"Not really, the Owner is only a broker for the cook's labor, he sells the cook's labor just as the cook does, he just marks up the price without any value added. "

a useless middleman

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 1:02 AM. Reason : replace middle man with the government]

Quote :

"You completely fail to understand. They're called "competitors" for a reason. If I opened a bakery next door selling the same cake for $95 then your $100 cake store would have to lower prices or go out of business. In fact, you'd want to go ahead and cut your price to $94 and then watch as I cut my price to $93. This is how competition keeps prices down."

but this is all meh when the true price should be 80 and the cook should be paid a lot more than hes being paid

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 1:03 AM. Reason : they have a strangle hold on the ability to work. ]

3/1/2010 12:58:09 AM

Quote :

"but this is all meh when the true price should be 80 and the cook should be paid a lot more than hes being paid"

"but this is all meh"? Are you completely forgetting about the "pitiful customers"?

Why should he be paid more?

Quote :

"I'm just taking this opportunity to make it clear and publically known that I'm laughing at you, because you are a fucking idiot."

x3

3/1/2010 1:15:43 AM

because if you read the bold the customers could be paying 80 as opposed to your "great low competitive 93" AND the cook could be making double of what hes making right now.

3/1/2010 1:46:44 AM

Quote :

"So then you think it is better that the Owner lives off of his ownership of things rather than his labor like everyone else? Wouldn't you think society is better if everyone is working? "

Not at all. If the owner can provide capital and equipment at a cost below that of his laborers, then society is better off with the owner providing the capital and the laborers providing labor.

Quote :

"Increased competition would only drive the product closer to the real market price."

Only assuming that the real market price is best reflected when the cook pays more than necessary for equipment and the owner spends more time than necessary cooking his own cakes. Capitalism does more than merely optimize the final price of a good.

Quote :

"Not really, the Owner is only a broker for the cook's labor, he sells the cook's labor just as the cook does, he just marks up the price without any value added. "

Again, the cook's labor is worth nothing without a bakery in which to bake. And it is worth far less if the cook has to pay far more to own his own bakery. The owner does add value in providing the bakery and doing so at a cost below a cook owned bakery.

Quote :

"No, instead of that company profiting 60 on the 100 dollar cake that 60 could be split 3 ways 20 can be paid for management and the cake could be sold for 80 (20 less) and the cook could make 20 more (double)."

All of which does nothing to answer how you determined that the baker's labor was worth $40. How did you come to this conclusion? By what mechanism did you determine that the cook's labor is worth $40? And how do you know it's only worth $40? Perhaps the cake should sell for $120 and the CEO and the baker can make $20 more. Or maybe his labor is really only worth $10. You have not explained how you determine this value.

Quote :

"or he simply bought a bunch of already-assembled bakeries from someone who already was inbusiness. point is, his money did the work, he did nothing. "

Sure he did. He acquired and assembled the necessary capital to purchase the bakeries and be able to offer the use of those bakery facilities for less than the cost of direct ownership. And all of this is to say nothing of the work he puts into maintaining the equipment, upkeep, advertising and such, as we haven't introduced any other employees into this mix, so clearly that work falls to the CEO. If you do not think work goes into generating the capital and equipment necessary to run a business, I can only conclude that you have neither owned your own business nor witnessed the creation of a business personally.

Quote :

"no"

I note you neatly avoid the question of whether she is evil for trying to earn the most money she can, even if that is above some arbitrary livable wage / 365 /24 * hours worked.

Quote :

"and this is what the government is for"

Which government is that? What government do you know of that is capable of getting 200 people to all agree on the same thing?

Quote :

"different because the ceo is trying to get as much money as possible off the work of others without inputting work in each individual sale. He's simply profiting off of holding the kitchen hostage. "

He does not hold the kitchen hostage. Your cook is free to purchase his own kitchen at any time, and he is also free to purchase the owner's kitchen as well.

Quote :

"no money is being "earned" by extracting hefty %s of income from the work of cooks in return for allowing them to work. Thereby inslaving them because they don't really have a choice towork on their own since it would cost too much overhead to actually sale cakes. "

He did not get the bakery from the magical bakery fairies either. Without the bakery he can not charge for the use of the bakery. By your own admission it costs too much for the baker to work on his own, therefore the CEO has provided value by assembling the necessary capital to reduce the equipment costs enough for the baker to be able to do his work and earn a higher wage than he otherwise could.

Quote :

"if the ceo was gone it wouldnt be slavery because the cook could sale cakes for 200 and still make money. "

If the CEO was gone, where did the cook get his bakery? And if he can sell the cakes for $200 and make money on his own, why does he not do so?

Quote :

"Problem there is the cakes are 200. the customers would be making more in this scenario to pay more for the cakes but it would be more efficient if the government took the place of the ceo and that excess profit was split amongst the 3 parties "

And who pays the government for their labor as CEO?

Quote :

"something like a union? again, this would be taken care of by the government providing all the capitol. "

Where did the government get the money to provide the equipment and capital? And who pays the government for this service?

Quote :

"a useless middleman"

Clearly not useless. By your own admission, the baker can not afford to run his own bakery.

Quote :

""I'm just taking this opportunity to make it clear and publically known that I'm laughing at you, because you are a fucking idiot.""

x4

3/1/2010 7:53:46 AM

page 2 and no one has reposted

3/1/2010 8:45:33 AM

It's no mystery why Christians aren't communists. Just look at every practical application of communism that's ever existed.

I'm more interested in why many of them view capitalism as inherently moral.

3/1/2010 10:12:16 AM

^ None that I know. But on watching many documentaries from Europe, they have socialist-christian political parties over there.

3/1/2010 10:31:28 AM

Actually, there were a large number of Christian communes here in the United States that emerged in the late 19th century, a response to both some of the new ideas of socialism and communism during a period of traumatic social change (Industrial Revolution). There still are these sorts of large collective communities around the nation. The difference of course between these Christian communes versus a communist state was that membership in the former was voluntary (which is why many failed as people decided it wasn't for them and bailed) while the latter was imposed by force on the entire nation.

3/1/2010 10:38:48 AM

^^ I'm referring to what a number of national figures have been saying. Essentially, that what they consider to be "socialism" is directly anti-Christian.

3/1/2010 10:41:35 AM

Quote :

"because if you read the bold the customers could be paying 80 as opposed to your "great low competitive 93" AND the cook could be making double of what hes making right now."

You're an idiot. I never said that 93 was the final price, I was illustrating how competition drives down the price of goods. In all honesty the final market price would probably be below $80.

I'll ask again, why should the cook be making more?

3/1/2010 10:56:36 AM

^^^ Quite right. Christianity calls for a form of voluntary socialism. Jesus never pulled a knife on anyone, he argued, cajoled, and led by example. Kris and mambagrl want the men with guns to make things their way, a profoundly unchristian thing to do.

3/1/2010 11:04:34 AM

Quote :

" Just look at every practical application of communism that's ever existed. "

theres never been a practicle application

Quote :

"Not at all. If the owner can provide capital and equipment at a cost below that of his laborers, then society is better off with the owner providing the capital and the laborers providing labor. "

not when that owner could be providing the capital WITHOUT extracting more money from the situation than he put in.

Quote :

"Only assuming that the real market price is best reflected when the cook pays more than necessary for equipment and the owner spends more time than necessary cooking his own cakes. Capitalism does more than merely optimize the final price of a good."

Prices are elevated in capitalism for profit. Without profit, prices could be much less.

Quote :

"All of which does nothing to answer how you determined that the baker's labor was worth $40. How did you come to this conclusion? By what mechanism did you determine that the cook's labor is worth $40? And how do you know it's only worth $40? Perhaps the cake should sell for $120 and the CEO and the baker can make $20 more. Or maybe his labor is really only worth $10. You have not explained how you determine this value. "

No we want to sell the cake for as low as possible and the cook is doing the work so he should be the top bread winner. Management makes a set amount and all excess value comes off the price or goes to the cook- a split of both. Why should the excess value go to the person that bought the kitchen? Using the kitchen is a flat service, if somebody bakes a great cake, they should make the excess value. Either way more strain is being put on the customer and hte cook just so somebody can get money they didn't earn. I'm not saying the owner doesn't get anything, but they get paid for their work. They don't just pay the cook a set amount and keep EVERYTHING thats left.

Quote :

"He does not hold the kitchen hostage. Your cook is free to purchase his own kitchen at any time, and he is also free to purchase the owner's kitchen as well."

No he's not because if I could sell 5 kitchens to one person or 1 kitchen to another, who am I going to sell it to? When the real estate market is also capitalist it makes things really hard for the little man. Plus the reduced cost of doing things on a large scale won't be experienced by the single cook.

Quote :

"And who pays the government for their labor as CEO?"

The government can do things on a large scale and instead of keeping all the money they can simply charge enough to break even. The rest of that money then comes off of the price and into the pocket of the cooks instead of being pocketed by a few greedy people.

Quote :

"Where did the government get the money to provide the equipment and capital? And who pays the government for this service? "

The government is essentially your example of all the people grouping together to buy all the kitchens at a very small cost (even smaller than the cost of the ceo), the cook pays the government whatever that cost was and makes more money as well. plus the rest of the money is passed on to the consumer by way of significantly lower prices because the government doesn't need to turn a profit.

Quote :

"Clearly not useless. By your own admission, the baker can not afford to run his own bakery."

useless with respect to having the government do it. stop comparing capitalism to no economy at all.

updated example

-in both situations
$100 sale price of cake
$10 of $100 to ingredients
$10 of $100 to overhead of kitchen

-in capitalism
revenue of $80
$20 to pay cook
$60 to pay fat cat owner

-with government instead of fat cat owner
revenue of $80
$20 to pay cook
$20 to pay government administration costs
$40 extra to be divided up into pay raises for cook and price cuts for customer
(this 40 would have originially been pocketed by the owner for doing nothing but having money to begin with-rich get richer)

so effectively now the cook makes $40 per cake and sales the cakes for $80 instead of $100.

keep in mind the $20 it took to pay for overhead and ingredients are paid back in both examples as revenue is only $80 of the price that was $100. Also remember since the government would buy nationwide bulk that it would probably be even cheaper than $20 overhead but i'm ignoring that.

no money was created here. the government was paid back fully and their workers made the same for managing things

Quote :

"You're an idiot. I never said that 93 was the final price, I was illustrating how competition drives down the price of goods. In all honesty the final market price would probably be below $80. I'll ask again, why should the cook be making more?"

If price went below 80 then you'd be operating at a loss. Would never even be considered under capitalism
The cook should be making more because its his labor making the cake therefore he should be the top bread winner

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : cake winner]

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 11:10 AM. Reason : k]

actually, realisticly, the price would go below 80 and the cook would end up making 5 dollars. if he didn't like it fine, theres millions of other serfs out there without a job starving that would be happy to slave for 1 dollar per cake.

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM. Reason : volunteer slaves]

Quote :

"Quite right. Christianity calls for a form of voluntary socialism. Jesus never pulled a knife on anyone, he argued, cajoled, and led by example. Kris and mambagrl want the men with guns to make things their way, a profoundly unchristian thing to do."

you won't have to because you can't rape the willing. IF they already believe in volunteer socialism then they won't have a problem with it to begin with. If they opt out, fine. Good luck competing with the government whodoesn't need to make a profit

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM. Reason : remember how insurance companies are gonna go bankrupt from social healthcare? can't rape the willin]

3/1/2010 11:06:42 AM

Quote :

"Prices are elevated in capitalism for profit. Without profit, prices could be much less. "

Just to clarify again, profit does not represent much of the average price. Like I said, even showed a graph, profit represents only 8% of GDP. As GDP represents the sum price of everything sold in the economy, we can say profit is on average only about 8% of the final price of all goods. As such, if you suceed in eliminating all profits from the economy, prices would fall 8%. Not exactly revolutionary. Especially when you realize that in order to squeeze out that 8%, you are sacrificing all the future benefits that come from capitalism: efficiency gains from experimentation, substitution, avoidance of diseconomies of scale, avoidance of bureaucracy; freedom of self determination; freedom of consumer choice; freedom of expression, as it is hard to speak when government politicians own all the printing presses and recording studios; freedom of assembly; minority consumer choice, as it is unlikely the government will allocate resources to producing goods wanted only by an unfavored minority, such as books or organic foods.

3/1/2010 1:11:05 PM

Quote :

"If price went below 80 then you'd be operating at a loss. Would never even be considered under capitalism"

No, whoever could streamline their cake making process the most and sell their cake at the lowest price while still making a profit would sell more cakes than their competition and come out on top.

Quote :

"The cook should be making more because its his labor making the cake therefore he should be the top bread winner"

There are lot more steps there than just baking a cake, a fact that you can't seem to grasp. The owner of the bakery is taking all of the risk in borrowing money to open a bakery. If it folds then the cook just looks for another job whereas the owner could be ruined. He's also taking care of advertising, insurance, rent on real estate, bringing the cake to market, accounting, and a myriad of other minutiae that the cook never has to consider. In all honesty, the cook is probably already making a higher percentage on his cakes than the CEO, who gets a small percentage of every cake from every baker. Of course, if the company has a bad year, it's usually his pay that suffers rather than that of a skilled cook who he'd be scared of losing.

Quote :

"if he didn't like it fine, theres millions of other serfs out there without a job starving that would be happy to slave for 1 dollar per cake."

We've been over competetive compensation.

Quote :

"Just to clarify again, profit does not represent much of the average price. Like I said, even showed a graph, profit represents only 8% of GDP."

You see, your problem is that you're using real world figures. We're arguing about a magical land where fat cat bakery owners pocket 60% of gross revenue as personal profit, sell every cake produced, and don't worry about competition.

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2010 1:25:42 PM

Ladies and gentlemen... I've traveled over half our state to be here tonight. I couldn't get away sooner because my new bakery was coming in at Coyote Hills and I had to see about it. That bakery is now flowing at two thousand cakes and it's paying me an income of five thousand dollars a week. I have two others baking and I have sixteen producing at Antelope. So, ladies and gentlemen... if I say I'm a cake man you will agree. You have a great chance here, but bear in mind, you can lose it all if you're not careful. Out of all men that beg for a chance to bake your cakes, maybe one in twenty will be cakemen; the rest will be speculators-that's men trying to get between you and the cakemen-to get some of the money that ought by rights come to you. Even if you find one that has money, and means to bake, he'll maybe know nothing about baking and he'll have to hire out the job on contract, and then you're depending on a contractor that's trying to rush the job through so he can get another contract just as quick as he can. This is... the way that this works.

3/1/2010 1:56:44 PM

Quote :

"Not at all. If the owner can provide capital and equipment at a cost below that of his laborers, then society is better off with the owner providing the capital and the laborers providing labor."

That's false bivalence, additionally how could one person provide capital at a lower cost than another?

Quote :

"Capitalism does more than merely optimize the final price of a good."

Well that's all it's stated purpose is, but it doesn't even manage to do that correctly.

Quote :

"Again, the cook's labor is worth nothing without a bakery in which to bake."

His labor still has a value, but it is less, but this is still false bivalence, there is more than two ways for a baker to get a bakery.

Quote :

"If you do not think work goes into generating the capital and equipment necessary to run a business, I can only conclude that you have neither owned your own business nor witnessed the creation of a business personally."

I am a partial owner of several very large businesses, I assure you, it is just as easy as paying them some money to get a certificate showing your partial ownership, more commonly known as stock.

Additionally there are three things getting confused here:
Manager (CEO) is a laborer just like the cook, he adds value to the product or the production.
Owner only provides the means of production through providing capital.
Entrepreneur starts the company and generally provides the initial investment, making him an owner as well.

A person can be one or all three of these.

Quote :

"if you suceed in eliminating all profits from the economy, prices would fall 8%. Not exactly revolutionary."

Well welfare spending is less than half of that, I think it is a big deal. Profit is waste, it would be great if we could wipe out that 8%.

3/1/2010 6:37:32 PM

Quote :

"That's false bivalence, additionally how could one person provide capital at a lower cost than another? "

Simple. If I am a business man and need $10k to buy some equipment for my new business, I walk into 3 banks. One offers me a loan at 8% interest, the other at 10% and the last at 6%. Each bank is capable of providing capital, but one provides it at a lower cost than the others. So it is here. The baker needs a bakery. He can come up with the capital for the bakery via a loan or via payments to the owner who already has financed (or is willing to finance for a cut of profits) the bakery. And as we already established, this provides lower overhead costs and higher pay for the baker, thereby making the owner someone who is providing capital at a lower cost than the baker could.

Quote :

"His labor still has a value, but it is less, but this is still false bivalence, there is more than two ways for a baker to get a bakery. "

In what ways does a baker get his bakery?

Quote :

"I am a partial owner of several very large businesses, I assure you, it is just as easy as paying them some money to get a certificate showing your partial ownership, more commonly known as stock."

Cute, but hardly ownership in the sense we are discussing here.a

[Edited on March 1, 2010 at 9:11 PM. Reason : sdfg]

3/1/2010 9:09:52 PM

Quote :

"If I am a business man and need $10k to buy some equipment for my new business, I walk into 3 banks. One offers me a loan at 8% interest, the other at 10% and the last at 6%."

Perhaps you missed the stuff that I said earlier about made up numbers.

Quote :

"The baker needs a bakery. He can come up with the capital for the bakery via a loan or via payments to the owner who already has financed (or is willing to finance for a cut of profits) the bakery. And as we already established, this provides lower overhead costs and higher pay for the baker, thereby making the owner someone who is providing capital at a lower cost than the baker could."

How did that prove anything? All you just did was make shit up. The fact is that anyone with capital could provide it.

Quote :

"In what ways does a baker get his bakery?"

Well there are a lot of ways, you could look into different economic systems to find some of the ways that others have thought up.

Quote :

"Cute, but hardly ownership in the sense we are discussing here."

You must not understand what stock is, because that's exactly what we're talking about here.

3/1/2010 10:11:17 PM

Quote :

"Christianity calls for a form of voluntary socialism. Jesus never pulled a knife on anyone, he argued, cajoled, and led by example. Kris and mambagrl want the men with guns to make things their way, a profoundly unchristian thing to do."

Exactly.
I may never understand the moral gymnastics liberals use to somehow justify their authoritarian crap.

Judging by some of their posts, Kris and mambagrl don't even really understand anything.
They are getting destroyed in this thread.

3/2/2010 11:17:19 AM

Quote :

"jesus also did things like throw businessmen out of the temple and call them thieves, give free healthcare to the poor and continue to reinforce the idea of community."

Didn't Jesus also condone slavery and beating women. Along with punishing people to death for picking up sticks?

3/2/2010 11:29:08 AM

Quote :

"Judging by some of their posts, Kris and mambagrl don't even really understand anything. They are getting destroyed in this thread."

Considering your synopsis you don't understand anything on this thread. I haven't even suggested an economic system, you just assume I'm wrong because someone else implied I was arguing for a communist system.

3/2/2010 12:59:17 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps you missed the stuff that I said earlier about made up numbers."

What made up numbers? Are you suggesting if I go to the bank for a loan, every bank will offer me the same interest rate? And that interest rate will be the same if I get a private loan from a single rich guy and both of those would have the same costs as getting my funding via a venture capitalist? Hell, I don't even have to go to different banks to get different interest rates for loans. If I want money to help start a business, I can walk into a secu branch and depending on what I'm willing to risk, I can walk out with a loan at the following interest rates:

5.25%, 7%, 9.75%, and 11.25%

Never mind any fees that a various banks may or may not charge for doing a loan in the first place.

Quote :

"How did that prove anything? All you just did was make shit up. The fact is that anyone with capital could provide it."

But everyone with capital will not provide it at the same cost.

Quote :

"Well there are a lot of ways, you could look into different economic systems to find some of the ways that others have thought up. "

Good to see you don't know of any other ways either. I'll consider your point further if you can come up with a way for a baker to get a bakery that does not involve: buying it himself or paying someone else to provide it. Note that getting a free bakery from the government still involves him paying someone else to provide it.

Quote :

"You must not understand what stock is, because that's exactly what we're talking about here."

No it isn't, you're just being dense. When you walk up to someone and ask them if they own their own business, you aren't asking if they own AT&T stock.

3/2/2010 1:17:29 PM

Quote :

"Note that getting a free bakery from the government still involves him paying someone else to provide it."

you pay the government for an exchange but they don't make a profit so you don't really pay them persay.

3/2/2010 1:33:12 PM

You really need to have a conversation with a government employee sometime. But no system operates without profits. The only difference is that government managers greedily seek power and influence, what political scientists call fiefdom building.

You have yet to learn that all human beings are self interested and greedy for power, regardless of their job title.

3/2/2010 6:10:10 PM

Thats a false statement. We've just all been conditioned by the way things work now to be greedy and self interested because we live in a country that rewards greed. If we lived in a society that rewarded helping others then things could be different. Thats why punishing self interest (progressive taxation) is something I'll always be interested in. Naturally, we are a communal tribal species, its not until young kids learn about/experience scarcity that they become selfish.

3/2/2010 6:37:46 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting if I go to the bank for a loan, every bank will offer me the same interest rate?"

Well they generally sell your loan on the secondary, in which case it will sell for about the same, so yes, for the most part, banks should offer you about the same terms. Competition tends to drive the price down on easily exchangeable goods like capital.

Quote :

"But everyone with capital will not provide it at the same cost."

And what cost is that?

Quote :

"Good to see you don't know of any other ways either."

Oh you want me to name some examples instead of you looking them up? Ok I'll give you one. Several bakers could join together and offset the risk and costs, they then could collectively own the means of production.

Quote :

"No it isn't, you're just being dense. When you walk up to someone and ask them if they own their own business, you aren't asking if they own AT&T stock."

So we're arguing semantics now? It doesn't matter what someone you walked up to would think ownership is, that's a stupid thing to debate. We're talking about economic concepts, and the large corporations that make up most of our economy are corporations owned by stockholders, if we're going to talk about economic concepts it's important to look at them as what each is, which is why I insist on keeping the owner, manager, and entrepreneur separate.

Quote :

"The only difference is that government managers greedily seek power and influence, what political scientists call fiefdom building. You have yet to learn that all human beings are self interested and greedy for power, regardless of their job title."

Then why focus on government workers only if all human beings exhibit that quality.

3/2/2010 6:48:41 PM

Quote :

"Well they generally sell your loan on the secondary, in which case it will sell for about the same, so yes, for the most part, banks should offer you about the same terms. Competition tends to drive the price down on easily exchangeable goods like capital. "

You are arguing against a point never made. The point that was made is that not all capital is available at the same cost.

Quote :

"And what cost is that?"

Interest, fees, collateral, payment terms, profit sharing etc. All of these things are costs of obtaining capital. Are you really the same Kris? I don't recall you being this dense before.

Quote :

"Ok I'll give you one. Several bakers could join together and offset the risk and costs, they then could collectively own the means of production."

Which falls under the paying someone else category. Other bakers provide the capital and in return are paid in partial ownership of the bakery and potentially shared profits as well.

Quote :

"So we're arguing semantics now? It doesn't matter what someone you walked up to would think ownership is, that's a stupid thing to debate."

No, we're not arguing semantics, we were discussing a particular aspect of business ownership and within that context, the work that goes into raising the capital and equipment to start and run a business. Your inability to parse the context is disheartening to say the least.

Quote :

"Then why focus on government workers only if all human beings exhibit that quality."

Because only government workers have the ability to enforce their greed via the law.

Quote :

"Naturally, we are a communal tribal species, its not until young kids learn about/experience scarcity that they become selfish."

[citation needed]

3/2/2010 7:23:54 PM

This thread was funnier when religion was involved.

Anyway, rich people are rich because they make the best use of their time, money, resources, credit and contacts. Also, many are born into it.

3/2/2010 9:20:06 PM

Easy, find the nearest toddlers and put one in a room with 10 packs of cookies. then show him to a room with only one pack and another toddler.

he will share the cookies with the cookies with the new toddler, let him have them all or might even lead him to the room with all the cookies. Somone that understands scarcity and capitalism would easily try to get as many cookies as possible out of this pack or take them back to his stash.

3/2/2010 9:55:31 PM

Odd. I'm as capitalist as they come, yet when I enter a room with other people and find cookies, I share them too. Is it because I have never been shown scarcity? Or might it be that both me and toddlers were taught to share as children lest we be perceived as greedy jerks and die unmarried and friendless?

The rules of capitalism tell us how things are to be produced. They do not tell us how things are to be consumed. If you have a friend that has lost their job and is down on their luck, invite their family over for dinner. If they can no longer afford their home, get the guest bedroom ready. That is the Christian thing to do. It would be unchristian in the extreme for them to proclaim you are earning too much and that you must give them your house.

3/2/2010 11:45:57 PM

Fine produce wealth in capitalism and then share its consumption.

Quote :

"That is the Christian thing to do. It would be unchristian in the extreme for them to proclaim you are earning too much and that you must give them your house. "

If you have two houses its unchristian to leave them on the street or not give them the house just to say "im letting them stay in my extra house" those aren't christians that do things to say they did great things or to earn constant thank yous. those are the hypocrits.

[Edited on March 2, 2010 at 11:54 PM. Reason : problem is, paying taxes doesn't broadcast how great a christian you are]

3/2/2010 11:53:51 PM

Quote :

"You are arguing against a point never made."

It was the point you just tried to make. To say that capital cannot be provided at a single price point is to say that there is not sufficient competition in the market of providing capital as if one competitor can provide it at some cost below others then the market wil trend to that cost.

Quote :

"Interest, fees, collateral, payment terms, profit sharing etc."

As I said earlier, capital is the most easily exchangable good, thus it is one of the most competitive markets, all of those factors will be bid down to the lowest cost.

Quote :

"Which falls under the paying someone else category."

No it wouldn't, as you would be a collective owner. It would be right in the middle of that "either you provide it or someone else does" false bivalence you stated earlier, which is why I picked that one.

Quote :

"No, we're not arguing semantics, we were discussing a particular aspect of business ownership and within that context, the work that goes into raising the capital and equipment to start and run a business."

Then please clarify, which are we talking about: ownership, management, or entrepreneurship?

Quote :

"Because only government workers have the ability to enforce their greed via the law."

Perhaps you've never heard of lobbyists.

Quote :

"Anyway, rich people are rich because they make the best use of their time, money, resources, credit and contacts."

Most of the time it traces down to luck. Distribution of resources should be based on what is the most efficient, not who can play the game the best.

Quote :

"Is it because I have never been shown scarcity? Or might it be that both me and toddlers were taught to share as children lest we be perceived as greedy jerks and die unmarried and friendless?"

Or perhaps it is because sharing produces the best aggregate results, which is why people have a tendency towards empathy. People tend to overstate people's ability to compete over resources and ignore their ability to help one another.

Quote :

"The rules of capitalism tell us how things are to be produced."

But it does it in a way that puts competition over cooperation, and that is not always the most effective way to achieve results.

3/3/2010 1:14:48 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps you've never heard of lobbyists. "

I have heard of them. Lobbyists are a feature of Government, just as are Senators, Federal Agents, and Postal Workers. If the Congress stopped giving away the store to anyone that walks in the door, then far fewer people would walk in the door.

Quote :

"But it does it in a way that puts competition over cooperation, and that is not always the most effective way to achieve results."

True. While it may not be the most effective way all of the time, it is at least most of the time. Especially when you see how Americans choose to cooperate, namely Congress. Compared to having Congress plan the minutia of each and every aspect of all our lives, only economic freedom makes sense to me.

3/3/2010 1:28:13 AM

Quote :

"Lobbyists are a feature of Government"

And you are naive if you think that shrinking government would keep these people out of your pockets, they'll find a way, and without government, it will be much easier, no rules to have to play by.

Quote :

"True. While it may not be the most effective way all of the time, it is at least most of the time."

Only if you make yourself see certain things as efficient. For example you would see a company go out of business and consider that capitalism eliminating waste, while I would see it AS waste due to capitalisms slow response times.

3/3/2010 8:37:31 AM

Quote :

"And you are naive if you think that shrinking government would keep these people out of your pockets, they'll find a way, and without government, it will be much easier"

What could possibly be easier than convincing Congress to give it to them? Without Congress, these people would need to go to each and every one of our doors and pull a gun on us, avoid getting shot right there, then scurry away before the police arrive.

Quote :

"For example you would see a company go out of business and consider that capitalism eliminating waste, while I would see it AS waste due to capitalisms slow response times."

Congress moves faster does it? Far more likely, Congress would not move at all, paralyzed by a single Senators objection.

More to the point, it is a myth that Soviet Russia solved the problem of unemployment. They did no such thing, they simply buried it under a mountain of misallocation. We could implement the exact same policy here in America that worked in Soviet Russia by having the government take over the costs of worker compensation. No business would ever again fire anyone, since all workers are a resource provided free of charge by the government. No business would ever again go bankrupt, as the scarce resource at that point would always be workers, as something free should never develop a surplus.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .,.]

3/3/2010 11:21:36 AM

Quote :

"he will share the cookies with the cookies with the new toddler, let him have them all or might even lead him to the room with all the cookies."

Are kidding? Kids fight over possessions all the time.

Quote :

"Good luck competing with the government whodoesn't need to make a profit"

Just like how the US Postal Service put FedEx and UPS out of business.

Oh, BTW:

Quote :

"Thats why punishing self interest success (progressive taxation) is something I'll always be interested in."

Fixed it for you. You haven't advocated "progressive taxation" once. Instead you favor the complete abolition of private industry, because for some reason an individual stops contributing and becomes evil as soon as he hires an employee.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2010 12:12:25 PM

The USPS is not funded by taxpayers, by the way. The only federal funds they get are reimbursements for shit like free postage for blind people.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ...]

3/3/2010 12:53:10 PM