Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War - Page 5

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 12:54

The problem though, Duncan, is that it's not. And manufacturing equipment is expensive. If I have the money and/or wherewithal to buy the big expensive machine, it's mine. I'm not inclined, regardless of how altruistic I may be to p*ss away half a million dollars for community good.

Would you be? Would you spend that kind of money on a piece of machinery, and then turn it over to others? Just give it away?

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 10, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Willem,

You can dream of expoliting people, but if you really do it then that's different. Why should that ever be legal? Just so people can have an outlet? No way.

Who's talking about making exploitation legal? That's why we have labour laws, and financial regulation. That's why people go to jail when they embezzle funds from unsuspecting consumers. Granted that far to many times the perpetrators get off lightly, especially if they're very rich, but that's just a question of reforming the system, not an inherent flaw.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem though, Duncan, is that it's not. And manufacturing equipment is expensive. If I have the money and/or wherewithal to buy the big expensive machine, it's mine. I'm not inclined, regardless of how altruistic I may be to p*ss away half a million dollars for community good.

Would you be? Would you spend that kind of money on a piece of machinery, and then turn it over to others? Just give it away?

-=Vel=-

But his point is that you shouldn't be allowed to purchase that machine in the first place, only the state can do that. So if the government at the time didn't have the insight to realize the full value of having that machinery, it would never be introduced into the economy. And you, fully aware of the benefits of the technology, would simply have your requisition slip tossed in the garbage.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Who's talking about making exploitation legal? That's why we have labour laws, and financial regulation. That's why people go to jail when they embezzle funds from unsuspecting consumers. Granted that far to many times the perpetrators get off lightly, especially if they're very rich, but that's just a question of reforming the system, not an inherent flaw.

exploitation is legal. It's called capitalism. Labor laws can improve things for workers, but exploitaiton is the nature of capitalism. With no exploitation you have no profits. With no profits you have no capitalism.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
The problem though, Duncan, is that it's not. And manufacturing equipment is expensive. If I have the money and/or wherewithal to buy the big expensive machine, it's mine. I'm not inclined, regardless of how altruistic I may be to p*ss away half a million dollars for community good.

Would you be? Would you spend that kind of money on a piece of machinery, and then turn it over to others? Just give it away?

-=Vel=-

You have a vested interest in capitalism. You are a capitalist. That may explain your views. Can you see now why capitalism is so popular? You don't want to lose your property. Now that you have some property you want the right to get more property.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 13:06

Duncan:

You never said a thing about my accusation that central planning lends itself to being usurped by a fascist. Why is that?

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 13:09

But you didn't answer the question. Suppose you have the opportunity to buy a half million dollar machine....what would you do with it? Would you keep it, and hire people to run it for you, or would you give it to the people who have the skills and desires to run it?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Duncan:

You never said a thing about my accusation that central planning lends itself to being usurped by a fascist. Why is that?

I thought I asked you to explain that. Maybe you did and I missed it. Central planning doesn't have to lead to fascism. Communists today are very concerned with preventing such events in the future.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

But you didn't answer the question. Suppose you have the opportunity to buy a half million dollar machine....what would you do with it? Would you keep it, and hire people to run it for you, or would you give it to the people who have the skills and desires to run it?

-=Vel=-

If I owned such equipment and the time was ripe for revolution. Say I believed in the revolution. Then I would welcome the community ownership of the property. And I'm being honest, whether you believe me or not.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 13:31

So...you're saying then that if you owned the machine and the time was NOT ripe for revolution, you'd keep it and "exploit" those you hire to use it? Is that consistent? Why not just turn it over to them now....perhaps that would be the spart that ignites the revolution?

And nope...I believe you to be a good person, but I do not believe you would just hand over an expensive machine to others.

If you work hard, save your money, and buy something like that....why should you? The machine represents the fruits of YOUR hard work. Nobody else's.

If other people want to use your machine, that's cool, but they're using YOUR machine. Since the value of the machine is greater than the value of what's made from the machine, you pay them for their time spent making stuff, they pocket the money, and you eventually make the money back on the machine.

That's not evil or exploitive, that's common sense! And it also happens to be the essence of capitalism.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 14:24

(since both threads seem to have taken a similar turn, I posted a more complete reply in the other thread, btw)..

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 10, 2003, 14:26

Now I know why I'm getting hopelessly confused, we're having the same discussion in two different threads.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 14:30

I know....I got confused myself, so I figured I'd stop the discussion in one, and focus on the other.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 15:10

I doubt if it would be the fruits of my labor. More likely I would inherit it. I'm not saving my money for those things. Whenever I can save a little bit of money it goes toward my sons education and retirement.

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

More likely I would inherit it. I'm not saving my money for those things

You really are hung up on people who inherit things from their rich mummies and daddies, aren't you?

Believe it or not, there are people who actually work hard, make lots of money, and do stuff with that money (like own their own business, making cool little widgets that people want to buy). Not all rich people were born so. That's what social mobility is about - so the Bill Gates of the world can have a good idea, put it into pratice, and become megawealthy (and then throw a couple hundred million bucks at AIDS prevention). And if Billy gets out of line, there is this neat anti-trust legislation that allows the government to smack him down a peg or two.

Quote:

exploitation is legal. It's called capitalism. Labor laws can improve things for workers, but exploitaiton is the nature of capitalism. With no exploitation you have no profits.

Without profits, there is little incentive for anybody to do anything. Like it or not, very few people will work hard at something that doesn't benifit them.

That is the fundamental problem communism runs into. To overcome it, prior "communist" regimes have used force. Perhaps you have a better idea?

-Arrian

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

You really are hung up on people who inherit things from their rich mummies and daddies, aren't you?

Believe it or not, there are people who actually work hard, make lots of money, and do stuff with that money (like own their own business, making cool little widgets that people want to buy).

You guys really don't know how it works. No one save money to start up a business like that. You have to borrow the money.

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Not all rich people were born so. That's what social mobility is about - so the Bill Gates of the world can have a good idea, put it into pratice, and become megawealthy (and then throw a couple hundred million bucks at AIDS prevention).

It's well know that Bill Gates stole the first idea that made him wealthy, and he probably has stolen several other ideas that he has profited from.

Az · February 10, 2003, 16:41

no no no. he re-selled, Duncan.

DinoDoc · February 10, 2003, 16:45

Too bad both of these threads went to crap. One of them might have had potential.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 16:50

So....you are saying that *borrowing* money is the root of the evil, yes?

Without borrowing, people would have to work to earn the money in advance.

Are you living in a house now, with a mortgage? If so, is that not the *exact* same form of evil you're referencing?

-=Vel=-
PS to Dino: Yeah....the thread kinna got off track, didn't it? *sigh*

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 17:09

Quote:

You guys really don't know how it works. No one save money to start up a business like that. You have to borrow the money.

Of COURSE most people borrow money to set up a business. And why, exactly, is that bad?

But that doesn't speak to your repeated cracks at inheritance.

Gates was just an example (dunno about the "stolen idea" allegation). There are plenty of other entreprenuers out there who did not found their companies with money they inherited. More likely they scraped together whatever they had and borrowed the rest.

Again, why is borrowing money to start a business bad?

Dino,

Well, Vel & I responded to commie invasion. Whatcha gonna do, eh? Thoughts on the original topic?

-Arrian

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 17:14

And I had to actually look to see which thread we were in, at present!

BTW, thanks again, Arrian! Glad you like the thread!

And, perhaps we could pick back up on the original topic over at Thorn's UN-restructuring thread?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 17:21

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Velociryx
So....you are saying that *borrowing* money is the root of the evil, yes?
[QUOTE]
People have to borrow money. It's just part of the system. I'm just pointing out that all this BS about people who work hard and save their money get higher status in society is weak propaganda.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 17:25

Then I am a living, breathing anachronism to what you believe.

I borrowed a spot of money, sure (for the truck--see my own personal example), but the greater bulk of my own success thus far has been entirely borne on my own back.

Am I just a rare exception that proves the rule? If so, then most of the people I know are also living examples of this "weak propaganda" (something I think would genuinely surprise them!)

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 10, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

Dino,

Well, Vel & I responded to commie invasion. Whatcha gonna do, eh? Thoughts on the original topic?

-Arrian

Typical! We Canadians lend our support but you Yanks take all the credit!

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 17:26

D'oh! He got ya there, Arrian!

But yes....I'd call that a good "multinational effort!"

-=Vel=-

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 17:37

Doh!

Mea Culpa, Willem. I'm getting the threads confused (that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!).

Sorry about that.

Dunkan,

Weak propoganda? Hardly. My grandfather owned his own business. He didn't make it past the 8th grade (grew up during the Depression... had to go work). He was given nothing. Yet he is now relatively well off, living out his retirement in NC. He drives me nuts with his wacko uber-rightwing political views, but that's another issue. The man went from poor to middle class (at least) by virtue of his own hard work - and without the benifit of an education.

Weak propoganda, my ass.

-Arrian

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 17:47

I got too many right wingers on me right now. You all aren't making any relevant points right now. You are just citing examples thay may or may not be true, but prove nothing.

I gotta do some work.

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 17:50

DuncanK,

What? First off, I'm not lying or misconstruing my grandfather's life experience. Second, it does prove something: if Vel and I can immediately fire back two examples of something you say doesn't exist... how likely is it that you are wrong?

Only a commie would think I'm right-wing.

-Arrian

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 17:56

Duncan - the examples used, pulled from real life, form a pattern.

Patterns define the truth, and the truth is, what you are saying is not how things really are.

My assumption is that, because you believe in a different ideology (communism), and these examples run counter to the propaganda that communism spins, they are unacceptable to you.

Unacceptable or not, however, they are the truth.

Is capitalism perfect? No. But then, capitalism does not promise to BE perfect (unlike communism, which promises a utopia it cannot deliver). Capitalism opens the door to abuses in power, yes. But because of its decentralized nature, those abuses can never even BEGIN to approach the level of abuse to be found in a communist society.

Borrowing money is not evil.

Private ownership is not evil.

Rewarding people for their inventiveness, charging rent, and trading the use of an expensive piece of machinery for an agreed upon sum of money are not evil, either.

-=Vel=-
(first time I have ever been called a right winger, btw)

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 19:20

btw, your only verifiable example was Bill Gates, and I blew that one out of the water