Why Capitalists are Capitalists... - Page 12

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Nihon e itta koto ga arimashita ka? Nanjikan ni?

Everyone knows you're an evil genius. Now can you speak in a language the rest of us can understand please.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:54

Contrary to yours, if you pay people 30k to stay home, or 32k to work hard, they'll stay home....all of them. Unless of course we change things up a bit....maybe we could start sending healthy indiv...erm...members of the group who REFUSE to work off to the Gulag too!

-=Vel=-

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 13:54

"If you want to complain about people who do nothing, then complain about the people who live off inherited wealth or trust funds. They contribute no labour to the economy and create no wealth at all - in short they do nothng productive. Worse, people who work (both business owners and wage and salary earners) end up paying for the lot of it."

In fact, they do create wealth in their spending of the trusts assets to maintain their lifestyle.

Az · June 16, 2003, 13:54

The richest people already have enough money to buy everything they want.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:56

which....pumps money into the economy and pays my salary?

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Forget about ethnic and religious wars. In fact forget about war. Not a problem in a communist world. Now get those people some damn birth control. Then give them an income to buy things. Unemployment problem solved.

Ask the Chechens about that. Then again, I guess you could say it's "successful" if you have enough money to throw at a conscript occupying force that you give everyone else a common enemy to hate, and if you have enough of a security apparatus to constantly spy on everyone discontent with your enlightened rule.

Oh, and try that nonsense in the Congo, but bring some onions.

Quote:

They have the best labor laws in the world. Too bad the US and others are so exploitive.

Yes, I'm sure we'd all gladly trade the US economy for the French and German economies. Even better to trade those average standards of living.

Quote:

If the world worked together on the problem of technological unemployment the results would be positive.

For those who got the fruits of other's labor without contributing much of their own, yes. Let's give up on the notion of intellectual property entirely, and let the state decide what should be built. Excuse me while I go into the other room to replace a vacuum tube in my computer.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Contrary to yours, if you pay people 30k to stay home, or 32k to work hard, they'll stay home....all of them. Unless of course we change things up a bit....maybe we could start sending healthy indiv...erm...members of the group who REFUSE to work off to the Gulag too!

-=Vel=-

Did I say they were going to get a little tiny bit more, no. I said they won't be as rich as the rich of the current system.

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Everyone knows you're an evil genius. Now can you speak in a language the rest of us can understand please.

I was asking you if you'd ever been to Japan, and for how long?

(Hint, if you go up the trail of talking about the Japanese economy, work practicies, efficiency, etc., you're walking into a very big ambush)

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 13:58

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
In fact, they do create wealth in their spending of the trusts assets to maintain their lifestyle.

Bullshit! The people who worked to build that sh1t produced that wealth.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 13:58

By the way, MtG, you greedy capitalist bastard....when's my cut of your next check coming?! I don't need to call out the "Stuff Police" do I?

-=Vel=-

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 14:00

"Forget about ethnic and religious wars. In fact forget about war. Not a problem in a communist world. Now get those people some damn birth control. Then give them an income to buy things. Unemployment problem solved."

Tell it to the Chechzens (sp), Afghani's, Eastern Europe (Oh, wait - they were just liberated by an army that never left. That's not a hostile act!), Cambodians and the Soviet government vs. the Soviet people.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ask the Chechens about that. Then again, I guess you could say it's "successful" if you have enough money to throw at a conscript occupying force that you give everyone else a common enemy to hate, and if you have enough of a security apparatus to constantly spy on everyone discontent with your enlightened rule.

Oh, and try that nonsense in the Congo, but bring some onions.

Do you believe that conflicts are caused by competition for resources? I do. It's called ethnic conflict, but really it comes down to which ethnic group gets access to resources. Eliminate the shortages and teach people to work together for every ethnic groups benefits and you will see huge improvement.

Az · June 16, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

which....pumps money into the economy and pays my salary?

'

' indeed.

Quote:

Yes, I'm sure we'd all gladly trade the US economy for the French and German economies. Even better to trade those average standards of living.

The quality of life is higher in Europe.

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Bullshit! The people who worked to build that sh1t produced that wealth.

And, as we all know, they'd still build it without customers.

God, that was funny!

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 14:04

A convenient, and not unexpected excuse, Kid, from someone who speaks in terms of vagaries constantly (ie - you said the income variance would be smaller, but could not, of course, say by how much).

So what IS the top and bottom value?30k for the stay at homes, and 40k for those who work? 45k? What is it? You should be able to give some general numbers, cos, you know....individual salaries don't matter....it's a group thing.

And it's NOT BS, btw...yes, the people who worked to build that sh1t created that wealth. That includes the people who worked to build the company at which that sh1t was produced. The same folks who are now living off the trust fund, or their children.

-=Vel=-

GePap · June 16, 2003, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
The Communist Credo, boiled down to it's bare bones:

You have more stuff than me. I want more stuff! I'm not sure if I can duplicate your hard work and success, but I shouldn't have to. The stuff exists, and because it does, I am entitled to my "fair share." If you disagree, me and my friends will put you in a cold, miserable place and take what's yours. Give it up....it's in the interest of the party (er...the "whole group.")

-=Vel=-

Ignorance at its prime. I get really tired of people "arguing aganist something" that they refuse to examine fairly and honestly. Mere caricatures like this are absurd, and add nothing at all.

Since there are many types of communists, there is no such things as A communist credo. For example, what did Marx think when he spoke about beings a doctor during the day and a fisherman at night? (to paraphrase) He wanted to see a system were human biengs were free to excersise themselves and do anyting they wanted, free of the restraints of what they have to do to survive. This was his romantic side, which ran up hard counter to his scientfc side.

A basic communist question would be, why should the workers that make aBMW not be able to afford a BMW? They made it..why could they possibly not enjoy it? Maybe it is simplistic, but it does explore bits of human nature you seemt o want to ignore. What do we work for? What is the point? To earn money? OK, what next?

As for Ned: socialism never ask for equal outcomes. That is another common caricature, again one form people who don;t seem to want to spend the time to honestly examine the issues at hand.

Quote:

The capitalist aims for outcomes porportional to effort and talent. If one considers this for only a short time, it seems clear which system is the moral system.

And do we really have that? In the end, what determines how much you make? Demand. We have no objective way to judge quality, specially in services. What makes the best actor? What deifnition could you give me toher than "I know it when I see it?". So what is rewarded is not based on some absolute notion of worth, but a current notion of worth. Here today, gone tommorrow, and in such a system, if you go down, in essesnce you deserve it just as much as the coming up.

You never answered my crime question Vel: why is stealing wrong: it is only a more effcieint way to gather vast amount of wealth. One person (sucker) spent tens of thousands of man hours to aquire it, I erhaps only a few. Is that not better? Is that not what we strive for, doing the same faster and better (why are movies about the brilliant thief so popular?)

I find it rather difficult to thnk how one can argue for capitalism from a moral standpoint: using what? All religions are inherently socialistic, and when the 7 deaddly sicne include avarice, sloth, envy, prive and lust, you condemn communisms as coming from those, yet they are also at the core of capitalism.

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 14:05

My wife is a stay-at-home mother, Kid. How much you willing to give her?

PM me and I'll give you my address so you can start sending the checks. Thanks!!!

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
"Forget about ethnic and religious wars. In fact forget about war. Not a problem in a communist world. Now get those people some damn birth control. Then give them an income to buy things. Unemployment problem solved."

Tell it to the Chechzens (sp), Afghani's, Eastern Europe (Oh, wait - they were just liberated by an army that never left. That's not a hostile act!), Cambodians and the Soviet government vs. the Soviet people.

You're confusing the war against the capitalist pigdogs with ethnic and nationalist conflict.

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 14:07

'zazel - not according the the latest economic data I've seen, and not for the two countries mentioned.

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 14:08

I'd like to see what a bunch of workers would do with no building, (we'll concede them a plot of land where the factory would be if it existed), no customer base, no equipment, no inventory of supplies, etc. Just workers and bare dirt.

Maybe they could play baseball if someone brought a bat, a ball and some gloves.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 14:08

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

And, as we all know, they'd still build it without customers.

God, that was funny!

And if I can steal that wealth and spend it I guess I have created wealth too

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I was asking you if you'd ever been to Japan, and for how long?

(Hint, if you go up the trail of talking about the Japanese economy, work practicies, efficiency, etc., you're walking into a very big ambush)

Just make a point if you have one and stop showing off.

Az · June 16, 2003, 14:12

Quote:

'zazel - not according the the latest economic data I've seen, and not for the two countries mentioned.

Check out the UN HDR.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
A convenient, and not unexpected excuse, Kid, from someone who speaks in terms of vagaries constantly (ie - you said the income variance would be smaller, but could not, of course, say by how much).

So what IS the top and bottom value?30k for the stay at homes, and 40k for those who work? 45k? What is it? You should be able to give some general numbers, cos, you know....individual salaries don't matter....it's a group thing.

-=Vel=-

I think that 30k-40k would be good. Both groups would be pretty satisfied. I think that we could produce enough to cover it too.

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

You're confusing the war against the capitalist pigdogs with ethnic and nationalist conflict.

Uhm, excuse me?

War is war... or are you going to redefine the term as well?

War: "Hostile actions performed by people I don't like against people I like. It is not war when the actions are intiated by people I like against people I don't like. Then it is merely an "ethnic and(/or) nationalist conflict(s)."

Let me alert Oxford, Merriam-Websters, and the fine people at Encyclopedia Britannica that they've got it all wrong.

Kid, you're losing it. You might want to take a break and come back to this thread when you start making sense.

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

And if I can steal that wealth and spend it I guess I have created wealth too

Sadly, tragically for your argument the wealth wasn't stolen... it was given to them by their (more than likely) parents.

You are re-defining age-old words left and right in this thread, aren't you?

GePap · June 16, 2003, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'd like to see what a bunch of workers would do with no building, (we'll concede them a plot of land where the factory would be if it existed), no customer base, no equipment, no inventory of supplies, etc. Just workers and bare dirt.

And does a Capitalist wave a magic wand and building materials come out of nowhere? Oh yes, and the Building just magically also appear 'poof', out of thin air.
And you will concede them the land? Is the Capitalist on it? If not, how can you tell its his? dd he also make a chain link fence magically appear out of nowhere? or maybe he has magically created robots guarding it?

Velociryx · June 16, 2003, 14:16

GePap: Read this thread. One of the Comrades arguing here has, in fact, used the caricatures you poke fun at, touting them as legitimate arguments, so if you're amused by them, that's good, but neither John or I can take credit. That honor goes to the Comrades arguing here.

As to the crime question: You should already know the answer to that.

Economic activity (work) is not a crime. We, as individuals have determined however, that taking from another societal individual IS a crime. The two don't even belong in the same category.

I assumed you were wiser than that, and apologize for making the assumption...

-=Vel=-

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 14:18

My point is that you are utterly ignorant and unqualified to comment on Japanese "efficiency" or reasons for their more than decade long economic and social decline, so maybe you shouldn't embarass yourself more than usual.

Having tried chicken teriyaki, or even

sushi doesn't really qualify you to comment.

Almost across the board, Japanese "efficiency" is an utter myth, and an illusion created by a fun and games bubble that would embarass even Andy Fastow.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 14:18

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Sadly, tragically for your argument the wealth wasn't stolen... it was given to them by their (more than likely) parents.

You are re-defining age-old words left and right in this thread, aren't you?

Get out of your fantasy world. People steal. So your theory that buying things creates wealth is blown out of the water.