Why Capitalists are Capitalists...

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you buy stock at $50 dollars and then the company goes bust and the stock stops being traded permanently at $.01, you lost $49.01 per share.

No, you traded $50 (A) for a stock of a company (B). The stock (B) went down and then you traded it for $0.01 (C)

A to B to C. No property lost, you just traded your property for other property that went down in value.

Or as you might say: you traded 50 bucks per share for 1 cent per share, where did you lose money on that?

Like DD said, you are shifting terms.

[GePap]

DD:

So when i was speaking about theft, I was never talking about property then, since if some guys steal money, it ain't property, its just money??

Property= something you own. You own money.

And if you had $200 at the beginning of a transaction and $50 at the end, I would say you lost $150, no matter what the intermidiate steps were, whether there was a land deal gone sour, or some guy came and coned you out of it (they could be the very same thing)

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
And you have to maintain order because?

There is no difference here. The capitalist system uses force to defend the private ownership of teh means of production. The communist system uses force to prevent the exploitation of workers. Might Makes Right!

[Velociryx]

ahhh, but that's where we hit an impossibility, Kid, because "all capital is dripping with blood!!!!!!!"

-=Vel=-

GePap: What can I say then, but that thievery stands against everything I've been taught to believe in in my Judeo-Christian upbringing. That Judeo-Christian upbringing happens to have been the dominant factor in the creation of this country (most of our early American ancestors fled for religious reasons, and bringing with them the whole protestant work ethic thing). So if you want the reason, I suppose it's rolled up in that somewhere. People in this country have been brought up believing that thieving is wrong. So....the natural extension of that is, when we CREATED this country, thieving was....wrong.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT




But what about the price appreciation on the house? What if the kids decide to rent the house a year after Vels untimely death?

Sorry, Vel, but your kids are SOL.

No rent. Everyone will own their own home.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Property= something you own. You own money.

Yes, but money and property are not fully interchangable terms. I can't say This piece of land is my property and say This piece of land is my money.

You can substitute property for 'money', but not the other way around... which you tried to do.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
ahhh, but that's where we hit an impossibility, Kid, because "all capital is dripping with blood!!!!!!!"

-=Vel=-

GePap: What can I say then, but that thievery stands against everything I've been taught to believe in in my Judeo-Christian upbringing. That Judeo-Christian upbringing happens to have been the dominant factor in the creation of this country (most of our early American ancestors fled for religious reasons, and bringing with them the whole protestant work ethic thing). So if you want the reason, I suppose it's rolled up in that somewhere. People in this country have been brought up believing that thieving is wrong. So....the natural extension of that is, when we CREATED this country, thieving was....wrong.

-=Vel=-

And what part of that Judeo-Christian ethic allows you to sit back and let people starve and say :hey, too lazy to work, too bad? I guess that time Jesus gave food and wine to those idiots wasting thier time just sitting on their ass to listen to so cook instead of being out there working, he was doing what? Or when he said that heaven was the kingdom of the poor..or when he denied the maervelous opportunity of moneychanging in the market to those great entrepeneurs the moneydealers.. damn bastard commie Jesus!@$%#^%

There is a reason Christian socialisms is one of the oldest groups, or why so many communes were created by Christian groups.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT


Whoo-hoo! Kid approves US policy re: Iraq!

Doesn't

[Imran Siddiqui]

And if you had $200 at the beginning of a transaction and $50 at the end, I would say you lost $150, no matter what the intermidiate steps were, whether there was a land deal gone sour, or some guy came and coned you out of it (they could be the very same thing)

Yah, you lost money, but not property.

Property is the more general term and Money is the more specific term. You can substitute a general term for a specific term, but you cannot do the opposite. Property can be placed in a sentance for money (because all money is property), but money cannot be placed for property (because all property is NOT money).

[Velociryx]

GePap: When have I ever said that? Pull it up and quote me saying that. I dare you.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Property= something you own. You own money.

Yes, but money and property are not fully interchangable terms. I can't say This piece of land is my property and say This piece of land is my money.

You can substitute property for 'money', but not the other way around... which you tried to do.

So if a bill falls on the ground from your pocket, and i take it, and you say: hey, that is my money, I say:what, do you won it? no, I don;t see you with a lease for it anywhere, its mine now: you would let me go?

You can call land an asset, just like you can call money in the bank an asset,a dn money in your pocket as well. You can turn all of themin as collateral for something as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So if a bill falls on the ground from your pocket, and i take it, and you say: hey, that is my money, I say:what, do you won it? no, I don;t see you with a lease for it anywhere, its mine now: you would let me go?

Like I said, all money is property, but all property is not money.

When people lose money due to a bad investment they do not say 'I lost my property'. I never heard anyone say such.

[Velociryx]

Flare! Good one!

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: When have I ever said that? Pull it up and quote me saying that. I dare you.

-=Vel=-

You claim your oppostion to theft comes form your belief in Judeo-Chrstian values, yet you expouse a system that is not really that well suited to them, and you say the worth of individuals is based on whether they do porductive work while any good Christian would say that all humans beiungs are euqal in the eyes of God, so that is all that matters as far as equality goes.

Since I do not base my oppostion to theft on judeo-Christian values, i have no problem: how do you get by this?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said, all money is property, but all property is not money.

ARRGH..

So someone can steal your land too. This does not address the basic point.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

And if you had $200 at the beginning of a transaction and $50 at the end, I would say you lost $150, no matter what the intermidiate steps were, whether there was a land deal gone sour, or some guy came and coned you out of it (they could be the very same thing)

Yah, you lost money, but not property.

Property is the more general term and Money is the more specific term. You can substitute a general term for a specific term, but you cannot do the opposite. Property can be placed in a sentance for money (because all money is property), but money cannot be placed for property (because all property is NOT money).

Imran, money is property. If it's not you have no property rights to it. So if I take your money then I will not have broken the law

[Velociryx]

As you yourself have said, the system (capitalism) has no morals attached to it. It is merely a system describing the allocation of goods and services.

As such, it's pretty well suited to operate under any sort of religious background.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Imran is threadjacking. What does your point mean Imran?

[Velociryx]

and you say the worth of individuals is based on whether they do porductive work

I said this? Really? That's pretty amazing. I'd like to see that quote too!

Yes, the value of an individual's economic worth is measured by his productive works, but how is that in ANY way connected to his value as a human being?

Human beings ought not get paid a stipend for simply being alive, but because they ought not, how do you make the jump in logic that they're somehow of lesser value?

-=Vel=-
(genuinely curious)

[Imran Siddiqui]

So someone can steal your land too. This does not address the basic point.

Your basic point is that you have no right to keep your property, and backed it by saying that you can lose money on a bad investment. However, theft is forbidden, indicating that people believe that there is a right to keep property, and the only way property can legally be taken from you is if you consentually give it up in legally defined ways.

Imran, money is property. If it's not you have no property rights to it.

property > money

Money is a subset of property, but NOT the entire thing!

[JohnT]

"There is a reason Christian socialisms is one of the oldest groups, or why so many communes were created by Christian groups."

Yes, because Communism was invented in the West, a very predominately* Christian society. Otoh, I'm not too sure that one follows the other because, after all, Marx was, you know, Jewish. And so was Engels, unless my memory is failing me...

*Yeah, bad English. Live with it.

[Velociryx]

Know how you feel, Imran, we've been doing that same thing for DAYS now (and now that GePap is here questioning things that should be bedrocks "but daddy, why is stealing wrong") we'll prolly see a lot more. Stock up on Tylenol....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid: Just to make sure I'm getting you, it's okay if I transfer deed and title of my private property (which you are not against), to my kids, so long as they don't use it to collect rent, or to finance evil capitalist enterprises (ie - they can never take a mortgage out against the value of the house, cos GOD ONLY KNOWS what they would do with the money!)

How do you plan to check? I mean, to see that they don't rent a room out to a travelling student or a weary traveller, for that matter?

And what will you do to them if they do? Gulag again? That place is filling up quick! We might better just start killing some of them, you know....make more room!

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

Sent ya a couple of PM's Vel.

[Velociryx]

Back atcha, Master John! (tho admittedly, I didn't see 'em at first! )

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
and you say the worth of individuals is based on whether they do porductive work

I said this? Really? That's pretty amazing. I'd like to see that quote too!

Yes, the value of an individual's economic worth is measured by his productive works, but how is that in ANY way connected to his value as a human being?

Human beings ought not get paid a stipend for simply being alive, but because they ought not, how do you make the jump in logic that they're somehow of lesser value?

-=Vel=-
(genuinely curious)

But in a system where without money you starve, what is the functional difference? To live you must (in your system) do a basic amount of work, so is then your life not based on work?

And fi people can be valued at all (and eocnommist do so every second), it stands to reason smoe most be of higher value than others to the system (otherwise, why value them at all) for some reason.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid: Just to make sure I'm getting you, it's okay if I transfer deed and title of my private property (which you are not against), to my kids, so long as they don't use it to collect rent, or to finance evil capitalist enterprises (ie - they can never take a mortgage out against the value of the house, cos GOD ONLY KNOWS what they would do with the money!)

How do you plan to check? I mean, to see that they don't rent a room out to a travelling student or a weary traveller, for that matter?

And what will you do to them if they do? Gulag again? That place is filling up quick! We might better just start killing some of them, you know....make more room!

-=Vel=-

The law will be broken. It's not a big deal. I wouldn't spend a lot of resources policing it. However, if someone started building an enterprise then they would suffer serious consequences including the lose of everything that they aquired.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

So someone can steal your land too. This does not address the basic point.

Your basic point is that you have no right to keep your property, and backed it by saying that you can lose money on a bad investment. However, theft is forbidden, indicating that people believe that there is a right to keep property, and the only way property can legally be taken from you is if you consentually give it up in legally defined ways.

Maybe GePap's point was that when you speculate with your property someone else may well end up with your property. If you have a right to your property why are they able to get it?

[JohnT]

The answer lies within your question... because you speculated* with it.

*Also defined as "gambling."

[Velociryx]

Because, Kid, in a free society you "have enough rope to hang yourself." If you make bad choices, you can lose your property, it's true.

Likewise, if you sell it, you lose your rights to it.

You can't change your mind later and demand it back....



-=Vel=-