Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread - Page 15

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Too strong a conclusion to draw from the historical evidence.

Perhaps, but that was his point. Central planning cannot account for the wants and needs of the society adequately. A market is really the only thing that can, which is why if communism was every forced upon me, I'd prefer the 'worker democracy' kind of communism.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I consider it telling that you have never heard of the law of unintended consequences.

Corruption is a problem that plagues the whole world. It's got nothing to do with economic systems.

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Corruption is a problem that plagues the whole world. It's got nothing to do with economic systems.

So you don't think certain economic systems may be 'more' corrupt than others (obviously you do)?

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 20:21

Of course they don't say it!

It's tough to get membership if you come right out and SAY it's a corrupted system, but c'mon.....come with me and let's stroll down memory lane to look at the track records of the communist experiments that have been trotted out onto the world stage thus far, shall we?

No? But of course you don't want to do that....and why not?

Perhaps....just *perhaps* is it because every time the system you're so in love with has been tried, it has been....exactly as we have....exactly as HISTORY has described?

Centralized. Authoritarian. Brutal. Corrupt.

These are words all synonomous with the system AS IMPLEMENTED you wish us to have faith in.

Not happening.

That would be like me coming here and talking up a FANTASTIC new solar power source.

Yep, that's right. I have made (on paper), a solar cell that's 110% efficient! It will REVOLUTIONIZE the industry, can be cheaply made, and means that everyone in the world will be able to take advantage of the wonders of electricity!

All I need is $10,000 from each of you in order to get me started!

Will you invest?

Probably not without grilling me with questions, cos hey, we're talking money, right?

But when you ask, I will simply say: "Hey guys! This plan is GREAT! Look at it on paper! Doesn't it look fantastic! 110% efficient! Electricity for everyone!"

But how do we know it works?! No other solar cell that's ever been made is anything close to that efficient!

Oh....don't you worry! It'll work! I promise! It says so right here in my schematic!

How can we trust your schematic?

God but aren't you a pessimist! It SAYS it will work, isn't that enough?! Now...give me your money!

Sound familiar?

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Corruption is a problem that plagues the whole world. It's got nothing to do with economic systems.

So you don't think certain economic systems may be 'more' corrupt than others (obviously you do)?

That depends on if you include exploitation in your definition.

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 20:24

Here's a question for the Kid (two actually):

1) How do you define "exploitation" What is your consice definition of the word, please.

and

2) Found that quote yet?

-=Vel=-

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

That depends on if you include exploitation in your definition.

Exploitation doesn't come close to equaling corruption... in the slightest.

You can have the most non-corrupt capitalist system with no nepotism or 'favors', and yet you'd still say it was exploitation.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Here's a question for the Kid (two actually):

1) How do you define "exploitation" What is your consice definition of the word, please.

I use the Marxist definition. It includes profit, rent, and interest. Of course corruption is exploitation too.

alva · June 20, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

1) How do you define "exploitation" What is your consice definition of the word, please.

Anything that holds back on personal growth. (not necesairly financial, could be spritual.).

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

I use the Marxist definition. It includes profit, rent, and interest.

And that explains your problem (as well as Marx)

. He considers anyone that willingly works for someone else, and loves his job, to be exploited.

Daft definition!

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 20:30

so post it here. I'm asking you to spell it out for us. What is "exploitation," precisely? (way to dodge question 2!

)

-=Vel=-

Jack_www · June 20, 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

I use the Marxist definition. It includes profit, rent, and interest. Of course corruption is exploitation too.

Making money is exploitative? Why do you think that making a buck means that you have to exploit someone?

I mean I had a job as a math tutor this past school year in a local high school. So do you think because I made money that I exploited someone???

Velociryx · June 20, 2003, 20:32

A good definition, Alva! Not one the reds will agree with, but I'm keen on it!

Here's the webster's definition to get the ball rolling:

To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
You're confusing Richard Epstein's theory of regulatory takings with actual case law and statutes. Look at Penn Central Transportation. Or for that matter, the rent control laws in NYC. There's a guy in lower Manhattan with a 7 room apartement paying $200/mo. The market value is closer to 20K/mo. That is almost a complete taking. But guess what? It's not complete so there is no taking.

Nope. Not interested in theory, just in actual application. Municipal rent control ordnances don't interest me much, because there's a whole mishmash of different state laws and inconsistency on the commerce/business nature of renting residential real property. Get out of that quagmire, even into commercial property, or rentals that fall below commercial activity threshholds, and the ability of government

Quote:

If you've worked in the utility context, your probably thinking of the "physical invasion" doctrine. Namely, if there is a physical invasion, there is a taking.

Not at all. Off the top of my head, I can think of cases where noise impacts from offsite activities, change in flood zone classification due to damming of creeks, change in recreational value of waterfront property, and proximity of a trash to energy powerplant (built at an existing landfill) all were held to require compensation due to effect on the property values of the claimants. In none of those situations did physical invasion occur, and all were permitted activities operating within the scope of the discretionary permits issued for the activities.

Quote:

At any rate, Amendments can be changed ('tis the very meaning of the word!).

Yes, with a two thirds majority of both houses of Congress, and majority votes of all legislative houses in at least 3/4 of the state legislatures. Good luck!

Quote:

But my own theory is that a switch to socialism or communism might in itself count as due compensation for the taking.

I'd pay good money to see you argue that theory in front of a Federal judge. At least, if I could film it.

Quote:

A Lockean!

blah blah blah.

Nice bit about English common law. Want to address Rome, etc., and the entire history of development of property law too?

Not a Lockean either. I generally have nothing but contempt for theoreticians (except in fields where actual practice or experiment is impossible) and "philosophers."

Quote:

Moreover, according to Locke, I can't own a stretch of rain forest because there was no initial acquisition by admixing labor to "improve" it.

Locke is wrong.

Not that his or anyone else's philosophical masturbation has any relevance to anything.

Quote:

So much for any sort of libertarian theory about environmental protection through property entitlements.

Who cares about libertarian theory?

Quote:

Yes, and the government had the biggest spear-arm! David Koresh learned this the hard way when Janet Reno took his gun from his crispy dead hand. As under William, the King controlled it all and parceled out usage rights in exchange for feudal obligations. You had to preserve your own land though. With usage rights came protective responsibilities. Fail to live up to your obligations and the King took your estate away and gave it to someone else.

And Koresh's resistance of a warrant for his arrest for a non-property related criminal charge has what to do with the notion of property ownership and rights?

Quote:

Of course this theory contradicts your earlier Lockean view. Which is it? Force that creates property or labor?

I don't give a rat's ass for Locke's view, that was your label.

Quote:

Uh, the citizens are subserviant to the state. Its a question of degree.

The citizens create the state.

Quote:

Besides, what do you think the state is? In a representative system, the state is merely the agent of the people - a way to overcome the collective action problem. If you're against the state, then you're against the people - including yourself.

The state is presumed to be an agent of the people in a proper representative system. If the state abuses it's lawful authority, it is no not an agent of the people, because it has violated the scope of that agency.

Quote:

Temper, temper! Between running down protestors and using force to defend property you've demonstrated the sort of human being you are.

(a) Eat me.
(b) I suppose next time you're burglarized, you'll ask the burglar if you can get him some milk and cookies too?
(c) I didn't say I'd run down protestors.*
(d) Damned right I'll use force to defend property if others use or threaten to use force to take it without just reason.
(e) Valuing "people" has nothing to do with valuing thieves, pirates, etc.

Quote:

Valuing mere stuff over people's lives?

My mere stuff is more valuable than the life of an ******* who'd try to take it by force, yes.

Quote:

I though you right-wingers were big on Jesus? Didn't Jesus say that if a man asks for your coat give him your shirt as well?

Jesus also said if you do waste the mother****er, you can ask for forgiveness for your sin and receive it.

Quote:

Lastly, if the property system is reconfigured, you won't be defending "your stuff" because it won't be yours.

Unless you're talking your lonely bedtime fantasy of a communist revolution in the US or Mexico, then you're talking about representative governments of limited powers, bound by their own legal systems and precedents, so their ability to wave the magic wand and wipe out all property rights, legal precedent, and procedural due process is a tad limited. You guys know you'll never get your nonsense agenda through any legal elective system, so that's why you have to fall back on the mantra of "the coming revolution."

The reason we tolerate your talk of sedition, murder and theft is:

(a) We know it's nothing but talk,
(b) It ain't gonna ever happen, so you can't even elevate it to a conspiracy to make those things happen.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
Making money is exploitative? Why do you think that making a buck means that you have to exploit someone?

It depends on how you make it. If you work for it then that's not exploitation. If you save some of it and put it in the bank the principal is not exploition, but the interest that you recieve on it is, because that is someone elses labor.

JohnT · June 20, 2003, 20:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

You don't think I would just pull it out of my hat did you.

CNN Money

Haven't the slightest idea where they got that figure, especially since the Department of Labor (where they got the other figures) says that the discouraged unemployed total is, (again he says) 482,000.

But if you want to trust the "right-wing" CNN over the Department of Labor, that's your prerogative, I guess.

Jack_www · June 20, 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

It depends on how you make it. If you work for it then that's not exploitation. If you save some of it and put it in the bank the principal is not exploition, but the interest that you recieve on it is, because that is someone elses labor.

So you are telling me if I put my money in the bank or invest it in the shock market I am expliotion? I just have to laugh at that one. Yeah I give my money to the bank so that they can loan that money to someone who wants to buy a house or car and when then pay me interest for it you call it expliotive? Or if I buy the shock in a company and I make money off the deal when the company does because I own part of it that is exploitive? Give me a brake.

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
So central planning can fail. Big suprise, will your next feat be to prove the sky is blue?

(a) Read the post - I was talking about a side subject to another poster.
(b) I'm glad you see that the failure of central planning is as obvious as the sky being blue.

Quote:

Obviously, the Soviet model provides examples of what not to do. That's the great thing about learning from mistakes. You can avoid them next time. I think the great depression did that for capitalism.

And it was developed and put into place by people more talented than anyone on the commie side of the fence here (although I hold out some hope for chegitz). Meanwhile, other than some vague platitudes of "oh we can do everything for everyone, don't you worry" you guys totally avoid offering any specifics about how you'd carry out this mass transformation, or run a centrally planned economy.

Since you're still dogmatically attached to Marx, and offer no suggestions of a different central planning approach, it's a reasonable presumption that at best (given the evident depth of the talent pool) you'd come up with a weak emulation of the Soviet model.

Quote:

Quit being so dogmatic.

You're the ones who are hung up on dogma, mixed with a little "faith in the Resurrection" of your revolution.

Sorry, my karma ran over your dogma.

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

It depends on how you make it. If you work for it then that's not exploitation. If you save some of it and put it in the bank the principal is not exploition, but the interest that you recieve on it is, because that is someone elses labor.

SHARIA!

Kill the infidels.

Interest simply represents the increased value of money over time, or the opportunity value given by the immediate availability of capital. Interest is only exploitive if it is excessive (to one party or another) after considering risk factors and time value of money.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
So you are telling me if I put my money in the bank or invest it in the shock market I am expliotion? I just have to laugh at that one. Yeah I give my money to the bank so that they can loan that money to someone who wants to buy a house or car and when then pay me interest for it you call it expliotive? Or if I buy the shock in a company and I make money off the deal when the company does because I own part of it that is exploitive? Give me a brake.

The consumer should get the car and house regardless. They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Haven't the slightest idea where they got that figure, especially since the Department of Labor (where they got the other figures) says that the discouraged unemployed total is, (again he says) 482,000.

But if you want to trust the "right-wing" CNN over the Department of Labor, that's your prerogative, I guess.

Well Che has one source and I have another. So there you go.

DinoDoc · June 20, 2003, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
The consumer should get the car and house regardless. They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

Why not if they can't pay cash upfront for it?

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

Then why would anyone save their money? If their money is going to get progressively more and more useless due to interest? Why wouldn't they just spend it all then? And without savings, how would any company make an investment into R&D and so forth?

MichaeltheGreat · June 20, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

I use the Marxist definition. It includes profit, rent, and interest. Of course corruption is exploitation too.

I like that. No wonder Marx's followers are all such morons. (Yeah, I've read Marx. I even was one in my young and foolish days)

Profit is exploitive, so...

I should price products and services strictly on a direct cost plus minimum overhead basis, so as not to risk exploiting anyone, and I should take all risk of loss on myself.

Rent is exploitive, so...

I should build houses, or other improvements, and then let people use them for free, for how dare I actually try to recover what I spent, when someone could sponge off my work and invested capital for free.

Interest is exploitive, so...

I should make my money (if I ever have any) available for free, regardless of my own present of future needs, and risk on non-return by the lender.

Can I "rent" your house and "borrow" your paycheck, comrade? I wouldn't want you to be burdened with feelings that you're exploiting me.

Do you perhaps see the tiniest reasons why you (the collective you) have a hard time getting people to buy into this nonsense?

Now if Marx specified "excessive" levels of these were exploitation, he'd be in agreement with the vast majority of capitalists today.

He'd be "right" too, in more ways than one.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

Then why would anyone save their money? If their money is going to get progressively more and more useless due to interest? Why wouldn't they just spend it all then? And without savings, how would any company make an investment into R&D and so forth?

It's completely unnecessary.

Imran Siddiqui · June 20, 2003, 20:59

Quote:

It's completely unnecessary.

Yes, technological progress and research is completely unnecessary... sure

.

chequita guevara · June 20, 2003, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Che was right. The REAL US unemployment rate is 9.1%. I read it this morning.

Also, 2% of the male US workforce is incarcerated.

I wouldn't use the word "real." Use the word, "alternate." The Department of Labor publishes two set's of unemployment numbers. The first is the number we've all come to know and love. The other, slightly more accurate number, is the alternate.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Profit is exploitive, so...

I should price products and services strictly on a direct cost plus minimum overhead basis, so as not to risk exploiting anyone, and I should take all risk of loss on myself.

If you are so well informed on Marx then tell be where he advocated the entrepreneur.

Kidicious · June 20, 2003, 21:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

It's completely unnecessary.

Yes, technological progress and research is completely unnecessary... sure

.

Your doing the same thing MtG is doing. Why would we need individuals to save money for research? All we have to do is pay scientists the same way we pay everyone else.

JohnT · June 20, 2003, 21:04

So the DOL publishes "cooked" figures and "real" figures?

Please cite... and from the DOL itself, please. I can't find these alternate numbers anywhere on the stats.bls.gov site.

Thanks!