Is profit different from unfair tax? - Page 17

DinoDoc · October 30, 2003, 03:05

You enjoyed that, didn't you?

MichaeltheGreat · October 30, 2003, 03:10

Well, they keep on talking about it, just leaving the setup there to be taken advantage of...

JohnT · October 30, 2003, 07:56

Of course, the supreme irony in all this is that Kid is studying to become an accountant. That's sort of like Che *****ing about third world exploitation by the worlds financial system while at the same time complaining that his work contract with Citibank is about to expire. Which he did.

Here Kid: An old thread of mine that explains why you're fighting a losing battle. Enjoy!

Flubber · October 30, 2003, 14:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

You have described it as less effort in the first paragraph and then in the second you claim that it is only my perception.

NO I asked a question as to whether the amount of effort that went into an invention matters in how much the inventor should be compensated for it. You did not seem to mind the inventor getting a lot of compensation if they worked on it for months while if it were invented in a few hours you would see that worthy of less compensation EVEN IF IT WERE THE SAME INVENTION.

Clearly throughout this thread you have wanted to reward people for "effort". The problem is that effort is very difficult to measure. You can measure production or time spent, which are two ways peopleare commonly paid but the unproductive worker gets little compensation or is fired under those measures. I don't know how you measure effort. I do know hopw you measure value though -- People freely offer their services and agree on an amount that is acceptable to them.

JohnT · October 30, 2003, 14:24

And define effort. I constantly think, ruminate over work. Constantly. Should I get paid more than somebody who just shuts it off at the end of their shift?

Velociryx · October 30, 2003, 14:25

Kid summed it up. In his utopia, nobody will be able to get rich for "a couple hours work" - he despises genius, especially genius which occurs as a dramatic flash of insight, rather than a ponderous, labor-intensive process.

The flash-of-insight sort of genius is not "work" in Kid's eyes, and is therefore totally lacking in any compensatable value.

Meanwhile, those who toil mindlessly and unproductively should share in the wealth of the movers and shakers merely because they're making an "effort."

Good luck selling people on your vision of the red utopia, Kid...and good luck attracting ANY powerful, imaginative thinkers.

-=Vel=-

JohnT · October 30, 2003, 14:26

"Attract"? Don't you mean "compel by force"?

Velociryx · October 30, 2003, 14:29

well yes, that's the essence of the Kidicious Plan for Proper Communist Living....those that don't agree with his benevolent plan for our future are to be rounded up and sent to "re-education facilities" or barring the success of that, simply killed so their property can be taken and parceled out to those who are obviously more deserving, cos hey....they were making an effort, right?

-=Vel=-

Flubber · October 30, 2003, 15:19

Vel and JohnT

I am still reeling over the idea that " rent" as a concept is exploitive. A lowly worker might acquire a horse that is useful to him . .. through the hard work and effort of that worker. I guess in kids world the only option is that the horseowner allow all the others to use his horse ( even though thay did not share his long hours to earn extra to acquire it or share in the things he deprived himself to save up). Well I guess the other option is the horse is ONLY used to do the horseowner's own work. I guess the fact that the horseowner and horse get their work done in half the time and then sit idle is irrelevant.

To GASP rent the horse out to other s and increase their productivity for a share of this increase would be so GASP exploitive. After all, both the horseowner and the other workers would benefit . . GASP we can't have that since the other workers should have their own horse ( forget for a second that there is only a need for one horse i the entire village

Oh thats right-- its exploitive since you could not acquire a horse--

well actually, yes you can-- nobody is stopping you. . .

I just find the whole idea that rent is explotive to be baffling. I rent things all the time when it does not make economic sense for me to acquire them, either because I have a limited or one-time need OR because renting makes better sense than buying . . . .

OR KID is renting a car or rototiller ok

MichaeltheGreat · October 30, 2003, 15:41

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
And define effort. I constantly think, ruminate over work. Constantly. Should I get paid more than somebody who just shuts it off at the end of their shift?

According to many law firms and CPA firm's billing instructions to their lower echelon professionals, if you spend time on the toilet thinking about a client's matter, that is billable time.

Velociryx · October 30, 2003, 16:01

Flubber, no see....you've got it all wrong. In ANY situation where a tool (or horse, in this example) can *concievably* be used to enhance production, all of those goods/objects/beasts should be handed over to the state and treated as communal property (don't ask me how the horse gets fed, cos it CAN'T happen by having everyone chip in a bit to feed the animal....that would be exploitative because it would rob the workers in the village of some of their production, and we KNOW that's not allowed!)....but, I guess the horse is a magic pony that does not require food or any sort of upkeep.

And of course, since only one horse is needed for this village and it's the communal pony, where is it stabled? At whose house? Can anybody just come get it when they want it? What if two people want it at the same time? What if a fight ensues over who gets to use it next?

Thanks, but I'll stick with private ownership!

-=Vel=-

Flubber · October 30, 2003, 16:03

Good one MTG

I do know lawyers that dictate in the can

-----------------------------------------------------------

Back to " rent"

Kid how does a community of say 250 workers get a horse if they are in a situation where say 2 people need a horse for 40 days each, 100 people need a horse for 2 days each, another 50 for a day, 50 more may or may not need a horse and 48 more will never need a horse.

Their options

1. No one has a horse and productivity stays down

2. The community buys a horse and provides it freely to all

Wonderful eh?? but where did they get the money to buy the horse and who has to feed and house and care for the horse ( especially on the days the horse does not work).

a) Should the members buy the horse in the shares of projected use ?? Then isn't it exploitive of anyone else to use the horse that didn't pay. So if a farmer didn't buy in, we couldn't let him rent the horse for an hour or two .. . What if needs change or someone leaves town? Do people sell their share in the horse. Are people forced to buy

b) its the community horse paid by community funds . . WAIT A MINUTE-- pople then have to pay a portion of a horse they may never use-- isn't that expolitive?? Why should they pay for someone else to increase their production?

IN either scenario, who gets to decide who gets the horse when ??

3. Some individual buys a horse-- those that want to use the horse pay a freely negotiated fee. The horseowner takes the benefit of profit and the risk of loss. Everyone that wants the horse, gets the horse ( subject to availability). Nobody pays for the horse that doesn't use it. Everyone is free to use or not use the horse.

4. the community buys a horse and charges fees-- no different than the freemarket except you have taken some community resources and spent it on something much of the community does not need

Velociryx · October 30, 2003, 16:07

Further, is there some master list that gets continually updated regarding what items constitute "communal property" and what items can be outright owned?

Where is the master list housed? How are updated copies handed out? What are the penalties for owning an item that is "forbidden"? What are the penalties and how is it enforced if, say, I own a horse (because it's not listed as a communal property item initially), but then later, horses are added to the list? Does someone come 'round to confiscate my horse? Do I get compensated for it, or do I just accept the exploitation (robbing me of my production, since I fairly bought and paid for the horse before it was blacklisted) from the state like a good little lamb?

Do tell.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · October 30, 2003, 16:09

Go get 'em, Flubber!

-=VEl=-

Flubber · October 30, 2003, 16:12

and vel

I RENT movies all the time. I have seen dozens !! I have been exploited !!!! of course it would only be fair if we all had our own copy of movies that we have ever seen ( or perhaps they should all be free since acting isn't work LOL)

Velociryx · October 30, 2003, 16:16

Well, clearly Flubber, there's only one thing to be done....to arms! To arms! Let us storm those wicked and vile bastions of movie rentals and lay claim to what is rightfully ours! We are entitled to a copy of every movie that those cursed dens of exploitation have in their stocks!

Freedom!!!!!!!
[/braveheart mode off]

-=Vel=-

rah · October 30, 2003, 16:18

You all don't seem to understand. If the community needs a horse, they will appropriate/steal it from someone that already has a horse. It has more value being a community horse than a privately owned horse. Upkeep will work the same way.

We may laugh, but this is the way it was actually done in the past. But don't worry, no one will be exploited.

JohnT · October 30, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Flubber
Vel and JohnT

I just find the whole idea that rent is explotive to be baffling. I rent things all the time when it does not make economic sense for me to acquire them, either because I have a limited or one-time need OR because renting makes better sense than buying . . . .

OR KID is renting a car or rototiller ok

Thank you for the props.

Point well taken. Imagine having to buy movies because renting them is illegal. Imagine actually having to buy a reel of film and a projector and a projection room just to see a movie in an audience. Imagine having to ship your favorite band all the way to your house if you want to hear them play their music, ala the Kings of yesteryear who had no problem paying Mozarts father to waste years out of his families lives for a concert series.

I was in a conversation with some Leftie a few months ago... Monkspider maybe? (I'll go look if it's that important to anybody) Anyway the topic was standards of livings and I made the comment that there is no way I would change my standard of living, even for that of Louis XIV. His life might be grand, but I bet he dealt with a lot of uncomfortableness that is rarely felt by Middle Class Man. Anyway, Monk rather emphatically disagreed, and among his list of why old Louis had a better standard of living than I, was the fact that him "having dozens of servants waiting on you hand and foot." (paraphrase)

Servants. From a leftist who elsewhere proclaims their desire for the equality of mankind. I can't even imagine doing such a thing to another person, and I'm supposed to be the bad guy (and in terms of actual Capitalistic PigDoggedness* (as opposed to just yelling about it), I'm one of the major enemies of the Left on this board, far far more than Fez or Imran). I didn't say anything about it then; hell, I didn't have to.

*I've torpedoed careers with well-timed revelations, fired people, used my financing to "force" my way to the head of another company, all my family crap, stuff like that.

JohnT · October 30, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

According to many law firms and CPA firm's billing instructions to their lower echelon professionals, if you spend time on the toilet thinking about a client's matter, that is billable time.

"Gawddammit, am I paying you to sit in the can?!?"

"That's about it, sir."

MichaeltheGreat · October 30, 2003, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Point well taken. Imagine having to buy movies because renting them is illegal.

I think the theory is that intellectual property is a bourgeoise concept anyway, so movies will (a) all be freely provided by the state, and (b) shouldn't distract the masses with socially and politically inappropriate messages, as this is an avenue for subversive activity. Therefore, no movies shall be made that you'd actually want to watch, buy you'll be compelled to attend anyway, to show that you're dedicated to the cause.

Quote:

I was in a conversation with some Leftie a few months ago... Monkspider maybe? (I'll go look if it's that important to anybody) Anyway the topic was standards of livings and I made the comment that there is no way I would change my standard of living, even for that of Louis XIV. His life might be grand, but I bet he dealt with a lot of uncomfortableness that is rarely felt by Middle Class Man.

Yes, the greatest inventions of mankind are soft toilet paper and working indoor plumbing. The rest is all anti-climax.

Quote:

Anyway, Monk rather emphatically disagreed, and among his list of why old Louis had a better standard of living than I, was the fact that him "having dozens of servants waiting on you hand and foot." (paraphrase)

Servants. From a leftist who elsewhere proclaims their desire for the equality of mankind. I can't even imagine doing such a thing to another person,

Servants are rather nice to have. You can always pay them decently and forgo the random rape, torture, and execution for amusement part of the deal, though.

Quote:

and I'm supposed to be the bad guy (and in terms of actual Capitalistic PigDoggedness* (as opposed to just yelling about it), I'm one of the major enemies of the Left on this board, far far more than Fez or Imran). I didn't say anything about it then; hell, I didn't have to.

*I've torpedoed careers with well-timed revelations, fired people, used my financing to "force" my way to the head of another company, all my family crap, stuff like that.

Ah, yes, but Lenin, Mao and Stalin didn't exactly get to the top of the heap by being nice guys, either, so it's all good.

JohnT · October 30, 2003, 16:40

True. Imagine, little ol me in such illustrious company!

Michael, I believe that is the first time you parsed one of my posts. I am honored, and, it's about damned time!

while

JohnT · October 30, 2003, 16:44

"Servants are rather nice to have. You can always pay them decently and forgo the random rape, torture, and execution for amusement part of the deal, though."

Yes, but I expect a true, honest replication of Louis' lifestyle from a man who admires it so much.

Arrian · October 30, 2003, 16:46

Servants? Bah! I want Minions. They shall do my evil bidding.

I could have one of them walk behind me with a boombox playing the Imperial March all the time.

-Arrian

Ned · October 30, 2003, 17:19

I think you guys on the right ought to understand that to a Marxist, equality is the only goal, and the end justifies the means. Anything that would lead to inequality is unjust, exploitive, or whatever. As they try to defend this "system," endless absurdities obtain. They deal with these by ignoring them, or, as I said, multiplying by zero and adding in the answer they like.

It is fruitless, if not stupid, to engage in serious arguments with a Marxist, except in front of a audience where the absurdities of Marxism can be demonstrated to the young or to those who may be considering throwing in with the left.

I think the Chinese have understood that Marxism does not work in practice. This is why they have now moved to fascism.

The Andy-Man · October 30, 2003, 17:31

how come kidiridiculous hasn' posed in his topic for a while?

Az · October 30, 2003, 17:32

I liked the other thread better. It's really sad to see everyone gang up like that on kidicious. A new Com-Cap thread is due.

Ming · October 30, 2003, 17:36

Over 500.... case closed