Does Profit Equal Theft?

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 17:04
VIEWED: 6986
PAGE 1 of 1

SERGEANTX

Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:50 PM

At Frem's request, a new thread. Read the end of the ObamaShockerPromise thread for the intro.

Quote:
Frem:Oooh, more meat for the table.

This really, REALLY needs it's own thread, cause I do believe we've found a spot that if we just nail down the terminology, we can find an accord.

Siggy is speaking Usury, actually, or insofar as the explaination so far convinces me - feel free to correct me on that point...

Whereas Sarge is speaking of Wages, leastways I think so, and yet by applying the term "profit" and meaning different things, ya wind up butting heads in disagreement not because of a fundamental concept difference, but because your applying the same word to different concepts.

Fascinating, I do believe there's potential here to come to agreement and offer solutions instead of winding up at each others throats, for once...

That said, really, this deserves it's own thread, honestly - and imma be addin a couple penniesworth later when I got the chance to, busy day today tho.

-F

Actually Frem, I'm avoiding that distinction deliberately, because I think it obscures the fact that Usury, in the sense of 'return on investment', does represent payment for a service provided.

Feel free to cut and paste any of the previous thread that seems relevant (if you care about new readers - I don't

).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:53 PM

No. Even if there's true illegal activity, that shouldn't figure into the profit margin. I'm not even a business major, and this is easy to answer.

Sheesh.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

WHOZIT

Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:57 PM

If you're an Obama supporter or a media whore then the answer is yes.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:00 PM

RUE: What DO they do to earn that money, if someone else is minding the business ? What IS their contribution, exactly ?

SARGE:
If they're smart, they oversee the managers. Otherwise, they're likely to lose their asses. They're the ones who are putting everything on the line. Even a CEO gets a paycheck. The owner deals with all the risk. Even if we're talking stock holders, it's the same thing.

And that one of the biggest reasons corporate America is so fucked up. Stockholders have gone the same route as voters. They've been dumbed down and aren't required to take responsibility for their blunders. They've been wasting more and more money on incompetent leadership, voting for and supporting boards that lead their companies to ruin. In short, they fail to oversee the management of the companies they invest in. If they lost their asses for such stupidity, they might learn. But, through monetary manipulation and outright government giveways, our government bends over backwards to make sure that doesn't happen.

RUE:
Profit is - BY DEFINITION - the difference in the value added to your product by your workers, and the value you charge for that product on the market.

In other words, you are not giving the worker the FULL value of their work. Hence, your profit.

CHRIS:
Okay, but when I managed a video store, I was able to give my employees the full value of their work (even to the extent of paying one employee double when someone called out & they worked alone- they had the option to call me in if they wanted, but no one ever did at those times), pay the overhead, give the customers a good service at a reasonable price, & still return a profit to the owner who made the whole thing possible in the first place.
In such a case, profit is not theft, IMO.

SIGNY:

Sarge: Even you're resisting the idea of getting money for nothing.

But that's not what capitalism says.

The basis of capitalism is that the owner of the business is entitled to ALL of the earnings of that business, to pay his employees and expenses as s/he sees fit. Solely based on ownership. Has NOTHING to do with management. The argument is that this person took a risk with their money (or someone else's money) and therefore they "deserve" the rewards.

And what did the owner "do"?
CHRIS:
What owners do. Get in a manager's way.

Seriously, he reviewed our orders for titles, and dealt with irate customers that got charged for melting our videocassettes in their cars during the summers ( 3 in all, I think)...and...not much else.

Hey! I wuz robbed!!!

FREM:
Siggy is speaking Usury, actually, or insofar as the explaination so far convinces me - feel free to correct me on that point...

Whereas Sarge is speaking of Wages, leastways I think so, and yet by applying the term "profit" and meaning different things, ya wind up butting heads in disagreement not because of a fundamental concept difference, but because your applying the same word to different concepts.

Fascinating, I do believe there's potential here to come to agreement and offer solutions instead of winding up at each others throats, for once...

SARGE:
It's in your paragraph. They decide what to pay the employees*. They decide what to risk their money on. That's what I was talking about earlier. Making decisions about which business efforts are worthwhile and will fill are real need and which ones are pointless and doomed to fail is a service that even speculative investors are providing with their decisions. Failures in making these crucial decisions are a big part of the current morass.

*It's also worth noting that a business owner doesn't decide employee wages willy-nilly. They have to come to an agreement with the employees about what that wage should be. It's a two-way street.

Originally posted by SignyM:
NO, you were able to give them the wage they settled for, in the face of unemployment.

CHRIS:
No, they could have worked anywhere at that time, jobs were plentiful then. But we paid a tad better than most places

SERGEANTX

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:03 PM

Thanks Chris!

Lazyisall...
|
|
\ /
|

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:16 PM

Profit & theft is like sex & rape; the lines can be a bit blurry, but you KNOW when they've been crossed.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Profit & theft is like sex & rape; the lines can be a bit blurry, but you KNOW when they've been crossed.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

Bobby Knight would disagree.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:18 PM

To expand a bit on the idea that usury represents a service:

If we take private ownership of business out of the equation, certain decisions still need to be made. Presumably, in a socialist state, government officers would decide which projects are worth pursuing. Or I suppose we could vote on it. In either case, in a free market, investors are responsible for making those decisions.

Let's say you had this dream of selling robot hamsters to the masses. In the absence of investors I suppose you'd go before a government review board or something and attempt to convince them your project was worthwhile. In weighing the decision, they'd likely carefully consider consumer interest. They'd analyze their data and try to make a good guess on whether robot hamsters will be the next big thing. They'd also likely put you through a vetting process and try to come to some conclusion about your relative skill and sanity (robot hamsters??).

As you've probably guessed by now, my point is that these are exactly the kinds of decisions that investors make. Profit is the reward for being right, and loss is the punishment for being wrong. It's a pretty powerful incentive and I doubt anything as compelling would be on the shoulders of a government agency making these calls. In addition, they'd likely be distracted by political concerns, the desires of influential lobbyist and pressure groups, etc. etc. Regardless of the legitimacy of their concerns, these interests don't address an appraisal of the real needs and wants of consumer, and to the extent that they don't, they'd jam up the process and make it less efficient.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
As you've probably guessed by now, these are exactly the kinds of decisions that investors make. Profit is there reward for being right, and loss is their punishment for being wrong. It's a pretty powerful incentive and I doubt anything as compelling would be on the shoulders of a government agency making these calls.

It's not exactly how it happens in modern Capitalist Corporations though. Now the investor, the shareholders, are often separated from the running of the business. Policy decision is made by the management board, not the investors. The problem with that, is that the investors have no long term stake in the business they are investing in.

The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem. And of course, in that paradigm, the companies always look pretty good, making good quarterly returns, right up until the fall over.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's not exactly how it happens in modern Capitalist Corporations though. Now the investor, the shareholders, are often separated from the running of the business. Policy decision is made by the management board, not the investors. The problem with that, is that the investors have no long term stake in the business they are investing in.

The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem. And of course, in that paradigm, the companies always look pretty good, making good quarterly returns, right up until the fall over.

Exactly! There are several things wrong with the rules surround corporations that need to be addressed. Built-in incentives for shortsightedness, limited or non-existent liability due in part to "corporate personhood", and probably several other issues I'm not educated enough to follow, should all be front and center in the effort to fix what's broke. But we're too busy celebrating the fall of capitalism and ushering in nationalized banking to give it much effort.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 26, 2009 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But we're too busy celebrating the fall of capitalism and ushering in nationalized banking to give it much effort.

I wouldn't use the word "celebrating", although I always did want severe reform.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Friday, February 27, 2009 12:20 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But we're too busy celebrating the fall of capitalism and ushering in nationalized banking to give it much effort.

I wouldn't use the word "celebrating", although I always did want severe reform.

Enjoy socialism. Oh, and where were you this evening. Who was that girl you were with, how long have you known her. Are you headed straight home or did you have somewhere else you were planning to go// yes, where.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2009 12:34 AM

Ahhh DT, you seem to be confusing socialism (an economc system) with totalitarianism (system of government). Ever heard of democratic socialism?

Anyway, I have more of a bent towards "economic democracy".

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 27, 2009 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ahhh DT, you seem to be confusing socialism (an economc system) with totalitarianism (system of government). Ever heard of democratic socialism?

Anyway, I have more of a bent towards "economic democracy".

He's just trying to do his troll bit in hope of getting a bite. Best off leaving him to it, like most young children throwing a tempertantrum he'll get bored soon enough and go away.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KIRKULES

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem.

While what you say is definitely true there is also a down side to having everyone investing for the long term. Because most investors do favor relatively safe investments that have proven themselves over the long run, capital is often slow to move from failed business models to new more innovative ones. Just about every Dow stock is held by most mutual funds and pension funds and this means companies like GM can stay in business long after their business model should have made them bankrupt. The fast flow of capital is what makes it possible for companies like Google to go from nothing to a billion dollar market cap over a very short period of time. The fact that investors are willing to ride a stock that has done good for them in the past makes for the inefficient flow of capital and limits potential productivity that the same capital could produce in more viable companies. If capital flowed more efficiently GM would have gone out of business in the 1970's when their products were junk and been replaced by a superior company.

On the profit being theft idea, the only time profit is theft is if there is no competition or if there is collusion to fix prices. As long as an individual chooses to make a purchase knowing that the other side is making a fair profit, there's no theft. Every time I demand a raise from my boss I increase the profit I make for my services and if I'm not productive enough I reduce their profit at the same time, what makes it fair is that I can always offer my services to others and my boss can always fire me if I don't make them a profit.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:23 AM

If the problem with profit was just a problem with "fairness" then I suppose that we would have two competing ethical systems and we could each insist that our system was better (more ethical).

But the proof of the pudding, so to speak, is what an economic system does for us, which is why we tolerate any economic system at all (unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool idealogue). The problem with profit, as I've long discussed with Fletch2, is that it effectively takes a percentage of money out of circulation with each cycle (production to consumption). Yes SOME of it goes back to retirement funds and other average-type investors and SOME of it goes back to investment (on the upswing of a business cycle) by a percent gets "stuck" in the hands of the very wealthy, who simply do not spend their money.

When wealth becomes severely divided, as it has in third-world countries, demand has been effectively killed. Without the prospect of demand, nobody will invest in "creating jobs" Any form of investment will go to either (1) acquiring a greater SHARE of the shrinking market (buyouts, mergers) or (2) reducing the amount of labor used to make a product or (3) shifting production to cheaper areas. NONE of these activities "grow the market". Without wealth distribution the ONLY way to grow the market is to grow the money supply... a strictly Keynsian solution.

This would all be theoretical, but after so many years of "trickle-down" economics, a wealth spread we would have to go back to 1929 to equal, and a total reliance on credit (houisng bubble) for continued consumption.... I think the theory has been pretty well proven. Again.

BTW- Cit, you clearly don't know what "economic democracy" means.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem with profit, as I've long discussed with Fletch2, is that it effectively takes a percentage of money out of circulation with each cycle (production to consumption). Yes SOME of it goes back to retirement funds and other average-type investors and SOME of it goes back to investment (on the upswing of a business cycle) by a percent gets "stuck" in the hands of the very wealthy, who simply do not spend their money.

We need to have a cap on what individuals can keep out of circulation. Want to be rich? Fine. Just have 1 mill in the bank & buy 50 mill worth of "stuff."

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:39 AM

To continue...

It seems to me that we should be able to devise a system that has all of the benefits of capitalism without the drawbacks. (Capitalism is VERY good at two things: improving production efficiency and meeting demand). I can think of lots of ways to do it: from the European model (some socialized production, but aggressive wealth redistribution) to something more radical: a change in business forms themselves.

For example, if the only form of business was the cooperative, then everybody would be an owner and participate in the profits. Competition would still be a feature, as would "the marketplace". The only thing that would happen is that the power of ownership would be aggressively placed in the hands of the average person... whether they wanted it or not! Government banks, without necessarily having to micromanage which businesses should be created, could simply manage the economy by providing loans at differential rates.

So there is a lot of room for contemplation.

BTW- One of the areas that capitalism does very poorly (aside from circulating money) is in REPLACING obsolete industries. Once a production infrastructure is set up and paid for... oil refineries, tankers, automobiles, gas stations for example... continued operation is a lot more profitable. It becomes very difficult for a "startup" to supply the market with a better technology because the cost of entry is so high. That's why capitalism is great at jumping into things that haven't existed before... copper phone lines for example... but not so good at replacing them with something better ... for example, fiberoptics.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:58 AM

Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Friday, February 27, 2009 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For example, if the only form of business was the cooperative, then everybody would be an owner and participate in the profits. Competition would still be a feature, as would "the marketplace". The only thing that would happen is that the power of ownership would be aggressively placed in the hands of the average person... whether they wanted it or not!

Profit sharing isn't necessarily beneficial though. When you're sharing profit, you're also sharing risk. I worked for a company a couple of years ago that went to an aggressive profit sharing system, where we took a twenty percent pay cut in exchange for significant profit sharing. All things being equal to the year before, we should have all made considerably more money. But things weren't equal. We lost a couple of key contracts and we all ended up with significant pay cut instead.

You're also asking employees to then be responsible for the decisions previously made by owners - either providing top-level management or delegating it effectively. I'm not sure those kinds of decisions benefit from a democratic decision making, especially when the employees might not have the business acumen or foresight to make such calls effectively.

For both of these reasons, I'm leery of companies that tout employee ownership as a benefit. If I'm going to work as an employee, I want steady income and insulation from market analysis and other things I know nothing about.

Quote:
Government banks, without necessarily having to micromanage which businesses should be created, could simply manage the economy by providing loans at differential rates.

Could you expand on this? Not quite sure what you mean.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Friday, February 27, 2009 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

I'm game. But keep in mind, my favorite benefit from capitalism is the "free market" aspect, specifically the "free" part - as in minimal governmental involvement.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Friday, February 27, 2009 2:26 AM

Quote:

The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem. And of course, in that paradigm, the companies always look pretty good, making good quarterly returns, right up until the fall over.

And if you're George W. Bush, you do the same thing with the federal government!

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 27, 2009 10:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- Cit, you clearly don't know what "economic democracy" means.

Since I've not argued for or against it in any way, the only thing I clearly don't know is the basis for this outburst.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, February 27, 2009 4:08 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/26/india.movie.slumdog.c
hildren/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Young 'Slumdog' stars back in Mumbai slums

From Mallika Kapur
CNN

MUMBAI, India (CNN) -- On Sunday night, Azharuddin Ismail and Rubina Ali were in Hollywood, California, getting celebrity treatment as eight Oscars were awarded to the movie they starred in, "Slumdog Millionaire."

Thursday night, the two children were sleeping at home in Mumbai, India. Azharuddin sleeps under a plastic sheet in a shantytown beside a railway track, where the smell of urine and cow dung lingers in the air. Rubina sleeps with her parents and siblings in a tiny shack beside an open drain.

THIS is the problem of capitalism and profit. THIS is not extreme capitalism, it's essential capitalism, with the niceties removed.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 27, 2009 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
While what you say is definitely true there is also a down side to having everyone investing for the long term. Because most investors do favor relatively safe investments that have proven themselves over the long run, capital is often slow to move from failed business models to new more innovative ones. Just about every Dow stock is held by most mutual funds and pension funds and this means companies like GM can stay in business long after their business model should have made them bankrupt. The fast flow of capital is what makes it possible for companies like Google to go from nothing to a billion dollar market cap over a very short period of time. The fact that investors are willing to ride a stock that has done good for them in the past makes for the inefficient flow of capital and limits potential productivity that the same capital could produce in more viable companies. If capital flowed more efficiently GM would have gone out of business in the 1970's when their products were junk and been replaced by a superior company.

I'm not sure that's true. I mean if the investor has a long term stake, it's even more important to them that the business has long term viability, and therefore their concern is that they don't operate a defunct business model. The reasoning is simple, a bad business model can still pull in good returns in the short term, so it's no problem for the short term investor, but in the long term it'll harm returns, so it is a problem for the long term investor.

In fact the short term outlook of investing isn't all that new. I'd say it was taking a hold easily by the seventies, so I don't think a long term investment stance could be blamed for an example like GM. I would actually point to more cultural factors for their continued existence despite corporate complacency, and indeed the same cultural factors being responsible for that complacency. I think, up until comparatively recently, the US consumer has been somewhat more nationalistic, desiring to buy "Made in USA", which allowed companies to some extent to put out poorer merchandise. A similar thing happened here, because at one point Britain was the leading manufacturing power in the world, "Made in England" was a badge of pride. Now it's almost a joke, which seems to be a similar trend being experienced in the US. Everyone wanted to buy British, British companies became complacent, and standards dropped. Then people stopped wanting to buy British, because of those poorer standards, which put the end to a lot of British industry.

For instance, we went from having some of the best car manufactures in the world, to having virtually none. Nearly all (outside of short run specialist like Caterham or Lotus) are now owned by American, German and even Indian and Chinese firms. In the sixties British cars were some of the best, in the seventies the manufactures just didn't try, and by the eighties they were all in difficulties.

It's the reverse of what happened with BMW's, they were brilliant in the late sixties and seventies, by modern ones are just feeding off of that reputation. They're a victim of their own success.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/26/india.movie.slumdog.c
hildren/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Young 'Slumdog' stars back in Mumbai slums

From Mallika Kapur
CNN

MUMBAI, India (CNN) -- On Sunday night, Azharuddin Ismail and Rubina Ali were in Hollywood, California, getting celebrity treatment as eight Oscars were awarded to the movie they starred in, "Slumdog Millionaire."

Thursday night, the two children were sleeping at home in Mumbai, India. Azharuddin sleeps under a plastic sheet in a shantytown beside a railway track, where the smell of urine and cow dung lingers in the air. Rubina sleeps with her parents and siblings in a tiny shack beside an open drain.

THIS is the problem of capitalism and profit. THIS is not extreme capitalism, it's essential capitalism, with the niceties removed.

That's a LIE...

Without the ESSENTIAL capitalist profit motive that enables film production , these children would have never had opportunity to bring the world's attention to their plight , or the plight of others like them...

You have to do better than cherry-pick just the parts of the story that you want told...

Hey , these kids have had their consciousness expanded , they've seen a larger world , jet aviation , international travel , Oscar's red carpet and rubbing elbows with Hollywood stars...

They've partied , been to Disneyland , seen firsthand the bounty of capitalist dreams , and have been given something to which they may aspire and work to fulfill...

Then they've gone back to India , and they're 'moving up' :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7909660.stm

'...There was an outcry when it was found they were still living there after the success of the Oscar-winning film.

An official said the children had "brought laurels to the country" and deserved to be rewarded.

Local housing association chairman Amarjeet Singh Manhas added: "Since the children have made the nation proud, they must be given free houses.

"The chief minister of the state has approved this." '

CITIZEN

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Local housing association chairman Amarjeet Singh Manhas added: "Since the children have made the nation proud, they must be given free houses.

"The chief minister of the state has approved this." '

How is being given a free house capitalist?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:50 PM

That they are 'moving up' is not due to the wages they earned making the film. 'Moving up' is due to non-capitalistic factors like - ahem - government intervention. And all the other 'benefits' you point to are also due to non-wage factors - in other words, non-capitalistic outfall.

If they had merely worked in a film that made money for the investors but DIDN'T earn any awards, they would still be in the shit-hole (literally) they've been living in all this time.

And more generally, the SLUMS they live in are a DIRECT result of capitalism in its purest form.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:54 PM

" How is being given a free house capitalist ? "

It's not...

The point is that none of the opportunity could have happened without the capitalist action of producing a film with a profit motive...

A fact which is self-evident to most .

If you read the story , then you know that the politicians have been basically shamed into improving the plight of a couple of these little kids...

Sometimes small actions are the beginning of social reforms...Gandhi started small , too...

RUE

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:58 PM

You are terribly confused. The opportunities were NON-CAPITALISTIC. Capitalism didn't provide them. Therefore, they are not benefit of CAPITALISM.

Or, if that's too confusing for you, let me put it this way: without the government and the awards, the film would have been a gateway to --- nothing.

Capitalism DID provide the slums they live in, though.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That they are 'moving up' is not due to the wages they earned making the film. 'Moving up' is due to non-capitalistic factors like - ahem - government intervention. And all the other 'benefits' you point to are also due to non-wage factors - in other words, non-capitalistic outfall.

If they had merely worked in a film that made money for the investors but DIDN'T earn any awards, they would still be in the shit-hole (literally) they've been living in all this time.

And more generally, the SLUMS they live in are a DIRECT result of capitalism in its purest form.

See there , Rue ? Your first lie requires the telling of many more...

As always , your results are skewed by the assumptions that you make , and your telling only the part of the story that supports your assumptions...

Who paid for all the corollary benefits the kids received during their outing to the United States ?

Wasn't the Commies or Socialists , it was the Capitalists AND their customers...

But , you characterize that falsely , too , and invent terms like "non-capitalistic outfall"...

Your 'doublethink' requires your 'doublespeak' , yet again...

And , vice-versa...

No wonder you're confuzzled...

The proof is in the fact that you contradict yourself in a single post...

WULFENSTAR

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:06 PM

Profit equals theft, like consensual sex equals rape, to some of these morons.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Profit equals theft, like consensual sex equals rape, to some of these morons.

EXACTLY !

Amen , Brother...

RUE

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:50 PM

"The boy's father, Mohammed, who suffers from tuberculosis, told The Times of India: "We have barely got any money from the film-makers. In fact, whatever came, has already been spent.

Critics called the housing gift a political move ahead of a general election, Indian media reported.

Around half of Mumbai's population live in slums and authorities in the state of Maharashtra have long been under pressure to improve conditions there."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:50 PM

And --- I'm wondering if you can answer this --- WHO paid for the trip to Disneyland ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2009 10:57 PM

Quote:
Since I've not argued for or against it in any way, the only thing I clearly don't know is the basis for this outburst.

Sorry Cit!!!!

A complete misunderstanding on my part!

Please forgive!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 27, 2009 11:00 PM

Quote:
Profit equals theft, like consensual sex equals rape, to some of these morons.-Wulf

EXACTLY ! Amen , Brother... - O2B

Opinion and ad hominem masquerading as fact? Have you joined the Crapo School of Logic and Rhetoric???

Wulf and O2B says so. AND they agree!! Must be true!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Friday, February 27, 2009 11:04 PM

"Opinion and ad hominem masquerading as fact?"

NO - it's personal, since neither has any concept of actual discussion of actual topics.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 27, 2009 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
The point is that none of the opportunity could have happened without the capitalist action of producing a film with a profit motive...

A fact which is self-evident to most .

Ahh. Yeah, the Capitalist film drew attention to their situation, which is more or less just a matter of it making it harder for us to ignore, but I think attributing the change in their circumstances as all being down to Capitalism is a bit much. Their present situation was brought to light through a capitalist endeavour, but it's not being changed by one. That is, Capitalism isn't doing anything about it.

Though really what is happening is all bullshit anyway. The government is giving them a house, so we can all go back to ignoring everyone else in that predicament, and feel good about a charitable job well done. Ah well.

CITIZEN

Friday, February 27, 2009 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sorry Cit!!!!

A complete misunderstanding on my part!

Please forgive!

No problem.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:11 AM

Here's an intertesting tidbit:

"A Time poll in 2000 found that 19 percent of Americans thought they were among the richest one percent of Americans, and another 20 percent expected they would get there one day."

I'm guessing they're mostly of one particular political party.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

GEEZER

Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

MUMBAI, India (CNN) -- On Sunday night, Azharuddin Ismail and Rubina Ali were in Hollywood, California, getting celebrity treatment as eight Oscars were awarded to the movie they starred in, "Slumdog Millionaire."

Thursday night, the two children were sleeping at home in Mumbai, India. Azharuddin sleeps under a plastic sheet in a shantytown beside a railway track, where the smell of urine and cow dung lingers in the air. Rubina sleeps with her parents and siblings in a tiny shack beside an open drain.

But India is much closer to being a Socialist country than, say, the U.S. How could such a thing happen in a near-Socialist country?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:31 AM

India is not anywhere near being socialist.

But again, you're not addressing countries on the same timescale, something I invited you to do many posts above.

If you were a common person, where would your quality of life be higher - India, or China ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:45 AM

Since I can't wait, here's the answer:

"In 2007, the per capita PPP-adjusted GDP for India was US$ 2,659. These figures can be compared to $ 5,292 for neighbouring China."

***************************************************************

Please note: the average person makes more money in communistic China than in capitalistic India.

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:21 AM

So Geezer

You're a sporting person, right ? Want to go double or nothing for bragging rights ?

If you were an average person, where would you have a better quality of life - Cuba, or Haiti ?

I can wait on your answer for a few days.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

I'm still up for this discussion if you are. Or is this thread already lost in the obligatory, senseless grudge-match?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GEEZER

Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So Geezer
If you were an average person, where would you have a better quality of life - Cuba, or Haiti ?

If by talking timescale, you mean when a country was colonized by Europeans, then the whole Western Hemisphere is within a century, more or less. Sorta makes your Cuba/Haiti choice look like cherry-picking.

But let's just limit it to the Carribbean, since they're all pretty close.

Aside from Key West, which is just 90 miles from Cuba, and where I really wouldn't mind living, theres these(running kinda northwest to southeast):
Country -------- GDP Per Capita (per CIA World Factbook)
Bahamas -------- 29,900
Cuba ----------- 12,700
Cayman Islands - 43,800
Jamaica--------- 7,700
Turks & Caicos - 11,500
Bermuda -------- 69,900
Haiti----------- 1,400
Dom. Rep. ------ 8,800
Puerto Rico----- 18,700
Virgin Isl (Br)- 38,500
Virgin Isl (US)- 14,500
St. Kitts/Nevis- 20,000
Antigua/Barbuda- 19,100
Dominica ------- 9,500
St. Lucia ------ 11,300
St. Vincent ---- 9,200
Grenada -------- 13,600
Trinidad/Tobago- 28,400
Aruba ---------- 21,800

Couldn't list GINI Index or Household Income since Cuba doesn't show them in Nationmaster or CIA World Factbook, so GDP per Capita is pretty much it.

One other advantage most of these places have over Cuba is that you can leave when you want and return when you want.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:48 PM

I'm a little curious Signy and Rue. What do you two do with your "profit"?

GEEZER

Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

Latin lessons for the consumer, beginning with
Caveat Emptor.

Was listening to This American Life on NPR this morning, and they mentioned that the total private debt in the U.S. is currently about equal to the GDP (14 trillion or so), up from 20% of GDP in the '40s/50s. The last time debt equaled GDP was...1929. Didn't mention the rest of the world, but based on the collapse of economies world-wide I'd expect similar figures.

(Also made the point that maybe since we have so much debt already, encouraging the banks to loan more might not be the best idea, but that's another issue.)

How could people who had the least idea of budget get in that much debt? I propose that they didn't have even the least idea.

Another segment of TAL talked about folks who are buying up toxic mortgages for $.50 on the dollar, say $200,000 on a $400,000 loan, and offering the homeowners a new mortgage on $250,000. 3/4 of the homeowners can't even afford that with payments just a bit more than half of what they originally signed on for.

Sure, the banks encouraged these folks to take risky loans, but didn't they have the sense to sit down with a pencil and paper and do a little figuring on what their costs vs. income would be?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Was listening to This American Life on NPR this morning, and they mentioned that the total private debt in the U.S. is currently about equal to the GDP (14 trillion or so), up from 20% of GDP in the '40s/50s. The last time debt equaled GDP was...1929. Didn't mention the rest of the world, but based on the collapse of economies world-wide I'd expect similar figures.

US private debt is actually slightly higher now than it was in 1929, by percentage of GDP terms.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
How could people who had the least idea of budget get in that much debt? I propose that they didn't have even the least idea.

That's a lot of people. Private debt would presumably include Private corporations, such as for instance, banks.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Sure, the banks encouraged these folks to take risky loans, but didn't they have the sense to sit down with a pencil and paper and do a little figuring on what their costs vs. income would be?

By the same token, didn't the banks have the common sense to work out whether they'll ever see all that money of theirs they were handing over? Who's the more stupid, the person who takes a loan they can't afford, or the one that hands over money they'll never see again?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Who's the more stupid, the person who takes a loan they can't afford, or the one that hands over money they'll never see again?

The one who bails both of them out afterwards.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The one who bails both of them out afterwards

Isn't that you :p

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The one who bails both of them out afterwards

Isn't that you :p

Indeed.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:28 PM

"I'm a little curious Signy and Rue. What do you two do with your 'profit'?"

I don't make a 'profit'. And I'm smart enough to know that the money I make by working is a 'wage' - not a 'profit'.

You see, unlike you, I know what a profit is, and who makes it. And unless you own a business, it's not you either. It's the place you work for.

***************************************************************

Enjoy your life making the owner rich.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't make a 'profit'. And I'm smart enough to know that the money I make by working is a 'wage' - not a 'profit'.

Do you have any investments? Savings?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:36 PM

Investments ? No. I'm not that stupid. I saw what dubya was going to do to the economy and stayed way, waaaay far away. Thank god.

No savings either - I saw what was going to happen with the banks and stayed waaaay far away from that was well.

And your point ?

Is it that people who HAVE to work for a living are somehow - capitalists ?

Boy, are you silly.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And your point ?

The point is, if you have a savings account, stocks, bonds, an IRA, or anything that earns interest, you are a capitalist. A "silly" one if you like, but a capitalist nonetheless.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:01 PM

"if you have a savings account, stocks, bonds, an IRA, or anything that earns interest, you are a capitalist ..."

And that is your problem. You think you are something that you're not. You are one of the 19% who think they are one of the 1% top income earners, or the 20% who think they will be some day.

THIS is a capitalist:

cap·i·tal·ist (kp-tl-st)
n.
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.

A minority owner who is too small an investor to exercise rights of ownership - that's you, me, and everyone else except the very wealthy who can LIVE OFF THEIR INVESTMENTS - are not capitalists.

We need to work day in and day out for our living. That makes us - well, you're a lumpen. I'm not.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:13 PM

Heh... whatever rue.

I'll let you worry about the nomenclature. The point isn't that wages and profits are the same thing. The point is that they are similar in that they are both payment for a service rendered. Despite your contention that capitalists "do nothing", they do provide a valuable service. Its one that a lot of people are ignorant of, but when you propose taking profits out of the mix, you realize very quickly the services they provide. At that point, you either have to replace those functions somehow, or let everything grind to a halt.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:27 PM

Morlocks and Loti, innit, really ?

Wrote a wonderfully blistering letter earlier about the irony of the CEOs most responsible for the tanking of the auto industry whining about union laborers being lazy and greedy - when they do actually managed to still do their jobs, which is building the product, and have taken numerous pay and benefit cuts, while the CEOs who make a thousand times more have utterly failed in their jobs, which is keeping the company running, get massive bonuses and huge severance packages.

Henry Ford was a bastard, but this much is true, unless your employees can afford to buy your product, they're underpaid - and these days who else BUT UAW members can afford those massive gas guzzling SUV's the big three keep churning out to rot on dealer lots while the public howls for a fuel efficient econobox ?

Foreign companies have the edge on us with hybrid and electrics - which are still so damn expensive you don't save any money when you can buy some used vehicle of moderate efficiency and come out even further ahead - so what they SHOULD have done, and still could do, is come out with a bare bones high efficiency four-banger with the old school CVH rattlebox and market it to the Student/Second Car/In Town Car demographic.

And golly gee, don't ya know, some internet jerk can say this - why didn't it occur to folks paid a thousand times more to know it, ehe ?

Never reward incompetence, it just encourages it - half the reason the big three are at this point is KNOWING the Gov would step in and bail em out no matter how badly they screwed it, and we really should put an end to that.

The concept of wage scale imho should be related to how much value was added to the materials or product by your efforts, and in the case of said CEOs, who's actions REMOVED value from the product, I would be presenting their ass with a bill, not a salary!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:28 PM

"The point is that they are similar in that they are both payment for a service rendered."

Not at all. A profit is the fallout of an investment of money. No WORK is required. That's what makes it different from a wage.

But whatever. If your ego requires it tell yourself that even though you work for your money, you're really a capitalist. I'm not going to stand in your way.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But whatever. If your ego requires it tell yourself that even though you work for your money, you're really a capitalist. I'm not going to stand in your way.

LOL. You really can't have a discussion without petty insults, can you?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GEEZER

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not at all. A profit is the fallout of an investment of money. No WORK is required. That's what makes it different from a wage.

If only it were that easy. Most entrepreneurial capitalists I know not only invest their money, but work quite hard to make their businesses a success. It's easy to cherry-pick examples from recent news, but there's still a lot of capitalist folks out there who put in a bunch of hours successfully managing and growing their businesses. Ben & Jerry come to mind.

Edit to add: Decided where in the Caribbean you wanna live yet? I'm thinking Aruba or the (combined) Virgin Islands.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't make a 'profit'. And I'm smart enough to know that the money I make by working is a 'wage' - not a 'profit'.

That's why I used quotation marks for profit.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You see, unlike you, I know what a profit is, and who makes it. And unless you own a business, it's not you either. It's the place you work for.

Just trying a little thought experiment. In the other thread it was postulated that profit only comes about because the capitalist short changes his/her workers. That the capitalist is somehow in the wrong for not breaking even. I was just curious as to how this thinking impacts your life and the choices you make. Does your income exactly match your expenditures? Are you a greedy person if they do not? Who sets the guidelines regarding how much profit is too much?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Sunday, March 1, 2009 5:31 PM

Bump for Rue and Signy.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, March 2, 2009 4:24 PM

Wonders if Rue and Signy are busy bump.

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, March 2, 2009 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Wonders if Rue and Signy are busy bump.

The SickyNym-RueTard Axis are MIA , presumed killed...

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:27 AM

I've seen them around these parts lately, just not this thread in particular. I wonder why?

RUE

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:34 AM

Hey trolls ! Over HEEEeeeeere !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:36 AM

"In the other thread it was postulated that profit only comes about because the capitalist short changes his/her workers. That the capitalist is somehow in the wrong for not breaking even."

Breaking even and making a profit are not the same. This is how it works out in deep mathematical jargon:

PROFIT: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = extra money
BREAKING EVEN: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = 0

And, to be complete

LOSS: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = in the hole

***************************************************************

As you can see, making a profit, breaking even, and taking a loss are not the same.

Try coming back with something not quite so hopelessly silly and maybe we'll have something to discuss.

RUE

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:51 AM

So, since I really don't expect much from the trolls, I'm going to continue on my own.

What is the goal of every capitalist ?

It's to continue to make money AFTER the investments are paid off, ABOVE and beyond expenses. In other words, to make free money for no work.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Breaking even and making a profit are not the same. This is how it works out in deep mathematical jargon:

PROFIT: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = extra money
BREAKING EVEN: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = 0

And, to be complete

LOSS: money in - expenses(incl. direct wages) = in the hole

***************************************************************

As you can see, making a profit, breaking even, and taking a loss are not the same.

Try coming back with something not quite so hopelessly silly and maybe we'll have something to discuss.

Well thank-you for your complete dodge of the question. Let me know when you are willing to discuss the present topic and not throw up another smoke screen.

RUE

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:32 AM

See the quote of yours that I included ? Doesn't it equate profit with breaking even ? And isn't that wrong ?

If you have some OTHER topic in mind - besides what you posted - it would be really nice of you to clue to rest of us in.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
See the quote of yours that I included ? Doesn't it equate profit with breaking even ? And isn't that wrong ?

If you have some OTHER topic in mind - besides what you posted - it would be really nice of you to clue to rest of us in.

Let's try this again.

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Just trying a little thought experiment. In the other thread it was postulated that profit only comes about because the capitalist short changes his/her workers. That the capitalist is somehow in the wrong for not breaking even. I was just curious as to how this thinking impacts your life and the choices you make. Does your income exactly match your expenditures? Are you a greedy person if they do not? Who sets the guidelines regarding how much profit is too much?

In this very thread, you mused that profit comes about because the capitalist does not give the worker the full value of their work. So in your opinion, no capitalist should ever make a profit because they are robbing their employees to make it. So if there is no profit to be made, where is the incentive to start a capitalistic venture? If there is no reward, why take the risk?
I tried to personalize the scenario to get a better understanding of where you are coming from.
If your 'profit' or income is greater than your expenditures, why can it not be the same for the capitalist?
If you want to get ahead, why should it not be the same for the capitalist?

Say you have been buying milk from the same store for a number of years. Then one day you find milk at another store for less money. Do you continue to buy the more expensive milk or do you start to buy the cheaper milk? Do you go to the store with the cheaper milk but pay them extra to make up the difference with the more expensive store?

Now say a capitalist has employees making widgets a certain way for a number of years. Then new technology comes about which makes the same quality widgets but faster and less expensively. Should the capitalist continue to make widgets the old fashioned way or invest in the new technology? Should the capitalist invest in the new technology yet pay the workers the difference even though their jobs are now easier?

If you are a good person for providing for your family at the lowest cost why is it not the same for the capitalist providing for their family (investors)?

Is it simply the numbers we are dealing with that are tripping you up? You see the capitalist as having too much money. Would someone in a much lower tax bracket than you think the same of you?
Do you live in a house? Could you live in a smaller house? Do you drive a car? Could you take the bus instead?

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 5:32 PM

Stop that!

Profit is only something acquired by the rich and powerful (and evil) for doing nothing at all.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 5:33 PM

dp

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 5:43 PM

Quote:
In this very thread, you mused that profit comes about because the capitalist does not give the worker the full value of their work. So in your opinion, no capitalist should ever make a profit because they are robbing their employees to make it. So if there is no profit to be made, where is the incentive to start a capitalistic venture? If there is no reward, why take the risk?

There are a lot of misunderstandings in your post.

I've been excruciatingly busy and need to catch up, but I'd definitely like to get back on this.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 5:45 PM

Quote:
The SickyNym-RueTard Axis are MIA , presumed killed...

As always, thank you for your logical, factual insight.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 5:47 PM

Quote:
If only it were that easy. Most entrepreneurial capitalists I know not only invest their money, but work quite hard to make their businesses a success.

Yes, but since I know that you're smart enough to mentally disentangle these concepts, why don't you give it a try???

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:17 PM

Quote:
The point is that they are similar in that they are both payment for a service rendered.

Your ignorance of capitalism is inexcusable considering that you're so vehement in its defense.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Your ignorance of capitalism is inexcusable considering that you're so vehement in its defense.

Nice...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:54 PM

Sorry, just playing your game.

Too busy for a detailed rebuttal.

Still, you apparently really DON'T know anything about capitalism!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sorry, just playing your game.

My game!?!? Ahem...

Anyway, I know enough about capitalism to recognize the part that investors and owners play. Far from "doing nothing" they fill an important role that can't just be done away with. As I've spelled out in previous posts, they make crucial decisions that seek to satisfy consumers' needs and wants. Profit is their compensation for making theses calls correctly.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:16 PM

Quote:
Was listening to This American Life on NPR this morning, and they mentioned that the total private debt in the U.S. is currently about equal to the GDP (14 trillion or so), up from 20% of GDP in the '40s/50s. The last time debt equaled GDP was...1929.

There are two figures I've been trackng for the last couple of decades (yes, decades); income disparity and private debt. (BTW Geezer if private debt = GDP, how can you claim that typical household net worth is positive? The answer is- you can't.)

The two are inextricably related. When I saw that income disparity was reaching 1929 proportions (about three years ago) I got a 1929-size butt pucker. Job creation is pulled by consumption, not pushed by investment (Who would be fool enough to create jobs without the glimmer of a market?) In purely Keynsian fashion, Greenspan thought he make up for loss of purchasing power by growing the money supply through artificially low interest-rates*. What he did was set off a bubble of horrific proportions. What you don't realize is that all of that leveraged "funny money" flooding the economy... THAT was inflation. THAT was when the dollar was destroyed.

Economists (except Roubini and several others) thought that the world economy would "decouple". How the frak did they think THAT???? Every capitalist economy needs a consumer who WILL consume beyond their earnings, because otherwise the friggin' economy collapses! And the USA filled that role: World's Stupidest Consumer. They (we) followed Bush's exhortation to Go forth and SHOP! Well, now that we're not shopping so much, China, Japan, and Germany are wondering who's gonna buy their sh*t.

* Greenspan thought that bankers' self-interest would keep them from going too far out on a limb. He said that given control of interest rates he could even stop a Kondratieff Winter (great depression). Looks like he was wrong on both counts.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:35 PM

Quote:
Anyway, I know enough about capitalism to recognize the part that investors and owners play. Far from "doing nothing" they fill an important role that can't just be done away with. As I've spelled out in previous posts, they make crucial decisions that seek to satisfy consumers' needs and wants. Profit is their compensation for making theses calls correctly.

Okay, I have a little more time.

It's very clear that profit is killing the system which creates it. Taking a percentage money out of circulation at each turn of the production-consumption cycle brings the system closer and closer to collapse, because people simply don't have the money to consume what they've just produced. Eventually, you wind up... where we are now: with the collapse of debt-financed economy.

However, there is another more benign name for not consuming everything that you have produced, and it's called savings.

Whether you all it savings or profit, it is a sequestration of money from circulation, and therefore you better have a damn good reason to take money OUT of circulation, because you're going to have to make up for it somehow. At THIS stage of our production technology we really don't need to "improve production". In a world where billions are unemployed or under-employed, the drive for constantly improving productivity is simply based on the drive for increased profit, not for any real NEED to "do more with less". IMHO the only valid areas are research and infrastructure. And that requires far less "profit" (or "savings") than is currently being skimmed out of circulation: prolly less than 2%. We could tolerate a 2% inflation rate, if we needed to.

AFA "investment"... quite often the businessperson starts up a business with other peeps money, typically a loan, but sometimes a bond or IPO. Its really the lender/ investor who is taking the risk, not the business-owner. Even then there is no reason to "make money" on money. Interest rates could be simply set to reflect the average risk (based on the failure rate of that particular sector.)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
If you are a good person for providing for your family at the lowest cost why is it not the same for the capitalist providing for their family (investors)?

Actually the investors would be the Capitalists.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's very clear that profit is killing the system which creates it. Taking a percentage money out of circulation at each turn of the production-consumption cycle brings the system closer and closer to collapse, because people simply don't have the money to consume what they've just produced. Eventually, you wind up... where we are now: with the collapse of debt-financed consumption/ economy.

I'm not seeing any cause and effect in what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that increased savings will lead to inflation, though not sure how that would play out. Doesn't the opposite usually happen? And how does that connect with debt financed consumption?

Quote:
Whether you all it savings or profit, it is a sequestration of money from circulation, and therefore you better have a damn good reason to take money OUT of circulation, because you're going to have to make up for it somehow.

Really? People can only save money if they have a "damned good reason"? So who get's to decide?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Was listening to This American Life on NPR this morning, and they mentioned that the total private debt in the U.S. is currently about equal to the GDP (14 trillion or so), up from 20% of GDP in the '40s/50s. The last time debt equaled GDP was...1929.
There are two figures I've been trackng for the last couple of decades (yes, decades); income disparity and private debt.

...When I saw that income disparity was reaching 1929 proportions (about three years ago) I got a 1929-size butt pucker. Job creation is pulled by consumption, not pushed by investment (Who would be fool enough to create jobs without the glimmer of a market?) In purely Keynsian fashion, Greenspan thought he make up for loss of purchasing power by growing the money supply through artificially low interest-rates*. What he did was set off a bubble of horrific proportions. What you don't realize is that all of that leveraged "funny money" flooding the economy... THAT was inflation. THAT was when the dollar was destroyed.

Economists (except Roubini and several others) thought that the world economy would "decouple". How the frak did they think THAT???? Every capitalist economy needs a consumer who WILL consume beyond their earnings, because otherwise the friggin' economy collapses! And the USA filled that role: World's Stupidest Consumer. They (we) followed Bush's exhortation to Go forth and SHOP! Well, now that we're not shopping so much, China, Japan, and Germany are wondering who's gonna buy their sh*t.

* Greenspan thought that bankers' self-interest would keep them from going too far out on a limb. He said that given control of interest rates he could even stop a Kondratieff Winter (great depression). Looks like he was wrong on both counts.

The inflation is BUILT INTO the system , since the establishment of the International Bankster FEDERAL RESERVE in 1913 , at which time the EVIL TWIN collection mechanism , Internal Revenue Service , was also set into motion , to pay the INTEREST on the DEBT...

It only took them 20 years , 'til 1933 , to CRASH the SYSTEM , and put the United States into receivership ; hence the outlawing of LAWFUL MONEY (Gold), and the subsequent uptake of the other Lawful MONEY , SILVER , in the Interim between THEN and NOW...

As before , the Solution remains ther same : Disestablish the Bankster-Controlled Private Bank 'FEDERAL RESERVE' , and re-establish the States' Sovereign LAWFUL MONEY...

'Financial Disarmament

There are no solutions under the prevailing global financial architecture. Meaningful policies cannot be achieved without radically reforming the workings of the internaional banking system.

What is required is an overhaul of the monetary system including the functions and ownership of the central bank, the arrest and prosecution of those involved in financial fraud both in the financial system and in governmental agencies, the freeze of all accounts where fraudulent transfers have been deposited, the cancellation of debts resulting from fraudulent trade and/or market manipulation.

People across the land, nationally and internationally must mobilize. This struggle to democratise the financial and fiscal apparatus must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries. What is ultimately required is to disarm the financial establishment:

-confiscate those assets which were obtained through fraud and financial manipulation.

-restore the savings of households through reverse transfers

-return the bailout money to the Treasury, freeze the activities of the hedge funds.

- freeze the gamut of speculative transactions including short-selling and derivative trade.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12517

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:37 PM

"Slumdog Millionaire" and Its Critics

When "Slumdog Millionaire" won the Oscar last month for Best Picture, residents of Mumbai's slums celebrated. In contrast, Indian activists and intellectuals who have decried the movie for its portrayal of poverty and violence and its alleged exploitation of child actors and slum dwellers lamented the victory.
Some critics even lobbed the charge of "cultural imperialism," claiming that the movie is a flawed Western interpretation of Mumbai. This claim, however, overlooks both the film's basic faithfulness to the novel by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup on which it is based and Bollywood's own tradition of uplifting stories.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and editor of Lessons from the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit, defends the film from such Indian critics.

"The charge that 'Slumdog Millionaire' exploits Mumbai's poverty is so absurd that by the same token Charles Dickens' entire body of work would have to be invalidated as a defamation of 19th-century England," Vargas Llosa writes. "Like all accomplished stories, 'Slumdog Millionaire'is probably resonating with audiences because it gives a glimpse of complex truths and tells us something about ourselves that we had trouble defining. In that sense, the Motion Picture Academy did not honor a 'foreign' film, but one strangely familiar."

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2442

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:54 PM

Edit:

Quote:
I'm not seeing any cause and effect in what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that increased savings will lead to inflation, though not sure how that would play out. Doesn't the opposite usually happen? And how does that connect with debt financed consumption

It's a multi-step process, involving the "politics" end of political economics. As I'm about tell O2B, there have been regular deep recessions/ depressions with major currency dislocation throughout the USA history of capitalism: 1837, 1873, 1929, (minorly 1981 with the S&L debacle), 2008. Didn't matter whether the currency was on a gold standard or whether "The Fed" existed. In previous depressions the govt stood pat on currency. "Money" (currency) became EXTREMELY valuable, the problem was that ordinary peeps simply didn't have it (physically). So they were driven out of their homes and starved. That's where the "You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold" came from: WJ Bryan was arguing to go the silver standard (basically, arguing for increasing the money supply, amking it available to people who didn't have it).

In the great depression of 1929, Roosevelt took a clue from Keynes (a British economist) who said that the reason why depressions occurred was because of capital concentration, and that the solution was simply to "create more currency" and inject it at the bottom of the food chain. Unlike the wealthy, who will hoard money, poor people will spend it, which will create jobs, and THOSE people will demand goods and create even more job, getting currency to circulate again. (It was called "pump priming".) So there is nothing inherent about inflation resulting from depressions, it's just policy.

ONE way of growing the money supply is simply to make credit available to people who, until then, didn't have access to it. It's even more insidious than simply printing more money and handing it out.

Quote:
Really? People can only save money if they have a "damned good reason"? So who get's to decide?

Here I am trying to put this in terms ammenable to you and you're (I swear to god) deliberately taking it out of context. The point is that if you TAKE MONEY OUT OF CIRCULATION you better have a damn good reason for it.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

...It's very clear that profit is killing the system which creates it. Taking a percentage money out of circulation at each turn of the production-consumption cycle brings the system closer and closer to collapse, because people simply don't have the money to consume what they've just produced. Eventually, you wind up... where we are now: with the collapse of debt-financed economy.

It's not PROFIT that kills the system , except the BANKSTER-Profit , USURY , and the FED-RESERVE-induced INFLATION...

When you look deeply enough into it , you'll know what ails you...

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:59 PM

Quote:
The inflation is BUILT INTO the system , since the establishment of the International Bankster FEDERAL RESERVE in 1913 , at which time the EVIL TWIN collection mechanism , Internal Revenue Service , was also set into motion , to pay the INTEREST on the DEBT...It's not PROFIT that kills the system , except the BANKSTER-Profit , USURY , and the FED-RESERVE-induced INFLATION...

In the early 1900s "the great depression" was the depression of 1873. Previous to that, there was the great depression of 1837.

Inflation is the Keynsian "solution" to regularly recurring depressions, but not the cause of them. With or without inflation, ordinary people still fell on starving times.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

OUT2THEBLACK

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 12:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The inflation is BUILT INTO the system , since the establishment of the International Bankster FEDERAL RESERVE in 1913 , at which time the EVIL TWIN collection mechanism , Internal Revenue Service , was also set into motion , to pay the INTEREST on the DEBT...It's not PROFIT that kills the system , except the BANKSTER-Profit , USURY , and the FED-RESERVE-induced INFLATION...
In the early 1900s "the great depression" was the depression of 1873. Previous to that, there was the great depression of 1837.

Inflation is the Keynsian "solution" to regularly recurring depressions, but not the cause of them. With or without inflation, ordinary people still fell on starving times.

...And , the Central Banks were responsible in each case...

Again , check your History before passing judgment...

SignyM has a hard time doing her homework...

OUT2THEBLACK

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 12:02 AM

"Government has within it a tendency to abuse its powers." - -- John C. Calhoun - (1782-1850) American statesman

"By far the most numerous and most flagrant violations of personal liberty and individual rights are performed by governments. The major crimes throughout history, the ones executed on the largest scale, have been committed not by individuals or bands of individuals but by governments, as a deliberate policy of those governments, that is, by the official representatives of governments, acting in their official capacity." -- John Hospers (1918- ) Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, author

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 4:15 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Really? People can only save money if they have a "damned good reason"? So who get's to decide?
Here I am trying to put this in terms ammenable to you and you're (I swear to god) deliberately taking it out of context. The point is that if you TAKE MONEY OUT OF CIRCULATION you better have a damn good reason for it.

It certainly wasn't my intent to take anything out of context. Your statement naturally leads to that question. I'm simply curious what you mean by a "damn good reason" and how that translates into policy, i.e. "who decides?"

Anyway, I'm curious why you haven't answered the questions from CIA, O2B, BigDammNobody and myself about incentives for people to start business or make investments outside of profit. You and rue seem to be suggesting that it's wrong for business owners and investors to make any money from their ventures, so we're asking - how do you expect anyone to pursue such projects without any compensation?

Now, for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that you don't really expect a store owner, for example, to sell their products at cost. I'll assume you recognize their need to cover overhead and related expenses. I'll even assume you realize that they need to provide for their own needs and creature comforts. The question is, who decides how much their efforts are worth? You seem to be suggesting that there is some objective value in the work that they do, with anything else being corrupt "profit", but who determines what that value is?

The other thing you've been ignoring is my point about the service provided by investors and business owners even if they don't provide direct management of their companies. You and rue seem to consider this the evilest form of profit because the beneficiaries "do nothing" to earn it. My point is that they are indeed doing something, they're making important decisions about what projects to pursue, what goods to produce, what resources to collect, etc, etc... As you said, they provide the "top level" management.

If they don't do this, if they simply sit on their money and hoard it, well, you've already outlined how that is bad for all of us. Is it your position that they simply shouldn't be allowed to decide what happens with their own money? Or are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to accrue wealth to begin with, that we should be required to spend everything we make?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 4:36 PM

Quote:
Now, for the sake of discussion, I'll assume that you don't really expect a store owner, for example, to sell their products at cost. I'll assume you recognize their need to cover overhead and related expenses. I'll even assume you realize that they need to provide for their own needs and creature comforts.

First of all, nobody is expected to go into business to LOSE money. Nobody is expected to go into business just so they can kill a lot of time into the venture without recompense.

But the whole concept of "the owner" as the person "at risk" needs to be re-thought. First of all, as mentioned before, a business owner USUALLY goes into business on someone else's money- typically, a loan. Please don't tell me it doesn't work that way: I know peeps who opened an Ethiopian restaurant (have to lease the building, buy industrial kitchen equipment, rennovate, get the necessary licenses incl liquor license etc) and peeps who operate franchises. If someone goes into business on their own money it's usually because the cost of entry (and therefore the risk) is low: consulting, gardening, housecleaning, dogwalking, private-duty nursing.

So generally the people "at risk" are really the INVESTORS and the question is really: Why would an INVESTOR risk their money w/o the lure of SOME sort of gain and the answer is: they wouldn't.

Shit.

Out of time.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But the whole concept of "the owner" as the person "at risk" needs to be re-thought. First of all, as mentioned before, a business owner USUALLY goes into business on someone else's money- typically, a loan. Please don't tell me it doesn't work that way: I know peeps who opened an Ethiopian restaurant (have to lease the building, buy industrial kitchen equipment, rennovate, get the necessary licenses incl liquor license etc) and peeps who operate franchises. If someone goes into business on their own money it's usually because the cost of entry (and therefore the risk) is low: consulting, gardening, housecleaning, dogwalking, private-duty nursing.

So generally the people "at risk" are really the INVESTORS and the question is really: Why would an INVESTOR risk their money w/o the lure of SOME sort of gain and the answer is: they wouldn't.

While I don't disagree with the distinction you're making here, I'm not sure how it applies. I'm not really holding up 'risk' as the primary reason for compensation. It's the scrutiny and judgment that goes into deciding which projects should go forward and which should not. That's the "work" that investors do. Even in a socialist state, this sort of decision making would need to happen. The difference is that the risk element provides a powerful incentive for private investors to get it right. A state official, presumably, wouldn't have such "performance-related" pay.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock