capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28147
PAGE 15 of 28

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Do you have a point? Or do you enjoy blah blah blah as your entire repertoire?

My point is!

If you see me as father time
Then I shall respond in kind
If you see me as the Reaper
Into your soul I shall go deeper

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:06 AM

Quote:
All successful democracies practice some socialism

Democracy is a social system. Socialism (if it ever existed, which it has not) is an economic system, as is capitalism/ financialism. Are you counterposing democracy and socialism? If so, why?

The reason why I think you don't know what "profit" means is because you presented two of KIKI's statements as if they were inherently contradictory. They were...

Quote:
Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll. We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.- KIKI

If you eliminate profit who else is going to run industry? -THGRRI

And it's not to say that people who own businesses shouldn't make money. If they manage the business, they should be paid the full value of that management work. If they work producing things in their business, they should get paid the full value of their labor. And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.-KIKI

You made both these comments in the same statement. How is it you see both these ideas working together? Because you are a moron who is clueless and only wants to bitch, Troll.

Are you saying that if there isn't "profit" in business, people should work for free?

Nobody is suggesting that anyone would or should work "for free". Using Chris as an example, of course he wants to get money for his replicas.. preferably more than he paid for materials, and at least SOME compensation for his time! But getting paid for your work isn't the same as "profit".

Again, using Chris as an example, let assume that he's now working for someone else. They pay for the materials, and sell the product, and Chris gets some portion of the sales, which is less that what he would have gotten had he made and sold by himself. The "other guy" gets money for nothing. THAT'S profit... money for nothing. Chris was the one who was made to "work for free".

AFA who would "run the business" without profit ... accountants count, human resources hires and fires, producers produce, managers manage, stockroom keeps inventory, advertisers advertise. Everyone gets paid for their work, the business runs, and there isn't an owner in sight.

AFA "profit" being replaced by something "better"... so far, profit doesn't seem to have been replaced by anything - either better OR worse. Do you have a specific example? If not, I'm going to have to conclude that you have nothing to say on the topic.

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 12:08 PM

What I said was simple. It does not need all the confusion you bring to explain. My statement speaks for itself and others will read it and judge. I'm comfortable with that. After all you are distorting what was said with double talk.

Example: You say Democracy is a social system. No it's not. It utilizes social programs in the way it functions in much the same way we pursue capitalism. It is not a social system.

Socialism: : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. This scenario does not work in a Democracy.

Your minion suggested we need to eliminate profit in one sentence and suggested a person should be paid what they are worth in the next. In effect if you own a business you should get what you deserve. That is a profit. That is what I pointed out. All your bullshit can't change that.

I've given you more credit than you deserve.

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 8:32 PM

Sorry, I miswrote. What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.

If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.

Quote:
The kind of profit 1kiki is speaking about has been tried and replaced by something better. It's just not to your liking.

Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 8:41 PM

First of all, G, if you're trying to talk about Econ 101, you should stick with Econ 101 definitions of "profit", and not refer to common definitions. In econ, the term "profit" is very clear. Your first objection undercuts your reference to economics. Or your reference to economics undercuts your first point. Either way, it's a stupid point.

Also, you insist that the investor risked time and money. Well, modern-day investors risk no time at all. They put money in a bank, or a fund. Or, if they're a bank, they're not even risking THEIR money, since they get to add zeros to bank accounts and simply create money whole cloth. And if they REALLY screw up, they get a bailout from the gov. Sweet deal, eh??

Once the investor gets a return on his or her money- say, the principal plus inflation plus some extra- does it continue to be a workable system that the investor continues to reap profit ad infinitum for a one-time event? Or does this system create flaws and imbalances that cause the economy to inevitably break down?

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 9:31 PM

Incorporation means to join with something that already exists. There are laws regarding mergers and acquisitions put in place to protect the public and shareholders invested it both entities that are merging, but that has nothing to do with what you are describing. You probably saw somewhere were two nonprofits were incorporating. (Joining together)

Quote:
…signym
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives.

In a democracy you cannot vote to take away someone else’s property. Please do not site one instance. We are talking about the entire nation. And the system you and 1kiki keep referring to is Russia pre Mikhail Gorbachev.

You really do live in your head of fantasies don’t you? I don’t mind that except you preach how things should be along with how others are evil, and it is all based on a complete lack of understanding of how things really work.

Quote:
…signym
Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?

Nope, nothing I wish to elaborate on further.

si shen

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:11 PM

MIKER/THGRRRI

Quote:
Incorporation means to join with something that already exists.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

In the economic sense, to incorporate means "to form a legal corporation"- to make a synthetic human being (incorporare, to make a body). There is nothing natural about corporations... or property, for that matter... as both are defined and enforced by society. In the Founding Fathers' day, the incorporating entity was the state (no, I don't mean The State, I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations. Before that, corporations were a creation of the King... Crown Corporations).

In the Founding Fathers' day, corporations could only deal in one entity - eg, grain, or roadways, but not both. In the Founding Fathers' day, corporations could only exist for a specific number of years- usually about 20-30. Then they expired. Here is what some Founding Fathers had to say about corporations, banks, wealth inequity, and the role of government

Quote:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”- Jefferson

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it." -Adams

"The balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue,is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make the division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates." - Adams

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." -Jefferson

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”- Adams

"Incorporated companies with proper limitations and guards may, in particular cases, be useful; but they are at best a necessary evil only."- James Madison

(They also had some juicy things to say about fiat money and government debt, but that's another story)

Now, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you go off in an unsubstantiated, subjective rant about my "agenda", without ever addressing the points I made.

Yanno, I'm being very patient with you because you haven't been here before, and these ideas are prolly very new to you, but they're very old hat to long-time posters.

Quote:
Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?- Signy

Nope, nothing I wish to elaborate on further.- THGRRI/ MIKER

So, ya got nuthin'. Thought so.

Well, real life calls. Go look up those quotes, you might learn something.

1KIKI

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:24 PM

G

"the advantage or benefit that is gained from doing something" <<< "something"

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

That is not the profit you are looking for. MOVE ALONG.

"Why would he do so if it means he makes less for his family for the same effort?"

The availability of capital comes to mind. Those with more capital dominate those who have less, or none.

Now, let's take a look at YOUR system for its inconsistencies. Did you ever walk through a ghetto? The most memorable times I've walked through one (the same one) were summer and winter. Now in summer there were many many young black males loitering around with nothing to do. In winter the driving snow was blowing in through the broken windows and the curtains were flapping in the wind. The building privided no protection from the weather. So here we have an obvious need to fill, and the labor to do it. Your theory says capitalism will rise to fill the need. Why didn't it?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:49 PM

Quote:
In calculating economic profit, opportunity costs are deducted from revenues earned. Opportunity costs are the alternative returns foregone by using the chosen inputs. As a result, you can have a significant accounting profit with little to no economic profit.

Aren't you proving KIKI's point that modern capitalism/ financialism is geared towards MAXIMUM profit? Because that's what this definition implies... if you aren't making the MAXIMUM profit, then it's a loss - or at least, a cost?

I answered your point about zerohedge in the ISIS thread, where you put it. Why are you looking here? Go look there.

AFA your other points, I have a life and work to do. I'll have to get back to this much, much later.

THGRRI

Monday, June 23, 2014 11:01 PM

G not to worry, it is just time for signym to give her history lesson to confuse what is very simple. Let’s just take the first paragraph in her new post to me.

Quote:
.....signym

In the economic sense, to incorporate means "to form a legal corporation"- to make a synthetic human being (incorporare, to make a body). There is nothing natural about corporations... or property, for that matter... as both are defined and enforced by society. In the Founding Fathers' day, the incorporating entity was the state (no, I don't mean The State, I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations. Before that, corporations were a creation of the King... Crown Corporations).

Her original post was:

Quote:

…signym
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives.

My response was:

Incorporation means to join with something that already exists. There are laws regarding mergers and acquisitions put in place to protect the public and shareholders invested it both entities that are merging, but that has nothing to do with what you are describing. You probably saw somewhere were two nonprofits were incorporating. (Joining together)

Here is the definition of incorporate:

1. To unite (one thing) with something else already in existence: incorporated the letter into her diary.
2. To admit as a member to a corporation or similar organization.
3. To cause to merge or combine together into a united whole.
4. To cause to form into a legal corporation: incorporate a business.
5. To give substance or material form to; embody.

Now check out the history lesson I received on the country and states’ rights. I will not repost the lesson here you have to scroll up and check it out. All trying to convince us we can take peoples business away from them in a democracy while not admitting she does not even know what incorporate means.

Quote:
....signym

I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations.

signym, I think what you are trying to say is states approve the establishment of a corporation. Like congress approves the joining of major corporations today or determines Net Neutrality laws. Not that they created state run corporations. Please do not tell me the IRS is a corporation, it is an agency. What Jefferson is speaking to is corporations that continually merge into mega giants that can not be controlled, which means we need a separation of corporations and state like we do church and state.

si shen

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE