Is profit different from unfair tax? Part 2

[Kidicious]

In the last thread I gave a specific challenge to the right with my opening post. That was to successfully argue that taking profit, rent and interest was fair. My argument was that people without property are denied equal treatment by the system, and that a political and economic system that treats people unequally is unjust.

Several people on the right insist that they were successful. That is absurd. Let me try to help you understand why nothing could be farther from the truth. It doesn’t matter that I was never given the chance to give closing statement. It doesn’t matter that Ming closed the thread only by pronouncing case closed. You lost because none of you even addressed my challenge. You lost by default. I offer you another chance though.

Let’s take a hypothetical example. Let’s say that Vel owns everything needed for his team and another team to play football (American). He finds another team whom doesn’t own these things, my team. Vel recognizes an opportunity when he sees one. Knowing that my team can only play if he agrees to let us play with his property, he forces us to accept his rules of the game. Whenever I score a touchdown Vel’s team gets two of my teams points, and whenever I score a fieldgoal Vel’s team gets one of my teams points.

Can I still win the game? Yes. Is it fair? No.

The argument from the right in the previous thread argued that taking profit is fair because the employee is capable of owning property in the future. This is just like arguing that in my hypothetical example the game is fair because my team has a chance to win. Nothing but complete nonsense, and coming from so many people on the right that I’m simply amazed. Of course my team is not given an equal chance to win the game. Therefore the game is not fair.

Like in the game, people without property are forced to accept an agreement with those with property to work and live. That agreement is to allow the property owners to collect profit, rent and interest while those with no property do what they must to survive.

In time the workers can make sacrifices to own property. Maybe they can one day own more property than those they worked for in the past. Does this make the situation where capitalists collected profit from their employees work fair? Certainly not.

Let’s say that the capitalist made equal sacrifices. Say he worked in his own business just as one of his employees, and he spent the same amount of his compensation on living. That is, he lived just as modestly as the his employee. The capitalist received the full benefit of his own work while collecting part of the benefit of his employees work. His worker only receives the full benefit of his own work minus the amount that the capitalist has collected in profit from employee’s work.

At no point in time will the employee be given equal compensation, because the original deal was never fair. Can the employee escape exploitation? Yes. Is it fair? No. Just because the employee doesn’t have to be exploited anymore, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t exploited in the past. If you think so, there is a problem with your logic. Once again, I give you a very specific challenge. Show that those without property are given equal treatment by the capitalist system. If you can then maybe you can really win the debate. If you can’t don’t bother proclaiming that you have won. You only fool yourself.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh god, not this thread again...

[Arrian]

By the way, genius, Ming closed the other thread because it reached 500 posts. Threads are limited to that number of posts and are then closed. It had nothing to do with who got in the last word. As you can see, you're perfectly able to start a new thread and pick up the discussion again. So your whine about the thread closure was baseless.

Second, as to your "challenge," I do not recall any of us arguing in the other thread that capitalism treats everyone equally. We argued the system was fair & that it worked. The main issue here is what you consider "fair" and what you deem "work." To me, the fact that, under capitalism, everyone isn't economically equal isn't unfair. This is because people have the opportunity to move up the ladder (aka "social mobility"). The system is far from perfect, and some of that has as much to do with our political system as our economic system (corruption in goverment/pork projects, etc), but it beats the heck out of communism. I reject your notions of forced "fairness" as you deem it. Especially given your concept of what "work" is and isn't (our discussion on invention made that very clear to me).

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Why don't the mods close it now, because you don't need to be a prophet to see that it will go to 500 posts with Kid STILL not getting the point.

[Kuciwalker]

Back to the tool analogy:

You make 10 items per day using 10 units of labor and recieve sell each for 1 unit of money, netting you 10 units of money for 10 units of labor. Vel invents and builds a tool that will allow you to produce 20 items per day using only 10 units of labor. So he offers you a choice: give Vel 1 item per day in return for being allowed to use his tool. Let's assume this deal is exploitive. If so, don't take it. Happy now? You can only be exploited if you CHOOSE to be.

[Az]

on the question: I can proudly say, as a socialist, YES.

[Sava]

When profit becomes excessive, it is unfair. I don't think the market system should be applied where it's basic concepts, supply and demand, are not subject to consumer checks and balances. For instance... I think capitalism and the market system is perfect for the manufacturing and distribution of consumer goods and services. The problem, I see, with America is that free marketeers hold the ideology of capitalism above the lives of people. Health care for instance. I don't think it's moral to rely on the market to determine prices for life saving or extending drugs, procedures, or other services and goods. That's asking someone to put a value on a life. I think life is priceless... but yet, companies only care about their profits when it comes to human life... and I believe that's wrong.

I think that certain "industries" should have different systems governing them. For instance, consumer goods should be as free a market as possible. Consumers can dictate prices via the mechanisms of supply and demand. But when it comes to health care, or national security and defense, or energy production, or our transportation and communications infrastructures, I think the absolute most efficient system should be created to suit the respective industry. Profit is inherently inefficient. Beyond normal wages, profit going into the hands of some corporate entity gives no benefit at all.

Because consumer goods aren't necessities, I don't care about the amount of profit companies make selling their goods or services. If people are willing to pay prices for those respective goods or services... demand... then business is welcome to that money. But when demand is a non-issue i.e. health care... I think it's immoral for business to take excessive profit for providing goods or services essential to life.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think the market system should be applied where it's basic concepts, supply and demand, are not subject to consumer checks and balances.

Wait a second... BY DEFINITION supply and demand are subject to consumber checks and balances.

Health care for instance. I don't think it's moral to rely on the market to determine prices for life saving or extending drugs, procedures, or other services and goods.

Well, you know what, why don't we just get rid of those companies altogether? Supply and demand will provide the fair price, and anything under that is inefficient.

[JohnT]

It doesn’t matter that Ming closed the thread only by pronouncing case closed.

Kid, this is what we talk about when we mention your simple avoidance of the facts. Ming closed the thread because it was over 500 posts in length. Period. He closes all threads over 500 posts in length.

[Kuciwalker]

Profit is inherently inefficient. Beyond normal wages, profit going into the hands of some corporate entity gives no benefit at all.

Profit is inherently EFFICIENT, because it is something people aspire to and the easiest way (in a legal environment) to get it is to be efficient. A centrally planned system would OBVIOUSLY be more efficient if you could ensure that the central planners were perfect. However, that is not the case, and if you haven't noticed, the things our government does are notoriously INefficient. Why give them control over the market as well?

[JohnT]

Several people on the right insist that they were successful. That is absurd. Let me try to help you understand why nothing could be farther from the truth.

Are you serious?

Knowing that my team can only play if he agrees to let us play with his property, he forces us to accept his rules of the game. Whenever I score a touchdown Vel’s team gets two of my teams points, and whenever I score a fieldgoal Vel’s team gets one of my teams points.

And conversely? What does Vel get if he doesn't get a team to play him - a lot of extraneous costs and equipment. What the hell does it matter if Vel has a ball and nobody AGREES to play him by his rules?

Once again, you miss the point - there is an agreement between two parties, an agreement that is negotiated prior to any game play. Since you obviously disagree with the terms of the proffered contract, you can now say "take your ball and go home, or give me the same deal as your team."

Regardless, you did offer the challenge of

Show that those without property are given equal treatment by the capitalist system

.

Once again, there's that word - "equal." Now in the other thread you proclaimed that you were satisfied with some sort of unequal equality in a Communist system (I can look it up and link to you your comment if you'd like) - why the Hell is it up to us to prove to you that "our system" achieves unattainable goals that you don't even demand of your ideology?

Get real, Kid.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Let’s take a hypothetical example. Let’s say that Vel owns everything needed for his team and another team to play football (American). He finds another team whom doesn’t own these things, my team. Vel recognizes an opportunity when he sees one. Knowing that my team can only play if he agrees to let us play with his property, he forces us to accept his rules of the game. Whenever I score a touchdown Vel’s team gets two of my teams points, and whenever I score a fieldgoal Vel’s team gets one of my teams points.

Can I still win the game? Yes. Is it fair? No.

The fallacy in your whole argument, whether this example or any other, is that you assume that there is one and only one way for you to acquire the necessary whatever it is, and that is to submit to whatever the Evil Capitalist^TN requires as a condition of your using the Evil Capitalist's stuff.

You reject any consideration that you could buy or make it yourself, get it from somebody else, borrow it from someone else, or in the example you gave above, just tell Vel to go **** himself, divide your football team up into two squads of five guys with one sub, and play basketball instead.

It's complete linear thinking and lack of creativity on your part, which frankly, has typified communist economic planning, and which is among the leading reasons for the ultimate failure of centrally planned economies.

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Profit is inherently inefficient. Beyond normal wages, profit going into the hands of some corporate entity gives no benefit at all.

Profit is inherently EFFICIENT, because it is something people aspire to and the easiest way (in a legal environment) to get it is to be efficient. A centrally planned system would OBVIOUSLY be more efficient if you could ensure that the central planners were perfect. However, that is not the case, and if you haven't noticed, the things our government does are notoriously INefficient. Why give them control over the market as well?

1. You are right... sort of... the motivation of profit encourage lower costs. Unfortunately... this means if you aren't a corporate CEO or business owner, you don't reap the rewards. This means job cuts, quality cuts, so some fat cat can enjoy a few more millions. Hardly "efficient".

2. Because government programs are intentionally sabotaged by underfunding, and then fail, the aura of government inefficiency is created. You're young and impressionable, once you reach college age and learn to think critically, you might understand things better.

[JohnT]

Here's your quotes:

I'm not an idealist John. I don't believe in equilibrium or absolute equality.

No I'm not. I'm arguing for a reasonable amount of equality.

To which I replied:

By definition, there can be no relative equality. Do I even need to insert a rolleyes here?

Whereupon you offered the totally illogical

Ummm... More is better.

Obviously you knew you were being silly with the rolleyes so I didn't take that one seriously.

So, now we have to prove something that you don't demand of yourself.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
You're young and impressionable, once you reach college age and learn to think critically, you might understand things better.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!




Thanks, Sava!

You just made my day. :wipes tears:

[Kuciwalker]

1. You are right... sort of... the motivation of profit encourage lower costs. Unfortunately... this means if you aren't a corporate CEO or business owner, you don't reap the rewards. This means job cuts, quality cuts, so some fat cat can enjoy a few more millions. Hardly "efficient".

Well, the company that cuts jobs and quality (assuming this makes them more efficient in terms of both production and actual sales) and uses the extra money to pay the CEO will either a) get a better-qualified CEO to run their company, so they will then become MORE efficient, or b) lose out to some company that uses the money for other stuff.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

It doesn’t matter that Ming closed the thread only by pronouncing case closed.

Kid, this is what we talk about when we mention your simple avoidance of the facts. Ming closed the thread because it was over 500 posts in length. Period. He closes all threads over 500 posts in length.

No. He closes some later than others. This I know all too well.

[Kuciwalker]

2. Because government programs are intentionally sabotaged by underfunding, and then fail, the aura of government inefficiency is created.

I left out the other part because it was complete BS

Anyway, why would government control of the economy not be subject to the same political effects (deliberate sabotage, etc)? It would be MORE subject to it, in fact (look at farm subsidies).

[JohnT]

Because he's online, 24/7, ever vigiliant, never stopping in his moderating duties, not to sleep, eat, make love, or work, Ming is always on the job ready to close threads at a second notice.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No. He closes some later than others. This I know all too well.

He can only be on so often. Poor kiddy-widdy, is he sad that big bad Ming closes his thready-weady and is out to get him?

(note: if you understood that post, I fear for you sanity )

[rah]

Arggggg, I was hoping when Ming closed it. (BECAUSE IT REACHED 500 POSTS) that it would be done. But nooooo. 500 posts later Kid still hasn't listened to anything and the rest of us are still repeating and frustrating ourselves. I should close this thread just to keep everyone's sanity, but I won't. (MTG would probably open it back up because he's even more stuborn than I am) I thought about saving you all, but you must follow your own destiny. 500 more posts that make sense will NOT budge Kid one milimeter. You can't argue with unthinking fanatics and hope to change their mind. By definition, it can't be done.

You've been warned.

RAH
Embarassed to admit that he too got sucked into the last one.

[JohnT]

I thought about saving you all, but you must follow your own destiny. 500 more posts that make sense will NOT budge Kid one milimeter. You can't argue with unthinking fanatics and hope to change their mind.

It sharpens the mind for the corporate political games to follow in their careers.

And I will say that this thread has provided us with the funniest Sava quote in months, possibly ever. For that reason alone it needs entry into the Thread Hall of Fame.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The fallacy in your whole argument, whether this example or any other, is that you assume that there is one and only one way for you to acquire the necessary whatever it is, and that is to submit to whatever the Evil Capitalist^TN requires as a condition of your using the Evil Capitalist's stuff.

The fallacy in your argument is that if there were a better choice for me to make that I would not choose it. You think that everyone who doesn't profit from the capitalist system is making an irrational choice for themselves. You always think there is some better choice for them to make for themselves. There isn't MtG. Accept it.

[Kuciwalker]

The fallacy in your argument is that if there were a better choice for me to make that I would not choose it. You think that everyone who doesn't profit from the capitalist system is making an irrational choice for themselves. You always think there is some better choice for them to make for themselves. There isn't MtG. Accept it.

If it is your best choice and you still think it is exploitive, hold out for better. Or choose an entirely different arena to play in.

[The Andy-Man]

kid won't let it rest will he.

You atleast have to find his stamina admirable.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The fallacy in your argument is that if there were a better choice for me to make that I would not choose it.

I hope you would, but I wonder sometimes... You're the one who contrives scenarios that exclude a number of typical and viable options, not me.

Tell me this, though - are you still working in the same job, at the same pay, as the first ever job you held? Or have you made some "better choices" along the way? And why are you studying accounting, instead of sitting on your ass smoking dope or collecting stamps or doing taxidermy or working a part time extra job at Mickey D's? I assume you're studying accounting for a reason? And that you made a choice to do so, and that you picked accounting for a reason?

You think that everyone who doesn't profit from the capitalist system is making an irrational choice for themselves.

English comprehension, assumption or distortion? I've said they make a choice, I don't put a value judgement on that. The point is, they make choices.

You always think there is some better choice for them to make for themselves. There isn't MtG. Accept it.

So you're still working at your first job, for the same wages you made then? And I'm still working as a scab laborer in residential construction, making minimum wage. Ok then. "One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small; and the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all..."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
kid won't let it rest will he.

You atleast have to find his stamina admirable.

Yeah, and if he'd apply it to a proper capitalist endeavor, he'd go far with it, assuming he got his mind right.

[Japher]

Bump!!

Seriously.

Kid if you want to continue to whine about how it's "unfair" then your in for a really long life. Instead, if you would study the game and learn to play it you will not only discover that it is fun but also fair. Life is about rewards, get your own...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Let’s say that the capitalist made equal sacrifices. Say he worked in his own business just as one of his employees, and he spent the same amount of his compensation on living. That is, he lived just as modestly as the his employee. The capitalist received the full benefit of his own work while collecting part of the benefit of his employees work. His worker only receives the full benefit of his own work minus the amount that the capitalist has collected in profit from employee’s work.

You're right, it's absolutely unfair. The worker is guaranteed certain things by law, like getting paid, and the worker is free to go at any time to any competing job without notice. The poor capitalist owner is the one who sucks it up if there's financial problems, so he might go without pay if he needs the worker's services, or he loses his ass if the business goes under, while the worker just goes to another job.

The owner is the one who spends uncompensated time doing overhead tasks that don't produce revenue, and he's not guaranteed a profit by anyone, while the worker has contract rights to his wages while he works - the owner doesn't even have that, necessarily.

So damn straight the owner should make more for the additional time, effort and risk he puts in.

[Q Classic]

as to the original question, the answer is still yes, they are different.