Is profit different from unfair tax? Part 2 - Page 4

Kuciwalker · November 5, 2003, 19:30

Kidicious - if you want supply and demand to apply, why are you complicating things by having the GOVERNMENT determine it? Do you have some faith in the efficiency of the GOVERNMENT?

JohnT · November 5, 2003, 19:31

[Kid]

It's not the government, it's the planners, stupid. Read your Marx!

[/Kid]

The Andy-Man · November 5, 2003, 19:36

I think kid is a capitalist under the bed

Kidicious · November 5, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
So, when there is a high demand for something (like food), it gets put up the priority list, ie receives more input from the economy to produce more output to fill the demand. Isn't this what happens already?

You don't move things up on the priority list because the price goes up. The priorities basically remain unchanged. If prices increase for high priority goods and services certainly more should be produced, but if prices increase for low priority goods more production is not so certain. The difference with the way things are now is that goods and services are produced for those able to pay. In the new system ability to pay will not be a prerequisite for high priority goods, because those oods will be produced in sufficient quantity.

Kidicious · November 5, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Kidicious - if you want supply and demand to apply, why are you complicating things by having the GOVERNMENT determine it? Do you have some faith in the efficiency of the GOVERNMENT?

Depends on which government. The US government is efficient when it has adequate resources.

Kuciwalker · November 5, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Depends on which government. The US government is efficient when it has adequate resources.

No, it is effective when it has adequate resources. It isn't efficient.

Kidicious · November 5, 2003, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Depends on which government. The US government is efficient when it has adequate resources.

No, it is effective when it has adequate resources. It isn't efficient.

Have you ever worked in government?

Kuciwalker · November 5, 2003, 20:00

Kid - does it matter (no and no)? Anyone who claims our government is efficient is clearly insane.

Kidicious · November 5, 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Kid - does it matter (no and no)? Anyone who claims our government is efficient is clearly insane.

It does matter. If you worked in government or you knew people who did you would probably feel different. I was in the US Navy and I found it to be as efficient as any business and I have friends and family who work for both the US and California govt.

Kuciwalker · November 5, 2003, 20:05

The military != the government. The military is a whole different ball game, because they are structured differently and, most importantly, have an internally selected hierarchy.

Kuciwalker · November 5, 2003, 20:05

Kid - I'm going to work from the ground up.

First question: do you believe people have a right to property?

Kidicious · November 5, 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
The military != the government.

Whatever.

Kidicious · November 5, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Kid - I'm going to work from the ground up.

First question: do you believe people have a right to property?

Yes. Next question.

Kuciwalker · November 5, 2003, 20:12

If I have a right to property, then how is rent exploitive? I am giving you the CHOICE whether or not to accept a contract in which you pay me every so often in return for a piece of my property. I do not force you to accept the contract, so if you find the terms of the contract exploitive, don't accept them. If you do it of your own free will, it is your fault if you are "exploited".

Kidicious · November 5, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
If I have a right to property, then how is rent exploitive? I am giving you the CHOICE whether or not to accept a contract in which you pay me every so often in return for a piece of my property. I do not force you to accept the contract, so if you find the terms of the contract exploitive, don't accept them. If you do it of your own free will, it is your fault if you are "exploited".

We've been over this. People with property have more choices than people without property in a capitalist system. The result is that the system rewards people with property more. It's simple to me. If you don't see it that way then fine. I will have to accept the fact that I can't change your mind. I'm going to do a bit of studying now.

Kuciwalker · November 5, 2003, 20:20

Quote:

We've been over this. People with property have more choices than people without property in a capitalist system. The result is that the system rewards people with property more. It's simple to me. If you don't see it that way then fine. I will have to accept the fact that I can't change your mind. I'm going to do a bit of studying now.

You aren't working from the ground up, Kid... just explain to me where my proof goes wrong. That means you don't look outside the proof - if everything inside it is correct, the entire thing is correct.

MichaeltheGreat · November 5, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
So you assume they make choices that are not in their best self-interest. You assume they are not rational. My friend you just contradicted your assumptions.

Best self-interest doesn't exist exclusively in the realm of "income." I know people who are priests and teacher and artists, none of which are maximizing their potential incomes, but are nonetheless conscious choices, because these people are doing things important to them. Of course they could make more money in other fields, but that is neither their exclusive nor even their primary criteria.

You only perceive a contradiction because you're far too linear and self-constraining in your thinking.

Quote:

Remember talking about the labor market and you said that higher wages atract workers to the particular job skill? That is the Law of Supply. The Law of Supply is based on the assumption that people are rational. That is they work for more money not less. That is that they make the best choice for themselves.

That is correct. Higher wages will attract more workers. Not all workers, because you're dealing with millions of individuals who have millions of independent sets of criteria (of which income is one) of varying personal importance to themselves. As one example, I could make a lot of money in expert witness work in a number of energy issues. I've done some of it, I don't like it.
Therefore, given that I generally make enough doing other things, I don't pursue expert witness work. Decisionmaking in action.

Quote:

You have no base for your argument. You are just bullshiting. You can't even keep your story straight. You lose.

Shove your attitude up your ass. If you want to debate or discuss, fine. If you want to play games and spin and distort other peoples statements, and then get insulting over your own strawment, then too bad, nobody's likely to play with you.

MichaeltheGreat · November 5, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

We've been over this. People with property have more choices than people without property in a capitalist system. The result is that the system rewards people with property more. It's simple to me. If you don't see it that way then fine. I will have to accept the fact that I can't change your mind. I'm going to do a bit of studying now.

IF you freeze the state of everyone and everything to a single moment in time, you're correct. Bill Gates has more opportunities than I do. 25 years ago, that wasn't necessarily the case. Ten years from now, I'm sure he'll still have a hell of a lot more than I have, but does that limit me? Not at all. In fact, thanks to being "exploited" by Bill and his Evil Operating System Monopoly, and some of his other toys, I'm making a ton of money. Moreso than I would, and with less headaches and time, than if I was playing with Java in a mixed Linux, Unix and Windows environment.

The fact the someone else has more opportunities or more economic power doesn't mean that you have none, or that you have no chance to increase what you do have. Hence, the system is a fair one.

What is unfair is a system like feudalism, where the right to own property is limited to a particular class, the right to practice certain profession is licensed to certain owners (the guilds for various trades) and you have a sel-perpetuating power mechanism (royalty) which decrees who has what economic rights and who doesn't.

MichaeltheGreat · November 5, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

It does matter. If you worked in government or you knew people who did you would probably feel different. I was in the US Navy and I found it to be as efficient as any business and I have friends and family who work for both the US and California govt.

Damn, no wonder you have such a dim view of capitalism, if the only examples of business you've seen are as bad as the Navy and the Cali government.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

We've been over this. People with property have more choices than people without property in a capitalist system. The result is that the system rewards people with property more. It's simple to me. If you don't see it that way then fine. I will have to accept the fact that I can't change your mind. I'm going to do a bit of studying now.

You aren't working from the ground up, Kid... just explain to me where my proof goes wrong. That means you don't look outside the proof - if everything inside it is correct, the entire thing is correct.

You have a right to your property, and we have a right to our property.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Shove your attitude up your ass. If you want to debate or discuss, fine. If you want to play games and spin and distort other peoples statements, and then get insulting over your own strawment, then too bad, nobody's likely to play with you.

You're the sore loser here, not me. You're trying to twist your own argument.

Look, just because I choose to do a certain job doesn't mean that I choose to be exploited. I have no choice in the matter. You are trying to argue that I have a choice to do the job that I want to do and not be exploited doing it.

The fact is that most people don't have a choice of what work to do. They do the work that pays the most, because they don't have a choice. If you make 50,000 instead of 60,000 because you don't like the job that pays 60,000 then you are lucky to have that choice. Most people don't make anything close to that so they have to choose either the job that pays the most or the only job that they can get. There are 9 year old boys rumaging through trash for recyclable material in Indonesia. They aren't choosing to do that instead of expert witness work. Sorry. You're argument is no longer functioning. You lost your base.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
IF you freeze the state of everyone and everything to a single moment in time, you're correct. Bill Gates has more opportunities than I do. 25 years ago, that wasn't necessarily the case. Ten years from now, I'm sure he'll still have a hell of a lot more than I have, but does that limit me? Not at all.

It certainly does limit you. You are limited by the property that you own or don't own in my case. Don't you make that point here?

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In fact, thanks to being "exploited" by Bill and his Evil Operating System Monopoly, and some of his other toys, I'm making a ton of money. Moreso than I would, and with less headaches and time, than if I was playing with Java in a mixed Linux, Unix and Windows environment.

Yes we benefit from the computer and the software that goes along with it. Most of us missed out on all the wealth that was created from it though. I'm sitting here using Windows right now. I need it to post here and to do my school work. That doesn't mean that I'm treated equally by the system. I'm still poor.

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The fact the someone else has more opportunities or more economic power doesn't mean that you have none, or that you have no chance to increase what you do have. Hence, the system is a fair one.

So if I have 1 opportunity and I MAY have 2 opportunities in the fulture that makes the system fair, even though Bill Gates has many more opportunities, and I'm poor?

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What is unfair is a system like feudalism, where the right to own property is limited to a particular class, the right to practice certain profession is licensed to certain owners (the guilds for various trades) and you have a sel-perpetuating power mechanism (royalty) which decrees who has what economic rights and who doesn't.

And it's also unfair when you have a system which does the same thing in effect.

JohnT · November 7, 2003, 11:49

There are 9 year old boys rumaging through trash for recyclable material in Indonesia.

You know, when I brought up the 9 year-old boys in the last thread, you whined that there was nothing that you can do to help them.

Given that your admitted level of compassion for these children goes only as far as you can make use of their miserable existence to score points in online debates, I'm not too sure if you should be throwing rocks on this issue.

JohnT · November 7, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

That doesn't mean that I'm treated equally by the system. I'm still poor.

Wahhhh. Tell me Kid, how are you able to say that with a straight face just one post after talking about Indonesian children rummaging through the trash.

Have you no

?

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

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.

The rich man's burden huh? Just like the white man's burden. High school students have difficulty grasping the way that whites have tried to justify imperialism. If you understand capitalism it's not that hard. Capitalism has been around longer than imperialism and capitalists have been trying to justify it since the beginning. Capitalists justify capitalism by claiming that it is the burden of the rich man to exploit workers the same way that the imperialists (often one in the same) justified imperialism by claiming that it was the white man's burden to conquer the native peoples and exploit them.

It is no burden for imperialists to conquer and exploit because they benefit from it. If it were a burden it would cost them something, but it doesn't. It is no burden for capitalists to exploit workers because it benefits them. Again, if it were a burden it would cost them something. Capitalism doesn't cost the capitalists anything. It is their system, because it benefits them. They're the ones who defend it. It is the workers burden, because they are the ones who pay the cost. All we are proposing is that capitalists no longer have to worry about owning the means of production.

Kidicious · November 7, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

You know, when I brought up the 9 year-old boys in the last thread, you whined that there was nothing that you can do to help them.

You are terribly mistaken. I have a plan to help them, and I intend to pursue that plan. Don't stand in my way.

rah · November 7, 2003, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
It is no burden for imperialists to conquer and exploit because they benefit from it. If it were a burden it would cost them something, but it doesn't. It is no burden for capitalists to exploit workers because it benefits them. Again, if it were a burden it would cost them something. Capitalism doesn't cost the capitalists anything. It is their system, because it benefits them. They're the ones who defend it. It is the workers burden, because they are the ones who pay the cost. All we are proposing is that capitalists no longer have to worry about owning the means of production.

Well that made absolutely no sense. But then, why am I not surprised.

Back to choice.
What choice does a communist have when the planners decide they need ditch diggers and you have to become one? Or are you saying that you will still have the choice not to be a ditch digger?

Arrian · November 7, 2003, 12:34

ECE4 to base: rah has re-engaged. Repeat rah has re-engaged.

-Arrian

David Floyd · November 7, 2003, 12:47

Quote:

ou are terribly mistaken. I have a plan to help them, and I intend to pursue that plan. Don't stand in my way.

Step 1: Set up a communist system and get thugs to steal our money.

Step 2: .....

Step 3: Eliminate poverty.

zippy99 · November 7, 2003, 13:09

This is just unbelievable. Kid, what benefits did Bill Gates have in highschool that you don't now? As far as I can see, you are complaining that you don't have the wealth he has, despite the fact that you have not put in any of the work or taken any of the risks he did.

Sitting doing nothing and complaining that life isn't fair is pathetic. How about inventing a new operating system, working for 20-30 years to make this the world standard and then retire on your billions? Or is that just too much hard work?