Can we Create an America that can Lead the World - Page 9

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 00:22

That's just false Willem.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 00:24

Happens all the time, Duncan. I know it does not fall in line with what you believe, but we see it every week. People coming in with an idea, trying to get a loan, they get rejected.

Next week, here they come again....same idea, more polish and detail.

They get rejected again.

Next week....here they come again, yet more polish and detail.

Persistence pays. I've seen a lot of startups go just exactly that way.

Sure, if you give up, you won't succeed, and why should you?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Happens all the time, Duncan. I know it does not fall in line with what you believe, but we see it every week. People coming in with an idea, trying to get a loan, they get rejected.

Next week, here they come again....same idea, more polish and detail.

They get rejected again.

Next week....here they come again, yet more polish and detail.

Persistence pays. I've seen a lot of startups go just exactly that way.

Sure, if you give up, you won't succeed, and why should you?

-=Vel=-

It depends on all kinds of things. Willem was saying that it happens too everyone. That's just false.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 00:42

Yes...but one thing it *doesn't* depend on is whether or not you're "poor." If you have a sound business plan, and are persistent, you can do it!

In fact, you can do it more easily if you ARE poor, because of all the government grant programs available. I don't qualify for any, cos I make too much money (or so they tell me), but if you have a good idea, and are in a lower paying job, you can get FREE money from the government (up to a quarter of a million bucks, actually!)

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes...but one thing it *doesn't* depend on is whether or not you're "poor." If you have a sound business plan, and are persistent, you can do it!

In fact, you can do it more easily if you ARE poor, because of all the government grant programs available. I don't qualify for any, cos I make too much money (or so they tell me), but if you have a good idea, and are in a lower paying job, you can get FREE money from the government (up to a quarter of a million bucks, actually!)

-=Vel=-

I've heard about those things. I'm not really interested in running a business. I'm sure a lot of people aren't. Some people wouldn't be much good at it. Does that mean they deserve less?

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 02:28

If you won't try for more, then you don't deserve more. That is the principle of capitalism, and it is, IMO, a right minded one.

Why reward people for not trying? And if you do, what sense would it make to try? If you will be rewarded regardless, why bother?

So you don't want to run your own business....okay, if you must make money some way or another, your choices are to work for yourself, or to work for someone else. Alternately, you could steal it, but that then, clearly marks you as a criminal.

So what's it gonna be....either work for you, or work for me, but if you wanna eat, you'll work someplace, yes? Your choice, and based on your decision, and the amount of work you are willing to do/the amount of risk you are willing to take, you will earn lesser or greater rewards.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 02:39

Some people try and fail and not because they are inferior. It's just because of market conditions or their competition was more ruthless than they were.

Capitalism doesn't reward everyone for trying. Sometimes it punishes them. You do know that not everyone could be a business owner. Some people have to be the workers. Even if everyone did get a loan (and there isn't enough money or resources for that) it would still end with unequal outcome.

I'm just not willing to accept that because capitalist A defeats capitalist B that capitalist A should now be able to exploit capitalist B. One reason is that capitalist A is not neccessarily better that capitalist B. Maybe capitalist A had more resources, more connections, better information, or he was just more ruthless and exploitive with his employees.

Mazarin · February 12, 2003, 02:50

in terms of capitalism having "more resources, more connections, better information" or being "more ruthless and exploitive with his employees" means being better

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 02:59

Good point Mazarin.

I'm getting a bit tired, and I think Vel is getting the better of me because of it. Of course, its very late where he is too.l

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 10:06

Your logic is now working against your argument with the following phrase:

I've heard about those things. I'm not really interested in running a business. I'm sure a lot of people aren't. Some people wouldn't be much good at it. Does that mean they deserve less?

Are you not arguing your position from the vantage point that all workers should own what they produce? And if so, does that not, BY DEFINITION, make all workers business owners?

Your argument, is therefore, too full of holes to sustain itself. It is a sinking ship, my friend.

-=Vel=-

Iron Chancellor · February 12, 2003, 10:27

I think this has already been said, but what the hell, it needs to be repeated:

Economics is not a zero-sum gain. My gettting richer does not necessarily make you poorer. If economics was zero-sum, the Industrial Revolution would never have been able to happen, or if it did, it would mean that the capitalists got insanely rich and the workers had to work naked and in caves, eventually starving to death. AND THAT, MY FRIEND, DID NOT HAPPEN!

You can create wealth, it's not impossible. It happens every day around you. There is no limit on the wealth capable of being created by those with determination and ingenuity.

Willem · February 12, 2003, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

I'm just not willing to accept that because capitalist A defeats capitalist B that capitalist A should now be able to exploit capitalist B. One reason is that capitalist A is not neccessarily better that capitalist B. Maybe capitalist A had more resources, more connections, better information, or he was just more ruthless and exploitive with his employees.

The chances are that Capitalist B is not being exploited because he's off trying to get another idea of his off the ground. Entrepeneurs don't generally take defeat easily, if they fail they'll dust themselves off and try again, maybe with some other product. That's what made them entrepeneurs in the first place.

Now you've been talking alot about capitalism exploiting workers, but what about communism? If I work my butt off and yet I still get paid the same amount as the guy next to me that only does half what I do, is that not exploitation? What about the politburo driving around in a limousine and attending fancy state dinners? Why should my labour be applied to his luxurious lifestyle, while I'm stuck with just an average wage, with no hope of improving my situation?

Willem · February 12, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Good point Mazarin.

I'm getting a bit tired, and I think Vel is getting the better of me because of it. Of course, its very late where he is too.l

He's getting the better of you because he has a better argument. It seems everytime we prove one of your ideas wrong, you switch the focus so you don't have to examine what we have to say.

Willem · February 12, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

It depends on all kinds of things. Willem was saying that it happens too everyone. That's just false.

No, I distinctly said that the ones who keep trying are the ones who eventually get the loan. You have a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths and twisting them to suit your own view.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 10:58

Thanks Willem!

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 12, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

Thanks Willem!

-=Vel=-

How many times does the guy have to admit he can't refute an argument before he sees that his ideals aren't practical?

Arrian · February 12, 2003, 11:32

I see you fellas have continued to fight the good fight.

Well done. Duncan, having reviewed the last several pages in this thread, it appears to me that you want something for nothing, and that's the basis for your ideology. What can I say to that besides... I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

-Arrian, fish hook maker & future King of the world!

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 11:50

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 12, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
I see you fellas have continued to fight the good fight.

Well I realize I'm probably wasting my time, but I'm to pig-headed to give up.

Having once been a communist myself, I hate to see someone else waste their energy.

Arrian · February 12, 2003, 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

-=Vel=-

[Mr. Burns voice] Excellent [/Mr. Burns voice]

Willem,

I hear ya. OT debates are pretty much always futile, yet we keep posting, don't we?

-Arrian

Willem · February 12, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Willem,

I hear ya. OT debates are pretty much always futile, yet we keep posting, don't we?

-Arrian

Well it's still a learning experience. It helps me clarify my own views tring to counter someone else's arguments. For instance, until I got involved in this discussion, I was firmly convinced that I was a socialist. Now I realize that I'm just a left of center Liberal.

Arrian · February 12, 2003, 12:45

Very true. In order to defend a position, you have to really examine that position.

It's similar to teaching - if I had to help out a fellow student (high school, college, whatever) for an upcoming test, I always found that I did better on the test, because in the process of teaching the fellow student what he/she needed to know, I had to make sure I knew it. My best friend is a teacher up near Boston, and he is just brimming with knowledge on Ancient Egypt these days, because that's what he's doing with his kids.

-Arrian

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 12:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Your logic is now working against your argument with the following phrase:

I've heard about those things. I'm not really interested in running a business. I'm sure a lot of people aren't. Some people wouldn't be much good at it. Does that mean they deserve less?

Are you not arguing your position from the vantage point that all workers should own what they produce? And if so, does that not, BY DEFINITION, make all workers business owners?

Your argument, is therefore, too full of holes to sustain itself. It is a sinking ship, my friend.

-=Vel=-

AH HA! Good Morning Vel. Nice try. I'm glad I went to sleep before answering this one, because you seem to be trying to corner me here.

No, I think I specified that I would not like to run a business, not that I didn't want to own one. If you don't want yours anymore I'll take it

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 12:58

Ohhhhh, this is getting good!

So....you don't want to actually work at *running* the business....you just want to own it.....and if the business is to continue operating (since you already said that you don't want to take the time and effort to run it, you will, no doubt, need to hire and "exploit" someone else in order to keep it going....right?)

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 12:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor

Economics is not a zero-sum gain. My gettting richer does not necessarily make you poorer.

No it's not a zero-sum game. But in capitalism you may get richer while I get poorer by the simple fact that I work for you and you take part of my labor. I'm left with only a portion of it.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

Ohhhhh, this is getting good!

So....you don't want to actually work at *running* the business....you just want to own it.....and if the business is to continue operating (since you already said that you don't want to take the time and effort to run it, you will, no doubt, need to hire and "exploit" someone else in order to keep it going....right?)

-=Vel=-

No, I would sell it

I don't know. You guys are making me out to be some strange person who sits around in his underware waiting for the revolution. I'm playing the game just like everyong else. I have a family to support.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 13:07

So you would sell it to someone who would "exploit" the workers....is that not tacit support of the very thing you say you're against?

And again, I'm not "stealing" a part of your labor, as I already explained.

Before you were even in the picture, I made a BIG investment and took a big risk buy buying the machine and building the factory. That's my portion of the investment. Your portion of the investment is the time spent making shoes.

My portion is bigger, so my portion of the rewards is bigger. Same principles as was used in our joint 10k investment. Absolutely no difference.

And as I said earlier, if it makes you "feel better" about it, then look at it this way. You DO own everything you make at the ol' shoe factory....it's just that, since you used a piece of equipment (my machine) that you do not own, I get a piece of that action. Specifically, I get to buy all your shoes made with my machine.

We automate this process for simplicity, and call it your paycheck....

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

The chances are that Capitalist B is not being exploited because he's off trying to get another idea of his off the ground. Entrepeneurs don't generally take defeat easily, if they fail they'll dust themselves off and try again, maybe with some other product. That's what made them entrepeneurs in the first place.

Why is it always about the entrepeneurs? It's a very nice word, but we aren't all entrepenuers, and I don't think people here will be fooled by the romantic notion of the term.

Most people aren't entrepeneurs. Taken all the entrepeneurs together most of them fail. What is left is an elite class. And just because that select few has succeeded they should be part of a priviledged class. That's barbaric bullshit.

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Now you've been talking alot about capitalism exploiting workers, but what about communism? If I work my butt off and yet I still get paid the same amount as the guy next to me that only does half what I do, is that not exploitation? What about the politburo driving around in a limousine and attending fancy state dinners? Why should my labour be applied to his luxurious lifestyle, while I'm stuck with just an average wage, with no hope of improving my situation?

Bill Gates is paid 500 times as much as me. Are you trying to tell me that he works 500 times harder than me. It's just the opposite. I work 500 times as hard as he does.

Willem · February 12, 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
But in capitalism you may get richer while I get poorer by the simple fact that I work for you and you take part of my labor.

Then why is it that the standard of living for the general population has been steadily increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution? By your definition the system should have collapsed a long time ago, since there would no longer be anyone that can afford to buy the products the capitalist produces. They'd all have been exploited to the point that they have nothing left to spare and are living in abject poverty.

Willem · February 12, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

No, I would sell it

If you were a true communist, you would give it away to your workers. You're contradicting yourself.