Is profit different from unfair tax? - Page 16

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

Rent is exploitive.

Let me ask you: Do you understand that the above is an opinion and not a demonstrable fact?

Hmmmm... I can look outside of my window and see the results of the exploitation. But I understand your point.

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

... reflective mode...

Back in my twenties I got all interested in Astronomy, physics, etc... not enough to actually bother with the math, but enough to read about 15,000 pages of "popular" literature on the subject - Timothy Ferris, Hawking, Kip Thorne, etc. And one thing that I noticed is that it seems that the universe is based, even grows upon, disequalibrium. The differences between hot and cold. Light and dark. Solid and vacuum. Such a basic fact about our universe has even made it in the fabric of our society - look at our wedding vows, for example.

And one thing these books all made clear is this: when the Universe finally makes complete equilibrium, when there is no difference between one point of space and another, the Universe dies.

The day humanity "attains" Kids goals of equality of inputs and outputs, worth and value, knowledge and experience, is the day that humanity dies. And as the universe can, maybe will, die a heat death, so shall humanity when it achieves Kid's vision of perfect communism. Or socialism. Or whatever it is that he wants.

"Communism: The heat death of mankind." Too obscure for a bumper sticker?

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

Kuciwalker · October 29, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Seems moronic to me not to get compensation for effort, but it's subjective I guess.

What if I put lots of effort in, but can produce nothing? Should I still be compensated? People get paid for RESULTS, not for "trying". The only people who want compensation for effort are the incompetent.

Quote:

Hardly out of the goodness of his heart. If you wants to sell more he has to lower his price. You are forgeting the law demand.

I was being sarcastic... and it doesn't invalidate my point. He is still charging lower then you did.

Quote:

Vel is paid more for his labor, not less. Only the price per item is less.

How about this, then - he charges half the price. You still go out of business, and it begs the question "how did he exploit you?"

Quote:

This all depends on whether Vel has the capacity to supply the whole market. Working by himself this would require that his new tool be extremely productive. If it is this productive then you have no point. The result would be unemployment anyway. No exploitation, but people need jobs. I prefer that there new jobs are not exploitive.

Depends on the size of the market. What if there is a market for just 20 items? You and he were filling it before, but now he can fill the entire market and no one buys from you. The numbers aren't important, the concept is.

JohnT · October 29, 2003, 20:05

Given that the basic factual pillar of your arguments (that rent is exploitative) has now fallen, as you admit, do you not see the fallacy of basing an entire ideology, a belief system on nothing more than mere opinion? Why bother, when you know that it isn't true? Isn't this what many of your ilk yell at Christians for doing - building up entire belief systems out of ancient words and hot air?

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Seems moronic to me not to get compensation for effort, but it's subjective I guess.

What if I put lots of effort in, but can produce nothing? Should I still be compensated? People get paid for RESULTS, not for "trying". The only people who want compensation for effort are the incompetent.

I'm not suggesting that people do unproductive work. The object is for people to do productive work and to get paid for it.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Vel is paid more for his labor, not less. Only the price per item is less.

How about this, then - he charges half the price. You still go out of business, and it begs the question "how did he exploit you?"

And I said that he didn't.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

This all depends on whether Vel has the capacity to supply the whole market. Working by himself this would require that his new tool be extremely productive. If it is this productive then you have no point. The result would be unemployment anyway. No exploitation, but people need jobs. I prefer that there new jobs are not exploitive.

Depends on the size of the market. What if there is a market for just 20 items? You and he were filling it before, but now he can fill the entire market and no one buys from you. The numbers aren't important, the concept is.

And if a tool is invented that requires less labor it should be implemented. There is no exploitation involved. We just need jobs for the unemployed.

JohnT · October 29, 2003, 20:07

Quote:

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

But that is what you're arguing for. If you don't believe in it, then why argue for it?

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT

Quote:

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

But that is what you're arguing for. If you don't believe in it, then why argue for it?

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

JohnT · October 29, 2003, 20:10

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

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Given that the basic factual pillar of your arguments (that rent is exploitative) has now fallen, as you admit, do you not see the fallacy of basing an entire ideology, a belief system on nothing more than mere opinion? Why bother, when you know that it isn't true? Isn't this what many of your ilk yell at Christians for doing - building up entire belief systems out of ancient words and hot air?

What is the difference between you saying that it isn't exploitaiton and me saying that it is? It's social science, not science.

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

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

Ummm... More is better.

Kuciwalker · October 29, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

I'm not suggesting that people do unproductive work. The object is for people to do productive work and to get paid for it.

Thus, you should get paid for what you produce, not what you try to produce.

Quote:

And I said that he didn't.

Ok then. So would he be exploiting you if instead he let you have the tool and agreed not to make any more items, as long as you gave him 1 of the items out of the 20 you made each day? You would be making 9 more "items" of money each day, for the same amount of effort. How is he exploiting you? You are BOTH profiting. Especially as the alternative is he DOESN'T let you use it. Are you saying that he doesn't have to give it to you, but if he does, he can't charge you for it? If so, why would he ever give it to you?

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

I'm not suggesting that people do unproductive work. The object is for people to do productive work and to get paid for it.

Thus, you should get paid for what you produce, not what you try to produce.

True, people should be given incentive for producing more.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

And I said that he didn't.

Ok then. So would he be exploiting you if instead he let you have the tool and agreed not to make any more items, as long as you gave him 1 of the items out of the 20 you made each day? You would be making 9 more "items" of money each day, for the same amount of effort. How is he exploiting you? You are BOTH profiting.

It's only fair if he is willing to sell me the tool at a price which fairly compensates him for his labor and which allows me to purchase it. When this situation doesn't exist there is exploitation. Why? because Vel recieves a better deal by renting the tool and I get a worse deal. I would definitely choose the first deal but I don't have the freedom to do so. That is expoitation, and it's systematic. You have to own property to be treated fairly by the system.

Imran Siddiqui · October 29, 2003, 20:19

Quote:

But you are

No, I'm not. Go ahead, get your own tools

. I have nothing against Mosanto and other worker owned corporations. They just have to compete against the traditional ones.

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But you are

No, I'm not. Go ahead, get your own tools

. I have nothing against Mosanto and other worker owned corporations. They just have to compete against the traditional ones.

You say that now. What happens when the rest of the world makes their own tools and you are left alone to work with your own tools.

Kuciwalker · October 29, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

True, people should be given incentive for producing more.

Thus, you are not paid for effort, but for production. Thus, those who produce more from the same effort should be paid more for the same effort.

Quote:

It's only fair if he is willing to sell me the tool at a price which fairly compensates him for his labor and which allows me to purchase it. When this situation doesn't exist there is exploitation. Why? because Vel recieves a better deal by renting the tool and I get a worse deal. I would definitely choose the first deal but I don't have the freedom to do so. That is expoitation, and it's systematic. You have to own property to be treated fairly by the system.

You are being paid 90% more for the same effort. You aren't losing anything. You didn't have that other item to sell in the first place, so why should you complain about having to give it to him? He owns the tool because he made it - if you took it from him, you would be exploiting him. So he offers you two choices, and you have COMPLETE FREEDOM so long as you don't steal it from him. So he is really giving you 9 extra items every day, not you giving him 1 extra item every day. How is it a better deal for him? He actually now has to come up with something ELSE, because he was getting ten items' worth of money per day before and now is getting one.

Imran Siddiqui · October 29, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

What happens when the rest of the world makes their own tools and you are left alone to work with your own tools

Fine with me.

Of course if they are smart, they'll realize that the best way for everyone to succeed as much as possible is for them to make the tools they are best at and have me make the tools I'm best at, and then we deal with each other.

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

It's only fair if he is willing to sell me the tool at a price which fairly compensates him for his labor and which allows me to purchase it. When this situation doesn't exist there is exploitation. Why? because Vel recieves a better deal by renting the tool and I get a worse deal. I would definitely choose the first deal but I don't have the freedom to do so. That is expoitation, and it's systematic. You have to own property to be treated fairly by the system.

You are being paid 90% more for the same effort. You aren't losing anything. You didn't have that other item to sell in the first place, so why should you complain about having to give it to him? He owns the tool because he made it - if you took it from him, you would be exploiting him. So he offers you two choices, and you have COMPLETE FREEDOM so long as you don't steal it from him. So he is really giving you 9 extra items every day, not you giving him 1 extra item every day. How is it a better deal for him? He actually now has to come up with something ELSE, because he was getting ten items' worth of money per day before and now is getting one.

I'm not given complete freedom. I don't have the freedom to own the tools that I work with. He can rent it to me because of this. The system creates a situation that allows him to exploit me.

Imran Siddiqui · October 29, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

I don't have the freedom to own the tools that I work with.

But you do have the freedom to own other tools that you can work with instead. Look at all the small businesses that pop up all the time.

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I don't have the freedom to own the tools that I work with.

But you do have the freedom to own other tools that you can work with instead. Look at all the small businesses that pop up all the time.

Small business ownership is not always the best way to go. Many of them fail. I'm assuming that I would make the best decision for myself which very well may be renting Vel's tool.

Imran Siddiqui · October 29, 2003, 20:39

Quote:

Small business ownership is not always the best way to go. Many of them fail.

And plenty succeed. Many of the most successful businesses started off as small business. For example Microsoft.

Quote:

I'm assuming that I would make the best decision for myself which very well may be renting Vel's tool.

Then you made a voluntary choice to rent Vel's tool (which is a result of his work) instead of using you own.

It's your own choice. Vel HAS his tool because he probably took the rest of small business ownership. Since you are too chicken to try, why should you benefit from Vel's tool without paying fair rental value?

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then you made a voluntary choice to rent Vel's tool (which is a result of his work) instead of using you own.

No I didn't. Let's say I started a small business and in fact failed. Then I still have to rent Vel's tool. I don't have a choice whether to own the tool. I only have a choice to take a risk.

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 21:06

Lots of new participation in this communism/capitalism thread. Good to see it. Hope I didn't offend anyone. I apologize if I did.

MichaeltheGreat · October 29, 2003, 22:20

We'd have to take communism seriously to be offended by it any more. That pretty much went south with the Berlin Wall, and even the commie Chinese have mostly become revisionist counterrevolutionary sellouts.

Kuciwalker · October 29, 2003, 23:48

Quote:

I'm not given complete freedom. I don't have the freedom to own the tools that I work with. He can rent it to me because of this. The system creates a situation that allows him to exploit me.

You have the freedom to own tools. You don't have the freedom to STEAL tools.

How about this - if you think it's exploiting you, don't accept the offer! If he offered you the use of the tool in return for 15 of the items, anyone would refuse. You think that even 1 item is exploitation. Fine. You are not required to accept the offer, so if you think it exploits you, don't accept. Problem solved. However, why should we remove the freedom of OTHER people to accept the offer? If they decide they don't see it as exploitation, why not let them do it? Basically, you are saying that because the deal would be exploiting you, it should be forbidden. But why should you keep other people from letting themselves be "exploited"? If they want to, let them!

Interestingly, those poor "exploited" people would end up being more successful than you. I wonder why, if they are being "exploited"?

Kidicious · October 29, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

I'm not given complete freedom. I don't have the freedom to own the tools that I work with. He can rent it to me because of this. The system creates a situation that allows him to exploit me.

You have the freedom to own tools. You don't have the freedom to STEAL tools.

How can I own the tools if I can't buy them and I can't steal them?

Kuciwalker · October 30, 2003, 00:17

Quote:

How can I own the tools if I can't buy them and I can't steal them?

You can't (unless you make them). However, you are perfectly FREE to own them; you are just INCAPABLE. Just like a mute person is FREE to speak, but CAN'T.

JimmyCracksCorn · October 30, 2003, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

What I am saying was, in terms of accounting, the owner's personal finances is separate from his shop/company/etc. You can't put those on the P&L of the company.

Sure you do, its called a salary. Even the boss gets paid (thats the point of starting a business).

When a boss goes over his finances, all that stuff is factored right in there. Like 50,000, 100,000, whatever he wants to pay himself. But a good boss will not overpay himself so he'll have enough money left over to grow his company... but he's not going to jip himself either.

edit: boss = owner

damn, didn't realize this thread was so long... whatever I just said is probably way off topic, oh well, don't feel like reading 16 pages, maybe next time

Ned · October 30, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

That's because Marxism is based on reasonable assumptions and the argument is consistant, unlike it's opposing argument.

Kidicious, if you are consistent and actually address the points made by the other side instead of simply multiplying by zero and writing down the right answer, you would be the first Marxist in history to have done so to my knowledge.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the fundamental objective of most Marxists is equality? If I am correct in this assumption, then this is why anything that leads to inequaltiy is bad to a Marxist.

Non Marxists can demonstrate that human nature leads to inequality. The Marxists have two answers: 1) totalitarianism and 2) some miraculous change in human nature. Since 2) can never happen, 1) is what we always get when Marxists come to power.

Imran Siddiqui · October 30, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

No I didn't. Let's say I started a small business and in fact failed. Then I still have to rent Vel's tool.

Ah, so you are one of those people that fails once and then decides to cry for help and never try again?

Explains sooo much.

Quote:

I don't have a choice whether to own the tool. I only have a choice to take a risk.

Choosing to take a risk is making a choice of whether or not to own the tool.

Dauphin · October 30, 2003, 02:43

Just posting to get the thread one closer to 500 and thus closure.

I really wonder if Kidicious understands the concept of incentives. Re my computer question, generalised, if equipment or possessions were communal, what incentive is there to produce the equipment? What incentive is there for anyone to invent anything if they give it straight to the community? Sure some developments will be made, altruistic souls, those seeking ideas for their own worth, but that pales in comparison to profit motive. Without profit motive society would be a lot poorer and a lot more backward.

Isn't this an obvious, basic observation.

MichaeltheGreat · October 30, 2003, 03:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

How can I own the tools if I can't buy them and I can't steal them?

Consider the capitalization needs of your business, sell stock, borrow money, find other partners, rent until you can buy, look for a cheap knockoff, try to find a more productive process that doesn't need that particular tool, go into a sideline business to make a competing tool, sell it to others, and use the profits from that to transfer a free extra tool to your original affiliate company.

There are lots of ways for you to play with his tool, or yours, or someone elses, or to decide you want to have people play with your tool.

That whole process is what executive management is all about. Figuring out the best way of playing with the most tools.