|
| Thread: The Federal Reserve |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 23, 2008 09:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The value of a product is, for lack of a better word, semi-objective. That is, it is variable and there is nothing inherent in the product that determines its value, however if its price is allowed to fluctuate on the free market, it will settle at some point (though it will change once in a while), and that point is its value. It's about demand.
Exactly. And that is the reason hard work =/= more money/profit. I'm tired of capitalists saying that "why should I work for someone else?" and excuses like how "hard" they work for lazy if it were socialistic. They use it because usually "hard work" allows some sympathy from the people who will then say "you know this guy's right, he works so 'hard' compared to the 'lazy' poor people (e.g: businessman who owns a lot compared to a hard-working poor guy employed cheaply, the latter is the 'lazy' one if you didn't notice).
Why don't you just use 100% examples rather than analogies? Nothing to do with hard work. Period.
Quote:
First of all, that factory didn't come out of nowhere. Someone invested in it, etc. Second, the guy is making other people's productivity possible;
He shouldn't be able to -- why can't other people make HIS productivity possible? Because the guy was born first and now owns the factory? It's unfair. Period.
What if some guy was born when X owns a factory already? He can't "make" his own factory, he doesn't have the land, nor opportunities, and MUST be employed at the big boss. But becoming another big boss himself wouldn't solve the problem -- it would just at LEAST say that capitalism can be fair. But it cannot since it doesn't happen, it's impossible.
Quote:
People take risks in business. Some risks pay off, and others don't. Not everyone can be rich. But everyone can be richer.
Why should some be richer by huge amounts and others by small amounts rather than not all by average amounts? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 09:37 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 22:07, 23 Nov 2008.
|
The value of a product:
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it" - Publilius Syrus.
If you exchange your labour for two breads, five litres beer and a basket of vegetables and meat a day, and you do so out of your own will, then your daily labour is worth these items, and these foodstuffs are worth your daily labour. You and your employer made that decision together.
If a guy invents something but has no capital to put it to use, and he wants to use other guy's property to manufacture something, then how is that unfair for the capital owner to expect gains for letting the inventor use his property? And why shouldn't he have the liberty to decide what that compensation would be?
Quote:
Because the guy was born first and now owns the factory? It's unfair. Period.
Then you deprive a factory owner the right to do with his property as he pleases? Even if he inherited his wealth, then what, you want to deprive people of the liberty to decide how they property should be used when they die? That would be sharply unfair for me. And if it creates inequality, then what? Lets combat unequal chances by not letting people decide what to do with their property, oppressing them?
and del_diablo
In order for perfect equality there would have to be no natural differences. Yet there are. And I am content they are. World would be such a boring place without any diversity. But its cost is inequality.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 09:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And that is the reason hard work =/= more money/profit.
It does. There's more to making a large profit than that, but it's nothing without work. You can have all the luck and opportunity in the world, but you will never make a profit if you never do anything.
Quote:
He shouldn't be able to -- why can't other people make HIS productivity possible? Because the guy was born first and now owns the factory? It's unfair. Period.
Why should you have the computer? Because you were willing to pay more money for it than John Smith was? It's unfair, right?
Quote:
Why should some be richer by huge amounts and others by small amounts rather than not all by average amounts?
Big risks have big rewards. If a guy takes a big risk and it pays off, surely he deserves more than a guy who takes barely any risks.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:41, 23 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Then you deprive a factory owner the right to do with his property as he pleases?
If I think about it, then that can be considered part of the problem. Guy A is born somewhere and gets a factory. Guy B didn't. It's unfair since there are only so few factories for so many people. (just an example)
no matter how you look at it, in both scenarios something is "unfair". But in the capitalist scenario, the only thing unfair is the fact that you deprive someone of property (not just ANY property, but property used to hire other people or sell stuff, unlike e.g: a CD player) -- is this really unfair? Who said that he should be able to have such property in the first place? The ones who get this opportunity are much better off. In fact, it's not even about NATURAL differences, but HUMAN CONCEPT differences -- the concept of 'property' (and I mean, property used for production of course, for selling stuff). It's not like it's impossible to get rid of such concept.
In fact I read an article somewhere that in a few years capitalism simply won't work anymore, because of let's image a robot society where most of the stuff is automated. Then who gets the profit? The ones who have the robots? That's just unfair. (they might not even want to sell them further). Why should a guy that is born in that period suffer thus and be unfair, because we decided to keep on OUR CONCEPT (nothing natural, or God given) called property?
If it's unfair in one of our concepts, I choose that above "natural unfairness" (poverty or 'poorness' is somewhat natural since it does impact you regardless of society or human concepts). After all, we can always ditch out our concepts -- we can't ditch out hunger or well being though (and I mean objective well being).
@mvass: I answered I guess most in this post 
Quote:
It does. There's more to making a large profit than that, but it's nothing without work. You can have all the luck and opportunity in the world, but you will never make a profit if you never do anything.
Ever heard about lottery? You can use that money then to pay off others to make up a business (provided you win of course), then hire some more and finally sell stuff... you do absolutely nothing except hire people and tell them what to do (and not a difficult job that is, since you don't tell them HOW to do their job, but just WHAT).
Let me give you a tip: "Never ask a multi-millionaire how he got the first million" 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:22 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 23:23, 23 Nov 2008.
|
Two things:
1. Removing the concept of property requires taking away what some people already have, and as such is still theft for me. Commies did that in Eastern Europe, thought you as a Romanian was aware of this.
And as for robots, if nobody is there to buy your product, then the factory is worthless, and it's owner is poor as well.
2. Property unnatural? Since when please? Why I can be an owner of a PC or a knife but not of land or a production facility? Because the latter are important and more influential? A PC and a knife can be put to productive use as well, hence they can become capital, make them public property too? Ridiculous  .
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Guy A is born somewhere and gets a factory.
The problem with your thinking is that it doesn't work that way! A guy doesn't just get a factory out of the blue!
Quote:
But in the capitalist scenario, the only thing unfair is the fact that you deprive someone of property
By this logic, you deprived John Smith of a computer. Quit ignoring this point.
Quote:
Who said that he should be able to have such property in the first place?
The social contract between society permits property to be owned, because such is the optimal arrangement of things.
Quote:
In fact I read an article somewhere that in a few years capitalism simply won't work anymore, because of let's image a robot society where most of the stuff is automated. Then who gets the profit? The ones who have the robots? That's just unfair.
Why?
And you need to stop thinking of profits in such a narrow way. Who makes the little profit? The company. Who makes the major profit? Society. If someone makes a profit, what is he or she going to do with that profit? Tell me, I'm curious what you think about this.
Quote:
If it's unfair in one of our concepts, I choose that above "natural unfairness" (poverty or 'poorness' is somewhat natural since it does impact you regardless of society or human concepts). After all, we can always ditch out our concepts -- we can't ditch out hunger or well being though (and I mean objective well being).
False dichotomy.
Also, your example with the lottery is not accurate. Winning a lottery is not engaging in a productive activity. Even if you win, no one benefits except for you. On the other hand, if you invest in a successful factory, you will not be the only beneficiary.
And if you don't tell them how to do their job, your business won't be as productive, and you won't make as much of a profit.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:35 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:37, 23 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
1. Removing the concept of property requires taking away what some people already have, and as such is still theft for me. Commies did that in Eastern Europe, thought you as a Romanian was aware of this.
And as for robots, if nobody is there to buy your product, then the factory is worthless, and it's owner is poor as well.
What do you mean "no one" is there to buy? If the robots do all the job, and make let's say cars, then everyone buys from that guy -- and no one is employed.
How about a world where we don't do anything and only robots do? How would that work with capitalism? Who would get employed?
And no of course I don't advocate the corrupt communism, where most of the cash went to the government. I might be dreaming of something that can't happen but hey, with the current state of things it's not like it's any better -- see mobs and big corporations who can cover their tracks and break the law. Such is life... the honest citizens always get the end of the stick.
Quote:
2. Property unnatural? Since when please? Why I can be an owner of a PC or a knife but not of land or a production facility? Because the latter are important and more influential? A PC and a knife can be put to productive use as well, hence they can become capital, make them public property too? Ridiculous .
Who said those are natural? They are similar but to solve the problem I think there should be this non-selling rule for property or something. (I'm not a lawyer to word it correctly ).
Quote:
The problem with your thinking is that it doesn't work that way! A guy doesn't just get a factory out of the blue!
No but if Guy X gets it, can everyone else as well? Let me put it differently: if NASA can get a spaceship, does that mean everyone can? Or at least be in charge of it? It's ridiculous. Of course you can say it's some form of cooperation, but why does X need to be the "capitalist" and not Y or Z? If Y were, then X couldn't possibly be -- hence he STOLE that position/opportunity for others. Like my example with the 1st place. There can be only ONE 1st. And whoever it is, it stops others from getting there. If that person didn't exist, then the 2nd one would become the 1st see?
If a given person exists and you have less opportunities than before, I say he pretty much stole them (the opportunities) don't you think? Just logic...
Quote:
By this logic, you deprived John Smith of a computer. Quit ignoring this point.
I don't get what's with John Smith, but yes you deprive him of it IF he sells stuff. I don't say you deprive someone of a computer because he/she listens to music with it or plays games or makes free programs etc etc...
Quote:
The social contract between society permits property to be owned, because such is the optimal arrangement of things.
Some say capitalism is optimal, others say socialism... that's not an argument because it's like saying "My solution is optimal" when it's obvious we both say that, implicitly
Quote:
And you need to stop thinking of profits in such a narrow way. Who makes the little profit? The company. Who makes the major profit? Society. If someone makes a profit, what is he or she going to do with that profit? Tell me, I'm curious what you think about this.
I'm not talking whether capitalism/socialism makes a better society -- in PERFECT conditions, on AVERAGE, both SHOULD do the same -- however HOW this "total" is distributed among the population is DIFFERENT. You're saying to be imbalanced. I'm saying to be balanced/equal.
Quote:
Also, your example with the lottery is not accurate. Winning a lottery is not engaging in a productive activity. Even if you win, no one benefits except for you. On the other hand, if you invest in a successful factory, you will not be the only beneficiary.
Call me when you'll be able to start a business without any money (that also includes working -- time = money).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean "no one" is there to buy? If the robots do all the job, and make let's say cars, then everyone buys from that guy -- and no one is employed.
No, people just become employed in other jobs - and there is job creation, since the price of products goes down.
Quote:
No but if Guy X gets it, can everyone else as well?
If not everyone can play basketball as well as Michael Jordan, does that mean that Michael Jordan shouldn't be allowed to play basketball?
Quote:
If a given person exists and you have less opportunities than before, I say he pretty much stole them (the opportunities) don't you think?
No, because no one has opportunities until they seize them.
Quote:
I don't get what's with John Smith, but yes you deprive him of it IF he sells stuff.
So what do you want stores to do? Do you want them asking people, "Are you going to use this computer as a means of production?" I suspect you'll see a lot of black market programming, then. You know, the USSR did something like that with sewing machines - and actually imprisoned people who would sew for profit. Tell me how that makes people better off.
Quote:
Call me when you'll be able to start a business without any money (that also includes working -- time = money).
Of course you can't start a business without money. But there are numerous ways of getting money without winning the lottery. You can come up with a good idea and pitch it to investors. You can get a loan. You can work for somebody else and save up money. And so on. In none of these cases does the money come out of nowhere.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:02, 24 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
No, people just become employed in other jobs - and there is job creation, since the price of products goes down.
What other jobs? In my example everything is run by that guy's robots
Quote:
If not everyone can play basketball as well as Michael Jordan, does that mean that Michael Jordan shouldn't be allowed to play basketball?
He plays in his backyard, you don't have to play with him, what's the problem?
On the other hand, I think you realize not everyone can own a factory EVEN IF THEY WANT TO (and are skilled).
Quote:
So what do you want stores to do? Do you want them asking people, "Are you going to use this computer as a means of production?" I suspect you'll see a lot of black market programming, then. You know, the USSR did something like that with sewing machines - and actually imprisoned people who would sew for profit. Tell me how that makes people better off.
Who said you can't be given a computer? But you can't sell with it. It doesn't need to ask you what you do with it. I think it's not such a problem for the police to catch big capitalists and inspect them and see if they sold with it don't you think?
Ever heard of the expression "royalty-free"? Well now turn the opposite of it and you'll have it
When you purchase a game for example, you are NOT allowed to sell anything you make with it (like with the editor) most times. Is that so different?
Quote:
Of course you can't start a business without money. But there are numerous ways of getting money without winning the lottery. You can come up with a good idea and pitch it to investors. You can get a loan. You can work for somebody else and save up money. And so on. In none of these cases does the money come out of nowhere.
You know why it's 'unfair'? Think about it. Take the whole nation's capital/money and divide it by number of people. See how much should each have to be equal. I bet it's below the requirement to start a business.
Therefore not everyone can start businesses, and it is NOT their fault (because if money was distributed equally it would still be impossible, and then it would be 'fair' since it is distributed equally!). It is simply that only SOME can do it and others have to work for them as 'slaves' (compared to the capitalist, they ARE slaves). Don't get me wrong, they are better off, but COMPARED to the amount of work the capitalist does / the profit he gets, is DWARFED COMPLETELY.
And why is X the capitalist? Why not Y? Well we HAVE to pick, it is IMPOSSIBLE for both of them to be -- like I said, distribute all the nation's capital to everyone equally and I bet you won't be able to start a business with that. So the conclusion is NOT EVERYONE CAN DO IT EVEN IF THEY WANT. Therefore it's unfair. Period.
Not wanting to do is another thing but not being ABLE to do it even if you WANT is unfair. Why should X be a capitalist and not you? Because he had more opportunities? (suppose you are both exactly the same in smartness/hard-working level to put that myth aside)
Then again it is IMPOSSIBLE like I explained for BOTH of you to be "big capitalists" (or for that matter, for EVERY citizen if you had 1000 clones of yourself).
Simply put, if you clone 1000 Bill Gates, only a FEW of them will be "rich" and the other poor (well technically not POOR but a LOT POORER compared to the others! and they are supposed to be clones ). This is why it's unfair. It's all I have to say in this subject, I don't think there's anything left to discuss now is it?
and communism is bad as well since then you replace "big capitalist" with "government" which is a form of capital in corrupt communism that doesn't care about people.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 11:59 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 00:05, 24 Nov 2008.
|
Property that cannot be voluntarily exchanged for another property(sold)? Nor to sell what you've made with it? And you cannot lend it to someone for a compensation? That is no property at all.
And yes there is exactly no difference between a knife and an industrial plant, except the size and the level of impact on society.
If one guy being rich and the other not is unfair, then you should also describe existence of sexes as unfair. I am not a woman. Is it unfair? NOT AT ALL.
Some people are born smarter, some more sociable, some physically tougher and some more handsome/beautiful. Why shouldn't some be born richer?
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 12:00 AM |
|
|
See my example with the game. When you buy Heroes 5 you are allowed to play it but you are NOT allowed to sell it or sell maps you make with it (I don't know about H5 but a lot of games have that license!). Is that such a big difference?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 12:08 AM |
|
|
You buy the license to use it, not the game itself. It's somewhat like lending for an infinite time.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 12:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What other jobs? In my example everything is run by that guy's robots
Oh? Then who designs the robots? Who programs them? Who maintains them? Obviously, people. Then who treats these people when they get sick? Who entertains them? Plus there would be new jobs created that we cannot even imagine right now.
Quote:
He plays in his backyard, you don't have to play with him, what's the problem?
What if he wants to play with other people?
Quote:
It doesn't need to ask you what you do with it. I think it's not such a problem for the police to catch big capitalists and inspect them and see if they sold with it don't you think?
Sure, you'll prevent major firms from arising - but the same can't be said for thousands of guys looking to make a few bucks.
And equal =/= fair. That is a critical point. Why do you think it'd be fair for people to be equal? Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. I thought you love nature.
Plus here you're showing your authoritarian colors. "No, you can't exchange voluntarily! Heil TheDeath!"
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 01:55 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 02:01, 24 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Oh? Then who designs the robots? Who programs them? Who maintains them? Obviously, people.
obviously, OTHER robots.
Let's go back to the story of the farmer and the blacksmith again. Imagine there is a third person, an engineer, who offers to provide technology in exchange for food and tools. Naturally both the farmer and blacksmith comply, since the technology would A) Increase their productivity and B) reduce their own time spent working.
Now as technology increases, both A and B increase, untill the point where technology is so advanced that the blacksmith and Farmer no longer have to work; the machines do all the work. Likewise, the engineer no longer needs to work, since machines now make machines, and maintain one another.
What does this lead to? This leads to unemployment, but is it bad? Obviously not, the labour is performed by machines, and at such high efficiency that the goods produced are more than enough to satiate all three persons. Needless to say, if there had been CURRENCY between them, that is utterly useless now, since you don't need to buy goods that are automaticly produced and in such abundance that you don't need to compete for them.
Does this mean the end of the blacksmith, farmer and engineer? Of course not, people do have hobbies, people do find things to do and discover that interests them.
Is this an ideal situation? In my eyes yes: There is no stress of work, you do not need to do things you do not want, you are provided your basic needs. You are FREE.
This is envitably, in theory, what happens as technology advances. What happens is that technology relieves and FREES human beings of labour.
Hold that in mind.
What happens in OUR world is strangely different.
To eazen things up, imagine the Farmer, Blacksmith and Engineer each have 2 persons in their service.
Now the same thing happens. Technology advances and increases productivity / releases labour... And here is where the corruption shows. Instead of relieving the workload of ALL workers, instead, one person gets fired. Don't ask me why, very strange, but that is what happens.
What happens is that three persons are fired, as the work is taken over by machines. This means the Blacksmith, Farmer, and Engineer make double profits from this: They cut the paycheck of one emplyee, AND they enjoy the higher productivity.
Aka: They gain PROFITS, at the expense of other people.
Fact of the matter is, Capitalism is a system that ONLY works when there is DIFFERENCE in wealth between people, and is thus FAR from an ideal system.
Moreover it is a very self-defeating system, as it envitably leads to a VERY unhappy majority that lives in poverty, while a select few live in utter wealth and gain EVERYTHING... By what right, I wonder?
And then of course you have those living in poverty that actually defend the wealthy bastards because they "worked so hard for it", in the hopes that they themselves ever get to that spot.
Interesting thing is, in that ideal system, there would be no need for money at all. Is that a bad thing? I really don't think so. Again a quote from Jacque Fresco : "If you ENJOY painting a picture, you will enjoy GIVING it to other people."
What I find particularly disturbing is that machines are used to replace workers, and the costs spared from that go DIRECTLY into the owner's pockets.
While in an ideal society, machines would be used to relieve the workload of ALL people, and in turn, the saved costs are substracted DIRECTLY from the products produced, to compensate for the less money all employees earn now due to less hours of work.
Inevitably, this as well leads down to spending 0 hours to work, and getting products for free. IF people were fair and compassionate.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 03:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
obviously, OTHER robots
And who will program those robots? Surely you don't expect it to become a closed circle, with robots programming each other.
Quote:
What happens is that three persons are fired, as the work is taken over by machines. This means the Blacksmith, Farmer, and Engineer make double profits from this: They cut the paycheck of one emplyee, AND they enjoy the higher productivity.
That's only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that because of the increased profits, each of them has more money. (Let's assume their society has progressed beyond barter.) Now, what can they do with that new money? Why, what else other than buy more of each other's goods, or reinvest it in their business? And then what happens? If they buy more of each other's goods, then there is increased demand, which means that they will hire the workers back to cope with the demand. Or if they reinvest it in their business, then they might just hire their old workers back and be even more productive. Meanwhile, if we tweak this example a little bit and say that there are 2 of each trade, not just 1, then we will see the prices of their goods go down, making it better for the workers as well.
And remember that the engineer worked extra to invent those machines. Shouldn't he be rewarded for it?
Quote:
Capitalism is a system that ONLY works when there is DIFFERENCE in wealth between people
No. Capitalism works any time there is more than one person in the world. Period.
Quote:
Interesting thing is, in that ideal system, there would be no need for money at all. Is that a bad thing? I really don't think so. Again a quote from Jacque Fresco : "If you ENJOY painting a picture, you will enjoy GIVING it to other people."
What? First, how will people exchange stuff? Surely they wouldn't go back to barter, as that's inefficient. And even if you enjoy drawing a picture, why would you enjoy giving it to other people? Completely untrue. Let's say that teachers enjoy teaching. Does that mean that they'd teach for free? No, of course not. Nobody, no matter how much they enjoy their job, will work for free. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 12:58 PM |
|
|
If what you said were true, there would be no Community Service.
It is plain wrong, and in my opinion, that twisted idea of yours formed due to thinking Materialism is important and makes you happy.
People DO enjoy giving away the things and services that they enjoy producing - were they not reliant on making money for their survival. The fact you cannot understand this, no offense, says a lot about how this materialistic world has distorted you.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 01:32 PM |
|
|
Well since apparently (and I don't disagree) I'm back to quote wars, I'll say I agree with Moonlith and what he said. And also mvass, the robots don't need programming because they are ALREADY there -- which means they are ALREADY programmed... they can copy that as much as they want. And yes they maintain each other. In fact what you say that they can't maintain yet is just using an EXCUSE to avoid the inevitable that you know it could happen. Why clung on an idea until the very moment it collapses?
Quote:
Plus here you're showing your authoritarian colors. "No, you can't exchange voluntarily! Heil TheDeath!"
Obviously, some regulation IS necessary, else we could have even legal murder! Or in fact, we could have voluntarily exchange of dangerous drugs or guns or even nuclear weapons.
What are you authoritarian to not allow ordinary people (aka "capitalists) to own nukes if they want to?
I think Binabik made a fine point on the first page
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 03:23 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Of course there is community service, but it's either a hobby or a punishment. No one in their right minds would ever do it as an actual job.
And if I work hard, I expect to see some reward from it. Period. I'm not working for free.
TheDeath:
The lower price of goods would create new jobs, though - jobs that couldn't be done by robots. Creative jobs, for instance.
We have a lot less farmers than we did a hundred years ago, and farms have become much more mechanized. But two things didn't happen as a result of this: we didn't starve, and no massive unemployment happened because of it. If nothing bad happened when it happened to the farms, why should it happen now?
Murder isn't a voluntary exchange, though. It's a forced exchange. But, in theory, I would let people voluntarily exchange guns and nukes, etc. It's not with their exchange that I have a problem with, but with their use.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We have a lot less farmers than we did a hundred years ago, and farms have become much more mechanized. But two things didn't happen as a result of this: we didn't starve, and no massive unemployment happened because of it. If nothing bad happened when it happened to the farms, why should it happen now?
There can be only so few 'creative' minds... plus it would require funding -- unless the big guy with robots wants that (he already lives in paradise so why bother) then why would he employ them?
Quote:
Murder isn't a voluntary exchange, though. It's a forced exchange. But, in theory, I would let people voluntarily exchange guns and nukes, etc. It's not with their exchange that I have a problem with, but with their use.
You are right on spot. And don't tell me capitalists don't "use" their money 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 03:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There can be only so few 'creative' minds...
Typical Malthus-style thinking. And wrong, as usual. There are a lot more creative minds than there were a hundred years ago. And there were a lot more creative minds a hundred years ago than a thousand years ago.
Quote:
(he already lives in paradise so why bother) then why would he employ them?
He already lives in paradise? Anyone can live better.
And capitalists use their money gained from voluntary exchange in further voluntary exchanges.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
