|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
posted December 11, 2008 11:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
See why it's unfair?
It's not unfair at all. If two people have the same skills then you can't expect both of them to do EVERYTHING the SAME can you? you have to take into account other things. Perhaps they have been taught a different way yet have the same skills. They also have their different ways of approaching things. One person might do one thing, and the other may do something completely different but coming up with the same result, but this isn't always the case.
If person A did something and became a millionaire, and person B tried something similar but didn't become a millionaire, then that doesn't mean it's unfair. It just means that person A had more success and that they might have tried something a little different but still with the same result. I hope this makes sense, lol. If it doesn't, then disregard this post.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:19, 11 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Let's say Bill Gates and Bob the Programmer have exactly the same skills. Usually, they're doing the same work and getting paid the same. But then Bill Gates tries something a little bit different, and starts using his skills differently. He starts working for himself, taking a risk - he could lose everything - and programs a successful OS. Meanwhile, Bob the Programmer is still doing his old job. Then Bill Gates succeeds in meeting a lot of unexpected demand and becomes a billionaire. If Bob the Programmer had taken that same risk and gotten everything exactly right, then he, not Gates, would be the billionaire. They have the same skills, but apply them differently. It's perfectly fair.
Let me put this differently.
Bill can take the risk and become successful, Bob can take the risk and become successful too... right? That's what you said.
but not both at the same time
Quote:
That's why you don't see businesses saying "X is better than Y".
When something is THE best, then it means it's better than anything else...
or? 
Quote:
If two people have the same skills then you can't expect both of them to do EVERYTHING the SAME can you?
That's why I tried to simplify it with the clone stuff
and it still would be unfair, even with that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 11:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bill can take the risk and become successful, Bob can take the risk and become successful too... right?
Maybe. Or maybe they would both fail. Or maybe one would fail and the other would succeed because they'd do something differently. But they can't both take exactly the same risk, because they can't be doing exactly the same thing - copyright laws. quote:That's why you don't see businesses saying "X is better than Y".
Quote:
When something is THE best, then it means it's better than anything else...
But that's very much subjective. You could find someone who indeed thinks that it's THE best, and you could find someone who thinks that it's THE worst. From the company's point of view, it is indeed the best.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 11, 2008 11:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bill can take the risk and become successful, Bob can take the risk and become successful too... right? That's what you said.
It all depends really. It depends on the amount of effort that one person made. If they both took the same risk but person A put in more effort and time to it than person B did, then person A will have a higher chance of becoming successful. If you take skill out of this, then it would still be the same. It all boils down to the time and effort one puts into something. Of course, it might not always turn out the best but the majority of the time it will be pretty good. I hope you know what I mean here. 
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 02:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Speculators don't make up a large part of the stock market - at least, they don't affect it too much. The stock market isn't for gambling, it's for aligning production and raising capital. Thus, essentially what you're doing when you buy stocks (if you buy them directly from the company), then you're giving money to that company and hoping that your investment will pay off. At a later point, you may want to sell your stocks, since they're valued higher now, and somebody who expects an even bigger rise would buy them. Nothing wrong or unproductive about that.
After the company has sold its stocks to individuals these papers just switch owners between different speculators and has nothing to do with helping the company or being socially productive but they still make money with them.
Quote:
But it is the engineer's merit! That's the whole point. He decided to get an education and become an engineer, thus being able to meet people's demands more easily. He deserves the money even if he doesn't work hard, because he meets people's demands through the merits of his work.
It's not the engineer's merit that his environment influenced him in the course of his life to decide to start to educate himself to become an engineer.
And it's not the trash collector's fault that there are alot of people who became trash collectors being influenced by their environments and in conclusion gain less benefit from their works.
Quote:
If there were more engineers than trash collectors, then trash collectors would be paid higher than engineers, and more people would become trash compactors, and so on, until the situation would have reached an equilibrium. Society needs both, of course. But there are more trash collectors than engineers, and there is a higher demand for engineers, so naturally they get paid more. As they should.
I don't think they should, because they have an unfair advantage of being more demanded. The amount of them should be in relative balance when they are both demanded relatively as much and they should be paid equally depending just on the amount of work they have done. Society should try to achieve that balance.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It all depends really. It depends on the amount of effort that one person made.
This is the LAST TIME I'm gonna repeat this. Dude, what's so hard to get that they are CLONES, they are similar in this example? Both have the same motivations and dedications and skills and put the same effort if they have the CHANCE... but the idea is that it is kinda impossible for BOTH of them to have that 'chance' -- and such 'chance' doesn't happen because of their will (like effort or dedication) but OUTSIDE their will, therefore it is unfair.
It's like two identical people being born, one in a safe place and one in which he has to fight thugs. Don't tell me that's not unfair, seriously... 
As a side note, no wonder you don't like the example with the clones, because it is a good example (analogy) since it ELIMINATES the "but that guy put more effort" argument, which I want to simply ignore. That is, if you don't want clones, assume that they both give EXACTLY the same amount of effort and have the same skills and dedication.
That is why you'll see it's unfair.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:08 PM |
|
|
I'm not going to bother this argument with you, TheDeath. Your arguments are unrealistic and just extreme. You can't just use assumptions with these things. So let's stop it here because you are the one that doesn't understand. Hopefully this topic can go back on track since it was good before these back and forth pointless arguments with you started.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:13 PM |
|
|
If you have nothing constructive to add then don't post. Besides, 'unrealistic' is a very good excuse to ignore the inevitable. Physicists use 'theories' all the time -- they wouldn't get ANYWHERE with all the noise in the world, you need to separate the problem into pieces.
If you start and say "there are a whole lot more factors involved", it's like you actually wish to avoid the subject. People like me actually DO something about it -- i.e we break the factors into pieces to analyze them 1 by 1. You call it unrealistic, I call it problem solving.
I've noticed you just want to avoid the problem. Pity
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:17 PM |
|
|
Saying things such as "clones" doesn't seem to be problem solving to me since what does it solve? Where would there be clones which we could try this problem on? Think realistically. That is what you aren't doing. Clones are not too realistic (on humans at least). I'm not avoiding the subject at all, I'm trying to get back onto the subject without resorting to discussing ridiculous things such as clones (which you are using). '
Free will plays a big part in this you know? You can't just eliminate that factor from it and add some other weird things into the mix. If two people have the same skills then it isn't very likely that they will do the exact same thing and that the results will be the same. That is what I'm saying and I fail to see how that is unfair. If one fails then it is because they may have made a small little mistake. We all make mistakes, and it isn't unfair. It's called life. Understand now? Are you going to stop bickering with me all the time and try to see things from another perspective for a change? Is that possible for you at all?
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Saying things such as "clones" doesn't seem to be problem solving to me since what does it solve?
If you can't draw the simple conclusion that clones are meant that both of them have EXACTLY the same mentality, skills, and apply the same effort and dedication then I don't know exactly why you're still arguing just for the sake of it instead of focusing on the solution.
Quote:
Free will plays a big part in this you know?
Bingo. And the clones are supposed to mean that they BOTH HAVE THE SAME FREAKING WILL.
That's why I used clones as an ANALOGY, because otherwise you'll still claim that the one with more money had more effort and all other ****
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:31 PM |
|
|
Totoro:
Quote:
After the company has sold its stocks to individuals these papers just switch owners between different speculators and has nothing to do with helping the company or being socially productive but they still make money with them.
Of course they're still being socially productive. People want to get rid of their stocks because they think they can get a better deal that way, and the buyers think that it's better for them to buy. It reflects how well companies are doing.
Quote:
It's not the engineer's merit that his environment influenced him in the course of his life to decide to start to educate himself to become an engineer.
Let me say this very clearly: IT DOESN'T MATTER. As long as the engineer is more productive, he should get paid more. Period.
Quote:
I don't think they should, because they have an unfair advantage of being more demanded.
What's so unfair about doing something that society thinks is more useful? 
TheDeath:
You do realize, don't you, that even clones wouldn't act the same way?
William:
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:33 PM |
|
Edited by william at 15:33, 12 Dec 2008.
|
@ TheDeath
WHAT DON'T YOU GET?!! This is a discussion on REAL PEOPLE and REAL THINGS!! Clones are real but NOT FOR HUMANS just yet. So this discussion about CLONES is USELESS since it proves NOTHING. The discussion was about if two people had the same skills and one doesn't become successful then that would be unfair or not, then you brought in clones and it just went to this discussion. I have no idea why you mentioned clones since it has no relevance. Perhaps you could have tried some other way of conveying your point instead of going off onto a discussion about clones. Now stop it.
@ Mvass
Thanks.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You do realize, don't you, that even clones wouldn't act the same way?
Ok then take a super-ultra-magical device that copies you perfectly.
The thing is, when you want to make observation on a thing, which is now OPPORTUNITY/CHANCES, you ISOLATE it from the "background noise" which is all the 'reality' **** william keeps saying.
Quote:
WHAT DON'T YOU GET?!! This is a discussion on REAL PEOPLE and REAL THINGS!!
Who the hell cares about that? It was a freaking analogy.
Guess what? You wouldn't have computers (and electricity) if people didn't make PERFECT THEORIES which AREN'T REAL but they are used to ISOLATE the "background noise" and concentrate on some theories which, while not 100% true in reality (you know, reality does not have 'ideal' conditions) it does help them to devise stuff about it. That is, they SOLVE THE PROBLEM by isolating the background noise -- notice that it isn't realistic, since the background noise exists no matter what, but they do solve it.
Ok, then you know what? I'm literally tired of you people clinging on wrong subjects -- no wonder it goes so off topic. You still argue with the "clones are not real yet" but WHO GIVES A **** in this discussion? Jesus Christ it's not like you aren't smart enough to realize what was MY POINT.
But let me spell it out for you. Instead of clones, they are both 100% identical. get it? Wasn't that obvious enough? I can hardly believe it wasn't but it seems like you just argue for the sake of it, like you always do.
Now ask yourself, was it REALLY necessary to fill 50% of the posts with all your **** about the "clones aren't real" when you KNOW what was MY POINT and it was JUST AN ANALOGY or METAPHOR?
Quote:
Perhaps you could have tried some other way of conveying your point instead of going off onto a discussion about clones. Now stop it.
I'm telling you, you are just arguing for the sake of it. Point is, you KNEW my point.
Jesus Christ I realize I have been using a bit too much aggressiveness, and I'm chill -- the reason I did it is because I'm tired of all the stupid nonsense derailing in the OSM -- it's like you, instead of debating on the subject at hand, eagerly wait someone to point out a flaw in an argument, even a typo, and then say "well if that was your point you shouldn't have made the typo" which is completely childish since you KNOW my point anyway.
That is you could've ignored the clone part as you KNOW what was my intent to show with it, but nah you had to cling on it and make so much fuss about it.
Was it necessary to make all of your posts? seriously...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 03:54 PM |
|
Edited by william at 15:54, 12 Dec 2008.
|
Derailing the topic is exactly what YOU are doing with all these examples you make, which you even said yourself are at times, a bit extreme. They are extreme, I agree with you...extreme enough to not be anything about the topic.
Now chill out. And I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. You just believe that I do because you disagree with me. People aren't always going to agree with you. The sooner you accept that then the sooner you might not have wasted your time writing a big post like you did. It didn't even need to come to this.
Have a nice day, TheDeath, and ctfo.
EDIT: oh and aggressiveness and "I'm chill" do not seem to mix very well, lol.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 04:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Derailing the topic is exactly what YOU are doing with all these examples you make, which you even said yourself are at times, a bit extreme. They are extreme, I agree with you...extreme enough to not be anything about the topic.
Yes extreme but who cares as long as you get the point? Why do you look at the text itself instead of the points? That's like saying: "I know what you meant [with a typo] but I'm gonna argue about your typo anyway."
Quote:
You just believe that I do because you disagree with me. People aren't always going to agree with you.
Look who's talking, you think like you're some sort of King Pin and the world centers around you and everytime you see someone disagree with you you think it's something personal and start to get angry at that person or get involved in personal stuff. (the SRT example, or the NS post, etc...)
I don't think it's you who should say that, since if you want to look at nice discussions (with me) there are some available with mvass (rare) and of course with Corribus or JollyJoker or anyone who doesn't get into silly remarks but keeps on the main point.
Quote:
EDIT: oh and aggressiveness and "I'm chill" do not seem to mix very well, lol.
Why not? I made a kinda aggressive post because I wanted my point clear. I don't get angry like you because you know, you think only you can get angry and if everyone were like you the number of fist fights or broken keyboards (in case of internet debates) would increase by several orders of magnitude.
You always take it so personal. Some other times you said I was "stalking you" because I disagreed somewhere (not even in the OSM). I mean what the hell? Do you think everyone takes stuff so personally like you?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 04:59 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 17:00, 12 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Of course they're still being socially productive. People want to get rid of their stocks because they think they can get a better deal that way, and the buyers think that it's better for them to buy. It reflects how well companies are doing.
Sorry, but it's vice versa: The success of companies reflect in the amount of trade made with their stocks.
Quote:
Let me say this very clearly: IT DOESN'T MATTER. As long as the engineer is more productive, he should get paid more. Period.
That's your philosophy, and because of people who think like that this world has extreme rich and extreme poor people instead of a balance where resources are shared equally between people.
Quote:
What's so unfair about doing something that society thinks is more useful?
In a conference between leaders of a corporation they decide: "Let's take our materials from South-American countries; it's more useful for us."
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 10:41 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Your analogy is ridiculous. Thanks for playing.
Seriously, though, the problem with your analogy is that there is no way it could happen in real life. You can't have two identical people doing the same identical thing. Thus, since capitalism is a real-world system, you can't apply your unreal analogy to it in such a way.
Totoro:
Quote:
Sorry, but it's vice versa: The success of companies reflect in the amount of trade made with their stocks.
Except that statement isn't true. First a company starts doing poorly, then its stock start falling. Not the other way around.
Quote:
That's your philosophy, and because of people who think like that this world has extreme rich and extreme poor people instead of a balance where resources are shared equally between people.
Yes. I'm proud of that. I'm proud that people are rewarded according to how productive they are (more or less). Certainly more can be done in some areas (such as education), but I am proud to be a supporter of this system as a whole.
Quote:
In a conference between leaders of a corporation they decide: "Let's take our materials from South-American countries; it's more useful for us."
Then I ask, "Is it cheaper to get them there?", and, if the answer is "Yes", then I say, "GO AND DO IT THEN!"
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 10:47 PM |
|
|
Before telling you this, know that I am not a capitalist like mvass, but I have to agree with him on a matter.
People should be rewarded on their products and not on their works. You get paid for the end result, not how you achieved it.
Let's take a Pizza delivery guy who goes with his bike to deliver pizza and gets some money for this. Do you think that if he decides to just walk instead of using the bike, he will have to get payed more? Why? The end result is the same, it doesn't matter that he 'worked' more by walking, why should you pay him more for that?
Although I do agree that some 'easy jobs' get too much money compared to hard physical work, but that's another story.
So yes, I agree with mvass on this, people should get paid for the end result and not for their work.
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 10:51 PM |
|
|
Well I'm not sure. Perhaps for example while you are doing your work (and getting paid for it), you discover something new that wasn't planned. Now this is not the end result but the money you are getting paid for might be worth it since you have discovered something else that is new to the company and could open paths for future products or whatever. In most cases though, a person should get paid for the end result, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with paying the person for doing their work even if they don't get to the end result but do discover something new. If that makes any sense.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2008 10:52 PM |
|
|
That would be a gamble that wouldn't be very likely to pay off. So while companies should be free to pay such people more if they want to, they should be aware that they're probably not going to get much out of it.
And they have R&D departments for a reason.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
