|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 13, 2008 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what's your point? People don't care about the overall productivity anyway, and capitalism is an example -- since capitalism strives for one's own profit, not the profit of the whole nation as a whole!
Here's my point. Imagine Bob the Scientist is walking down the street. He picks up a newspaper that says, "Theft has just been legalized!" He turns to a passerby and asks if it's true, and the guy responds that it is. "Cool!" Bob thinks, "Now I can profit much more, now that I can take from others without their consent!" So he breaks into somebody's house and steals all their stuff, and carries it home. But when he gets home, he notices something strange: all of his own stuff has been stolen too! "Okay," Bob thinks, "At least I've got this guy's stuff." So he puts it around his house. Then he thinks, "You know, someone might try to steal it. I'd better stay up and watch it." So he gets his gun, and, instead of working or sleeping, he sits guarding his house. He notices that all of his neighbors are doing the same.
So, instead of being a scientist, which he is good at, Bob is spending some of his time guarding his stuff. So is Dave the Doctor, John the Janitor, Joe the Plumber , etc. They're all guarding their stuff when they could be doing something more productive.
"Gee," Bob thinks, "I thought that legalizing theft would increase my profit, but it actually decreased it!"
Thus, it is harmful for individuals to steal/murder and not get caught, as it might encourage others to do the same, which would certainly decrease productivity and reduce profit.
Quote:
Do you know how many people die every day? Do you think a billionaire cares?
The beauty of capitalism is that he doesn't have to care to make them better off. By following his own interests, he also improves their lives.
Killing Hitler and killing average Joe is different. Hitler was a counterproductive aggressor. Average Joe is a productive worker. It's to everyone's benefit to kill the first and not kill the second.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 10:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Thus, it is harmful for individuals to steal/murder and not get caught, as it might encourage others to do the same, which would certainly decrease productivity and reduce profit.
I wasn't even talking about the law -- you can't encourage others to do the same, that's like saying "I can crush individuals with my private army, but I won't do it as it will encourage others to do the same". How exactly does that encourage others to do the same? They don't have a private army!
Likewise, not everyone has hitmen, and even if they have, not everyone has private army/guards/whatever. So your argument isn't valid because it doesn't take into account precisely what we were talking about: capitalistic differences (or the difference between average joe and a billionaire).
See? It would be in a billionaire's benefit to legalize crime as long as he has a good enough army -- after all, those without such an army will be forced to work for him, or die or get robbed (working for him guarantees protection). And that way, competitive companies with smaller budgets who can't afford an army will be left behind -- even more, if the billionaire decides to enslave them, literally, since he has an army for example.
So I think it's in his best interest after all.
If you want the best interest of the entire nation, then go to heavy government authoritarianism, since that's what it is concerned with (or at least should be, but you forgot we're not living in your ideal conditions?)
Quote:
It's to everyone's benefit to kill the first and not kill the second.
Huh? It's not in Nazi's benefit to kill Hitler, that's for sure. Then again, you think people are angels of some sort? Why didn't you answer to my example?
Suppose a billionaire does 'dirty' things to get his money, and someone notices and is going to make it public. So... is it in the best interest of the billionaire to hire a hitman and kill the guy or not?
I think the answer is an obvious yes, wouldn't you agree?
likewise, Hitler "did something bad to us" so you think it's ok to kill him -- that's what a billionaire thinks too: that the guy will do "something bad to him" and he is right, his company will go bankrupt if the guy makes it public. see my analogy now?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 11:34 PM |
|
|
That was only an example with the law. If everybody started murdering (and nearly everyone is physically capable of it), then productivity would decrease. And unpunished murder encourages others to try the same.
"Did you hear about John? He killed his boss and took all of his stuff! And he never got caught!" "Wow, I'm going to try that." "Me too." "Me too!" "ME TOO!" *chaos erupts*
Quote:
Huh? It's not in Nazi's benefit to kill Hitler, that's for sure. Then again, you think people are angels of some sort?
If I was a capitalist, and there was a guy going around killing my workers and customers, it would certainly be in my interest to kill him. As for the Nazis, we've already had that discussion a thousand times.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 11:39 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:40, 13 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
"Did you hear about John? He killed his boss and took all of his stuff! And he never got caught!" "Wow, I'm going to try that." "Me too." "Me too!" "ME TOO!" *chaos erupts*
Just because someone kills a beggar and gets into a newsflash doesn't mean everyone will think "Wow, I can go and kill Bill Gates!" when he has an entire army guarding him
And why should a capitalist care about the others? In fact, that allows him more CONTROL over EVERYONE -- since he would have the power to do it.
Like it or not, the police is socialistic. A big capitalist does NOT need "public" protection -- in fact it would be better for him to NOT exist any police! Since then, only he would have the power to protect others at will, in turn making deals and 'enslaving' them.
Don't you see that police, for example, is opposite of what a capitalist wants?
Quote:
If I was a capitalist, and there was a guy going around killing my workers and customers, it would certainly be in my interest to kill him. As for the Nazis, we've already had that discussion a thousand times.
Yes we had because The nazis only care about the nazis. Get it? That's why killing Hitler would be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for THEM.
Same here (albeit not as extreme). NOT KILLING the guy would be COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for the CAPITALIST in question. Killing him may be counterproductive for the society as a whole, but NOT FOR THE CAPITALIST. And why should he care about the society as a whole, he's not a government!
The other extreme (i.e best interest for society) would be authoritarian governments regulating almost everything (and this means no capitalism), and saying "We do this for the good of all" or "We seize your property for the good of the society" or something like that.
Don't you see?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 11:42 PM |
|
|
That's it. I'm done discussing this with you. It's clear that you're just trying not to understand.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 11:46 PM |
|
|
At least can you address the police example? I'm pretty sure it's valid. A capitalist does NOT want to pay for a public protection. Why punish him to protect others?
If you say because that's in society's best interest (I don't disagree) then who said all the socialism stuff (welfare, police, national healthcare) isn't in the best interest of society as a whole?
Either way, you punish (to use your words) the capitalist when you force him to pay taxes to the police for example. Trust me he (not society) would be much better off without police.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 12:20 AM |
|
|
Because of the problems inherent in private police forces, such as the free rider problem. Say a criminal tries to attack the capitalist, and his police force get him. Who benefits? The capitalist certainly benefits, because a criminal is caught. But so does society in general - as the criminal is removed from the streets and prevented from attacking somebody else. Thus, the capitalist's expenditures on the police force don't fully reflect their social benefit - and it is in his interests to make sure that others are protected too. If all of his customers and/or workers are dead or too scared to come to shop/work, he suffers too.
And it may well be cheaper for the capitalist to pay taxes for a police force to actively catch criminals than it would be for him to have a defense force that jumps at every shadow.
Quote:
who said all the socialism stuff (welfare, police, national healthcare) isn't in the best interest of society as a whole?
Some of it may be. It should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 12:29 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:31, 14 Dec 2008.
|
I know what you mean. However what you fail to realize is that I did not say the capitalist benefits if the society gets worse -- I said that he does not CARE (i.e irrelevant) if the rest of the society is better off or not, as long as he is. In fact, he doesn't like public police, since otherwise he would have control.
People WILL want to get protection so they will have to pay him for it. This benefits HIM (and the protected citizens) instead of benefiting the society as a whole (or government). In that respect, a corporation is different than a government even if it has the same power, because a corporation is not interested in the well being of the society as long as it is better off (the corporation I mean). Of course, people getting killed isn't really a good thing because you see, the capitalist could enslave them (literally or not literally, take your pick) so he would find a way for them to BEG and work for him (for protection or for whatever else), or simply FORCE them (if the government is too weak compared to the capitalist).
In effect, the government getting 'stronger' is exactly what capitalists don't want! You "punish" (like you said) the capitalist by making him pay for a police that will do him more harm than good to HIM (i.e people won't beg for protection from him anymore).
Of course, as we all know, we need police to not be manipulated by the greedy capitalists. I think you agree here.
If you played Gothic, you'll notice a resemblance to the Old Camp where you pay "protection money" 
Summary: "Public" police: Everyone works for everyone else, for their protection.
"Private" police: Everyone works for a capitalist, only for the individual's protection.
Which one is more profitable to a certain capitalist? The one in which everyone works for the PEOPLE (including him), or the one in which everyone works for HIM (and thus all goes to him instead of shared averagely)?
Quote:
And it may well be cheaper for the capitalist to pay taxes for a police force to actively catch criminals than it would be for him to have a defense force that jumps at every shadow.
Why? How can the public police do more than he with his billions? At best, he would then require people to PAY for him for "protection" so he would benefit a lot from that!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 12:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People WILL want to get protection so they will have to pay him for it.
Why would they do that? He's already paying for his police force. Why would they want to pay for it too? It's cheaper for them to be free riders. The capitalist is already paying for the police force. It's not like he can say, "Those who paid for the police force get the benefit of getting this criminal off the streets, and for those who didn't pay, he'll still be on the streets." It's one criminal - he can't be in jail and not in jail at the same time. (lol quantum mechanics )
Quote:
Why? How can the public police do more than he with his billions?
Because without a public police force, he's paying to protect everyone, and with a public police force, everybody would pay.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 12:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why would they do that? He's already paying for his police force. Why would they want to pay for it too?
To get protection from it LOL.
Scenario 1:
Two "bodyguards": "Look at that guy, he gets beaten up."
"Wait man, he paid protection money! Let's help him!"
"Look at that guy, he gets beaten up!"
"Meh, ignore him, he didn't pay"
And yes you can use some form of ID for that. (to know which paid and which not).
In case both of them paid, then of course it goes NORMALLY like in a public police: you stop the aggressor.
Quote:
Because without a public police force, he's paying to protect everyone, and with a public police force, everybody would pay.
Who said his police will help others unless they slave off for him?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 01:05 AM |
|
|
Ah, I see. You mean protection from it. I misunderstood you. Well, that's a flaw in anarcho-capitalism. That's certainly not what I'm advocating. However, to some extent, the capitalist would be hurting himself if he'd order his police force to attack the citizenry. There'd be a lot of destruction and waste and the risk of a counter-organization that would resist him. Plus he'd be destroying workers or customers.
Quote:
Who said his police will help others unless they slave off for him?
When a criminal is imprisoned, everyone (except for the criminal) benefits, not just the people who paid for the police.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 02:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Pray tell, ever heard about "frictionless" physics? Maybe while you were in school? You used general relativity in all simple calculations? You added friction everywhere? Is that it?
Why do physicists constantly 'isolate' parts of the problem, such as assuming no friction in theories, etc...?? because that's how things get done, you can't solve anything if you don't FOCUS on a particular thing and ISOLATE the 'background noise' or stuff like that. In my example, I isolated the "skill" difference and the "mentality" difference between the people because well... that was something which was pointless in my 'example' where I wanted to show you that being successful comes NOT from those things. So we have the simplest possible analogy: identical people, but in different situations, one having an advantage over the other. Is that fair? I don't think so, since it happened WITHOUT their will (aka: skill/mentality/whatever). It's like being born with a disability or something.
You should take a look at your post and see how constructive it was compared to my "nonsense", at least I even detailed why I said so. Why do I always have to detail everything I say? I can't believe you can't just figure out what I mean -- either that or you want to argue pointlessly.
Physics is based on mathematical laws. Your analogy was based on your own thoughts and assumptions. A far cry from a frictionless problem.
Quote:
Proves you didn't even read what I said. I didn't say anything about dishonesty (although I do think that but I didn't post it in my 'analogies). I said that it is unfair -- to succeed in business you don't have to "work hard", but just have a certain situational advantage. That was my "point" and obviously much more detailed than this but what the hell, you are completely off the track.
So yeah nice off post.
I did read your post. What you are refering to is called "working smart." People who are naturally talented at something will do better in that particular business. This is just the laws of nature. Please leave your fantasy land where everyone is equal. People aren't equal and they were never meant to be equal. The inequalities is what defines the individual.
But still you're arguement does nothing to prove that capitolism is wrong. It still comes down to what you think is fair. And we will never agree on what is fair.
Mvass keeps going back to efficiency.
Suppose you hire someone to clean your floor. One guy comes in and does it with a toothbrush. He works really hard for a week and gets it perfectly clean. Another guy with a mop says he can clean 7 floors in a week's time. The dumbass with the toothbrush should not be payed the same amount as the guy with the mop, just because they both hard for the same amount of time.
The guy who cleans 7 floors should be paid 7 times as much. You should get paid for what you can accomplish, not for how hard you work. That is capitolism. Survival of the fittest. If you can't keep up with the competition then too bad. It is better for the economy for that person to go out of business.
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 03:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Suppose you hire someone to clean your floor. One guy comes in and does it with a toothbrush. He works really hard for a week and gets it perfectly clean. Another guy with a mop says he can clean 7 floors in a week's time. The dumbass with the toothbrush should not be payed the same amount as the guy with the mop, just because they both hard for the same amount of time.
Correct. Because the one with a toothbrush was stupid enough NOT to bring a mop. Easy as pie.
You always seem to say "equality!!!! WARRRGH! For teh horde!". That is an icredible amount ob bullcrap. Humans are NOT born equal. FACT.
By your terms, a man with no hands should be treated the same in getting a job lifting boulders as Arnold freakin' Schwartzenegger.
Fairness? What is fairness? Who are you to judge what is fair or not? Let me tell you just one small thing. Fairness is decided by those who have power. Just as history is written by those who win the wars.
Learning to live with it is so much better than trying to act like some Don Qujote fighting windmills.
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 07:49 AM |
|
|
I don't agree with you completely Doom.
Fairness isn't created by those in power. Fairness is simply the laws of nature. Survival of the fittest. You do your job better, you get paid more. Doesn't matter if you didn't work as hard as the other guy. Simple as that.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 11:17 AM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 11:25, 14 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
It'd be great to stop all the wars in Africa, but we can't get cheap stuff from there - because they're fighting! If there was more economic interdependence among them, then they'd stop fighting.
If we don't get cheap stuff from there at least we sell them guns with great profit when they're fighting. That is why greedy capitalists don't want them to stop fighting. And they won't unless more radical actions are taken.
Quote:
Well, Japan isn't exactly known for its great abundance of natural resources, so that can't be it. And many countries developed earlier with capitalism. And force is never a good thing. But voluntary exchange is.
Japan is not a good example in this because Japan has been at quite same level than western countries in development. At least for the latest centuries.
Quote:
I have morals. It is moral to support the productive, as increased productivity improves general welfare.
While poor coountries get exploited by corporations it's more counterproductive for them than it is productive for the corporations. Besides, what is productive for corporations doesn't necessarily mean that it improves general welfare because afaik corporations are not very eager to share their wealth among people.
That is not what improves general welfare, unless you are a chauvinist pig who considers general welfare something useful only for your own country.
Quote:
Suppose you hire someone to clean your floor. One guy comes in and does it with a toothbrush. He works really hard for a week and gets it perfectly clean. Another guy with a mop says he can clean 7 floors in a week's time. The dumbass with the toothbrush should not be payed the same amount as the guy with the mop, just because they both hard for the same amount of time.
You forgot to take into account that it may not be the toothbrush-cleaner fault that he has to do the job with toothbrush. If someone stole his mop while on way to work or if someone is oppressing him and orders him to clean places with toothbrush.
I wouldn't see anything fair in that.
The basic idea should be like this:
Human is an intelligent creature. If something can be done about something that is against our morals it should be done. Not just watch from aside while others are suffering.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 04:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Physics is based on mathematical laws. Your analogy was based on your own thoughts and assumptions. A far cry from a frictionless problem.
What is math if not our own thoughts and imagination? There isn't any "Bible" where the laws of physics, mathematically, are written! There is no such thing as frictionless ground, although we DO THINK about that in math theories. It's all in our imagination too.
Quote:
Suppose you hire someone to clean your floor. One guy comes in and does it with a toothbrush. He works really hard for a week and gets it perfectly clean. Another guy with a mop says he can clean 7 floors in a week's time. The dumbass with the toothbrush should not be payed the same amount as the guy with the mop, just because they both hard for the same amount of time.
The guy who cleans 7 floors should be paid 7 times as much. You should get paid for what you can accomplish, not for how hard you work. That is capitolism. Survival of the fittest. If you can't keep up with the competition then too bad. It is better for the economy for that person to go out of business.
I do not deny that. However let us look at the fairness involved. If the guy with the toothbrush REFUSED to clean it with the mop, then yes it is his fault. However if he CANNOT GET HOLD of a mop or CANNOT AFFORD a mop (well if you want, let's use examples with computers, factories, etc etc) and the other one can, just because of his situation (wealth, inheritance, family wealth, etc...) then IT IS UNFAIR.
Take a guy born in a rich family and one in poverty. The rich guy will buy a computer and start a software business. The other one CANNOT even though he is MORE SKILLED -- he will have to get employed at a business, not start his own, due to his SITUATION, in a disadvantage AGAINST HIS WILL.
Therefore THAT is unfair.
Quote:
Ah, I see. You mean protection from it. I misunderstood you. Well, that's a flaw in anarcho-capitalism. That's certainly not what I'm advocating. However, to some extent, the capitalist would be hurting himself if he'd order his police force to attack the citizenry. There'd be a lot of destruction and waste and the risk of a counter-organization that would resist him. Plus he'd be destroying workers or customers.
Well I wasn't actually talking about protection from it. But look at it like this: suppose there's a scientist, and crime is legal. Like you said, he won't have time to do research, he will have to defend himself from the other CITIZENS (not the private police force!). So he watches day and night for his belongings. He isn't productive.
And he doesn't like it.
He wants protection. He goes to the big capitalist and says "Hey, hand me some of your police to watch over me!", and the capitalist says "You'll have to bring me 80% of what you do if you want that!".
"Deal", the scientist says.
Obviously the scientist benefits, but not as much as if the police was public. The one that benefits the MOST is the greedy capitalist who, instead of people paying taxes to protect THEMSELVES (in short, paying for the PEOPLE), they now pay to protect their own self (paying for the CAPITALIST). Big difference.
Like: In capitalist, you work for someone else. In socialism, you work for the people.
Quote:
When a criminal is imprisoned, everyone (except for the criminal) benefits, not just the people who paid for the police.
Yes but that doesn't mean the police shouldn't be there to watch for new criminals day and night
Besides, the private police does not imprison criminals, it just does not let them touch the "protected" citizens
kinda like bodyguards, you know?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 07:29 PM |
|
|
Totoro:
Quote:
If we don't get cheap stuff from there at least we sell them guns with great profit when they're fighting.
It is doubtful that they would be able to do so without the US government's support.
Quote:
Japan is not a good example in this because Japan has been at quite same level than western countries in development. At least for the latest centuries.
Japan was devastated after WWII. But it climbed back up quickly thanks to capitalism.
Quote:
While poor coountries get exploited by corporations it's more counterproductive for them than it is productive for the corporations.
By "exploited", do you mean "given opportunities for jobs that they never would have had without the corporations"?
Quote:
Besides, what is productive for corporations doesn't necessarily mean that it improves general welfare because afaik corporations are not very eager to share their wealth among people.
It doesn't matter what the corporation wants. Due to competition, it'll have to pass on the decreases in production costs.
Quote:
You forgot to take into account that it may not be the toothbrush-cleaner fault that he has to do the job with toothbrush. If someone stole his mop while on way to work or if someone is oppressing him and orders him to clean places with toothbrush.
Who would order him to clean with a toothbrush?  And again I say it doesn't matter why he's cleaning with a toothbrush - I'm paying the guy with the mop more because he's more productive. Why he is that way is none of my business.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Besides, the private police does not imprison criminals, it just does not let them touch the "protected" citizens
But that's incredibly inefficient! It would be much cheaper for the capitalist to divide costs with everybody else through a public police force that catches criminals than to just defend them. Besides, the capitalist has the most to lose from a high crime rate.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But that's incredibly inefficient! It would be much cheaper for the capitalist to divide costs with everybody else through a public police force that catches criminals than to just defend them. Besides, the capitalist has the most to lose from a high crime rate.
You're joking? They will slave off for him! If they WANT protection and he ONLY gives it to those that SLAVE OFF (not literally) for him, then he is extremely better off.
I don't understand what's so hard to grasp. Basically, the DEMAND for protection will rise a LOT from people, and the capitalist can supply that demand, with a very high price since there is monopoly. What's a better dream for a capitalist?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You're joking? They will slave off for him! If they WANT protection and he ONLY gives it to those that SLAVE OFF (not literally) for him, then he is extremely better off.
First, who says that everyone will want to do that? Some might say, "Hey, that capitalist is charging is an insane amount! Let's start our own defense agency!" And so they do, and the capitalist thus loses money because of competition. Second, it would be cheaper for the capitalist to have a police force that hunts down criminals than it would for him to just defend people. Third, the capitalist doesn't want his customers and workers dying just because they can't afford protection.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 07:40 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:41, 14 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Second, it would be cheaper for the capitalist to have a police force that hunts down criminals than it would for him to just defend people.
If that's the case, people wouldn't slave off for him anymore. It's ridiculous, that's like him giving his money for everyone, whether they work for him or not. He would be a fool, if he's after profit of course.
Quote:
Third, the capitalist doesn't want his customers and workers dying just because they can't afford protection.
They can work -- that could be used for protection. Literally he wouldn't have to give them so many wages. In short better for him, since at least now he finds a DEMAND for his private bodyguards -- otherwise he would make no profit off them. See?
That's like making cars without anyone buying them -- complete stagnation!
And yes he needs bodyguards since crime is legal -- but to keep it profitable he also needs to have demand for them, perfect opportunity in the other, less fortunate people, see?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
