|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted December 14, 2008 07:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Third, the capitalist doesn't want his customers and workers dying just because they can't afford protection.
Sorry dude, but if your in another world where another rules apply one day i would feel sorry for you.
Lets say i am a lord in the medival age, and i got power. Now i hire quite a few guards to guard my fortune, but i also demand a high tax on the peasants and traders. If they pay i will protect them, and keep up the law. If you do not pay you are on your own.
If somebody breaks the law their likely dead if their crime is severe enogh. Always public punishment to keep the fear up.
I would likely also build a church and make deals with them to keep me high up among the lowers.
So i earn alot of money. I could go even further by buying everything and creating some kind of monopol on lets say farming since its a major part of the infrastructur.
The system in practis or did i miss someting?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 08:20 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
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.
On the other hand, if a criminal breaks into his house and steals his stuff despite the security company's best efforts, the capitalist suffers a significant loss, whereas if he used the company to track down and imprison the criminals, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Quote:
They can work -- that could be used for protection.
Okay, but what about workers whose work is profitable but who don't make enough money to pay for protection? If the capitalist were to protect that guy, he would suffer a loss, but if he didn't protect that guy, he'd suffer a loss too.
Say the capitalist employs a thousand people. 200 of them can afford to pay for protection, the other 800 can't. Then, one day, there is a huge crime spree, and the 800 are killed. The capitalist shows up at his factory, sees that he lost 80% of his workforce, and thinks, "I just got pwned.  " 
del_diablo:
Feudal lords are different from capitalists because capitalists produce something for which there is a demand. Feudal lords are just there, sitting and oppressing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
Feudal lords are different from capitalists because capitalists produce something for which there is a demand. Feudal lords are just there, sitting and oppressing.
But still, the power to start it and keep it on. It was the point, it COULD happen The difference is that the capitalist did not get taxes, but taxes now becomes protection money.
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
The the **** said that these guys are capitolists. How the **** do you know a socialist or communist wouldn't sell them guns. It doesn't matter if the economy is socialist or capitolist, people will continue to sell these guys guns.
Quote:
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.
Okay here's where we are making some ground. If you watch all three videos, this guy clearly states that capitolism is good. He just believes that it's become imperialistic in that American companies are exploiting poor countries. This is the real issue at hand. I am not against this. But to say that making America socialist would prevent this from happening? Utter nonsense.
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.
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.
How does this tie into capitolism being bad. Cause your point seems to be completely irrelevant to me. You can't just argue over a detail and say that my arguement is wrong.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 08:44 PM |
|
|
TheDeath says:Quote:
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.
Not true. This is completely fair. That guys family probably worked very hard to give their son a head start in life. If this "poor" guy is really that skilled, then he will be able to eventually start his own business and run it more successfully in the long run then the guy born in the rich family. You simply don't have faith that people can make it in this world out of nothing.
Let me tell you a story. My father was making minimum wage when I was born with no college degree. 20 years later he is running a successful business. And it did it with hard work and trying to become better at his job every day. So when you tell me capitolism isn't fair, I simply can't believe you. You are wrong. Capitolism works just fine. It worked for my father and I'll never believe otherwise.
One of my friends told me that he comes from a family of more or less "hicks." His mother was the only one who went to college. She decided to get her doctorate probably without help from her family. The point is that anyone can get things going on their own, if they work towards becoming skilled at something.
And to be honest TheDeath. If I met 100 people in America and I asked each of them if they ever seriously considered starting their own business, I might get 10-20 people. Out of them how many actually attempted it. Probably 2 or 3 of them.
And you say that the person's situation isn't good enough to start a business. Well I guarantee you that people give up before even TRYING TO PUT THEMSELVES IN A BETTER SITUATION. Anyone can do anything in America.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 08:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand, if a criminal breaks into his house and steals his stuff despite the security company's best efforts, the capitalist suffers a significant loss, whereas if he used the company to track down and imprison the criminals, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Personal bodyguards are much better than police. Trust me 
Quote:
Okay, but what about workers whose work is profitable but who don't make enough money to pay for protection? If the capitalist were to protect that guy, he would suffer a loss, but if he didn't protect that guy, he'd suffer a loss too.
But even with a public police it would be similar, only that then he is forced to pay even for guys who don't work for him -- and worse, he doesn't get profit from it, apart from their work, which isn't extreme (they don't demand protection anymore).
Quote:
The capitalist shows up at his factory, sees that he lost 80% of his workforce, and thinks, "I just got pwned. "
If they can't pay for protection, then they aren't productive enough, so it's like buildings cars where the production is more expensive than the car itself
He doesn't need such workers.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 08:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Personal bodyguards are much better than police. Trust me
According to the video it was personal bodyguards who killed most of the dictators and presidents. I'll stick with the police lol.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 08:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But even with a public police it would be similar, only that then he is forced to pay even for guys who don't work for him -- and worse, he doesn't get profit from it, apart from their work, which isn't extreme (they don't demand protection anymore).
Say he owns a car factory. If he helps pay for the protection of people who don't work for him, then he also gets the benefit of enjoying the work of farmers, doctors, other scientists, medical researchers, etc who have nothing to do with making cars but are still productive.
Plus, if he has his own bodyguards, then he has to pay for them. But if there's a public police force, then he might not even have to pay for private bodyguards! That'd be much cheaper.
Quote:
If they can't pay for protection, then they aren't productive enough, so it's like buildings cars where the production is more expensive than the car itself
No. Say these people's work is worth $10 an hour, and protection is $11 an hour. They can't afford protection, but they still do $10-an-hour work - and the capitalist profits from that, and loses that if criminals kill them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
According to the video it was personal bodyguards who killed most of the dictators and presidents. I'll stick with the police lol.
I wasn't talking about for the 'dictator' but bodyguards for the citizens who want protection doh.
Quote:
Plus, if he has his own bodyguards, then he has to pay for them. But if there's a public police force, then he might not even have to pay for private bodyguards! That'd be much cheaper.
He has to pay for taxes though, and he won't have an edge anymore.
That's like socialism: a capitalist has to pay for machines/factories/etc, so is it better under socialism where such things are paid with taxes? (common property, not private)
Is that what you're saying?
Quote:
No. Say these people's work is worth $10 an hour, and protection is $11 an hour. They can't afford protection, but they still do $10-an-hour work - and the capitalist profits from that, and loses that if criminals kill them.
You don't get it.
If the PRODUCTION is more expensive than the OUTPUT/GAIN (how much you sell it for), then it's bad business! If a worker makes a product worth $500, but it costs $600 to pay the worker (otherwise he will quit), then let him quit lol. If it's more expensive to keep such workers safe than their worth then "to hell with them" says the boss.
Public police doesn't do anything better anyway, for the capitalist I mean -- only that then he can't complain about the taxes since he is FORCED to pay them (he can't just "kick out" the taxes like he kicks out workers in the other scenario).
____________
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 09:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's like socialism: a capitalist has to pay for machines/factories/etc, so is it better under socialism where such things are paid with taxes? (common property, not private)
No, because socialism is less efficient in general. In certain specific aspects, though, it is better to have some government intervention.
Quote:
If the PRODUCTION is more expensive than the OUTPUT/GAIN (how much you sell it for), then it's bad business! If a worker makes a product worth $500, but it costs $600 to pay the worker (otherwise he will quit), then let him quit lol. If it's more expensive to keep such workers safe than their worth then "to hell with them" says the boss.
Indeed. However, the worker is productive - but not productive enough to pay the capitalist for police protection. However, with taxes raised from the general population, the worker stays alive, which is good for the capitalist.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 09:34 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:35, 14 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Indeed. However, the worker is productive - but not productive enough to pay the capitalist for police protection. However, with taxes raised from the general population, the worker stays alive, which is good for the capitalist.
No it's not cause he won't work for him anymore, and if he does, he'll want wages and such... much higher since he doesn't have to pay the private police anymore.
and in the car example it is similar: the worker is productive, but not productive enough compared to how much he demands (600$ compared to 500$). So kick him out!
Think of "cars" instead of private police, and think that people demand cars. Does that make it more clear?
or do you want cars to be available for everyone through taxes and socialism style?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 10:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's like socialism: a capitalist has to pay for machines/factories/etc, so is it better under socialism where such things are paid with taxes? (common property, not private)
No, because socialism is less efficient in general.
We all know about the dark age people.
____________
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 12:53 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 13:07, 15 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
It is doubtful that they would be able to do so without the US government's support.
Hah! Why should US government know about it?
Quote:
Japan was devastated after WWII. But it climbed back up quickly thanks to capitalism.
So? it doesn't change the fact that Japan wasn't exploited by other countries and that's why it developed.
Quote:
By "exploited", do you mean "given opportunities for jobs that they never would have had without the corporations"?
They will never develop because they're depended on those jobs with ridiculously low salaries.
Quote:
It doesn't matter what the corporation wants. Due to competition, it'll have to pass on the decreases in production costs.
How does it decrease production costs if corporation-owners get all the money.
Quote:
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.
So you simply don't care about anything else than yourself? That's called selfishness.
Quote:
But to say that making America socialist would prevent this from happening?
Who has said so?
Quote:
How does this tie into capitolism being bad. Cause your point seems to be completely irrelevant to me. You can't just argue over a detail and say that my arguement is wrong.
Why should it be tied into capitalism being bad. My point was that this was unfair.
I have never argued about capitalism being bad.
Quote:
The the **** said that these guys are capitolists. How the **** do you know a socialist or communist wouldn't sell them guns. It doesn't matter if the economy is socialist or capitolist, people will continue to sell these guys guns.
Whatever, the point was that they won't develop as they keep fighting as they're sold guns.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 10:57 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Let me try to explain this to you one last time. It would not be profitable for the capitalist to protect the worker, as he isn't productive enough to pay for protection.
On the other hand, if everybody paid taxes, then the capitalist wouldn't be paying as much, so his worker would stay alive, and so the capitalist would have a greater profit.
Totoro:
Quote:
Hah! Why should US government know about it?
The US government subsidizes and funds the military-industrial complex very heavily. If it cut back funding, they would shrink severely.
Quote:
So? it doesn't change the fact that Japan wasn't exploited by other countries and that's why it developed.
Oh, so Japan, China, etc. don't import a lot of their goods at a relatively cheap price?
Quote:
They will never develop because they're depended on those jobs with ridiculously low salaries.
So Japan, China, Taiwan, etc. never developed?
Quote:
How does it decrease production costs if corporation-owners get all the money.
They don't. It's something called competition. Look at this example.
Companies A, B, and C make an identical product for $10 and sell it for $16, thus making a $6 dollar profit.
Now imagine that the cost of production drops to $4 (it can be for any reason, but since we're talking about outsourcing, let's say it was outsourcing). Now Companies A, B, and C make a product for $4 and sell it for $16, thus making a $12 dollar profit.
But the process doesn't stop here. Company C thinks, "Well, if I cut down on my profits per product, I can make a greater profit overall." So Company C cuts the cost of the product to $9 dollars. Now it only makes a $5 dollar profit. But, all of the people that used to buy the product from companies A and B will now buy Company C's product, so, even though the profit per product dropped, the amount of sales tripled, so Company C comes out ahead. Companies A and B have to drop costs or raise the quality of their products or both or go out of business.
This is how cuts in production costs are passed on to the consumer.
Quote:
So you simply don't care about anything else than yourself? That's called selfishness.
Trust me, you don't want to have a discussion about the ethics of self-interest with me. However, capitalism is the most productive system, and provides the highest standard of living, so it is not selfish to support it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 11:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me try to explain this to you one last time. It would not be profitable for the capitalist to protect the worker, as he isn't productive enough to pay for protection.
On the other hand, if everybody paid taxes, then the capitalist wouldn't be paying as much, so his worker would stay alive, and so the capitalist would have a greater profit.
I understand what you mean but that's not what is going to happen. Seems I'll have to use another example to make it more clear. 
Replace the private police with cars. Now suppose that ANY KIND of transport is eliminated, except for private transport. But here's the thing: only that guy's corporation can build cars, because he has let's say patents, and doesn't want to give them. Or make up any kind of excuse.
The point is here's how it stands: only that capitalist (let's call him Bob) can make cars, and they are the only means of transportation.
This is to make people demand it A LOT.
Then, they demand the cars yes? So since he knows of this advantage he has, and the huge amount of demand, he can request from them a lot. So literally they slave off for him (assuming people can't live without transportation).
These same people BUILD the cars of course, since he doesn't. But their wages are ridiculous (since he, oh my, owns the "method of production" so he can set the wages as low as he wants, they can't build cars by themselves).
Then, if a worker isn't very productive enough, he fires him. Plain and simple.
You're saying that he shouldn't fire him, but instead make a system where cars are made from taxes and given free to anyone? Or a public transport system? That's what will be better for Bob, you say? Come on
The example isn't very good as in the police case, because people don't need cars as bad as protection. But you get the idea.
Quote:
Trust me, you don't want to have a discussion about the ethics of self-interest with me.
Well too bad you're not a programmer cause programming forums are filled sometimes with such questions and I discussed them about "someone like you" and they say it's weird and using "emotional benefits" into account is off the point and useless since it doesn't tell anything. Of course by that logic everyone is selfish. Selfish = selfish for anything except emotional benefits. That's what it means... hmmm kay?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 11:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I understand what you mean but that's not what is going to happen. Seems I'll have to use another example to make it more clear.
Replace the private police with cars. Now suppose that ANY KIND of transport is eliminated, except for private transport. But here's the thing: only that guy's corporation can build cars, because he has let's say patents, and doesn't want to give them. Or make up any kind of excuse.
The point is here's how it stands: only that capitalist (let's call him Bob) can make cars, and they are the only means of transportation.
This is to make people demand it A LOT.
Then, they demand the cars yes? So since he knows of this advantage he has, and the huge amount of demand, he can request from them a lot. So literally they slave off for him (assuming people can't live without transportation).
These same people BUILD the cars of course, since he doesn't. But their wages are ridiculous (since he, oh my, owns the "method of production" so he can set the wages as low as he wants, they can't build cars by themselves).
Then, if a worker isn't very productive enough, he fires him. Plain and simple.
You're saying that he shouldn't fire him, but instead make a system where cars are made from taxes and given free to anyone? Or a public transport system? That's what will be better for Bob, you say? Come on
The example isn't very good as in the police case, because people don't need cars as bad as protection. But you get the idea.
You are right the example is flawed. Look at the part highlighted in bold. Let's look back at when the automobile was created. At this time, people were not reliant on this form of transportation, since it was a newly introduce technology. I think the example you are looking for is when computers and Windows were first introduced.
Now let's take a look at a better example. Microsoft and Windows. The many different places where you can get a PC is vast. And in order to keep the price of computers competitive and affordable, these manufacturers must strike a deal with Microsoft to buy copies of Windows for each sold computer.
In this type of capitolist market, the price of computers are still quite cheap. Granted if you wanted to buy a copy of windows yourself, it would be pretty expensive. But as a smart capitolist consumer, you know that you can get a good price (essentially free) if you get it through a manufacturer rather than through microsoft. Despite having a monopoly, this product can still be used by the public at a reasonable price.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 01:01 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
The difference between protection and cars is that the capitalist does not lose anything when his workers don't have enough money to buy a car. On the other hand, if they don't have enough money to buy protection, and then get killed, then he loses a worker.
Quote:
Of course by that logic everyone is selfish. Selfish = selfish for anything except emotional benefits. That's what it means... hmmm kay?
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that definition. Selfish = doing things because they benefit or appear to benefit the self.
Quote:
Well too bad you're not a programmer cause programming forums are filled sometimes with such questions and I discussed them about "someone like you" and they say it's weird and using "emotional benefits" into account is off the point and useless since it doesn't tell anything.
I've met people like these too. Sometimes their philosophy is quite self-contradictory. For example, Objectivists oppose altruism because of its reliance on emotional benefits, but their philosophy is as much dependent on emotional benefits as altruism is.
RSF:
Quote:
But as a smart capitolist consumer, you know that you can get a good price (essentially free) if you get it through a manufacturer rather than through microsoft.
Actually, no, not really. Perhaps you'd get it somewhat cheaper, but not "essentially free".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 11:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath:
The difference between protection and cars is that the capitalist does not lose anything when his workers don't have enough money to buy a car. On the other hand, if they don't have enough money to buy protection, and then get killed, then he loses a worker.
The fear og gettting killed and the controll granted will be what makes the money. If somebody that is lower than THAT(higher in the project, worse to replace) dies, its harder but still somewhat replaceable. If just another worked dies however somebody will gladly take the spot.
____________
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 12:14 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 12:18, 16 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
The US government subsidizes and funds the military-industrial complex very heavily. If it cut back funding, they would shrink severely.
Are you stating that USA is the only country in the world that produces weapons and sells them?
And that still doesn't explain it if manufacturers sell guns onwards who sell them onwards again to someone who sells them to juntas in Africa. How could US government know about it? It just keeps funding the industry.
Quote:
Oh, so Japan, China, etc. don't import a lot of their goods at a relatively cheap price?
China does, Japan doesn't, at least any cheaper than any one of the western countries, because Japan is at quite same level in development than western countries.
Quote:
So Japan, China, Taiwan, etc. never developed?
They did (though China has still alot to catch up) because they weren't exploited by corporations or other countries.
Quote:
They don't. It's something called competition. Look at this example.
Companies A, B, and C make an identical product for $10 and sell it for $16, thus making a $6 dollar profit.
Now imagine that the cost of production drops to $4 (it can be for any reason, but since we're talking about outsourcing, let's say it was outsourcing). Now Companies A, B, and C make a product for $4 and sell it for $16, thus making a $12 dollar profit.
But the process doesn't stop here. Company C thinks, "Well, if I cut down on my profits per product, I can make a greater profit overall." So Company C cuts the cost of the product to $9 dollars. Now it only makes a $5 dollar profit. But, all of the people that used to buy the product from companies A and B will now buy Company C's product, so, even though the profit per product dropped, the amount of sales tripled, so Company C comes out ahead. Companies A and B have to drop costs or raise the quality of their products or both or go out of business.
This is how cuts in production costs are passed on to the consumer.
Yes, I understand perfectly. But wouldn't it increase the competition even more if there were also companies D, E and F that would come from South-American countries, given that they were at the same level of development than USA is?
Quote:
Trust me, you don't want to have a discussion about the ethics of self-interest with me. However, capitalism is the most productive system, and provides the highest standard of living, so it is not selfish to support it.
Yes, I agree. Capitalism has been proven the best-working system. But capitalism isn't about pointing a gun on someone's forehead and saying: "You let us use your resources without any resistance, k?" no matter how productive that would be, because that's against our morals and without morals the society would collapse.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 16, 2008 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The difference between protection and cars is that the capitalist does not lose anything when his workers don't have enough money to buy a car.
No you didn't get the analogy. It wasn't if they have the money to buy a car or not. It was if the SALARY or wages is more expensive than their worth. That is, the "salary" in protection case is... protection. The "salary" in the car's case is money. And if this money is more than their worth, then they're fired. Simple as that.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that definition. Selfish = doing things because they benefit or appear to benefit the self.
Which is useless.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
