|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted September 28, 2010 02:08 AM |
|
|
Exactly, Bin.
Still, if you're willing to bring laws that regulate the prices, you may as well allow laws that regulate the minimum wage. The amount of liberty you have remains the same, while many people's amount of security increases.
@MVass
He claims he can't do it cause "no one's doing it, it's an agreement and it wouldn't be fair".
He wouldn't tell me anything else, but I think he just doesn't want to bring himself into potentially quite screwed up situations. He doesn't want to ponder whether someone is going to break his legs or make his life hell in some legal way. What would happen is probably somewhere in the middle.
People have ways to enforce their treaties, and if none of the dozen of other exchange offices changes its course, there's got to be a reason to it. It's fascinating what a few well placed connections can do in a place like Serbia. And I have little doubt that things often function quite similarly elsewhere, just with a different scent to them.
Sometimes, there are factors economy books don't quite describe, and various places play various games, played on various terms.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 03:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
He doesn't want to ponder whether someone is going to break his legs or make his life hell in some legal way.
That's what I thought. Now, you see, under a free market, companies can't do that. Initiation of force would certainly be punished. So the cartel would fail without a means of enforcement.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 04:04 AM |
|
|
There are all sorts of force and all sorts of repercussions. Like I said, different scents.
But we digress. Point is, as long as it's possible for any reason for that to happen, as long as companies are theoretically allowed to do it, the workers are in danger. The idea is for them not to be at the mercy of inter-company relations and backstabbing policies their bosses make.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 04:06 AM |
|
|
OK, so my internet broke and I totally lost my last post. But I just have to say, lmao.
Theory, meet real world.
Real world, meet theory.
Hmmmm, the two don't seem to get along. Oh well, it sure would have made things easier if they did.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 04:13 AM |
|
|
So you trust the government to manage businesses' internal affairs, but not to prevent violence?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 09:07 AM |
|
|
A couple of comments, without member quotes, they are not worth the while.
Letting nature run its course?
Nonsense.
Humans have stopped letting nature ran its course, when they started caring about wounded and ill instead of "letting nature run its course".
It's even in the Bible. Humans are supposed to dominate the world and everything on it:
Quote:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
This would include bacteria and virusses.
No, neither are we supposed to let nature run its course nor would we be wwhere we are, if we had done it.
Religious freedom and parental education and domination over them.
Frankly, their are too many religious lunatics and fanatics to allow this freely. There is disciplining children this side of the border and abusing children that side, and while there is a grey area between those two which certainly are debatable, life and health of children are to be respected.
I will repeat that letting a child unnecessarily die because of a superstitious fear, a certified and harmless procedure might harm the undying soul of a child, is superstition on the expense of the child. Every rational objection against a blood transfusion could be countered by family members donating the necessary blood, if possible, which leaves a case of denial of assistance with consequence of death - a punishable crime in every secular state.
Children have to be protected from this, as they have to be protected from religious lunatics who discipine their children by letting them fast to do penance. There is nothing wrong with a forgone evening meal, mind you, but as with all things there are limits - a three-day fasting would be excessive, obviously.
So. Golden rule: It is the right of THE CHILDREN to grow up UNHARMED and UNABUSED and reach adulthood at all that is highest, not the right of the parents to do with them as they please.
As the state is to watch over the weak, so that criminals and crazies can't do with them as they please, so is the state to watch over the children, so that cruel, deluded and irresponsible parents don't abuse, kill, or maim them, be it physically or mentally.
What is more, this is a matter of course and shouldn't even be dicussed. That it IS discussed just shows, that society should have a closer look into things and tighten the reigns to limit religion motivated lunacies done to children.
For economic theory and practise, cartels and price wars, there are obviously situations when it pays to have a cartel and others where it pays to have a price war. Making a difference between the business and the people running it, is not natural - why would it be ok on one hand to ruin a competitor in business, so that he loses everything and ends up with so many debts he will be poor his whole life, but completely no-noto threaten him with personal violence if he don't keeps to an agreement?
You need rules. and you need authorities to make sure that the rules are kept - otherwise there are no rules except those the strongest can dictate and push through.
A cartel makes a lot of sense between equally strong competitors - there is nothing to gain by warring, but an alliance may make them both stronger compared to others allowing vertical expansion. It's a mutually beneficial truce that may end when one competitor may have acquired new and powerful assets to try for complete market domination.
Price wars are a means only when the market is over-saturated. If you have a normal market situation, even if a competitor has a production advantage so that he COULD sell a lot cheaper, that ompetitor doesn't have to start a price war - he can just sell at market price, offering better quality or making more profit due to lesser cost; gaining more market share isn't always desirable since it would need an expansion of production which isn't always easily possible.
Price wars are a dangerous thing for everyone - and that's not only the competitors. There is one curtrently in Europe between discounters. Price war doesn't mean now that THE DISCOUNTERS are cutting their profits in order to lower prices - in reality they use their market power to pressure their suppliers into selling them their stuff cheaper. For a supplier it's a dangerous thing to supply a discounter - the supplier may have to expand production to meet the discounter's demand, making the supplier vulnerable: while profits rise, sales depend mostly on ONE buyer - the discounter - which gives the discounter power to press for lower prices.
Same is true for other branches - cars, for example. Manufactorers buy lots of things from lots of suppliers and all price competition is felt directly by the suppliers because manucatorers are constantly demanding a lowering in prices.
Which means, that price wars are actually quite counter-productive.
See it with simple things like bakers and millers and peasants. Baker is the last chain link. He buys the flour from the miller, while the miller buys grain from the pesant. Now a baker has a business idea: rationalizing production, making pre-fab dough to be baked in shops - quality of dough will be lesser than usual, but rolls will be fresher, therefore crispier and better, if eaten immediately (but leathery, once a couple of hours old).
With this system the baker COULD sell cheaper because of less costs. He doesn't, though - instead he just sells normally and accumulates more profits for a time.
Having made enough profits and seen that it works, the baker goes in competition - he wants to open a new bakery every year in the whole city. At the same time he needs more flour. NORMALLY, he'd have to offer a better price to the millers supplying other bakers (since flour is now in higher demand), but our baker is much cleverer than that. Instead he says to his miller, pal, I would buy double the amount of flour. I offer you the following deal: Now I buy X flour for Y gold. I want to buy 2X flour, but I'd like better buying conditions: I'll pay 2(Y-1). What's more, come next year and the year after I may have increasing demand, are you prepared and able to expand business?
The miller asks for time. He works with a good profit currently, but his mill runs to capacity. Building another is possible, even a bigger one, to cater for the additional amount in the following years, and he will have to hire a hand to run the second mill. Of course he doesn't need to pay the hand as much as he would pay himself, so in the end he will be able to double profits - provided he can find peasants delivering grain to him.
So in effect, the miller makes the same deal with the peasant of his, who will work another field, hire a hand for sowing and harvesting and expand.
Opening his new shop directly vis-a-vis from the old one, the baker lowers roll prices, ruining the competitor who isn't willing to adapt to the new production method, but instead bakes his rolls early in the morning. Sure, his rolls still taste fine in the evening and even the next morning - but that's not necessary. It's enough that the rolls of his competitors are warm and crispy when buying them (you can eat them immediately) and they are cheaper as well.
After a time that leaves only a couple of big bakers, big millers and big peasants, while the rest is now working as hands for them - for a wage that is less than what they got while still having their own bakery, mill or farm.
At this stage there are a lot of possibilities for the remaining competitors, but ONE of those is pressuring the millers to sell their flour cheaper, which would mean, the baker could sell cheaper, initiating a price war, which is what is happening with discounters currently.
Now, if it was JUST THE ROLLS that were sold, a cartel would be the better option. This might start on the fields: Peasants might decide to build a union, not selling grain below X. Then millers might do the same, deciding not to sell below Y. Which would lead to bakers agreeing not to sell below Z.
However, a discounter sells a wealth of different things and has weekly changing special offers at that, nowadays, while different discounters offer different brand names and stuff, so a cartel is in practise impossible, since the look and presentation and so on plays a role as well.
Which means, that on the discounter level the market works - but at the expense of the suppliers, who are FORCED into a price war and have to bear the brunt of it.
The bottom line is, that with all those dependencies of supply, distribution and manufacturing it amounts to bending the rules as intelligently as possible to make the most of it. It's definitely not about "market laws".
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 09:22 AM |
|
|
We would never allow a parent, any parent to come into a room and stab one of their children to death...even if it was their religious belief that they could do so. Nor lock them up, starve them to death, because their 'god' told them to. So why in the name of all sanity, should we allow a parent to condemn their child to death because of their religion?
Just answer me that. In a logical manner. If it makes sense at ALL I will concede the point.
If a child says. "I don't want to be treated." I have no problem with it honestly. Even if they don't have all the facts..that is on them, and their parents. I hope their parents can live with themselves for having it come to that point.
If a child can not make that decision, and the parents do. NO. We would never allow a parent to put their child in danger ON PURPOSE for any OTHER reason, so religion doesn't get special privileges.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 09:56 AM |
|
|
Just to point out a few cursory mistakes in your post, JJ, and then I hope to conclude this discussion because it's off-topic. First, the price war between suppliers is good because it lowers costs.
Quote:
Now I buy X flour for Y gold. I want to buy 2X flour, but I'd like better buying conditions: I'll pay 2(Y-1).
Why would the miller accept? He would say, "No, baker, with my business at its current state, if you want to buy 2X, you have to pay 2Y."
Quote:
Peasants might decide to build a union, not selling grain below X.
How would this be enforced?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 11:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Just to point out a few cursory mistakes in your post, JJ, and then I hope to conclude this discussion because it's off-topic. First, the price war between suppliers is good because it lowers costs.
Quote:
Now I buy X flour for Y gold. I want to buy 2X flour, but I'd like better buying conditions: I'll pay 2(Y-1).
Why would the miller accept? He would say, "No, baker, with my business at its current state, if you want to buy 2X, you have to pay 2Y."
He would accept because of simple arithmetics. Let's say the miller makes 10.000 profit by selling X flour for Y money. Selling double the floor for less will make him, then, not 20.000 profit, but, say, 18.000, which is way more than 10.000. Additionally, he has the option to maximize this again, by paying minimum wages to the helpers he'll have to hire and to press peasants for lesser prices in much the same way.
It IS common practise to lower prices for higher sales volumes.
Quote:
Quote:
Peasants might decide to build a union, not selling grain below X.
How would this be enforced?
Ask the OPEC - they are a pretty obvious example.
If you have ONE base product only, a pricev cartel offers a lot more profit chances than a "free" price competition. Gaming theory doesn't work here, since everyone can lower their price. The problem is, if you offer lower prices you can do that only for ONE reason: to SELL MORE than before. You can do this only, though, when you HAVE more to sell - with STABLE demand (if there is a higher demand you wouldn't need to lower prices). That is, as a peasant, you'd have to work another field to harvest more grain - advertising your intentions.
The other possibility is, that there was less demand, so that there was a production excess; even in this situation a cartel will work like a charm. You can RAISE prices accordingly, making up for the loss and simply destroy the surplus.
Note, that breaking the cartel is way more costly in terms of profit chances.
This is the general situation with SINGLE BASE products, and it is NOT true that price wars here are the only way the consumer profits via price reduction.
Take Oil and OPEC. The oil cartel has forced everyone to look for ways to USE LESS OIL - alternatives, fuel efficiency and so on, which is a much bigger advantage für the consumer in the long run, than a price war that leads to consuming a ton cheap and unthinkingly.
So economy is way, way more omplex than these cartel=bad, competition=low prices=good thing.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 11:07 AM |
|
|
Some are getting way offtopic. Please keep the posts as much on topic as possible. This is government control of religious practices. Feel free to start a thread for other topics.
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 01:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you trust the government to manage businesses' internal affairs, but not to prevent violence?
Growing up in a country like mine, you learn not to trust the government about anything.
Growing up in a world like ours, you also learn that the government's far from the only thing that's trying to screw you over. Because there are people who would do that to you thrice as hard, then nod and be back home in time for tea, with their "The world is a jungle" ethical egoism made up to surgically remove their conscience under the veil of "rationality".
The minimum wage law is nothing nearly as dramatic as you're trying to put it.
Risking to sound red (and communism is, mind you, one of the few things more despicable than pure capitalism in my mind), capitalists seem to have an awkward and selective sense of liberty; first of all, economic liberty seems to be the only kind that matters for them, and secondly, they wave it around as an effective tool against anything and anyone who's trying to lower their control over the workers, and possibly affect their income in any way - and they reject any laws that don't protect them and them only, with workers remaining the way they like them - equal on paper, but essentially a bunch forced into as much subservience as possible by lack of any real choice on the matter. By saying "Let everyone take care of themselves, government intervention is an assault on freedom," they're basically saying, "We know we'll be taken care of, so let us take care of lesser people, let them depend on us, on our own terms, and not on the government". They are effectively trying to privatize freedom.
The entire thing about this issue is trying to choose the lesser evil. The government is, as I see it, the lesser evil here for now, and it's not intruding on the workers' freedoms any more than what the capitalists are trying to do.
Anyway, let's stop with the offtopic stuff here and wait for the other thread to open.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 03:56 PM |
|
|
@Baklava
Quote:
If you save a child's life, and harm no one along the way, and it clearly keeps the mind and soul it had before the transfusion, what is it exactly that angers God about it?
Like I said, I don't believe what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. But I don't want the loony tunes Marxists in government forcing their anti-theistic religion on others. The atheist loons in the government have no right to dictate what medical procedure anyone must undergo.
Quote:
It also never says that a father should or shouldn't have sexual intercourse with his daughter and whether he should risk her committing sins in the outside world or keep her safely confined in the basement. It says to love and obey your parents.
Sorry, but someone lied to you about what the Bible teaches. You have to be careful who you listen to because there are lots of atheist liars these days who seek to twist the Word of God because they don't actually think there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong" and so easily justify their deception. The goal of such Dawkinite anti-theists is to destroy all other religions with their lies and whatever other means possible.
Quote:
Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
And of course keeping your child locked in a basement for 20+ years and raping them is covered by any number of scriptures. Rape carried the death penalty and locking your child away in a basement is not treating them with love, which is the standard of how to treat even strangers.
@JJ
Quote:
It's even in the Bible. Humans are supposed to dominate the world and everything on it:
Quote:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
This would include bacteria and virusses.
No, neither are we supposed to let nature run its course nor would we be wwhere we are, if we had done it.
Sorry, dude, that verse means man has authority over everything on the earth. Everything was given to man for him to use as he sees fit, but he is also supposed to be a good steward of what has been given to him.
That verse in no way teaches that man is to fight for his physical life at all costs. When you read accounts of men of God in the Bible you don't see them on their death beds fighting for their last breath in fear. No, they go to be with the Lord in peace.
Loony tunes materialistic atheists hold the delusion that physical life is all that there is. Theists don't hold that irrational superstition.
When loony tunes atheists have demanded that believers bow to the State-god or die believers have said "We must obey God rather than man" and subsequently been murdered. Loony tunes atheists have murdered over 250 million people in the past 100 years, many simply for being theists.
No, we certainly can't afford to let loony tunes atheists set policy that the rest of the world must follow in regards to any belief, "religious" or otherwise.
Quote:
Religious freedom and parental education and domination over them.
Frankly, their are too many religious lunatics and fanatics to allow this freely.
As mentioned, we have seen exactly what kind of "religious freedom" loony tunes atheists impose when they come into political power. There are far too many loony tunes religious lunatic atheists who push their fanatical lunatic views on others to allow them free reign to do as they please to others.
The right of others to practice their religion, without interference of fanatical lunatic atheists who want to stamp out all other religions, should be respected.
Quote:
I will repeat that letting a child unnecessarily die because of a superstitious fear, a certified and harmless procedure might harm the undying soul of a child, is superstition on the expense of the child.
Loony tunes atheists don't have the right to pronounce all other religions to be "superstition" and then impose their delusional religion on everyone else.
The parents, not fanatical delusional atheists, should determine the child's medical treatment in the evert that the child is too immature or unable to make the decision.
Again, atheists don't have the right to rule over everyone else.
Also, once again I ask you to prove that a child who does receive a blood transfusion does not go to hell. You can't. Unfortunately, fanatical atheist lunatics want to impose their views by force on others because they have no respect for the rights of other human beings to make their own decisions and control their own lives. Anti-theistic atheism is the most intolerant of all religions.
Quote:
So. Golden rule: It is the right of THE CHILDREN to grow up UNHARMED and UNABUSED and reach adulthood at all that is highest, not the right of the parents to do with them as they please
Children should be loved by their parents and raised in the reverence of God.
I agree parents should not harm or abuse their children although this comes dangerously close to saying atheists should not be allowed to have children because the delusional religion of atheism certainly does cause harm. We know studies have shown atheists tend to have poor relationships with their fathers, have more mental illnesses, commit suicide more often, and are less charitable to others, in general. Atheism is destructive to both society and to individuals.
Certainly I don't believe atheists have the right to impose their religion on the children of others. I do however, think that atheists have the right to teach their own children their religion. It is the right, duty, and obligation of a parent to pass on to children what they think is important. I know you have previously said you think it should be illegal for parents to teach their children their religion but I simply can't agree with such a fanatical viewpoint. Parents have the right to teach even delusional religions like atheism to their children if they think that such religion is the truth. But atheists simply do not have the right to determine what is truth for everyone else and to impose their delusional version of "truth" on the rest of society.
____________
Revelation
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 04:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We know studies have shown atheists tend to have poor relationships with their fathers, have more mental illnesses, commit suicide more often, and are less charitable to others, in general. Atheism is destructive to both society and to individuals.
We know studies AND have evidences of people who work for the church, (so they are at no means atheists!!) raping and molesting children.
Parts of Theism are deadly for the society. Be it (part of) islamic people nowadays (Shiites and Sunnites for example), be it the catholic church in medieval times, or religious cults in Africa or Middle America (Haiti for example).
You have any sources for your claims?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 04:30 PM |
|
|
It would certainly be interesting to know, Elodin, what exactly made you such an insufferable, preachy fanatic who drones endlessly on and on, always using the same devoid-of-sense words like mantras, always repeating the same unconnected, husks of sentences which are an insult for every normal human being who does not share your particular religious delusions, always bashing everyone not sharing your specific religious hell as atheists, Marxists, Communists, Liberals, loony tunes, never even bothering to answer the points... but I'm afraid it wouldn't make things less offensive.
And to the rest, am I the only one for whom Elodin's posts look, read and feel like turds on a dinner table? They seem to have something decidedly disgusting - and every day more so.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 04:57 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 18:40, 28 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
Loony tunes materialistic atheists
I think calling other members crazy because of their beliefs is against the code of conduct.Quote:
Atheism is destructive
Atheism is not destructive: I know right from wrong, I'm neither murderous nor suicidal, I grew up in a wonderful family and have one of my own now. I will teach my children what I believe, but will also expose them to other ideas and let them choose for themselves. I will certainly not tell them that religious people are inferior in any way, but I will warn them of wolves in sheep's clothing...
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 07:59 PM |
|
|
|
how is atheism destructive when like the worlds biggest conflict atm is centered around religion? -.-
|
|
Woodfang
Hired Hero
|
posted September 28, 2010 10:04 PM |
|
|
Religious beliefs/practices should remain an uncensored right for the individual. Heck, governments should be changed as often as diapers....and for the same reasons.
____________
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat!! 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 10:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Heck, governments should be changed as often as diapers....and for the same reasons.
Psst, I'll meet you at the next tea party in DC, come prepared. *wink wink*
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 11:31 PM |
|
|
why should you follow all that's written in some book anyway?
I could write any kind of snow and claim it's the word of god...
it's dangerous to accept unconditionnaly some beliefs.
|
|
Woodfang
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2010 11:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Heck, governments should be changed as often as diapers....and for the same reasons.
Psst, I'll meet you at the next tea party in DC, come prepared. *wink wink*
You bring the booze, I'll bring the C4 and horduerves... (sp?) *L*
____________
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat!!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
