Rush tells NY to DROP DEAD...

[PubliusInfinitum]

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble.

Without the benefit of having read beyond this first sentence, I find the raw projection from this member that her opposition is ignorant of the subjective science of economics.

Thus I'm lead to believe that I'm about to be treated to a fountain of knowledge born in the factual understanding of the subjective science of economics; from which I may sip to expand my understanding of that subjective science and the FACTS which she PROVES TO BE TRUTH from her extensive understanding of same.

Let's examine the balance of the paragraph for those two common elements... that of supposition founded in subjective opinion, hopefully where such is born from a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument and science born on analysis which tested the elements of that supposition and the sound scientific conclusions drawn from that empirical evidence...

For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

Huh... We see an unsubstantiated reference to a series of opinions, which have conveniently been noted without a cited reference; which likely is the result of the certainty that IF such observations were indeed submitted, that they were responded to and summarily discredited or refuted; this based upon the readily refutable descriptions provided in the relevant paragraph... So, in TRUTH, no scientific facts are represented in this paragraph, only the lowest order of raw supposition, which again serves no other purpose than the projection of the aforementioned, readily refutable implications.

"the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation."

In this classic demonstration of mindless pap, we see a projection that Capitalism is a scheme… it’s a plan, wherein people have conspired against other people to exploit them… thus given the specified elements, the Hierarchy is then necessarily scheming to exploit, or to openly exchange an unfair value in terms of compensation for the exchanged value represented by the service provided by Labor.

Would this had NOT been a PERFECT PLACE to note what a FAIR exchange would represent, so as to show that the Hierarchy was IN FACT: Screwing labor? Yet this member chose to omit this would-be scientific fact. WHAT… WHY… HOW could someone who claims to be in direct possession of such knowledge, leave us to wallow in our ignorance?

IS it not true, that where such knowledge is known to this member and where she stands on the certainty implied in her assertion, which can ONLY rest in that knowledge; that in advancing the unambiguous projection that her opposition is IGNORANT, that she is bound be the moral imperative inherent in reason to provide this board with those facts; proving that her opposition was IN FACT ignorant of THOSE SCIENTIFIC FACTS, thus rendering their positions moot; thus proving her conclusion?

We’re left to conclude here, that this member believes that the entire scope of the calculation of economics is comprised in the exchange of the value of compensation for the service provided by Labor. That Capitalism fails on the inability of CAPITALISM to provide the scientifically certain formula wherein Labor receives the SCIENTIFICALLY correct compensation for their exchanged service.

Well DAMN! If that’s true… then WHERE IS THIS CALCULATION? Could this entire issue have not be put to rest RIGHT THERE? Is it not true, that HAD the member simply stated that Capitalism is untenable because the entity of Capitalism is simply incapable of paying the correct scientifically established wage for labor and simply posted the scientifically correct formula proving that Capitalism is simply WRONG in the means by which IT calculates the exchange, that this argument would be OVER? I mean who could argue against hard Scientific FACT?

Of course to do that, she would been obliged to identify WHO Capitalism is… to specify the identity of this ethereal being; so that we, the Ignorant, could in the future avoid advocating for and exchanging with this boogyman intent on exploiting our ignorance, in their conspiracy to profit from our service of labor? But if she did THAT…such would lead to what?
.
.
.
.
.
Would that not lead directly to the member having to acknowledge the unspeakable?
.
.
.
.
.
.

Would this not require that she recognize the Capitalism is not a WHO… that Capitalism is not a being who is incapable of exchanging the scientifically correct value for the services provided by labor? Would she not then be left with no other alternative but to admit that capitalism is merely the word used to describe the actions of BILLIONS OF human beings engaging in the process of freely exchanging the value which they possess, for the value which another possesses, which they need or desire, throughout the course of their daily lives? And that because of the unspeakable number of variables which exist in an economy of billions of human beings, that there is no ‘Scientifically Correct’ value which can POSSIBLY BE ASSIGNED for the exchange of labor… because the CORRECT VALUE for one’s labor is that value which one is prepared to accept, given the circumstances with which they’re presently faced?

Thus the supposition which ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A ‘SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT’ VALUE TO BE SET FOR EXCHANGED LABOR IS FALSE, is it not?

And wouldn’t this be the result of the established, now indisputable certainty, that Socialism, OKA: Left-think ONLY PRETENDS to know what this Scientifically Correct value is, while themselves BEING ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT OF ANYTHING OF THE KIND; thus proving their OVERT INTENTION TO DECIEVE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND IN THIS CASE, WE, THE MEMBER’S OF THIS BOARD, SPECIFICALLY?

And would it not then be true that where we readily know that an advocate is promoting DECEITFUL IGNORANCE; that where it has been established that they’re sole purpose is to prey upon the emotional needs of others, who simply have not thought this issue through; that for us to lend their INVALID, DECEITFUL THESIS credence would and could ONLY lead to cultural CATASTROPHE?

To set them up in power; to allow them to establish policy which strips from us; the free individuals of this culture; EACH ONE OF US FULLY UNDERSTANDING OUR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES; EACH ONE BEING VASTLY MORE QUALIFIED TO KNOW THE CORRECT VALUE FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL SERVICES AND THE GOODS WE EXCHANGE, BASED UPON THOSE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, to meet the needs for which those circumstances provide; sets aside the INCONTROVERTIBLE CERTAINTY THAT WE MORE ACCURATELY KNOW THAT WHICH IS A ‘SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT’ VALUE FOR OUR SERVICES AND GOODS? And this better THAN ANYONE ELSE… possibly could…

It is OUR RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF OUR LABOR… IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THAT RIGHT; and to defend it from those who seek to strip us from that right, because of their feelings that we’re unable to determine what is fair FOR US; and who use LIES born of SUBJECTIVE SCIENCE… meaning SCIENCE WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE… but that which is used TO IMPLY THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE WITHOUT HAVING ACCOMPLISHED THE HARD WORK ON WHICH THAT CREDIBILITY OTHERWISE RESTS. It merely project the COLOR if Science; the façade which they drape over their deceit to LABEL IT SCIENCE.

They’re liars folks… at BEST their enthusiastically MISGUIDED FOOLS advocating for that which deceives… but the end result is that, that for which they advocate serves to MISLEAD; but where such fools are shown the truth, and the above represents NOTHING LESS THAN THE TRUTH… INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT… and they continue to zealously perpetuate deception… THEY CAN NO LONGER ESCAPE THE CERTIANT THAT THEY ARE WILLFUL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE… which is the underlying purpose of the full scope of the ideological left…

Now, I leave you to enjoy the various submissions by the deceivers, which will respond with what stands for high intellect on the left; the predictable cries that this argument is ‘too long,’ through the ad populum grope wherein they declare that “no one will read it’… or the more likely simple dismissal of the argument on the same, if unstated, fallacious premise; simply reiterating the now discredited projection, in hopes that to do so will somehow establish some discernable validity.

And it is THAT, fellow members of the board, which measures the scope of that which is the sub-par intellect of The Advocates of Social Science; those which would have us believe that THEY’RE HERE TO ‘lead us from the cultural darkness;’ even while they busy themselves with turning out the intellectual lights… through their INABILITY TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT BROUGHT BY THEIR OPPOSITION.

Do you realize precisely how great an idiot you are?

And THAT Friends is what we CALL advancing suppositional thesis, testing that thesis through application of it's principles; observing and noting the results... from which we're each left to draw our own conclusions... from those empirical observations.

Now I could easily conclude that I've proven my argument; and this through the help of Ag whatshername... and to be perfectly honest... I do.

But I leave it to each of you to draw your own conclusions from the above experiment and for the brighter amongst you, I ask that you set your conclusions in writing, on this thread, so that we may each enjoy the bounty of your reasoning, to firm this whole thing up...

LOL... Well done Ag...

You, along with your Comrades, are truly... That SPECIAL Gift, that just keeps on giving.

(And kids... these are the idiots which are presently running our government. I'd say this kid is probably smarter than MOST of those in the Hussein Cabinet.. and lacks the intellectual means present in a Bag of GRASS.)

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the nice little anecdotal story any anti-socialist enjoys spewing out. It's a shame that you can't rely on somewhat more statistical evidence to support your claims. Some familiarity with political and economic philosophy would also be welcome, as I am neither a "Marxist" nor a "liberal."

Sure thing....how about taking a look at European unemployment rates versus USA unemployment rates...

US unemployment rates have been pretty much from 3-5% on average with a few upswings. Our 8% today is very, very high for us. European rates, however, have hovered for years around the 7-8% range or even higher.

Capitalism, rather than socialism, certainly seems to work better for the WORKERS....dontcha think?

FACTS: Euro Area Unemployment Rate

FACTS: The United States Unemployment Rate

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with the nice little anecdotal story any anti-socialist enjoys spewing out. It's a shame that you can't rely on somewhat more statistical evidence to support your claims. Some familiarity with political and economic philosophy would also be welcome, as I am neither a "Marxist" nor a "liberal."

Sure thing....how about taking a look at European unemployment rates versus USA unemployment rates...

US unemployment rates have been pretty much from 3-5% on average with a few upswings. Our 8% today is very, very high for us. European rates, however, have hovered for years around the 7-8% range or even higher.

Capitalism, rather than socialism, certainly seems to work better for the WORKERS....dontcha think?


FACTS: Euro Area Unemployment Rate

FACTS: The United States Unemployment Rate

No, I do not think that the figures are correct. Our unemployment rate only includes those on unemployment, not the people whose benefits have ran out, not the high school and college grads looking for work. The real number is much higher for the US. Not only that, many millions here are now working part time. Only 20 to 32 hours a week. Yet they are counted as employed.

 

[Andrew2382]

the same logic goes for Europe as well...and part time workers are employed aren't they?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

You have got to be kidding.

Labor is a liability... that's not even debatable Dr. Dumbass.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The problem is that you're arguing with individuals who can't be expected to know the first thing about economics, such as Pubicus and AllieBabble.

Without the benefit of having read beyond this first sentence, I find the raw projection from this member that her opposition is ignorant of the subjective science of economics.

Thus I'm lead to believe that I'm about to be treated to a fountain of knowledge born in the factual understanding of the subjective science of economics; from which I may sip to expand my understanding of that subjective science and the FACTS which she PROVES TO BE TRUTH from her extensive understanding of same.

Let's examine the balance of the paragraph for those two common elements... that of supposition founded in subjective opinion, hopefully where such is born from a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument and science born on analysis which tested the elements of that supposition and the sound scientific conclusions drawn from that empirical evidence...

For instance, they derive nothing from my repeated observation that the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

Huh... We see an unsubstantiated reference to a series of opinions, which have conveniently been noted without a cited reference; which likely is the result of the certainty that IF such observations were indeed submitted, that they were responded to and summarily discredited or refuted; this based upon the readily refutable descriptions provided in the relevant paragraph... So, in TRUTH, no scientific facts are represented in this paragraph, only the lowest order of raw supposition, which again serves no other purpose than the projection of the aforementioned, readily refutable implications.

"the economic framework of capitalism necessitates a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation."

In this classic demonstration of mindless pap, we see a projection that Capitalism is a scheme… it’s a plan, wherein people have conspired against other people to exploit them… thus given the specified elements, the Hierarchy is then necessarily scheming to exploit, or to openly exchange an unfair value in terms of compensation for the exchanged value represented by the service provided by Labor.

Would this had NOT been a PERFECT PLACE to note what a FAIR exchange would represent, so as to show that the Hierarchy was IN FACT: Screwing labor? Yet this member chose to omit this would-be scientific fact. WHAT… WHY… HOW could someone who claims to be in direct possession of such knowledge, leave us to wallow in our ignorance?

IS it not true, that where such knowledge is known to this member and where she stands on the certainty implied in her assertion, which can ONLY rest in that knowledge; that in advancing the unambiguous projection that her opposition is IGNORANT, that she is bound be the moral imperative inherent in reason to provide this board with those facts; proving that her opposition was IN FACT ignorant of THOSE SCIENTIFIC FACTS, thus rendering their positions moot; thus proving her conclusion?

We’re left to conclude here, that this member believes that the entire scope of the calculation of economics is comprised in the exchange of the value of compensation for the service provided by Labor. That Capitalism fails on the inability of CAPITALISM to provide the scientifically certain formula wherein Labor receives the SCIENTIFICALLY correct compensation for their exchanged service.

Well DAMN! If that’s true… then WHERE IS THIS CALCULATION? Could this entire issue have not be put to rest RIGHT THERE? Is it not true, that HAD the member simply stated that Capitalism is untenable because the entity of Capitalism is simply incapable of paying the correct scientifically established wage for labor and simply posted the scientifically correct formula proving that Capitalism is simply WRONG in the means by which IT calculates the exchange, that this argument would be OVER? I mean who could argue against hard Scientific FACT?

Of course to do that, she would been obliged to identify WHO Capitalism is… to specify the identity of this ethereal being; so that we, the Ignorant, could in the future avoid advocating for and exchanging with this boogyman intent on exploiting our ignorance, in their conspiracy to profit from our service of labor? But if she did THAT…such would lead to what?
.
.
.
.
.
Would that not lead directly to the member having to acknowledge the unspeakable?
.
.
.
.
.
.

Would this not require that she recognize the Capitalism is not a WHO… that Capitalism is not a being who is incapable of exchanging the scientifically correct value for the services provided by labor? Would she not then be left with no other alternative but to admit that capitalism is merely the word used to describe the actions of BILLIONS OF human beings engaging in the process of freely exchanging the value which they possess, for the value which another possesses, which they need or desire, throughout the course of their daily lives? And that because of the unspeakable number of variables which exist in an economy of billions of human beings, that there is no ‘Scientifically Correct’ value which can POSSIBLY BE ASSIGNED for the exchange of labor… because the CORRECT VALUE for one’s labor is that value which one is prepared to accept, given the circumstances with which they’re presently faced?

Thus the supposition which ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A ‘SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT’ VALUE TO BE SET FOR EXCHANGED LABOR IS FALSE, is it not?

And wouldn’t this be the result of the established, now indisputable certainty, that Socialism, OKA: Left-think ONLY PRETENDS to know what this Scientifically Correct value is, while themselves BEING ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT OF ANYTHING OF THE KIND; thus proving their OVERT INTENTION TO DECIEVE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND IN THIS CASE, WE, THE MEMBER’S OF THIS BOARD, SPECIFICALLY?

And would it not then be true that where we readily know that an advocate is promoting DECEITFUL IGNORANCE; that where it has been established that they’re sole purpose is to prey upon the emotional needs of others, who simply have not thought this issue through; that for us to lend their INVALID, DECEITFUL THESIS credence would and could ONLY lead to cultural CATASTROPHE?

To set them up in power; to allow them to establish policy which strips from us; the free individuals of this culture; EACH ONE OF US FULLY UNDERSTANDING OUR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES; EACH ONE BEING VASTLY MORE QUALIFIED TO KNOW THE CORRECT VALUE FOR OUR INDIVIDUAL SERVICES AND THE GOODS WE EXCHANGE, BASED UPON THOSE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, to meet the needs for which those circumstances provide; sets aside the INCONTROVERTIBLE CERTAINTY THAT WE MORE ACCURATELY KNOW THAT WHICH IS A ‘SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT’ VALUE FOR OUR SERVICES AND GOODS? And this better THAN ANYONE ELSE… possibly could…

It is OUR RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF OUR LABOR… IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THAT RIGHT; and to defend it from those who seek to strip us from that right, because of their feelings that we’re unable to determine what is fair FOR US; and who use LIES born of SUBJECTIVE SCIENCE… meaning SCIENCE WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE… but that which is used TO IMPLY THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE WITHOUT HAVING ACCOMPLISHED THE HARD WORK ON WHICH THAT CREDIBILITY OTHERWISE RESTS. It merely project the COLOR if Science; the façade which they drape over their deceit to LABEL IT SCIENCE.

They’re liars folks… at BEST their enthusiastically MISGUIDED FOOLS advocating for that which deceives… but the end result is that, that for which they advocate serves to MISLEAD; but where such fools are shown the truth, and the above represents NOTHING LESS THAN THE TRUTH… INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT… and they continue to zealously perpetuate deception… THEY CAN NO LONGER ESCAPE THE CERTIANT THAT THEY ARE WILLFUL PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE… which is the underlying purpose of the full scope of the ideological left…

Now, I leave you to enjoy the various submissions by the deceivers, which will respond with what stands for high intellect on the left; the predictable cries that this argument is ‘too long,’ through the ad populum grope wherein they declare that “no one will read it’… or the more likely simple dismissal of the argument on the same, if unstated, fallacious premise; simply reiterating the now discredited projection, in hopes that to do so will somehow establish some discernable validity.

And it is THAT, fellow members of the board, which measures the scope of that which is the sub-par intellect of The Advocates of Social Science; those which would have us believe that THEY’RE HERE TO ‘lead us from the cultural darkness;’ even while they busy themselves with turning out the intellectual lights… through their INABILITY TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT BROUGHT BY THEIR OPPOSITION.

Do you realize precisely how great an idiot you are?

And THAT Friends is what we CALL advancing suppositional thesis, testing that thesis through application of it's principles; observing and noting the results... from which we're each left to draw our own conclusions... from those empirical observations.

Now I could easily conclude that I've proven my argument; and this through the help of Ag whatshername... and to be perfectly honest... I do.

But I leave it to each of you to draw your own conclusions from the above experiment and for the brighter amongst you, I ask that you set your conclusions in writing, on this thread, so that we may each enjoy the bounty of your reasoning, to firm this whole thing up...

LOL... Well done Ag...

You, along with your Comrades, are truly... That SPECIAL Gift, that just keeps on giving.

(And kids... these are the idiots which are presently running our government. I'd say this kid is probably smarter than MOST of those in the Hussein Cabinet.. and lacks the intellectual means present in a Bag of GRASS.)

It's a ROUTE!

 

[DiveCon]

Workers do not produce wealth, they produce products... and unlike that product, workers are a liability, not an asset.

You have got to be kidding.

Labor is a liability... that's not even debatable Dr. Dumbass.

actually, it is VERY debatable
labor can be both an asset and a liability
if you have good workers, they are an asset
poor workers do become a liability

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You have got to be kidding.

Labor is a liability... that's not even debatable Dr. Dumbass.

actually, it is VERY debatable
labor can be both an asset and a liability
if you have good workers, they are an asset
poor workers do become a liability

Not on a balance sheet... Labor is nothing but a liability.

Now why is that, Dive?

It is because the certainty of labor is what labor will cost; it's value in terms of production is not known until after the costs have been realized; what's more labor is not accountable for production, in terms of demands upon production... and so on.

Labor is paid FIRST, before other costs associated with production are paid, thus labor does participate in the risk... thus labor is a liability.

As I said, it's not debatable.

 

[DiveCon]

Labor is a liability... that's not even debatable Dr. Dumbass.

actually, it is VERY debatable
labor can be both an asset and a liability
if you have good workers, they are an asset
poor workers do become a liability

Not on a balance sheet... Labor is nothing but a liability.

Now why is that, Dive?

It is because the certainty of labor is what labor will cost; it's value in terms of production is not known until after the costs have been realized; what's more labor is not accountable for production, in terms of demands upon production... and so on.

Labor is paid FIRST, before other costs associated with production are paid, thus labor does participate in the risk... thus labor is a liability.

As I said, it's not debatable.

without the labor, there is no product, without the product, there is no profit

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL, more wattage from ol' Pubes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

actually, it is VERY debatable
labor can be both an asset and a liability
if you have good workers, they are an asset
poor workers do become a liability

Not on a balance sheet... Labor is nothing but a liability.

Now why is that, Dive?

It is because the certainty of labor is what labor will cost; it's value in terms of production is not known until after the costs have been realized; what's more labor is not accountable for production, in terms of demands upon production... and so on.

Labor is paid FIRST, before other costs associated with production are paid, thus labor does participate in the risk... thus labor is a liability.

As I said, it's not debatable.

without the labor, there is no product, without the product, there is no profit

For which Labor is duly and fairly compensated... absent the risk which ownership assumes in it's entirety.

I've not said anything which should have lead anyone to believe that labor is not necessary and useful... I've said that Labor is a Liability... not an asset and that such is hardly a viable point of debate.

A fact, which those workers which have changed from labor to ownership are intimately familiar.

 

[edthecynic]

Not on a balance sheet... Labor is nothing but a liability.

Now why is that, Dive?

It is because the certainty of labor is what labor will cost; it's value in terms of production is not known until after the costs have been realized; what's more labor is not accountable for production, in terms of demands upon production... and so on.

Labor is paid FIRST, before other costs associated with production are paid, thus labor does participate in the risk... thus labor is a liability.

As I said, it's not debatable.

without the labor, there is no product, without the product, there is no profit

For which Labor is duly and fairly compensated... absent the risk which ownership assumes in it's entirety.

That's not true in its ENTIRETY on many levels. But here's the most obvious.
Businessmen can take a tax write off for losses so at least PART of that risk can be written off.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

without the labor, there is no product, without the product, there is no profit

For which Labor is duly and fairly compensated... absent the risk which ownership assumes in it's entirety.

That's not true in its ENTIRETY on many levels. But here's the most obvious.
Businessmen can take a tax write off for losses so at least PART of that risk can be written off.

ROFLMNAO... A tax writeoff? Well that's really comforting... the means to discount ones losses... from their other losses... Is that you Mr. Keynes?

 

[DiveCon]

For which Labor is duly and fairly compensated... absent the risk which ownership assumes in it's entirety.

That's not true in its ENTIRETY on many levels. But here's the most obvious.
Businessmen can take a tax write off for losses so at least PART of that risk can be written off.

ROFLMNAO... A tax writeoff? Well that's really comforting... the means to discount ones losses... from their other losses... Is that you Mr. Keynes?

thus confirming ed is a fucking idiot
if you hae no INCOME there is no taxes to write off

 

[edthecynic]

For which Labor is duly and fairly compensated... absent the risk which ownership assumes in it's entirety.

That's not true in its ENTIRETY on many levels. But here's the most obvious.
Businessmen can take a tax write off for losses so at least PART of that risk can be written off.

ROFLMNAO... A tax writeoff? Well that's really comforting... the means to discount ones losses... from their other losses... Is that you Mr. Keynes?

No, from their other PROFITS, of course! Well, I guess if the business NEVER makes any money then it would be ENTIRELY risky, LOL, that is mainly for the CREDITORS not ownership. Ownership should have been pulling personal income out of the business all along which, once removed, is protected from creditors by incorporation, so it's the creditors taking most of the risk. The workers risk investing time in the company only to find years later they have to start over from the bottom in a new company, except the limited work years of life they invested can't be replaced like ownership's dollars can. There is no way ownership assumes the risk in its entirety. That's just their overinflated egos talking.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's not true in its ENTIRETY on many levels. But here's the most obvious.
Businessmen can take a tax write off for losses so at least PART of that risk can be written off.

ROFLMNAO... A tax writeoff? Well that's really comforting... the means to discount ones losses... from their other losses... Is that you Mr. Keynes?

No, from their other PROFITS, of course!

Ahh, the other profits... because there MUST Be profits... right? That's the rule.

Well, I guess if the business NEVER makes any money then it would be ENTIRELY risky, LOL, that is mainly for the CREDITORS not ownership.

Sure... It's the creditors, because they just gave up their money and products with no security...

LOL can you really, be this ignorant?

Ownership should have been pulling personal income out of the business all along which, once removed, is protected from creditors by incorporation, so it's the creditors taking most of the risk.

"Should have...' LOL... And THIS is why people like you should not be allowed within 10 milles of a polling precinct...

There is NO END to that which you do not know and no understanding by you, that you do not know...

So you go about voting to elect idiots, not unlike yourself who undermine the means of people who have their entire lives on the line, everyday... everything they have is in the game... and they pay their workers BEFORE they get PAID, often with MONEY THEY BORROWED...

People who are still working when their workers have been home, fed and are long since in bed...

Spare us this ignorant drivel... You've clearly never even KNOWN anyone that operates a business, so you've no means to speak to it.

 

[edthecynic]

ROFLMNAO... A tax writeoff? Well that's really comforting... the means to discount ones losses... from their other losses... Is that you Mr. Keynes?

No, from their other PROFITS, of course!

Ahh, the other profits... because there MUST Be profits... right? That's the rule.

There's no denying ownership is in it for profit. So unless the business is worthless, start up losses are deductible from future profits. And if the business was around for a while and then conditions changed, those losses can be deducted from the last three years profits. So again SOME of the RISK gets written off, so its ENTIRITY is not assumed by ownership.

Well, I guess if the business NEVER makes any money then it would be ENTIRELY risky, LOL, that is mainly for the CREDITORS not ownership.

Sure... It's the creditors, because they just gave up their money and products with no security...

LOL can you really, be this ignorant?

Obviously YOU can! LOL
The SECURITY is what the owner risks and the creditors risk the REST, so again ownership does not assume ALL the risk, as you falsely claimed.

Ownership should have been pulling personal income out of the business all along which, once removed, is protected from creditors by incorporation, so it's the creditors taking most of the risk.

"Should have...' LOL... And THIS is why people like you should not be allowed within 10 milles of a polling precinct...

There is NO END to that which you do not know and no understanding by you, that you do not know...

So you go about voting to elect idiots, not unlike yourself who undermine the means of people who have their entire lives on the line, everyday... everything they have is in the game... and they pay their workers BEFORE they get PAID, often with MONEY THEY BORROWED...

People who are still working when their workers have been home, fed and are long since in bed...

Spare us this ignorant drivel... You've clearly never even KNOWN anyone that operates a business, so you've no means to speak to it.

Nothing but ad hominem and projection in that rant.

Now just think for a moment, we have two scenarios; ownership is paying their employees with BORROWED money, which would then SHARE some of the risk with ownership's creditors. And if the owner is not borrowing and the business is profitable he is paying himself a salary even if he's reinvesting the profits. So the house that he bought with his salary can't be touched by his creditors if the business suddenly goes south. So a smart owner uses every technique to minimize his own risk and maximize everyone else's. So no good businessman assumes the risk in its "entirety." Case closed.

 

[HideTheRum]

That's right WORKERS produce MORE valuable products from less valuable resources, so Capital can buy the resources and the machinery, but it STILL takes hands to serve the machines. So the ADDED value that exists in the products that create wealth STILL requires Labor in the formula.

You are a typical ELITIST.

So do 'workers' invent products? Do they invest in their creation? Do they cover the start up costs? Do they pay all the overhead involved with the production of those products? Do they provide the raw materials?

Does capital assemble the resources? And workers do invent the products, capital can't invent anything. Like CON$, capital can't think. Capital without Labor produces nothing, and Labor without Capital also produces nothing. Both are essential. Only elitists consider one more important than the other.

You are correct, labor and capital are both essential. I wasn't disputing that.
But are you really saying they should be compensated equally?
Please expand as to how somebody who provides me a job and compensates me to perform tasks, whether they be physical or mental, should make the same as me.

 

[HideTheRum]

That's right WORKERS produce MORE valuable products from less valuable resources, so Capital can buy the resources and the machinery, but it STILL takes hands to serve the machines. So the ADDED value that exists in the products that create wealth STILL requires Labor in the formula.

You are a typical ELITIST.

So do 'workers' invent products? Do they invest in their creation? Do they cover the start up costs? Do they pay all the overhead involved with the production of those products? Do they provide the raw materials?

Fuck me. I'm a 'worker' in my field, and I know that my company provides a lot of shit that I would not want to deal with. Just the health insurance benefits and regulations alone are enough to drive a person into the bottom of a bottle. Do the ppl that own and run the company I work for make more money than me? Hell Yes! But I still own a house and do okay, but I'm not jealous of them. They did all the work to get the company going. They took a lot of risks, and still do considering all the frivolous lawsuits that take place today from sissies that are just looking for a free ride from people like them. So therfore, they deserve to make more than me.

You friggin people need to let go of your jealousy and hatred and grow up.

So you make enough to own a house? That's great. That's all we are asking for.

Are you ever going to be able to retire?

And you do realize your generation is the first generation expected NOT to do as well as your parents did, right?

When will you wake up and realize that the corporations are unfairly taking from the labor force? Remember the years when Unions were winning pay increases and pensions for their members? Those members deserved those raises. Do you realize that or do you think those workers ripped off the company?

What if the company you work for took $1 away from your hourly wages? How about $2? At what point would you get mad? What if they cut your wages in half and you saw the CEO of your company got a $1 million dollar raise? Would that be fine by you?

Or would you be jealous and hateful?

And yes, some employees do invent products. Only at Union companies do those employees reap the rewards.

PS. The part about the frivilous lawsuits tells me you are a right winger who swallows everything the GOP says. When you say frivilous do you mean like Exxon Valdez?

My generation? Maybe I forgot a post somewhere, but how do you know how old I am?

And yes, when I sell my house like most people do, that will help with my retirement, along with my 201k


I don't work for a large corporation, and probably wouldn't want to. I've had lunch and dinner with my employers a few times, and that does not happen much with large companies. I think they are good people (three co-owners) and want their business to succeed. Could the CFO cook the books and burn all of us? Yes, but after many conversations with him, including ones at his house and at the bar, I peg him as a straight shooter that has honor and would not do that sort of thing.

And yes, I lean to the right (which you could figure out from my signature) but I don't swallow everything the GOP says. But please, by all means, continue to lump my in to whatever category you fell comfortable with.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So you make enough to own a house? That's great. That's all we are asking for.

Who's stopping you? The answer is: NO ONE is stopping you. Yet you need to imply that someone is stopping you, to rationalize around your inadequacies... to prevent you from taking responsibility for YOURSELF!

Are you ever going to be able to retire?

ROFL... As if SOMEONE HAS PREVENTED YOU FROM PLANNING A RETIREMENT FUND and bearing the RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO REALIZE IT.

And you do realize your generation is the first generation expected NOT to do as well as your parents did, right?

Golly... and whose fault is THAT? Some unstated vague reference which prevented 'them' from doing as well as their parents did?

When will you wake up and realize that the corporations are unfairly taking from the labor force?

ROFLMNAO... What a load... Where are these people who are being forced to labor for unfair compensation? BE SPECIFIC! You've implied your CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT SUCH IS THE CASE: WHAT ARE THESE SPECIFIC CASES?

Your failure to post SPECIFICS, will result (and its a 100% certianty that you'll fail, it's what losers DO...) in your concession to my point, that you're an imbecile, seeking to impart DECEIT designed to misform this board.

Remember the years when Unions were winning pay increases and pensions for their members? Those members deserved those raises. Do you realize that or do you think those workers ripped off the company?

Yes, those heady days where Collective bargaining sucked the means of the US Steel and Textile industries to compete; thus destroying those industries; as the same menace is destorying the US Auto industry.

What if the company you work for took $1 away from your hourly wages? How about $2?

What about it? If I felt that reduction was warranted and necessary, I'd agree to it... as I have many times... just as I've asked that the company I work for increase my compensation where such is warranted and necessary... and where was NOT warranted and necessary, and I didn't agree with it, I would part company, as I have many times and find another company which would compensate me at what I consider to be fair value.

At what point would you get mad? What if they cut your wages in half and you saw the CEO of your company got a $1 million dollar raise? Would that be fine by you? Or would you be jealous and hateful?

ROFL... How old are you sis? Your argument is constructed upon the cognitive measure of a 14 year old; and a nonetobright 14 yr old at that.

And yes, some employees do invent products. Only at Union companies do those employees reap the rewards.

False... Union contracts, as private contracts MAY or more likely MAY NOT provide a share to the employee for proceeds resultant from research which THE COMPANY FUNDED, in facilaties THEY BUILT... with equipment THEY PROVIDED.

As the owner of several companies, I'd never submit such consideration... as to do so would be ABSURD! I'm paying the individual to do the reaserch FOR ME...

Now if the individual wants to FUND HIS OWN RESEARCH, USING HIS OWN FACILITIES AND HIS OWN EQUIPMENT... GREAT! More power to ya... and if the invention is such that it will profit me to buy it from them... then THEY will reap the rewards of the RISK WHICH THEY ENDURED...

ROFL... Leftists...