GREAT piece on God...Goodness...Evil...Love...and 'why?'

[wade]

Just give me the bullet points.

I never said consumers are responsible for production costs. I merely am pointing out that there are things known as CONSUMPTION costs, and libs in their zeal to punish corporations, want to lay everything at the corporations feet. That is my point. Quit spinning.

No spinning going on RWA.

Sure there are consumption costs, but how do the "libs" seek to lay these at coprations feet? Give an example please?

 

[shadrack]

You seemed to imply that rules for behavior would only work in a theocracy. OR some such nonsense.

I didn't mean to imply that. Rights and duties are drawn out in the social contract. Our social contract, the Constitution, is not an ends but a means of ensuring that American citizens fulfill their rights and duties based on the fundamental principles of its architects. You can see some of the fundamental principles in the Declaration of Independence as well as many other writings of the founders of this country.

Guess what. Life isn't fair. Would like to be unable to leave your children the fruits of your success? Answer honestly.

Guess what. Life isn't fair. Wouldn't some love to become rich, continue building on that wealth for generations so that some day they will own the whole continent? My honest answer - I only have modest ambitions. Starting anew with each generation is a fundamental American principle.

Allow me to classify you, since you evidently don't know the criteria: You're a lib.

Allow me to classify you: you are a knee-jerk anti-government con, misrepresenting Jeffersonian democracy and spouting Tory principles as American libertarian principles.

I'm certain you do usually vote democratic and that you're lying right now. What are the dems conservative on, i'm interested to hear it?

I've never voted democrat in federal elections. Dems are more conservative on the Iraq war, outsourcing.

What corporate price fixing are you referring to? Using market research to help determine price is not the same thing. I guess technically yes they "set" a price. A fixed price refers to government set compulsory prices.

A price based on anything other than an honest representation of the total costs involved to produce and sell that product doesn't reflect fundamental American economic and moral principles.

How is it false?

It isn't based on production costs. It's based on how much profit they can get away with making. Earning a living is one thing. Trying to earn enough in order to live within a specific lifestyle is another. The "subjective" argument is thrown out there in an effort to dismiss the disapproval expressed about trying to earn a lifestyle.

Everyone deserves a market set wage.

I would agree if the market could have constant variables that weren't influenced by the powerful.

Again significance is subjective. Hence why wages are set by the market. people with the skillset to take the trash are quite plentiful, driving the wage down. It's life, get used to it.

People with the skillsets for administrators and executives are quite plentiful as well. It's just that they feel they are more valuable. It's called egoism. And how convenient for them to believe that we should all do what is in our best interest. They happen to be lucky enough to be in a position to be able to leverage their wages up. And it is at the expense of another.

Outside of the market there is no MONETARY value. We all feel valuable and special, let's all just pay everyone a million dollars. I have a printing press.

There probably will be a time when many people have million dollar salaries. And it will be at the expense of others. If you have one dollar in your pocket, it is one dollar a poor person doesn't have in his. How 'bout we determine wages from the bottom up instead of the top down.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Starting anew with each generation is a fundamental American principle.

No it's not. You just totally made this up. Are you saying you want a 100% estate tax? Are you saying you don't want to be able to leave money you earn to your children?

Allow me to classify you: you are a knee-jerk anti-government con, misrepresenting Jeffersonian democracy and spouting Tory principles as American libertarian principles.

I've never voted democrat in federal elections. Dems are more conservative on the Iraq war, outsourcing.

Military Isolationism and economic protectionism are just as stupid whether you're a buchananite paleocon or a communist neoliberal such as yourself.

A price based on anything other than an honest representation of the total costs involved to produce and sell that product doesn't reflect fundamental American economic and moral principles.

Don't forget about profit. Profit is not considered immoral by normal people.

It isn't based on production costs. It's based on how much profit they can get away with making. Earning a living is one thing. Trying to earn enough in order to live within a specific lifestyle is another. The "subjective" argument is thrown out there in an effort to dismiss the disapproval expressed about trying to earn a lifestyle.

And the disapproval expressed about trying to earn a certain lifestyle is called sour grapes.

I would agree if the market could have constant variables that weren't influenced by the powerful.

Which variables which now are unconstant would you like to be made constant?

People with the skillsets for administrators and executives are quite plentiful as well. It's just that they feel they are more valuable. It's called egoism. And how convenient for them to believe that we should all do what is in our best interest. They happen to be lucky enough to be in a position to be able to leverage their wages up. And it is at the expense of another.

And big government libs are worse than private sector assholes in this respect, due to the total power of government. The egoism of bad management is at least limited to the corporation, and the market ensures that management egoism can only become so bad before the company fails. The government cannot fail, because they have guns. This is why government should be as small as possible, and handle as few aspects of our lives as possible. The ultimate power of government corrupts ultimately.

There probably will be a time when many people have million dollar salaries. And it will be at the expense of others. If you have one dollar in your pocket, it is one dollar a poor person doesn't have in his. How 'bout we determine wages from the bottom up instead of the top down.

How about we put on party hats and do a jig?

 

[greeneyez1029]

I found what this guy writes to be spot-on.

Absolutely correct!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No spinning going on RWA.

Sure there are consumption costs, but how do the "libs" seek to lay these at coprations feet? Give an example please?

here's one. Wanting mcdonalds' to compensate pigs who eat too much. According to your logic, to fully "internalize" the costs of the product, Mcdonalds should pay for the health difficulties of fat bastards.

 

[shadrack]

here's one. Wanting mcdonalds' to compensate pigs who eat too much. According to your logic, to fully "internalize" the costs of the product, Mcdonalds should pay for the health difficulties of fat bastards.

So, when a state protects a company's rights to misrepresent their products and denies people their rights to force a company to be honest, you come to the conclusion that those who support individual rights are communist.

McDonald's profit comes from convincing the most people to consume the most food. This isn't an honest "free" market, ie, serve it to the people who ask for it. There is an active campaign to try to convince people from the time they are infants to the elderly that McDonald's serves them well. And these campaigns work unfortunately. Even more unfortunate is that the state protects corporations more than individuals.

If we truely had "free" market places, McDonald's would have been stopped in its tracks long before it ever got so powerful. But because of the communist practices that have infiltrated, corporations are nothing more than extensions of the government.

 

[shadrack]

No it's not. You just totally made this up. Are you saying you want a 100% estate tax? Are you saying you don't want to be able to leave money you earn to your children?

I'll come back to this point......I didn't just pull it out of thin air.

Military Isolationism and economic protectionism are just as stupid whether you're a buchananite paleocon or a communist neoliberal such as yourself.

Military and economic expansionism has always worked in the past?

Don't forget about profit. Profit is not considered immoral by normal people.

Isn't profit determined on the conditions arranged between buyer and seller?

And the disapproval expressed about trying to earn a certain lifestyle is called sour grapes.

The foundation of the "your" right to be able to earn a lifestyle disreguarding the welfare of others would be the right to pursue "happiness", maybe?

Which variables which now are unconstant would you like to be made constant?

And big government libs are worse than private sector assholes in this respect, due to the total power of government. The egoism of bad management is at least limited to the corporation, and the market ensures that management egoism can only become so bad before the company fails. The government cannot fail, because they have guns. This is why government should be as small as possible, and handle as few aspects of our lives as possible. The ultimate power of government corrupts ultimately.

Corporate execs are in bed with politicians. There is very little light showing between government and corporations. They are nearly one and the same.

How about we put on party hats and do a jig?

And the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll come back to this point......I didn't just pull it out of thin air.

So you say.

Military and economic expansionism has always worked in the past?

Yes.

Isn't profit determined on the conditions arranged between buyer and seller?

Profit is part of the price, which IS negotiated between buyer and seller. Your point seems orthogonal and convoluted.

The foundation of the "your" right to be able to earn a lifestyle disreguarding the welfare of others would be the right to pursue "happiness", maybe?

No. People must obey the laws of our nation.

Corporate execs are in bed with politicians. There is very little light showing between government and corporations. They are nearly one and the same.

This is true, and the more aspects of our lives government controls, the more influence they will be able to sell to corporations for their own profit.

And the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

More koolaid? "Oh YAaaaaaaaH"

 

[wade]

here's one. Wanting mcdonalds' to compensate pigs who eat too much. According to your logic, to fully "internalize" the costs of the product, Mcdonalds should pay for the health difficulties of fat bastards.

Say what? Where have I ever said I would support such a thing?

The only way I would support such a thing would be if it could be proven that McDonalds was misleading the public as to the unhealthy nature of their product. Since I don't believe this is the case, I in no way would support such a thing.

And besides, that is not a cost of production.

 

[wade]

rtwngAvngr
Don't forget about profit. Profit is not considered immoral by normal people.

Isn't profit determined on the conditions arranged between buyer and seller?

Actually the amount and nature of legitimate profit is well defined in capitalist economics. RWA seems to think its whatever the company can get away with, and to a degree this is true. However, under the principals of a free market economy, profits of this nature are very limited in time - to the duration of a patent which is supposed to be 7 (or in some cases 3) years. After this time where a product is protected, creating an artificial barrior to entry meant to compensate the developer for their investment risk, other companies are supposed to enter the market producing competitive products. When they do so, actual profits are driven toward zero, after reflecting all costs of production, including wages, capital depreciation, and capital investment costs (how much the same investment would be expected to earn elsewhere - ie: the stock holders should make something a little better than the basic interest rates of the time).

So the answer is, in a capitalist system, "profits" should be nearly zero. In fact that is a basic principal of pure capitalism - real profits approach zero, because that is efficient, and capitalism is supposed to be about market efficiency.

 

[wade]

Military and economic expansionism has always worked in the past?

Yes.

Jeeze - Natzi Germany a good example? The Soviet Union?

Expansionism and colonialism are dead practices. The world is too small today for that kind of behavior. It worked up to about a hundred years ago, to varying degrees, but it has not worked since. Every country that has relied on such practices since before WWI to sustain their economy had withered.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jeeze - Natzi Germany a good example? The Soviet Union?

Expansionism and colonialism are dead practices. The world is too small today for that kind of behavior. It worked up to about a hundred years ago, to varying degrees, but it has not worked since. Every country that has relied on such practices since before WWI to sustain their economy had withered.

The economic expansionism is definitely a healthy practice, so as the human population grows, they have jobs and food. And regarding the military, it is an anavoidable necessity in a world of insane terrorists and totalitarian dictators.

I know you hate humanity due to your own insecurities, and would rather stop the increase of all humanity than face the competition, but some of us have hope for the future.

 

[shadrack]

So you say.

There was no land available in the British Isles and Western Europe by the 16th century. Every acre was owned by someone, either a private individual or by the crown. The traditions and laws of primogeniture and entail meant that an estate should be passed on intact to the oldest son. But to John Locke, private property arose from natural law and existed prior to the creation of civil society. The right to property did not depend on heredity but was to be a right of all citizens. If you study 18th century concepts of property, you will find that they believed that there should not be an attitude of laissez-faire, ie, "let people do as they want". You will not find, in any writings of the founders or of the political and economic thinkers that influenced the founders of this nation, any passage that affirms that an individual, within civil society, has all possession rights to his property as did the hereditary Aristocracies of Europe. In fact, it was often quite the opposite, as described by James Madison, who wrote that his party hated hereditary power and are offended by every public measure that does not apeal to the general interest of the community.

Repealing the estate tax, as the neocons desire, would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet. Many desire a strengthening of the estate tax. Warren Buffet defends the estate tax as playing a "critical role" in promoting economic growth. Repealing the tax "would be a terrible mistake," the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."

The rich stick their millions in places like offshore hedge funds leaving us all to pick up the burden of paying their taxes. Family farmers and small business owners are unfairly stuck with paying estate taxes that the richest can avoid. The poor get poorer and the rich find loopholes.

 

[shadrack]

Say what? Where have I ever said I would support such a thing?

The only way I would support such a thing would be if it could be proven that McDonalds was misleading the public as to the unhealthy nature of their product. Since I don't believe this is the case, I in no way would support such a thing.

And besides, that is not a cost of production.

wade, have you heard about the McLibel trial in Britain?

 

[shadrack]

Actually the amount and nature of legitimate profit is well defined in capitalist economics. RWA seems to think its whatever the company can get away with, and to a degree this is true. However, under the principals of a free market economy, profits of this nature are very limited in time - to the duration of a patent which is supposed to be 7 (or in some cases 3) years. After this time where a product is protected, creating an artificial barrior to entry meant to compensate the developer for their investment risk, other companies are supposed to enter the market producing competitive products. When they do so, actual profits are driven toward zero, after reflecting all costs of production, including wages, capital depreciation, and capital investment costs (how much the same investment would be expected to earn elsewhere - ie: the stock holders should make something a little better than the basic interest rates of the time).

So the answer is, in a capitalist system, "profits" should be nearly zero. In fact that is a basic principal of pure capitalism - real profits approach zero, because that is efficient, and capitalism is supposed to be about market efficiency.

What about profiting from another person's labor? What about merchants that profit from another person's property?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There was no land available in the British Isles and Western Europe by the 16th century. Every acre was owned by someone, either a private individual or by the crown. The traditions and laws of primogeniture and entail meant that an estate should be passed on intact to the oldest son. But to John Locke, private property arose from natural law and existed prior to the creation of civil society. The right to property did not depend on heredity but was to be a right of all citizens. If you study 18th century concepts of property, you will find that they believed that there should not be an attitude of laissez-faire, ie, "let people do as they want". You will not find, in any writings of the founders or of the political and economic thinkers that influenced the founders of this nation, any passage that affirms that an individual, within civil society, has all possession rights to his property as did the hereditary Aristocracies of Europe. In fact, it was often quite the opposite, as described by James Madison, who wrote that his party hated hereditary power and are offended by every public measure that does not apeal to the general interest of the community.

Repealing the estate tax, as the neocons desire, would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet. Many desire a strengthening of the estate tax. Warren Buffet defends the estate tax as playing a "critical role" in promoting economic growth. Repealing the tax "would be a terrible mistake," the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."

The rich stick their millions in places like offshore hedge funds leaving us all to pick up the burden of paying their taxes. Family farmers and small business owners are unfairly stuck with paying estate taxes that the richest can avoid. The poor get poorer and the rich find loopholes.

Blah blah blah. we weren't speaking just about land. So you would like to be unable to leave the fruits of your labor to your children? answer honestly. Your perversion of history is disgusting.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wade. Of course competition drives prices and therefore profits down. and yes down is "towards zero", but that doesn't mean, "In an ideal capitalist system, profit should be zero". That's is so stupid and moronic. Yes both.

 

[shadrack]

We weren't speaking just about land.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to talk about the concept of hereditary rights to "property".....which is also what the estate tax is all about.
In the 16th century, when the most significant item was the potato, land represented the greatest accumilation of wealth. An estate doesn't just include real property. Locke's concept of private property didn't include just real property. The 18th century concept of property didn't just include real property. An estate tax doesn't just include real property. I'm not just talking about real property. Do you know what "property" is?
I'm trying to discuss the accumilation of wealth and the political and economic power that comes with wealth. I also am refering to the Renaissance and Enlightenment that awakened people and brought about disapproval toward the hereditary right of hoarding wealth and power.

So you would like to be unable to leave the fruits of your labor to your children?

Isn't there an exemption? I think I'll be able to leave the fruits of my labor to my children......that is, if my debts don't take my meager accumilation of wealth first......

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to talk about the concept of hereditary rights to "property".....which is also what the estate tax is all about.
In the 16th century, when the most significant item was the potato, land represented the greatest accumilation of wealth. An estate doesn't just include real property. Locke's concept of private property didn't include just real property. The 18th century concept of property didn't just include real property. An estate tax doesn't just include real property. I'm not just talking about real property. Do you know what "property" is?
I'm trying to discuss the accumilation of wealth and the political and economic power that comes with wealth. I also am refering to the Renaissance and Enlightenment that awakened people and brought about disapproval toward the hereditary right of hoarding wealth and power.

Isn't there an exemption? I think I'll be able to leave the fruits of my labor to my children......that is, if my debts don't take my meager accumilation of wealth first......

Property is land, cash, jewels, go carts, ping pong balls, whatever. I contend you should be able to pass it onto your children with as little tax as possible. You earlier stated " everyone should start on equal footing" i took that to mean that you believe an estate (of whatever types of property) should be confiscated by the government upon a person's death. Is that what you mean? Your mind is a confused sewer. screw locke and you historical rantings. I just don't care.

 

[wade]

What about profiting from another person's labor? What about merchants that profit from another person's property?

I'm not sure what you mean. In a fair market economy, competition between firms offering such profits would drive the price down to the point where the effective profit approaches zero after everyone is compensated for their time and investors are compensated appropriately for their risk.

Any time someone is making more than this very limited "profit", someone else is supposed to be encouraged to open a similar business and offer the same goods or services for less. That's what capitalism is really all about.