Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.I assume you're equating selfishness with narcissistic self-absorption which has no care for anyone else. The two are NOT synonyms. Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker. Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes you can, and "social experience of the worker" is just code for "I'm making this up as I go along". Truthisnonexistent:Oh okay, sorry. No social experience as in, the hardship of the workers, the sacrifice of the workers. Just for the record, workers are concious beings not just "hands". Just for the record, your childish emotive please are laughable. Further, why is it only the "workers" who sacrifice? And what are they sacrificing? And some work is hard by the nature of the work. So what? What is your point, little one?
Truthisnonexistent:I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.
Truthisnonexistent:You can't compare the complexity of the modern market to you and your friend trading fruit. You are also not taking into account the social experience of the worker.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes you can, and "social experience of the worker" is just code for "I'm making this up as I go along".
Truthisnonexistent:Oh okay, sorry. No social experience as in, the hardship of the workers, the sacrifice of the workers. Just for the record, workers are concious beings not just "hands".
Just for the record, your childish emotive please are laughable. Further, why is it only the "workers" who sacrifice? And what are they sacrificing? And some work is hard by the nature of the work. So what? What is your point, little one?
It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. There is a lot of stress, emotional and physical that come with working, that is a sacrifice I say, when you take into account a market cannot function without labor. A market cannot function without workers, that is why I see it fit that they are not fiscally exploited.
Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time.
Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation
1) use or utilization, esp. for profit
2)selfish utilization
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation
So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time.
I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond.
A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond. A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol.
I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism?Because you don't know what capitalism is, given the strawmen, and you believe in mystical nonsense such as "exploitation".
Truthisnonexistent:Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism?
The economic system practiced in any industrialized nation is not the ideal capitalist system for society but it is ideal for the capitalists. I wouldn't exactly call fiscal exploitation in a capitalist workplace as mystical, implying I am dogmatist, I showed you how capitalism as an economic system exploits workers but you denied it without any counter argument instead just called me a child like you do in all your posts directed towards me.
Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. ...
How do you quatify that?
Basically what you are saying here is "I feel that the workers are more important because they do the physical work". The labor theory of value isnt an economic statement, its a religious, ethical belief with no evidence behind it.
Yes the worker does the phyisical work and uses the inputs and capital to make a final good/service. The capitalist assumes and manages risk and capital, and makes decisions relating to the consumer and the worker. The price is not equal to the wage because the capitalist also has to be compensated for his value added, plus you have to pay for the capital and inputs. I already pointed this out to you multiple times in the thread.
Truthisnonexistent: A market cannot function without workers, that is why I see it fit that they are not fiscally exploited.
Who gets to define the criteria of being "fiscally exploited"?
Truthisnonexistent: There is a lot of stress, emotional and physical that come with working, that is a sacrifice I say, when you take into account a market cannot function without labor.
There is plenty of stress that comes with life, does that mean that I'm being "exploited" by it? If anything, the markets have drastically reduced the sacrifices, and discomforts that are necessary to exist.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond. A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol. I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights.
If the worker agrees to work for less than the "full value" of the good, how is that a violation of the worker's rights?
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. ... How do you quatify that?
The market in which the owners benefit so much from cannot survive without labor.
Taras Smereka: It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. There is a lot of stress, emotional and physical that come with working, that is a sacrifice I say, when you take into account a market cannot function without labor. A market cannot function without workers, that is why I see it fit that they are not fiscally exploited. Basically what you are saying here is "I feel that the workers are more important because they do the physical work". The labor theory of value isnt an economic statement, its a religious, ethical belief with no evidence behind it. Yes the worker does the phyisical work and uses the inputs and capital to make a final good/service. The capitalist assumes and manages risk and capital, and makes decisions relating to the consumer and the worker. The price is not equal to the wage because the capitalist also has to be compensated for his value added, plus you have to pay for the capital and inputs. I already pointed this out to you multiple times in the thread.
No where did I mention the LTV. I say the workers are more important because a market cannot survive without labor. I realize that there must be payment for the machinery ect but the owners still reap a ridiculous (imo) profit. Markets do not meet the needs of society as a whole. Historically there have been self-managed businesses (btw, Rothbard supported autogestion, just a fun fact) in which wages increased and productivity increased. I posted links somewhere in the thread.
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond. A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol. I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights. If the worker agrees to work for less than the "full value" of the good, how is that a violation of the worker's rights?
Because there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed.
Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much.Laughable nonsense. You have no clue about that which you write.
So a market can function without labor?
laminustacitus: Truthisnonexistent: A market cannot function without workers, that is why I see it fit that they are not fiscally exploited. Who gets to define the criteria of being "fiscally exploited"? Truthisnonexistent: There is a lot of stress, emotional and physical that come with working, that is a sacrifice I say, when you take into account a market cannot function without labor. There is plenty of stress that comes with life, does that mean that I'm being "exploited" by it? If anything, the markets have drastically reduced the sacrifices, and discomforts that are necessary to exist.
Who gets to define the words we are using right now?
You are taking what I said out of context. I was responding to someone else saying that they did not take into account the emotional and physical aspect of being a worker.
Truthisnonexistent:I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Because you don't know what capitalism is, given the strawmen, and you believe in mystical nonsense such as "exploitation".
Truthisnonexistent:The economic system practiced in any industrialized nation is not the ideal capitalist system for society but it is ideal for the capitalists.
Truthisnonexistent:I wouldn't exactly call fiscal exploitation in a capitalist workplace as mystical
Truthisnonexistent:I showed you how capitalism as an economic system exploits workers
And you wonder why you're not taken seriously?
Truthisnonexistent:So a market can function without labor?
Truthisnonexistent: I don't tell him to take his capitalism and shove it. You manage to slip in political correctness into your overreaction.. What should I take from that?
I don't tell him to take his capitalism and shove it. You manage to slip in political correctness into your overreaction.. What should I take from that?
That you are taking my objection too personally. I guess this is what I get for not using more obvious emotional cues to make my post emotionaly & politically correct. I don't think my objection was out of line, honestly.
Truthisnonexistent: Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid...
Maybe if I didn't get banned for nothing and your mods didn't call me a little kid...
Yes, generalize me as part of the crowd of "The Mods", when it was most likley an individual mod or admin (i.e. individual human being behind a computer terminal) that did the banning.
This will score you emotional brownie points with those reading who value such things, but I'm not sure what it does regarding the amount of objections to your actual arguments that have popped up in this thread.
BTW, I didn't ban you, nor did I even know you were banned, so I apologize if I am unable to sympathize. Maybe you should find out by asking the mods individually & doing a little bit of questioning instead of being dramatic about it?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
People don't need to form a market. They can just try to be self sufficient and make everything they need themselves. But instead one guy makes food and the other guy makes clothes and they trade. And what encourages enables them to do that?
Capital. Human capital and physical capital. One guy learns and buys agriculture equipment, one guy learns to make clothes and gets equipment to make clothes. And where does capital come from?
Savings. Someone has to do work to build capital, or get education. And that is work that is going to that specific capital instead of work going to make a good or service to trade to someone else or to use yourself. So what happens if the capital turns out to be a bad move, and no one wants the product that you make with that capital?
You get burned and your savings and work went to nothing. So making and managing capital is risky. Some people don't want that risk, they just want a safe job as a worker. Some people take that risk and manage capital professionally. Those are capitalists, and they perform a value adding activity.
Do you understand now?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights.Y'see, no one takes you seriously because you actually believe such refuted-to-death nonsense as "fiscal exploitation". Seriously. Wake up and smell the marginal revolution. Truthisnonexistent:Because I have a moral objection to the institutions and practices which make up capitalism? Knight_of_BAAWA:Because you don't know what capitalism is, given the strawmen, and you believe in mystical nonsense such as "exploitation". Truthisnonexistent:The economic system practiced in any industrialized nation is not the ideal capitalist system for society but it is ideal for the capitalists.No, it isn't. They're hamstrung by assloads of governmental interference. Truthisnonexistent:I wouldn't exactly call fiscal exploitation in a capitalist workplace as mysticalI would, since it's the stuff of myths and has never been shown to be. Truthisnonexistent:I showed you how capitalism as an economic system exploits workersNo, you just pouted and stomped your feet. And you wonder why you're not taken seriously?
I believe it because it happens in the market.
I knew you weren't going to comprehend what I was saying. The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.
I pouted? You call me a child in every post and then I got banned.. lol.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:So a market can function without labor?So only manual, backbreaking labor is important? That IS what you believe.
Labor as in the act of producing things.
Truthisnonexistent:The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market
In the long run, everybody benefits from a free exchange.
Truthisnonexistent:Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.
The capitalist that will like that is one that can bribe for or otherwise get a government monopoly. I don't think any of us here support that, though.
Truthisnonexistent:Labor as in the act of producing things.
"Capitalists" don't do that too?
Taras Smereka: People don't need to form a market. They can just try to be self sufficient and make everything they need themselves. But instead one guy makes food and the other guy makes clothes and they trade. And what encourages enables them to do that? Capital. Human capital and physical capital. One guy learns and buys agriculture equipment, one guy learns to make clothes and gets equipment to make clothes. And where does capital come from? Savings. Someone has to do work to build capital, or get education. And that is work that is going to that specific capital instead of work going to make a good or service to trade to someone else or to use yourself. So what happens if the capital turns out to be a bad move, and no one wants the product that you make with that capital? You get burned and your savings and work went to nothing. So making and managing capital is risky. Some people don't want that risk, they just want a safe job as a worker. Some people take that risk and manage capital professionally. Those are capitalists, and they perform a value adding activity. Do you understand now?
Nitroaddict- Thanks for even addressing the subject.
Yes, capital, the capital that so many people do not have but so few people have a lot of. Capital, the lack of, which prohibits some people from life. Capital, which isn't necessary to the markets survival. Labor, necessary to the markets survival. Labor, produces the capital that the capitalist reap so much of.
Capital comes from labor.
I am assuming you mean economically safe, because like I said you and others are not taking into account the emotional and physical tolls of labor. I still don't think that the capitalist deserves the amount of profit he reaps. The capitalist wants the wages as low as possible, social struggle forces the capitalist to higher the wages. Now, if the wages were made higher by a process separate from aspects of the market (to some extent) why did they raise the wages? If the workers are not that important to the business or market.
Fluery: Truthisnonexistent:The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market In the long run, everybody benefits from a free exchange. Truthisnonexistent:Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that. The capitalist that will like that is one that can bribe for or otherwise get a government monopoly. I don't think any of us here support that, though. Truthisnonexistent:Labor as in the act of producing things. "Capitalists" don't do that too?
Why do people die from starvation then?
I know none of you support that but that is the reality. The state was created by the social class that benefits off the market the most, this relationship between capitalists and state continued and that is why there are discriminatory bailouts and subsidies ect.
Capitalists, as in the owners of the means of production, which do not produce but manage and collect capital.
Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. ... How do you quatify that? The market in which the owners benefit so much from cannot survive without labor.
And the market cannot function without the entrepreneur, unless we are all robots whose wants never change. Can there be non-capitalistic entrepreneur?
Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond. A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol. I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights. If the worker agrees to work for less than the "full value" of the good, how is that a violation of the worker's rights? Because there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed.
So a worker does not have the right to work for whatever wage he agrees to? If the worker's right being violated, who is violator? Is the employer who participated in said violation, the worker who participated in said violation, or both?
Truthisnonexistent: ... The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.
... The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.
So, when Standard Oil derived over 300 products from the waste of kerosene production, only Rockefeller benefitted? What about the consumers who enjoyed lower prices and more stuff to make their lives easier?
Truthisnonexistent: Why do people die from starvation then?
So you are saying that under your system, no one would starve to death. If the answer is "yes", dare I call you a utopian?
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. ... How do you quatify that? The market in which the owners benefit so much from cannot survive without labor. And the market cannot function without the entrepreneur, unless we are all robots whose wants never change. Can there be non-capitalistic entrepreneur? Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond. A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol. I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights. If the worker agrees to work for less than the "full value" of the good, how is that a violation of the worker's rights? Because there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed. So a worker does not have the right to work for whatever wage he agrees to? If the worker's right being violated, who is violator? Is the employer who participated in said violation, the worker who participated in said violation, or both? Truthisnonexistent: ... The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that. So, when Standard Oil derived over 300 products from the waste of kerosene production, only Rockefeller benefitted? What about the consumers who enjoyed lower prices and more stuff to make their lives easier? Truthisnonexistent: Why do people die from starvation then? So you are saying that under your system, no one would starve to death. If the answer is "yes", dare I call you a utopian?
There is something called autogestion, Rothbard advocated it to some extent actually, research it.
You are taking what I said out of context. The "voluntary" agreement is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives. How can one violate their own rights? I would call the violator, the market and the subjective falsehoods along with it and to some extent the owner.
Although they were lucky enough to have such a circumstance happen, it is no justification for the market itself. Considering, people die at the "hands" of the market.
To say that everyone benefits from the market is a utopian.
Rothbard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0&feature=channel_page
Truthisnonexistent:I believe it because it happens in the market.
Truthisnonexistent:I knew you weren't going to comprehend what I was saying. The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market
Truthisnonexistent:, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.
But that's way over your head, I know.
Truthisnonexistent:I pouted? You call me a child in every post and then I got banned.. lol.
Knight_of_BAAWA:So only manual, backbreaking labor is important? That IS what you believe.
You really need to come to at least the year 1880.
Truthisnonexistent:Capitalists, as in the owners of the means of production, which do not produce but manage and collect capital.
Capital doesnt fall from the sky. Someone makes tt. If people are unable to get their own capital the question becomes "Why?". And generally if you look at countries with large numbers of extremely poor people (living on <$1/day) you will see that they do not have property rights. And when you look at more devoloped countries you find a distorted credit market where politically connected people can borrow printed (counterfeited) money straight from the government, while average people have to pay a higher rate of interest, and there is a low savings rate.
You are again ignoring
1) That capital comes from savings
2) That capital is tailored to a specific consumer preference (capital doesnt just have value because labor was expended producing it, it needs to serve consumer interests)
3) That because of those facts capital has to be managed in terms of risk and in terms of making sure it is consumer oriented (the role of the "capitalist)
am assuming you mean economically safe, because like I said you and others are not taking into account the emotional and physical tolls of labor. I still don't think that the capitalist deserves the amount of profit he reaps. The capitalist wants the wages as low as possible, social struggle forces the capitalist to higher the wages. Now, if the wages were made higher by a process separate from aspects of the market (to some extent) why did they raise the wages? If the workers are not that important to the business or market.
You can think what you want, but a normal profit is the market value of the capitalists enterpreneurial ability (whether you personally agree with it or not).
If I was a capitalist who was overcharging the customer and underpaying the worker, another capitalist would come and charge slightly less and pay his workers slightly more and steal my workers/customers. And then a new, lower level of profit would be the norm. So in a free competitive market the profit that the capitalist makes is always the normal profit which is not exploitative, and represents the value added by what he does. When there is a monopoly there is exploitation, but a monopoly is by definition not a competitive free market scenario, thats why I am arguing for the free market and not monopolies.
The workers are important, they add value, and so does the capitalist. And many times the worker is also a capitalist, and vice versa. I am not saying one is more important than the other, but each adds a certain type and amount of value to the good/service and they are compensated based on that.
Truthisnonexistent: Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much.Laughable nonsense. You have no clue about that which you write. So a market can function without labor?
A) I think you misunderstood why he makes the claim you know not what you say. He wasn't saying that markets can function without labor. He was saying you don't know what your talking about. Don't try to overanalyze simple statements.
B) This remark is 100% opinion based and will never be able to be supported by real evidence.
1) First off if you simply judge things on a money level many business owners who take the risk at owning a business suffer substantial financial and credit losses when their risks did not return a profit. Meanwhile their employee's while they may have lost their job they incurred no dept from the risky business. They simply loss the job that they once had and are available to move onto the next.
Financial Risk in Business ownership is EXTREMELY HIGH. If you do not understand this then it is a very safe assumption to guess you know next to nothing about owning your own business.
2) Comparing the emotional wellbeing and phsycological status of a small/medium business owner to an individual employee. You could call this an opinion but I beleive it will be far easier to back up then the assertion you make, I beleive business owners are subject to much more mental anguish then simple laborers.
3) When comparing the relationship status of small/medium business owners to regular employees its every easy, you might even be able to find statistics about this, its obvious that they are subject to far more relationship/family problems as opposed to a laborer who only has to be concerne with 9-5.
4) Also comparing labor hours as well. Most business owners put in 50% more labor time then their employee's. Are you going to make the argument that they are exploiting themselves?
c) When considering all the factors and risks of being an owner if the financial gains were not greater then being a regular employee you wouldn't have business owners any where. You wouldn't have business. Despite the grandoise idea you might have that there are some good natured altruistic individuals willing to be business owners withotu the financial benefits factored in. Without additional financial insentive many people would be detired from persuing their dreams in that way. Beleiving otherwise is a fantasy.
d) Finally, making a statement like the one you made clearly displays your lack of knowledge about the perils and difficulties of being a private business owner. There are plenty of competent people completly cappable of being owners but actively chose not to. The life of labor is simple and content for many.
Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. ... How do you quatify that? The market in which the owners benefit so much from cannot survive without labor. And the market cannot function without the entrepreneur, unless we are all robots whose wants never change. Can there be non-capitalistic entrepreneur? Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond. A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol. I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights. If the worker agrees to work for less than the "full value" of the good, how is that a violation of the worker's rights? Because there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed. So a worker does not have the right to work for whatever wage he agrees to? If the worker's right being violated, who is violator? Is the employer who participated in said violation, the worker who participated in said violation, or both? Truthisnonexistent: ... The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that. So, when Standard Oil derived over 300 products from the waste of kerosene production, only Rockefeller benefitted? What about the consumers who enjoyed lower prices and more stuff to make their lives easier? Truthisnonexistent: Why do people die from starvation then? So you are saying that under your system, no one would starve to death. If the answer is "yes", dare I call you a utopian? There is something called autogestion, Rothbard advocated it to some extent actually, research it. You are taking what I said out of context. The "voluntary" agreement is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives. How can one violate their own rights? I would call the violator, the market and the subjective falsehoods along with it and to some extent the owner. Although they were lucky enough to have such a circumstance happen, it is no justification for the market itself. Considering, people die at the "hands" of the market. To say that everyone benefits from the market is a utopian. Rothbard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0&feature=channel_page
Workers' self-management is compatible with capitalism (for clarification, free-market capitalism, not the mercantilism we are both against).
So how is exploitation a violation of rights?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:I believe it because it happens in the market.No it doesn't. Truthisnonexistent:I knew you weren't going to comprehend what I was saying. The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the marketALL of us benefit from the market, little one. You know that computer you're using? That's you benefitting from the market. SHOCKHORRORSHOCK. Truthisnonexistent:, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.Capitalists are free to act in ways which aren't...capitalistic. They're free to petition the government to keep people from competing with them, at which point we have a hampered market. But that's way over your head, I know. Truthisnonexistent:I pouted? You call me a child in every post and then I got banned.. lol.Ok, I'm waiting for that to have some sort of logical connection. Truthisnonexistent:So a market can function without labor? Knight_of_BAAWA:So only manual, backbreaking labor is important? That IS what you believe. Truthisnonexistent:Labor as in the act of producing things.aka manual, backbreaking labor, since you believe the "capitalist" doesn't produce anything (which is another reason why you're not taken seriously). You really need to come to at least the year 1880.
I am not 'everyone'.
That what I have been saying in my previous posts... The current economic system practiced is not an ideal capitalist system but it is an ideal system for capitalists.
Not all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world. To say everyone benefits from the market or that the market meets everyone's needs is purely utopianism.
The capitalist's job is not to produce, it is to manage capital. To say that in some instances the capitalist may produce is no counter argument at all to my point that a market cannot function without labor, therefore the labor producers are more important then the labor buyers.
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent:It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. ... How do you quatify that? The market in which the owners benefit so much from cannot survive without labor. And the market cannot function without the entrepreneur, unless we are all robots whose wants never change. Can there be non-capitalistic entrepreneur? Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: 1) use or utilization, esp. for profit 2)selfish utilization http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation So what's wrong with use or utilization, especially for profit?What's wrong with selfish utilization?Please, no circular reasoning from you this time. I have a moral objection to selfishness and I see selflessness as better, desirable alternative for all of society. Now go ahead and argue that the selfishness of one benefits society as a whole and I'll respond. A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn't violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol. I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual's rights. If the worker agrees to work for less than the "full value" of the good, how is that a violation of the worker's rights? Because there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed. So a worker does not have the right to work for whatever wage he agrees to? If the worker's right being violated, who is violator? Is the employer who participated in said violation, the worker who participated in said violation, or both? Truthisnonexistent: ... The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that. So, when Standard Oil derived over 300 products from the waste of kerosene production, only Rockefeller benefitted? What about the consumers who enjoyed lower prices and more stuff to make their lives easier? Truthisnonexistent: Why do people die from starvation then? So you are saying that under your system, no one would starve to death. If the answer is "yes", dare I call you a utopian? There is something called autogestion, Rothbard advocated it to some extent actually, research it. You are taking what I said out of context. The "voluntary" agreement is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives. How can one violate their own rights? I would call the violator, the market and the subjective falsehoods along with it and to some extent the owner. Although they were lucky enough to have such a circumstance happen, it is no justification for the market itself. Considering, people die at the "hands" of the market. To say that everyone benefits from the market is a utopian. Rothbard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0&feature=channel_page Workers' self-management is compatible with capitalism (for clarification, free-market capitalism, not the mercantilism we are both against). So how is exploitation a violation of rights?
Yes it is and there are extreme benefits to it but why is it not implemented? Because it takes away from the capitalists rights, the capitalists which own the market.
Well first we need to start off by saying, what are rights? I think the workers have the right to the capital their labor producers and you do not.
You cant have a market without consumers, therefore the consumers are more important than the producers and the producers should be paying the consumers for their valuable service and its exploitation for the producers to demand payment from the consumers.
Its a stupid argument form. No one is "more important", you are just trying to invent a class war for the sake of having a class war. The worker and capitalist add value and are compensated according to their value added in the form of a normal profit.
Taras Smereka: Yes, capital, the capital that so many people do not have but so few people have a lot of. Capital, the lack of, which prohibits some people from life. Capital, which isn't necessary to the markets survival. Labor, necessary to the markets survival. Labor, produces the capital that the capitalist reap so much of. Capital doesnt fall from the sky. Someone makes tt. If people are unable to get their own capital the question becomes "Why?". And generally if you look at countries with large numbers of extremely poor people (living on <$1/day) you will see that they do not have property rights. And when you look at more devoloped countries you find a distorted credit market where politically connected people can borrow printed (counterfeited) money straight from the government, while average people have to pay a higher rate of interest, and there is a low savings rate. You are again ignoring 1) That capital comes from savings 2) That capital is tailored to a specific consumer preference (capital doesnt just have value because labor was expended producing it, it needs to serve consumer interests) 3) That because of those facts capital has to be managed in terms of risk and in terms of making sure it is consumer oriented (the role of the "capitalist) am assuming you mean economically safe, because like I said you and others are not taking into account the emotional and physical tolls of labor. I still don't think that the capitalist deserves the amount of profit he reaps. The capitalist wants the wages as low as possible, social struggle forces the capitalist to higher the wages. Now, if the wages were made higher by a process separate from aspects of the market (to some extent) why did they raise the wages? If the workers are not that important to the business or market. You can think what you want, but a normal profit is the market value of the capitalists enterpreneurial ability (whether you personally agree with it or not). If I was a capitalist who was overcharging the customer and underpaying the worker, another capitalist would come and charge slightly less and pay his workers slightly more and steal my workers/customers. And then a new, lower level of profit would be the norm. So in a free competitive market the profit that the capitalist makes is always the normal profit which is not exploitative, and represents the value added by what he does. When there is a monopoly there is exploitation, but a monopoly is by definition not a competitive free market scenario, thats why I am arguing for the free market and not monopolies. The workers are important, they add value, and so does the capitalist. And many times the worker is also a capitalist, and vice versa. I am not saying one is more important than the other, but each adds a certain type and amount of value to the good/service and they are compensated based on that.
Yes someone makes the capital, the workers! The market cannot survive without labor.
Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, historically have not been determined by the market. They have been won by collective struggle against the capitalist, against the market process.
Clearly you see the capitalist as more important than the worker. Seeing as the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that as justified. The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record.
Taras Smereka: You cant have a market without consumers, therefore the consumers are more important than the producers and the producers should be paying the consumers for their valuable service and its exploitation for the producers to demand payment from the consumers. Its a stupid argument form. No one is "more important", you are just trying to invent a class war for the sake of having a class war. The worker and capitalist add value and are compensated according to their value added in the form of a normal profit.
The selling price of a product is determined by the laws of supply and demand (the market) while the wages of the worker are not. There cannot be consumers without workers. There can be workers without capitalists, there can be consumers without capitalists, there cannot be capitalists without workers or consumers.
Like I said, social classes and power are determined by property ownership and capital, obviously, if the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that is justified, you think the capitalist plays a more important role in the market.
I'm trying to start a class war, eh? Yes, it's mises.org today, lewrockwell.com tomorrow and then the world.
Truthisnonexistent:I am not 'everyone'.
Truthisnonexistent:That what I have been saying in my previous posts... The current economic system practiced is not an ideal capitalist system but it is an ideal system for capitalists.
Truthisnonexistent:INot all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world.
Truthisnonexistent:IThe capitalist's job is not to produce, it is to manage capital.
Truthisnonexistent:Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize
Here's something to make you spew green vomit: wages come from profit. Profit logically and temporally came first. Then wages. I know that runs counter to everything Marxist, but it's true.
Truthisnonexistent: Clearly you see the capitalist as more important than the worker. Seeing as the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that as justified. The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record.
You still don't understand our argument. We are making the claim that the workers ARE the capitalists. They are just as much as capitalists as the owners, no different. THey face they same decisions but have chosen a different path.
Also, what if those who employed the workers weren't there? Every argument proposed by you has been one in which you refused to follow your argument to conclusion. What or who encourages a man to work in a steel faundry as opposed to tending his own land?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Truthisnonexistent:I am not 'everyone'.Yet you do benefit from the market, despite your foot-stomping tantrum. Truthisnonexistent:That what I have been saying in my previous posts... The current economic system practiced is not an ideal capitalist system but it is an ideal system for capitalists.Except that it isn't that, either. You reveal yourself as some superficial teenybopper Marxist who hates that mommy and daddy made him get a job at Sbarro for the summer. Truthisnonexistent:INot all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world.Non sequitur. Truthisnonexistent:IThe capitalist's job is not to produce, it is to manage capital.No, it's not. Please stop thinking that production only comes from manual, backbreaking labor.
By saying I benefit from the market is just as obvious as saying the capitalists benefit from the market. Just because a lot of people "benefit" from the market doesn't make "Free exchange benefits everyone" true.
How is it not? The capitalists, the upper class, the poltical class, call it what you want, benefit from the market and benefit from the state.
That is what all of you have been saying, "the capitalists manages capital". I am not saying that production only comes from backbreaking labor, you are asserting that. When I speak of the producers, I am speaking of the workers that produce a product that consumers buy.
filc: Truthisnonexistent: Clearly you see the capitalist as more important than the worker. Seeing as the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that as justified. The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record. You still don't understand our argument. We are making the claim that the workers ARE the capitalists. They are just as much as capitalists as the owners, no different. THey face they same decisions but have chosen a different path. Also, what if those who employed the workers weren't there? Every argument proposed by you has been one in which you refused to follow your argument to conclusion. What or who encourages a man to work in a steel faundry as opposed to tending his own land?
When I speak of capitalists, I speak of the owners of the means of production. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed.
There have been self managed work places that saw benefits throughout history.
Truthisnonexistent: ... Not all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world. To say everyone benefits from the market or that the market meets everyone's needs is purely utopianism. The capitalist's job is not to produce, it is to manage capital. To say that in some instances the capitalist may produce is no counter argument at all to my point that a market cannot function without labor, therefore the labor producers are more important then the labor buyers.
... Not all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world. To say everyone benefits from the market or that the market meets everyone's needs is purely utopianism.
What market are you refering to? The current mercantilist market, or a free-market capitalist market? How would a capitalist originally come about his capital? Is it not through producing it?
Truthisnonexistent: Yes it is and there are extreme benefits to it but why is it not implemented? Because it takes away from the capitalists rights, the capitalists which own the market. Well first we need to start off by saying, what are rights? I think the workers have the right to the capital their labor producers and you do not.
Workers' self-management is probably not favorable to those who benefit from our current mercantilist economy. I think workers' self-management is suppressed by the government for the benefit of the mercantilist. No, I do not believe that workers have the right to the actual physical good they produce. However, this would be because the worker has agreed to exchange his labor for some of the owner's capital (not the actual good itself). I ask you again, how is it that the owner of any capital originally came about his capital? Do you mean to say that a factory owner was born with a factory in his hand?
Truthisnonexistent: ... Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, ... The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record.
Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, ... The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record.
What's wrong with a free-market monopoly? Also, the workers wouldn't have those job if the were'nt for the owners capital. So what is more important now? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Truthisnonexistent:The selling price of a product is determined by the laws of supply and demand (the market)
Your belief in that actually surprised me.
No one can survive without labor. If you dont labor, you just lie on the couch and starve to death. Labor isnt a magic deity, it is what it is.
Free markets do not tend to monopolize. Wages and normal profits are a reflection of value added. I have gotten a 13% raise over two years since I started this job. I am not a member of a union, management has given me better wages because I have improved my productivity. The unionized store down the street has lower average worker productivity than the nonunionized store that I work at, and the union is actually making workers less productive and preventing their wages from rising. Regardless of what Karl Marx, Father of the People (I was born in the soviet union, and I drank the same Kool Aid), tells you, these claims are not true as there is no evidence for them. Marxism is a RELIGION not a thoery.
Again, I am saying that in a free market people are compensated according to their value added. You are pretending that there is a "class struggle" and I "see the capitalist as more important than the worker", which I do not. The capitalists arent out to "exploit" you, its all in your head. If you want to be worried, be worried about the government, criminals, and monopolists, they are the ones doing the exploitation.
Truthisnonexistent: ... The capitalists, the upper class, the poltical class, call it what you want, benefit from the market and benefit from the state.
... The capitalists, the upper class, the poltical class, call it what you want, benefit from the market and benefit from the state.
You're conflating free-market capitalists with mercantilist capitalists. Please don't do so.
Truthisnonexistent: When I speak of capitalists, I speak of the owners of the means of production. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed.
You are correct that a market would be less effecient if every single person attempted at being a business owner. However you are incorrect in the statement that not everyone is at least permited the chance. I'm not sure what world you live in but the one I live on any one, at least in the states, has the right to attempt at being a business owner. I know of no such rule or law which prevents anyone from at least attempting.
Any employee who is a laborer by voluntary choice also has the choice to quit his job and attempt to start his own business. No one has a right to tell him otherwise.
Political class = capitalist class?
Not in the US....
Daniel: Truthisnonexistent: ... Not all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world. To say everyone benefits from the market or that the market meets everyone's needs is purely utopianism. The capitalist's job is not to produce, it is to manage capital. To say that in some instances the capitalist may produce is no counter argument at all to my point that a market cannot function without labor, therefore the labor producers are more important then the labor buyers. What market are you refering to? The current mercantilist market, or a free-market capitalist market? How would a capitalist originally come about his capital? Is it not through producing it? Truthisnonexistent: Yes it is and there are extreme benefits to it but why is it not implemented? Because it takes away from the capitalists rights, the capitalists which own the market. Well first we need to start off by saying, what are rights? I think the workers have the right to the capital their labor producers and you do not. Workers' self-management is probably not favorable to those who benefit from our current mercantilist economy. I think workers' self-management is suppressed by the government for the benefit of the mercantilist. No, I do not believe that workers have the right to the actual physical good they produce. However, this would be because the worker has agreed to exchange his labor for some of the owner's capital (not the actual good itself). I ask you again, how is it that the owner of any capital originally came about his capital? Do you mean to say that a factory owner was born with a factory in his hand? Truthisnonexistent: ... Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, ... The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I'm sounding like a broken record. What's wrong with a free-market monopoly? Also, the workers would have those job if the were'nt for the owners capital. So what is more important now? Huh? Huh? Huh? Truthisnonexistent:The selling price of a product is determined by the laws of supply and demand (the market) Your belief in that actually surprised me.
What's wrong with a free-market monopoly? Also, the workers would have those job if the were'nt for the owners capital. So what is more important now? Huh? Huh? Huh?
When I criticize capitalism, I criticize the current economic system. There are many ways a capitalist may come about his capital, loans from a bank, loans from a friend, inheritance ect. The capitalist uses the large profit reaped from the workers and buys more machinery , the workers labor bought the machines they work on (the tools used to exploit them) so that the capitalist can hire more workers and make more profit.
Workers management would not be favorable to anyone who benefits from a capitalist market. Why don't the works have the right to the good they produce? Their labor buys the machines they create it on and their labor covers any maintenance fees, the only thing is the owner has the deeds to the machine. Like I said, the contract is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, this is getting pointless.. really it is, I don't see you changing your view and I don't see me changing mine and I really don't feel like repeating the same things in every post.
If you are asking that question, I am going to assume you are in favor of monopolies. So, what is just about a free market monopoly? The owner's capital is the worker's labor.
filc: Truthisnonexistent: ... The capitalists, the upper class, the poltical class, call it what you want, benefit from the market and benefit from the state. Political class = capitalist class? Not in the US....
The owners of the means of production which receive beneficial treatment from the state. The CEO of company A which receives beneficial treatment from the state also benefits from the workers of his company. Large corporations produce the most jobs and large corporations receive the most beneficial state treatment.
What are you trying to say?
filc: Truthisnonexistent: When I speak of capitalists, I speak of the owners of the means of production. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed. You are correct that a market would be less effecient if every single person attempted at being a business owner. However you are incorrect in the statement that not everyone is at least permited the chance. I'm not sure what world you live in but the one I live on any one, at least in the states, has the right to attempt at being a business owner. I know of no such rule or law which prevents anyone from at least attempting. Any employee who is a laborer by voluntary choice also has the choice to quit his job and attempt to start his own business. No one has a right to tell him otherwise.
Slaves probably had a chance to escape slavery, that is no justification for slavery.
The contract is invalid, see other posts.