26-01-2005 11:55									#361
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

@ Kid

In a capitalist economy , both the worker and employer agree on a wage , and the worker gets it . The worker agrees because he thinks he will be better off with a job than without . The employer agrees because he thinks he will be better off with the worker working for him than without . Where is the exploitation , if no force or fraud in involved ?

Remember , Kid , that there is no absolute wealth . There is only percieved wealth and value . An employer might value the worker at a wage of a dollar a month . The worker may value himself at a billion dollars a month . The upper limit the employer percieves is 1500 $ . The lower limit the worker percieves is 1200 $ . They agree on 1350 $ . Both the worker and employer think they have got a deal ( a good deal , as the worker gets 150 $ more than he percieves his minimum is worth , and the employer gets 150 $ he percieves the worker is worth more than ) .

All the things you talk about are simply disagreements in percieved value . You really need Economics 101 .

	26-01-2005 13:37									#362
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Sigh, you changed what I said and then declared it a contradiction. I said "killing", not "destroying" by winning over more consumers. You are now equating killing others with a higher marketshare. Yes UR, freedom includes the potential of driving me out of business by giving my customers a better deal.

What's the difference between "killing" and "destroying" with regards to inanimate entities? If you can kill inanimate entities, that is.

	26-01-2005 13:58									#363
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: You're describing anarchism to which I am certainly sympathetic, but to your hypothetical, I'd love to live in such a society.

Right, but I wouldn't necessarily like to live in the society that you're talking about. As far as I'm concerned libertarians are far to concerned with moral absolutes and lose sight of simple but very important things like what makes a society a good place to live in. You can't eat moral absolutes.

Similarly, libertarians seem never to think about what social conditions would facilitate the establishment of libertarianism. All we generally get is preaching about moral absolutes that are very nice as far as they go, and very little of the flexible pragmatism that is needed to remake society (much of the same could be said about commies).

	26-01-2005 14:06									#364
	Increase Your PM Length

You answered your own question, UR.

Last edited by Berzerker on 26-01-2005 at 14:21

	26-01-2005 14:18									#365
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Right, but I wouldn't necessarily like to live in the society that you're talking about.

What was I talking about? You brought up the voluntary society...

quote: As far as I'm concerned libertarians are far to concerned with moral absolutes and lose sight of simple but very important things like what makes a society a good place to live in. You can't eat moral absolutes.

The greatest mass starvations were man-made through government - government that dismissed moral absolutes.

quote: Similarly, libertarians seem never to think about what social conditions would facilitate the establishment of libertarianism. All we generally get is preaching about moral absolutes that are very nice as far as they go, and very little of the flexible pragmatism that is needed to remake society (much of the same could be said about commies).

A widely held belief in freedom is the social condition needed.

	26-01-2005 20:39									#366
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious It isn't just an assertion. If you get to exploit me, but I don't get to expoit you than that's unfair by any reasonable standards.

Hmm kid-- you always try to make debate personal about you and me-- Are you trying to get me to say something that you will twist into a claim that I said you were a lazy-ass or that I was better than you or whatever tangent you then go on?

But if you want to get into it at an individual level, I don't flinch.

How exactly did I "get to exploit you" or anybody for that matter? I didn't inherit any money or anything.

Also, you say " I don't get to exploit you". What exactly has prevented you from doing anything?

Note that your words imply that someone had an ability to get into a position that it is not possible for you to attain. Why not? I can guarantee you that there are people who had the worst possible economic starting point and terrible family lives that have become owners of businesses. So what prevents you or someone else from attaining this. Perhaps ability ? perhaps hard work?

I'm not saying that it is equally easy but you appear to claim its impossible.

	26-01-2005 20:52									#367
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

@ kid again

And exactly who is the worker and who is the capitalist these days anyway? Do you have to be one or the other or can you be both?

I ask because most corporations are very widely held. For example I know an electric utility where the top 3 shareholders are

1. a teacher's pension fund
2. a public service pension fund
3. a registered retirement savings plan

So when you get into it, the "owners" of the company are about a hundred thousand individuals who go to work every day and merely want to earn a return on their investment so they may retire in comfort.

I saw somewhere that something like 70% of canadians over the age of 35 own some stock somehow. Even if the number is 80% (or 40%) are we all naughty naught capitalists? If so , what does that mean?

I believe that what it means is that the separation into workerand capitalist is archaic and not in tune with the current reality. Heck leaving aside stock, every third or 4th tradesperson I met when we built our house owned their own business. For example, the painter did most work himself but sometimes hired others to work for him. How evil !!

	26-01-2005 22:02									#368
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm @ Kid In a capitalist economy , both the worker and employer agree on a wage , and the worker gets it . The worker agrees because he thinks he will be better off with a job than without . The employer agrees because he thinks he will be better off with the worker working for him than without . Where is the exploitation , if no force or fraud in involved ?

An agreement does not insure a fair deal. There's a thing called negotiating power that you need to consider.

quote: Remember , Kid , that there is no absolute wealth . There is only percieved wealth and value. An employer might value the worker at a wage of a dollar a month . The worker may value himself at a billion dollars a month . The upper limit the employer percieves is 1500 $ . The lower limit the worker percieves is 1200 $ . They agree on 1350 $ . Both the worker and employer think they have got a deal ( a good deal , as the worker gets 150 $ more than he percieves his minimum is worth , and the employer gets 150 $ he percieves the worker is worth more than ) .

It's got nothing to do with how much each agent values the product produced by the worker. The value depends on how value the product is to society.

quote: All the things you talk about are simply disagreements in percieved value . You really need Economics 101 .

Economics 101 is propaganda. I've taken it. In fact I have a BA in economics.

	26-01-2005 22:09									#369
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Kid That's nice, but where did I mention "within a species"? I said, and I repeat again, survival of the fittest includes killing the competition. How am I wrong? Answer without changing what I said, please. And you're still wrong, if killing within a species occurs, and it does, then survival of the fittest does include killing members of your own kind. And if the strong take all the resources causing the weak to die, how do you explain babies?

Natural selection is not limited to killing within species. So it's compatable with libertarianism. In fact there are those libertarians who believe that it's good for society for the least productive producers to fail and be removed from the market place. Have you heard of the Austrian School of Economics? The neoclassical school does not consider this beneficial, but they are only one type of libertarian.

	26-01-2005 22:17									#370
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious It's got nothing to do with how much each agent values the product produced by the worker. The value depends on how value the product is to society.

Excuse me-- we are talking about trying to determine how much to pay someone and you have to determine the societal worth of the product?? What if society assigns no value to the product? Does the worker get paid nothing?

Also who exactly is "society' and how do they determine things? Are we envisioning a planning committee here?


It is probably useless to talk to kid about "fair value" of labour anyway since he has been quite explicit in both his methodology and his reasoning that it is not possible at all for even the most fair-minded and generous capitalist to pay a fair wage.

	26-01-2005 22:18									#371
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Hmm kid-- you always try to make debate personal about you and me-- Are you trying to get me to say something that you will twist into a claim that I said you were a lazy-ass or that I was better than you or whatever tangent you then go on?

If it offends you I will use third parties for my purposes.

quote: But if you want to get into it at an individual level, I don't flinch. How exactly did I "get to exploit you" or anybody for that matter? I didn't inherit any money or anything.

You (errr Tom) established a govt that gives you that right.

quote: Also, you say " I don't get to exploit you". What exactly has prevented you from doing anything?

Tom is rich and I (er Dave) is poor.

quote: Note that your words imply that someone had an ability to get into a position that it is not possible for you to attain. Why not? I can guarantee you that there are people who had the worst possible economic starting point and terrible family lives that have become owners of businesses. So what prevents you or someone else from attaining this. Perhaps ability ? perhaps hard work?

I don't really know. Maybe it's because I haven't become set in a career that suits me yet, or I haven't found the perfect business opportunity. None of that is really relevant though.

quote: I'm not saying that it is equally easy but you appear to claim its impossible.

No. I don't. It doesn't matter if it is easy or hard. The fact is that some people are able to exploit others and others are not. Whether you are able to exploit others is greatly determined by your wealth. Of course you can be rich and either very unlucky or not good with money and lose all your wealth, and also a very poor person can be very good with money or very lucky, but normally whether or not you are an exploiter or the exploited depends on how wealthy you are.

	26-01-2005 22:24									#372
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Flubber @ kid again And exactly who is the worker and who is the capitalist these days anyway? Do you have to be one or the other or can you be both? I ask because most corporations are very widely held. For example I know an electric utility where the top 3 shareholders are 1. a teacher's pension fund 2. a public service pension fund 3. a registered retirement savings plan So when you get into it, the "owners" of the company are about a hundred thousand individuals who go to work every day and merely want to earn a return on their investment so they may retire in comfort. I saw somewhere that something like 70% of canadians over the age of 35 own some stock somehow. Even if the number is 80% (or 40%) are we all naughty naught capitalists? If so , what does that mean? I believe that what it means is that the separation into workerand capitalist is archaic and not in tune with the current reality. Heck leaving aside stock, every third or 4th tradesperson I met when we built our house owned their own business. For example, the painter did most work himself but sometimes hired others to work for him. How evil !!

Owning a little stock does not make me a capitalist, and it does not make the issue of exploitation archaic. That would be nice for you, but simply isn't true.

	26-01-2005 22:31									#373
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Excuse me-- we are talking about trying to determine how much to pay someone and you have to determine the societal worth of the product??

Because the worker should be paid what the social value of the product minus what ever is needed to maintain production.

quote: What if society assigns no value to the product? Does the worker get paid nothing?

That wouldn't be rational. Society values the worker. If the worker doesn't get paid then he can't survive and be productive i the future. Society has an interest is maintaining the workers survival and finding productive employment for him.

quote: Also who exactly is "society' and how do they determine things? Are we envisioning a planning committee here?

By society I mean what ever benefit someone or everyone has recieved from the work done.

quote: It is probably useless to talk to kid about "fair value" of labour anyway since he has been quite explicit in both his methodology and his reasoning that it is not possible at all for even the most fair-minded and generous capitalist to pay a fair wage.

Of course it isn't possible. The game for the capitalist is to buy something for less than it's value and sell it for more than it's value. If any capitalist doesn't do that it's out of altuism, and that capitalist will not be able to stay in business indefinitely.

	26-01-2005 22:37									#374
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I agree that capitalists should be rewarded for their risk. The basic rules I have very little problem with.

Profit exceeds compensation for loss. In fact the two are mutually exclusive. Risk is a cost.

	26-01-2005 22:37									#375
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I don't really know. Maybe it's because I have become set in a career that suits me yet, or I haven't found the perfect business opportunity. None of that is really relevant though.

Totally relevant if you are saying that it is not possible for you to become a business owner and employ people. IT is possible-- its just that you choose not to do it. There's nothing wrong with that choice.

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious No. I don't. It doesn't matter if it is easy or hard. The fact is that some people are able to exploit others and others are not. Whether you are able to exploit others is greatly determined by your wealth. Of course you can be rich and either very unlucky or not good with money and lose all your wealth, and also a very poor person can be very good with money or very lucky, but normally whether or not you are an exploiter or the exploited depends on how wealthy you are.

This makes no sense. I accept that initial wealth makes it easier for some people to become business owners. So what?

Since the size of the business would appear to me to be irrelevant to your theory of exploitation, I assume that the working painter who cobbles together a few dollars to start his own painting business and employes others is just as much a capitalist exploiter pig to you as the uber-rich.

But who cares about the uber rich guy? While its easier for him than me to own stuff, there's ample opportunities out there and he doesn't prevent me even a little bit from doing anything.

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious If it offends you I will use third parties for my purposes.

Funny stuff -- But the fact of the matter is that you keep bringing personal circumstances into this. Its unnecessary but it does not offend me. I just find it curious that you seem to refer to me as a capitalist or "rich" when I don't meet your criteria for the former and I don't meet my own for the latter .


And I still don't see where you couldn't be the "capitalist" if you wanted. Start a business and do some bookeeping/ accounting. Advertize and attract enough work that you need help and hire someone else. Voila-- suprisingly easy. heck a neighbor at age 18 is making money hiring other kids to mow lawns. The kids make money and the customers get their lawn mowed regardless of which teen is away.

Ah capitalism

	26-01-2005 22:42									#376
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Profit exceeds compensation for loss. In fact the two are mutually exclusive. Risk is a cost.

What an odd mixed-up statement. Risk is not a cost, it is a probability. I am involved with major projects and you assess a risk weighted rate of return. If its sufficient, the project may proceed. It may not if the risk is too great-- ie a good looking return will be insufficient if there is even a small chance of a huge huge loss.

I have NEVER seen risk listed anywhere as a cost for teh simple reason that it is not a cost.

	26-01-2005 22:43									#377
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Totally relevant if you are saying that it is not possible for you to become a business owner and employ people. IT is possible-- its just that you choose not to do it. There's nothing wrong with that choice.

Neither you or I know if it's possible. This is just another wild claim that you are making. What we do know is that some people have to work. In fact most people have to work. It's not possible for all of us to own businesses.

quote: This makes no sense. I accept that initial wealth makes it easier for some people to become business owners. So what? Since the size of the business would appear to me to be irrelevant to your theory of exploitation, I assume that the working painter who cobbles together a few dollars to start his own painting business and employes others is just as much a capitalist exploiter pig to you as the uber-rich. But who cares about the uber rich guy? While its easier for him than me to own stuff, there's ample opportunities out there and he doesn't prevent me even a little bit from doing anything.

While the economy is not a zero sum game infinite production is not possible. Resources are scare. That's the first rule of economics. The economy in a developed nation grows by about 2% and most of that goes to those who are already rich.

quote: Funny stuff -- But the fact of the matter is that you keep bringing personal circumstances into this. Its unnecessary but it does not offend me. I just find it curious that you seem to refer to me as a capitalist or "rich" when I don't meet your criteria for the former and I don't meet my own for the latter . And I still don't see where you couldn't be the "capitalist" if you wanted. Start a business and do some bookeeping/ accounting. Advertize and attract enough work that you need help and hire someone else. Voila-- suprisingly easy. heck a neighbor at age 18 is making money hiring other kids to mow lawns. The kids make money and the customers get their lawn mowed regardless of which teen is away. Ah capitalism

I don't want to be a capitalist any more than I want to go around stealing little old lady's purses.

	26-01-2005 22:47									#378
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Flubber What an odd mixed-up statement. Risk is not a cost, it is a probability. I am involved with major projects and you assess a risk weighted rate of return. If its sufficient, the project may proceed. It may not if the risk is too great-- ie a good looking return will be insufficient if there is even a small chance of a huge huge loss. I have NEVER seen risk listed anywhere as a cost for teh simple reason that it is not a cost.

Probability is only part of the analysis. Risk certainly is a cost. It is measured along with other costs, compared to the 'probable' benefits, and a decision is made.

	26-01-2005 22:49									#379
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious By society I mean what ever benefit someone or everyone has recieved from the work done. .

So everyone has to decide the value of the product? So how again does the worker get paid?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious That wouldn't be rational. Society values the worker. If the worker doesn't get paid then he can't survive and be productive i the future. Society has an interest is maintaining the workers survival and finding productive employment for him.

Hmm here you are getting into areas where capitalsim does better than your theories. In capitalistic Alberta, an unskilled laborer may get between 7 and 20 per hour based on the type of work. You place this value of the work and the worker regardless. So you are right, its not rational to give the worker nothing if his product is worthless ( say its beef which is recalled for contamination) or tons of money if they produce high value stuff. Instead you value the worker themselves . . . their work is worth something REGARDLESS of the end result. Sounds fair to me.

	26-01-2005 22:50									#380
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Cost of Risk

Business Week.

You NEVER read do you?!

	26-01-2005 22:55									#381
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flubber So everyone has to decide the value of the product? So how again does the worker get paid?

Easy. If you know the value of the product you simply subtract the cost of continuing production and you give the remainder to the worker.

quote: Hmm here you are getting into areas where capitalsim does better than your theories. In capitalistic Alberta, an unskilled laborer may get between 7 and 20 per hour based on the type of work. You place this value of the work and the worker regardless. So you are right, its not rational to give the worker nothing if his product is worthless ( say its beef which is recalled for contamination) or tons of money if they produce high value stuff. Instead you value the worker themselves . . . their work is worth something REGARDLESS of the end result. Sounds fair to me.

Wha wha wha whaaaaaat?! Capitalism is canablistic. Only recent modifications to capitalism to make it more like communism have taken the edge off of it. How the hell can you claim that capitalism is better at protecting beneficial resources when they are temporarily not productive. Capitalism can't do that alone. You need govt intervention to do that, and then you have to deal with things like military spending and tax cuts for the rich.

	26-01-2005 22:59									#382
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Probability is only part of the analysis. Risk certainly is a cost. It is measured along with other costs, compared to the 'probable' benefits, and a decision is made.

We may be getting into semantics here . Obviously in the assessment they look at the range of labour costs and materials costs etc and the ranges reflect various risks.

But "risk" is never listed as a cost and there is NEVER a quantified risk cost listed anywhere. Its built into the probable rate of return in doing your p10, p90 and mean cases. I do big projects and look at the cost -benefit analysis. Bottom line is that there must be a probable rate of return sufficient to risk the capital. If a loss is made the corporation bears it and if there is profit they get it. Regardless of profit the workers get paid -- really well.

	26-01-2005 23:02									#383
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Cost of Risk Business Week. You NEVER read do you?!

:



Funny -- read the article-- its about the cost of insurance premiums !!!

In case you don't know, they don't insure your capital if you make a BUSINESS LOSS.


Lesson for you kid-- Read the article before you take a swipe at someone else

	26-01-2005 23:05									#384
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Easy. If you know the value of the product you simply subtract the cost of continuing production and you give the remainder to the worker.

HUH?? Weren't you the guy saying value was "societal value" so I don't think you can just assume we know that. Or are you willing to accept "market" value for a product?

	26-01-2005 23:08									#385
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Wha wha wha whaaaaaat?! Capitalism is canablistic. Only recent modifications to capitalism to make it more like communism have taken the edge off of it. How the hell can you claim that capitalism is better at protecting beneficial resources when they are temporarily not productive. Capitalism can't do that alone. You need govt intervention to do that, and then you have to deal with things like military spending and tax cuts for the rich.

hey -- you are the guy wanting to pay the worker based on the value of what they produce.

So if the product is contaminated or unusable, obviously they get nothing right. The capitalist would pay the worker anyway.

	26-01-2005 23:11									#386
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Flubber We may be getting into semantics here . Obviously in the assessment they look at the range of labour costs and materials costs etc and the ranges reflect various risks. But "risk" is never listed as a cost and there is NEVER a quantified risk cost listed anywhere. Its built into the probable rate of return in doing your p10, p90 and mean cases. I do big projects and look at the cost -benefit analysis. Bottom line is that there must be a probable rate of return sufficient to risk the capital. If a loss is made the corporation bears it and if there is profit they get it. Regardless of profit the workers get paid -- really well.

It's always semantics with you. You can't even understand that when one person can do something and another person can't that that's unfair. You don't even understand how competition for resources creates conflict, and now you don't understand how risk is a cost.

Look here profit is revenue minus cost. Risk conpensation is not profit. It is the cost of maintaining business.

	26-01-2005 23:11									#387
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Cost of Risk Business Week. You NEVER read do you?!

This was such a gaffe by you I had to quote it again.

When people talk about risk-weighted rate of returns, they are NOT talking about their insurance premiums .

	26-01-2005 23:12									#388
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Flubber : Funny -- read the article-- its about the cost of insurance premiums !!! In case you don't know, they don't insure your capital if you make a BUSINESS LOSS. Lesson for you kid-- Read the article before you take a swipe at someone else

Of course it's the cost of insurance premiums. You add the cost or risk to the premium, but you don't stop there. If you did you would not make a profit.

	26-01-2005 23:15									#389
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious It's always semantics with you. You can't even understand that when one person can do something and another person can't that that's unfair.

I still don't understand why the things others can do are impossible to you

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious It's always semantics with you. You can't even understand that when one person can do something and another person can't that that's unfair. You don't even understand how competition for resources creates conflict, and now you don't understand how risk is a cost. Look here profit is revenue minus cost. Risk conpensation is not profit. It is the cost of maintaining business.

I wouldn't be lecturing if I were you. Your quote of that insurance premium article showed how little you understand risk.

	26-01-2005 23:15									#390
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Flubber HUH?? Weren't you the guy saying value was "societal value" so I don't think you can just assume we know that. Or are you willing to accept "market" value for a product?

You would think that you would start to understand some of the things that you make me repeat over and over. It's the labor which is valuable to society. Labor produces the value. That's how we know how valuable something is. The only task is to make that labor productive - to organize it so that it produces beneficial things for us.