27-01-2005 03:43									#451
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I'm glad for you. Don't think at all about the peasants toiling in the field.

I didn't give them a thought--- After all I work for a wage too

Ohh I just gave them a thought-- the guys in the fields are all driving big combines and own land worth millions.

	27-01-2005 03:44									#452
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Kid First, you didn't answer a single question I posed and you've repeatedly dodged my questions. Now you say natural selection is compatable with libertarianism because species kill each other.

I didn't say that. I said that it is compatable with libertarianism because natural selection does not require killing at all. That's quite the opposite.

quote: Does it matter that people eat other species to survive regardless of economics or ideology?

Nope. We aren't taking about interspecies relationships an all. We are talking about intraspecies relationships. Libertarianism has nothing really to do with Lions and Zebras.

quote: I mean, you've jumped on Che's "capitalism is inherently violent and causes war" bandwagon without even acknowledging that violence and warfare (and eating other species) are inherently human.

According to your logic we shouldn't have any law at all to prevent violence since it's inherent in humanity. The purpose of law is to create justice so that people aren't compeled to use violence against each other.

quote: And you're still wrong, survival of the fittest includes killing members of your species for reasons other than self-defense and libertarianism rejects this, therefore social Darwinism is not compatable with libertariansim. Does social Darwinism reject killing within a species for reasons other than actual self-defense or not? No, but Libertarianism does... So they are not compatable...

Irrelevent. I can't even imagine your purposes here.

	27-01-2005 03:45									#453
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Admit it, Kid and Flub: you guys just love going at each other in this thread. THere's no other fathomable reason as to why you keep posting in them with such intensity

I don't know about kid but I got a message from our secret capitalists club that it was my turn. We figure that every minute he spends here is a minute he is not getting ahead and forwarding his agenda.

You see . .. we did a risk assessment . .. .

	27-01-2005 03:47									#454
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Every business decision is based on the risk involved. A company may certainly invest for a guaranteed rate of return of 10 % but may reject a project with an 80% probability of a return of 20% if there is 15% chance of losing the entire investment and a further 5% chance of losses of 3 times the initial investment. Different companies use different assessment methods and in fact may disagree greatly on the assumptions that go into the model. You see it all the time-- 2 big sophisticated companies are gung ho for a project while two more are unwilling to proceed.

That is simply because the risk cost varies. Some companies can't take as much risk.

	27-01-2005 03:49									#455
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I don't know about kid but I got a message from our secret capitalists club that it was my turn. We figure that every minute he spends here is a minute he is not getting ahead and forwarding his agenda. You see . .. we did a risk assessment . .. .

What do you think I do here at school, hand out propaganda? There is already someone who does that.

	27-01-2005 03:55									#456
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious That is simply because the risk cost varies. Some companies can't take as much risk.

yes and no. Usually its because they have very different models. Big companies will vary greatly on something as simple as the projected 5 year average price of West Texas crude from 2010 to 2015. ( I said simple but did not mean easy to predict LOL)


Lets see, so you are calling the chance that I will make 1 million in gross revenue instead of 2 million or 3 million a "risk cost" even though it involves no costs or payments to anyone? Just asking because the last time you said risk cost you googled an article about insurance premiums which is very different. You do persevere. If you spent this much effort in a small service business you would be quite well off.

	27-01-2005 04:06									#457
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Oh and some basic questions

1.a) Can a person be both a worker and a capitalist or must they be one or the other?

b) If its one or the other, how do you classify the large proportion of people that work every day but do own stock? How about the small business owner that works his behind off but employs a few people?

c) You have implied several times that I am a capitalist. On what criteria is that based



2.a) Is a worker paid a somewhat universal "fair wage" or are they paid based on the value of what they produce.

2b) if its the fair wage, how is a wage set unilaterally by the government employer more fair than a free market wage agreed in a competitive marketplace.

c) if its "value", how do you deal with people that produce immensely valuable or worthless products?

3. Do you believe in democracy as part of your system? Put simply if a majority of people clearly expressed a desire to reject it, would you accede to that?

b) Do you see incarceration or death as acceptable means to deal with people that voice dissent?

	27-01-2005 04:06									#458
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flubber yes and no. Usually its because they have very different models. Big companies will vary greatly on something as simple as the projected 5 year average price of West Texas crude from 2010 to 2015. ( I said simple but did not mean easy to predict LOL) Lets see, so you are calling the chance that I will make 1 million in gross revenue instead of 2 million or 3 million a "risk cost" even though it involves no costs or payments to anyone? Just asking because the last time tou said risk cost you googled an article about insurance premiums which is very different. You do persevere. If you spent this much effort in a small service business you would be quite well off.

I'm not saying anything about revenue. Risk cost is the cost for the probability of loss. However, if you purchase a new machine there's the risk that the machine won't perform well. Some companies can't afford to take the chance.

	27-01-2005 04:19									#459
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Oh and some basic questions 1.a) Can a person be both a worker and a capitalist or must they be one or the other?

I don't know what some people are if they are either one. I know that some people are either one though.

quote: b) If its one or the other, how do you classify the large proportion of people that work every day but do own stock? How about the small business owner that works his behind off but employs a few people?

I'm not really concerned with identifying all the capitalists. I don't really have anything out for them. My problem is with capitalism and people who do bad things within the system. While the institution of profit is unfair, I don't find is evil for people to make profit. People have to do what they have to do to take care of themselves and their families.

quote: c) You have implied several times that I am a capitalist. On what criteria is that based

You are a vocal supporter of capitalism. People who support capitalism mush take the blame for it. It's one thing to operate withing the system. It's quite another to support it.

quote: 2.a) Is a worker paid a somewhat universal "fair wage" or are they paid based on the value of what they produce.

The value of what they produce will be equal to the labor put into making it since in a communist society you no longer have the surpluses and shortages that cause wage variation.

quote: 2b) if its the fair wage, how is a wage set unilaterally by the government employer more fair than a free market wage agreed in a competitive marketplace.

By efficient allocation of resources (labor).

quote: c) if its "value", how do you deal with people that produce immensely valuable or worthless products?

You train the people who make the worthless things to make valuable things.

quote: 3. Do you believe in democracy as part of your system? Put simply if a majority of people clearly expressed a desire to reject it, would you accede to that?

I beleive that people should have a voice in govt, but I do not believe that the majority should be able to exploit the minority any more than I agree that they should be able to hold the minority as slaves.

quote: b) Do you see incarceration or death as acceptable means to deal with people that voice dissent?

There should be no punishment for those who voice decent. Remember that communists do not think all alike and we value our right to free speech also.

	27-01-2005 04:27									#460
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Dang. It's raining and my umbrella is in the car.

	27-01-2005 04:38									#461
	Put an end to popups!

I missed these at first.

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Of course, people who are lousy at running businesses are better off working for people who are good at running businesses. Why does that shock you?

Who said the displaced workers would work. I''m speaking withing the context of a recession.

quote: You mean neo-classical libertarians believe it's good for lousy businesses to survive? How do they survive without intervening to prop them up? Once you prop them up, you're taking resources from better run businesses and the result is a less effective economy with increased waste.

Neo-classical economists do not consider anyone superior to another. They predict that inefficient producers be displaced but that they instantly find an industry where they can produce efficiently.

	27-01-2005 04:44									#462
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Kid

quote: I didn't say that. I said that it is compatable with libertarianism because natural selection does not require killing at all. That's quite the opposite.

This is what you said:

quote: Natural selection is not limited to killing within species.

Now you said the opposite of that? The opposite would be: natural selection is limited to killing within species.

So natural selection doesn't even require killing? How do you think better predators evolve if genes producing a better killing machine are not selected? And you changed my argument - that survival of the fittest includes killing the competition - to something about "natural selection" within a species. This was about whether or not survival of the fittest - social Darwinism - is compatable with libertarianism. You said yes but you keep changing both our arguments.

And once again you're wrong, natural selection does require killing unless you can live off a thermal vent or some other inanimate resource. That's one way nature selects - you can't select for advantageous killing genes if those genes don't improve the ability to consume other life forms. Even grazing animals become better at consuming because natural selection chooses characteristics that improve their ability to consume. Large molars for chewing grass and leaves did not evolve because killing is not required, but because killing IS required to produce better ways to consume.

quote: Nope. We aren't taking about interspecies relationships an all.

I am, you merely changed what I said. Survival of the fittest includes killing the competition. Lions kill hyenas, hyenas kill cheetahs and smaller predators, etc... You are the one who turned that into something about intraspecies relationships, not me.

quote: We are talking about intraspecies relationships.

You may be talking about that but I sure didn't limit myself to killing off competitors within a species.

quote: Libertarianism has nothing really to do with Lions and Zebras.

No kidding! You said the strong cause the weak to die by denying the weak resources and I pointed out that lions do not consume all the grasses zebras consume to prove you wrong.

quote: According to your logic we shouldn't have any law at all to prevent violence since it's inherent in humanity.

Where did I say that? I'm not the one claiming social Darwinsim is compatable with libertariansim, I'm refuting that notion.

quote: Irrelevent. I can't even imagine your purposes here.

Irrelevant? That's what this is all about - whether or not social Darwinism is compatable with libertariansim.

	27-01-2005 04:54									#463
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Of course I know what sunken costs are. Sunken costs are still costs, are they not? Look I'm going to give you thins formula. I don't want to debate about it. I'm done. If you don't understand it I will explain it to you. a + b - c - d = e a = Revenue b = Non risk related costs c = risk avoidance costs d = Real costs of risks not avoided e = profit edit: fixed the error in the dim hope that Flubber will understand it.

Actually, your fix still doesn't make sense in the context you're talking about since you don't add non risk related costs to your revenue.

But more to the point, it useless to what Flubber and I are talking about. Play along with your equation:

You are deciding whether to invest $100 million in a project that you figure has a 95% chance of a successful 20% ROI, but a 5% chance of complete failure (we're keeping this simple - obviously there are normally various possible outcomes). You go through your risk assessment and determine that it's worth the risk, since a riskless return is only 3%. Lo and behold, the project is a success, and you get your 20% return. Let's plug that into your equation:

$120MM (revenue) - $100MM (non-risk related cost) = $20MM profit

Where's the risk cost again?

	27-01-2005 05:01									#464
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Decent answers generally. This one requires a little follow up

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I beleive that people should have a voice in govt, but I do not believe that the majority should be able to exploit the minority any more than I agree that they should be able to hold the minority as slaves.

Obviously in a democracy as well there are certain enshrined rights which are not seen as simply revokable at the will of the majority.

Would it be youir intention that certain principles be enshrined, perhaps as constitutional rights, and therefore be more difficult to change.


If so who decides what these principles are ?? My problem is when you talk about not allowing the majority to rule, then obviously someone else has set the rules (even if it was some decision by a prior majority).

But rights are a funny thing. What if your systemis tried and the economy stagnates such that a majority becomes convinced that the old ways were better. Does the clear majority have the right to say that the exploitation concept is silly and our right to work for whom we choose is paramount.

Note that you could still have the state offering its "fair wage" but I suspect it would be like the public service now and become a place where people earn LESS money

	27-01-2005 05:01									#465
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Who said the displaced workers would work.

You said some libertarians believe its better for the economy if poorly run businesses are allowed to fold. You are changing your argument again.

quote: I''m speaking withing the context of a recession.

So you've added a new context and pretend its the original context in which you didn't even mention anything about a recession. There you go again...

quote: Neo-classical economists do not consider anyone superior to another. They predict that inefficient producers be displaced but that they instantly find an industry where they can produce efficiently.

Where did I mention "superiority"? If the implication of an efficient and inefficient business is that the former is "superior", then neo-classical libertarians do believe that some people are superior to others.

	27-01-2005 05:05									#466
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Actually, your fix still doesn't make sense in the context you're talking about since you don't add non risk related costs to your revenue. But more to the point, it useless to what Flubber and I are talking about. Play along with your equation: You are deciding whether to invest $100 million in a project that you figure has a 95% chance of a successful 20% ROI, but a 5% chance of complete failure (we're keeping this simple - obviously there are normally various possible outcomes). You go through your risk assessment and determine that it's worth the risk, since a riskless return is only 3%. Lo and behold, the project is a success, and you get your 20% return. Let's plug that into your equation: $120MM (revenue) - $100MM (non-risk related cost) = $20MM profit Where's the risk cost again?

Thank you for fixing what was hopefully my last error on that.

You took a risk and you won. So there is no cost, because there is no more risk.

	27-01-2005 05:13									#467
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Thank you for fixing what was hopefully my last error on that. You took a risk and you won. So there is no cost, because there is no more risk.

OK, change it up so that you don't win:

$0 (revenue) - $100MM (non risk related costs) = -$100MM profit (or $100MM loss, if you prefer).

What's the risk cost here?

Or better yet, rework it so that there is a risk cost.

	27-01-2005 05:15									#468
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

@ bezerker

we should call it "kidiciousing" a thread-- sort of like danSing but it would refer to changing the context, outright misstatements ets etc-- unfortunately there are probably several otehr posters that would deserve the label more

But none of this bothers him-- he said I was raising a new point-- when I quoted myself to show my argument was consistent and he just went on to say it was irrelevant

I enjoy the banter but thats all it is . .. banter with an impractical idealist who seems bitter at the world that others "have " more than he does. His response is to blame the system and the world. Thats his right. But its my right to show up and say I think its crap.

Other communists, for example che, have theories but they seem to take a more proactive view of their ability to change their circumstances. Most of the other communists at least seem to have some consistency and logic to their views. Even if I reject something I still respect the thought process behind it

	27-01-2005 05:16									#469
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker You said some libertarians believe its better for the economy if poorly run businesses are allowed to fold. You are changing your argument again.

You lost me. I'm not changing my argument that I know of. All economists believe that poorly run businesses should generally be allowed to fail. The difference is that some believe that resources will not, and should not be used, and other believe that resources should always be used, and will always be used, save for govt intervention.

quote: So you've added a new context and pretend its the original context in which you didn't even mention anything about a recession. There you go again...

I didn't change the context. People perish when they have no means for survival. Isn't that a recession?

quote: Where did I mention "superiority"? If the implication of an efficient and inefficient business is that the former is "superior", then neo-classical libertarians do believe that some people are superior to others.

The producers themselves are not superior to the inefficient producers. They just have some lower costs because of geography and or access to resources.

	27-01-2005 05:18									#470
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki OK, change it up so that you don't win: $0 (revenue) - $100MM (non risk related costs) = -$100MM profit (or $100MM loss, if you prefer). What's the risk cost here? Or better yet, rework it so that there is a risk cost.

Wha?! You are going from after the fact of the risk. You can't do that because the risk no longer exists.

	27-01-2005 05:22									#471
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Decent answers generally. This one requires a little follow up Obviously in a democracy as well there are certain enshrined rights which are not seen as simply revokable at the will of the majority. Would it be youir intention that certain principles be enshrined, perhaps as constitutional rights, and therefore be more difficult to change. If so who decides what these principles are ?? My problem is when you talk about not allowing the majority to rule, then obviously someone else has set the rules (even if it was some decision by a prior majority). But rights are a funny thing. What if your systemis tried and the economy stagnates such that a majority becomes convinced that the old ways were better. Does the clear majority have the right to say that the exploitation concept is silly and our right to work for whom we choose is paramount. Note that you could still have the state offering its "fair wage" but I suspect it would be like the public service now and become a place where people earn LESS money

Obviously a state can not continue in existence if it istn't popular. I don't know if that answers your question. We probably agree.

	27-01-2005 05:22									#472
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Wha?! You are going from after the fact of the risk. You can't do that because the risk no longer exists.

and at the time of assessment of the project these is no "risk cost" you can point at since what you have are probabilities of various levels of revenue and various levels of costs projected out over dozens of years.

	27-01-2005 05:23									#473
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Obviously a state can not continue in existence if it istn't popular. I don't know if that answers your question. We probably agree.

It appears we do if you do not propose the continuation of a state in its existing form against the wishes of the majority

	27-01-2005 05:24									#474
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Wha?! You are going from after the fact of the risk. You can't do that because the risk no longer exists.

Fine - take my scenario and plug the numbers into your equation so that it works. I'd love to see how you can put in a number for the risk cost that is independent of revenue and still come up with a meaningful profit. Or if you don't like my scenario, create one of your own where you can put a value on risk independent of revenue.

	27-01-2005 05:25									#475
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Flubber and at the time of assessment of the project these is no "risk cost" you can point at since what you have are probabilities of various levels of revenue and various levels of costs projected out over dozens of years.

Why do you guys make things so difficult. You can't not insure your factories and not take into consideration that eventually some factories will burn down. If you make $20M profit because you didn't buy insurance and instead took a risk sure you have made profit, but if you keep doing that eventually you will pay the price.

	27-01-2005 05:28									#476
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Flubber It appears we do if you do not propose the continuation of a state in its existing form against the wishes of the majority

Again, I don't believe in majority rule, but I believe the majority should have a voice. If they are overwhelmingly against the govt then a peacefull solution is prefered.

	27-01-2005 05:30									#477
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Fine - take my scenario and plug the numbers into your equation so that it works. I'd love to see how you can put in a number for the risk cost that is independent of revenue and still come up with a meaningful profit. Or if you don't like my scenario, create one of your own where you can put a value on risk independent of revenue.

Let's say that you invest in many projects. There is risk to everyone of them. The risk is low though, so you make good profit on most of them. But there is one project were you are unlucky, or whatever, and you take a loss. That loss is the cost of risk.

	27-01-2005 05:31									#478
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Fine - take my scenario and plug the numbers into your equation so that it works. I'd love to see how you can put in a number for the risk cost that is independent of revenue and still come up with a meaningful profit. Or if you don't like my scenario, create one of your own where you can put a value on risk independent of revenue.

Kontiki

he can't-- the idea that there is a number on the analysis called risk cost is laughable. (unless he wants to go back to his previous use of the term referring to insurance premiums as a cost item)

Risk is generally simple (if hard to quantify). You assess the probability of various outcomes and the results are quantified. management usually wants to know the p50-- most likely return, the bounds of likely outcomes say p99 and p01 and the risk weighted rate of return. all of this goes into the decision making process and can result in a project with a higher likely rate of return being rejected in favor of a lower return with less downside risk

	27-01-2005 05:32									#479
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Why do you guys make things so difficult. You can't not insure your factories and not take into consideration that eventually some factories will burn down. If you make $20M profit because you didn't buy insurance and instead took a risk sure you have made profit, but if you keep doing that eventually you will pay the price.

I don't see how we're making this difficult - in fact, we're making it as simple as possible.

But even going with what you've said above, why don't you tell us what the risk cost is and why you will eventually pay the price? Do all factories eventually burn down at some point or another?

You built the equation, make it work!

	27-01-2005 05:33									#480
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Let's say that you invest in many projects. There is risk to everyone of them. The risk is low though, so you make good profit on most of them. But there is one project were you are unlucky, or whatever, and you take a loss. That loss is the cost of risk.

No, the loss is reduced revenue, not an independent cost of risk.