 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: Read this thread. One of the Comrades arguing here has, in fact, used the caricatures you poke fun at, touting them as legitimate arguments, so if you're amused by them, that's good, but neither John or I can take credit. That honor goes to the Comrades arguing here.  |
And that comrade is not ME. I don;t goive a **** what arguembnts you are having with other people on this thread, If you don;t address my points, then I must assume you have no valid answers for them.
quote:
As to the crime question: You should already know the answer to that. |
Point the answer to me.
quote:
Economic activity (work) is not a crime. We, as individuals have determined however, that taking from another societal individual IS a crime. The two don't even belong in the same category. |
And the question is why not. Stealing is an economic activity, an outlawed one. The question I ask is why it is outlawed, which is the question you are magnificanty failing to answer.
quote:
I assumed you were wiser than that, and apologize for making the assumption...
-=Vel=- |
I am wise enough to see someone unable or unwilling to answer questions asked of him, or openyl state you refuse to answer.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
And does a Capitalist wave a magic wand and building materials come out of nowhere? Oh yes, and the Building just magically also appear 'poof', out of thin air.
And you will concede them the land? Is the Capitalist on it? If not, how can you tell its his? dd he also make a chain link fence magically appear out of nowhere? or maybe he has magically created robots guarding it? |
You should really catch up with the flow of the thread and the arguments made.
Nobody on the capitalist side of the fence in this argument has claimed that labor isn't an essential component of the economy. The modern capitalist realizes there is an interdependence of all contributors to the capital enterprise. That's one of the reasons why laissez faire has gone out of style in more advanced economies and more lucrative industries.
It's the Communist loons who claim that financial and intellectual capital, intrinsic value of raw material resources, and organizational contributions are either non-existent or meaningless. "The rich" are nothing but parasitic scum, only "the workers" actually do anything, and what they do, what they do it with, where they do it, etc., all magically appear, having nothing at all to do with "the rich" scum. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Weak. Make an argument. The Japanese are very productive. Productivity is not the problem there. |
Ahhhh soooooo, now effiency = productive. Double plus good, grasshopper.
BTW, that "efficiency" which now equals "productivity" occured with: massive overemployment in meaningless jobs, (if you'd been there in the 80's, you'd know) leading to overpriced products and services in all domestic markets, psychologically and socially coerced mass overtime, illiquidity in internal markets, great dependence on reverse engineering of foreign technologies (sometimes successful, sometimes not, but so much for group-speak), and a corrupt political system that overlooked or discouraged every form of accountability and transparency, as long as the short-term trade surpluses looked good. Meanwhile, during the boom times, thousands of dispossesed lived in the streets, train stations or in garbage dumps, the social health care system has imploded on itself with rising costs, and the "productivity" numbers were cooked.
The banking collapse didn't happen out of thin air - it happened out of a corrupt one party government, industrial enterprise and industrial enterprise owned bank system with no antitrust regulation, and no transparency to shareholders, collaborating to cook the books across the board.
Nobody knows what real Japanese "efficiency" or productivity is - you can't trust the books, and there's more shifting of inefficiensies and losses off balance sheet than anyone will ever know. Nobody wants to look either, because the Japanese culturally would rather have a pleasant lie than an unpleasant truth, and if the truth got out, the Nikkei would tank again, and you'd be full on into a spiraling deflationary cycle - which is damned close to happening anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ahhhh soooooo, now effiency = productive. Double plus good, grasshopper.
BTW, that "efficiency" which now equals "productivity" occured with: massive overemployment in meaningless jobs, (if you'd been there in the 80's, you'd know) leading to overpriced products and services in all domestic markets, psychologically and socially coerced mass overtime, illiquidity in internal markets, great dependence on reverse engineering of foreign technologies (sometimes successful, sometimes not, but so much for group-speak), and a corrupt political system that overlooked or discouraged every form of accountability and transparency, as long as the short-term trade surpluses looked good. Meanwhile, during the boom times, thousands of dispossesed lived in the streets, train stations or in garbage dumps, the social health care system has imploded on itself with rising costs, and the "productivity" numbers were cooked.
The banking collapse didn't happen out of thin air - it happened out of a corrupt one party government, industrial enterprise and industrial enterprise owned bank system with no antitrust regulation, and no transparency to shareholders, collaborating to cook the books across the board.
Nobody knows what real Japanese "efficiency" or productivity is - you can't trust the books, and there's more shifting of inefficiensies and losses off balance sheet than anyone will ever know. Nobody wants to look either, because the Japanese culturally would rather have a pleasant lie than an unpleasant truth, and if the truth got out, the Nikkei would tank again, and you'd be full on into a spiraling deflationary cycle - which is damned close to happening anyway. |
What does any of this have to do with the difference in the way the Japanese manufacture say cars and the old US way of manufacturing. The old US way is horribly inefficient. It's a dinosaur now. Anyone using it will surely go out of business in this modern era.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
What does any of this have to do with the difference in the way the Japanese manufacture say cars and the old US way of manufacturing. The old US way is horribly inefficient. It's a dinosaur now. Anyone using it will surely go out of business in this modern era. |
The US doesn't use "the old US way" any more, except to the extent that resistance from the UAW keeps inefficient work processes and plants going.
What it "has to do with" is how brutal the Japanese system was for the average worker, how a culture based on conformity and not challenging authority (commie wet dream material if you ever actually run anything) led workers and managers alike to not question the inefficiencies of the system or the effect on workers and managers, and how shareholders were screwed by these fun and games, except there were hardly any "real" shareholders - "pac man" ownership and other fun and games were common.
Banks went down the tubes because they were set up to borrow from Nihon Ginko and disburse non-recourse loans to affiliated companies at non-risk sensitve rates based on cooked books. The entire economy was one big cinderella, and even the real performance of those automated wonderfactories you seem to think are cool was heavily cooked. They never paid for themselves, corporate culture was that when you automated, you added workers to maintain the automated line, but shifted the (normally) displaced those workers to do-nothing standaround all day (and OT) jobs. Deskbound bureacracy and paralysis of decision making apparatus proliferated, but as long as you could pretend your briefcase warriors were helping you shove product out the door, great. It didn't matter if the product was sold under true (and unknown, due to gamesmanship) cost, if you got more marketshare. Currency slides a bit, ahhh, we are profitable at 140 yen to the dollar, we can profit at 120 yen to the dollar too - just change the books.
All the bubble gum in the world couldn't produce a bubble that big, and when it popped, it wouldn't leave near as much of a mess, either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US doesn't use "the old US way" any more, except to the extent that resistance from the UAW keeps inefficient work processes and plants going.
What it "has to do with" is how brutal the Japanese system was for the average worker, how a culture based on conformity and not challenging authority (commie wet dream material if you ever actually run anything) led workers and managers alike to not question the inefficiencies of the system or the effect on workers and managers, and how shareholders were screwed by these fun and games, except there were hardly any "real" shareholders - "pac man" ownership and other fun and games were common.
Banks went down the tubes because they were set up to borrow from Nihon Ginko and disburse non-recourse loans to affiliated companies at non-risk sensitve rates based on cooked books. The entire economy was one big cinderella, and even the real performance of those automated wonderfactories you seem to think are cool was heavily cooked. They never paid for themselves, corporate culture was that when you automated, you added workers to maintain the automated line, but shifted the (normally) displaced those workers to do-nothing standaround all day (and OT) jobs. Deskbound bureacracy and paralysis of decision making apparatus proliferated, but as long as you could pretend your briefcase warriors were helping you shove product out the door, great. It didn't matter if the product was sold under true (and unknown, due to gamesmanship) cost, if you got more marketshare. Currency slides a bit, ahhh, we are profitable at 140 yen to the dollar, we can profit at 120 yen to the dollar too - just change the books.
All the bubble gum in the world couldn't produce a bubble that big, and when it popped, it wouldn't leave near as much of a mess, either. |
Bubbles are another matter. The point is that the productivity was so high in Japan that the system couldn't maintain itself especially after the US starting coying their methods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
GePap: The post you pointed out (the one with the caricatures) wasn't directed at YOU (neat, huh? I can use bold face too!), though you obviously felt the insatiable need to address it. Since the post wasn't directed at you, I see no particular reason why it should be required to fit into your vastly complex (can't have anything simple, you know) criterion for an answer.
As to your thieving question, as far as I know, thievery is an outlawed activity in BOTH economic systems under the microscope (communism or capitalism) and thus, has little to do with the current debate IMO. If I did not answer the question to your satisfaction, it is because I fail to see the relevancy (yes, it's an outlawed activity...in both systems...what's your point?).
You've already admitted (by your own posts here) that you've not bothered to read the thread to date (not that I blame you, it's honkin' long), and that's cool, but it does make it a bit hard to jump into the middle....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's the Communist loons who claim that financial and intellectual capital, intrinsic value of raw material resources, and organizational contributions are either non-existent or meaningless. "The rich" are nothing but parasitic scum, only "the workers" actually do anything, and what they do, what they do it with, where they do it, etc., all magically appear, having nothing at all to do with "the rich" scum. |
And those are not my arguements, nor are they the arguemnts of all people who view a communistic (as opposed to communist) society as something worthwhile. The rich are only those that have happened to gather around them wealth: they are not an inherently different form of human being than anyone else, not better (as so often it sounds like you or Vel are syaing, even if that is not exactly what you mean), or worse, only those that have gained though to thier actions in whatever system they happen to live in.
The problem I have is that you (and Vel) seem to think there is only one way to wealth, that it is "ahrd work", and anyone who isn't is simply lazy or envious. But there are many ways to wealth. Those Mongol conquerors who plundered and looted: the got wealthy, and its not like they took any less risk, or did any less "work" than the farmers and landowners they plundered. Dofferent values, different systems, different ways to get to whatever is defined as the top. The "top" today is no more natural or normal or proven than the top 2000 years ago.
What I wonder is under which set of values a society that can feed all allows any to starve, that can care to for lets people alone and sick, and so forth and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: The post you pointed out (the one with the caricatures) wasn't directed at YOU (neat, huh? I can use bold face too!), though you obviously felt the insatiable need to address it. Since the post wasn't directed at you, I see no particular reason why it should be required to fit into your vastly complex (can't have anything simple, you know) criterion for an answer. |
As all posts are opene to discussion, anything anyone posts is fair game for anyone. And I don;t see how you imporve the argument with Kid in any way to writing what you did.
quote:
As to your thieving question, as far as I know, thievery is an outlawed activity in BOTH economic systems under the microscope (communism or capitalism) and thus, has little to do with the current debate IMO. If I did not answer the question to your satisfaction, it is because I fail to see the relevancy (yes, it's an outlawed activity...in both systems...what's your point?). |
That it is outlawed in both systems is immaterial, sicne both systems share a lot of common principles (like 'economic man'). The question is made, and I think it valid, ebcause it goes down to a greater part of what Speer's point was when he made his point and started this thread, and its a common point I see defenders of capitalsim make against defenders of communism: that is the communism itself is theft of some type. BUt why is theft wrong? I can see why under the caricature of communism some of you seem to believe it would be wrong (the thief gets rich and denies some lazy slob his unfair share of the loot) but in the individual centric system you keep trying to sell, why is it? You have a right to haveand own pirvate porperty: none said you have a right to keep it.
quote:
You've already admitted (by your own posts here) that you've not bothered to read the thread to date (not that I blame you, it's honkin' long), and that's cool, but it does make it a bit hard to jump into the middle....
-=Vel=- |
I think much of the discussion is irrelevan or immaterial to what I care to discuss about. about the point being made. The porductivity of japan has sh1t to do with this debate as a whole.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: I quite agree. Anything here is open to discussion, but you could stand to tone down the righteous indignation when discussing a post that's NOT addressed to you doesn't address your points, ya know? |
As I said before, this is a public forum, anyone can read anyones posst. Second, what you wrote is just the sort of caricature that does not imporve debat any. If you want just a single sin derived from it: it extends extraneous debate.
quote:
And I'll answer your question with a question. Why should thievery NOT be outlawed. Give me a reason. |
By outlawying "theft" you undully punish those people how may have the skills and intelliegence to pull it off. Petty robbery is not much, and it does not net much wealth either. But what about stealing from an armored truck? that takes lots of intelliegence, and in the end, 9f we assume the thief will spend every dime of it, it stimulates the economy afterwards just as much as any other use the money could ahve been put to. So why should a brilliant thief be denied the ability to practice and make a living from his art, if in the end, it does little harm to the market system at all?
quote:
Oh, and one more time for the hard of reading: I'm NOT saying that the rich are a "special class of man." Not by any stretch! Hell, if *I* can find economic success (not that I"d call myself rich--yet), then anybody can! I am saying that those who cannot or will not take the time and the risk to MAKE opportunies for self-improvement should not just get something for nothing because the wealth exists. In our current system, there are hordes and scads of programs to assist the less fortunate, and that is good, but don't come to my house with a gun demanding half of what I own just because you think you "deserve it" and expect a warm welcome....
-=Vel=- |
And if they get a cold reception and they still overwhelm you and kill you, were they right? As for the central part of the argument: why not? This is what i askl you to morally defend, the notion that only if you can fnd success can you excpect anything. Everyone expects not to be assualted, even those that could never actually defend themselves, or those that happen to go into dangerous areas. Why civic and political semi-equality but not economic? And if not economic, is the civic and political semi-equality even possible?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-06-2003 23:18
sushi doesn't really qualify you to comment.
Teachers must always stay human. They can use tech aids, though.
|