Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You don't think I would just pull it out of my hat did you.



CNN Money

Haven't the slightest idea where they got that figure, especially since the Department of Labor (where they got the other figures) says that the discouraged unemployed total is, (again he says) 482,000.

But if you want to trust the "right-wing" CNN over the Department of Labor, that's your prerogative, I guess.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It depends on how you make it. If you work for it then that's not exploitation. If you save some of it and put it in the bank the principal is not exploition, but the interest that you recieve on it is, because that is someone elses labor.

So you are telling me if I put my money in the bank or invest it in the shock market I am expliotion? I just have to laugh at that one. Yeah I give my money to the bank so that they can loan that money to someone who wants to buy a house or car and when then pay me interest for it you call it expliotive? Or if I buy the shock in a company and I make money off the deal when the company does because I own part of it that is exploitive? Give me a brake.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar
So central planning can fail. Big suprise, will your next feat be to prove the sky is blue?

(a) Read the post - I was talking about a side subject to another poster.
(b) I'm glad you see that the failure of central planning is as obvious as the sky being blue.

Obviously, the Soviet model provides examples of what not to do. That's the great thing about learning from mistakes. You can avoid them next time. I think the great depression did that for capitalism.

And it was developed and put into place by people more talented than anyone on the commie side of the fence here (although I hold out some hope for chegitz). Meanwhile, other than some vague platitudes of "oh we can do everything for everyone, don't you worry" you guys totally avoid offering any specifics about how you'd carry out this mass transformation, or run a centrally planned economy.

Since you're still dogmatically attached to Marx, and offer no suggestions of a different central planning approach, it's a reasonable presumption that at best (given the evident depth of the talent pool) you'd come up with a weak emulation of the Soviet model.

Quit being so dogmatic.

You're the ones who are hung up on dogma, mixed with a little "faith in the Resurrection" of your revolution.

Sorry, my karma ran over your dogma.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It depends on how you make it. If you work for it then that's not exploitation. If you save some of it and put it in the bank the principal is not exploition, but the interest that you recieve on it is, because that is someone elses labor.

SHARIA!

Kill the infidels.

Interest simply represents the increased value of money over time, or the opportunity value given by the immediate availability of capital. Interest is only exploitive if it is excessive (to one party or another) after considering risk factors and time value of money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
So you are telling me if I put my money in the bank or invest it in the shock market I am expliotion? I just have to laugh at that one. Yeah I give my money to the bank so that they can loan that money to someone who wants to buy a house or car and when then pay me interest for it you call it expliotive? Or if I buy the shock in a company and I make money off the deal when the company does because I own part of it that is exploitive? Give me a brake.

The consumer should get the car and house regardless. They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Haven't the slightest idea where they got that figure, especially since the Department of Labor (where they got the other figures) says that the discouraged unemployed total is, (again he says) 482,000.

But if you want to trust the "right-wing" CNN over the Department of Labor, that's your prerogative, I guess.

Well Che has one source and I have another. So there you go.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The consumer should get the car and house regardless. They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

Why not if they can't pay cash upfront for it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

Then why would anyone save their money? If their money is going to get progressively more and more useless due to interest? Why wouldn't they just spend it all then? And without savings, how would any company make an investment into R&D and so forth?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I use the Marxist definition. It includes profit, rent, and interest. Of course corruption is exploitation too.

I like that. No wonder Marx's followers are all such morons. (Yeah, I've read Marx. I even was one in my young and foolish days)

Profit is exploitive, so...

I should price products and services strictly on a direct cost plus minimum overhead basis, so as not to risk exploiting anyone, and I should take all risk of loss on myself.

Rent is exploitive, so...

I should build houses, or other improvements, and then let people use them for free, for how dare I actually try to recover what I spent, when someone could sponge off my work and invested capital for free.

Interest is exploitive, so...

I should make my money (if I ever have any) available for free, regardless of my own present of future needs, and risk on non-return by the lender.

Can I "rent" your house and "borrow" your paycheck, comrade? I wouldn't want you to be burdened with feelings that you're exploiting me.

Do you perhaps see the tiniest reasons why you (the collective you) have a hard time getting people to buy into this nonsense?

Now if Marx specified "excessive" levels of these were exploitation, he'd be in agreement with the vast majority of capitalists today.

He'd be "right" too, in more ways than one.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They shouldn't have to pay you interest.

Then why would anyone save their money? If their money is going to get progressively more and more useless due to interest? Why wouldn't they just spend it all then? And without savings, how would any company make an investment into R&D and so forth?

It's completely unnecessary.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's completely unnecessary.

Yes, technological progress and research is completely unnecessary... sure .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Che was right. The REAL US unemployment rate is 9.1%. I read it this morning.

Also, 2% of the male US workforce is incarcerated.

I wouldn't use the word "real." Use the word, "alternate." The Department of Labor publishes two set's of unemployment numbers. The first is the number we've all come to know and love. The other, slightly more accurate number, is the alternate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Profit is exploitive, so...

I should price products and services strictly on a direct cost plus minimum overhead basis, so as not to risk exploiting anyone, and I should take all risk of loss on myself.

If you are so well informed on Marx then tell be where he advocated the entrepreneur.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's completely unnecessary.

Yes, technological progress and research is completely unnecessary... sure .

Your doing the same thing MtG is doing. Why would we need individuals to save money for research? All we have to do is pay scientists the same way we pay everyone else.

[JohnT]

So the DOL publishes "cooked" figures and "real" figures?

Please cite... and from the DOL itself, please. I can't find these alternate numbers anywhere on the stats.bls.gov site.

Thanks!