Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT

Rent is exploitive.

Let me ask you: Do you understand that the above is an opinion and not a demonstrable fact?

Hmmmm... I can look outside of my window and see the results of the exploitation. But I understand your point.

Originally posted by JohnT

... reflective mode...

Back in my twenties I got all interested in Astronomy, physics, etc... not enough to actually bother with the math, but enough to read about 15,000 pages of "popular" literature on the subject - Timothy Ferris, Hawking, Kip Thorne, etc. And one thing that I noticed is that it seems that the universe is based, even grows upon, disequalibrium. The differences between hot and cold. Light and dark. Solid and vacuum. Such a basic fact about our universe has even made it in the fabric of our society - look at our wedding vows, for example.

And one thing these books all made clear is this: when the Universe finally makes complete equilibrium, when there is no difference between one point of space and another, the Universe dies.

The day humanity "attains" Kids goals of equality of inputs and outputs, worth and value, knowledge and experience, is the day that humanity dies. And as the universe can, maybe will, die a heat death, so shall humanity when it achieves Kid's vision of perfect communism. Or socialism. Or whatever it is that he wants.

"Communism: The heat death of mankind." Too obscure for a bumper sticker?

I'm not an idealist John. I don't believe in equilibrium or absolute equality.

[Kuciwalker]

Seems moronic to me not to get compensation for effort, but it's subjective I guess.

What if I put lots of effort in, but can produce nothing? Should I still be compensated? People get paid for RESULTS, not for "trying". The only people who want compensation for effort are the incompetent.

Hardly out of the goodness of his heart. If you wants to sell more he has to lower his price. You are forgeting the law demand.

I was being sarcastic... and it doesn't invalidate my point. He is still charging lower then you did.

Vel is paid more for his labor, not less. Only the price per item is less.

How about this, then - he charges half the price. You still go out of business, and it begs the question "how did he exploit you?"

This all depends on whether Vel has the capacity to supply the whole market. Working by himself this would require that his new tool be extremely productive. If it is this productive then you have no point. The result would be unemployment anyway. No exploitation, but people need jobs. I prefer that there new jobs are not exploitive.

Depends on the size of the market. What if there is a market for just 20 items? You and he were filling it before, but now he can fill the entire market and no one buys from you. The numbers aren't important, the concept is.

[JohnT]

Given that the basic factual pillar of your arguments (that rent is exploitative) has now fallen, as you admit, do you not see the fallacy of basing an entire ideology, a belief system on nothing more than mere opinion? Why bother, when you know that it isn't true? Isn't this what many of your ilk yell at Christians for doing - building up entire belief systems out of ancient words and hot air?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by skywalker

Seems moronic to me not to get compensation for effort, but it's subjective I guess.

What if I put lots of effort in, but can produce nothing? Should I still be compensated? People get paid for RESULTS, not for "trying". The only people who want compensation for effort are the incompetent.

I'm not suggesting that people do unproductive work. The object is for people to do productive work and to get paid for it.

Originally posted by skywalker

Vel is paid more for his labor, not less. Only the price per item is less.

How about this, then - he charges half the price. You still go out of business, and it begs the question "how did he exploit you?"

And I said that he didn't.

Originally posted by skywalker

This all depends on whether Vel has the capacity to supply the whole market. Working by himself this would require that his new tool be extremely productive. If it is this productive then you have no point. The result would be unemployment anyway. No exploitation, but people need jobs. I prefer that there new jobs are not exploitive.

Depends on the size of the market. What if there is a market for just 20 items? You and he were filling it before, but now he can fill the entire market and no one buys from you. The numbers aren't important, the concept is.

And if a tool is invented that requires less labor it should be implemented. There is no exploitation involved. We just need jobs for the unemployed.

[JohnT]

I'm not an idealist John. I don't believe in equilibrium or absolute equality.

But that is what you're arguing for. If you don't believe in it, then why argue for it?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT

I'm not an idealist John. I don't believe in equilibrium or absolute equality.

But that is what you're arguing for. If you don't believe in it, then why argue for it?

No I'm not. I'm arguing for a reasonable amount of equality.

[JohnT]

By definition, there can be no relative equality. Do I even need to insert a rolleyes here?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Given that the basic factual pillar of your arguments (that rent is exploitative) has now fallen, as you admit, do you not see the fallacy of basing an entire ideology, a belief system on nothing more than mere opinion? Why bother, when you know that it isn't true? Isn't this what many of your ilk yell at Christians for doing - building up entire belief systems out of ancient words and hot air?

What is the difference between you saying that it isn't exploitaiton and me saying that it is? It's social science, not science.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
By definition, there can be no relative equality. Do I even need to insert a rolleyes here?

Ummm... More is better.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not suggesting that people do unproductive work. The object is for people to do productive work and to get paid for it.

Thus, you should get paid for what you produce, not what you try to produce.

And I said that he didn't.

Ok then. So would he be exploiting you if instead he let you have the tool and agreed not to make any more items, as long as you gave him 1 of the items out of the 20 you made each day? You would be making 9 more "items" of money each day, for the same amount of effort. How is he exploiting you? You are BOTH profiting. Especially as the alternative is he DOESN'T let you use it. Are you saying that he doesn't have to give it to you, but if he does, he can't charge you for it? If so, why would he ever give it to you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by skywalker

I'm not suggesting that people do unproductive work. The object is for people to do productive work and to get paid for it.

Thus, you should get paid for what you produce, not what you try to produce.

True, people should be given incentive for producing more.

Originally posted by skywalker

And I said that he didn't.

Ok then. So would he be exploiting you if instead he let you have the tool and agreed not to make any more items, as long as you gave him 1 of the items out of the 20 you made each day? You would be making 9 more "items" of money each day, for the same amount of effort. How is he exploiting you? You are BOTH profiting.

It's only fair if he is willing to sell me the tool at a price which fairly compensates him for his labor and which allows me to purchase it. When this situation doesn't exist there is exploitation. Why? because Vel recieves a better deal by renting the tool and I get a worse deal. I would definitely choose the first deal but I don't have the freedom to do so. That is expoitation, and it's systematic. You have to own property to be treated fairly by the system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you are

No, I'm not. Go ahead, get your own tools . I have nothing against Mosanto and other worker owned corporations. They just have to compete against the traditional ones.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But you are

No, I'm not. Go ahead, get your own tools . I have nothing against Mosanto and other worker owned corporations. They just have to compete against the traditional ones.

You say that now. What happens when the rest of the world makes their own tools and you are left alone to work with your own tools.

[Kuciwalker]

True, people should be given incentive for producing more.

Thus, you are not paid for effort, but for production. Thus, those who produce more from the same effort should be paid more for the same effort.

It's only fair if he is willing to sell me the tool at a price which fairly compensates him for his labor and which allows me to purchase it. When this situation doesn't exist there is exploitation. Why? because Vel recieves a better deal by renting the tool and I get a worse deal. I would definitely choose the first deal but I don't have the freedom to do so. That is expoitation, and it's systematic. You have to own property to be treated fairly by the system.

You are being paid 90% more for the same effort. You aren't losing anything. You didn't have that other item to sell in the first place, so why should you complain about having to give it to him? He owns the tool because he made it - if you took it from him, you would be exploiting him. So he offers you two choices, and you have COMPLETE FREEDOM so long as you don't steal it from him. So he is really giving you 9 extra items every day, not you giving him 1 extra item every day. How is it a better deal for him? He actually now has to come up with something ELSE, because he was getting ten items' worth of money per day before and now is getting one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What happens when the rest of the world makes their own tools and you are left alone to work with your own tools

Fine with me.

Of course if they are smart, they'll realize that the best way for everyone to succeed as much as possible is for them to make the tools they are best at and have me make the tools I'm best at, and then we deal with each other.