Is profit different from unfair tax? Part 2

[Kuciwalker]

Basically, yes.

[Dauphin]

I'm glad I could help summarise the last 600 posts into one simple definition.

[Q Classic]

damn, we've lost two in the span of a week who just keep attacking like the black knight, aggie and kid.

we don't have many fish in a barrel left to shoot.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is profit different from unfair tax? Part 2

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
English comprehension, assumption or distortion? I've said they make a choice, I don't put a value judgement on that. The point is, they make choices.

So you assume they make choices that are not in their best self-interest. You assume they are not rational. My friend you just contradicted your assumptions.

Remember talking about the labor market and you said that higher wages atract workers to the particular job skill? That is the Law of Supply. The Law of Supply is based on the assumption that people are rational. That is they work for more money not less. That is that they make the best choice for themselves.

You have no base for your argument. You are just bull****ing. You can't even keep your story straight. You lose.

[Kidlicious]

Re: And The Winner Is...

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Kidicous:

I can see you have put a lot of time into these threads, and I have to admire you for that.

For doggedly defending an absurd argument,
In the face of overwhelming numerical opposition,
(Not to mention all established economic theory,
and a fair bit of common sense),
For enduring grevious rhetorical and logical wounds,
and, above all, for coming back for more,
I hereby invest you as the first member of Apolyton's Order of the Black Knight.

This award comes with a picture suitable for use as your own personal avatar.
Wear this award with pride.
You have certainly earned it.

Hehe. Thanx AS, but I'm not worthy of an avatar because I only post on the OT forum.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Isn't this dead yet ??


kid

I made my arguments in the last thread-- I still feel violated at Blockbuster exploiting me by daring to RENT me a movie.

Oh dear. You are so confused. You don't rent to video to do your work. You rent it to be entertained. That's not exploitation.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes! He's come back for more punishment!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Understand this: the ONLY way that your system could possibly function without exploitation, would be for every man, woman, and child, to be his/her own, completely self-sufficient economic machine. That is to say, each person would have to own all the tools and equipment to build his own home, have all the skills to do all the wiring and plumbing, grow all his own food, make all his own clothing, and make any and all electronic devices he/she wished to own, because you see, ANY TIME that anyone charges you for these things, what are they doing but robbing you of a portion of your productivity?

Wow! I previously thought that you understood what I was talking about. Obviously from this post you don't. You need to read some books about communism. Then come ask questions. PM me if you like.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I would make an argument pointing out where Kid is wrong, but seeing as he hasn't responded to any of my direct questions I will save my keyboard the wasted effort.

I read everything Big Crunch. I have responded to some of the things that you have posted, but if you repeated what someone else has said and I have already responded to that person it is likely that I ignored you.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I'm glad I could help summarise the last 600 posts into one simple definition.

600? Where've you been?

Kid has been going over this on at least three separate 500-post threads. The previous thread, Vel's "Rage against the Machine" thread which was nothing more than a continuation of another thread that I can't find.

[Arrian]

You have no base for your argument. You are just bull****ing. You can't even keep your story straight. You lose.

Absolutely Fezzian!

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh dear. You are so confused. You don't rent to video to do your work. You rent it to be entertained. That's not exploitation.

Well thanks for responding to my attempt to be humorous and not any of my detailed examples or more serious questions. I assume its because you can't.


So you are saying it is ok for the EVIL CAPITALIST (tm) to rent you things to entertain you but not to do "work".
So rent in and of itself is not exploitive since you do not object to certain things being rented for a profit like a blockbuster movie. Is that correct??

So when does "rent" become exploitive? Before I lay sod in the spring, I plan to turn the soil to loosen it and then rake it level. It will probably take me a couple of days, or I could rent a roto-tiller or I could hire a few people to help

1. Is landscaping my garden "work" in your world? It is to the people that do it for a living and its definitely not entertainment for me.

2. If it is work, Is it exploitive for someone to rent me a roto-tiller ?-- I don't want to have my own since I will need it for less than a day and will probably never need one again.

3. If its not work to me then imagine I hire two guys to landscape my lot. This is obviously "work" to them. They look at the job and decide that they will rent a roto-tiller. They also don't need to own or have one on a regular basis as they don't want to be responsible for maintaining or storing this equipment year round.

So what are the choices to get the land worked efficiently

1. well we could do it all by hand but that would take much longer and much more effort. Does this mean I have to pay the workers more for their greater effort? Imagine they can do the job in one third the time, do it better and with much less effort with the roto-tiller.
CAN YOU AT LEAST AGREE THAT HAVING A ROTO_TILLER IS MORE EFFICIENT FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED ?? lets take that as a given that a roto-tiller will make the job quicker. .. I am willing to pay a higher per hour rate if the roto-tiller is used since my only concern is to get the job done and the workers will net more money in less time by earning the whole fee in a day instead of two


Now we need a roto-tiller so how do we get one??

a) well the evil capitalist can have one and rent it to whomever wishes it for a fee-- but since that is exploitive, this option would not exist

b) I or the workers could acquire one but none of us need one on an ongoing basis and buying one to resell is just stupid

Well I guess that only leaves the state. The means to do work better should be freely provided. Since providing a roto-tiller to everyone is stupid, there must be a pool of common tools . .. Now the full time landscapers would probably need their own roto-tillers full time so of course they could keep theirs and only bring them back when they break for the state to perform the maintenance on them while they take another. There would have to be enough tools for everyone's needs at ALL times since it would be unfair if a worker could not earn the higher rate available if he had a rototiller.

So lets see, making it a state obligation to provide work ools means

1. You would have to keep a larger inventory on hand than under a free-market system so as to not deny any worker their right to tools

2. An economic decision would never enter into it . .. A worker would never find a job small enough that it was not worthy of using the tool ( since you have removed any expense from the decision)-- As a general citizen I would expect that I could get a roto-tiller for free for the day too since it would seem unfair for the state to provide to another that which it would deny me

3. A whole bunch of people have to pay for this big toolshed even though they live in apartments and have no use for ANY of the tools

4. As the state acquires newer and better roto-tillers that are more powerful, there will be the issue as to who gets them. A more powerful tool can accomplish more work in less time. Do you have to discard all the older but still functional models so everyone be equal??


So KID

General contractors need all sorts of tools that they never buy since their need is so intermittent. One day its a roto-tiller, tomorrow a cement mixer, the next a post-hole digger or a compressor and nail gun. Many of these are bulky to move or store so the contractor will rent them if they need them. Tell me how your economic system will efficiently provide these tools.


Oh and I hope your solution is not to have a group of state-salaried handymen who are freely provided the tools they need with a citizen needing to apply to some state agency for approval to have the work freely done. In that scenario, I get a lawn 3 years from now if the handymen can be freed from building another wing on the dachas of the elite

edit-- spelling and adding a few points of clarification

[JohnT]

... It will probably take me a couple of days, or I could rent a roto-tiller or I could hire a few people to help...

From everything that I've read from the Left, an inescapable conclusion is that anything that reduces the number of hours that people can work would likely be considered a Bad Thing. By it's very existence, the Roto-Tillerâ„¢ is exploitative because its use denies others their "right" to "work" and a "living wage." Whatever the hell that is.

Until you understand this, Kid will quite rightly ignore your question as being exploitive in itself in it's assumption of a labor-saving Roto-Tillerâ„¢.

You have failed the first test of Communist heterodoxy (sp). See? You do need to read your Marx to know what you're talking about.

Btw, great argument Kid. Next time I get into any discussion I will have to prove that the other person has read the accepted Literature before proceeding with my discourse.

[Kidlicious]

Flubber,

I will write a better reply to your post in an hour or so when I can get on a PC instead of a MAC. BTW, does anyone know how to cut and paste on one of these things?

I apologize for not responding to all of your points. I don't have that much time. It you have a particular one in mind please bring it back up and I will respond to it.

In short about rent, yes renting tools (and videos) is more efficient than making each user own them. It's not exploitive though. The difference is that you trully do have the option of not renting these things. On the contrary, if you don't own a house then you are forced to rent one.

There should be user fees involved in renting things like videos in a communist system. I don't think you would call it rent though because the videos would be community owned. The same would go for renting things like roto-tillers unless the tool was used to make goods and services for the public. Why? The public benefits from the tool being used, so why should the worker pay a fee?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
3. If its not work to me then imagine I hire two guys to landscape my lot. This is obviously "work" to them. They look at the job and decide that they will rent a roto-tiller. They also don't need to own or have one on a regular basis as they don't want to be responsible for maintaining or storing this equipment year round.

This is exploitation. I think you assume that I'm suggesting a continuation of the current system and that workers should have to buy their own tools. I'm not. I'm suggesting that the tools used by workers to earn their living be owned by the community and that the workers should not be charged rent for using them.

Originally posted by Flubber
CAN YOU AT LEAST AGREE THAT HAVING A ROTO_TILLER IS MORE EFFICIENT FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED ??

Yes. That's why the current system can't be efficient and fair at the same time. In fact it can't be fair at all.

Originally posted by Flubber
You would have to keep a larger inventory on hand than under a free-market system so as to not deny any worker their right to tools

A larger inventory is better. That prevents shortages. There are shortages in the current system you know.

Originally posted by Flubber
An economic decision would never enter into it . .. A worker would never find a job small enough that it was not worthy of using the tool ( since you have removed any expense from the decision)-- As a general citizen I would expect that I could get a roto-tiller for free for the day too since it would seem unfair for the state to provide to another that which it would deny me

An economic decision would never enter into it? Do you think economic decisions are exclusive to the current system? You would pay a fee for using the roto-tiller are ordering the service. That would prevent moral hazard - people ordering the service at no cost to themselves.

Originally posted by Flubber
As the state acquires newer and better roto-tillers that are more powerful, there will be the issue as to who gets them. A more powerful tool can accomplish more work in less time. Do you have to discard all the older but still functional models so everyone be equal??

Charge more for the newer ones.

Originally posted by Flubber
So KID

General contractors need all sorts of tools that they never buy since their need is so intermittent. One day its a roto-tiller, tomorrow a cement mixer, the next a post-hole digger or a compressor and nail gun. Many of these are bulky to move or store so the contractor will rent them if they need them. Tell me how your economic system will efficiently provide these tools.

Still confused?