Exegesis - Cap/Com-ist

[Velociryx]

Kid: Just EXACTLY what Tubes said. Owning and maintaining three properties, keeping up with all the paperwork, doing repairs, cleaning between tenants....that's a$$ busting work. If you don't believe it, then I submit that it's cos you have never done it (which is exactly what I tell people who tell me that book writing is easy...PAH!)

I put in my 40 hours at the office (well, closer to fifty) and then another 30 or so on property maintenance. We're just getting started tho, and a lot of our work can be streamlined, so in the future, it will not take so long, man hour wise, and that's a good thing (kinna goes back to our earlier island example...making my farm more efficient to give me more free time).

I know it pains you, Kid, but under the current rules of our society, you just can't find an empty house and move on in.

Someone has to take responsibilty for the property (there's that personal responsibilty thing again). That would be me. By agreeing to pay the bank LOTS of money, I claim responsibility and ownership to the three houses (actually, they're in Christina's name, cept for the one we're living in). There is VALUE in assuming that responsibilty. I created VALUE by making the house accessible for people to live in it. AND by fixing it up, maintaining all the paperwork and paying the taxes and insurance on it.

Value.

My time has value. My labor has value, and I am being compensated for both.

Tubes: Agreed. Yet another flaw in the paradigm. No incentive (except for the occassional "attaboy" from the People's Cheerleaders) = nominal effort!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

What did you think I was doing with them?

Just buying them and relocating my stuff to a new home each week?

And have you EVER doubted my status as a capitalist?

Yep...duh smiley needed!

-=Vel=-

[Az]

Originally posted by Velociryx
'zazel: Yes. Capitalists frequently use "OPM" (other people's money). In your CEO example, the CEO has been given the green light by the shareholders of the company to act on their behalf. Still a fundamental difference from a government official acting out his mandate, especially given the command economy's lack of private ownership.

-=Vel=-

a difference in semantics, at best. The government offcical is elected by the entire society to do his job, is appointed by people who were elected, or was appointed by the people who were appointed by the people who were elected. In any case, there is an act of investment of capital, to create wealth, going on. Thus, it's still capitalism as you've defined it earlier, and it's even capitalism with your OPM appendix, since it's not simply "other people's money", it's "the people's money".

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Someone has to take responsibilty for the property (there's that personal responsibilty thing again).

No. You get to take care of the property. Remember you are more than willing. That's because you get to take advantage of people who don't own their own home.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No. You get to take care of the property. Remember you are more than willing. That's because you get to take advantage of people who don't own their own home.

I say the people are taking advantage of Vel. Living in a house that he paid for and repaired.

ACK!

[Velociryx]

Untrue. At least, I was unaware that the Finance ministry was an elected post in either of our major commie revolutions.

They were appointed by the dictator Party Bosses to carry out their will.

Thus, the "will of the people" is not being served, but rather, the will of the biggest dog on the block, who will, no doubt, appoint someone to the post whose agenda closely aligns with his own.

The key difference is accountability. In the command example, the head finance guy is accountable only to his immediate boss...not the people. Keep the boss happy, and keep your head.

Shareholders VOTE, however, and if they don't like what you're doing, you're out, and pretty quickly. Thus, the dangers of using OPM.

But yes, primarily I was speaking smaller scale. An individual saving his/her money to buy the means of production and start an enterprise, or borrowing money for the same purpose.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid: Again, your blinders are preventing you from seeing the truth. You see what you want to see.

I'm not taking advantage of anyone.

With mortgage rates so low, rental housing is HARDLY a guaranteed thing, and guess what? If the house is sitting empty, I still have a responsibilty to the bank. That mortgage still has to get paid, whether it's being rented or not. This is part of the risk I am also being compensated for. A risk that my renters don't have to worry over.

Also, I didn't go out and force people at gunpoint to move into my house.

I put an ad in the paper, competing with LOTS of other ads in the paper. Big market for it. Lots of supply, wishy-washy demand. Consumers have a lot of bargaining power in those situations, cos lets face it, I'd rather collect 90% of the mortage in rent than 0%...makes my responsibility to the bank much easier to swallow).

They're getting good value for their money. If they didn't think so, they would have moved in somewhere else.

Mutual agreement. I give up something of mine for their use, and they pay me for the time spent using it. Hate to break it to you, NOT exploitive.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

No. You get to take care of the property. Remember you are more than willing.

Yep. And they get to live in my house. Remeber, they are more than willing.

Check and mate.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Tubes...I'm SO exploited!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Vel,

What would happen to price of the house if opportunists like you didn't buy them in the first place? Maybe then everyone could afford one. Did you ever think of that?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Tubes...I'm SO exploited!

-=Vel=-

Can I have $100?

Should be easy to exploit you for it.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Vel,

What would happen to price of the house if opportunists like you didn't buy them in the first place? Maybe then everyone could afford one. Did you ever think of that?

If poeple like him didn't buy them, then someone would squat in it until it was destroyed.

It was for sale, if the people had wanted, and were able to buy a house, they would. They are exploiting Vel, by using his property to live on while they collect enough money to buy a house of their own.

ACK!

[Az]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Untrue. At least, I was unaware that the Finance ministry was an elected post in either of our major commie revolutions.

They were appointed by the dictator Party Bosses to carry out their will.

Thus, the "will of the people" is not being served, but rather, the will of the biggest dog on the block, who will, no doubt, appoint someone to the post whose agenda closely aligns with his own.

The key difference is accountability. In the command example, the head finance guy is accountable only to his immediate boss...not the people. Keep the boss happy, and keep your head.

Shareholders VOTE, however, and if they don't like what you're doing, you're out, and pretty quickly. Thus, the dangers of using OPM.

But yes, primarily I was speaking smaller scale. An individual saving his/her money to buy the means of production and start an enterprise, or borrowing money for the same purpose.

-=Vel=-

The difference in accountability is the ability to vote, and get information about the economic status. All of these are a must in socialism. Your attack on "evil commies"? well, that's just *yawn*. About accountability to bosses in general, not every investment is brought before the board, especially in huge corporations, so the point stands.

In any case, even the soviet union still holds the definition of capitalism in the way you defined in the beginning, of using capital to create wealth, the thing that started this entire debate.

[Kidlicious]

Vel,

See it's just not a matter of me coming to you for help. It's a matter of you contemplating a need that I will have and taking advantage of it. Not so pretty is it?

[Tuberski]

What's wrong with it Kid?

It's better than the government contemplating a need I have then figuring out a way to keep me from it.

ACK!