Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Profit exceeds compensation for loss. In fact the two are mutually exclusive. Risk is a cost.

What an odd mixed-up statement. Risk is not a cost, it is a probability. I am involved with major projects and you assess a risk weighted rate of return. If its sufficient, the project may proceed. It may not if the risk is too great-- ie a good looking return will be insufficient if there is even a small chance of a huge huge loss.

I have NEVER seen risk listed anywhere as a cost for teh simple reason that it is not a cost.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Totally relevant if you are saying that it is not possible for you to become a business owner and employ people. IT is possible-- its just that you choose not to do it. There's nothing wrong with that choice.

Neither you or I know if it's possible. This is just another wild claim that you are making. What we do know is that some people have to work. In fact most people have to work. It's not possible for all of us to own businesses.

This makes no sense. I accept that initial wealth makes it easier for some people to become business owners. So what?

Since the size of the business would appear to me to be irrelevant to your theory of exploitation, I assume that the working painter who cobbles together a few dollars to start his own painting business and employes others is just as much a capitalist exploiter pig to you as the uber-rich.

But who cares about the uber rich guy? While its easier for him than me to own stuff, there's ample opportunities out there and he doesn't prevent me even a little bit from doing anything.

While the economy is not a zero sum game infinite production is not possible. Resources are scare. That's the first rule of economics. The economy in a developed nation grows by about 2% and most of that goes to those who are already rich.

Funny stuff -- But the fact of the matter is that you keep bringing personal circumstances into this. Its unnecessary but it does not offend me. I just find it curious that you seem to refer to me as a capitalist or "rich" when I don't meet your criteria for the former and I don't meet my own for the latter .


And I still don't see where you couldn't be the "capitalist" if you wanted. Start a business and do some bookeeping/ accounting. Advertize and attract enough work that you need help and hire someone else. Voila-- suprisingly easy. heck a neighbor at age 18 is making money hiring other kids to mow lawns. The kids make money and the customers get their lawn mowed regardless of which teen is away.

Ah capitalism

I don't want to be a capitalist any more than I want to go around stealing little old lady's purses.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



What an odd mixed-up statement. Risk is not a cost, it is a probability. I am involved with major projects and you assess a risk weighted rate of return. If its sufficient, the project may proceed. It may not if the risk is too great-- ie a good looking return will be insufficient if there is even a small chance of a huge huge loss.

I have NEVER seen risk listed anywhere as a cost for teh simple reason that it is not a cost.

Probability is only part of the analysis. Risk certainly is a cost. It is measured along with other costs, compared to the 'probable' benefits, and a decision is made.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



By society I mean what ever benefit someone or everyone has recieved from the work done.
.

So everyone has to decide the value of the product? So how again does the worker get paid?

Originally posted by Kidicious



That wouldn't be rational. Society values the worker. If the worker doesn't get paid then he can't survive and be productive i the future. Society has an interest is maintaining the workers survival and finding productive employment for him.

Hmm here you are getting into areas where capitalsim does better than your theories. In capitalistic Alberta, an unskilled laborer may get between 7 and 20 per hour based on the type of work. You place this value of the work and the worker regardless. So you are right, its not rational to give the worker nothing if his product is worthless ( say its beef which is recalled for contamination) or tons of money if they produce high value stuff. Instead you value the worker themselves . . . their work is worth something REGARDLESS of the end result. Sounds fair to me.

[Kidlicious]

Cost of Risk

Business Week.

You NEVER read do you?!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
So everyone has to decide the value of the product? So how again does the worker get paid?

Easy. If you know the value of the product you simply subtract the cost of continuing production and you give the remainder to the worker.

Hmm here you are getting into areas where capitalsim does better than your theories. In capitalistic Alberta, an unskilled laborer may get between 7 and 20 per hour based on the type of work. You place this value of the work and the worker regardless. So you are right, its not rational to give the worker nothing if his product is worthless ( say its beef which is recalled for contamination) or tons of money if they produce high value stuff. Instead you value the worker themselves . . . their work is worth something REGARDLESS of the end result. Sounds fair to me.

Wha wha wha whaaaaaat?! Capitalism is canablistic. Only recent modifications to capitalism to make it more like communism have taken the edge off of it. How the hell can you claim that capitalism is better at protecting beneficial resources when they are temporarily not productive. Capitalism can't do that alone. You need govt intervention to do that, and then you have to deal with things like military spending and tax cuts for the rich.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Probability is only part of the analysis. Risk certainly is a cost. It is measured along with other costs, compared to the 'probable' benefits, and a decision is made.

We may be getting into semantics here . Obviously in the assessment they look at the range of labour costs and materials costs etc and the ranges reflect various risks.

But "risk" is never listed as a cost and there is NEVER a quantified risk cost listed anywhere. Its built into the probable rate of return in doing your p10, p90 and mean cases. I do big projects and look at the cost -benefit analysis. Bottom line is that there must be a probable rate of return sufficient to risk the capital. If a loss is made the corporation bears it and if there is profit they get it. Regardless of profit the workers get paid -- really well.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Cost of Risk

Business Week.

You NEVER read do you?!

:



Funny -- read the article-- its about the cost of insurance premiums !!!

In case you don't know, they don't insure your capital if you make a BUSINESS LOSS.


Lesson for you kid-- Read the article before you take a swipe at someone else

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Easy. If you know the value of the product you simply subtract the cost of continuing production and you give the remainder to the worker.

HUH?? Weren't you the guy saying value was "societal value" so I don't think you can just assume we know that. Or are you willing to accept "market" value for a product?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Wha wha wha whaaaaaat?! Capitalism is canablistic. Only recent modifications to capitalism to make it more like communism have taken the edge off of it. How the hell can you claim that capitalism is better at protecting beneficial resources when they are temporarily not productive. Capitalism can't do that alone. You need govt intervention to do that, and then you have to deal with things like military spending and tax cuts for the rich.

hey -- you are the guy wanting to pay the worker based on the value of what they produce.

So if the product is contaminated or unusable, obviously they get nothing right. The capitalist would pay the worker anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


We may be getting into semantics here . Obviously in the assessment they look at the range of labour costs and materials costs etc and the ranges reflect various risks.

But "risk" is never listed as a cost and there is NEVER a quantified risk cost listed anywhere. Its built into the probable rate of return in doing your p10, p90 and mean cases. I do big projects and look at the cost -benefit analysis. Bottom line is that there must be a probable rate of return sufficient to risk the capital. If a loss is made the corporation bears it and if there is profit they get it. Regardless of profit the workers get paid -- really well.

It's always semantics with you. You can't even understand that when one person can do something and another person can't that that's unfair. You don't even understand how competition for resources creates conflict, and now you don't understand how risk is a cost.

Look here profit is revenue minus cost. Risk conpensation is not profit. It is the cost of maintaining business.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Cost of Risk

Business Week.

You NEVER read do you?!

This was such a gaffe by you I had to quote it again.

When people talk about risk-weighted rate of returns, they are NOT talking about their insurance premiums .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
:



Funny -- read the article-- its about the cost of insurance premiums !!!

In case you don't know, they don't insure your capital if you make a BUSINESS LOSS.


Lesson for you kid-- Read the article before you take a swipe at someone else

Of course it's the cost of insurance premiums. You add the cost or risk to the premium, but you don't stop there. If you did you would not make a profit.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's always semantics with you. You can't even understand that when one person can do something and another person can't that that's unfair.

I still don't understand why the things others can do are impossible to you

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's always semantics with you. You can't even understand that when one person can do something and another person can't that that's unfair. You don't even understand how competition for resources creates conflict, and now you don't understand how risk is a cost.

Look here profit is revenue minus cost. Risk conpensation is not profit. It is the cost of maintaining business.

I wouldn't be lecturing if I were you. Your quote of that insurance premium article showed how little you understand risk.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
HUH?? Weren't you the guy saying value was "societal value" so I don't think you can just assume we know that. Or are you willing to accept "market" value for a product?

You would think that you would start to understand some of the things that you make me repeat over and over. It's the labor which is valuable to society. Labor produces the value. That's how we know how valuable something is. The only task is to make that labor productive - to organize it so that it produces beneficial things for us.