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

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



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.

Why are you talking about contaminated things? If there is nothing wrong with the product, save for there is too much competition in the market place, or the good is no longer socially necessary, the capitalist will fire the worker.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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.

You have not abolished currency and I think you are now allowing some difference in salaries so my question is whi determines the NUMBER, the AMOUNT-- the worker may love your theory but they still want to know how big the paycheque will be.

[Kidlicious]

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

How can I help you? You need to be reasonable. There's no shot to give someone to make them reasonable. Only you have the power to be reasonalbe.

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

Did you catch the title - The Cost of Risk? I can't be arsed into finding material for you to learn from. Do your own research.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


You have not abolished currency and I think you are now allowing some difference in salaries so my question is whi determines the NUMBER, the AMOUNT-- the worker may love your theory but they still want to know how big the paycheque will be.

When you have control of production and distrubution you no longer have shortages and surpluses which create variations in prices (wages) in a capitalism system. Labor will largely be compensation equally.

[Flubber]

ON risk



Yes companies pay insurance premiums for various insurable risks but those costs are generally pretty fixed in a large company and in fact many of such costs DO NOT get costed out to projects at all when doing an analysis. WHY? The company is large and does so many operations that they don't want to bother to be amending their coverages literally every day. So most of these costs are fixed or sunk and don't even be considered at a project level for the simple reason that the project does not increase them.


Bottom line is that risks for things that are insured are no longer risks of the project at all. The risks that matter in an analysis of a project are simply an analysis of the liklihood of various revenue and cost levels. In the oil business there are risks associated with construction costs, pricing of product and reservoir preformance just to name 3. You can't "insure" any of these (well you can insure price a little through various financial instruments)


So when a businessman talks about risk-- these are the types of things they are talking about. Insurance premiums are just one of a multitude of costs that go into the cost of the project and have NOTHING to do with "risk" as that term is used to determine what level of projected profitability is needed for a viable project.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


When you have control of production and distrubution you no longer have shortages and surpluses which create variations in prices (wages) in a capitalism system. Labor will largely be compensation equally.

OK

so the value of the product they are working on is irrelevant? So why the smokescreen and side trip through ideas of societal value.

You will pay a "fair wage" regardless of the value of a given worker's work, right?

Thats different than what you were saying before.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



Did you catch the title - The Cost of Risk? I can't be arsed into finding material for you to learn from. Do your own research.

Yup and the title was catchy and used your term "cost of risk" and then had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "risk" as the term is used in ANY analysis of a project.


Or do you think that the size of an insurance premium changes how much profit ( as a percentage) that a business seeks on a given project.


Admit it kid-- you blew it on that one-- you googled for "cost of risk" and then cited an article with no consideration of what it was about.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
ON risk



Yes companies pay insurance premiums for various insurable risks but those costs are generally pretty fixed in a large company and in fact many of such costs DO NOT get costed out to projects at all when doing an analysis. WHY? The company is large and does so many operations that they don't want to bother to be amending their coverages literally every day. So most of these costs are fixed or sunk and don't even be considered at a project level for the simple reason that the project does not increase them.


Bottom line is that risks for things that are insured are no longer risks of the project at all. The risks that matter in an analysis of a project are simply an analysis of the liklihood of various revenue and cost levels. In the oil business there are risks associated with construction costs, pricing of product and reservoir preformance just to name 3. You can't "insure" any of these (well you can insure price a little through various financial instruments)


So when a businessman talks about risk-- these are the types of things they are talking about. Insurance premiums are just one of a multitude of costs that go into the cost of the project and have NOTHING to do with "risk" as that term is used to determine what level of projected profitability is needed for a viable project.

Blah blah blah. You have a risk, and you pay to avoid it. It's very simple. Risk is a cost. It is not profit. If you wanted to pretend that there was no cost to taking a risk than you may make more profit initially, but eventually you will lose, because you haven't calculated your costs correctly.

[Kontiki]

It never ceases to amaze me how much kid flat out doesn't know or makes up, fully believing he's right the whole time. It really is almost fezzian.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


OK

so the value of the product they are working on is irrelevant? So why the smokescreen and side trip through ideas of societal value.

You will pay a "fair wage" regardless of the value of a given worker's work, right?

Thats different than what you were saying before.

Yes you pay a fair wage, and if the work is no longer socially necessary or less socially necessary from some other work then you reallocate the labor.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
It never ceases to amaze me how much kid flat out doesn't know or makes up, fully believing he's right the whole time. It really is almost fezzian.

True-- but its not often he is so demonstrably wrong. Rookie error to cite an article without reading it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber





Yup and the title was catchy and used your term "cost of risk" and then had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "risk" as the term is used in ANY analysis of a project.


Or do you think that the size of an insurance premium changes how much profit ( as a percentage) that a business seeks on a given project.


Admit it kid-- you blew it on that one-- you googled for "cost of risk" and then cited an article with no consideration of what it was about.

I didn't read the article. I skimmed it to see whether it is relevant, and it is. That's about all I will do to help you. If you want to go on thinking that there is no cost to taking risk go ahead.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber




True-- but its not often he is so demonstrably wrong. Rookie error to cite an article without reading it.

I have a BA in econ, and I'm well into my accounting degree. I can't be arsed into proving myself to you. You're lucky that I put in the effort that I did.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Blah blah blah. You have a risk, and you pay to avoid it. It's very simple. Risk is a cost. It is not profit. If you wanted to pretend that there was no cost to taking a risk than you may make more profit initially, but eventually you will lose, because you haven't calculated your costs correctly.

Kid are you still talking about insurance premiums ?? They are irrelevant to a risk assessment. The only risk a businessman care about are those that cannot be insured.

Also when we do a new project, we buy ZERO new insurance. . .. why? Because existing policies cover ongoing and NEW activities. We will probably drill 1000 new wells this year-- do you think we insure them separately??

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I have a BA in econ, and I'm well into my accounting degree. I can't be arsed into proving myself to you. You're lucky that I put in the effort that I did.

Arts in polisci and business
Law
MBA 3/4 done

so what?
Do we take out rulers next?

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the degrees behind it