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

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


How does it impact profit?! Obviously I can not assume that anything is self-evident for you. It reduces profit just like all costs do.

Again self evident. probably why I said " AND YES REVENUE MUST EXCEED ALL ATTRIBUTED COSTS FOR A PROJECT TO BE PROFITABLE.


Interesting that I predicted your self-evident quasi insult before you even made it.

Its so FUNNY when you try to insult me by saying I can't get some basic statement I just made

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There is nothing else. That's it. Profit is not compensation for risk anymore than it is compensation for other costs. The costs are paid for out of revenue and profit is what's left.

All true. But the level of projected profit required for a capitalist to undertake an investment varies widely based on RISK--- yes RISK RISK RISK. Thats where risk matters in the capitalist system

[Flubber]

OH and kid-- this was a vacation day for me so I made money and got ahead. Didn't employ anyone though so it was a slow day on the exploitation front.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



All true. But the level of projected profit required for a capitalist to undertake an investment varies widely based on RISK--- yes RISK RISK RISK. Thats where risk matters in the capitalist system

I never was arguing againt that point. If you go back and look I was telling che that profit is not compensation for risk. That's it. In fact you are bringing up a totally new point now. For shame on you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
OH and kid-- this was a vacation day for me so I made money and got ahead. Didn't employ anyone though so it was a slow day on the exploitation front.

You need a permanent vacation.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I never was arguing againt that point. If you go back and look I was telling che that profit is not compensation for risk. That's it. In fact you are bringing up a totally new point now. For shame on you.

Go through my posts-- I must have talked a dozen times about a risk weighted assessment-- My only shame would be assuming you knew what that was

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You need a permanent vacation.

Nah-- permanent vacations mean I don't get paid. THis day was relax and recharge while still getting ahead. Isn't it wonderful that I can get paid to relax? capitalism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



Go through my posts-- I must have talked a dozen times about a risk weighted assessment-- My only shame would be assuming you knew what that was

What kind of assessment are you doing when you choose to do something based on the risk involved. Risk is a cost. You don't make a decision on a project on the basis of how risky it is. You invest in the project if the projected benefits exceed the projected risks.

[Flubber]

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.

hmm just thought I would bump one of my one posts from about 3 pages ago to show that my point was NOT in fact new.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Nah-- permanent vacations mean I don't get paid. THis day was relax and recharge while still getting ahead. Isn't it wonderful that I can get paid to relax? capitalism

I'm glad for you. Don't think at all about the peasants toiling in the field.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
hmm just thought I would bump one of my one posts from about 3 pages ago to show that my point was NOT in fact new.

Obviously you were responding to my statement with information that was not relevant.

Again, I don't know what kind of analysis you do, while I'm interested in it, I also know that the risk of loss is considered by your company whether is quantified in your analysis or not.

[Spiffor]

Admit it, Kid and Flub: you guys just love going at each other in this thread. THere's no other fathomable reason as to why you keep posting in them with such intensity

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Admit it, Kid and Flub: you guys just love going at each other in this thread. THere's no other fathomable reason as to why you keep posting in them with such intensity

I just don't know why. I should be doing something else. I really need to spend less time here.

[Berzerker]

Kid

Natural selection is not limited to killing within species. So it's compatable with libertarianism.

First, you didn't answer a single question I posed and you've repeatedly dodged my questions. Now you say natural selection is compatable with libertarianism because species kill each other. Does it matter that people eat other species to survive regardless of economics or ideology? I mean, you've jumped on Che's "capitalism is inherently violent and causes war" bandwagon without even acknowledging that violence and warfare (and eating other species) are inherently human.

And you're still wrong, survival of the fittest includes killing members of your species for reasons other than self-defense and libertarianism rejects this, therefore social Darwinism is not compatable with libertariansim. Does social Darwinism reject killing within a species for reasons other than actual self-defense or not? No, but Libertarianism does... So they are not compatable...

In fact there are those libertarians who believe that it's good for society for the least productive producers to fail and be removed from the market place.

Of course, people who are lousy at running businesses are better off working for people who are good at running businesses. Why does that shock you?

Have you heard of the Austrian School of Economics? The neoclassical school does not consider this beneficial, but they are only one type of libertarian.

You mean neo-classical libertarians believe it's good for lousy businesses to survive? How do they survive without intervening to prop them up? Once you prop them up, you're taking resources from better run businesses and the result is a less effective economy with increased waste.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What kind of assessment are you doing when you choose to do something based on the risk involved. Risk is a cost. You don't make a decision on a project on the basis of how risky it is. You invest in the project if the projected benefits exceed the projected risks.

Every business decision is based on the risk involved. A company may certainly invest for a guaranteed rate of return of 10 % but may reject a project with an 80% probability of a return of 20% if there is 15% chance of losing the entire investment and a further 5% chance of losses of 3 times the initial investment.

Different companies use different assessment methods and in fact may disagree greatly on the assumptions that go into the model. You see it all the time-- 2 big sophisticated companies are gung ho for a project while two more are unwilling to proceed.