Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[DuncanK]

Way to watch the plate Sir Ralph. I screwed that up didn't I.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
ARGH! No, No, No!

IF you want equality of outcomes, then you DOOM the society you are trying to build!

You doom it because I can do NOTHING....zip, zero, zilch, nada, and get the SAME outcome as a person who works hard for twenty hours a day.

THAT is a far more insidious form of "exploitation" than anything you will ever see in a capitalist society, and it *exactly* what your plan will bring about!

-=Vel=-

Extremely elitist. You know the thing about elitism is that its impossible to determine who is better than everyone else. In fact, people aren't so diferent. Everyone has their faults, but they deserve equal treatment regardless.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


Who said anything about being a business leader? I'm self-employed but I'm just another schmuck who's trying to pay his bills every month, and have a little left over for some fun.

Oh, sorry Willem. I thought you had employees.

[Ned]

DuncanK, Since you agree that a capitalist society is fair if there truly is equality of opportunity, then America is a moral society because equality of opportunity is its ideal. We seek to level the playing field by providing head start to kids, etc. But we still have problems caused in large measure by liberal do-good thinking. Our public schools are bad, our parents are increasingly lax, our divorce rate is high, crime is rampant in poor neighborhoods, etc.

But, we recognize these faults and are attempting to rectify them. America by any measure truly is a good and moral country.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Way to watch the plate Sir Ralph. I screwed that up didn't I.

Not entirely, as he was ruthless indeed on his way up.

[Velociryx]

We're talking about two different things now, Duncan.

Equal TREATMENT....I can certainly agree with.

But not equal outcomes, regardless of the individual effort.

If I build a house, it's my house. Sorry, I'm not gonna give it to you. Rather, I'll move into it myself and live there.

If that makes me elitest or petty, for not simply giving you the fruits of my labor, so be it, but my advice would be....rather than complaining about how unfair it is that I don't just be a good comrade and give you my house....why not use that energy to build your own?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
We're talking about two different things now, Duncan.

Equal TREATMENT....I can certainly agree with.

But not equal outcomes, regardless of the individual effort.

If I build a house, it's my house. Sorry, I'm not gonna give it to you. Rather, I'll move into it myself and live there.

If that makes me elitest or petty, for not simply giving you the fruits of my labor, so be it, but my advice would be....rather than complaining about how unfair it is that I don't just be a good comrade and give you my house....why not use that energy to build your own?

-=Vel=-

Equal treatment should means just about equal outcome. You are probably a real good worker and I'm probably so so. You income should be slightly higher than mine, not 500 times larger.

[Velociryx]

That, I contend, is incorrect. If I am assuming five hundred times the risk you are (say, I'm the one with the twenty million dollar loan hanging over my head to pay for the factory we're working together in), then my pay should reflect that.

Equal opportunity in this instance means that if you want the big bucks, take the big risks. If and when you do, you'll see an equal payoff.

If you are unwilling to assume those risks, then you cannot expect the same level of payoff.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
That, I contend, is incorrect. If I am assuming five hundred times the risk you are (say, I'm the one with the twenty million dollar loan hanging over my head to pay for the factory we're working together in), then my pay should reflect that.

Equal opportunity in this instance means that if you want the big bucks, take the big risks. If and when you do, you'll see an equal payoff.

If you are unwilling to assume those risks, then you cannot expect the same level of payoff.

-=Vel=-

Vel,

A person without savings is at serious risk everyday. Sure you're taking a risk, but if you lose you just end up like the rest of us. Actually, you're still better off as I'm sure that you have made some nice connections during your venture.

[Velociryx]

The thing is, Duncan, a person who's taking greater financial risks is not evil for demanding greater financial returns. The equal opportunity lies in the fact that if you want those kinds of greater returns, you can cultivate that list of contacts too, and make it happen! The equal opportunity is not, and should not be that although you're not risking as much, you reap the same benefits as the person who is.

That points *directly* back to my hypothetical 10k investment with you. I'm putting in 6k, you're putting in 4k. The investment doubles. You're saying that it wouldn't be "fair" unless we split the investment 10k each. I'm saying you get compensated based on the amount you put in (ie - the greater the financial risk assumed, the greater your share in the reward).

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The thing is, Duncan, a person who's taking greater financial risks is not evil for demanding greater financial returns. The equal opportunity lies in the fact that if you want those kinds of greater returns, you can cultivate that list of contacts too, and make it happen! The equal opportunity is not, and should not be that although you're not risking as much, you reap the same benefits as the person who is.

That points *directly* back to my hypothetical 10k investment with you. I'm putting in 6k, you're putting in 4k. The investment doubles. You're saying that it wouldn't be "fair" unless we split the investment 10k each. I'm saying you get compensated based on the amount you put in (ie - the greater the financial risk assumed, the greater your share in the reward).

-=Vel=-

You know, I don't believe that. The risks taken in society should be carefully analyzed. Society should then make them. The way it is is wrong both ways. If you win you get to expoit people. If you lose you suffer. I think its barbaric.

[Velociryx]

So in my hypothetical 10k investment example, you would feel "exploited" if I got 12k and you got 8k, even though I assumed more risk by putting more in....is that what you're telling me? That the only way it'd be "fair" is if we both got 10k, no matter which of us put how much in?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So in my hypothetical 10k investment example, you would feel "exploited" if I got 12k and you got 8k, even though I assumed more risk by putting more in....is that what you're telling me? That the only way it'd be "fair" is if we both got 10k, no matter which of us put how much in?

-=Vel=-

I didn't answer this because I didn't think it was relevant. If the system were fair I see no reason that you should not get the larger investment. Both of our investments represent our work and each ones share of thre return should be proportional. Of course it doesn't work that way. One of us could have inherited it or something.

[Velociryx]

Again.....you're looking to see what I'm doing...how did *I* get my 6k to invest?

What does that matter to you? How does that even factor into the equation? I have 6k to invest, you have 4k to invest. We pool our resources, and both come out ahead.

Doesn't matter where my 6k came from, and it doesn't matter where your 4k came from. It simply does not enter into the equation.

Why should it?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Vel,

You're talking about a personal business deal. Of course I wouldn't care where you got the money. I wouldn't ask. That would be rude. You are losing me as to how the pertains to the whole economy.