Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Granted, two isn't a big number, but then again, I'm just getting started.

You haven't helped anyone. You sold someone a house. They paid at least what it was worth.

[MrFun]

It's so disheartening for you, when someone pays for something of value, isn't it?

A lot of people call it, "earning what you need and earning what you want."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
In his post he said that he had helped two people successfully become homeowners.

Yeah so what? They paid for it. Why do you give him credit.

[MrFun]

I suppose the friend whom I live with, in his house, is an evil capitalist bastard because I pay him $200 a month to live here.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You haven't helped anyone. You sold someone a house. They paid at least what it was worth.

Yes, they really should have been entitled to sit on their ass and have it handed to them by the state.

If you spent half as much energy (assume some appropriate and productive focus here) working within the capitalist system as you do whining about it, you'd be well on your way to being rich.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
It's so disheartening for you, when someone pays for something of value, isn't it?

A lot of people call it, "earning what you need and earning what you want."

I don't know where this came from. Of course I believe that people ought to pay for things. That's what communism is all about.

I suppose the friend whom I live with, in his house, is an evil capitalist bastard because I pay him $200 a month to live here.

Of course not. Vel is a real estate investor/landlord. He does this to make money. Sure your friend does the same, but there's a difference. Of course you should pay to live somewhere, but how much. Should your friend get rich asking you to pay him rent to live there?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

If you spent half as much energy (assume some appropriate and productive focus here) working within the capitalist system as you do whining about it, you'd be well on your way to being rich.

well said

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course not. Vel is a real estate investor/landlord. He does this to make money. Sure your friend does the same, but there's a difference. Of course you should pay to live somewhere, but how much. Should your friend get rich asking you to pay him rent to live there?

Well since $200 a month is modest compared to renting the cheapest apartment in our area, he won't be getting rich this way.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yes, they really should have been entitled to sit on their ass and have it handed to them by the state.

Did I say they shouldn't have to pay for their housing?! I said they did pay. Vel got their money and they got the house. Vel didn't do them a favor. It's called business.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
Well since $200 a month is modest compared to renting the cheapest apartment in our area, he won't be getting rich this way.

Well then that's the difference.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Did I say they shouldn't have to pay for their housing?! I said they did pay. Vel got their money and they got the house. Vel didn't do them a favor. It's called business.

So it's a business transaction -- that is obvious. That doesn't mean that the buyer cannot benefit from the transaction.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
So it's a business transaction -- that is obvious. That doesn't mean that the buyer cannot benefit from the transaction.

Those benefits are paid for.

[Ell_man]

Kidicious said,

This post and the one after it show how little you know about economics Ned. Prices have to be controled in order to maintain a stable supply of things like food. Wildly fluctuating prices cause massive suffering. When the price goes up the consumers suffers, and when the price comes down the farmers suffer. It's a good example of the chaos of the free market.

Prices contain information to potential entrepreneurs. Exceptionally high prices might signal to investors that there's much profit to be made in that situation. Responding to those signals in the price they try to take some of the market share for themselves. If you control prices, you'll mask the problem and in the short run consumers will win out at the expense of the suppliers. In the long run however, suppliers won't supply any good if they're going to lose money on it so they'll stop producing it. Price controls will eventually make it even worse for the people you are actually trying to protect.

Ned's right in saying markets will find ways of lessening the fluctuations of the market. One that Ned didn't mention is that of a speculator. It seems from the outset that he who buys low just for the purpose of selling high is just a greedy indivdualist who probably contributes to speculative bubble. But the speculator by buying when supply is abundant and selling when prices are high smoothes out supply. He increases the price when it is already low and decreases it when it is high. The gain he gets is an incentive to show the world the greater knowledge he has about upcomming events. If he has poor knowledge about upcomming events then he won't remain a speculator for long

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yes, they really should have been entitled to sit on their ass and have it handed to them by the state.

If you spent half as much energy (assume some appropriate and productive focus here) working within the capitalist system as you do whining about it, you'd be well on your way to being rich.

One can do both, you know, and I intend to prove it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ell_man
Prices contain information to potential entrepreneurs. Exceptionally high prices might signal to investors that there's much profit to be made in that situation. Responding to those signals in the price they try to take some of the market share for themselves. If you control prices, you'll mask the problem and in the short run consumers will win out at the expense of the suppliers. In the long run however, suppliers won't supply any good if they're going to lose money on it so they'll stop producing it. Price controls will eventually make it even worse for the people you are actually trying to protect.

The problem is that the entreprenuer sees a price that he likes, but that's the current price. The current price signals that there is not enough suppliers in the market. But how many entreprenuers will enter the market? If the market is competitive the answer is always too many entreprenuers will enter the market place which makes the price fall too far. Free trade does not work the way you think it does. Forget about it. That's why it never works like that in the real world. If a producer is making economic profit either other producers will not enter the market because they know they will not be able to compete, or too many producers will enter the market causing prices to fall too much. In the end you end up with prices higher than they would be according to the models say they will.

But the speculator by buying when supply is abundant and selling when prices are high smoothes out supply.

Too bad the only way a spectator can make money is by other people buying high and selling low. Know one can know when to buy and sell, because they can't predict the future. Focus on speculation in general and you see that speculation causes prices to fluctuated, causing further chaos.