Time for a dose of truth for once around here
-
josda1000 wrote:
Is that true, Christian?
Of course, a company exists to make money from clients, and to limit their costs.
josda1000 wrote:
However, most companies and entrepreneurs do make money fairly. They make a product to make money. The consumer buys the product with money for the product. That's a fair shake.
The point is more that when they want to raise profits, they need to raise the price, or lower costs. So they'll pay as little for labor as they can get away with.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. Big time. This is why what we have today is NOT capitalism, it is fascism.
I still disagree with that. It's a mix of capitalism and socialism, and it's better for it, although I do not claim the mix is 100% right.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I still disagree with that. It's a mix of capitalism and socialism, and it's better for it, although I do not claim the mix is 100% right.
I know you don't agree with it. That's why what you have is a belief, you are outright misunderstanding ON PURPOSE the facts. I agree that it's a real lightweight version of fascism, but the definition is accurate.
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is more that when they want to raise profits, they need to raise the price, or lower costs. So they'll pay as little for labor as they can get away with.
Or, they could stimulate demand for it by lowering the price of their product. There's always the idea that the company wants to lower costs, there's no reason to raise it unless absolutely necessary.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
I still disagree with that. It's a mix of capitalism and socialism, and it's better for it, although I do not claim the mix is 100% right.
I know you don't agree with it. That's why what you have is a belief, you are outright misunderstanding ON PURPOSE the facts. I agree that it's a real lightweight version of fascism, but the definition is accurate.
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is more that when they want to raise profits, they need to raise the price, or lower costs. So they'll pay as little for labor as they can get away with.
Or, they could stimulate demand for it by lowering the price of their product. There's always the idea that the company wants to lower costs, there's no reason to raise it unless absolutely necessary.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
That's why what you have is a belief, you are outright misunderstanding ON PURPOSE the facts. I agree that it's a real lightweight version of fascism, but the definition is accurate.
It's possible you could stretch the definition to fit, or even that it loosely fits, on the edges. But, when you start to invoke Nazism, you're implying something different to that.
josda1000 wrote:
Or, they could stimulate demand for it by lowering the price of their product.
Why not both ? Why not limit your costs, rather than lower the price and hope to sell enough extra to cover it ? When you have fixed labor costs, lowering the price can only go so far before you run out of margin.
josda1000 wrote:
There's always the idea that the company wants to lower costs, there's no reason to raise it unless absolutely necessary.
But this is my point. Your company pays you what it needs to, for you to stay. Mine does the same. If I were unskilled, then there would be a steady pool of people to replace me, and they could probably get away with having people for a month at a time, if the labor pool was big enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You know, you're an interesting guy, I do enjoy discussing this stuff with you.
josda1000 wrote:
I don't suggest anarchy, however, it'd be better than the present system, IMO.
ROTFL - everyone who assumes that, assumes too much good will on the part of their fellow man, IMO. Most people are good. Anarchy would give the jerks a lot more scope to create havoc.
josda1000 wrote:
So then, why do you subscribe to the notion that we need a central bank, which is in fact a monopoly on money, the most essential product we have (arguably, second to food and such)?
Money is not a product, it's a placeholder for worth. That is, it's a way to avoid having to barter directly. A nation's money supply is important to the well being and security of the nation. Letting free enterprise control it would be insane.
josda1000 wrote:
The market would set the rates, the commercial banks themselves, and would rise and fall according to the demands of the different sectors.
So, they could rise and fall in opposition to the interests of the nation, so that some companies could make more money ?
josda1000 wrote:
This is an 11 part series, I think it's about 2 hrs in length. I realize it's a tall order, but try it out.
I am in Dallas right now, any video is pretty much out until I go home. Two hours is indeed a tall order. I'd prefer the book version if possible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL - everyone who assumes that, assumes too much good will on the part of their fellow man, IMO. Most people are good. Anarchy would give the jerks a lot more scope to create havoc.
I can understand this, but think of it this way: more people would be less apt to lie or commit fraud, for the fact that if they did, the consequences for that person could be disastrous. But, people's true colors would show a lot more, for the thought that there is no state to crawl to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Money is not a product, it's a placeholder for worth. That is, it's a way to avoid having to barter directly. A nation's money supply is important to the well being and security of the nation. Letting free enterprise control it would be insane.
If that's true, and with the fact that gold is money, why do we say that we "buy gold"? Why do we "buy euros" and "buy dollars"? This isn't parsing words. It's a matter of fact that the Fed "produces" dollars, what were once commonly called bank notes. They take in a natural resource, paper, and output printed federal reserve notes.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, they could rise and fall in opposition to the interests of the nation, so that some companies could make more money ?
Wait a minute, so you're saying that the economy is antithetical to the state? Seriously, interest rates rise and fall (back before the central banks) according to demand. If the demand was great, then the interest rate would rise. If the demand was small, it would fall. It's that simple. But it must be done per bank, not per one "know all be all" centralized state bank.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
josda1000 wrote:
That's why what you have is a belief, you are outright misunderstanding ON PURPOSE the facts. I agree that it's a real lightweight version of fascism, but the definition is accurate.
It's possible you could stretch the definition to fit, or even that it loosely fits, on the edges. But, when you start to invoke Nazism, you're implying something different to that.
josda1000 wrote:
Or, they could stimulate demand for it by lowering the price of their product.
Why not both ? Why not limit your costs, rather than lower the price and hope to sell enough extra to cover it ? When you have fixed labor costs, lowering the price can only go so far before you run out of margin.
josda1000 wrote:
There's always the idea that the company wants to lower costs, there's no reason to raise it unless absolutely necessary.
But this is my point. Your company pays you what it needs to, for you to stay. Mine does the same. If I were unskilled, then there would be a steady pool of people to replace me, and they could probably get away with having people for a month at a time, if the labor pool was big enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian, I do not misinterpret words as you as soon would. From the Wikipedia that everyone seems to either love or hate: Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Sounds fucking accurate to me. I'm not "loosely fitting" this, and not "stretching the definition". This is straight out of wiki.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, when you start to invoke Nazism, you're implying something different to that.
Subtract the heinous murder of civilians in Germany. If you do that, I'd say we're actually WORSE than Germany back then. Talk to those who lived back then in that area. They'll see the problems.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why not both ? Why not limit your costs, rather than lower the price and hope to sell enough extra to cover it ? When you have fixed labor costs, lowering the price can only go so far before you run out of margin.
Oh I can understand this. But if you stimulate demand enough, and hold the price, you'll make loot buddy. And you'll out compete your competitors, and that's how you make it.
Christian Graus wrote:
But this is my point. Your company pays you what it needs to, for you to stay. Mine does the same. If I were unskilled, then there would be a steady pool of people to replace me, and they could probably get away with having people for a month at a time, if the labor pool was big enough.
OK? So then you make a new contract with a new company. What's the problem? If capitalism were to work properly, and you were cut from your team, go join a new ball club.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL - everyone who assumes that, assumes too much good will on the part of their fellow man, IMO. Most people are good. Anarchy would give the jerks a lot more scope to create havoc.
I can understand this, but think of it this way: more people would be less apt to lie or commit fraud, for the fact that if they did, the consequences for that person could be disastrous. But, people's true colors would show a lot more, for the thought that there is no state to crawl to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Money is not a product, it's a placeholder for worth. That is, it's a way to avoid having to barter directly. A nation's money supply is important to the well being and security of the nation. Letting free enterprise control it would be insane.
If that's true, and with the fact that gold is money, why do we say that we "buy gold"? Why do we "buy euros" and "buy dollars"? This isn't parsing words. It's a matter of fact that the Fed "produces" dollars, what were once commonly called bank notes. They take in a natural resource, paper, and output printed federal reserve notes.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, they could rise and fall in opposition to the interests of the nation, so that some companies could make more money ?
Wait a minute, so you're saying that the economy is antithetical to the state? Seriously, interest rates rise and fall (back before the central banks) according to demand. If the demand was great, then the interest rate would rise. If the demand was small, it would fall. It's that simple. But it must be done per bank, not per one "know all be all" centralized state bank.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
but think of it this way: more people would be less apt to lie or commit fraud, for the fact that if they did, the consequences for that person could be disastrous.
You mean if they were inclined to crime, they could just flat out shoot people instead ? :P If those sort of incentives work, why did we form societies in the first place ?
josda1000 wrote:
If that's true, and with the fact that gold is money, why do we say that we "buy gold"? Why do we "buy euros" and "buy dollars"?
Because you have a certain amount of 'worth' from your endeavours, which comes to you typically in your local currency. I can decide it's a good investment to convert at the current rate to another currency, or to something like gold. How does that change anything I said ?
josda1000 wrote:
This isn't parsing words. It's a matter of fact that the Fed "produces" dollars, what were once commonly called bank notes. They take in a natural resource, paper, and output printed federal reserve notes.
Of course. But if they just print like crazy, they devalue the dollars out there. So, it's not money for nothing, it's a reflection on the worth of the US economy.
josda1000 wrote:
Wait a minute, so you're saying that the economy is antithetical to the state?
I'm saying that the CEO of a multinational company will not always work in the interests of the state. I'm saying the two are decoupled, not always opposed, or always aligned.
josda1000 wrote:
Seriously, interest rates rise and fall (back before the central banks) according to demand. If the demand was great, then the interest rate would rise. If the demand was small, it would fall. It's that simple.
Well, that is the theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
but think of it this way: more people would be less apt to lie or commit fraud, for the fact that if they did, the consequences for that person could be disastrous.
You mean if they were inclined to crime, they could just flat out shoot people instead ? :P If those sort of incentives work, why did we form societies in the first place ?
josda1000 wrote:
If that's true, and with the fact that gold is money, why do we say that we "buy gold"? Why do we "buy euros" and "buy dollars"?
Because you have a certain amount of 'worth' from your endeavours, which comes to you typically in your local currency. I can decide it's a good investment to convert at the current rate to another currency, or to something like gold. How does that change anything I said ?
josda1000 wrote:
This isn't parsing words. It's a matter of fact that the Fed "produces" dollars, what were once commonly called bank notes. They take in a natural resource, paper, and output printed federal reserve notes.
Of course. But if they just print like crazy, they devalue the dollars out there. So, it's not money for nothing, it's a reflection on the worth of the US economy.
josda1000 wrote:
Wait a minute, so you're saying that the economy is antithetical to the state?
I'm saying that the CEO of a multinational company will not always work in the interests of the state. I'm saying the two are decoupled, not always opposed, or always aligned.
josda1000 wrote:
Seriously, interest rates rise and fall (back before the central banks) according to demand. If the demand was great, then the interest rate would rise. If the demand was small, it would fall. It's that simple.
Well, that is the theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean if they were inclined to crime, they could just flat out shoot people instead ? :P
Lol funny... though I wouldn't put it past them lol
Christian Graus wrote:
If those sort of incentives work, why did we form societies in the first place ?
Society exists for the sanity of people... people love to talk and converse. Interaction is great, and to work together to get things done is even better (better known today as companies). If you're talking about the state, the state exists to grant monopolies to certain companies. Why is legislation by far unfair and advantageous? If certain companies commit fraud or break the "law", why is it that they get away with it, even if there's a major uproar about it from the population? Remove yourself from the situation and think about this.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because you have a certain amount of 'worth' from your endeavours, which comes to you typically in your local currency.
No. Worth is decided by individuals, not by a "thing" arbitrarily. What matters to you may not matter at ALL to me. This is precisely why there is such a debate on metal vs paper in the first place. Worth comes to you inherently.
Christian Graus wrote:
I can decide it's a good investment to convert at the current rate to another currency, or to something like gold. How does that change anything I said ?
That's better. Yes, you decide. Correct. Why don't I just buy grain with wheat? It's valuable to many people. The problem with "fiat currencies" as we know it is the fact that we're TOLD to use it. If I were truly a free person, I would be trading in silver. I'd also stockpile a bunch of cans of tuna and use that if I really needed it, or I'd eat it. Nobody values it like I do, WTF!? lol Anyway, this is the fact: buying and selling are just terms used to describe the releasing of one product and the earning of another. It's just exchange. You may think and value in units of one currency, while I think in terms of, say, cans of tuna. "Oh! I can get 2 cans of tuna for that jar of almonds!" It's just a unit of measure, a medium of exchange. You and I can understand that. But what's the value of something that runs out of steam? What if the tuna goes bad? Why exchange it? With that, why u
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean if they were inclined to crime, they could just flat out shoot people instead ? :P
Lol funny... though I wouldn't put it past them lol
Christian Graus wrote:
If those sort of incentives work, why did we form societies in the first place ?
Society exists for the sanity of people... people love to talk and converse. Interaction is great, and to work together to get things done is even better (better known today as companies). If you're talking about the state, the state exists to grant monopolies to certain companies. Why is legislation by far unfair and advantageous? If certain companies commit fraud or break the "law", why is it that they get away with it, even if there's a major uproar about it from the population? Remove yourself from the situation and think about this.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because you have a certain amount of 'worth' from your endeavours, which comes to you typically in your local currency.
No. Worth is decided by individuals, not by a "thing" arbitrarily. What matters to you may not matter at ALL to me. This is precisely why there is such a debate on metal vs paper in the first place. Worth comes to you inherently.
Christian Graus wrote:
I can decide it's a good investment to convert at the current rate to another currency, or to something like gold. How does that change anything I said ?
That's better. Yes, you decide. Correct. Why don't I just buy grain with wheat? It's valuable to many people. The problem with "fiat currencies" as we know it is the fact that we're TOLD to use it. If I were truly a free person, I would be trading in silver. I'd also stockpile a bunch of cans of tuna and use that if I really needed it, or I'd eat it. Nobody values it like I do, WTF!? lol Anyway, this is the fact: buying and selling are just terms used to describe the releasing of one product and the earning of another. It's just exchange. You may think and value in units of one currency, while I think in terms of, say, cans of tuna. "Oh! I can get 2 cans of tuna for that jar of almonds!" It's just a unit of measure, a medium of exchange. You and I can understand that. But what's the value of something that runs out of steam? What if the tuna goes bad? Why exchange it? With that, why u
josda1000 wrote:
Society exists for the sanity of people... people love to talk and converse. Interaction is great, and to work together to get things done is even better (better known today as companies).
We could do that without a rigidly defined system of laws. The fact is, such a system only works in small groups, where everyone knows everyone. If you live in New York, and there's no cops, why not mug a stranger ?
josda1000 wrote:
If you're talking about the state, the state exists to grant monopolies to certain companies
Rubbish. The state exists to define and enforce standards that allow communities to exist by making people feel safe.
josda1000 wrote:
If certain companies commit fraud or break the "law", why is it that they get away with it, even if there's a major uproar about it from the population?
That doesn't mean that's why the state exists.
josda1000 wrote:
No. Worth is decided by individuals, not by a "thing" arbitrarily.
Sure. Your boss decides your worth to him. How can he provide you with that 'worth' without some mutually agreed upon vehicle to do so ? Why does the vehicle have to be a piece of metal ? Is gold worth the amount we pay for it ? Why is it ? Because we agree it is. Money is no different.
josda1000 wrote:
What matters to you may not matter at ALL to me. This is precisely why there is such a debate on metal vs paper in the first place.
Money does not work on the basis of what matters to you, it works on the basis of a shared agreement of worth. So does gold.
josda1000 wrote:
Why don't I just buy grain with wheat?
You mean, use wheat to buy some other grain ? Barter does not work because you need to store the product you make, and you need to hope that everyone who has something you want, wants what you have.
josda1000 wrote:
The problem with "fiat currencies" as we know it is the fact that we're TOLD to use it.
Well, to be honest, you're free to try to barter if you want. But, it's not workable, that's why societies changed.
josda1000 wrote:
Anyway, this is the fact: buying and sellin
-
Christian, I do not misinterpret words as you as soon would. From the Wikipedia that everyone seems to either love or hate: Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. Sounds fucking accurate to me. I'm not "loosely fitting" this, and not "stretching the definition". This is straight out of wiki.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, when you start to invoke Nazism, you're implying something different to that.
Subtract the heinous murder of civilians in Germany. If you do that, I'd say we're actually WORSE than Germany back then. Talk to those who lived back then in that area. They'll see the problems.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why not both ? Why not limit your costs, rather than lower the price and hope to sell enough extra to cover it ? When you have fixed labor costs, lowering the price can only go so far before you run out of margin.
Oh I can understand this. But if you stimulate demand enough, and hold the price, you'll make loot buddy. And you'll out compete your competitors, and that's how you make it.
Christian Graus wrote:
But this is my point. Your company pays you what it needs to, for you to stay. Mine does the same. If I were unskilled, then there would be a steady pool of people to replace me, and they could probably get away with having people for a month at a time, if the labor pool was big enough.
OK? So then you make a new contract with a new company. What's the problem? If capitalism were to work properly, and you were cut from your team, go join a new ball club.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
strong leadership
What ?
josda1000 wrote:
Subtract the heinous murder of civilians in Germany. If you do that, I'd say we're actually WORSE than Germany back then. Talk to those who lived back then in that area. They'll see the problems.
My grandmother did. She actually talks about it like it was a golden age. 'Oh, Hitler was not nice to the Jews, but he built nice roads'. I kid you not.
josda1000 wrote:
Oh I can understand this. But if you stimulate demand enough, and hold the price, you'll make loot buddy. And you'll out compete your competitors, and that's how you make it.
But, when you and your competitors are neck and neck, and you're winning, why would they not cut wages to stay afloat. And when they do, will you do the same, or go under ?
josda1000 wrote:
OK? So then you make a new contract with a new company. What's the problem? If capitalism were to work properly, and you were cut from your team, go join a new ball club.
In a magical world where there are no monopolies, and the 'other team' will always have more work than there are workers, and perhaps even will decide it makes them more competitive to pay me more. The way you talk reminds me of the way The Jungle talks about the wonders of socialism. That is, in a way that seems quite naive to me, and disconnected from reality. Capitalism is not the path to a workers paradise, any more than socialism is.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Wow Ian, what a huge response... and well said. I do agree with most of it, actually. Especially the simple fact that if one were to bust (ex. Goldman), then most of the rest of that market would collapse, and we'd have what the pundits like to call a crisis. HOWEVER! One important point: we do not have Capitalism, and we do not have Socialism, and I think you'd agree. But with this fact, we do have Fascism. We have the government working with the private entities, and they took our tax money to bailout certain entities, while letting others fail. I call that fascist, you could call it corporatist. It's not capitalist, that's to be sure. And that, my friend, should scare the living shit out of you. For this very reason (letting some fail while letting others continue), Argentina went through a crisis. And for this very reason, the government should not be involved in so much "regulation". It causes corruption. All the government should be doing is making people or corporations pay for committing fraud (for the example we have been talking about). There is nothing capitalist about bailing out entities that the government likes, and there is nothing socialist about having banks in the first place. They should have let them fail. Instead, we're on a very slippery slope in history, and things could get real ugly.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Josh, you need to look up "fascism"... "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." -- Dictionary.com[^] What we have is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Combining those two doesn't make it fascism or totalitarianism.
josda1000 wrote:
We have the government working with the private entities, and they took our tax money to bailout certain entities, while letting others fail.
Some firms were too interconnected to be allowed to fail. Some weren't. Their judgement might not have been perfect (No system is perfect), but the idea was to save the ones that HAD to be saved (In order to prevent the collapse I described), and let the other ones die.
josda1000 wrote:
It's not capitalist, that's to be sure. And that, my friend, should scare the living sh*t out of you.
So anything that isn't capitalism should scare me? What about social security? Public education? Welfare? None of those are capitalist, and none of them scare me. You really need to get this
!Capitalist == Badthing out of your head. Capitalism isn't the solution to all of life's problems, as has been discussed in great length on this thread already. Capitalism and socialism each have good points and bad. Pure capitalism leads to an extreme concentration of wealth (The rich get richer and the poor get poorer). Pure socialism, even without the usual corruption, leads to stagnation (Why work harder if you get paid the same?). Take the best parts of each, and you have a system that works. Now, I'm not saying we have that system... The balance may need to be adjusted in one direction or the other... But pure capitalism would be a LOT worse than what we have now.Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
strong leadership
What ?
josda1000 wrote:
Subtract the heinous murder of civilians in Germany. If you do that, I'd say we're actually WORSE than Germany back then. Talk to those who lived back then in that area. They'll see the problems.
My grandmother did. She actually talks about it like it was a golden age. 'Oh, Hitler was not nice to the Jews, but he built nice roads'. I kid you not.
josda1000 wrote:
Oh I can understand this. But if you stimulate demand enough, and hold the price, you'll make loot buddy. And you'll out compete your competitors, and that's how you make it.
But, when you and your competitors are neck and neck, and you're winning, why would they not cut wages to stay afloat. And when they do, will you do the same, or go under ?
josda1000 wrote:
OK? So then you make a new contract with a new company. What's the problem? If capitalism were to work properly, and you were cut from your team, go join a new ball club.
In a magical world where there are no monopolies, and the 'other team' will always have more work than there are workers, and perhaps even will decide it makes them more competitive to pay me more. The way you talk reminds me of the way The Jungle talks about the wonders of socialism. That is, in a way that seems quite naive to me, and disconnected from reality. Capitalism is not the path to a workers paradise, any more than socialism is.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yes, strong leadership. Everyone wants our president to be strong, more hard on terrorists, harder on the drug war, harder on the borders... blah blah.
Christian Graus wrote:
My grandmother did. She actually talks about it like it was a golden age. 'Oh, Hitler was not nice to the Jews, but he built nice roads'. I kid you not.
Precisely. Either they were enchanted by it (because they were happy to get out of the german mark that was HYPERINFLATED) or they hated it (for obvious reasons).
Christian Graus wrote:
But, when you and your competitors are neck and neck, and you're winning, why would they not cut wages to stay afloat. And when they do, will you do the same, or go under ?
If you and your competitors were to go neck and neck, you have no reason to cut wages. you're doing fine. What you want to do is keep your talent and not let them go sour, through cutting wages. It's just absolutely dumb to do. I have never seen this situation happen unless they were going under in the first place. If they're neck and neck, they're doing something right. Example: Burger King, Wendy's, McDonalds. I'd say that McDonalds is winning, but even if they're not, none of them have really cut wages. They may be hiring and firing constantly, but there's no reason to disenchant any current employees.
Christian Graus wrote:
In a magical world where there are no monopolies, and the 'other team' will always have more work than there are workers, and perhaps even will decide it makes them more competitive to pay me more.
I think you really have absolutely everything backwards. Our company is doing so well. We're thriving. And you know what? We have more work than we have employees. That's because we are in demand. Our stocks are up because we are worth a lot, even with the "too much to do". But that's a good problem. The problem would be if we didn't have ENOUGH demand. Please rethink all of your logic, it's definitely backwards. Capitalism is the only way to freedom. I am free to work where I please, because my talent is in demand. My company recognizes that, and pays me to work for them, and will not cut my wage because we have "too much to do".
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Josh, you need to look up "fascism"... "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." -- Dictionary.com[^] What we have is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Combining those two doesn't make it fascism or totalitarianism.
josda1000 wrote:
We have the government working with the private entities, and they took our tax money to bailout certain entities, while letting others fail.
Some firms were too interconnected to be allowed to fail. Some weren't. Their judgement might not have been perfect (No system is perfect), but the idea was to save the ones that HAD to be saved (In order to prevent the collapse I described), and let the other ones die.
josda1000 wrote:
It's not capitalist, that's to be sure. And that, my friend, should scare the living sh*t out of you.
So anything that isn't capitalism should scare me? What about social security? Public education? Welfare? None of those are capitalist, and none of them scare me. You really need to get this
!Capitalist == Badthing out of your head. Capitalism isn't the solution to all of life's problems, as has been discussed in great length on this thread already. Capitalism and socialism each have good points and bad. Pure capitalism leads to an extreme concentration of wealth (The rich get richer and the poor get poorer). Pure socialism, even without the usual corruption, leads to stagnation (Why work harder if you get paid the same?). Take the best parts of each, and you have a system that works. Now, I'm not saying we have that system... The balance may need to be adjusted in one direction or the other... But pure capitalism would be a LOT worse than what we have now.Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
Let me break this down a bit. "A governmental system led by a dictator..." Definitions: Congress - democracy President - dictator Supreme Court - aristocracy Yes, we are "led" by a dictator. How often are we told to look up to our leaders? Even though we are supposed to be the ones in charge, if this were a true republic? "having complete power..." I can understand your skepticism here, but logically think this one out. Congress no longer declares war, it lets the executive decide. People believe that the President is supposed to execute citizens without trial. People are lied to by the media through the government, which is the fault of the President (he executes the "law"). He can now decide whether or not to faithfully execute the law about the border (if it's a law, do it. If not, don't. But he decides that for himeself). etc. "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism..." Arresting media. Arresting people with pocket constitutions. Shooting people over the mexico border. CIA. NSA. Patriot Act. Need I go on? "regimenting all industry, commerce, etc..." Auto industry. Amtrak. Oil industry. Federal Reserve (but that's untouchable). Banks in general. Financial Industry. Agriculture. etc. "and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." We all know about how Democrats AND Republicans continue with racism. As to "aggressive nationalism"... are we not all about "the great united states?" Greatest country in the world my ass. For the past 100 years we have been CONSTANTLY at war, nevermind the fact that we now have the Afghanistan war to be the longest war in the history of the united states as of this week. Can I stop now? We have fascism. A form of totalitarianism. But everyone's asleep with their happy television sets watching American Idol and Real World. I don't watch TV for a reason... but I do a TV show for a reason as well.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some firms were too interconnected to be allowed to fail. Some weren't. Their judgement might not have been perfect (No system is perfect), but the idea was to save the ones that HAD to be saved (In order to prevent the collapse I described), and let the other
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
Let me break this down a bit. "A governmental system led by a dictator..." Definitions: Congress - democracy President - dictator Supreme Court - aristocracy Yes, we are "led" by a dictator. How often are we told to look up to our leaders? Even though we are supposed to be the ones in charge, if this were a true republic? "having complete power..." I can understand your skepticism here, but logically think this one out. Congress no longer declares war, it lets the executive decide. People believe that the President is supposed to execute citizens without trial. People are lied to by the media through the government, which is the fault of the President (he executes the "law"). He can now decide whether or not to faithfully execute the law about the border (if it's a law, do it. If not, don't. But he decides that for himeself). etc. "forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism..." Arresting media. Arresting people with pocket constitutions. Shooting people over the mexico border. CIA. NSA. Patriot Act. Need I go on? "regimenting all industry, commerce, etc..." Auto industry. Amtrak. Oil industry. Federal Reserve (but that's untouchable). Banks in general. Financial Industry. Agriculture. etc. "and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." We all know about how Democrats AND Republicans continue with racism. As to "aggressive nationalism"... are we not all about "the great united states?" Greatest country in the world my ass. For the past 100 years we have been CONSTANTLY at war, nevermind the fact that we now have the Afghanistan war to be the longest war in the history of the united states as of this week. Can I stop now? We have fascism. A form of totalitarianism. But everyone's asleep with their happy television sets watching American Idol and Real World. I don't watch TV for a reason... but I do a TV show for a reason as well.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some firms were too interconnected to be allowed to fail. Some weren't. Their judgement might not have been perfect (No system is perfect), but the idea was to save the ones that HAD to be saved (In order to prevent the collapse I described), and let the other
josda1000 wrote:
Yes, we are "led" by a dictator. How often are we told to look up to our leaders? Even though we are supposed to be the ones in charge, if this were a true republic?
A dictator has absolute power. Obama does not. He can't make laws (Though he can decide how to enforce them). There are restrictions on his power, and he can be removed by Congress. Hence, he's not a dictator.
josda1000 wrote:
Arresting media. Arresting people with pocket constitutions. Shooting people over the mexico border. CIA. NSA. Patriot Act. Need I go on?
This does exist to some degree. I'll give you that much, but I hope you don't compare our situation to, say, North Korea, where if you speak out against Kim Jong Il, you're a dead man.
josda1000 wrote:
Auto industry. Amtrak. Oil industry. Federal Reserve (but that's untouchable). Banks in general. Financial Industry. Agriculture. etc.
Applying SOME regulation is not the same as "regimenting all industry." We still have, for the most part, a free market. You don't have to ask the government for permission to start a business (Though you do have to let them know about it, for tax purposes - Not the same thing).
josda1000 wrote:
We all know about how Democrats AND Republicans continue with racism. As to "aggressive nationalism"... are we not all about "the great united states?" Greatest country in the world my ass. For the past 100 years we have been CONSTANTLY at war, nevermind the fact that we now have the Afghanistan war to be the longest war in the history of the united states as of this week.
Agreed on this part (Not looking up the war details, but I'll take your word for it). Again, though, the government doesn't REQUIRE nationalism and racism to the same degree as the DPRK or similar. We fit this part of the definition, but to a lesser degree. Of course, that's all irrelevant, because without a dictator, you don't have a fascist state.
josda1000 wrote:
I won't argue on this any longer, it's old. The thing is, the economy would have been drastically hurt, I agree, and for some time. But I know, and you should inherently know as well, that because those same banks are allowed to stay afloat, it will happen again. And it will hurt even more the second time around.
-
Yes, strong leadership. Everyone wants our president to be strong, more hard on terrorists, harder on the drug war, harder on the borders... blah blah.
Christian Graus wrote:
My grandmother did. She actually talks about it like it was a golden age. 'Oh, Hitler was not nice to the Jews, but he built nice roads'. I kid you not.
Precisely. Either they were enchanted by it (because they were happy to get out of the german mark that was HYPERINFLATED) or they hated it (for obvious reasons).
Christian Graus wrote:
But, when you and your competitors are neck and neck, and you're winning, why would they not cut wages to stay afloat. And when they do, will you do the same, or go under ?
If you and your competitors were to go neck and neck, you have no reason to cut wages. you're doing fine. What you want to do is keep your talent and not let them go sour, through cutting wages. It's just absolutely dumb to do. I have never seen this situation happen unless they were going under in the first place. If they're neck and neck, they're doing something right. Example: Burger King, Wendy's, McDonalds. I'd say that McDonalds is winning, but even if they're not, none of them have really cut wages. They may be hiring and firing constantly, but there's no reason to disenchant any current employees.
Christian Graus wrote:
In a magical world where there are no monopolies, and the 'other team' will always have more work than there are workers, and perhaps even will decide it makes them more competitive to pay me more.
I think you really have absolutely everything backwards. Our company is doing so well. We're thriving. And you know what? We have more work than we have employees. That's because we are in demand. Our stocks are up because we are worth a lot, even with the "too much to do". But that's a good problem. The problem would be if we didn't have ENOUGH demand. Please rethink all of your logic, it's definitely backwards. Capitalism is the only way to freedom. I am free to work where I please, because my talent is in demand. My company recognizes that, and pays me to work for them, and will not cut my wage because we have "too much to do".
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Yes, strong leadership. Everyone wants our president to be strong, more hard on terrorists, harder on the drug war, harder on the borders... blah blah.
But it's clear you're hardly living in a dictatorship, not now, and not the clown before.
josda1000 wrote:
If you and your competitors were to go neck and neck, you have no reason to cut wages. you're doing fine. What you want to do is keep your talent and not let them go sour, through cutting wages. It's just absolutely dumb to do.
Thus circling to my point. Laborers are hardly 'talent'. The guy stacking the shelves is not 'talent'. He's in a dead end job.
josda1000 wrote:
I'd say that McDonalds is winning, but even if they're not, none of them have really cut wages. They may be hiring and firing constantly, but there's no reason to disenchant any current employees.
Do they really pay more than the legal minimum ?
josda1000 wrote:
Our company is doing so well. We're thriving. And you know what? We have more work than we have employees. That's because we are in demand. Our stocks are up because we are worth a lot, even with the "too much to do". But that's a good problem. The problem would be if we didn't have ENOUGH demand.
My point from the start has never been that I fear for my job or my wage. It's that the people with more dead end jobs are not in the same situation, and nothing you say applies to them.
josda1000 wrote:
Capitalism is the only way to freedom. I am free to work where I please, because my talent is in demand. My company recognizes that, and pays me to work for them, and will not cut my wage because we have "too much to do".
Once again, that's great for people whose 'talent is in demand'. I never doubted that was true. I just care what happens to other people who are not so lucky.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.