Yakk

MS, don't mix attacks in with my posts willy nilly. If you do so, can you attribute them at least?

EDIT: Clarification: In your post, you included a quote by someone doing an ad homium attack, right next to quotes by me, with no indication they came from other people.

You speak of 'the man' as some being that means something. For the most part, people own that shit.

And, for the most part, the people who own that shit did things for other people to get that shit, or had ancestors who did the same.

Yes. I said the best you could get elsewhere was 0.50$.

The product was worth 4$.
The dude would pay you 1$.

Clearly you can't make the product and make 4$, or your best offer otherwise would be self-employment at 4$. Econ 101 here.

That dude has something (be it a factory, an idea, or a marketing department) that makes your labour generate a product worth 4$.

So, you can work for 0.50$. This is the best you can do.

Along comes a dude. The dude offers you a job for 1$.

It turns out that your 1$ in labour generates 3$ of profit for the dude.

Are you happy to take the job? Did the dude exploit you? Was the exploitation a bad thing?

Sally, your next door neighbour, would take the job for 0.75$. However, Sally's output would only give the dude 2.50$ in profit (after all expenses).

How much is the job worth?

What do you think capitalism is? They pay you as little as they possibly can. You earn as much as you possibly can.

The value of your labour is what you can get paid for it. That is how value is determined under market capitalism.

This word value you use, how do you calculate it?

The concentration of capital seems to be a side effect of market capitalism. To some, this is just. Others believe that this effect should be balanced with wealth redistribution.

You believe there is a giant government and corperate conspiracy to keep wages low?

You sure believe that the 'bad guys' are competent!

Second, the existance of companies such as "Microsoft", which overthrew IBM in a huge number of markets, sort of disproves your point. This 'man' you are afraid of, he does shitty work keeping people down.

Do you instantly become part of 'the man' once you economically succeed? Do they tell you the secret handshake?

Find me a definition from any dictionary (and not one written by a comedian) that supports your redefinition of the term Capitalism. Thank you.

Oh my god. You do think they are conspiring against you!

Like I have said many times -- how wealthy would you be with no social infrastructure around you?

Ok, now how wealthy are you, after taxes, with this social infrastructure?

So, you are getting taxed more than you benefit how again?

Nope. But they both get you from point A to point B. If you want to get your gut in a knot about how much richer someone else is, feel free. Just don't expect me to take such jealous complaints seriously.

Because you are blaming the entire structure of society. I like having a modern state surrounding me, and there are more of me than there are of you.

Then don't pay him. Write your own god damn operating system.

He dropped out of school, and him and his buddies put together an OS. He priced this OS really low. It also fit on a single disk, which was important. And it was for a computer system that was about to take off.

This made him money. Him and his friends took that money, and hired other people. They kept writing.

At a few points, Microsoft signed some contracts that where pretty anti-competative, but freely entered into by both sides. (example: every box you ship, you give MS 10$. But, you get to install DOS on any box. The normal price for an OS was about 30$. (prices are made up for this example))

This allowed Microsoft to massively increase market share. Then came windows, then came office, and things kept snowballing.

Microsoft's main advantage was the difficulties in making things compatable in the computer world, and economic network effects.

There would be insufficient economic incentive for creating intellectual property if there was no protection over it. Such an economy would be running at below maximium efficiency.

At the same time, I believe that the length of copyright has grown far too long.

You can compete with Microsoft. Write your own OS. There are a few out there to start with. BSD includes one you can even take and sell, hiding the source code!

Incomplete sentance?

Please say 'Ann Rand'. I could use the laugh!

Strange. The economics I've studied didn't make that particular assumption. Possibly I missed that chapter.

I don't think that capitalism is all that holy in and of itself. I believe it should be used where appropriate. So, don't project your personal valuation of 'capitalism' onto me, please.

First of all, the fact I can get it is an example of 'if you want it you can get it', which is what you where disputing, IIRC.

Second, no, the government wouldn't throw me in jail for smoking a joint. And the fine is pretty small.

Understood. I was just listing the various benefits you get from your taxes. You claimed you got less than you paid. I'm disputing that.

Maybe you are getting less out of it than someone else. But the amount it would cost you, personally, to generate the same features that government provides you, in the wilderness, is simply ridiculous.

Alright, I'll bite. Define 'corrupt' here?

Remember, I'm disputing that 100$ in government road-building could be done for 1$, with the remaining 99$ going to corruption. It was a simply ridiculous statement, as far as I can tell. For some odd reason, nobody believes that it is ridiculous.

So I'm waiting for somebody, anybody, to give some evidence that that statement isn't on Crack.

As for the leviathan -- the whale is useful, and helps me more than it hurts me.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.