Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
MS, don't mix attacks in with my posts willy nilly. If you do so, can you attribute them at least?
|
How do you attribute the quotes to someone like you've done? I don't know how to do that.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
That dude has something (be it a factory, an idea, or a marketing department) that makes your labour generate a product worth 4$.
|
He has it only because he's allowed to have it. He didn't build the factory, and the idea, once passed to other people, is no longer his alone. But the government sends cops out to protect his plant, and makes it illegal to use the idea. That's not capitalism, that's government enforcement of that guy's wealth.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Are you happy to take the job? Did the dude exploit you? Was the exploitation a bad thing?
|
No, yes, yes. But I think you misunderstand me, I'm going to take the job because I don't have any other choice. But I'm not going to cheer for the guy, and if I had the opportunity to do something different I'm sure I would.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
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.
|
The value of your labour is what it is worth on the open market. When there is no open market then your labour is undervalued or overvalued depending on where you are on the system's protection list. Bill Gates, who doesn't write code anymore and probably just hangs out occasionally making some decisions doesn't put nearly as much value into the new windows OS as some other people. Yet he's paid a ridiculous amount of money because the system is set up to protect him (copyrights).
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
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.
|
Concentration of capital among the most productive is a side effect of market capitalism. Concentration of capital among a class of people that put protections in place to a) ensure they no longer have to be productive, and b) will continue to receive revenue is not market capitalism.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
You believe there is a giant government and corperate conspiracy to keep wages low?
You sure believe that the 'bad guys' are competent!
|
How competent do they have to be?
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
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.
Originially Posted by Yakk
|
There are occasional changes, of course, once in a while some poor people do get rich, and some rich people are tossed to the wolves as a sacrifice. But you look at Microsoft and IBM as two distinct operations. When Microsoft became the dominant computer company, it was absorbed by the industry. Where do you think the people who work for it came from? IBM (or some other similar company). It doesn't matter what name it goes by, whatever company is on top nearly always consists of the same people. Why do you think CEO's are shifted around from one company to another?
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Do you instantly become part of 'the man' once you economically succeed?
|
Probably not instantly, but if you do manage to improve to such a level you are absorbed into the system, yes.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Find me a definition from any dictionary (and not one written by a comedian) that supports your redefinition of the term Capitalism. Thank you.
|
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. -Dictionary.com, first entry The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
I didn't redefine the term. Private ownership means that the means of production and distribution are not owned by the government. They are owned by the government here in America.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Like I have said many times -- how wealthy would you be with no social infrastructure around you?
|
I have no idea. Sometimes I'd like to find out. And either way, I'd like to be able to make the choice to find out.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
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.
|
No, my 10 year old Taurus doesn't always get me from point A to point B, it often breaks down or has mechanical problems, certainly more often than that rich guy's Mercedes. That's not jealousy. And again, you make the assumption and belief that the rich guy is somehow entitled to that expensive car. The only reason he has it is because I worked to get it for him. I don't like making other people rich, it's not jealousy, it's just common sense.
When the shopkeeper drives a car not quite as good as the mobster who rips him off and he's angry about it, is that jealousy?
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
I like having a modern state surrounding me, and there are more of me than there are of you.
|
Certainly, I'll never dispute that.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Then don't pay him. Write your own god damn operating system.
|
Why write my own? There's a perfectly good OS that's already on my computer. I physically own it, I only have to pay him because he says so.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think that's nonsense. People are always going to want to do things better or cheaper. Without copyrights they'll choose to do it because they want or need to, not because they need to think up something more expensive to convince us to buy.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Strange. The economics I've studied didn't make that particular assumption. Possibly I missed that chapter.
|
Possibly you did.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
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.
|
I was claiming that the government makes it illegal to purchase. You can get anything, but the government tries to prevent you from getting such things by making them illegal. I hope that's clear now.
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Second, no, the government wouldn't throw me in jail for smoking a joint. And the fine is pretty small.
|
I don't know where you live, but in PA you face up to 30 days for possession of a small amount of marijuana and a $500.00 fine. Granted, most people get some form of probation the first time out, but you still face that possible penalty. And $500 isn't a small fine to me. Maybe you're rich but that's a more than a week's wages to me.
http://pcs.la.psu.edu/druglimits.pdf (section 31)
Originially Posted by Yakk
Quote:
|
Remember, I'm disputing that 100$ 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.
|
It's not ridiculous. When the roads are built as a form of corruption in the first place, then it's all corrupt.
You still haven't shown how the government is different from the mafia (other than being bigger and better organized). Do you admit they are the same thing?