I would be careful about accusing people of being devoted to a “flawed and thoroughly debunked ideology,” when capitalism is teetering on the verge of collapse all around you, and your particular favorite version of capitalism died over a hundred years ago. Besides, you have repeatedly declined opportunities to point out what is flawed, so you really can’t expect me to take you seriously.
[quote]If you define “work” as “on what someone has clawed out of the rocks with his fingernails”, why yes, workers are terribly exploited.
Why do do not simply choose to become exploiters instead of exploitees if capitalist are superfluous is beyond me, but I guess the capitalis cabal prevents them somehow from doing that.[/quote]
Work is defined as producing a consumable product or service. By that definition, they are still terribly exploited.
People want to be productive. If a society reward, as you wish, the exploiters, there will be many exploiters and the actually productive will suffer, as we see now.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Very simple, every time government takes money from people who earned it and gives it to people who did not earn it we take one step away from success. The government gets larger and the small business man gets poorer.[/quote]
I’ll remind you that the top 1% controls 42% of the wealth. Do you honestly think businessmen need more money?
Furthermore, your concept of “earn” is a strange one, as they really did not earn (work for) that money, and so it is not theirs to keep.
[/quote]
I can see how Paris Hilton did not “earn” her wealth, what about say mr. Gates? Why would he owe you anything?
[/quote]
Who said anything about him owing me money. He doesn’t owe me.
[/quote]
I would be careful about accusing people of being devoted to a “flawed and thoroughly debunked ideology,” when capitalism is teetering on the verge of collapse all around you, and your particular favorite version of capitalism died over a hundred years ago. Besides, you have repeatedly declined opportunities to point out what is flawed, so you really can’t expect me to take you seriously.
[quote]If you define “work” as “on what someone has clawed out of the rocks with his fingernails”, why yes, workers are terribly exploited.
Why do do not simply choose to become exploiters instead of exploitees if capitalist are superfluous is beyond me, but I guess the capitalis cabal prevents them somehow from doing that.[/quote]
Work is defined as producing a consumable product or service. By that definition, they are still terribly exploited.
People want to be productive. If a society reward, as you wish, the exploiters, there will be many exploiters and the actually productive will suffer, as we see now.
[/quote]
And whom do they exploit then, pray tell?
ANd I wont going into the fact that the US is orimarily a service industry, that there are numerous examples of “work” where your ideas break down…
He owes no one in particular, he simply has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft product. For sure, he deserve to be paid for his work, and generously, but only for his work. He does not have the right to extract rent from people for the use of software.
Once his work is done, what is done with his software does not concern him.
Do you wish for me to write an economic treatise here on the forum? If not, ask a specific question, as the answer varies widely depending on the circumstances. Manufacturers exploit their workers, by demanding they surrender a portion of the earned income for the privilege of working to support themselves. Financially, it gets more complicated.
[quote]ANd I wont going into the fact that the US is orimarily a service industry, that there are numerous examples of “work” where your ideas break down…
[/quote]
He owes no one in particular, he simply has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft product. For sure, he deserve to be paid for his work, and generously, but only for his work. He does not have the right to extract rent from people for the use of software.
Once his work is done, what is done with his software does not concern him.
[/quote]
Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?
Do you wish for me to write an economic treatise here on the forum? If not, ask a specific question, as the answer varies widely depending on the circumstances. Manufacturers exploit their workers, by demanding they surrender a portion of the earned income for the privilege of working to support themselves. Financially, it gets more complicated.
[quote]ANd I wont going into the fact that the US is orimarily a service industry, that there are numerous examples of “work” where your ideas break down…
[/quote]
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. He of course has the right to a salary, compensation, even a very generous one, but after he finishes coding, he does nothing to earn money from the production, distribution, or sale of the product. Is that hard to understand? Just as you wouldn’t give the manufacturer of the actual discs containing the software any of Gates’ money he got for writing it, Gates shouldn’t expect any money from the actual sale.
And your analogy is wrong. The baker of course has a right to be paid for the bread he bakes, but you’re saying he has a right to license bread, and be paid for every loaf sold anywhere, whether he baked it or not, which I am disputing.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. He of course has the right to a salary, compensation, even a very generous one, but after he finishes coding, he does nothing to earn money from the production, distribution, or sale of the product. Is that hard to understand? Just as you wouldn’t give the manufacturer of the actual discs containing the software any of Gate’s money he got for writing it, Gates shouldn’t expect any money from the actual sale.
And your analogy is wrong. The baker of course has a right to be paid for the bread he bakes, but you’re saying he has a right to license bread, and be paid for every loaf sold anywhere, whether he baked it or not, which I am disputing.
[/quote]
And that solves the problem how exacty?
So he writes a programm and wants 2 billion for it.
His personal income does not change, but the motions we would go through would be more to your liking.
The entrepreneurial risk would no longer be his but that of the people selling it and I doubt that that would make life any better for them, but I guess he could live with that.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]
Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.
So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]
Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.
So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[/quote]
He likes the labor theory of value.
As long as the baker “works” for it he deserves it. If however other people work for him and he makes more than he pays them he is “exploiting” them.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]
Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.
So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[/quote]
He likes the labor theory of value.
As long as the baker “works” for it he deserves it. If however other people work for him and he makes more than he pays them he is “exploiting” them.
[/quote]
Yeah, he seems to be anti-profit altogether though
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]
Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.
So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[/quote]
He likes the labor theory of value.
As long as the baker “works” for it he deserves it. If however other people work for him and he makes more than he pays them he is “exploiting” them.
[/quote]
Yeah, he seems to be anti-profit altogether though :)[/quote]
Yeah, because profit is not a reward for taking risks and anticipatinmg market demands but EXPLOITATION!!!1!!!
Interestingly enough, most businesses do not make it and employees do not give their money back when that happens. Who is exploiting whom then?
[quote]orion wrote:And that solves the problem how exacty?
So he writes a programm and wants 2 billion for it.
His personal income does not change, but the motions we would go through would be more to your liking.[/quote]
Strange that you’ve forgotten about the “magic of the market” so quickly. No one would pay him $2 billion for a software program. Competition would come in! You’ve got computer geeks making custom Linux distros and smartphone ROMS for free. Here, look at all of them:
There’s no other industry that better illustrates how full of shit your economic theories are than the computer industry. The only reason that the majority of computer operating systems and many applications are not distributed either for free, or for a minimal charge is that big companies won’t allow it. The Internet is a great place to see the conflict between profit and the public welfare.
[quote]orion wrote:Yeah, because profit is not a reward for taking risks and anticipatinmg market demands but EXPLOITATION!!!1!!!
Interestingly enough, most businesses do not make it and employees do not give their money back when that happens. Who is exploiting whom then?[/quote]
Iterating Windows releases every few years is not taking a risk. Manufacturing soft drinks is not taking a risk. Slightly updating a car model every year is not taking a risk. There is some legitimacy to the notion that profit is a reward for risk-taking, but not when there’s no risk.
In your example, the workers are still exploited. They are always and everywhere charged a tax for the privilege of working. If the capitalist runs his business into the ground, that’s his fault.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. …
[/quote]
Who does then? Also, who decides how much he should be making ?
Yeah, there are some gray areas with IP which is a whole another topic of discussion, that’s not what we’re talking about though.
So let’s stick to the baker example if you’re more comfortable with that.
Simplest case - he bakes the bread and sells it for the current market value. He profits.
Are you saying he has no right to pocket the profit minus the income tax?
[/quote]
Supply and demand will largely determine what his salary should be.
As for the baker, in this example, no, he does not profit. He did the work himself, and so he is entitled to the wages.
