[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Supply and demand will largely determine what his salary should be.
[/quote]
It already does.
[/quote]
In the presence of a restrictive set of artificial laws.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:but he owns his own bakery. so the cost of ingredients and operating costs etc add up to X.
he sells it for Y.
Y-X = Z.
Z is the profit. simple stuff eh 
[/quote]
No, it also costs labor.
Apparently, it’s not as simple as you think. You’re getting your definitions confused.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan’s arguments demonstrate why socialism fails: No one takes any risks living in a socialist society; in fact, Ryan doesn’t even know what risk is because it’s been brainwashed out of him by socialist dogma.[/quote]
Socialism is the only thing keeping capitalism on life support right now. It does’t fail. In fact, it’s the only way forward. You cannot cite an example of socialism failing except by being forcibly overthrown.
[quote]He’d be starving and he would still wait for the overlords to tell him what he should eat.
edit: and I should also add, rather than taking calculated risks people tend to miscalculate risk under socialism because government spending interferes with market signals.[/quote]
Government spending does not interfere with market signals anymore than private spending interfere with market signals. The market doesn’t know the difference. You’re so brainwashed that government action to you is bad even when it does the same thing as private citizens.
And that would be where? You don’t even know what socialism is, and it’s showing. You’re a good drone.
Hmmm…me too. Strange thing you support a system that pays people based on the property they own, while I support a system that pays people according to their actual work.
See? Proof that you don’t have the first fucking idea what you’re talking about. Go to my profile and look through all my posts. When you find one where I say I support equal outcomes, please post it here, but prepare to be disappointed. I have never supported equal outcomes and have several time explicitly come out against them. If you’re too stupid to read, how am I supposed to have a conversation.
Apparently your attitude is “fuck facts, and fuck literacy,” too, because nothing you’ve written applies in any way to me.
But don’t worry–I think even a grade A shithead like you deserves a fair shake.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
FYI
capitalist economies are crashing one by one.
[/quote]
Only, and ONLY because of socialistic programs and policies enacted by said “Capitalist” economies.[/quote]
Sorry, dumbass, Wall Street is not a socialistic program.
[quote]orion wrote:Of course.
If fiat money blows up the two most regulated sectors of the whole economy, the free market is to blame.[/quote]
No no, not the free market. The free market was irrelevant a hundred years ago. I don’t know why you talk about it all the time.
Wrong. Society is perfectly capable of investing it themselves, and in something that will bring a social benefit, not just a profit.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:but he owns his own bakery. so the cost of ingredients and operating costs etc add up to X.
he sells it for Y.
Y-X = Z.
Z is the profit. simple stuff eh
[/quote]
No, it also costs labor.
Apparently, it’s not as simple as you think. You’re getting your definitions confused.[/quote]
At this point labor is free resource - he is doing all the work himself, so the cost of labor doesn’t have to be factored into the equation. Since you brought it up it’s actually quite common for start-up business owners to pretty much break even (with Z in the equation above being close to zero or even negative).
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here, let’s not over-complicate this very simple situation.
So, simple question, what’s wrong with that baker selling bread for profit again ?
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.
LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
…
Socialism is the only thing keeping capitalism on life support right now. It does’t fail. In fact, it’s the only way forward. You cannot cite an example of socialism failing except by being forcibly overthrown.
…
[/quote]
LOL. Please cite an example of a successful country built purely on socialist/communist principles.
I can name a few rather odious regimes that had “socialism” in the names of their programs but of course that would lead to an argument of how “impure” their implementations of the said hate-spewing doctrine were.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.
LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]
From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.
LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]
From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]
Shh, don’t tell Ryan you’ll burst his idea of a socialist utopia
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Government workers are even more efficient than private ones: “The federal government spent $110 million last year to determine whether 12,573 federal jobs could be done more efficiently by private contractors, with in-house workers winning 91 percent of the time, according to an Office of Management and Budget report.”
So, sorry. You’re just plain wrong.
[/quote]
This section of the post ruins your credibility. You are comparing employees with contractors. Contract rates are typically 2-3x employee rates. Duh contractors are more expensive. That does not mean government workers are more efficient than private sector workers.
For a true socialist utopia to occur and work properly, every human would have to work for the greater good of everyone else. Greed, selfishness, etc would have to be eliminated. In essence human nature would have to radically change.
Good luck. I shall be in the corner hoarding my coins.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:I do not forget how the markets work, you do.
Gates does not make money by making programms but by selling them. Incidentally, so does every baker, tailor, butcher and bricklayer.
It does not matter how much you work unless you find a buyer.
Now someone has to upfront the money in order to develop those things that might or might not find a buyer and he better profit when they do, or else he wont do it.
[/quote]
This is irrelevant. You simply assume this money must be provided by private parties. Your assertion that Gates would be paid billions of dollars to simply the software is asinine, as there are many people who do this sort of thing for fun. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be paid for it, quite the opposite, in fact, but you simply assume the need for private investment. Capitalists are no longer necessary.[/quote]
If it is that easy, why does Microsoft exist?
It matters little what someone tinkers together in a garage, what metters if it reaches the customers.
Also, capitalists are only irrelevant if you believe that we have reached the maximum of what is possible.
Since this is not a valid option for us, risk taking and the exploratory nature of capitalism is indispendable.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Supply and demand will largely determine what his salary should be.
[/quote]
It already does.
[/quote]
In the presence of a restrictive set of artificial laws.[/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Government workers are even more efficient than private ones: “The federal government spent $110 million last year to determine whether 12,573 federal jobs could be done more efficiently by private contractors, with in-house workers winning 91 percent of the time, according to an Office of Management and Budget report.”
So, sorry. You’re just plain wrong.
[/quote]
This section of the post ruins your credibility. You are comparing employees with contractors. Contract rates are typically 2-3x employee rates. Duh contractors are more expensive. That does not mean government workers are more efficient than private sector workers.[/quote]
Probably true in very specific circumstances, but without the market pricing system we do not even know whether this work needed to be done in the first place.
Or how much of it, or when exactly.
How may people flee America each year for greener socialist pastures?
How about the opposite?
There aren’t many shipping crates full of half dead Americans showing up in china with the hope of a better life, are there?
Any of you pro-socialists ever meet someone who has immigrated to America from a socialist Government?
I have. I guarantee that when you put these abstract social theories to work, people die. Lots and lots of lives are taken at the point of a gun and through starvation to enforce that socialism.
The stuff I’ve been told would make this “exploitation” of workers that Ryan philosophizes about look like Steak and Blowjob Day at a Ruths Chris steakhouse.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Thinking that maybe the rich could pay more when 14% of Americans have slipped below the poverty line is not class warfare.[/quote]
What does someone slipping below the poverty line have to do with me? Why should I be punished by having the government steal more of my money than it already does? I had a good year made more than I’ve ever made in my life - And I worked harder than I ever have in my life. Gee, you think there’s a cause and effect involved with this?
[quote]Sanders is a nutty communist.
Again, you say this while giving no examples whatsoever of how he is wrong. Think it about it: it’s conceivable that you’re the one in error.[/quote]
Ryan my boy, you’ve missed the point. I don’t have to say anything else he’s said it all in that wacky little speech of his.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
He indicts the rich and does not indict the political shenanigans of government for causing such economic disparity in the first place.[/quote]
Who do you think controls the government? Aliens, or something?
Really? He seems to know what’s going on, while you continue to try to deny it. Who hasn’t studied the issue?
[/quote]
But you neglect that government regulation protects the rich. Am I wrong? If so, why?[/quote]
Nope, in fact, I’ve said the same thing myself in the past. It’s one of the main failings of Libertarianism. You can’t get rid of the government, and so putting rich people in charge of it, as capitalism does, is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
You are very confused. Government should have less power for these very reasons.