Let's try this again: I'm a hyper-capitalist, AMA, or come debate me - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15012091
Truth To Power wrote:There's a difference between accumulating capital at the expense of others who are your competitors and have the same liberty right to access opportunities as you, which is just, and accumulating it at the expense of others whose rights are being abrogated without just compensation for your benefit, which is unjust.

I don't accept those views of justice. In my world, and I would go as far to say "in real world", the justness of something is determined by those who have power to do so, and act according to it. You have every right to exploit someone else, as they have the right to exploit you. This the the right given to you by God (or Nature, if you guys don't like the word "God"). The right to fight. You don't even have a right to life, only the right to fight for your life.

Truth To Power wrote:Only if the weak's rights are not being abrogated without just compensation for the benefit of the strong.

No. Absolutely not. There is no reason why you would stand on the side of the weak ones. I could go and say "if the strong's rights are not being abrogated without just compensation for the benefit of the weak". In fact, I'm going to say just that.


Truth To Power wrote:No. It's not the responsibility of the weak to defend themselves against the strong. That is the subhuman animal's mode of existence. In human society, we recognize that it is everyone's responsibility to defend everyone else's rights -- though normally we delegate the heavy lifting to government.

That's hilarious. No wonder why your dumb commie ideology never works.
When you break the rules, the rules of nature, you pay the price.
It is precisely the responsibility of the weak to take care of themselves, and not a responsibility of anyone else. Especially not of a society as a whole.
This is not subhuman mode of existence, this is uber-human.
And that's why there is no more pathetic thing that a person who expects the government to solve their life problems, especially if that person is a male. Government represents other people, and other people have no duty to help you.

Truth To Power wrote:No. Value in the economic sense is what something would trade for.

That's a market price, which is determined by a contract between a buyer and a seller. However, the real value (survival power) is the thing upon which those two sides come to a deal in the first place. They calculate the costs and benefits the deal with bring to their power level.

Truth To Power wrote:Carnegie, Ford and Musk all created wealth, though certainly not as much as they accumulated. Buffett was just more astute than others at discerning who would be most successful at placing their pockets in the path of wealth others created, and placing his own pockets there, too.

Yes, and the point was they benefited millions of people. Few of them did more good for humanity than all the communists combined, and probably more than a million x factor. If we calculate all the lives and wasted time because of communism.
Also, there is no difference between creating wealth and accumulating wealth.

Truth To Power wrote:Not even close.

It's so close you couldn't even put your tiny **** in between it.

Truth To Power wrote:Because they have the least material wherewithal to secure what they need to avoid suffering. That's almost tautological.

But, why don't they have enough of material, while others do? And why would God allow them to suffer like that?


Truth To Power wrote:I.e., taken by force, against the will and abrogating the rights of those who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Which is different from stealing how, exactly...?

Ummm, because they never had the right for that land in the first place. To steal something is to take something which does not belong to you. But, the land belongs to those who have power to control it, and not to those who just want to use it, or who were first to use it. Land and territory is similar to women. You might think that your girlfriend belongs to you, but she doesn't. She belongs to a best man she can find. If that man is you, than you have the "right" to claim her. If you are not that man, you have no right over her, and she does not belong to you.

Truth To Power wrote:You need to learn the difference between ownership and brute, animal possession.

They share the exact same essence, which is power.
Now, civilization has developed so that most ownership problems are solved though deals, laws and agreements, and not pure brute force. Because of the obvious reasons. However, we can also see that certain ownership problems (questions) are being solved through brute force. Communists know what I'm talking about ;)

Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't. Google "ownership definition" and start reading.

You should be thinking twice as much as you're reading.
#15012098
ingliz wrote:The 'something from nothing' was addressed in a previous post...

The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field.

The universe consists of essentially nothing - Net energy in the Universe is 0.

½MV2 – MgH = 0

"Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the universe is exactly flat*, then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever."

John Gribbin, Inflation for Beginners, Berkeley Lab, Smoot Group


* The flatness parameter (O) is defined in such a way that if spacetime is exactly flat then O = 1.

If the Universe starts out with the parameter less than one, O gets smaller as the Universe ages, while if it starts out bigger than one O gets bigger as the Universe ages. The fact that O is between 0.1 and 1 today means that in the first second of the Big Bang it was precisely 1 to within 1 part in 10^{60}. This makes the value of the density parameter in the beginning one of the most precisely determined numbers in all of science, and the natural inference is that the value is, and always has been, exactly 1.



:)


Says that "The universe consists of essentially nothing - Net energy in the Universe is 0.", while at the same time "The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field."
You can't balance something if that something doesn't even exist.

"Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist."
Created out of what? Our of nothing. But, then why does it depend upon the energy involved if it's created out of nothing?

"The flatness parameter (O) is defined in such a way that if spacetime is exactly flat then O = 1."
You have no f-ing idea what spacetime is and how it works, neither do I.

"The fact that O is between 0.1 and 1"
But, what about 0.0001?
#15012102
The Goldpill wrote:I don't accept those views of justice.

Well, sorry, but that's what the dictionary says justice is. What you really mean is that you prefer injustice to justice. I.e., you prefer evil to good; you think evil is better than good. I don't know any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
In my world, and I would go as far to say "in real world", the justness of something is determined by those who have power to do so, and act according to it.

No, that merely vacates the word, "justice" of meaning. Your world is simply the world of the sociopath, who is unable to regard others as having rights.
You have every right to exploit someone else, as they have the right to exploit you. This the the right given to you by God (or Nature, if you guys don't like the word "God"). The right to fight. You don't even have a right to life, only the right to fight for your life.

I.e., you prefer to live as an animal, robbing, enslaving, torturing and killing your fellows to the limit of your ability and desire, just like every evil person in history and fiction. I get it. You don't understand what rights are, and consequently prefer evil to good. But testosterone anarchists like you make me laugh: you wouldn't last five minutes without the state protecting you against the real sociopaths.
There is no reason why you would stand on the side of the weak ones.

Yes, there is, which is why people evolved moral capacity. Sociopaths, who lack moral capacity and thus perceive the world as you do, are throwbacks to the earlier, sub-human animal species we evolved from.
I could go and say "if the strong's rights are not being abrogated without just compensation for the benefit of the weak". In fact, I'm going to say just that.

But that doesn't mean anything coming from you, because you have already admitted you seek to vacate the word, "just" of meaning. You also haven't understood the whole point of rights: the weak having rights is better EVEN FOR THE STRONG.
That's hilarious. No wonder why your dumb commie ideology never works.

I oppose socialism -- let alone communism -- even more than capitalism. So your assumption about my beliefs is just factually incorrect. Are you willing to learn from your errors?
When you break the rules, the rules of nature, you pay the price.

As societies that do not protect the rights of the weak have learned by their extinction.
It is precisely the responsibility of the weak to take care of themselves, and not a responsibility of anyone else. Especially not of a society as a whole.

Wrong again. The responsibility of others to protect the weak is an acknowledged characteristic of human society. What you advocate is a sub-human society, the kind one researcher into gibbons' social organization called "a grisly existence I would not wish on my worst enemy."
This is not subhuman mode of existence, this is uber-human.

I guess that must be why chimpanzees, gibbons, wolves, etc. pursue it....
And that's why there is no more pathetic thing that a person who expects the government to solve their life problems, especially if that person is a male.

No one said anything about government solving all one's life problems. Just securing individual rights against the sociopaths.
Government represents other people, and other people have no duty to help you.

Government is what ensures others fulfill their duty not to harm you.
That's a market price, which is determined by a contract between a buyer and a seller.

Nope. Wrong again. A price is what an item DID trade for, as determined by the individual buyer and seller. Value is what it WOULD trade for, which is determined by the market. Two different things.
However, the real value (survival power) is the thing upon which those two sides come to a deal in the first place. They calculate the costs and benefits the deal with bring to their power level.

Gibberish.
Yes, and the point was they benefited millions of people.

But not that much.
Few of them did more good for humanity than all the communists combined, and probably more than a million x factor. If we calculate all the lives and wasted time because of communism.

You are apparently addressing someone who advocates communism. That would not be me.
Also, there is no difference between creating wealth and accumulating wealth.

That absurd claim is easily disproved. If I create wealth by growing some food, it increases the total amount of food, relieving the scarcity of food for all. If I just accumulate food by taking it from others, it doesn't relieve the scarcity, it only inflicts greater scarcity on others. That is a big difference. You stand refuted.
It's so close you couldn't even put your tiny **** in between it.

See above. I just drove a freight train full of food through the difference.
But, why don't they have enough of material, while others do?

Three main reasons: their choices, luck, and thieving by sociopaths.
And why would God allow them to suffer like that?

The question is meaningless, as God does not exist.
because they never had the right for that land in the first place.

They most certainly did. Thatis how our ancestors survived for millions of years.
To steal something is to take something which does not belong to you.

Get a better dictionary.
But, the land belongs to those who have power to control it, and not to those who just want to use it, or who were first to use it.

No, land can't rightly belong to anyone, as that inherently abrogates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.
Land and territory is similar to women.

No it isn't.
You might think that your girlfriend belongs to you, but she doesn't. She belongs to a best man she can find. If that man is you, than you have the "right" to claim her. If you are not that man, you have no right over her, and she does not belong to you.

Women have rights and choice. Land doesn't. But the people you seek to rob and enslave by depriving them of their liberty to use land by forcibly appropriating it do.
They share the exact same essence, which is power.

You again seek to vacate the words of their meaning.
Now, civilization has developed so that most ownership problems are solved though deals, laws and agreements, and not pure brute force.

So you admit you are wrong.
Because of the obvious reasons.

You just got through claiming there were no such reasons.
However, we can also see that certain ownership problems (questions) are being solved through brute force.

Rightful ownership is only obtained by an act of production, never by an act of forcible appropriation. You might want to talk to the communists about why you agree with them that rightful ownership is obtained by forcibly taking.
You should be thinking twice as much as you're reading.

I read a lot more than I think, but I still think a lot more, and to far better effect, than you, as demonstrated above.
#15012112
That's what Satan would say. It makes sense that you are a communist,


Not much of a Communist these days, selfish greed is a big part of fallen human nature.



because poverty is exactly what those who praise communism get, if they survive the bullet from their comrades, that is.


Guess you've never heard about poverty in the Gospel, about Our Lord saying to the rich man; ''go, and sell all you have, and take up your cross and follow me.''and numerous other examples?

What's ironic is that rich people are not obsessed with wealth as much as most communists are.


Sounds like not only a straw man argument, but a bit of projection too. I condemn the greed of the Rich and the envy of the Poor alike.


Wealthy people realize the power and the weaknesses of wealth and money, while greedy communists do not have this knowledge.


What you need to understand is it's evil, and that the Capitalist system-due to the crisis of overproduction for example-is quite unsustainable as it presently exists.

The flaws I mentioned are the major ones, and unavoidable. But, you're right. There are many more flaws with communist teaching.


Perhaps you need to explain that some more.


What's false about it?


Lots of things, I haven't got all day.


Like I've said, the teaching talks about the Law of Accumulation. This works with many more things like, sex, intellect, popularity, survival, mass of stars, sales and marketing, innovation, and so on... Money is just the most obvious one.


Okay, Napoleon Hill :roll:


I know you were. The surplus value is the core flaw of marxist economics.


Long before Marx, Adam Smith and particularly Ricardo were talking about ''Surplus Value''. Besides, as usual with guys like yourself, you're confusing ''Price'' with ''Value''. And after all, a Capitalist's Capital comes from previous labors performed, entirely.

It's pure theft. Here's a helpful video tutorial;




The price of a product is not determined by the amount of work put into its production, but by the subjective contract between a buyer and a seller. You're a salesman, you should know this.


It's because I'm a salesman that I know it's all bullshit, and that the measure of a productive economy is best seen in looking at the Baltic Dry Index than the NYSE.


Actually they don't.


No it's not.


Says you, but by all means do try to back it up substantially.
#15012128
The Goldpill wrote:God is scientific in his nature

No.

God has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any object or any force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful.


:)
#15012140
Truth To Power wrote:Well, sorry, but that's what the dictionary says justice is.

Why would I ever let a dictionary dictate my reality. The concept of justice has been discussed for thousands of years... and you're willing to take a dictionary explanation as a fact? That's low-tier.
However, even with the dictionary explanation of justice, it still supports my claims.

Truth To Power wrote:What you really mean is that you prefer injustice to justice. I.e., you prefer evil to good; you think evil is better than good. I don't know any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

No I don't. I prefer justice, and I prefer good. You are the unjust and the evil one. You seek to give to others according to their needs, and not according to their merits. You seek to break the nature's law. You seek to deny the beauty and strengths of the great ones, in favor of the weak ones. You give to those who do not deserve, and take from those who do deserve. You, my friend, are unjust.
Evil can not be better than good, by definition. And one can not praise evil, for one can only praise good.

Truth To Power wrote:No, that merely vacates the word, "justice" of meaning. Your world is simply the world of the sociopath, who is unable to regard others as having rights.

I already explain that I fully believe that people have a right. But not rights (plural). The only right any living organism has, is the right to fight.
As far as you calling me a sociopath, I'll just quote this paragraph from wiki:
"According to Nietzsche, masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master morality with their slave morality. Unlike master morality, which is sentiment, slave morality is based on re-sentiment—devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have. As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it VILIFIES its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as "good". "
(quick note! At the bottom of that wiki article there is a mention of a guy called Walter Kaufmann. It says "Walter Kaufmann disagrees that Nietzsche actually preferred master morality to slave morality. He certainly gives slave morality a more thorough critique, but this is partly because he thought of slave morality as society's more imminent danger. Can you guess the background of that person... what a coincidence ;) )

Truth To Power wrote:I.e., you prefer to live as an animal, robbing, enslaving, torturing and killing your fellows to the limit of your ability and desire, just like every evil person in history and fiction. I get it. You don't understand what rights are, and consequently prefer evil to good. But testosterone anarchists like you make me laugh: you wouldn't last five minutes without the state protecting you against the real sociopaths.

Jokes on you, we would probably ally with each other and hunt in packs.
I prefer to live as a human and a human is an animal on steroids. I have no interest in denying my own nature. I don't support robbing, enslaving, torturing and killing of the innocent. But, I also don't see those things as evil in themselves, but only judge them according to the results they produce.

Truth To Power wrote:Yes, there is, which is why people evolved moral capacity. Sociopaths, who lack moral capacity and thus perceive the world as you do, are throwbacks to the earlier, sub-human animal species we evolved from.

No there isn't. You shouldn't be standing for that which is weak, but only for that which is powerful. If power is good, then weakness is bad. And those who support weakness, are bad. Might I even say, evil.
I'm not a sociopath, nor do I lack moral capacity. In fact, my moral compass is far superior than yours. You're the only praising weakness.

Truth To Power wrote:But that doesn't mean anything coming from you, because you have already admitted you seek to vacate the word, "just" of meaning. You also haven't understood the whole point of rights: the weak having rights is better EVEN FOR THE STRONG.

I didn't vacate the word just. I fully believe and support justice.
"the weak having rights is better EVEN FOR THE STRONG." You don't know this. This might or might not be true. We can only know this based on the results of it.


Truth To Power wrote:I oppose socialism -- let alone communism -- even more than capitalism. So your assumption about my beliefs is just factually incorrect. Are you willing to learn from your errors?

I am. Forgive me senpai.
But, like @Scrooge McDuck I also support hyper capitalism and understand that any system which does not align with nature is designed to fail. So far, your system is destined for failure.

Truth To Power wrote:As societies that do not protect the rights of the weak have learned by their extinction.

Ummm, I dunno about that. Great people build great nations. Weak people build weak nations.

Truth To Power wrote:Wrong again. The responsibility of others to protect the weak is an acknowledged characteristic of human society. What you advocate is a sub-human society, the kind one researcher into gibbons' social organization called "a grisly existence I would not wish on my worst enemy."

No it isn't. I you are weak, I have no responsibility to protect you. In fact, I might even have higher responsibility of making fun of you, in attempts to expose the weakness. That doesn't mean I don't want to, or won't protect you. If I can, I'll seek to help you overcome your weakness. But, I'll never accept, or support you just for being weak.
What I advocate for is a Heaven on Earth. And there can be no corruption in Heaven.

Truth To Power wrote:I guess that must be why chimpanzees, gibbons, wolves, etc. pursue it....

And every nation is the world, every business, every man, every woman. Even you. You're just so weak, you can't even see yourself doing it.

Truth To Power wrote:No one said anything about government solving all one's life problems. Just securing individual rights against the sociopaths.

I approve this, as long as the people who run the government do so according to the right principles.

Truth To Power wrote:Government is what ensures others fulfill their duty not to harm you.

That's what weaklings, like you, think.
The purpose of a government is to fulfill the desires of people who make it. Government is also used to kill people who stand against it.

Truth To Power wrote:Nope. Wrong again. A price is what an item DID trade for, as determined by the individual buyer and seller. Value is what it WOULD trade for, which is determined by the market. Two different things.

First part is true, because I said the exact same thing.
Second part is not true, you're talking about the average market price of a product. Value is, like I've said, a survival power a subject sees in a certain thing.

Truth To Power wrote:But not that much.

Kys.

Truth To Power wrote:You are apparently addressing someone who advocates communism. That would not be me.

It doesn't have to be you. This is "communism" thread, so it applies to anyone who advocates communism.

Truth To Power wrote:That absurd claim is easily disproved. If I create wealth by growing some food, it increases the total amount of food, relieving the scarcity of food for all. If I just accumulate food by taking it from others, it doesn't relieve the scarcity, it only inflicts greater scarcity on others. That is a big difference. You stand refuted.

You can accumulate food without taking it from anyone, lmao
For some strange reason, you joined accumulation with taking from others.
But, even if you do accumulate food by taking it for others, you still created food. But, only for yourself, and not for others. It relives your own scarcity.
You can create, or you can accumulate food for yourself and for others. And you can create, or accumulate food for yourself at the expense of others.

Truth To Power wrote:See above. I just drove a freight train full of food through the difference.

Cringe.
I was talking about how "accumulation of wealth" is a noble thing, and how it's very close to the highest ideal one can strive for. So close you could barely fit...

Truth To Power wrote:Three main reasons: their choices, luck, and thieving by sociopaths.

Luck is hard to deal with, since many wealthy people had unlucky things happened to them.
"Their choices", prove they were weak.
"Thieving by sociopaths", why didn't they steal from them? And why didn't they protect themselves against those sociopaths? Because they were weak.

Truth To Power wrote:The question is meaningless, as God does not exist.

One day, you might be ready for this question.

Truth To Power wrote:They most certainly did. Thatis how our ancestors survived for millions of years.

They most certainly didn't. They survived on that land because they protected it. History of any nation is riddled with wars over territory.

Truth To Power wrote:Get a better dictionary.

Get smarter.

Truth To Power wrote:No, land can't rightly belong to anyone, as that inherently abrogates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

Lmao.
Your liberty ends, where my liberty starts. That is, where my desire starts. If I want the land you have, I have every right to take it from you.

I said "Land and territory is similar to women."
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't.

50 Shades of Land Ownership.

Truth To Power wrote:Women have rights and choice. Land doesn't. But the people you seek to rob and enslave by depriving them of their liberty to use land by forcibly appropriating it do.

But, what about my liberty? I want to liberate myself in their land, and liberate myself with their women. Who are they to deprive me of my liberty? 8) :lol:
Women know very well that their rights and choices can be taken. Property is anything you are able to have and control. You can control women and you can control land. They're the same thing, from ownership aspect.

Truth To Power wrote:So you admit you are wrong.

No. Power has only advanced. If someone hits me in the face, I might hit them back. Or I might sue them. Take money from them. Put them in a jail and bribe some policemen to make sure that person gets some prison ass action.
Of course, I wouldn't do that, because I'm not a little Kant. But, that's possible in an evolved society as ours.

Truth To Power wrote:You just got through claiming there were no such reasons.

See above.


Truth To Power wrote:Rightful ownership is only obtained by an act of production, never by an act of forcible appropriation. You might want to talk to the communists about why you agree with them that rightful ownership is obtained by forcibly taking.

There is no rightful, or wrongful ownership. You either have control over something, or you don't.
Even, in a capitalist society you don't have the right to own every item you produce. For example, if you started producing nuclear bombs in your backyard, the government will most likely cease it and arrest you. That's because your ownership of that item threatens the power levels of the government (of other people).


Truth To Power wrote:I read a lot more than I think, but I still think a lot more, and to far better effect, than you, as demonstrated above.

Then you need to start reading some good stuff, because they way you think atm is not working.
#15012163
The Goldpill wrote:According to Nietzsche

A 'God' quote.

According to Nietzsche...

"There is not enough love and goodness in the world to permit giving any of it away to imaginary beings."

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits (1878)


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 15 Jun 2019 19:42, edited 1 time in total.
#15012170
Goldpill wrote:True

That God was* an "imaginary being"?

”God”, “the immortality of the soul”, “salvation”, “the beyond”—even as a child I had no time for such notions, I do not waste any time upon them—maybe I was never childish enough for that?

Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Why I am So Clever (1888)


* According to Nietzsche, „Gott ist tot“


:lol:
#15012171
ingliz wrote:That God was* an "imaginary being"?

”God”, “the immortality of the soul”, “salvation”, “the beyond”—even as a child I had no time for such notions, I do not waste any time upon them—maybe I was never childish enough for that?

Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Why I am So Clever (1888)


* According to Nietzsche, „Gott ist tot“


:lol:


I know. He was wrong.
#15012274
The Goldpill wrote:the right given to you by God... the right to fight for your life.

You seem very confused.

As Bentham says, "Natural rights are simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, — nonsense upon stilts."

You have no god-given 'right' to fight for your life. If I wanted to kill you, nothing compels me to stand around and wait while you prepare to defend yourself.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 16 Jun 2019 11:13, edited 1 time in total.
#15012276
annatar1914 wrote:Not much of a Communist these days, selfish greed is a big part of fallen human nature.

Greed is good and selfishness is a virtue.
You say you're not a communist, while at the same time you use their flawed ideas. You even linked to a Youtube channel that has a communist kiwi as its avatar.

annatar1914 wrote:Guess you've never heard about poverty in the Gospel, about Our Lord saying to the rich man; ''go, and sell all you have, and take up your cross and follow me.''and numerous other examples?

Yes. It says that because there is a higher aim than money. And that aim is Power. The highest power can come only through God. So in order to get there, you'll have to follow Jesus (as a Son of God) and one day, you might become God yourself. Or at least, become worthy of Heavenly Kingdom.


annatar1914 wrote:Sounds like not only a straw man argument, but a bit of projection too. I condemn the greed of the Rich and the envy of the Poor alike.

Maybe, but I don't think my projections are false. You said that what I stand for is the exact thing you fight against. But, I have an impression that you wouldn't fight against envy of poor with the same vigor.
If you want to help the poor, get rich yourself and then spend that money building even more businesses and jobs.


annatar1914 wrote:What you need to understand is it's evil, and that the Capitalist system-due to the crisis of overproduction for example-is quite unsustainable as it presently exists.

What you need to understand is that capitalism is the only just and truly good economic system we currently have. Hyper-capitalism would be the next step.
The apparent flaws in capitalism are not because of itself, but because of socialist measures implemented in capitalism. It's like a little poison drip.
Don't worry about over-production of anything. If the goods are overproduced their prices will fall and the owners of their production will soon stop producing those goods. This, of course, comes under an assumption that the (over)produced goods are not directly harmful for others, such as illegal weapons production.


annatar1914 wrote:Perhaps you need to explain that some more.

This whole thread is about explaining the flaws of communism.
First flaw is that it wants to abolish capitalism. This should be enough.

annatar1914 wrote:Lots of things, I haven't got all day.

Name one thing.

annatar1914 wrote:Okay, Napoleon Hill

Books of Napoleon Hill, along with few others, are a rich man's Bible. It might even help you become more than a salesman. Dare I say, a capitalist.
Make sure to read "Outwitting the Devil".
His little book, single-handedly, brought more people out of poverty than all the so called economists in the world combined.

annatar1914 wrote:Long before Marx, Adam Smith and particularly Ricardo were talking about ''Surplus Value''. Besides, as usual with guys like yourself, you're confusing ''Price'' with ''Value''. And after all, a Capitalist's Capital comes from previous labors performed, entirely.

There was talk about surplus value, but marxists corrupted it. The same way Nazis corrupted swastika.
I'm not confusing price with value. I made it very clear through my posts what price is and what value is.

annatar1914 wrote:It's pure theft. Here's a helpful video tutorial;

It's amazing that you believe that to be true. I've made over 30 notes all with timestamps about his flaws. I'll post them if necessary. But, for now here's a puzzle for you:
What about deficit value? What happens when the employer goes to market and can only sell the produced chair for 100? That's the highest he can get. Now, he has to pay the equipment with 100, pay the workers 50, and retain no surplus value (profits). In fact, he's in deficit by 50. Even worse, the workers do not suffer. The workers got paid 50, while the employer lost 50? And if surplus value is theft by employers, then deficit value is theft by workers.

annatar1914 wrote:It's because I'm a salesman that I know it's all bullshit, and that the measure of a productive economy is best seen in looking at the Baltic Dry Index than the NYSE.

Then you must be a very bad salesman.
I'm not sure about that second part.
Nothing is stopping me from selling my car for 1$, and nothing is stopping me from buying some dumb painting for $ 40 millions.
There is absolutely nothing in this world that's going to convince me that the creator of this painting put an amount of tools and labor worth $ 40 millions. lol
Image

annatar1914 wrote:Says you, but by all means do try to back it up substantially.

Because the workers do not have the means, nor the knowledge required to run the business. If they could, or knew how to they wouldn't be working for someone else.
The owner's work is the only work that truly matters. They reap the profits, because they also suffer the risk of loosing money. The worker gets paid regardless of how the market treats the owner. (not in every case, since workers can make deals where they paid based on market outcomes).
#15012278
ingliz wrote:You seem very confused.

As Bentham says, "Natural rights are simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, — nonsense upon stilts."

You have no god-given 'right' to fight for your life. If I wanted to kill you, nothing compels me to stand around and wait while you prepare to defend yourself.


:lol:


Why would you assume that you have to make it easy for me? That right is for me, not for you.
Last edited by The Goldpill on 16 Jun 2019 11:15, edited 2 times in total.
#15012285
The Goldpill wrote:Why would you assume that you have to make it easy for me?

So you would agree with me that God has nothing to do with it? Your god-given 'right' is a privilege granted to you by me, or not, as I please, at my pleasure.


:)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Two tales of the pandemic: On the pandemic Trump[…]

@QatzelOk , we are really veering off topic here.[…]

Another one from Kazakhstan?

Well, I'm at work so I can only share two links: […]

Who is right?

Don't forget that it was also a promise by God. P[…]