[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]

Login:
Password:
New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS · Profile · Logout
Page 2 of 3«123»
Forum moderator: El_Matador, ThaScience, s0dr2 
Forum » Knowledge » Politics/Economics » Anarchism & Occupy Wall Street
Anarchism & Occupy Wall Street
eboyd Date: Saturday, 17/Dec/11, 9:31 PM | Message # 16

Heads
Posts: 13338
Reputation: 2
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)
what are you talking about? i just set a goal of making 800 dollars and figure out ways that i can make that. some ppl are basketball stars.. i suck at basketball completely. that just means i wouldn't bother trying to make 800 dollars through basketball. theres a million ways to make money, eventually your just gonna have to choose one way to make money or else ur excuse is ALWAYS going to be that you're not good enough.

they just fucked me and a coworker over today and took money from our paychecks. this means im going to have to find other jobs for myself.


In general, people find things they like doing and are good at and so they specialize, but that isn't what makes good money. Most people who specialize are just grateful because, even though they don't make enough to support themselves, they are happy with what they are doing; they love it. There is a very specific specialty that makes good money, and that specialty is the ability to be a good salesman -- people who exude self-confidence, are smooth talkers, leaders, etc. Those are the people that find it easy to move up in rank very quickly, who excel in sales and find themselves at the top of the corporate food chain most of the time. They often dictate how much everyone makes as well, including themselves. I may be able to say, "hey, I'm good at X. I can make $800 off of that," but while $800 may be just fine for a single 20 year old who lives in an apartment and eats ramen noodles 3 times a day, that's nowhere near adequate for the average man who has a family of 4 or 5, a mortgage, countless bills, and is trying to put healthy meals on the table for his kids and send them to school. Even $2000 every 2 weeks is inadequate for those purposes these days. Most careers today do not provide adequate pay to allow individuals enough income to live comfortably, while each member of the richest 1% have more than enough money to allow dozens of families to live comfortably, if not more. This shows in that the middle class is and has been diminishing for a long time now.

Quote (J-Breakz)
n nature your ass has to eat. theres no "well some people are better at finding food while others aren't". nah its "u either find food or u starve". thats just how nature works and we're always a slave to it. go through LA! its a fuckin jungle. at some point your gonna have to accept self responsibility for the position that you're in and make moves to keep progressing and living.


The beauty of humanity is that we are in an advanced state of civilization in which we can find ways to transcend the dog eat dog nature of the uncivilized world. There are 2 basic reasons behind this: we have found ways to produce more resources and at least somewhat transcend scarcity, and we have found ways to evenly and fairly allocate resources. We're so far past the hunter-gatherer society we once were that to continue in this dog eat dog mode is a disgrace to our advance social status.


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

J-Breakz Date: Saturday, 17/Dec/11, 10:17 PM | Message # 17

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
Sales is the only way to get rich fast, but anyone that would agree with socialism would also agree that being rich doesn't mean anything.

There are plenty of jointly-owned companies where workers have a say in business decisions because they own an equal share of stocks. what you keep forgetting to realize is if I start a company, then hire ppl that agree to help out with certain parts of the job in exchange for compensation for their time doesn't mean they also own the company. They only own themselves and the services that they offer to the company.

If you break your lawn mower and I help you fix it... that doesn't mean I also get to use the lawn mower whenever I want. that'd be me just being a prick.

You're saying that rich people have to feel obligated to accept responsibility for other ppl's poor decisions and living situation even if they might not even know who they are.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging kindness and generiousity, but your thinking is flawed when you begin advocating people to depend on other people.

Quote (eboyd)
The beauty of humanity is that we are in an advanced state of civilization in which we can find ways to transcend the dog eat dog nature of the uncivilized world. There are 2 basic reasons behind this: we have found ways to produce more resources and at least somewhat transcend scarcity, and we have found ways to evenly and fairly allocate resources. We're so far past the hunter-gatherer society we once were that to continue in this dog eat dog mode is a disgrace to our advance social status.


No we're not. NOT AT THE LEAST. Just because we got our buildings to look taller and our cars to drive faster doesn't mean we're still a slave to our natural instincts that every animal has.

We're just as civilized as any other beast.

A city is just our version of an ecosystem.

p.s. we haven't found ways to evenly allocate resources or else there wouldn't be any occupy rallies


livin life like some cheesy movie
eboyd Date: Sunday, 18/Dec/11, 5:10 PM | Message # 18

Heads
Posts: 13338
Reputation: 2
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)
There are plenty of jointly-owned companies where workers have a say in business decisions because they own an equal share of stocks.


if you are referring to ESOPs here, those are horrible business models and often wind up in rampant corruption due to conflicts of interest. if you are referring to worker cooperatives, those are not publicly traded so there is no stock involved and no, there are not plenty of them (at least not in the US. elsewhere there are a lot of them).

Quote (J-Breakz)
what you keep forgetting to realize is if I start a company, then hire ppl that agree to help out with certain parts of the job in exchange for compensation for their time doesn't mean they also own the company. They only own themselves and the services that they offer to the company.


i am aware that it doesn't mean they also own the company necessarily. it depends on the contract they sign and what that contract stipulates. i never claimed that it did. if we were in a perfectly free market with no laws preventing people from certain types of labor relations, one could even sign themselves into indentured servitude and it would be fair because of the free market. child labor would still exist, work without benefits, very low wages, etc., but of course there would probably be the opposite end of that as well, meaning certain jobs that allow people to make a lot more money than people currently make. the problem with that is less skilled laborers (such as people with mental or physical handicaps, people with low IQs, people who aren't in the greatest physical shape, people with medical conditions, people who simply don't have the specific skills to be in top management, such as certain social skills, etc. sure, education level and how hard someone works comes into play, but a boss who is going to pay top dollar is looking foremost at assets one brings to the table in terms of skill) would not be able to bargain for even a decent wage and so they would have to work a lot harder for relatively equal results and there would be such wide gaps between what certain jobs pay that we would perpetuate relatively the same class system that we have today. i don't give a shit about maximizing productivity if it means Bob, who works his ass off but isn't very smart or strong and isn't really "leader" material, but he gets shit done, gets paid $20,000 a year while John, who may or may not work hard, but is extremely intelligent and knows how to run a business, gets paid $10,000,000 a year. that shit isn't right, and the way things work, with a business only generating a finite amount of money, that $10,000,000 that John makes is directly inversely proportional to the amount of money people like Bob make. in other words, given a relatively constant flow of revenue for every extra bit of money that John makes, someone else in the business gets a pay cut, and usually it is people like Bob that get their pay cut in that way. what i am asking for is that contract law be changed, especially for employment, to give each party an equal stake in stipulating the terms of the agreement. i don't care how tedious this gets for the employer. each potential employee needs to be able to dictate terms on equal footing with a potential employer, and both employer and employee need to be able to agree and/or disagree with each term individually. the terms also need to be written transparently enough that both parties can understand them and if any items are unclear, it is the responsibility of the party who created the term to make it clear to the party agreeing to it. it is only if no contract stating the contrary is in existence or that the contract becomes legally void for some reason that one would revert to the principles that i set forth where i discuss labor laying claim to ownership, and even then it isn't as simple as "you let me use your vacuum cleaner to clean your house, therefore i now have part ownership of your vacuum and your house". for one, the worker would have to pay for his or her stake in the ownership and the owner would have to accept that payment, which would then of course imply intent to become a part owner.

i haven't fully developed the process of how i feel contract law should change, but these are some general ideas i have that i think would need to be applied before i say that i am content with the way things work. i think if things were changed to reflect what i am talking about above, this would at least begin the process of relative economic equality. in my example above, John may still make more than Bob, and at least for now i have no problem with that, but the gap between Bob's and John's income won't be so wide. it may be that Bob is now making $100,000 a year, which makes sense for all the hard work he is putting in because he can at least live relatively comfortably off of that, and John may make $500,000. while i'd like to see that gap tighten even more eventually, i think that's a move in the right direction.

Quote (J-Breakz)
You're saying that rich people have to feel obligated to accept responsibility for other ppl's poor decisions and living situation even if they might not even know who they are.


why are you assuming they made a poor decision?? maybe that was the best decision available to them at the time? a better question: why should an individual be rewarded so strongly for being in the right place at the right time when their skills are relatively equal to another person who wasn't as fortunate? that rich person wouldn't be rich at all if he didn't have more/better opportunities than that person who is not rich.

Quote (J-Breakz)
There's nothing wrong with encouraging kindness and generiousity, but your thinking is flawed when you begin advocating people to depend on other people.


we live in a world were poor people have to depend on rich people for a salary. it is you advocating dependency, not me. i am advocating an emancipation of the working class from that dependency.

and what "kindness and generosity" are you talking about?? the haves owe the have nots not just a portion of the wealth they actually labored to create, but at least a little bit of say over how big that portion is.

Quote (J-Breakz)
No we're not. NOT AT THE LEAST. Just because we got our buildings to look taller and our cars to drive faster doesn't mean we're still a slave to our natural instincts that every animal has.

Quote (J-Breakz)
p.s. we haven't found ways to evenly allocate resources or else there wouldn't be any occupy rallies


we have technology that has multiplied productivity tenfold from what it was at the beginning of the human race, we have devised ways to make human labor more efficient, and we have an entire social science that is dedicated to more evenly and fairly allocating resources (economics. and i never said it has been used to perfectly evenly allocate resources, but it has definitely helped us to much more evenly allocate resources than we did in our hunter-gatherer days). the only things we haven't been able to control is the supply of raw materials and human demand, but we're finding ways to work around those somewhat anyways by creating products that alleviate some of the demand for more scarce products and so even that isn't a huge problem.

we have, therefore, found ways to transcend the dog eat dog nature of the world, but the problem is we haven't put enough effort into channeling our efforts into actually using the technology and knowledge we have to be a more cooperative species, which we have a tremendous potential for.


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

J-Breakz Date: Saturday, 24/Dec/11, 2:40 AM | Message # 19

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
like ive said plenty of times before, I think Taiwan is enough evidence to show that the opposite happens when a market has less restrictions. Lowered poverty rates, more job oppurtunities, and affordable schools that focus on results rather than politics.

anything close to socialism has proved to show a strength in propaganda and finding ways to gain public support in order to continue someone's agenda.

you don't insure safety by controlling freedom. And you need a form of government to control freedom. In a world without control leaves a person completely responsible for his decisions and consequences for his decisions. No one is gonna hold your hand through life. Yeah, so he's going to have to read and understand the terms before signing a contract, but then again you were always suppose to do that.

Quote (eboyd)
we haven't been able to control is the supply of raw materials and human demand


This is why everything else you said about this doesn't make a difference. Just because we're more efficient in messing with limited resources doesn't mean we're better or above any other species in the animal kingdom, we're still animals facing the same problems all other animals go thru.


livin life like some cheesy movie
J-Breakz Date: Sunday, 25/Dec/11, 5:01 PM | Message # 20

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
why are you assuming they made a poor decision?? maybe that was the best decision available to them at the time?


"A man cannot directly choose his circumstances, but he can choose his thoughts, and so indirectly, yet surely, shape his circumstances."

Quote (eboyd)
why should an individual be rewarded so strongly for being in the right place at the right time when their skills are relatively equal to another person who wasn't as fortunate? that rich person wouldn't be rich at all if he didn't have more/better opportunities than that person who is not rich.


why would this even be anyone's business? a person that stays rich only stays rich because he stays a productive and contributing member of society. Anyone else just wastes the money away. The rich invest the money which create more oppurtunities for other people, which is something that happens everyday. granted, high taxes and overpriced goods are holding back a lot of our markets potential.

you don't get oppurtunities, you take them. and if a family member so wishes to make sure his future generations are taken care of by insuring financial security then thats the point of life anyway. Their genepool is safe from extinction. Learn from people like that.


livin life like some cheesy movie
Menace Date: Sunday, 25/Dec/11, 9:01 PM | Message # 21

Heads
Posts: 6812
Reputation: 0
Offline
blah blah blah, rich people work hard.... blah blah, that's why... you got...

"The richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth, according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations.

The study's authors say their work is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken. They found the richest 1 percent of adults owned 40 percent of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10 percent of adults accounted for 85 percent of the world's total."

Oh wait, studies always lie, god damn commies at the UN. So we got this SMALL ELITE that owns the world's wealth in a feudal manner; well, that begs the question, were the elite working hard? or hard working? biggrin


J-Breakz Date: Monday, 26/Dec/11, 1:05 AM | Message # 22

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
I don't doubt that. I guess it wasn't articulated enough for you to understand what I mean. Let me rephrase that:

Rich people, EXCLUDING POLITICIANS, have to invest time and energy in order to maintain their riches.

Politicians use logical fallacies, lies, and cheap generalizations in order to gain public support and steal from people.

It's funny how many people don't understand the fucked up part about raising taxes on the wealthy. Whenever taxes are raised on the wealthy they just ask their bosses for raises in order to keep up with their expenses and that ends up just raising the prices of goods for everybody. The reason bosses raise their pay is because those wealthy employees are already being paid for a position few people are qualified enough to fill. So when you raise taxes you just fuck everybody over. Rich get richer and poor get poorer.

btw, that study doesn't contradict anything I said about work ethic but I think I still got what you meant


livin life like some cheesy movie
eboyd Date: Monday, 26/Dec/11, 2:10 AM | Message # 23

Heads
Posts: 13338
Reputation: 2
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)
No one is gonna hold your hand through life. Yeah, so he's going to have to read and understand the terms before signing a contract, but then again you were always suppose to do that.


i would simply like to see that both parties to a contract would be allowed to dictate the contracts stipulations equally. as in rather than Company A having Bob sign a contract that they created and either accept the contract as is or choose not to contract, Company A and Bob will create the contract together and each will be able to strike certain stipulations that the other party allows them to strike. is that too much to ask for? that still leaves Bob responsible to read and understand the terms of the contract, and therefore no one is "holding [his] hand through life", but it simply puts each party on equal footing to bargain.

Quote (J-Breakz)
This is why everything else you said about this doesn't make a difference. Just because we're more efficient in messing with limited resources doesn't mean we're better or above any other species in the animal kingdom, we're still animals facing the same problems all other animals go thru.


are you kidding me??? we have technology now that has allowed us to increase human productivity 100 fold since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. demands have been met at just about the same rate as well. there are plenty of raw materials in nature that we continue to access at much improved rates with each improvement in technology and there is no sign of slowing down. only a number of natural resources are in danger of being used at a higher rate than they can be accessed such as oil, and a lot of those resources (including oil) can easily be supplemented by other resources that aren't scarce in nature. and regardless, i was talking about more evenly allocating resources, which could be done regardless of the amount of resources available through the practical application of more efficient economic theories.

Quote (J-Breakz)
"A man cannot directly choose his circumstances, but he can choose his thoughts, and so indirectly, yet surely, shape his circumstances."


bullshit

Quote (J-Breakz)
why would this even be anyone's business?


because there is only a finite amount of money and, for example, if a business gives a high ranking official a large bonus, that bonus has to come out of the pockets of the other workers by either paying them less or not giving the workers a bonus (or at least one of the same magnitude) when the business sees a gain in profits. if all workers are given relatively equal pay for equal work, and extra reward only goes to those who put in extra work, then it wouldn't matter as much.

Quote (J-Breakz)
a person that stays rich only stays rich because he stays a productive and contributing member of society.


or because he knows how to invest/got lucky with investments, found ways to get people to do all the groundwork for him/her, just so happened to create a product that people will buy in far higher demand than most everyone else, etc.

Quote (J-Breakz)
Anyone else just wastes the money away.


yeah, because all other citizens that aren't rich elites are gambling, drug-and-booze addicted, irrational shopaholic megalomaniacs who don't know how to balance their check books. thumb

Quote (J-Breakz)
The rich invest the money which create more oppurtunities for other people, which is something that happens everyday.


or, as is the case most of the time, even in the case of business endeavors undertaken by wealthy and experienced investors such as Donald Trump, they invest their money in businesses that wind up failing quickly and the main people that feel the effects of such a failure are the people who live in the community where the failed business was located.

Quote (J-Breakz)
you don't get oppurtunities, you take them. and if a family member so wishes to make sure his future generations are taken care of by insuring financial security then thats the point of life anyway.


there's a lot more to it than the first statement you made here. where do you "take" those opportunities from? how do you gain access to them? what are the determining factors behind why one individual takes an opportunity and another doesn't? i ask because a lot of times it comes down to nothing more than a person's personality, popularity or favor with superiors, or other traits that have nothing to do with their work ethic.

as to the next point, no, that isn't the point of life. the point of life is whatever the individual decides his specific purpose is. the point of economics, however, is to find ways to fairly distribute scarce resources. i am not going to speak on people working to allow future generations to have financial security, but if they achieve that level of financial security by profiting off of work they (the parents) didn't themselves do, but rather they profited on the backs of the work of other individuals who gained very little, then that financial security was unjustly attained.

Quote (J-Breakz)
Their genepool is safe from extinction. Learn from people like that.


haha wow. financial survival of the fittest eh? lol


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Menace Date: Monday, 26/Dec/11, 10:06 AM | Message # 24

Heads
Posts: 6812
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (Menace)
blah blah blah, rich people work hard.... blah blah, that's why... you got...

"The richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth, according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations.

The study's authors say their work is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken. They found the richest 1 percent of adults owned 40 percent of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10 percent of adults accounted for 85 percent of the world's total."

Oh wait, studies always lie, god damn commies at the UN. So we got this SMALL ELITE that owns the world's wealth in a feudal manner; well, that begs the question, were the elite working hard? or hard working?


Nobody seems to answer to my dilemma here. Are they working hard? or hard working? I insist on this question, because J Breakz seems to deal in more Utopian illusions than all anarchists. If the basis for wealth and prosperity was and is hard work and initiative, we wouldn't have this HUGE gap between social classes. These numbers are ridiculously huge, and TRUE nonetheless. And this is classically called "concentration and centralization of CAPITAL", based upon a theory called "Capital accumulation" which is accepted by everyone in mainstream economics. Check here a short introduction of it, http://www.economictheories.org/2008....nd.html


J-Breakz Date: Thursday, 12/Jan/12, 8:00 AM | Message # 25

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
i already answered your question menace

livin life like some cheesy movie
J-Breakz Date: Thursday, 12/Jan/12, 8:01 AM | Message # 26

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote
i would simply like to see that both parties to a contract would be allowed to dictate the contracts stipulations equally. as in rather than Company A having Bob sign a contract that they created and either accept the contract as is or choose not to contract, Company A and Bob will create the contract together and each will be able to strike certain stipulations that the other party allows them to strike. is that too much to ask for? that still leaves Bob responsible to read and understand the terms of the contract, and therefore no one is "holding [his] hand through life", but it simply puts each party on equal footing to bargain.

you would just end up with the same contracts..

Quote
are you kidding me??? we have technology now that has allowed us to increase human productivity 100 fold since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. demands have been met at just about the same rate as well. there are plenty of raw materials in nature that we continue to access at much improved rates with each improvement in technology and there is no sign of slowing down. only a number of natural resources are in danger of being used at a higher rate than they can be accessed such as oil, and a lot of those resources (including oil) can easily be supplemented by other resources that aren't scarce in nature. and regardless, i was talking about more evenly allocating resources, which could be done regardless of the amount of resources available through the practical application of more efficient economic theories.

i thought u were tryn to argue that humans are superior to other animals which productivity has nothing to do with but ok

Quote
bullshit

u should try thinking that way............. might get a date

Quote
because there is only a finite amount of money and, for example, if a business gives a high ranking official a large bonus, that bonus has to come out of the pockets of the other workers by either paying them less or not giving the workers a bonus (or at least one of the same magnitude) when the business sees a gain in profits. if all workers are given relatively equal pay for equal work, and extra reward only goes to those who put in extra work, then it wouldn't matter as much.

money and its value is all made up, theres an infinite amount. it just depends on what everyone else agrees you should have.

businesses have their own bank accounts with money. ive never heard of employees in a department getting money taken out of a single paycheck because the ceo wanted to give the vice president a bonus.

Quote
or because he knows how to invest/got lucky with investments, just so happened to create a product that people will buy in far higher demand than most everyone else, etc.


that can all be called contributing to society

Quote
found ways to get people to do all the groundwork for him/her,

i dont know what this means

Quote
yeah, because all other citizens that aren't rich elites are gambling, drug-and-booze addicted, irrational shopaholic megalomaniacs who don't know how to balance their check books.

only u would make ridiculous assumptions like that... even tho i fit that description. i never said people who arent rich are addicts but i do guarantee you that most people rather have a beer or sit and watch tv after work instead of picking up a book that could further their career. hell i smoke pot and throw beats in my room.. on my mpc

Quote
or, as is the case most of the time, even in the case of business endeavors undertaken by wealthy and experienced investors such as Donald Trump, they invest their money in businesses that wind up failing quickly and the main people that feel the effects of such a failure are the people who live in the community where the failed business was located.

investors can only see a demand that hasnt been met and an oppurtunity to exploit that. the majority of businesses do fail... thats why its such an accomplishment to own and run a successful business and they get to decide what to do with their business... cuz they're the ones that took all the risk in starting it and would be the ones to suffer the most if it tanked. oh wait but i know ur next argument.

"oh nah! but every investor is super rich and can afford to lose plenty of money"

^^ this is the attitude that will have u go back to being broke if ur ever rich. business owners dont expect there endeavors to fail wen they begin them.

Quote
there's a lot more to it than the first statement you made here. where do you "take" those opportunities from? how do you gain access to them? what are the determining factors behind why one individual takes an opportunity and another doesn't? i ask because a lot of times it comes down to nothing more than a person's personality, popularity or favor with superiors, or other traits that have nothing to do with their work ethic.

i know i already used this example but i'll use it again. Where do you get dates from? how do you gain access into a girls pants? what are the determining factors behind why one individual takes an oppurtunity and another doesn't?

it just depends on how much you want it. and there are plenty of ugly ass guys, inside or out, that can get dates because they want it. There's oppurtunities that pop up all the time in the world. Have you ever heard of the secret? that book that talks about if u want something then think like you can get it or already have it? The reason why it works isnt magic, its because you become more aware of oppurtunities that come up. and because (for the sake of the example) you think like you can get with a certain girl instead of doubting yourself then your brain is able to come up with ways to.. woo her or watever.

and it makes sense why i would say people aren't just entitled to having a spouse, regardless of how lacking in charm their natural personality they were born with is. they have to be wanted by someone first by finding out what some girl wants in a guy and meeting that "demand".

people arent just entitled to jobs or pay. they have to be able to do something that people want. work that will meet a certain demand.

Quote

haha wow. financial survival of the fittest eh? lol

No, this has nothing to do with anyone but yourself. its not like a competition.

i said family at first but that wasnt what i meant.


livin life like some cheesy movie
J-Breakz Date: Thursday, 12/Jan/12, 7:41 PM | Message # 27

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
btw ur link to the article just supports my argument that u can only guess future consumer demand and preference but you can't accurately predict it.

livin life like some cheesy movie
J-Breakz Date: Monday, 30/Jan/12, 1:14 AM | Message # 28

Heads
Posts: 2174
Reputation: 0
Offline
convo terminated

livin life like some cheesy movie
eboyd Date: Tuesday, 31/Jan/12, 3:53 PM | Message # 29

Heads
Posts: 13338
Reputation: 2
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)
convo terminated


lol i didn't even realize you commented a while ago. hold up.

Quote (J-Breakz)
you would just end up with the same contracts..


maybe you don't understand what i mean. yes, many contracts, especially those between two individuals, are fully mutual. however, employment contracts, for example, are written by the agencies that are employing the individuals and the individuals don't have the power to strike items from or propose new items to the contract and resubmit the contract to the agency. there should also be the option of third party involvement to ensure that the bargain itself is completely equal and that the person seeking employment doesn't get duped into signing a contract that isn't in his best interest because of tricky language the agency places in the contract.

Quote (J-Breakz)
i thought u were tryn to argue that humans are superior to other animals which productivity has nothing to do with but ok


the only difference between humans and other animals, beyond biochemical properties (even though it is a result of our biochemical properties), is that we are far more intelligent than the next most intelligent animal. this intelligence has allowed us to create technology which has made us more efficient. we are able to excavate natural resources we once could not, mass produce things that were once hard to come by, make synthetic substitutes for materials that are still scarce to this day, etc. that is why, even though we were (are arguably still are) in a recession that is almost comparable to the Great Depression, we didn't have anywhere near the number of people starving to death or dying from curable diseases because they couldn't afford the necessary medication to get rid of their illness. we have also seen a generally steady rate by which less and less people throughout the world are starving regardless of the poverty rate. however, all of this still happens far too often and it is because we still have huge wealth disparities that are unjustified. when i say that i mean that both the manual laborer and his bosses bosses boss who makes one hundred times the money he does work their asses off and are productive. the boss may work a bit harder and be a bit more productive in a sense, but there is no amount of hard work and productivity that justifies paying the boss that much more than the laborer especially considering that, in this economy, it is a struggle for people like that laborer to even put food on the table.

Quote (J-Breakz)
u should try thinking that way............. might get a date


with regards to getting a date you are probably right. there is no physical requirement for an individual to procreate for their own survival. however, we have specific requirements for survival that include proper nourishment, medical care, etc., and so while it is understandable that there should be a competition between members of the same sex to find a mate to procreate with, if we have the ability to cooperate and ensure that as many people have basic necessities as possible, then it is in the best interest of our civilization and the people that it is made up of to ensure at least a somewhat even distribution of said resources. that is not to say that the people who work their asses off should make the same as lazy people who ride their coattails, even in terms of necessities when they are scarce. however, saying that if someone thinks positive thoughts and manifests a destiny of wealth that they will get that wealth is perpetuating a competition between individuals to achieve that wealth and that means there will be those that achieve it and those that don't. i am suggesting that instead we think positively for humanity and manifest a reality where everyone who works hard and is productive, regardless of their thoughts, is compensated for what they do. at the end of the day, while some people will still be richer than others, the gap between rich and poor will be far smaller than it is now and there will be a gigantic middle class that make relatively the same amount of money and live rather comfortably.

Quote (J-Breakz)
money and its value is all made up, theres an infinite amount.


there is an infinite amount of money since our money is fiat money, however, there aren't an infinite amount of resources which that money is used to represent, so when our government makes more money, the value of that money decreases because it has to meet the value (usually in scarcity) of the products it is being used to purchase. therefore, when one person has more money, he has more access to the things he needs and wants than someone who has less money. the guy who is super rich is going to use most of his money to buy luxuries which puts a little money back into the pockets of less wealthy individuals, but it still mainly enriches someone else with a lot of money. for example, when the CEO of Walmart buys his Ferrari, the majority of that money goes into the company which is also set up to pay the CEO and other high ranking financial officials a lot more than they pay their workers and so the cycle continues. in the meantime, people doing the groundwork for these companies often can't afford groceries on a weekly basis. it's not that they don't work hard, aren't productive or can't balance a check book. it is the fact that there are finite resources and money, which gives people control over those resources, is unevenly distributed, regardless of whether or not there is an infinite amount of it.

Quote (J-Breakz)
businesses have their own bank accounts with money. ive never heard of employees in a department getting money taken out of a single paycheck because the ceo wanted to give the vice president a bonus.


that's not what i mean. i am not saying that money is taken out of their paycheck to fulfill someone else's bonus. however, when a company sees a surge in profits, after they cover business expenses, they begin profit sharing, and the first people that get that money, who see about 80-90% of it, are the employees at the top of the pyramid. that may not be actually taking money from the workers, but it is virtually the same thing.

Quote (J-Breakz)
that can all be called contributing to society


and so can winning the lottery because a percentage of that lottery money goes into public school funding, but that doesn't change the fact that the individual who won the lottery, or in this case "won" at stocks, got lucky that he bought the right ticket/stock investment. in the mean time there are others who actually work for their keep who make a fraction of a fraction of what those people make.

Quote (J-Breakz)
i dont know what this means


the people hired by the owner to build his business and help him run it. the people who do all the leg work basically. i am not implying that an owner does nothing, but very rarely is the owner the only person that put in hard work to run their business, and when it is only them, it is only a very small business.

Quote (J-Breakz)
i never said people who arent rich are addicts but i do guarantee you that most people rather have a beer or sit and watch tv after work instead of picking up a book that could further their career.


what about those that will pick up a book to further their situation but are still in that situation?

Quote (J-Breakz)
investors can only see a demand that hasnt been met and an oppurtunity to exploit that.


exactly! hence my point that one aspect of investing is luck. true economics is not about gambling. it is about allocating resources in a controlled fashion. why should investors be rewarded extra (and we're talking about A LOT of extra reward) for getting lucky? i can understand if we were talking about a casino table here, but we're talking about peoples' lives.

Quote (J-Breakz)
the majority of businesses do fail... thats why its such an accomplishment to own and run a successful business and they get to decide what to do with their business... cuz they're the ones that took all the risk in starting it and would be the ones to suffer the most if it tanked.


actually, on the contrary, there has been new, recent research on this subject that has contradicted this. i was surprised to find a few articles on this subject the other day. these studies suggest that, in reality, about 50% of startup businesses survive at least their first 5 years:

http://smallbiztrends.com/2008/04/startup-failure-rates.html

and btw, depending on the community and size of the business, it may actually be the community that suffers the most from business failure, as has been the case with the shut down of multiple car manufacturing factories for companies like Ford and Chevrolet around the country in the past couple of years.

Quote (J-Breakz)
people arent just entitled to jobs or pay. they have to be able to do something that people want. work that will meet a certain demand.


what demands are you referring to? i know plenty of people that make pennies working their asses off at a workplace where they fulfill a lot of demands. are you referring to the demands of customers or of their bosses? because it is their bosses demands that ultimately decide how much they make. if they are just a lowly member in the business, even if they work their ass off and are highly productive and able to meet the customers' demands, they are not going to make much. but if they have some specific desirable trait that their boss likes, they will move up in rank quickly and make a lot more money. usually this trait is based on personality (ie: that person can control a group of people, has innate communication skills, etc.) or something else that has nothing to do with productivity or meeting the customers' demands.


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Menace Date: Wednesday, 01/Feb/12, 2:28 PM | Message # 30

Heads
Posts: 6812
Reputation: 0
Offline
If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise (as most Republicans put it), every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. Hell, everyone of us would be. Being a scumbag, a predator and a capital manipulator isn't work.

Forum » Knowledge » Politics/Economics » Anarchism & Occupy Wall Street
Page 2 of 3«123»
Search: