MARCELL DAREUS POWER

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ read this, along with emma goldman, michael albert, and then after all that, read the communist manifesto. then, maybe then, you will understand what exploitation is along with the contradiction and crisis in capitalism... interest actually comes from the time value theory of money or theory of waiting... and i said different forms of lending have different forms of risk... and i argued that labor also takes great risk...

:wallbash:

those conversions on 2nd/3rd and short is incredible value...

a big reason for that is colin brown, chad rinehart, and chris hairston adding great value as depth. they would start for most teams. i think sanders can be decent too.... asper and jasper should go on the ps

tom, you just repeated what i said. " you would be a dick to charge interest on a paint brush", pointing out the example was not salient.... its not my fault you dont understand surplus value, an empirical fact of use value...

well, since the hammer example was meant to be sarcastic, and a metaphor, i see you have now taken this literally. a more salient example would be a bar or restaurant. dealing with your example, and being that a paint brush is pretty much non-consequential, i doubt you would be a dick if this was a real world transaction and charge interest on a !@#$ing paint brush. as long as johnny give you back your paint brush, i dont see what the big deal is. a better example would be tens of thousands in painting supplies and materials used by 5 workers with some capitalist painting company. and an even more relevant example would be if there were only 3 or 4 painting companies in the world. e.g. banks, land, rent, big business... but even with a small painting business, profits will overtake the initial cost of supplies, and pretty soon, the painting owner will be getting fat on cash for doing nothing. all the new supplies, new paint, tools will be purchased by labor from the use value of labor. labor would be creating all the new capital, yet not have ownership.

ok, this is beyond immature for you tom. regardless of he said she said. i gave the quotes and was clear as day about profit for weeks. whether or not you dont think i said it, im saying it now. so deal with the argument of go back to timeout in the corner...

whats the other option? taxes are at an all time low? if we lower them more, they will just sit on the cash... this implies there is real money that doesnt come from labor in a market? no, the real money created by labor has been stolen :wallbash:

, innovation would completely stagnate. Incentives matter. This is the difference between reading a book thinking "Hey! This is fair!" and then realizing what those kinds of ideas would look like in the world where people live, respond, and work. The reason that the 'state' (I'm assuming you mean the law) plays this role is because, by and large, most people seem to realize that That innovation, wealth creation, and ever higher standards of living come from investment. From trial and error. From success and failure. None of which would exist without making sure that the Without upside, there is no investment. the incentive is profit depending on what the market wants for your product... the incentive is profit, just like with interest. capital and money invested are the same thing. the both represent the value of labor in a market. i said im against capital hierachy, (ie free money), but for free markets with some basic rules of the road. there are many different structures that can exist in markets.... there are no utopias, only better and worse political systems... labor in any system creates the higher standard of living. all the surplus value is created by labor. this is literally fact. e.g. --- when you give me 5$ and i pay you back 7$, you still dont own all my labor. same with a hammer. when i pay you back the value of the hammer plus interest, this does not mean you own all my labor and can claim the houses i create. i paid you back already the value plus more of the hammer. same goes for land or any other form of investment or capital... you dont get to sit back forever, not work, and claim what i work for. there is another name for that, feudalism.... how else do you think the kennedy family got rich buying all that land in chicago.... - may 28th again, for profits...

here is what i said. this was before the other comment, obviously you are trying to twist words, because the implication was always to give back the hammer with a profit motive for letting someone borrow your property. ie through money, or just giving tools back after use value is gained in money... i have always said transactions can have profit, and that base value should always be paid back. otherwise you are stealing, which is exactly what capitalism in its current form does... it take infinte surplus value, ie unpaid labor... again, you are arguing with the basic nature of loans, a key tenet of capitalism. you are actually arguing with your own ideology.

tom, when i said i give you the hammer back, i assumed you were smart enough to understand implied interest. even when it was not mentioned, i said this.... i kept saying loans are fine with interest, ive only been saying it now for over 2 weeks.... this is why i said your reward is nothing, nothing as far as use value... i never said, you should not get your hammer back...

, in a feeble attempt to avoid looking like an ass. When, in truth, you're making yourself look like an even bigger ass. tom, in your feeble attempt, you are looking like an ass. i never said no profits, i said they cant go on forever, pointing out surplus value, ie unpaid labor towards capital... im simply advocating loans with interest, and once paid off, labor should own the means of production and compete in a market. what you want is a welfare system, supported by labor.

tom, if i pay you back the value of your hammer plus 10$.... thats what i mean. sry for the miscommunication. i guess im an idiot. go ahead and say it... christ...!

the govt has only given more power to corporations and banks/financial institutions. taxes- all time low regulations- favor big business, glass steagle gone for example current spending- drug program/2 wars/bush tax cuts/ all not paid for. and the recession which the banks caused -mainly aig, created half the debt... after the bailout and all the debt, big business is sitting on 2 trillion. good or bad, they are not investing... so the question is, if the private sector will not hire, who will? the govt must pay for a jobs bill, whatever that may be. and the rich will have to pay for it. supply side only works if the wealthy class actually invests. but since europe is causing pause, i dont see how that would work.... whats the other option?

all the other quotes refer to our banking system, which yes, have no risk. they create money out of thin air and are bailed out by the state or fed with more fake money... capital is inherently unproducitve after surplus value surpasses capital... labor is facutally and objectively creating new capital, wages, profits, and overhead by themselves... that is what i said. without labor it just sits there... you must have use value... yes capital has no risk in this process because labor is creating everything... this is like me giving joe blow 100$ and then you claim risk, wtf???

the jets are talented but the meltdown will happen. the team chemistry is horrible. revis, cromartie, tebow/sanchez qb controversy, holmes, and a few others are nothing but cancers...

after surplus value overtakes capital, they are producing everything...(nevermind that in your model you were the labor). Labor really bears all the risk because if the business fails, they lose their jobs. **Now I will blur the lines and switch intermittently between debt and investment concepts, and business examples ranging from a capital expansion project, a start up sole proprietorship, and a never before seen start up international conglomerate. So stay with me.** If Walmart misses earnings next year, they will lay off labor or close stores, but managment still gets paid. See, how that works? Labor assumes all the risk (again ignore the fact that this has nothing to do with your example). If your business goes under, all your employees lose their jobs too while you only lose your house. risk is proportional to wealth, and again, goes all towards labor once the loan is paid off... So if you try and start up your own Walmart over night, they can sell bikes for less than you can because they have lower risk, ie: advertising. If I'm a farmer and I bought the land for $15, I'm only entitled to earn profit on the land until the initial outlay is paid off, then I'm done ( because what the f#$% does "you're only entitled to earn profit until the initial outlay is paid off" mean anyway?). This is true because getting a free ride ie: indefinite interest, ie: capital gains, ie: arbitray nonconsensual labor rape, isn't like fair or whatever and the point of business should be fairness which is the strongest incentive, ie: profit, ie: exploitation. any loan can get a profit, the incentive is there. whether a business fails, free cash flow, low wages have nothing to do with this example because they cant diminish use value dummy , you cant preserve principal value when exploiting labor... what is so ironic, you !@#$tards are arguing against loans with interest... a major tenet in capitalism. I have a youtube video you should watch. yes, thats a major part of our current banking system, the fractional reserve system and the fed supplying free money....

So if work creates loans...work doesn't create anything, because its not real money. Actually...at this point, I know exactly what you're trying (and failing, badly) to say better than you do. But it's too much fun watching you struggle with all the nonsense you've already posted. the fractional reserve system and fed... If I don't give him an additional share of the profits, on top of his commission....is he being exploited? If they don't, then, we aren't being "democratic" are we? No, the people who put up their money, take all the risk themselves, and have to cover all the losses themselves, depending on if that's how the corporation was organized. Show me workers who all pay into a company, to get it started. ...and I'll show you....an LLC. God forbid somebody already came up with a way to do this....and it wasn't Noam Chomsky Yes, another form of capitalist company....that has managers instead of stockholders....who all put in various sums of money or other assets, and receive equity in return. It's the simplest form of corporation...that was specifically created by Congress to help small business people, a small group of farmers, etc., who can't afford a big deal...get themselves protected by corporate laws....so now they can exploit their workers too. "It's just so ridiculous" 1st quote- they are still producing the profits for your business. their service in a myriad of forms is use value. because you are !@#$ing stupid, ill spell it out for you. with the above example, heres what i want you to do... buy a big lot, buy 100 new cars, and put up a sign saying " cars for sale". this is where the epiphany should come in.... DONT SHOW UP. NEVER SHOW UP. no admin, no paperwork to fill out, no receptionist, no cars salesman, no security, no insurance, nothing. just sit at home and see if you get any profits. in fact, see if the cars are there at the end of the month... now since your above statement was down the rabbit hole of glenn beck economics, ill drag you out. those profits are generated by service. when those profits overtake the initial loan, again, youre done. 2nd quote- like any loan, if business x fails before the loan is paid off you owe a debt to that person. yes, its not democratic until its paid off. i agree with you there... once surplus value overtakes the loan, then it belongs to co-op x.... again, youre done...

this literally made no sense. im simply saying authority must have a reason for their authority. e.g. aptitude/consent I said you wouldn't understand. That doesn't mean...in the next post, you will. Your analysis is not only retarded, it is again, refuted by my existence. Yeah...and I have such power over them, that I help them not work for me anymore. It's an evil plan...losing well trained resources...to a large company...with no return. again, if youre working, and other people work, then im not sure what the problem is... their use value is whats also creating wealth, to deny this is to deny reality. if you are not working, then their use value is creating all your profits... otherwise, the computers just sit there and nothing happens...lol yes, loans must be paid back.... BUT NOT PAST INTEREST FOREVER... YES, IF YOU WORK, AND OTHERS WORK, THEN EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN PROFITS. IT SHOULD BE DEMOCRATIC. IF YOU DONT WANT TO, THEN DONT HIRE ANYONE IN THE COLLECTIVE PROCESS OF CREATING WEALTH... obviously in a market association, (protecting surplus value, ie private property of labor), some people might make more than others. it simply depends on demand and politics in a market. anyone, anywhere can associate or dissociate with anyone. as long as property from work is protected... if you work, and create something, that is yours. if you dont work, you dont get anything. if you give out a loan, you should get your money back plus interest. thats it... you dont get to buy capital, not work, have no reason for authority, and claim all the profits from labor in a service industry. thats dumb as !@#$. thats like buying a building, buying computers, and then you sit back and do nothing while lawyers do all the work. if you work, then fine, if not, then shut the !@#$ up after i paid back your loan. youre done.... Y again, if someone is getting paid for something they had nothing to do with or didnt work to create, then they shouldnt get the money. if someone is simply selling something, that is labor, mental and maybe some little physical labor. service is still labor .....overhead, wages, profits.... once profits and overhead from use value surpass the initial cost of capital, youre done. otherwise, you are getting money for nothing. if someone gets paid commision for the cars they sell, eventually all that work is creating all the cash to buy new cars. there is no way of getting around this because capital is finite. it doesnt expand unless some form of labor is added to it. the only way around this would be if 1 person bought the 200 cars and sold all of them himself... which happens sometimes with smaller dealerships, like a 20 car lot... Good luck with that. I will not respond again, until you demonstrate a genuine effort to address that. Anything else is a waste of time.

shep called the d at lsu!

equity can come from labor, like doing stuff to your house, or rising market value, which also comes from labor, ie more wealth created from labor produciton, ( through loans and work) which created more demand or advertising etc etc... its the same thing dummy work creates loans, loans create opportunity for more work. ive only been saying it for a week now... again, money doesnt grow on trees, except for the banking system...

...but none of that would exist without it. So, my raw materials...actually more than u can probably understand....suffice it to say, I get raw materials from clients, not employees, or suppliers. this still adds labor value to whatever you have. without it, you would just there doing the service, and training yourself. and again, if you are working, hey, i dont have any problem with this. you should have a say in the profits generated, obviously. but it cant be arbitrary management... If I go to get a new line of credit from a bank....believe me...the very last thing I want to do is bring my "labor" along. For many, their mere appearance would cause the bank to call the police. Now, we are working on that. But, in the meantime...I deal with the getting of more capital...and making it "emerge" in my company's bank account. if people dont work, your raw materials are worth ****... they just sit there. the most you can do is sell the materials back for what you bought them for, if youre lucky... , in hopes that they will learn from me, and then quit, and then start their own exploitation of labor activities. The sting of their lashes...will be interesting, to say the least. For example, one kid worked here for 3 years, and now he works at Google. He wanted the big time, told me before I hired him, and we got that done together. relax, we understand you want power over people... But yeah...he was so exploited...by doing integrations of my code, which he didn't write, with other people's code, that he didn't write. The people that paid us, were paying us for that work...out of which his salary/benefits was paid, but were also paying us for my code. How's he being exploited in that model? Like I said, my very existence proves you are full of schit. And, technically, so does DC_Tom's. if its simply a service industry, like a law firm, and you are not doing anything but you gave some loan some years ago, again, if its paid off, bye bye! youre done... the profits generated to buy new raw materials comes from labor ( in the traditional capital setting, ie a bar/factory/restaurant).... e.g.- if you just bought x raw materials, and then sold x raw materials, your net gain would be zero. but you do get credit for a loan. you are letting someone borrow your initial money or capital. its fair for someone to pay you back your capital plus interest. again, if you bought the raw materials, and then added labor to make something, you wouldnt give profits of your labor value to the person who sold you the raw materials. thats a joke. and if the raw materials were loaned either through capital or a money loan, you would pay back base value plus interest. if capital can self replicate all by itself, well hell, lets end poverty and world hunger right now. let the raw materials just start coming together on their own. let the walmart building just sell itself. no more admin, no more fixing things, no more putting stuff together, no more farming, etc etc. let the money magically flow in...

yes. do you think money just grows on trees? if i work for whatever, and save up money, i can now loan money to you if i want.... this is possibly the dumbest question ever...

any part of labor in a capital framework will create new capital. whether it be an idea, capital, a loan, etc. new capital emerges from use value, ie labor value. this is what creates profit. when that profit which labor produces overtakes the initial loan, you are done. why? because you are not doing anything, labor is. they are producing the capital, they are producing the overhead, they are paying their own wages, they are producing the profit. if you were doing the work yourself, would you keep paying the person who sold you the raw materials? of course not...