MARCELL DAREUS POWER

it was the smell of ann coulter...

the very fact that you have brietbart as your pic shows me you are not very bright... i wouldnt look up to these idiots on this board man. they are rejecting facts... like econ 101 facts...

the man problem is i dont see carder, bradham, mckillop, and moats getting cut. thats the 4 standard backup lbs right there... batten vs moore, who would you take at 5th de?

what you right wing hacks dont want to admit, either because you know capitalism is really welfare for the rich, or you are too stupid, is that surplus value is exploitation. you suffer capital losses when you sell things for less than what you bought them for. this can happen for various reasons. now go listen to rush limbaugh you !@#$tard!

no. are you really this dense? i mean really? when your selling price is constantly less than your purchasing price, you will eventually fail... no really they are the same... all economists will tell you this. its a mathematical fact. yes, land is not productive after the surplus value overtakes capital value... its the same as debt. its literally the equivalent of finding new land that nobody has and just sitting there. hey, maybe you can eat the grass?? lol i said indefinite interest and capital gains are the same... Capital gains may refer to "investment income" that arises in relation to real assets, such as property; financial assets, such as shares/stocks or bonds; and intangible assets such as goodwill. --- wiki :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash

your implication was that he was being circular, which he wasnt... idiot!

try saying that to a sweatshop worker working for walmart pissing down his leg... !@#$ing idiot!

If a business fails, it fails. i never said there is no capital loss. i said when a business is operating and profitable, the surplus value will eventually and quickly grow past the cost of capital and interest just like any other loan. this is not a new concept, this is not made up, this has been around for 150 years. its a proven mathematical fact.

do you know how to read? i said the capitalist, not managers! what a !@#$ing idiot! cant handle truth? your free ride is over !@#$!!!!!!!! but hey, what can i expect from someone who has koolaid as his pic... oh yeah, youre a !@#$ing idiot!

he used a tenet of evolution, not the whole concept. dna, paleontolgoy, natural selection, mutation, are all concepts of evolution that are empirical. youre a !@#$ing idiot...

its a different name but the same concept. you continually give surplus value past capital value plus interest. because you are too stupid to understand this, i will say you are just a moron, instead of a !@#$ing moron... the names are different, not the concept. its called being synonymous.... what a !@#$ing idiot!

another phrase for surplus value or capital gains...

the amount of risk is different because risk is dependent on the amount of capital, adevertisement, getting cheaper labor, efficiency, being able to higher smarter people the person with less money cannot do that, enhancing his risk. and yes, the consequences are different. if x has more money than y, and the loan is the same, x will have a better chance. you dont get how indefinite interest on a loan is really bad???

when my surplus value produced surpasses capital and interest, i dont owe you any more money, otherwise, its unpaid labor. ie indefinite interest. so, ....... when you give me 100$ and charge me 110 for interest, once my loan is paid off, im done with you. raw materials are worth 100$. the market value through labor adds to this. this is what a wage is. so say the raw materials are worth, 100$, and the final end product is worth 200$. this means labor should get say 80$. minus 20 for new overhead cost. but this leaves the owner of capital with no profit on his original loan of 100$. this is where interest or profit comes in. so the owner only pays labor 40$. this is legit and fine, but cant go on forever, otherwise surplus value will overtake the original cost of capital. ie a reward for doing nothing. its indefinite interest if capital is not treated like regular loans. its exploitation. you call it capital gains, i call it indefinite interest. they are the same thing... its a free ride!

your ability to assume risk because you are wealthier does make it dependent. if person x has way less money than person y, than y can buy more raw material, hire smarter people, buy more property, get more advertisement, lowering the risk because of his/her wealth. in fact, x might not even take the risk because of y. e.g. joe blow shop vs walmart... 2. NO loans are risk free. The outcome does not change the uncertain nature of repayment of capital and interest. its risk free in that you can just print more money. i know its uncertain, thats not why its not risky. its not risky because you can just print new money... ie, it doesnt matter what the outcome is.... 3. So I pay the bank interest on my loan because they worked for the money they're lending? So my floating interest rate moves depending on how hard they worked, right? But why does my rate change if they've already performed the work? And what does a credit history have to do with lending? I guess people with poor credit must just seek out loans from lenders who worked extra hard for the money? That is the most profoundly ignorant statement you've made yet. Interest is a reflection of credit risk. Any statement to the contrary is entirely false. i agree, i never said that. this is why walmart will have a lower interest rate opening a bar than joe blow plummer opening a bar. so this contradicts your last statement that wealth plays no role in how much risk there is. credit history has to do with weighing the risk when you give someone a loan. the reason you do this is becasue your loan is of value to you. why? because you worked for it retard!!!!!!!!! :doh: 4. There is no such thing as indefinite interest, only indefinite capital gains. Again, you blend investment concepts and principles with lending principles, one of the many sources of your tragic misunderstandings of our financial system. Investment and lending may be the same to you, but that's only because you're an idiot. im saying they are the same. raw materials are worth money becaue of their market value, ie work. same with money. money exchanges the value of labor on a market. :doh: indefinite capital gains is indefinite interest. retard! work=object=object sold on market= money. 5. That is not a sentence and no meaning can be derived from the that collection of words. Hows the marginal productivity argument working out for you? its your theory dumbass, not mine. thats why i disagree with it... no, thats not what i said. this is why austrian economists like ron paul wanted all currency backed by gold or real assets on a market. no, this does not mean they are from austria...

the fractional reserve system creates money out of thin air. its not from deposits... the fed is the same. only difference is a ratio.

when my surplus value produced surpasses capital and interest, i dont owe you any more money, otherwise, its unpaid labor. ie indefinite interest. so, ....... when you give me 100$ and charge me 110 for interest, once my loan is paid off, im done with you. raw materials are worth 100$. the market value through labor adds to this. this is what a wage is. so say the raw materials are worth, 100$, and the final end product is worth 200$. this means labor should get say 80$. minus 20 for new overhead cost. but this leaves the owner of capital with no profit on his original loan of 100$. this is where interest or profit comes in. so the owner only pays labor 40$. this is legit and fine, but cant go on forever, otherwise surplus value will overtake the original cost of capital. ie a reward for doing nothing. its indefinite interest if capital is not treated like regular loans. its exploitation.

than stop supporting slavery!

I've never encountered such a poor understanding of interest. How is ROI interest? He seems to draw no distinction between investment and lending/borrowing. Just a minor detail. I eagerly await MDP to explain more mathematical facts while he expands on his theory that probability, volatility, and the unknown, the basis of financial risk, are all dependent upon the size of the investment. no retard, i said 5$ of risk for someone who makes 10$ is more of a risk than someone with 5 million. they have more resources, capital, and info. i never said all loans are risk free, i said some are. and some are less than others... and the amount of risk is independent of profits. the reason you get profits is because of intelligence, skill, labor, innovation, efficiency,wealth, environment, etc. not risk. the reason you win the horse race is because of calculation and a little luck, not because of a risk. people take all kinds of risks everyday, this doesnt create profit or say you have the right to profit. even when labor takes risk on, thats not why they get profits nor is it the reason they have a right to those profits, its because they workded for it! the reason you owe money to someone when they give you a loan is not because of risk, its because they worked for it... my complaint is that capital is not treated as a loan, when in principle its the same thing. you labor for money, and you labor, (in some cases), for capital. this creates indefinite interest, ie, unpaid labor... because of surplus value, ie unpaid labor. its indefinite interest.... what an idiot... :wallbash:

except thats not what i said. what an idiot...

good! i care about workers rights! so !@#$ off idiot! and !@#$ milton freidman! guy was an idiot!

As for the rambling italicized statements, I am aware that profits are not shared equally, nor should they be. If I am to address the rest of that sentence than you'll have to clarify who the different parties are in this inane example. And I am fully aware that money is lended with interest every day. What is your point? Why do you think that interest is risk when interest isclearly the premium received in exhcange for assuming credit risk? You do realize that during the loan application process, the lender is unaware of which loans will be paid in full upon maturity, right? That is why ALL loans are risky. Hindsight means nothing, and the outcome has no bearing upon the risk assumed up front. If you bet your life savings on a horse race, and you win to the tune of 5% of your original investment, does that mean that the bet was inherently risk free? no. im simply stating, generally speaking, when a business like wal-mart which is ubiquitous, starts somewhere new, they have so much capital and leverage, they can out compete the competition. their amount of wealth and capital obviously lessens the risk. its proportional to how much wealth you have and how much capital you have among other factors as you stated. you are trying to justify indefinte interest, ie a reward for nothing. again, risk after labor pays off capital and interest belongs solely to labor. this is a mathematic fact. there is no risk for capital in this example, and there is no risk for our current banking system. and you last example speaks to my side of the argument. i told you capital deserves payment and interest becasue of their finite risk, ie the example you just gave. as dc tom would say, you are a !@#$ing idiot! "So does "risk" explain or justify non-labour income? No, anarchists argue. This is for five reasons. Firstly, the returns on property income are utterly independent on the amount of risk involved. Secondly, all human acts involve risk of some kind and so why should property owners gain exclusively from it? Thirdly, risk as such it not rewarded, only successful risks are and what constitutes success is dependent on production, i.e. exploiting labour. Fourthly, most "risk" related non-labour income today plays no part in aiding production and, indeed, is simply not that risky due to state intervention. Fifthly, risk in this context is not independent of owning capital and, consequently, the arguments against "waiting" and innovation apply equally to this rationale. In other words, "risk" is simply yet another excuse to reward the rich for being wealthy." -- anarchist faq

open minded to accept slavery?

total bs. if you look at the modern era, or before balfour, from the late 1800s to balfour the population was 90-75% palestinian... please send your zionist racism somewhere else, the palestinians had nothing to do with the jews being persecuted. http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636#graph1

when they failed to score twice after being up 12-3, that was horrible. they could have taken the giants out of their game plan and put the game away with their lethal pass rush...