Facebook Douche Renounces American Citizenship

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

I never suggested that profits be given to the land or buried in the field. That would just be silly.

 

Your base assumption that operating a business is not work because the land owner is not in the field is fallacious. Labor does not guarantee profit. Overhead costs can be paid for by what labor produces, except for when they can't. If your assumption were true, no business would ever shutter or file for bankruptcy protection.

 

So either investment is labor, or investment should reap no rewards? The bolded makes no sense. As I've shown you, there is no such thing as free wealth as profit, either by operating a business or investment is not guaranteed. While you scrutinize the winners in the game, you make no mention of the losers. You love to talk about the "free wealth" stolen by the Apple shareholder from the Chinese slave labor, but what about the parasite who lost his shirt going long NFLX? Tell him about his free wealth. Even though the investor's $300 became $70 in one week, labor got paid in full on Friday.

 

there is risk relative to wealth. so if your worth millions and billions, there is little/no risk. risk gets smaller as you get richer. its proportional...

 

risk relative to banking is zero. " there is no consideration "... the money is made out of thin air.

 

as ive already explained, capital is not productive. so while the raw materials must be paid for, (only raw materials should be paid for).

 

so take the land example. obviously the land owner bought the land. in some cases they didnt, but lets not deal with inheritance for now.

 

assuming this, to make it simple, this land cost 100,000$. the profits generated by actual work will quickly take over this price. it will happen fast depending on demand. this non-labor income is systematic and is taking advantage of unpaid labor.

 

as far as the risk in buying the land,

 

1- the loan from the bank- the real source is no risk. the money is made up...

2- the loan taken out by the person is taking potential risk, not actual risk. actual risk belongs to labor because that work can never be gained back. whereas, the person taking out the loan has not done anything except take out fake money.

3- assuming the person takes acutal risk and owns the land and just has to pay property taxes, im not sure this is great either. that person would just stop farming. but since the land is already theirs, it cant be taken, unless they cant pay property taxes. again, this risk would belong to labor and only labor after that land value was surpassed by labor production.

4- assuming this is a building, and is owned. it would be harder to pay and illogical to pay property taxes on a restaurant that nobody goes to. but of course this could be sold at some point. this wouldnt be irrational.

 

no matter how you look at it, labor after a quick period, swallows all risk, because the labor they put in is never "owned", and they are losing more each day not geting paid for work. this is where surplus value comes from. in fact, the longer a business is operating, and the longer that person works there, the higher the risk each day. rent has the same concept if you want a more salient example....

 

its simply a structure to allow non-labor income. ie, welfare for the capitalist.

Edited May 25, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[DC Tom]

there is risk relative to wealth. so if your worth millions and billions, there is little/no risk. risk gets smaller as you get richer. its proportional...

 

risk relative to banking is zero. " there is no consideration "... the money is made out of thin air.

 

as ive already explained, capital is not productive. so while the raw materials must be paid for, (only raw materials should be paid for).

 

so take the land example. obviously the land owner bought the land. in some cases they didnt, but lets not deal with inheritance for now.

 

assuming this, to make it simple, this land cost 100,000$. the profits generated by actual work will quickly take over this price. it will happen fast depending on demand. this non-labor income is systematic and is taking advantage of unpaid labor.

 

as far as the risk in buying the land,

 

1- the loan from the bank- the real source is no risk. the money is made up...

2- the loan taken out by the person is taking potential risk, not actual risk. actual risk belongs to labor because that work can never be gained back. whereas, the person taking out the loan has not done anything except take out fake money.

3- assuming the person takes acutal risk and owns the land and just has to pay property taxes, im not sure this is great either. that person would just stop farming. but since the land is already theirs, it cant be taken, unless they cant pay property taxes. again, this risk would belong to labor and only labor after that land value was surpassed by labor production.

4- assuming this is a building, and is owned. it would be harder to pay and illogical to pay property taxes on a restaurant that nobody goes to. but of course this could be sold at some point. this wouldnt be irrational.

 

no matter how you look at it, labor after a quick period, swallows all risk, because the labor they put in is never "owned", and they are losing more each day not geting paid for work. this is where surplus value comes from. in fact, the longer a business is operating, and the longer that person works there, the higher the risk each day. rent has the same concept if you want a more salient example....

 

its simply a structure to allow non-labor income. ie, welfare for the capitalist.

 

That is !@#$ing amazing. How you start with the completely nonsensical a priori premise that "employment is slavery" and from there derive massive loads of utter bull **** like "the real risk is labor" and "loaned money doesn't exist"...absolutely !@#$ing amazing.

[Nanker]

I stopped reading LSD induced stream-of-consciousness drivel in the 70s.

I'm not buying tickets to this guy's show.

Please stop feeding the troll.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I stopped reading LSD induced stream-of-consciousness drivel in the 70s.

I'm not buying tickets to this guy's show.

Please stop feeding the troll.

Tom openly admits keeping him here. Why the self proclaimed intellectual heavyweight champion of PPP wants to spar with a crippled flyweight is beyond me.

This is like when Conner was here. Good tread would start, 3-4 interesting replies than Conner would drop a dumb bomb, Posters felt it necessary to respond,Conner would post again, more replies, Conner again, more replies Ad Nauseum.

Result, ruined thread.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

That is !@#$ing amazing. How you start with the completely nonsensical a priori premise that "employment is slavery" and from there derive massive loads of utter bull **** like "the real risk is labor" and "loaned money doesn't exist"...absolutely !@#$ing amazing.

 

"Unlike labour, whose "ownership" cannot be separated from the productive activities being done, capital and land can be rewarded without their owners actually doing anything productive at all.

 

For all its amazing mathematics, the neo-classical solution fails simply because it is not only irrelevant to reality, it is not relevant ethically."

 

To see why, let us consider the case of land and labour (capital is more complex and will be discussed in the next two sections). Marginal productivity theory can show, given enough assumptions, that five acres of land can produce 100 bushels of wheat with the labour of ten men and that the contribution of land and labour are, respectively, 40 and 60 bushels each. In other words, that each worker receives a wage representing 6 bushels of wheat while the landlord receives an income of 40 bushels. As socialist David Schweickart notes, "we have derived both the contribution of labour and the contribution of land from purely technical considerations. We have made no assumptions about ownership, competition, or any other social or political relationship. No covert assumptions about capitalism have been smuggled into the analysis." [After Capitalism, p. 29]

 

 

"As the examples of the capitalist and co-operative farms shows, the "contribution" of land and capital can be rewarded without their owners doing anything at all. So what does it mean, "capital's share"? After all, no one has ever given money to a machine or land. That money goes to the owner, not the technology or resource used. When "land" gets its "reward" it involves money going to the landowner not fertiliser being spread on the land. Equally, if the land and the capital were owned by the labourers then "capital" and "land" would receive nothing despite both being used in the productive process and, consequently, having "aided" production. Which shows the fallacy of the idea that profits, interest and rent represent a form of "contribution" to the productive process by land and capital which needs rewarded. They only get a "reward" when they hire labour to work them, i.e. they give permission for others to use the property in question in return for telling them what to do and keeping the product of their labour." --anarchist faq

 

a hundred bushels of wheat produced by X acres of land being worked by Y workers using Z worth of capital.

Edited May 26, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[jjamie12]

i dont see a problem with this. as long as someone isnt getting a free ride. we dont live in a utopia, but we should avoid this.

You don't see a problem with what? I asked you what you meant by 'having a say' and gave you the example of a fictional company that you could use to define what 'say' meant. I would like to understand what you mean by having a 'say' in how the profits are distributed. How 'should' this fictional company be organized so that everyone has a 'say' in dividing up the profits?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

"Unlike labour, whose "ownership" cannot be separated from the productive activities being done, capital and land can be rewarded without their owners actually doing anything productive at all.

 

For all its amazing mathematics, the neo-classical solution fails simply because it is not only irrelevant to reality, it is not relevant ethically."

 

To see why, let us consider the case of land and labour (capital is more complex and will be discussed in the next two sections). Marginal productivity theory can show, given enough assumptions, that five acres of land can produce 100 bushels of wheat with the labour of ten men and that the contribution of land and labour are, respectively, 40 and 60 bushels each. In other words, that each worker receives a wage representing 6 bushels of wheat while the landlord receives an income of 40 bushels. As socialist David Schweickart notes, "we have derived both the contribution of labour and the contribution of land from purely technical considerations. We have made no assumptions about ownership, competition, or any other social or political relationship. No covert assumptions about capitalism have been smuggled into the analysis." [After Capitalism, p. 29]

 

 

"As the examples of the capitalist and co-operative farms shows, the "contribution" of land and capital can be rewarded without their owners doing anything at all. So what does it mean, "capital's share"? After all, no one has ever given money to a machine or land. That money goes to the owner, not the technology or resource used. When "land" gets its "reward" it involves money going to the landowner not fertiliser being spread on the land. Equally, if the land and the capital were owned by the labourers then "capital" and "land" would receive nothing despite both being used in the productive process and, consequently, having "aided" production. Which shows the fallacy of the idea that profits, interest and rent represent a form of "contribution" to the productive process by land and capital which needs rewarded. They only get a "reward" when they hire labour to work them, i.e. they give permission for others to use the property in question in return for telling them what to do and keeping the product of their labour." --anarchist faq

 

a hundred bushels of wheat produced by

X acres of land being worked by Y workers using Z worth of capital.

 

 

x acres worth is ( 100,000)

Z capital is worth ( 20,000)

y workers are 10 people

 

x +z = 120,000

 

y(10) workers produce 100 bushels of wheat worth 10,000 dollars in one day.

 

60 for y( 6 per worker), 40 for owner of land.

 

the added value of labor in the 20 bushels of profit going to the owner will outvalue very quickly the original 120,000. that value of 20 bushels in profit is going back to the owner when he didnt work for it. labor did. this is obvious in that if the workers owned the farm and they worked, they would keep it.

 

once the 20 bushels of wheat from non labor outvalues that original land and capital machinery, then workers are not getting paid for their full labor. this permission is not a productive act, and will allow someone to not have to work ever again for the rest of their life. this is non labor income. and the surplus value created can never be gained back in this system. this is why labor takes the larger risk.

 

That is !@#$ing amazing. How you start with the completely nonsensical a priori premise that "employment is slavery" and from there derive massive loads of utter bull **** like "the real risk is labor" and "loaned money doesn't exist"...absolutely !@#$ing amazing.

 

 

its not a priori, its empirical. its basic math , lol

 

You don't see a problem with what? I asked you what you meant by 'having a say' and gave you the example of a fictional company that you could use to define what 'say' meant. I would like to understand what you mean by having a 'say' in how the profits are distributed. How 'should' this fictional company be organized so that everyone has a 'say' in dividing up the profits?

 

 

in that type of association, profits should be democratically voted on. its a collaborative effort and should be voted on that way.

 

this is after all business cost was allocated.

 

obviously if you worked longer hours, you would get more. this does not mean people would make the same. some jobs are subjectively harder than others, subjectively being the operative word here....

Edited May 26, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[DC Tom]

Tom openly admits keeping him here. Why the self proclaimed intellectual heavyweight champion of PPP wants to spar with a crippled flyweight is beyond me.

This is like when Conner was here. Good tread would start, 3-4 interesting replies than Conner would drop a dumb bomb, Posters felt it necessary to respond,Conner would post again, more replies, Conner again, more replies Ad Nauseum.

Result, ruined thread.

 

The only thing I admitted to was being bored the other night. The only other thing I'll admit to is a morbid curiosity at the level of surrealism he can achieve.

 

If you don't like that...I don't give a ****. You're cat toys.

[Jim in Anchorage]

The only thing I admitted to was being bored the other night. The only other thing I'll admit to is a morbid curiosity at the level of surrealism he can achieve.

 

If you don't like that...I don't give a ****. You're cat toys.

If every time I see you respond to numbnuts tells me you're bored you must be a VERY bored person.

[jjamie12]

in that type of association, profits should be democratically voted on. its a collaborative effort and should be voted on that way.

 

this is after all business cost was allocated.

 

obviously if you worked longer hours, you would get more. this does not mean people would make the same. some jobs are subjectively harder than others, subjectively being the operative word here....

Right. This is what I'm asking you to define for me. What do you mean by 'democratically' voted on? In the specific instance of this fictional company, please specify for me what you think would be the 'right' way to systemically define how the profits should be 'distributed'.

 

What do you mean, specifically, by 'democratically voted on'?

[/dev/null]

Right. This is what I'm asking you to define for me. What do you mean by 'democratically' voted on? In the specific instance of this fictional company, please specify for me what you think would be the 'right' way to systemically define how the profits should be 'distributed'.

 

What do you mean, specifically, by 'democratically voted on'?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Right. This is what I'm asking you to define for me. What do you mean by 'democratically' voted on? In the specific instance of this fictional company, please specify for me what you think would be the 'right' way to systemically define how the profits should be 'distributed'.

 

What do you mean, specifically, by 'democratically voted on'?

 

 

well, it would depend. first you might vote on what harder work is and vote if it should be paid more.

 

some votes might be on whether or not the expansion should stop. its their risk, and they may feel resources are being spread to thin. this might take a consensus vote instead of a simple majority. and this would even change as companies get bigger, they may have to elect reps to make these decisions. the average worker in a huge multi-national is way different than a company with 20-50 people. germany is known for their worker councils.

 

heres where it gets novel for dc tom- they could even vote on whether or not they want capital in the form of interest to enter their company but at a finite rate, say 3-10%... like i said, it just depends on what the want in their autonomy as a collective group.

 

each situation is different. but overall, like i said before, the decisions should be made based in proportion to how they affect others. ie democracy/or representative democracy.

Edited May 26, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[3rdnlng]

Right. This is what I'm asking you to define for me. What do you mean by 'democratically' voted on? In the specific instance of this fictional company, please specify for me what you think would be the 'right' way to systemically define how the profits should be 'distributed'.

 

What do you mean, specifically, by 'democratically voted on'?

 

 

Sure, the farmer that owns the land and the 10 workers get to democratically vote on the division of profits.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Sure, the farmer that owns the land and the 10 workers get to democratically vote on the division of profits.

 

 

no, the dictator here steals unpaid labor. and the state protects that theft. because when labor wants their work value back, they would kick him off the land for unpaid labor. but the state doesnt allow that.

 

the option here is work for an autocratic system/boss, get exploited, or die.

 

hierarchy is not production, its simple telling others what to do, because you can tell others what to do. ie, a dictator or for lack of a better term, !@#$!

 

capitalism has nothing to do with actual economic activity but rather the distribution of income, ie power....

 

in other words, its just politcs morphed into friedman math jargon to make it look smart....

Edited May 26, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[jjamie12]

well, it would depend. first you might vote on what harder work is and vote if it should be paid more.

 

some votes might be on whether or not the expansion should stop. its their risk, and they may feel resources are being spread to thin. this might take a consensus vote instead of a simple majority. and this would even change as companies get bigger, they may have to elect reps to make these decisions. the average worker in a huge multi-national is way different than a company with 20-50 people. germany is known for their worker councils.

 

each situation is different. but overall, like i said before, the decisions should be made based in proportion to how they affect others. ie democracy/or representative democracy.

Well, that's not very specific. Please be specific. What is the best way? How 'should' this company democratically distribute its profits? Do all of the votes you've talked about above = one man, one vote? Does the owner get more votes? How many votes should 'management' get? One each? Please be specific about what you mean by 'democratic'.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Well, that's not very specific. Please be specific. What is the best way? How 'should' this company democratically distribute its profits? Do all of the votes you've talked about above = one man, one vote? Does the owner get more votes? How many votes should 'management' get? One each? Please be specific about what you mean by 'democratic'.

 

yes, one man one vote. but again, even this could change, based on a vote. companies have to be fluid and flexible depending on the market they are in.

 

this is why reps or workers councils would make more sense in certain situations, because people are ignorant on tons of issues, on the top and on the bottom....

 

democracy is not " one thing "

Edited May 26, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[jjamie12]

yes, one man one vote. but again, even this could change, based on a vote. companies have to be fluid and flexible depending on the market they are in.

 

this is why reps or workers councils would make more sense in certain situations, because people are ignorant on tons of issues, on the top and on the bottom....

 

democracy is not " one thing "

Just to be clear, that means that the owner of the company gets one vote, as well?

[WorldTraveller]

yes, one man one vote. but again, even this could change, based on a vote. companies have to be fluid and flexible depending on the market they are in.

 

this is why reps or workers councils would make more sense in certain situations, because people are ignorant on tons of issues, on the top and on the bottom....

 

democracy is not " one thing "

What do you do for a living, to pay your bills etc.?

[DC Tom]

If every time I see you respond to numbnuts tells me you're bored you must be a VERY bored person.

 

Hey, I'm not indulging his asshattery today, am I?

 

'Casue I'm !@#$ing busy. Anyone know a good way to level a subfloor without pulling the whole thing up?

[3rdnlng]

Hey, I'm not indulging his asshattery today, am I?

 

'Casue I'm !@#$ing busy. Anyone know a good way to level a subfloor without pulling the whole thing up?

 

 

I guess it would depend on what you are actually trying to accomplish with the leveling, but check this out:

 

 

http://www.ehow.com/way_5418531_floor-leveling-techniques.html