Barack Obama Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Business and innovation will flourish when all incentive to start a business is removed. And when the incentive to loan money is finally abolished, a new Golden Age will commence. You heard it here first. Forward!
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Business and innovation will flourish when all incentive to start a business is removed. And when the incentive to loan money is finally abolished, a new Golden Age will commence. You heard it here first. I just said the incentive is profit...
jjamie12 Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I just said the incentive is profit... And you continue to be wrong. There is already profit. Me and my worker buddies keep voting that the profits are distributed equally to everyone in my current company. Why would I take my savings and invest in a new start-up company (that might fail) when the people I will need to work for me can just vote themselves the potential upside of the company? The best I can do is the status quo, while I *might* lose all of my money. Who in their right mind would take the bet that says: Bet $50, if you win, we'll give you your money back. If you lose, you lose the $50. Is there anyone alive who would do this?
/dev/null Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I just said the incentive is profit... Phase I: Read Chomsky Phase II: Phase III: Profit!
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) And you continue to be wrong. There is already profit. Me and my worker buddies keep voting that the profits are distributed equally to everyone in my current company. Why would I take my savings and invest in a new start-up company (that might fail) when the people I will need to work for me can just vote themselves the potential upside of the company? The best I can do is the status quo, while I *might* lose all of my money. Who in their right mind would take the bet that says: Bet $50, if you win, we'll give you your money back. If you lose, you lose the $50. Is there anyone alive who would do this? do you even understand business? people open business every day knowing they might fail... its called interest, lol..... every loan in some sense is a risk man.( its not with our current banking system). whether it be a bond, money, or capital... again, once the capital and interest is paid off, then it belongs to workers. otherwise that person is getting a free ride. ie interest forever.... i mean you can buy a small building and open a bar, but if people dont like it, well, i guess you will live there now instead of selling beer. if you take out a loan, that is a potential risk off future projections. might work, might not... of course the risk is relative to the wealth you have... Edited May 29, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
jjamie12 Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 do you even understand business? Yes. I don't think you do. people open business every day knowing they might fail... its called interest, lol..... No. People opening business every day knowing that they might fail is absolutely, 100% NOT called interest. every loan in some sense is a risk man. Well you've finally said something that is factually correct. Well, except that loans, in every sense, are a risk. ( its not with our current banking system). whether it be a bond, money, or capital... Wrong. They're all risks. again, once the capital and interest is paid off, then it belongs to workers. otherwise that person is getting a free ride. ie interest forever.... All right. I give.
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Yes. I don't think you do. No. People opening business every day knowing that they might fail is absolutely, 100% NOT called interest. Well you've finally said something that is factually correct. Well, except that loans, in every sense, are a risk. Wrong. They're all risks. All right. I give. you dont think if i give you a loan to start a business with interest is a fact? loans from our current banking system are not risks. its fiat, its not real money. no, they are not. it depends on if its paid off plus interest, then all risk belongs to labor. ok, finally! Edited May 29, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 you dont think if i give you a loan to start a business with interest is a fact? loans from our current banking system are not risks. its fiat, its not real money. no, they are not. it depends on if its paid off plus interest, then all risk belongs to labor. ok, finally! So which is it. "No, they are not?" Or "It depends?" !@#$ing retard.
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) So which is it. "No, they are not?" Or "It depends?" !@#$ing retard. limbaugh listening dipshit, he said all loans are risk... in their current form they are not all risk.... Edited May 29, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 limbaugh listening dipshit, he said all loans are risk... in their current form they are not all risk.... Yes, they are. Before you respond, take half an hour and think about it first: Yes. They are.
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Yes, they are. Before you respond, take half an hour and think about it first: Yes. They are. not for our current banking system, and not if capital plus interst is paid off. idiot...
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 not for our current banking system, and not if capital plus interst is paid off. idiot... No, THINK about it first. It should take any remotely sane person a couple of minutes to figure out why you're completely off your nut. That's why I gave you half an hour.
Jauronimo Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) I just said the incentive is profit... Earning marginally more than the guy who doesn't start a business isn't incentive. Faced with the odds of failure and the profit scheme you've envisioned, you have a bit of a prisoner's dilemma. Why start a business and assume all the risk up front, when the profits will be shared equally and you'll be almost as well off by not starting a business? Does that sound like incentive to you? When riding the coat tails of others is almost as profitable as starting a business, no one starts a business. The payout scheme is flawed, and thus, no incentive. of course the risk is relative to the wealth you have... And as I've explained to you once already, risk is not relative to wealth. Your ability to accept risk is relative to wealth, but the odds of winning a bet are independent of the size of the bet. Edited May 29, 2012 by Jauronimo
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Earning marginally more than the guy who doesn't start a business isn't incentive. Faced with the odds of failure and the profit scheme you've envisioned, you have a bit of a prisoner's dilemma. Why start a business and assume all the risk up front, when the profits will be shared equally and you'll be almost as well off by not starting a business? Does that sound like incentive to you? But you're missing his point. And you're better off for it.
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Earning marginally more than the guy who doesn't start a business isn't incentive. Faced with the odds of failure and the profit scheme you've envisioned, you have a bit of a prisoner's dilemma. Why start a business and assume all the risk up front, when the profits will be shared equally and you'll be almost as well off by not starting a business? Does that sound like incentive to you? When riding the coat tails of others is almost as profitable as starting a business, no one starts a business. The payout scheme is flawed, and thus, no incentive. And as I've explained to you once already, risk is not relative to wealth. Your ability to accept risk is relative to wealth, but the odds of winning a bet are independent of the size of the bet. the odds are not independent if you have a monopoly on capital... ugh... risk is relative to wealth, and the success is also dependent on how much you have and put in... ever heard of advertisement???? :wallbash: the profits are not shared equally before the loan and interest is paid off. the profit goes to the person who loaned the capital. you do realize people give out loans everyday with interest? But you're missing his point. And you're better off for it. we get it, you want a free ride! Edited May 29, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
Jauronimo Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 the odds are not independent if you have a monopoly on capital... ugh... risk is relative to wealth, and the success is also dependent on how much you have and put in... ever heard of advertisement???? :wallbash: the profits are not shared equally before the loan and interest is paid off. the profit goes to the person who loaned the capital. you do realize people give out loans everyday with interest? Yes, they are and, no, its not. And to your last point, possibly. It depends on which type of business you are in, the feasibility of your model, your end game and countless other factors. Without a solid model and skilled management, unlimited capital will get a business no where. Your base assumptions are totally wrong. 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?
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Yes, they are and, no, its not. And to your last point, possibly. It depends on which type of business you are in, the feasibility of your model, your end game and countless other factors. Without a solid model and skilled management, unlimited capital will get a business no where. Your base assumptions are totally wrong. 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
DC Tom Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 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 That makes absolutely no sense. In what world does this make sense?
Jauronimo Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 That makes absolutely no sense. In what world does this make sense? Not only does it make no sense, but again his rant was totally unrelated to post he replied to. His replies seem to follow a predicatble pattern at this point. Backtrack, change the subject, and then claim that you've proven his point for him, while conveniently leaving out what exactly that point is. Somehow he jumped from all loans are risk free, to investment deserves principal and interest (as if investment were a loan) and reverts back to lending bears no risk. 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. Professor Dareus Power says investing $5 in stock B is inherently more risky than investing $5 million in stock B, because risk is relative to wealth. The more you know.
DC Tom Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 He seems to draw no distinction between investment and lending/borrowing. That's not true. When he borrowed my !@#$ing hammer earlier, he never claimed to be investing in it. Although he did somehow claim that I claimed that loaning him the hammer gave me a 100% investment in his house. Still not sure how that worked...
Recommended Posts