MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Who is producing my product? Answer: I did. Past tense. There is no further need for development. That is because what I designed is perfect(and you thought my last was arrogant ) . That is not an opinion, that is a quantifiable fact. We have spent 0 time/money on improving the core, and have released 1(one) version, as designed. Quantifiable. So actually, it's not arrogant at all, it's the truth...tough schit if you don't like it. if you want to create mass production of your idea or get profit from a loan, you need labor. once labor has replaced your capital, it belongs to labor. they created it, they worked for it, its theirs. so !@#$ off with your welfare bs. !@#$ your free ride. surplus value and extra capital is a quantifiable fact! you did get that right. when you make something, it actually does exist... I think people at Apple have lots of talent. That they exist, doesn't mean I don't. Your dopey article above says I can't exist. Yet, here I f'ing am. wtf? I think most plumbers I have worked with and deployed software for, never mind met, have more talent than you. Yes, like your posts, it's the same thing over and over, but, at least they have to do it in different conditions with different constraints. Your work here is rarely your own, there...Mr. Cut and Paste. At least plumbers mostly do their own work. its called a reference/quote... i never said it was my work...lol Since I worked at the highest levels at GM(edit: if we are talking manufacturing in general, we can add Boeing, St. Gobain, and other smaller firms to that list), and the lowest, I know more about the existence of assembly line workers than you do, and I know more about what happens in the CEOs office too. I sure as hell know an idiot VP when I see one as well-->paying janitors $70 an hour, but only hiring a small amount of them, and working them like crazy/paying a lot of overtime, in an effort to avoid having to pay benefits(health care, pension, etc.) for additional janitors, because it looks like a good idea on paper, allows you to "prove" you "care about your people", and the union went along because they want the "look, we got $70/hr for a janitor" story....is idiotic. Especially when you keep turning them over, and/or they keep having accidents at work and at home. i agree with this, and this has nothing to do with what we are talking about... yes, bad management exists... ok, your point??? But yeah, I don't know anything about an industry I've billed ~$40 million in, , according to you, an unmitigated moron. as long as you didnt take surplus value, hey, good for you! good job! Yes, and you also might be a good guy, be a good drinking buddy, somebody that's cool to work out with, have a hot girlfriend, or...who knows? a hot boyfriend. I don't doubt any of it. But, none of that is relevant to my point. None of that says you have the ability to conceive an original idea. None of that says you have the confidence, based on experience, to try to execute it, and the mental strength to stick through that process. If you think that people like me don't exist, because some clown on a website, who has never even tried to be me says so, most likely because he lacks the ability, doesn't like that fact, and writes crap like this in a lame effort to avoid admitting it, then you're mentally weak for not seeing through it and/or considering the source. You may be a good guy, but you are still, mentally weak. If you think that the only reason I have been able to take my original thinking, and apply it effectively, is because I exploited someone, then you are insulting me, but more importantly you are insulting the people I work with. On their behalf-->F you. we get it now, you like a free ride... If you think that real entrepreneurship and innovation, and the real individuals, not always teams, who execute it, are a figment of imagination....then, I am a figment of imagination as well. i never said it was a figment of imagination...lol In an effort to address this, I have gone out of my way to insult you, and provide a specific, real-world basis for said insults, so that you are left with no doubt in your mind that I am as real as can be. yes, exploitation is real. now we are making progress. !@#$... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 yes, exploitation is real. now we are making progress. !@#$... no, sadly we are not. I had already mass produced my stack...before I hired anyone. So, how it is possible that I needed people to mass produce it? And, how did I exploit people that didn't exist, as no "capitalist company" existed for them to work at, prior to my completion, and mass production of our core and 1st solution framework(health care). As we moved on, I, not anyone else did the job of creating each industry specific solution framework, so, I am also solely responsible for expansion. Also, my sales guys(actually mostly external, partner firms) get a commission for everything they sell. Now, they are labor, are they being "exploited"? Let's say I was merely a brick and mortar factory operation....would the sales people who worked for me who also get a commission on what they sell...be exploited? But, wait: aren't they "labor"? They don't own the company....so....how are they being exploited? Thus ends your ridiculous argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 no, sadly we are not. I had already mass produced my stack...before I hired anyone. So, how it is possible that I needed people to mass produce it? And, how did I exploit people that didn't exist, as no "capitalist company" existed for them to work at, prior to my completion, and mass production of our core and 1st solution framework(health care). As we moved on, I, not anyone else did the job of creating each industry specific solution framework, so, I am also solely responsible for expansion. Also, my sales guys(actually mostly external, partner firms) get a commission for everything they sell. Now, they are labor, are they being "exploited"? Let's say I was merely a brick and mortar factory operation....would the sales people who worked for me who also get a commission on what they sell...be exploited? But, wait: aren't they "labor"? They don't own the company....so....how are they being exploited? Thus ends your ridiculous argument. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 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... Labor creates loans? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Labor creates loans? What? 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 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... But you said earlier that loans create money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 But you said earlier that loans create money... No, no, it's money that doesn't create equity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 yes. do you think money just grows on trees? Only when it's needed to pay for union members' endless perks, gold platted pensions and non-contributory lifetime health benefits (including all the free boob jobs they want). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) 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... To make more of something, in a factory setting, I would always need more raw materials, so, yeah, I would. There is no need to make more of something, in my case. There is need to service it, train it, and integrate it to other things...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. No, new capital emerges from my ability to raise it. The labor does nothing in that regard. 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. My labor is doing WTF I tell them, 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. 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. Edited June 7, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) To make more of something, in a factory setting, I would always need more raw materials, so, yeah, I would. There is no need to make more of something, in my case. There is need to service it, train it, and integrate it to other things...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... No, new capital emerges from my ability to raise it. The labor does nothing in that regard. 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... My labor is doing WTF I tell them, 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... Edited June 7, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 No, no, it's money that doesn't create equity.... 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... But you said earlier that loans create money... 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 arbitrary.....management? WTF? Do you just take random words, and throw them together? Let me try.....random word generator. I got: Consumer Hobby, Sunk Ingredient, Clock Square I'm sure I could take that...and create one of your posts. Let's do it again. User Refusal. Yes, without my original core code...there would be a lot of User Refusal. And, all of the User Refusal we encounter, comes from the Sunk Ingredients that we have to work with, in the form of Clock Squared crappy 3rd party systems. Heh, this is fun. Now I see why you do it. 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... 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. relax, we understand you want power over people... 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. the profits you generate to buy new raw materials comes from labor. 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... No, the cash I received, in return for equity, and/or the promise to repay on a credit line, is what allowed me to buy things like laptops for the new employees, who I wanted to hire...after I created my finished product. This is the only reason I bothered with it at all. That's how business works. But remember, I am not an accredited university. Although you will learn more here, and faster, I can't issue you a piece of paper. The risk involved in buying equity with your cash, in a startup IT company....almost makes it prohibitive. There are far too many charlatans out there, and, far too many "really good coders...who have no idea how to manage". At least with a loan, you have a permanent claim on somebody. They have to pay you back, if they personally guarantee the loan. With equity....if it fails, you're screwed. So, no, they are not the same thing. They will NEVER BE the same thing. I have explained the difference above. Now, whether you can understand simple concepts....remains to be seen. You still haven't explained how sales guys are being paid commissions for the specific business they sell, and often are being paid team bonuses for things they don't, and being exploited, at the same time. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) arbitrary.....management? WTF? Do you just take random words, and throw them together? Let me try.....random word generator. I got: Consumer Hobby, Sunk Ingredient, Clock Square I'm sure I could take that...and create one of your posts. Let's do it again. User Refusal. Yes, without my original core code...there would be a lot of User Refusal. And, all of the User Refusal we encounter, comes from the Sunk Ingredients that we have to work with, in the form of Clock Squared crappy 3rd party systems. Heh, this is fun. Now I see why you do it. 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. No, the cash I received, in return for equity, and/or the promise to repay on a credit line, is what allowed me to buy things like laptops for the new employees, who I wanted to hire...after I created my finished product. This is the only reason I bothered with it at all. That's how business works. But remember, I am not an accredited university. Although you will learn more here, and faster, I can't issue you a piece of paper. 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 The risk involved in buying equity with your cash, in a startup IT company....almost makes it prohibitive. There are far too many charlatans out there, and, far too many "really good coders...who have no idea how to manage". At least with a loan, you have a permanent claim on somebody. They have to pay you back, if they personally guarantee the loan. With equity....if it fails, you're screwed. yes, loans must be paid back.... BUT NOT PAST INTEREST FOREVER... So, no, they are not the same thing. They will NEVER BE the same thing. I have explained the difference above. Now, whether you can understand simple concepts....remains to be seen. 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 you still haven't explained how sales guys are being paid commissions for the specific business they sell, and often are being paid team bonuses for things they don't, and being exploited, at the same time. 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. Edited June 7, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 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... Work creates loans? You said, specifically, that loans aren't real money. You were very specific that loans are no-risk because the money is made up. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) 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.... 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... So, I shouldn't pay sales people 20% of the business they sell? Now, you said the sales guy is "labor" but...he doesn't produce any part of what we sell. Yet, he is getting 20% of the haul on what we sell. If I don't give him an additional share of the profits, on top of his commission....is he being exploited? And, is the loss of capital, that you traded for equity, a "democratic" loss as well? Meaning, if the company goes down, are all the workers going to pay the all the creditors out of their pockets? Why not? Aren't we being "democratic" here? Moreover, do all the workers pay in to create the initial capitalization of the company? Why not, if we are being "democratic"? 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" Edited June 8, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So, I shouldn't pay sales people 20% of the business they sell? Now, you said the sales guy is "labor" but...he doesn't produce any part of what we sell. Yet, he is getting 20% of the haul on what we sell. If I don't give him an additional share of the profits, on top of his commission....is he being exploited? And, is the loss of capital, that you traded for equity, a "democratic" loss as well? Meaning, if the company goes down, are all the workers going to pay the all the creditors out of their pockets? Why not? Aren't we being "democratic" here? Moreover, do all the workers pay in to create the initial capitalization of the company? Why not, if we are being "democratic"? 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" I'm sure you're on pins and needles waiting for MDP to come in and embarrass himself some more, but I'll cut the suspense since I already know what he's going to say. And that is....that you haven't assumed any risk because all of the risk is shouldered by labor (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. And since loans are inherently riskless, because they are made make believe due to fractional reserve, the capital which you borrowed to finance the company has no risk anyway. 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 $15, I'm only entitled to earn profit on the land until the initial outlay is paid off, then I'm done (again, assume that all businesses are profitable, and that free cash flows are never used to pay back debt, and that business owners wouldnt compensate for this absurd arrangement by simply paying labor a lot less, or that managment wouldn't just pay the annual debt service thus preserving principal value forever, because what the f#$% 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. I have a youtube video you should watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) Work creates loans? You said, specifically, that loans aren't real money. You were very specific that loans are no-risk because the money is made up. 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... So, I shouldn't pay sales people 20% of the business they sell? Now, you said the sales guy is "labor" but...he doesn't produce any part of what we sell. Yet, he is getting 20% of the haul on what we sell. If I don't give him an additional share of the profits, on top of his commission....is he being exploited? And, is the loss of capital, that you traded for equity, a "democratic" loss as well? Meaning, if the company goes down, are all the workers going to pay the all the creditors out of their pockets? Why not? Aren't we being "democratic" here? Moreover, do all the workers pay in to create the initial capitalization of the company? Why not, if we are being "democratic"? 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... Edited June 8, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 the fractional reserve system and fed... But that's not what you said. You specifically referred to bank loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Parents & Children: Please do not feed the trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I'm sure you're on pins and needles waiting for MDP to come in and embarrass himself some more, but I'll cut the suspense since I already know what he's going to say. And that is.... that you haven't assumed any risk because all of the risk is shouldered by labor 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. And since loans are inherently riskless, because they are made make believe due to fractional reserve, the capital which you borrowed to finance the company has no risk anyway. 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 $15, I'm only entitled to earn profit on the land until the initial outlay is paid off, then I'm done ( again, assume that all businesses are profitable, and that free cash flows are never used to pay back debt, and that business owners wouldnt compensate for this absurd arrangement by simply paying labor a lot less, or that managment wouldn't just pay the annual debt service thus preserving principal value forever, because what the f#$% 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. But that's not what you said. You specifically referred to bank loans. yes, thats a major part of our current banking system, the fractional reserve system and the fed supplying free money.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts