MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) OMG, you keep proving my point. that is what capital does in capitalism.... assuming this is a single transaction. i buy the raw materials to build a bike. the amount i paid for the raw materials is the proper reward to those who made those raw materials. not the extra labor i do when the bike is complete and sold. and then, when i sell the bike, my reward is for that bike, not what the random person does with that bike, and so on and so on. this is why capital is not productive. if you dont understand this, well. idk... again, if you dont get this... if you do pushups, can you take credit for another person doing pushups...?? if capital is productive, then yes, you can take credit for those pushups you did not do. this is absurd. this is why the term "reward for doing nothing" applies here... 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. Edited June 10, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) , 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... Edited June 10, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 But if I tell Harry I'll pay him $100 to help me paint my house on Saturday, and he shows up with a paintbrush he borrowed from Sally on Thursday, am I obligated to pay him? And if he subs out the job to Johnny for $80, but Johnny uses my paintbrush, and the fair market value for the paintbrush is $6.50, Who owns the paintbrush on Tuesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 But if I tell Harry I'll pay him $100 to help me paint my house on Saturday, and he shows up with a paintbrush he borrowed from Sally on Thursday, am I obligated to pay him? And if he subs out the job to Johnny for $80, but Johnny uses my paintbrush, and the fair market value for the paintbrush is $6.50, Who owns the paintbrush on Tuesday? The German? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 Back on topic, the FaceBook Azz who renounced his citizenship before the big IPO got his azz handed to him in the form of MORE federal tax than he would have had to pay had he waited till after the IPO and subsequent tanking of the stock. To settle up and clear out of Dodge, he had to declare his personal wealth at the time of his renunciation. FB was valued at around $44 per share at the time. So he owed tax based on that amount. I love it when a plan comes together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 tom, when i said i give you the hammer back, i assumed you were smart enough to understand implied interest. even when it was not mentioned, i said this.... i kept saying loans are fine with interest, ive only been saying it now for over 2 weeks.... this is why i said your reward is nothing, nothing as far as use value... i never said, you should not get your hammer back... No, you said I should get my hammer back, but shouldn't get anything else, because I have my hammer. Now you're saying I should get my hammer, plus "implied interest". Which is what you meant by "nothing"...you actually meant "something". Unless I loan you money, which isn't real money, then I deserve nothing, because no interest is implied. So basically...money should be lent freely, because it doesn't exist. Hammers, though...those we can charge interest on. You're a total !@#$ing retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 No, you said I should get my hammer back, but shouldn't get anything else, because I have my hammer. Now you're saying I should get my hammer, plus "implied interest". Which is what you meant by "nothing"...you actually meant "something". Unless I loan you money, which isn't real money, then I deserve nothing, because no interest is implied. So basically...money should be lent freely, because it doesn't exist. Hammers, though...those we can charge interest on. You're a total !@#$ing retard. You've been arguing with a !@#$ing retard for weeks. Not exactly a rousing recommendation for your own judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 You've been arguing with a !@#$ing retard for weeks. Not exactly a rousing recommendation for your own judgement. I'm not arguing. Of course, what I am doing is akin to heckling the Special Olympics...which doesn't speak volumes for my judgement either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 I'm not arguing. Of course, what I am doing is akin to heckling the Special Olympics...which doesn't speak volumes for my judgement either. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 No, you said I should get my hammer back, but shouldn't get anything else, because I have my hammer. Now you're saying I should get my hammer, plus "implied interest". Which is what you meant by "nothing"...you actually meant "something". Unless I loan you money, which isn't real money, then I deserve nothing, because no interest is implied. So basically...money should be lent freely, because it doesn't exist. Hammers, though...those we can charge interest on. You're a total !@#$ing retard. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 But if I tell Harry I'll pay him $100 to help me paint my house on Saturday, and he shows up with a paintbrush he borrowed from Sally on Thursday, am I obligated to pay him? And if he subs out the job to Johnny for $80, but Johnny uses my paintbrush, and the fair market value for the paintbrush is $6.50, Who owns the paintbrush on Tuesday? well, since the hammer example was meant to be sarcastic, and a metaphor, i see you have now taken this literally. a more salient example would be a bar or restaurant. dealing with your example, and being that a paint brush is pretty much non-consequential, i doubt you would be a dick if this was a real world transaction and charge interest on a !@#$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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2012 Share Posted June 10, 2012 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. So you were wrong...but it's my fault, because I didn't recognize that I was using a metaphor? 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. Who the hell charges interest on a paint brush? Or any physical implement? You know what your real problem's been all this time? You don't even have the language to discuss this intelligently. You're charging interest on a paint brush, paying for **** with labor, calling loans imaginary money, and misusing the term "capital" in almost every sentence. That's what's been so much fun about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 So you were wrong...but it's my fault, because I didn't recognize that I was using a metaphor? Who the hell charges interest on a paint brush? Or any physical implement? You know what your real problem's been all this time? You don't even have the language to discuss this intelligently. You're charging interest on a paint brush, paying for **** with labor, calling loans imaginary money, and misusing the term "capital" in almost every sentence. That's what's been so much fun about this. You must be easily amused. It can be fun to tease a cat with a laser light, but frustrating a nightcrawler is pretty low. Do you really like worm schit on your hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I once heard a caller to the Andrew Wilkow radio show try to explain to him around the time of the federalization of GM, that the President has the right to take over any "Public Company" - because it was "Public" money. Wilkow hung up on the maroon. So word to the wise out there. If you don't want the Feds seizing your company - keep it private, 'cause the moment you take it public - well, they've got a right to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 You must be easily amused. It can be fun to tease a cat with a laser light, but frustrating a nightcrawler is pretty low. Do you really like worm schit on your hands? I don't know about this...I'm thinking that this might set up a classic thread sooner or later. Patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 So you were wrong...but it's my fault, because I didn't recognize that I was using a metaphor? Tom, whether or not you were too stupid to comprehend what i wrote, im telling you now profit is fine. Who the hell charges interest on a paint brush? Or any physical implement? You know what your real problem's been all this time? You don't even have the language to discuss this intelligently. You're charging interest on a paint brush, paying for **** with labor, calling loans imaginary money, and misusing the term "capital" in almost every sentence. That's what's been so much fun about this. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 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.... No, you're an idiot for calling it interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 No, you're an idiot for calling it interest. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 :wallbash: You'd be less frustrated if you knew the meaning of the words you were using. Of course, the true meaning of "interest" is compensation to the lender for risk...which is something you don't recognize anyway. So you'd never be using the correct definition of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) No, you're an idiot for calling it interest. 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... You'd be less frustrated if you knew the meaning of the words you were using. Of course, the true meaning of "interest" is compensation to the lender for risk...which is something you don't recognize anyway. So you'd never be using the correct definition of the word. 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... Edited June 11, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts