who are the capitalist enforcers?

[hazard]

Last I checked, it was Lover and Dork and Worm. Who are the loudmouthed capitalist idiots all hoping to defend their right to own pornography, force slave wages on the vast majority of the population and wage war for profit? Or have they all gone to cower under the cowl of cheap beer and cheap bimbos?

[Nyder]

:lol: The only people who want to use force are you fine communists, socialists and left-wing morons.

Us capitalists just want to leave everyone in peace and engage in voluntary trade which is mutually beneficial.

Communists want to rob you.

[hazard]

nyder

you are a light weight and I will easily crush whatever meagre resitence you can put up in a futile attempt to defend your own stupidity

trade freely at the cost of 99% of the population? what are you talking about? trading bubbelgum cards and comic books? wake up, friend. free trade is a farce and a lie. you are only as free to trade as you are free to actually own commodities worth trading. so, while the billionare capitalist pigs trade megatonnes of oil and weapons, we pretend we are free to do the same when in actuality we are not.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 08:48 AM
nyder

you are a light weight and I will easily crush whatever meagre resitence you can put up in a futile attempt to defend your own stupidity

trade freely at the cost of 99% of the population? what are you talking about? trading bubbelgum cards and comic books? wake up, friend. free trade is a farce and a lie. you are only as free to trade as you are free to actually own commodities worth trading. so, while the billionare capitalist pigs trade megatonnes of oil and weapons, we pretend we are free to do the same when in actuality we are not.
Thank you hazard

Give me any left-wing argument and I'll chew it up and spit it out like sour bubblegum. You think my arguments are stupid? Empirically I have the edge as nowhere has your wonderful communist utopia occured without massive poverty, violence and thuggery. I also have all the economic theory of economists like Milton Friedman (who has thoroughly discredited Keynes and Marx).

As for your argument, free trade is restricted in some way or another in most markets in many countries in the world. For example, in Australia, the Government charges a tax for every item of consumption (with a few exceptions) that is purchased.

As for a person's ability to acquire inventory to trade, it depends on their level of finance or credit in order to purchase goods in order to sell them at a higher price to cover their costs. If the market is not competitively priced then the person may be free to charge an extra amount as profit.

It is by no means impossible in a capitalist country to acquire credit or finance. Anyone who has a steady income stream and has worked in a stable job can obtain finance from a lending institution. There are also options such as saving and investing money in order to build wealth - such as buying property or shares.

Of course it all depends on your inclination and personal drive to want to succeed and your ability to 'tap into the market' with a product that is demand. Many people have now found starting a small, home based business even easier with the advent of the internet and e-commerce.

As for the oil market which you mention; some markets need economies of scale in order to operate. These are very large enterprises that need to produce enough quantities in order to reduce their high long term average total costs. Small producers are unable to meet these costs so it takes a large firm to be able to meet production, distribution and marketing.

I'm not saying that the oil market is perfect but I'm just illustrating to you why large firms (run by billionaire capitalist pigs) need to be in operation.

Lastly, please explain why you think that free trade imposes costs on 99% of the population. :)

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 08:26 AM
all hoping to defend their right to own pornography
Everyone fights for that right ;)

[Intifada]

Us capitalists just want to leave everyone in peace

yeah... right <_<

fucker

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 07:44 PM

Us capitalists just want to leave everyone in peace

yeah... right <_<

fucker
Well he has to have a pick up line :D

[Soul Rebel]

Hazard, its good to see you back:) Its been a long time since you last posted.

[truthaddict11]

i kinda wish you would have stayed away

[hazard]

nyder

I will dismiss your essay in my standard style which is a sweeping dismissal. DO NOT TALK ECONOMICS WITH COMMUNISTS. Its like talking about sand when everybody else is talking about porkchops. It is like talking Greek when everyone else is talking Italian. Its like blowing your nose when you have to take a shit. I do appreciate the effort though. Maybe you can save that little essay for your grade ten economics zombie, you know, the one that says Bueller over and over and over again.

truth

I know exactly how you feel

che

yes, it has been a long time. did you miss me? I have many an entertaining tale to share with my red friends over the next little while before another wave of vigilantes decides to attempt to silence me and my droogs. thanks for the smile. haven&#39;t been sent one in a while.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 07:23 AM
nyder

I will dismiss your essay in my standard style which is a sweeping dismissal. DO NOT TALK ECONOMICS WITH COMMUNISTS. Its like talking about sand when everybody else is talking about porkchops. It is like talking Greek when everyone else is talking Italian. Its like blowing your nose when you have to take a shit. I do appreciate the effort though. Maybe you can save that little essay for your grade ten economics zombie, you know, the one that says Bueller over and over and over again.

In other words you can&#39;t hack it so you run away like a scared little *****. :lol:

That&#39;s ok, because I can destroy any argument you can come up with to defend your outdated and twisted little philosophy.

[dannie]

yeah, like your topic about us all supporting capitalism nyder

capitalism gives the opportunity to exploit people and treat them like they are inequal, you are talking about stable jobs but in fact, no job is stable because the risk of getting fired because of cutbacks, restructuring, movement of a factory to a low-cost country is everywhere, sure, some left-reformist try to stop that by making laws and unions do try to protect you but when the government is ruled by the capital there is no way in stopping these oppresion

lets see, about people losing their jobs her ein belgium

ford genk: 3000 fired

sigma: 159 people get fired

KPN belgië: 69 fired

philips belgië: 950 fired

alcatel: 56 fired

deutsche bank belgium: 200 fired

P&O ferries: 69

Alstom EIB: 94

massive: 60

Tessenderlo chemie 250

Champion 125

Telindus 16

Structuplas 70

Ensival-Moret 20

this counts up to 5138 families losing their income

lets talk to these people who got fired about how good capitalism is

[Misodoctakleidist]

You think my arguments are stupid? Empirically I have the edge as nowhere has your wonderful communist utopia occured without massive poverty, violence and thuggery.

Ever heard of the paris commune? Regardless this doesn&#39;t prove anything, the same can be said of capitalism.


I also have all the economic theory of economists like Milton Friedman

Friedman admitted that his main theory the &#39;trickle down theory&#39; was wrong, but since you&#39;re such a fan of his im sure you already know that. Just because you&#39;ve read a book that doesn&#39;t mean you know everything, book aren&#39;t always right and sometime grow-ups even lie to you.


As for your argument, free trade is restricted in some way or another in most markets in many countries in the world. For example, in Australia, the Government charges a tax for every item of consumption

It may be very lightly restiricted but it still exists.


As for a person&#39;s ability to acquire inventory to trade, it depends on their level of finance or credit in order to purchase goods in order to sell them at a higher price to cover their costs. If the market is not competitively priced then the person may be free to charge an extra amount as profit.

It is by no means impossible in a capitalist country to acquire credit or finance. Anyone who has a steady income stream and has worked in a stable job can obtain finance from a lending institution. There are also options such as saving and investing money in order to build wealth - such as buying property or shares.

Are you saying that capitalism is a meritocracy? if so you surely must agree that inheritance should be illegal to make sure the people who really &#39;deserve&#39; it get all the money. Capitalism is far from a meritocracy as it is a widely acknowledges fact that upper class people outperform working class people of the same ability in the education system thus getting better qualifications and consequently more money.


Of course it all depends on your inclination and personal drive to want to succeed and your ability to &#39;tap into the market&#39; with a product that is demand. Many people have now found starting a small, home based business even easier with the advent of the internet and e-commerce.

I&#39;m curious to know why people with more "ability to &#39;tap into the market&#39;" deserve to have more money than everyone else? What is it that makes rich people superior? Why is it right that some people have 10 cars wile others starve to death?

[Hoppe]

if so you surely must agree that inheritance should be illegal to make sure the people who really &#39;deserve&#39; it get all the money

There is a difference between deserve and entitled to. On what ground can you say that someone deserves the fruits of someone else&#39;s labour (and no, this is no labour theory)?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 08:43 AM
Us capitalists just want to leave everyone in peace and engage in voluntary trade which is mutually beneficial.

It doesn&#39;t seem so. You go around screaming every time there&#39;s a protest which goes against your selfish principles, you support wars that defend "liberty and democracy", which means enslaving poor countries, you supported things like the Pinochet dictatorship and you only think about yourselves, so you are a danger for the society.

[hazard]

nyder:

Here is something I came up with MANY monthes ago. so stick your ego and your empty threats up your ass. there is no comparison. Communism, as having a productive value isolated from profit, is far superior to any capitalist version. economics is really only the value of production multiplied by profit. check this shit out.

AND HAZARD SPAKE:

I touched on this subject in the theory forum. No capitalist’s bit. I&#39;m gonna be away from this board for a couple of days, so hopefully the comrades will pick up any slack for me.

Free Competition does not work. It divides the resources of any nation is a drastic way that can only lead to disaster. Let me explain.

Country A and Country B both have a workforce of one hundred million people. Country A uses competition as its model while Country B uses communism as its model. Both country&#39;s desire to develop and produce 5 levels of an item. To clarify, this item can be anything. A missile, a rifle, a bicycle or a conveyer belt. It doesn&#39;t matter.

Country A, as a competitive mode of production, divides its population into 4 freely competing camps. That’s 25 million all working to develop and produce that item through five evolutionary stages. First, each division must research the initial level. After this level is researched, production can begin. Then, as it is being produced, the next level can be researched. Just to be even, lets say it takes every division the same amount of research time. One year. And, since every division is producing similar products, they all produce the same amount within every year before the next advance comes out. Let&#39;s say one million items per camp. Now, as each stage of development evolves, ten percent is lost in production, per division. This is due to the retraining of staff and modification of equipment. Now lets look at the results.

Year One : no items, research time only
Year Two: 4 million y1 items
Year Three: 3.6 million y2 items
Year Four: 3.24 million y3 items
Year Five: 2.916 million y4 items
Year Six: 2.6244 million y5 items

Country B, as a communist mode of production, need not divide its population into 4 ( or more) divisions to compete against one another. SO, there&#39;s 100 million all working to develop and produce the same item. Since Country A took a year to develop the item with a QUARTERED population, Country B can quarter its production time. Each stage takes only 3 months. Production values for each stage will decline only for the amount of time necessary for the development period. That number will remain at 10 percent to compensate for universal upgrades. The total number of items will also remain the same, for the total number of producers is the same. Now lets look at some initial results.

Period One(3 months): research time
Period Two(6 months): 1 million p1 items
Period Three(9 months): 0.9 million p2 items
Period Four(12 months): 0.81 million p3 items
Period Five(15 months): 0.729 million p4 items
Period Six(18 months): 0.6561 million p5 items

At this point, it is obvious that Country B is using a far more efficient system of production. In one year it has manufactured and developed a far superior product than Country A. By the time Country A has even started producing the highest level of that item, Country B will have stock piled over 10 million, six hundred and fifty six thousand, one hundred of the most technologically advanced versions of that item&#33;

The only benefit of Country A is in the accumulation of outdated versions of the same technology. And what good is that when it comes to rifles and missiles? This is why the Soviet Union won the space race and the arms race. This is why free competition is vastly inferior to communal competition. Capitalism cannot even hope to keep up with communism.

[Nyder]

hazard,

First of all, in a capitalist society firms would not operate like that. They don&#39;t just produce as much as they can for the heck of it. Two things must be considered; supply and demand. If there is a high demand for a product then the producer will produce more (if their is competition) or less (if there is no competition). The reason for this is because the amount of competition determines the price of the good/service produced (ie. if the product is identical, the competing firm will lower the price of its good in order to attract customers to its product from the other businesses).

Profit taking monopolies produce less (because a lack of supply and a high demand will increase the price for the item and they are more free to raise their prices as their are no competing firms).

A communist monopoly does not respond to demand like capitalism as their is no profit incentive to produce (why would I go to all of the trouble producing goods and services if the work amounted to nothing?). Therefore a communist monopoly would just produce the necessities to survive.

When there are too many players in a capitalist market, the profits to be gained are small to none so producers are either deterred or drop out of the market. This prevents an oversupply of producers for a particular good/service.

Your theory is laughable and is inapplicable to the real world. Where did you pick up that theory or did you think of it yourself?

For example; a firm&#39;s objective is not to mindlessly produce but produce at quantities according to demand and price in the market.

If you are confused here is what a supply/demand model looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/f/f7/Simple_supply_and_demand.png

As you can see price is determined by quantity supplied and quantity demanded. Other variables include product differentiation, competition and outside factors but they can be incorporated as changes to the basic supply/demand model.


The only benefit of Country A is in the accumulation of outdated versions of the same technology. And what good is that when it comes to rifles and missiles? This is why the Soviet Union won the space race and the arms race. This is why free competition is vastly inferior to communal competition. Capitalism cannot even hope to keep up with communism.

I do not think that the Soviet Union &#39;won&#39; the arms and space race? After all how did you determine the winner?

The Soviet Union concentrated a lot of its resources to fund the arms and space race. Unfortunately those resources were used at the expense of basic production needs in their country.

[hazard]

nyder:

I am through with this discussion. I told you outright that to compare communism and capitalism on an economic model is innaplicable. you continue to suggest it is not. I provide a model to illustrate this. you show me some sort of idiotic graph and a heap of hogwash to somehow support it. if you want to know what everybody else said about this model, I suggest you follow the link I will provide in the next post. then maybe you will understand.

[hazard]

here it is:http:

//www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=9165&hl=

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 05:23 AM
nyder:

I am through with this discussion. I told you outright that to compare communism and capitalism on an economic model is innaplicable. you continue to suggest it is not. I provide a model to illustrate this. you show me some sort of idiotic graph and a heap of hogwash to somehow support it. if you want to know what everybody else said about this model, I suggest you follow the link I will provide in the next post. then maybe you will understand.
Why is comparing communism and capitalism as economic models inapplicable? Economics is basically the science of distribution of scarce resources.

Provide me with the link and I may consider some of the arguments.

[hazard]

the reason is simple. economics functions on the principle of profit, which is in turn based on the principle of exploitation. in order to make profit, one must exploit others either for their labour or for their talent. once exploitation is removed, economics no longer functions for there is no way to generate profit.

for a so called expert on capitalism, you fail to unerstand the essential component of it. EXPLOITATION. remove this factor and you really will have communism. Comically, far too many imbeciles fall for the trap of who is exploited more and who is exploited less. clearly, in the vast majority of those exploited, the degree of exploitation is miniscule. for instance, the factory worker may be exploited only by one half of one percent more than an office worker, or vice versa depending on how you look at it. regardless, it is the capitalist pigs that make money off of all of these people that are the least exploited by a factor of, oh, maybe one hundred million percent. they do nothing while everyone else is forced to exploit themselves in order to generate their profit. these percentiles are all in reference to their work in relation to how much "money" they receive for it.

nyder, take a good hard look at who owns what and who is forced to sell themselves hourly to generate profit for those who own it. then you will understand why economics is an idiotic concept when speaking with communists.

[dancingoutlaw]

Hazard,

You have simply set up a straw man of an argument that cannot hold up under any real world condition. The real effects of communialism have been seen in the past as failures (The Great Leap Forward.)

You cannot quantify specialization. Just throwing warm bodies at a problem is not going to make it go smoother or create the best result. In my experience the more opinions ( 100 million in your thought experiement) the longer the job and the more painful the result.

You can compare the two economic systems. How is the tallying of resources, effeciency, labor time, effective distrobution, and even the very spooky "misery index" into a comprehensive tale any different sans private ownership?

Peace

[hazard]

thats the thing with communism, it is a revolutionary idea that cannot really be implemented strategically based upon a sound model. it is so radical and futuristic that us peons have a difficult time understanding equality on a basis of property ownership. just because the past models may seem to have failed, they will provide a basis for the future world order where the ruling class that rule on a basis of exploitation and old "money" will be eradicated for a truly sound and just society.

[dancingoutlaw]

Hazard,

Forgive me, I do not want to put words into your mouth. Do you advocate a system that you cannot assure it&#39;s success? A social system where you say there can be no theoretical comparison or understanding to the current one because no one is sure how it will work? That is a very hard sell to make. You need more than the promise of social equity. I think you kind of need to know the basics of how things will work.

peace

[hazard]

outlaw:

since I oppose capitalism there is no way I can support such a system. capitalism is such a system that cannnot ensure its own success. it is designed to fail. it exists only as an intermediary between feudalism and communism.

the basics of communism are simple and listed rather succinctly in MARX&#39;s manifesto. as for their application, there is room for interpretation. this should answer your question.