Capitalism at work

[t_wolves_fan]

My dad and I are about to flip a house. For those who don't know, that means buying a run-down house for a low price, fixing it up, and then selling it for a profit.

This is capitalism at work. And here is how it works:

We are going to buy the home from the owners. We will negotiate the price, and of course we cannot force the current owners to sell to us at a price of our choosing. The sale price will be mutually agreed upon.

We are going to hire contractors to do some of the work. Roofers, painters, plumbers, and concrete guys (driveway). In all cases, the price received by the contrators will also be mutually agreed upon. We as the buyers cannot, of course, force any of the contractors to work for a price of our choosing.

We are going to put our own labor and money (capital) into the project. Painting, renovating, cleaning, landscaping, etc.

We are going to sell the home for a price that will be higher than the sum of our costs - what we paid the owner, what we paid the contractors, what we paid Home Depot for materials, and even what we paid the government for taxes.

This house was on the market for more than a month. Anyone could have purchased it and done the same. It does not require a lot of money, since mortgages, loans and lines of credit are pretty easy to secure. A person with less money than us could have found friends or family to chip into the effort. Any of the contractors we hire could have purchased the home.

As a result of our work, we will probably be able to sell a home that is in good condition at a lower price than a similar home that was already fixed up and well-maintained by its owners. For instance if we purchase the home for $100,000 and put $30,000 into it, and the market price for a similar home in similar condition is $200,000, we can sell it for $180,000 and make a profit while making the home more affordable to its end buyers.

Explain what, if anything, is wrong with this.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What was wrong were the means in which you acquired the capital to make this investment.

The egalitarian and democratic thing would be for the people collectively, the rightful owners of capital -- a social product -- to choose whether or not they view this particular "house-flipping" as a worthy investment for their capital.

[Jazzratt]

Simple. You're contributing the rising house prices, which is contributing in turn to the homlessness. Therfore, you're a ****.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 06:36 PM
What was wrong were the means in which you acquired the capital to make this investment.

The egalitarian and democratic thing would be for the people collectively, the rightful owners of capital -- a social product -- to choose whether or not they view this particular "house-flipping" as a worthy investment for their capital.
How was the use of capital unfairly determined? The people who performed the labor - most of them independent contractors (self-employed) - set their own price. Hence, they received what they believed to be a fair value for their labor, which is one of the chief complaints of communists.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:39 PM
Simple. You're contributing the rising house prices, which is contributing in turn to the homlessness. Therfore, you're a ****.
Absurd. Someone on the verge of homelessness could not afford to buy the house in the first place; and if they could, they had a chance to purchase it before we did.

Nice personal attack. You're a real gem.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by me
What was wrong were the means in which you acquired the capital to make this investment.

Next time when you make a reply, at least read the post.
Try again.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Sep 29 2006, 06:59 PM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Sep 29 2006, 06:59 PM)
me
What was wrong were the means in which you acquired the capital to make this investment.

Next time when you make a reply, at least read the post.
Try again. [/b]
I can't do a whole lot about how I acquired the capital.

What, in your opinion, is wrong with how I acquired it?

And are you actually suggesting that it should be up to Democratic vote where people live?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 29 2006, 03:58 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 29 2006, 03:58 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 06:39 PM
Simple. You're contributing the rising house prices, which is contributing in turn to the homlessness. Therfore, you're a ****.
Absurd. Someone on the verge of homelessness could not afford to buy the house in the first place; and if they could, they had a chance to purchase it before we did.

Nice personal attack. You're a real gem. [/b]
Okay, you don't understand capitalist economics... when you buy a house, you increase the demand for them... which drives prices up. This is something which everybody who presumably completed secondary education knows.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Sep 29 2006, 07:03 PM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Sep 29 2006, 07:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:58 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 06:39 PM
Simple. You're contributing the rising house prices, which is contributing in turn to the homlessness. Therfore, you're a ****.
Absurd. Someone on the verge of homelessness could not afford to buy the house in the first place; and if they could, they had a chance to purchase it before we did.

Nice personal attack. You're a real gem.
Okay, you don't understand capitalist economics... when you buy a house, you increase the demand for them... which drives prices up. This is something which everybody who presumably completed secondary education knows. [/b]
:D

The simple act of buying does not unilaterally affect price - especially if I am buying a product that is currently so plentiful that prices are falling, such as homes in my area. I can tell you that I can probably buy the exact same home as I bought last year for $10-$20K less.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 29 2006, 04:02 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 29 2006, 04:02 PM)
Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 06:59 PM

me
What was wrong were the means in which you acquired the capital to make this investment.

Next time when you make a reply, at least read the post.
Try again.
I can't do a whole lot about how I acquired the capital.

What, in your opinion, is wrong with how I acquired it?

And are you actually suggesting that it should be up to Democratic vote where people live? [/b]
Fair enough answer.

If you havent read this enough on this forum, I will reiterate what is wrong with the private ownership of capital.

Capital is a social product, created, or "set in motion", as Marx described it, by all working members of a society. For one person or a small elite of people to own this is self-evidently unjust.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 29 2006, 04:09 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 29 2006, 04:09 PM)
Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:58 PM

[email protected] 29 2006, 06:39 PM
Simple. You're contributing the rising house prices, which is contributing in turn to the homlessness. Therfore, you're a ****.
Absurd. Someone on the verge of homelessness could not afford to buy the house in the first place; and if they could, they had a chance to purchase it before we did.

Nice personal attack. You're a real gem.
Okay, you don't understand capitalist economics... when you buy a house, you increase the demand for them... which drives prices up. This is something which everybody who presumably completed secondary education knows.
:D

The simple act of buying does not unilaterally affect price [/b]
Yes it does. The fact that you buy a house increases the demand, decreases the supply, and increases price. Simple supply and demand economics.

At first glance, it may seem like you just offered a suitable rebuttal to my post, but you did not. You made a false statement and proceded to justify it by stating some subjective conditions of the house market in your area... which actually does absolutely nothing to negate supply and demand economics.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 07:13 PM
Capital is a social product, created, or "set in motion", as Marx described it, by all working members of a society. For one person or a small elite of people to own this is self-evidently unjust.
I don't see much evidence that capital in a capitalist society is owned strictly by a single person or a small elite.

Capital ownership is actually very fluid. Both people with no money and corporations borrow capital (the first through loans, the second through stocks and bonds) to invest and turn into their own capital. The lenders of capital are not strictly the rich - about half of all Americans own stocks or bonds and hence are owners of capital.

Even someone with relatively few means can create capital on their own salary, if they manage to live within their means and save.

But more specifically to my question, the independent contractors that we will hire are in effect using their own labor as capital.

Again, I have to ask, do you really believe it best to put people's living quarters up to a democratic vote?

:blink:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Stock isn't capital unless you own a considerable amount. Wages are also not... considering the fact that average income in a country like America is expectedly quite close to minimum wage... which is admittedly the minimum for a comfortable standard of living. I don't think I have to prove the tremendous income inequality in the US.

I didn't say that personal homes should be democratically decided-upon. In socialism, providing people with a house to live in isn't a capital investment, it's a basic human right.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 07:40 PM
Stock isn't capital unless you own a considerable amount. Wages are also not... considering the fact that average income in a country like America is expectedly quite close to minimum wage... which is admittedly the minimum for a comfortable standard of living. I don't think I have to prove the tremendous income inequality in the US.

I didn't say that personal homes should be democratically decided-upon. In socialism, providing people with a house to live in isn't a capital investment, it's a basic human right.
Your opinion that stock is not capital is not factually accurate. You could argue that one has to own a tremendous amount of stock to have a say in how a company is run, but even the ability to be a majority shareholder does not guarantee your wishes will be done.

It is also a fact that most people who make a living solely off capital - the rich investment class - diversifies their portfolio to the point that they are not actually majority stockholders in any given company.

Average income in the United States is not actually that close to the minimum wage. The federal minimum wage in the United States is $5.15 per hour. Average hourly earnings (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) as of August 2006 were $16.79 per hour. If you don't like average hourly earnings, consider per capita income. Per capita income (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104547.html) in the United States in 2005 was $34,586. That includes even babies who aren't working of course and translates to $16.63 per hour. Median household income (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/007419.html), perhaps the best measure of what everyone is making, was $46,326 in 2005. Figuring 1.5 wage earners per household, that's $14.84 per hour.

Unfounded proclamations reduce your credibility. Learn from that.

[chimx]

it is your use of contractor work the most commies would have a problem with. when you say you are going to hire roofers to roof your house, you aren't going to hire a democratically operated roofing collective. you are going to pay a person who owns roofing equipment, ie. fork lifts, compressors, guns, welders, roof slitters, etc. etc. he in turn hires roofers to work for him. He gives you an estimate on your house and he agrees to have his laborers put it on for X amount. He transforms labor power into capital by paying his workers less than what he thinks the job is worth. that is the basic concept of exploitation that marx talks about in das kapital.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 01:36 PM
the people collectively, the rightful owners of capital -- a social product --
how is capital a social product? you and i have nothing to do with the coal coming out of virginia coal mines or the sale of thereafter.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

$34,000/year or $16/hour isn't capital. And stocks are only capital if you use the profits to reinvest. Most middle-class Americans don't. They generally use it to retire or live.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 29 2006, 05:11 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 29 2006, 05:11 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 01:36 PM
the people collectively, the rightful owners of capital -- a social product --
how is capital a social product? [/b]
It's produced by society... not capitalists.


you and i have nothing to do with the coal coming out of virginia coal mines or the sale of thereafter.

How do you know that?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 29 2006, 05:11 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 29 2006, 05:11 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 01:36 PM
the people collectively, the rightful owners of capital -- a social product --
how is capital a social product?
It's produced by society... not capitalists.[/b]

no its not, its produced by individuals not society



How do you know that?

well i don't know about you, but i've never worked for a coal mine nor have i ever invested in one. the point is that society collectively has nothing to do with most aspects of produciton.

[KC]

It's produced by society... not capitalists.

Actually, capital is a social relation, and it is a social relation in the same way as property is a social relation, as capital is a form (arguably the highest form) of property.

[Alexander Hamilton]

In socialism, providing people with a house to live in isn't a capital investment, it's a basic human right.

Rosenpenis,

How do you support this statement? What is your evidence?

If I go to a forest and shout, "House Appear!"

What if it doesn't? Who ya gonna call?

What if noone wants to build the fucker? What then?

What if t_wolves wants to add on to his home and does so, and four others of his neighbors want add ons, and have to wait? But t_wolves gave up some of his time to make the add on. He went to a forest and got the wood and added on to it. There was no government and noone stopped him. But after it was built, the local direct democracy voted and decided t_wolves had to be "socially responsible", and not build his add on. His add on was for the room he entertains in, while the others needed it for more babies comming along, even though they didn't have the interest to go into the forest and getting the wood.

Does local direct democracy decide how large someone's entertainment room should be?

Does local direct democracy prevent people from using their talents to achieve something others don't have, but they can make for themselves, their family, and their friends?

Does local direct deomcracy get to determine which women are chosen as Playboy Centerfolds?


A. Hamilton

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+Sep 29 2006, 06:17 PM--> (Khayembii Communique @ Sep 29 2006, 06:17 PM)
It's produced by society... not capitalists.

Actually, capital is a social relation, and it is a social relation in the same way as property is a social relation, as capital is a form (arguably the highest form) of property. [/b]

Originally posted by The Communist [email protected]
Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

But maybe those guys didn't know shit. =D


no its not, its produced by individuals not society

No, it's produces by the workers, collectively.


What if noone wants to build the fucker? What then?

We shoot them. By "we" I mean the KGB, of course.


Does local direct democracy prevent people from using their talents to achieve something others don't have, but they can make for themselves, their family, and their friends?


The Communist Manifesto
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

[KC]

Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

This is semantics and I misinterpreted your original post, but I believe that we are both in agreement on this issue now that I understand what you are saying.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 29 2006, 08:30 PM

Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

This is semantics and I misinterpreted your original post, but I believe that we are both in agreement on this issue now that I understand what you are saying.
werd

[colonelguppy]

no its not, its produced by individuals not society

No, it's produces by the workers, collectively.


yeah and workers are individuals

[hedonist]

I'LL tell you what's wrong!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, you have admitted that your business is only going to do this out of PURE UNMITIGATED GREED, making you a fully sick-in-the-head capitalist!!!

Y...Y..Y-you make me so MAD!!!

OMG I just puked all over my keyboard because of YOU!!!

And what's this crap about improving people's houses? U actually think people shouldn't live in run-down crap like CUBA where nothing ever gets fixed??? What sort of evil EVIL and TWISTED and DEPRAVED person are you??? Why, we should fix u up REAL good cum revolution!!!!!

On a more serious note, this is one of my favourite subjects, and I hope you make lots of money. There's a company in the US which makes like 40% flipping hotels. And look at trump. He bought 40 Wall for 8 mil, spent 65 mil fixing it and its now grossing 30 mil a year. I prefer just to buy and hold though cos property prices just seem to go up when u ain't paying attention.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Sep 29 2006, 06:58 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Sep 29 2006, 06:58 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 06:39 PM
Simple. You're contributing the rising house prices, which is contributing in turn to the homlessness. Therfore, you're a ****.
Absurd. Someone on the verge of homelessness could not afford to buy the house in the first place; and if they could, they had a chance to purchase it before we did.

Nice personal attack. You're a real gem. [/b]
The simple act of increasing the 'value' of a house makes the amount of poverty you need to 'be on the verge of homlessness' much lower. Also that second sentence just goes to show what a cappie 'the poor are just lazy' type attitude you have.

You can say all you like about personal attacks, increasing the number of homeless people makes you a heartless fucking ****.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:27 AM
And what's this crap about improving people's houses? U actually think people shouldn't live in run-down crap like CUBA where nothing ever gets fixed??? What sort of evil EVIL and TWISTED and DEPRAVED person are you??? Why, we should fix u up REAL good cum revolution!!!!!

You're a stupid fuckwit. Present me a source on which you base your 'expert' opinion on the level of maintanance on buildings in cuba. Otherwise fuck off you stupid troll.


On a more serious note, this is one of my favourite subjects, and I hope you make lots of money. There's a company in the US which makes like 40% flipping hotels. And look at trump. He bought 40 Wall for 8 mil, spent 65 mil fixing it and its now grossing 30 mil a year. I prefer just to buy and hold though cos property prices just seem to go up when u ain't paying attention. Interestingly this is one of my favourite subjects, as I cannot afford housing and am currently living with my parents because of it, which causes a lot of domestic tention as they can't afford to keep me and enjoy themselves. Not helped by the fact that no one will employ me thanks to my employment history. So yes, people making sure people like me can't move into a house is very fucking interesting.

[hedonist]

Jazzratt, Jazzratt, Jazzratt, <sigh> What are we going to do with you?

You just don&#39;t know nothing about real estate do you?


Interestingly this is one of my favourite subjects, as I cannot afford housing and am currently living with my parents because of it, which causes a lot of domestic tention as they can&#39;t afford to keep me and enjoy themselves.

Well, they should have scrimped and saved and invested in other properties like
mine did.


Not helped by the fact that no one will employ me thanks to my employment history.
Unless you&#39;re a con you can ALWAYS find employment. ESP someone as young as you that&#39;s still living with mummy and daddy.


which causes a lot of domestic tention as they can&#39;t afford to keep me and enjoy themselves.
AHHHH, you need to spend money to enjoy yourselves&#33; Ever wonder why you&#39;re poor? Tellem not to live it up so much.


So yes, people making sure people like me can&#39;t move into a house is very fucking interesting.
Don&#39;t blame me, don&#39;t blame the capitalist who started this thread. We have nothing to do with increasing property prices. It&#39;s actually caused by population growth and wage growth resulting in the current abundance of credit. There is no difference in price value increases whether an investor buys or an owner occupier buys. But I suppose a rat like you wants to live in a run-down shanty eh?

OH, and Do you know what the fuck a studio appartment is? Hint, they&#39;re rather cheap. Now if you don&#39;t mind, I have to spit shine my Timberlands. Good day to you sir&#33;

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:18 PM

Not helped by the fact that no one will employ me thanks to my employment history.
Unless you&#39;re a con you can ALWAYS find employment. ESP someone as young as you that&#39;s still living with mummy and daddy.
Fuck off. Unemployment is a serious problem, as illustrated by the thousands who can&#39;t find employment - or are they all &#39;cons. As for the second comment you can fuck right off, you ignorant dumb motherfucker.



which causes a lot of domestic tention as they can&#39;t afford to keep me and enjoy themselves.
AHHHH, you need to spend money to enjoy yourselves&#33; Ever wonder why you&#39;re poor? Tellem not to live it up so much. Sorry, why should their enjoyment be curbed because of something as inefficiant as the price system? Why shopuld some entertainments only be available to those who have to pay?



So yes, people making sure people like me can&#39;t move into a house is very fucking interesting.
Don&#39;t blame me, don&#39;t blame the capitalist who started this thread. We have nothing to do with increasing property prices. You know that increasing the suppsoed &#39;value&#39; of a place increases its price, right?


It&#39;s actually caused by population growth and wage growth resulting in the current abundance of credit. There is no difference in price value increases whether an investor buys or an owner occupier buys. Those are some factors granted, but an it is in an investors interest to sell the house on for more than the fucking thing was purchased for, and guess what kind of violent cycle this creates.


But I suppose a rat like you wants to live in a run-down shanty eh? I&#39;d rather be living in a clean, efficient housing unit in a technocratic urbanate.


OH, and Do you know what the fuck a studio appartment is? Hint, they&#39;re rather cheap. Now if you don&#39;t mind, I have to spit shine my Timberlands. Good day to you sir&#33; I defy you to find a studio apartment that somone can afford on government benefits in the south eastern united kingdom (bearing in mind this person is not eligble for council housing.). Really? Thought not. Now fuck off.

[SmithSmith]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 06:36 PM
What was wrong were the means in which you acquired the capital to make this investment.


Maybe he sold his time for pay and saved up his money until he had enough to invest.

In capitalism you first have to subject yourself to wage slavery than free yourself.

Say I own a computer company that fixes computer problems, and I sell my time, expertise and labour for a certain amount of money and the customer who likes my price and service buys it. What is wrong with this? I the owner, I am happy with the prices I set and willing customers are happy to pay me the price I set for my services.

[colonelguppy]

i like how all the commies who whine about their situations all have no jobs.

what a bunch of pussies.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:26 PM
i like how all the commies who whine about their situations all have no jobs.

what a bunch of pussies.
I held a materialst classwar view of society while I had a job as well, you stupid wankstain.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 30 2006, 12:44 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 30 2006, 12:44 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 05:26 PM
i like how all the commies who whine about their situations all have no jobs.

what a bunch of pussies.
I held a materialst classwar view of society while I had a job as well, you stupid wankstain. [/b]
so basically you&#39;re not working effectively because you hate capitalism, and then you talk about not having a house or job to bolster your hatred of capitalism.

if thats not circular reasoning i don&#39;t know what is.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 30 2006, 05:48 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 30 2006, 05:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:44 PM

[email protected] 30 2006, 05:26 PM
i like how all the commies who whine about their situations all have no jobs.

what a bunch of pussies.
I held a materialst classwar view of society while I had a job as well, you stupid wankstain.
so basically you&#39;re not working effectively because you hate capitalism, [/b]
I worked effectively, because I&#39;m no bourgeoise lifestylist, which kind of nullifies the rest of your post.

Fuck off back to your hole CG.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 30 2006, 01:01 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 30 2006, 01:01 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:44 PM

[email protected] 30 2006, 05:26 PM
i like how all the commies who whine about their situations all have no jobs.

what a bunch of pussies.
I held a materialst classwar view of society while I had a job as well, you stupid wankstain.
so basically you&#39;re not working effectively because you hate capitalism,
I worked effectively, because I&#39;m no bourgeoise lifestylist, which kind of nullifies the rest of your post.

[/b]
then stop fucking whining you pussy, you&#39;re not working on your own accord so shut the fuck up. i really don&#39;t see what your grounds for complaint are.



Fuck off back to your hole CG.

oh you mean my house that me and my friends rent with money we got from working?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 30 2006, 06:08 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 30 2006, 06:08 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:44 PM

[email protected] 30 2006, 05:26 PM
i like how all the commies who whine about their situations all have no jobs.

what a bunch of pussies.
I held a materialst classwar view of society while I had a job as well, you stupid wankstain.
so basically you&#39;re not working effectively because you hate capitalism,
I worked effectively, because I&#39;m no bourgeoise lifestylist, which kind of nullifies the rest of your post.


then stop fucking whining you pussy, you&#39;re not working on your own accord so shut the fuck up. i really don&#39;t see what your grounds for complaint are. [/b]
That the system is:

a) Inherently exploitative.

and

b) Inefficiant as fuck.



Fuck off back to your hole CG.

oh you mean my house that me and my friends rent with money we got from working? No I mean the putrescent hole from which you spawned, becaus I find it hard to believe you&#39;re a real human being.

[colonelguppy]

That the system is:

a) Inherently exploitative.

if having to work in order to take advantage of living in a soicety makes it inherently exploitative, then i gotta say i don&#39;t really care.


and

b) Inefficiant as fuck.

no it isn&#39;t. on the contrary its very effecient.


oh, get a job and stop leeching off your parents, you fucking bum.

[red team]

if having to work in order to take advantage of living in a soicety

Work to do what? To accomplish what? Slaves work too. Does that mean their necessary for production? And what am I producing when I work really? Wealth? What if I&#39;m a narcotics dealer? Or a weapons merchant? They&#39;re making a lot of "wealth" aren&#39;t they? War&#39;s profitable isn&#39;t it?


no it isn&#39;t. on the contrary its very effecient.

Efficient in doing what?

If you&#39;re going to talk about efficiency then you&#39;ve also have to make known what it is efficient in doing. What are these "units" that it is efficient in using? Don&#39;t have an answer?


oh, get a job and stop leeching off your parents, you fucking bum.

First you are assuming that I am in that situation. Next, suppose that I am. Why should I get a job so as to have my rent money taken away by people that have title over a piece of property they&#39;re not using? They work that hard to have that much power over me? Really? Can you prove to me they&#39;re labour correspond to all the wealth they own in surplus of what they need? No? Then ownership is illegitimate. Sorry, I don&#39;t want to encourage landlordism by giving away my money over to people who have a surplus of what they need and many times over what they&#39;ve worked for.

[Hool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:05 PM
it is your use of contractor work the most commies would have a problem with. when you say you are going to hire roofers to roof your house, you aren&#39;t going to hire a democratically operated roofing collective. you are going to pay a person who owns roofing equipment, ie. fork lifts, compressors, guns, welders, roof slitters, etc. etc. he in turn hires roofers to work for him. He gives you an estimate on your house and he agrees to have his laborers put it on for X amount. He transforms labor power into capital by paying his workers less than what he thinks the job is worth. that is the basic concept of exploitation that marx talks about in das kapital.
I&#39;m out of my league arguing with a lot of the other stuff here, but i roof in the summer and the head roofer that handles the customer gets paid more because he does more work. When everyone else goes home he figures everyones wages, how long they worked, materials, what tools are needed the next day, generally makes sure that all that the roofers have to do is get up on the roof and do their thing. The roofers that the head hires in my situation at least, have always been friends, and i&#39;ve never heard it done another way either. The head doesn&#39;t make significantly more, he shares in the work load as much as anybody else and is paid a little bit for more the little bit more of work that he has to do.

I don&#39;t see anything wrong with that...

[colonelguppy]

Work to do what? To accomplish what?

whatever place the market determines your labor is the most valuable.


Slaves work too. Does that mean their necessary for production?

no, but what the hell does slavery have to do with market economics?


And what am I producing when I work really? Wealth?

yeah


What if I&#39;m a narcotics dealer? Or a weapons merchant? They&#39;re making a lot of "wealth" aren&#39;t they?

yeah because they&#39;re aiding in the production process by distributing goods.


War&#39;s profitable isn&#39;t it?

i dont really know why you brought this up, but no not really war is only profitable for select individuals, on society as a whole wars are very taxing.


Efficient in doing what?

If you&#39;re going to talk about efficiency then you&#39;ve also have to make known what it is efficient in doing. What are these "units" that it is efficient in using? Don&#39;t have an answer?

effecient at making sure that known recources are used in a way which maximize production but won&#39;t produce more than is necessary. oh and the most effecient in terms of technological progress.


First you are assuming that I am in that situation.

i wasn&#39;t talking to you specifically


Why should I get a job so as to have my rent money taken away by people that have title over a piece of property they&#39;re not using?

because doing so would be better than living with your parents, or you could work more or get a loan and buy your own properyt if that suits you better.


They work that hard to have that much power over me? Really? Can you prove to me they&#39;re labour correspond to all the wealth they own in surplus of what they need

well enless they stole it or something, them having it clearly shows that someone somewhere was willing to value their labor at the rate they did so yeah their self worth clearly corresponds with what they have.


Sorry, I don&#39;t want to encourage landlordism by giving away my money over to people who have a surplus of what they need and many times over what they&#39;ve worked for.

your loss i suppose, although i don&#39;t really know how people can have many more times what they&#39;ve worked for without stealing.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:05 PM

That the system is:

a) Inherently exploitative.

if having to work in order to take advantage of living in a soicety makes it inherently exploitative, then i gotta say i don&#39;t really care.
You&#39;re a stupid sick fuck. The entire system is based on the leeching classes taking the fruits of somone elses labour and selling them on for a profit, whilst giving a tiny percentage of that back to the worker. Also &#39;work if you want to eat&#39; is definatley a threat so you&#39;re system is fucking threatening too.





and

b) Inefficiant as fuck.

no it isn&#39;t. on the contrary its very effecient. The problems with money, and therfore any system that revolves around its accumulation (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/money-money-money.htm)



oh, get a job and stop leeching off your parents, you fucking bum. Fuck off and die you thick twat.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:31 PM

Work to do what? To accomplish what?

whatever place the market determines your labor is the most valuable.

&#39;The market&#39; is fucking stupid and inefficiant in this respect, it often puts a very high energy input into very low energy outputs (like the tobacco industry.). Agriculture tends to be less profitable than stupid things like luxuries, showing it is very energy inefficiant.




Slaves work too. Does that mean their necessary for production?

no, but what the hell does slavery have to do with market economics? The slave is threatened with a whip, the worker is threatened with starvation and homelessness. The punishment is different but the threat is essentially the same.



And what am I producing when I work really? Wealth?

yeah You cannot eat wealth, you cannot take shelter in wealth, you cannt keep warm with wealth - it has no real utility and is pretty much a &#39;middle man&#39; product.



What if I&#39;m a narcotics dealer? Or a weapons merchant? They&#39;re making a lot of "wealth" aren&#39;t they?

yeah because they&#39;re aiding in the production process by distributing goods. Ah, so this one has no morals does it? Well, it can fuck off. The weapons dealers are scum because they contribute no worthwhile resources whilst distributing resources that are detremental to society.



War&#39;s profitable isn&#39;t it?

i dont really know why you brought this up, but no not really war is only profitable for select individuals, on society as a whole wars are very taxing. But capitalism isn&#39;t about society is it, you prick? You should be singing the praises of war, especially as we&#39;ve seen you have no fucking morals.



Efficient in doing what?

If you&#39;re going to talk about efficiency then you&#39;ve also have to make known what it is efficient in doing. What are these "units" that it is efficient in using? Don&#39;t have an answer?

effecient at making sure that known recources are used in a way which maximize production but won&#39;t produce more than is necessary. oh and the most effecient in terms of technological progress. :rolleyes: You obviously have either not read or understood any of the technocratic data and posts me and red team present you with. Either that or you&#39;re willfully ignoring them so you can continue your exploitation fetish.



First you are assuming that I am in that situation.

i wasn&#39;t talking to you specifically Oh **** off you knob.



Why should I get a job so as to have my rent money taken away by people that have title over a piece of property they&#39;re not using?

because doing so would be better than living with your parents, or you could work more or get a loan and buy your own properyt if that suits you better. OF course what would be even better is if he were to use a flat in an urbanate that he had title of through use alone, rather than some abstaract &#39;money&#39; concept.



They work that hard to have that much power over me? Really? Can you prove to me they&#39;re labour correspond to all the wealth they own in surplus of what they need

well enless they stole it or something, them having it clearly shows that someone somewhere was willing to value their labor at the rate they did so yeah their self worth clearly corresponds with what they have. That assumes value is subjective. That&#39;s clear bollocks.



Sorry, I don&#39;t want to encourage landlordism by giving away my money over to people who have a surplus of what they need and many times over what they&#39;ve worked for.

your loss i suppose, although i don&#39;t really know how people can have many more times what they&#39;ve worked for without stealing. Easy, they can be paid in excess of the value of their labour (Entrepeneurs (the ****s that they are)) for example can do near enough fuck all of use whilst hundreds of scientists, techniciancs and factory workers produce things of use and still earn more than all any of them.

[colonelguppy]

You&#39;re a stupid sick fuck. The entire system is based on the leeching classes taking the fruits of somone elses labour and selling them on for a profit, whilst giving a tiny percentage of that back to the worker.

although i could barely understand this through the hyberbolic haze, you say that as though pure labor has any real value.


Also &#39;work if you want to eat&#39; is definatley a threat so you&#39;re system is fucking threatening too.

no its not. threat implies an outside force, starving is an internal force from nature not an external threat from a third party. if you percieve this as threatening thats you, all i have to say is that i don&#39;t care.


The problems with money, and therfore any system that revolves around its accumulation (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/money-money-money.htm)

all i could really get out of that was that author thinks that money is bad because its an arbitrary manifestation of value, but at the same time fails to realize that value is arbitrary itself. currency is just a tool in determing subjective value. he then starts talking about the various ways that central banks have screwed over their countries economies, but i never made an attempt to defend central banks; infact, i oppose them. now, how exactly does currency make market eocnomies inneffecient? i don&#39;t think that site adequetely explain anything.


Fuck off and die you thick twat.

nah i&#39;d much rather continue living and working and, you know, not waste my life as a fucking leech.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:10 PM

You&#39;re a stupid sick fuck. The entire system is based on the leeching classes taking the fruits of somone elses labour and selling them on for a profit, whilst giving a tiny percentage of that back to the worker.

although i could barely understand this through the hyberbolic haze, you say that as though pure labor has any real value.
So how do you propse anything is done in capitalism without labour?




Also &#39;work if you want to eat&#39; is definatley a threat so you&#39;re system is fucking threatening too.

no its not. threat implies an outside force, starving is an internal force from nature not an external threat from a third party. if you percieve this as threatening thats you, all i have to say is that i don&#39;t care. The third party is the entire system that chooses to allow this to happen on the grounds you haven&#39;t &#39;earned&#39; it to some arbitary degree even though it can prevent this. As much evil in inaction and all that mate.



The problems with money, and therfore any system that revolves around its accumulation (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/money-money-money.htm)

all i could really get out of that was that author thinks that money is bad because its an arbitrary manifestation of value, but at the same time fails to realize that value is arbitrary itself. currency is just a tool in determing subjective value. he then starts talking about the various ways that central banks have screwed over their countries economies, but i never made an attempt to defend central banks; infact, i oppose them. now, how exactly does currency make market eocnomies inneffecient? i don&#39;t think that site adequetely explain anything. This should be easier for you, you little mouth breather it has pictures and everything&#33; (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/purchase/page1.html).



Fuck off and die you thick twat.

nah i&#39;d much rather continue living and working and, you know, not waste my life as a fucking leech. Oh that&#39;s fuckign rich&#33; The worker who can&#39;t find a job is the leech&#33; Now I&#39;ve heard it all from sick shits like you. I guess entrepeneurs, CEOs and vapid celebrities are the real productive members of society? You need to read a fucking book or something mate.

[colonelguppy]

&#39;The market&#39; is fucking stupid and inefficiant in this respect, it often puts a very high energy input into very low energy outputs (like the tobacco industry.). Agriculture tends to be less profitable than stupid things like luxuries, showing it is very energy inefficiant.

"low energy outputs"? wtf? "energy" is irrelevant in terms of value, value is subjectively derived by individuals (although utility is a strong factor in determining value)


The slave is threatened with a whip, the worker is threatened with starvation and homelessness. The punishment is different but the threat is essentially the same.

except one is a a threat and the other is reality. if you odn&#39;t wokr and there is a slave master, you will be whipped, if there isn&#39;t one you won&#39;t. if there is an employer and you don&#39;t work you will starve, if there isn&#39;t an employer and you don&#39;t work you will still starve. quite the difference, for slaves the force is external for workers the force is internal.


You cannot eat wealth, you cannot take shelter in wealth, you cannt keep warm with wealth - it has no real utility and is pretty much a &#39;middle man&#39; product.

yeah you can wealth isn&#39;t exclusively currency.


Ah, so this one has no morals does it? Well, it can fuck off. The weapons dealers are scum because they contribute no worthwhile resources whilst distributing resources that are detremental to society.

yes but weapons (despite often misaplication) can provide utility. oh and by the way, referring to me as "it" is making you look real fucking stupid.


But capitalism isn&#39;t about society is it, you prick? You should be singing the praises of war, especially as we&#39;ve seen you have no fucking morals.

war is an action of government not a market condiditon you moron, i don&#39;t favor using the government to benefit any faciton of society.


:rolleyes: You obviously have either not read or understood any of the technocratic data and posts me and red team present you with. Either that or you&#39;re willfully ignoring them so you can continue your exploitation fetish.

ok no answer, gotcha.


Oh **** off you knob.

first of all, what the hell i literally wasn&#39;t talking to him. second of all, "**** off"? ****s a noun not a verb.


OF course what would be even better is if he were to use a flat in an urbanate that he had title of through use alone, rather than some abstaract &#39;money&#39; concept.

so if you use an object you&#39;re entitled to it? yeah that would be pretty awesome, to bad it infeasible and uneconomical and no society based on this notion would never last.


That assumes value is subjective. That&#39;s clear bollocks.

of course value is subjective, what did god send down some other list along with the ten commandments to moses determining "objective value"? no, because god doesn&#39;t exist and if you believe in objective value you might as well believe in god because you seem to be the faithful type.

my computer sitting infornt of me only has value because i place value upon it subjectively, its worthless by itself.


Easy, they can be paid in excess of the value of their labour (Entrepeneurs (the ****s that they are)) for example can do near enough fuck all of use whilst hundreds of scientists, techniciancs and factory workers produce things of use and still earn more than all any of them.

i really can&#39;t wait to see this list of objectively derived values you have for everyones position in society.


So how do you propse anything is done in capitalism without labour?

i don&#39;t, capital must be applied with labour to produce, by themselves both are valueless.


The third party is the entire system that chooses to allow this to happen on the grounds you haven&#39;t &#39;earned&#39; it to some arbitary degree even though it can prevent this. As much evil in inaction and all that mate.

i didn&#39;t know that capitalism was the main cause behind the biological functions of our bodies, but there&#39;s a system which allows us all to consume without working&#33; hot damn i wanna see.


it has pictures and everything&#33; (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/purchase/page1.html).


fuck that i&#39;m not going through a crayon colored chart. i want you to summarize the point being made and apply it to your initial comment. something tells me you can&#39;t..


Oh that&#39;s fuckign rich&#33; The worker who can&#39;t find a job is the leech&#33; Now I&#39;ve heard it all from sick shits like you. I guess entrepeneurs, CEOs and vapid celebrities are the real productive members of society? You need to read a fucking book or something mate.

wait i thought you didn&#39;t work because you opposed the system? but yeah you&#39;re living off your parents so you pretty much are a leech.

oh and yeah enterpeneurs and CEO&#39;s are pretty much the most productive members of society.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:34 PM

&#39;The market&#39; is fucking stupid and inefficiant in this respect, it often puts a very high energy input into very low energy outputs (like the tobacco industry.). Agriculture tends to be less profitable than stupid things like luxuries, showing it is very energy inefficiant.

"low energy outputs"? wtf? "energy" is irrelevant in terms of value, value is subjectively derived by individuals (although utility is a strong factor in determining value)
Why measure value at all, energy is the only real way of telling efficiancy.




The slave is threatened with a whip, the worker is threatened with starvation and homelessness. The punishment is different but the threat is essentially the same.

except one is a a threat and the other is reality. if you odn&#39;t wokr and there is a slave master, you will be whipped, if there isn&#39;t one you won&#39;t. if there is an employer and you don&#39;t work you will starve, if there isn&#39;t an employer and you don&#39;t work you will still starve. quite the difference, for slaves the force is external for workers the force is internal. Working and labouring are different, you stupid knob.



You cannot eat wealth, you cannot take shelter in wealth, you cannt keep warm with wealth - it has no real utility and is pretty much a &#39;middle man&#39; product.

yeah you can wealth isn&#39;t exclusively currency. It is an abstract concept of no true utility.



Ah, so this one has no morals does it? Well, it can fuck off. The weapons dealers are scum because they contribute no worthwhile resources whilst distributing resources that are detremental to society.

yes but weapons (despite often misaplication) can provide utility. oh and by the way, referring to me as "it" is making you look real fucking stupid. Name one useful application of a weapon that cannot be achieved using a different item. Also, I refered to you as &#39;it&#39; because I was so fucking disgusted with your lack of compassion for members of my species. Your ideology is making you look really fucking stupid, so it matters not what I do or say in this argument.



But capitalism isn&#39;t about society is it, you prick? You should be singing the praises of war, especially as we&#39;ve seen you have no fucking morals.

war is an action of government not a market condiditon you moron, i don&#39;t favor using the government to benefit any faciton of society. What if a corporation could create a war, or people simply jumped on the profitablity of a war defending capitalism (I assume you support those kinds of wars, after all its the only way your decaying system really stays up globally.).



:rolleyes: You obviously have either not read or understood any of the technocratic data and posts me and red team present you with. Either that or you&#39;re willfully ignoring them so you can continue your exploitation fetish.

ok no answer, gotcha. I suppose you&#39;re right if by &#39;answer&#39; you mean &#39;interest in typing the same damn thing/link repeatedly until it finally penerate&#39;s colonelguppy&#39;s thick fucking skull&#39; then you would be absolutley correct.



Oh **** off you knob.

first of all, what the hell i literally wasn&#39;t talking to him. second of all, "**** off"? ****s a noun not a verb. Swearing is an area of language that is often open to nonstandard grammar conventions, as exemplified by the changing applications of the verb &#39;fuck&#39; and the noun &#39;knob&#39; (more slang than swearing, but slang is definatley riddled with nonstandard grammatical conventions.). I also said it because it just needed to be said to you, you fuckstick.



OF course what would be even better is if he were to use a flat in an urbanate that he had title of through use alone, rather than some abstaract &#39;money&#39; concept.

so if you use an object you&#39;re entitled to it? yeah that would be pretty awesome, to bad it infeasible and uneconomical and no society based on this notion would never last. It is not the lone reason, but it is the reason we would keep our entitlement.



That assumes value is subjective. That&#39;s clear bollocks.

of course value is subjective, what did god send down some other list along with the ten commandments to moses determining "objective value"? no, because god doesn&#39;t exist and if you believe in objective value you might as well believe in god because you seem to be the faithful type.

my computer sitting infornt of me only has value because i place value upon it subjectively, its worthless by itself. Value is derived purely from the energy used in the creation of an object, any other description of value is subjectivist pap.



Easy, they can be paid in excess of the value of their labour (Entrepeneurs (the ****s that they are)) for example can do near enough fuck all of use whilst hundreds of scientists, techniciancs and factory workers produce things of use and still earn more than all any of them.

i really can&#39;t wait to see this list of objectively derived values you have for everyones position in society. There is no need, it is self evidence in the average daily energy expenditure of an entrepeneur as compared to a doctor or factory worker.

[colonelguppy]

Why measure value at all, energy is the only real way of telling efficiancy.

because the amount of energy that goes into something has no bearing on how much utility it has or if people are even willing to utilize it.


Working and labouring are different, you stupid knob.

no they aren&#39;t


It is an abstract concept of no true utility.

yeah it does, if you have a house you can use it as shelter if you have land you can use it to make a ranch or if you have currency wealth you can easily acquire concrete wealth.


Name one useful application of a weapon that cannot be achieved using a different item.

someone approaches and tries to beat you up and take your wallet and you shoot him to defend yourself.


What if a corporation could create a war, or people simply jumped on the profitablity of a war defending capitalism (I assume you support those kinds of wars, after all its the only way your decaying system really stays up globally.).

corporate war? have you been wathcing captain planet? capitalism requires the monopolization of coercive force on the part of the government, vigilantism is not permitted.

capitalism doesn&#39;t need to be defended, the global market won the battle of ideas countries are economically liberalizing everywhere. command eocnomies have been discredited.


I suppose you&#39;re right if by &#39;answer&#39; you mean &#39;interest in typing the same damn thing/link repeatedly until it finally penerate&#39;s colonelguppy&#39;s thick fucking skull&#39; then you would be absolutley correct.

wait where in this thread has that occured?


It is not the lone reason, but it is the reason we would keep our entitlement.

so you get stuff not based on the fact that you&#39;re valuable to society but on the fact that you simply consume it? how exactly can an eocnomy run off this idea?


Value is derived purely from the energy used in the creation of an object, any other description of value is subjectivist pap.

energy going into an object that has no value on the quality, utility, or appeal of an object. if i work for years and expend an enourmous amount of energy to build a car, no ones going to want it on that basis alone.


There is no need, it is self evidence in the average daily energy expenditure of an entrepeneur as compared to a doctor or factory worker.

goddammit net energy has nothing to do with labors value. energy can be missaplied and at very degrees of effeciency, therefore value must be subjectively determined from the result of the labor.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:29 PM

Why measure value at all, energy is the only real way of telling efficiancy.

because the amount of energy that goes into something has no bearing on how much utility it has or if people are even willing to utilize it.
How useful something is can be easily surmised by its energy output, repeated use increases this output. Therefore energy is the best objective measure of efficency.





Working and labouring are different, you stupid knob.

no they aren&#39;t Yes they are&#33; Working is labouring for a wage (a miniscule percentadge of the fruits of the workers&#39; labour.).
Labouring is just doing something.


It is an abstract concept of no true utility.

yeah it does, if you have a house you can use it as shelter if you have land you can use it to make a ranch or if you have currency wealth you can easily acquire concrete wealth. But you can have shelter without the concept of wealth, a workers collective could build a ranch without once thinking in terms of wealth and currency is just a stupid middleman concept.



Name one useful application of a weapon that cannot be achieved using a different item.

someone approaches and tries to beat you up and take your wallet and you shoot him to defend yourself. Changing a mugging to a murder, how useful and productive :rolleyes: Also, you can defend yourself using your hands and feet alone.



What if a corporation could create a war, or people simply jumped on the profitablity of a war defending capitalism (I assume you support those kinds of wars, after all its the only way your decaying system really stays up globally.).

corporate war? have you been wathcing captain planet? capitalism requires the monopolization of coercive force on the part of the government, vigilantism is not permitted. Anyone with enough money can do whatever they want mate, bribe the right officials and so on...


capitalism doesn&#39;t need to be defended, the global market won the battle of ideas countries are economically liberalizing everywhere. command eocnomies have been discredited. The war of ideas. I wonder if the Grenadans, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese, Algerians, Chileans and so on were won over by ideas or the fact YOUR MURDEROUS FUCKING SYSTEM steamrollered over them with reckless abandon. FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING WASTE OF SPERM AND ENERGY. I CANNOT BE FUCKING ARSED WITH THIS ARGUMENT. Hopefully Red Team has more patience for your flavour of mouth breathing idiocy, but for me it just raises my blood pressure dangerously. You make me genuinley sick, actually physically nauteaus. Fuck off. I hope you can&#39;t fucking breed.

[colonelguppy]

How useful something is can be easily surmised by its energy output, repeated use increases this output. Therefore energy is the best objective measure of efficency.

except the amount of energy a product outputs has no bearing on if an object is actually useful, or even if people want to utilize it.


Yes they are&#33; Working is labouring for a wage (a miniscule percentadge of the fruits of the workers&#39; labour.).
Labouring is just doing something.

labor: productive work (especially physical work done for wages); "his labor did not require a great deal of skill"

exert oneself by doing mental or physical work for a purpose or out of necessity; "I will work hard to improve my grades"; "she worked hard for better living conditions for the poor"

princeton world net dictionary

its really just semantics at this point.


But you can have shelter without the concept of wealth, a workers collective could build a ranch without once thinking in terms of wealth and currency is just a stupid middleman concept.

no wealth isn&#39;t exclusively in currency form its possesion of any market commodity which holds value. i don&#39;t really know what this has to do with the initial claim.


Changing a mugging to a murder, how useful and productive :rolleyes: Also, you can defend yourself using your hands and feet alone.

its not murder if its self defense. besides, you can&#39;t always just "use your hands and feet". most muggers are good at what they do, and what if they have a weapon?


Anyone with enough money can do whatever they want mate, bribe the right officials and so on...

haha yeah i&#39;m going to get away with a fullscale war by bribing a few senators. do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?


The war of ideas. I wonder if the Grenadans, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese, Algerians, Chileans and so on were won over by ideas or the fact YOUR MURDEROUS FUCKING SYSTEM steamrollered over them with reckless abandon. FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING WASTE OF SPERM AND ENERGY. I CANNOT BE FUCKING ARSED WITH THIS ARGUMENT. Hopefully Red Team has more patience for your flavour of mouth breathing idiocy, but for me it just raises my blood pressure dangerously. You make me genuinley sick, actually physically nauteaus. Fuck off. I hope you can&#39;t fucking breed.

i love pissing commies off to the point i can&#39;t even discern their point through the emotional ejaculation thats on my screen.

i guess thats a concession then.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:11 PM


The war of ideas. I wonder if the Grenadans, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese, Algerians, Chileans and so on were won over by ideas or the fact YOUR MURDEROUS FUCKING SYSTEM steamrollered over them with reckless abandon. FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING WASTE OF SPERM AND ENERGY. I CANNOT BE FUCKING ARSED WITH THIS ARGUMENT. Hopefully Red Team has more patience for your flavour of mouth breathing idiocy, but for me it just raises my blood pressure dangerously. You make me genuinley sick, actually physically nauteaus. Fuck off. I hope you can&#39;t fucking breed.

i love pissing commies off to the point i can&#39;t even discern their point through the emotional ejaculation thats on my screen.

i guess thats a concession then.
Just replying to tell you that &#39;pissing somone off&#39; is not a logical or intellectually sound method of debate.

I concede nothing

you&#39;re still a knobber.

[colonelguppy]

then maybe you&#39;d respond to the rest of my post...

[chimx]

Originally posted by Hool+Sep 30 2006, 07:50 PM--> (Hool @ Sep 30 2006, 07:50 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 08:05 PM
it is your use of contractor work the most commies would have a problem with. when you say you are going to hire roofers to roof your house, you aren&#39;t going to hire a democratically operated roofing collective. you are going to pay a person who owns roofing equipment, ie. fork lifts, compressors, guns, welders, roof slitters, etc. etc. he in turn hires roofers to work for him. He gives you an estimate on your house and he agrees to have his laborers put it on for X amount. He transforms labor power into capital by paying his workers less than what he thinks the job is worth. that is the basic concept of exploitation that marx talks about in das kapital.
I&#39;m out of my league arguing with a lot of the other stuff here, but i roof in the summer and the head roofer that handles the customer gets paid more because he does more work. When everyone else goes home he figures everyones wages, how long they worked, materials, what tools are needed the next day, generally makes sure that all that the roofers have to do is get up on the roof and do their thing. The roofers that the head hires in my situation at least, have always been friends, and i&#39;ve never heard it done another way either. The head doesn&#39;t make significantly more, he shares in the work load as much as anybody else and is paid a little bit for more the little bit more of work that he has to do.

I don&#39;t see anything wrong with that... [/b]
hello fellow roofer. it sounds like your operation is relatively small and more geared toward residential (ie. shingle) work. larger companys have a regular boss who inevitably has roofing experience, but his role lays more with the fact that he owns property and deals with other contractors. He in turn divides power out to different foreman (the group which i am occasionally a part of), who then direct the rest of the roofers.

and in my experience roofing, it is usually the new guys that do all the hard work&#33; if i could sit in an office all day and figure out material costs instead of busting my ass tearing off a building, that would be way nicer. but as it is, new guys get paid &#036;9/hr to do the hardest most demanding work, and the most experienced guys get paid &#036;16-20/hr to do the easiest, though most skillful work (ie. everything from sitting in the office to operating machinery such as walk-welders).

[RNK]

haha yeah i&#39;m going to get away with a fullscale war by bribing a few senators. do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

Gulf War 1, mate.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:31 AM

haha yeah i&#39;m going to get away with a fullscale war by bribing a few senators. do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

Gulf War 1, mate.
yeah gotta say that war was definately a joint government operation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 29 2006, 08:14 PM
&#036;34,000/year or &#036;16/hour isn&#39;t capital. And stocks are only capital if you use the profits to reinvest. Most middle-class Americans don&#39;t. They generally use it to retire or live.
Your assumption is false.

If you earn &#036;34,000 a year and purchase &#036;5,000 a year of stock, then you have &#036;5,000 a year of capital.

If you earn &#036;34,000 a year and save up for 10 years and put your savings down as a down payment on a business loan or a mortgage to flip a home, then your savings is capital.

Capital is not fixed. Why you think it is, is very curious.