free trade

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

this is something that has always boggled my mind:

we in the united states love the concept of free trade: it's what our "mighty" economy is built upon. it's what makes the bourgeois wealthy (and as well, the rest of us either poor or damn near it)...

so then why is it they try to stop music trading on the internet? is this not a form of free trade? if i send a song to someone somewhere, have i not engaged in free trade?

but anyway... i wonder what's the hard-line communist philosophy on free trade. suppose the reds took control of the world and set it up exactly conforming to pure communist doctrine... would we still be able to sell, trade, and buy the goods that we want and need? would i still be able to go to the supermarket and spend my hard earned cash on pepsi, rather than the generic brand, sovicola? or would hard-line communists realise that free trade has become somewhat a necessity for improvement and allow competition (to a fair extent) between workers' run labour corporations? or would they only try to reform the existing system so that it is run by the workers, rather than greedy individuals so that profits go directly to the workers so thos workers can still buy the things they want and need?

i know, i'm sort of all over the place (forgive me, my nose knows best)

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 13 2006, 11:05 AM
this is something that has always boggled my mind:

we in the united states love the concept of free trade: it's what our "mighty" economy is built upon. it's what makes the bourgeois wealthy (and as well, the rest of us either poor or damn near it)...

so then why is it they try to stop music trading on the internet? is this not a form of free trade? if i send a song to someone somewhere, have i not engaged in free trade?

but anyway... i wonder what's the hard-line communist philosophy on free trade. suppose the reds took control of the world and set it up exactly conforming to pure communist doctrine... would we still be able to sell, trade, and buy the goods that we want and need? would i still be able to go to the supermarket and spend my hard earned cash on pepsi, rather than the generic brand, sovicola? or would hard-line communists realise that free trade has become somewhat a necessity for improvement and allow competition (to a fair extent) between workers' run labour corporations? or would they only try to reform the existing system so that it is run by the workers, rather than greedy individuals so that profits go directly to the workers so thos workers can still buy the things they want and need?

i know, i'm sort of all over the place (forgive me, my nose knows best)
Free trade is different to pirating music. You see free trade is when say donald trump ships out his key export and is able to get imports. All this costs money ofcourse. Now many producers are crying because you can get the music free and there are less album sales. Unless the band is independant most of the money from album sales goes to the producers i.e warner bros music etc.

[which doctor]

Free Trade in the capitalist sense is much different than free trade in the communal sense. The Free Trade that gets investors rich is designed to favor the wealthy first-worlders over the third-world countries. The free trade as in swapping music is the communal type of free trade. That's the kind we are for. Where everything is in the commons and goods freely switch hands.

[KC]

Free trade is trade without things such as tariffs, not trade of free things.

[Janus]

There's a big difference between free trade and fair trade.


so then why is it they try to stop music trading on the internet? is this not a form of free trade? if i send a song to someone somewhere, have i not engaged in free trade?
Trade implies exchange. Free file sharing is more or less a violation of the allmighty intellectual property which is also important to capital accumulation rather than any true form of commerce.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:06 AM
Free trade is different to pirating music. You see free trade is when say donald trump ships out his key export and is able to get imports. All this costs money ofcourse. Now many producers are crying because you can get the music free and there are less album sales. Unless the band is independant most of the money from album sales goes to the producers i.e warner bros music etc.
but isn't the exchange of goods (in this case, digital media) between two people consiodered trade? we file-sharing people put the FREE in free trade, is all.

and, i have to point out that, most of the music i listen to, you don't hear it on the radio and youy can't find their cds in the stores.

my only options are to either download them myself or order the cds online, but i can't because i have no credit card because i am opposed to the use of credit (if it ain't good ol' amerikan cash currency, i don't use it)

tangent: let us not forget that CREDIT CAUSED THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

and as far as the producers and the record companies and the stores and whatnot... fuck em.

they didn't earn me hard spent cash.

if i was taking thousands and thousands of dollars from my favourite bands, i'd be upset. but i ain't, and if anything, i'm aiding in their spread and fame... most people don't know about death metal until they get access to the internet (i'm among them)... now that i do have access to it, i like it, and i spend my money on the shows whenever they come around.

but i stand firm: fuck anti-p2p

[theraven]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 13 2006, 01:05 AM
this is something that has always boggled my mind:

we in the united states love the concept of free trade: it's what our "mighty" economy is built upon. it's what makes the bourgeois wealthy (and as well, the rest of us either poor or damn near it)...

so then why is it they try to stop music trading on the internet? is this not a form of free trade? if i send a song to someone somewhere, have i not engaged in free trade?

but anyway... i wonder what's the hard-line communist philosophy on free trade. suppose the reds took control of the world and set it up exactly conforming to pure communist doctrine... would we still be able to sell, trade, and buy the goods that we want and need? would i still be able to go to the supermarket and spend my hard earned cash on pepsi, rather than the generic brand, sovicola? or would hard-line communists realise that free trade has become somewhat a necessity for improvement and allow competition (to a fair extent) between workers' run labour corporations? or would they only try to reform the existing system so that it is run by the workers, rather than greedy individuals so that profits go directly to the workers so thos workers can still buy the things they want and need?

i know, i'm sort of all over the place (forgive me, my nose knows best)
the problem with onilne music is its a form of theft.

1) your not recieving any money for the music

2) you dont have the right to sell/send that music

thats the theory behidn that

oh and communism doesnt believe in trade, or it does but it believd in a barter system. depends on who you ask and what day of the week it is.

oh and ps the "commuanl trade thing"only worsk with things that are unlmied like informaiton, not limied things...

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

the problem with onilne music is its a form of theft.

... maybe i wouldn't have to "steal" it if they'd make it easy to obtain. i buy cds of bands that i like WHEN i find them... but that ain't too often.

besides... i don't consider downloading digital media a form of theft - how could i steal something that is free?


1) your not recieving any money for the music

2) you dont have the right to sell/send that music

1) i wouldn't take money for the music i share - it's free, and it's helping to spread the music i like... maybe, if we get enough people listening to it, it'll one day be available for sale in most record stores.

2) who says i don't? the government? maybe if i took them seriously, i'd give a fuck.

let us not forget, they say alot of things that ain't true, like, for example, they like to say that the united states is a democracy, when in fact it's a form of modern-day oligarchy; they also like to say we have freedom of speech, when that simply isn't true (just ask the feller from jackson, michigan who was arrested for swearing in front of a woman when his canoe collapsed in a river); they also say that homosexuals don't have the right to marry one another; they say that iraq has weapons of mass destruction; they say that the communists would enslave the world and take away all our "freedoms" if they had the chance; they say that bush was elected president (despite the fact that more people voted for al gore in the first election); they say alot of things and it's all bullshit... i could go on for hours.


oh and communism doesnt believe in trade, or it does but it believd in a barter system. depends on who you ask and what day of the week it is.

i personally think that modern communism would support the concept of free trade, as long as the companies doing the trading are run by their workers rather than stuffed suits and other do-nothing-sit-in-an-office-neonobility class bastards. take the workers and put them in charge of their companies in a democratic way (let the workers of a company vote to place people from their own ranks in charge), and allow the workers to vote and replace their managers/bosses/CEOs/etc. every now and then, and then that has just complied with communism. let the profits go back to the people who make those profits possible in the first place, and it's a commiecompany


oh and ps the "commuanl trade thing"only worsk with things that are unlmied like informaiton, not limied things...

what does unlmied and limied mean?

[colonelguppy]

well it promotes competition which is why the labor folks dislike it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 06:24 AM
the problem with onilne music is its a form of theft.
No it isn't you ignorant cretin. Theft requires that you deprive somone of their property, when you download music no one has lost anything - the record companay still has exactly the same number of copies of that song it started with - it has not be deprived of anything.

---

I do not personally think that music "piracy" is a form of Free Trade, because Free Trade is a loathsome idea that promotes gross ineffeciancy.

[colonelguppy]

no it doesn't, it promotes exchange of ideas and capital, and prevents economic stagnation.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:13 PM
no it doesn't, it promotes exchange of ideas and capital, and prevents economic stagnation.
Would you call the privitisation of public services an aspect of free trade? If so, you have no leg to stand on.

That, and the number of time s I have explained to cappie trolls, like your good self, that the price system itself is ineffeciant is truly boring.

[colonelguppy]

yes.

you didn't convince anyone in that debate.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:27 PM
yes.

You are aware what ashambles most public serivces become when they are privitised, I assume.


you didn't convince anyone in that debate. No one ever fucking reads any essays on technocracy or fundamental critiscisms of the price system - so naturally they would continue in their unthinking support for an ineffeciant system.

I'm starting to agree withred_team, if the motherfucker can't change because they're cattle then fuck 'em.

[colonelguppy]

no not really.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 16 2006, 12:53 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 16 2006, 12:53 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 06:24 AM
the problem with onilne music is its a form of theft.
No it isn't you ignorant cretin. Theft requires that you deprive somone of their property, when you download music no one has lost anything - the record companay still has exactly the same number of copies of that song it started with - it has not be deprived of anything.

---

I do not personally think that music "piracy" is a form of Free Trade, because Free Trade is a loathsome idea that promotes gross ineffeciancy. [/b]
free trade is the driving force of economy (that and coveting thy neighbour)... capitalism is the most eficient economic system in the world... it's highly eficient (he who makes the products the cheapest and fastest and sells them at the best prices gets the most sales... competition drives efficiency)... even karl marx understood that (das Kapital)... it's bad because it results in greed and unfair treatment of the people who both make the products (the workers) and the people who buy the products (the consumers) - one person benefits from the combined effort of thousands - that's why capitalism is bad, not because it's inefficient.

but as far as the "music piracy" thing goes - you're right. i have deprived them of no property. and as far as media goes... all information should be free to access by anyone.

and like i always say: you can't steal something that's being given to you for free


No one ever fucking reads any essays on technocracy or fundamental critiscisms of the price system - so naturally they would continue in their unthinking support for an ineffeciant system.

explain to me how capitalism is inefficient, please.

[izquierda80]

"Free trade" in the capitalist sense is a great hypocrisy, a big farse.

Many "developing" countries have been historically forced, with the complicity of their governments it must be said, to open their borders and markets to massively imported cheap, subsidized goods from the U.S. or elsewhere, trashing and impoverishing hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants, demolishing national industries and traditional agriculture, multiplying unemployment and underemployment for the masses.

All of this in exchange for simply granting thin layers of market access to products controlled by local monopolistic oligarchs, who continue to perfect the exploitation of the working class and the maximizing of profits, while savagely reducing labor rights and benefits for the common worker, in order to compete with the products originating from other countries, "developed" and "developing".

That's the current state of so-called "free trade", and it makes me want to puke.

Truly "free" trade should be fully free, including the total freedom of movement for peoples and goods on a global scale.

While many capitalists claim to seek that ideal, in practice it will never be a reality under a capitalist economic system, and would only make sense under much more progressive and/or revolutionary economic systems.

As for music, mass media celebrities and the record labels continue to gain millions and millions of dollars through the direct and indirect exploitation of many workers and proletarians, including many lower-ranking artists, performers and technicians. They shouldn't be complaining about "theft" when it is they that are actually stealing other people's work.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

When the consumers have control over the providers, they'll simply vote in price controls and end up with no suppliers as the result.

Remember the Enron scandal?

Let's put the blame where it is in regards to that scandal...the government!

The huge mistakes that the former governor of CA (Gray Davis) made in dealing with the situation. The energy companies simply took advantage of the gaffs that he made.

Using CA deregulation as the example of why not to deregulate ignores that it's more an example of HOW NOT TO deregulate.

From the FERC commission investigation:

"...supply-demand imbalance, flawed market design and inconsistent rules made possible significant market manipulation as delineated in final investigation report. Without underlying market dysfunction, attempts to manipulate the market would not be successful."

Unless BOTH sides have the access to free trade, there will never be balance and therefore more expensive or inaccessible product.

This why the free-market and a government that promotes (not stifle) competition is the way to go.

(I get the feeling that nobody here has seen or had to deal with the regulation jungle that's required to simply run a small business or even large business in this country.)

Government control/regulation/ownership: Bad!

Free-Market: Good!

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

regulation is required, even in capitalism. were it not for the government regulations... we'd be paying 50$ for a gallon of milk - all the milk companies would simultaneously raise their prices because they would know they could. why do you think all the gas companies raise their prices around the same time? they know they can.

in communism... the profits these companies make would go back to the workers of that comapny, and being how the worker is the largest consumer, prices would naturally stay low.

the soviets used price controls (which is bad because it causes stagnation). the soviets weren't communist though, they just claimed to be - they were actually a totalitarian single-party bureaucracy with a government run economy.

in a true communist run place, prices would not need to be controlled, except maybe for absolute necessities of life (food, in particular).

i don't know what the concept is called, but it's part of the way prices are kept relatively low in some parts of europe: the cooperatives (government & labour-union controlled companies) sell their products at just slightly over production cost. so say the cooperative requires 1.50$ to produce a gallon of milk, they sell it at 1.60$. this forces other companies to keep their prices low to compete. the milk companies hat continue to sell their gallons for 3.00$ each go out of business because everyone buys whatever product is the best priced, i.e. the cooperative company's milk.

[colonelguppy]

regulation is required, even in capitalism. were it not for the government regulations... we'd be paying 50$ for a gallon of milk - all the milk companies would simultaneously raise their prices because they would know they could.

no because if one even so slightly under sells the rest they basically take the market and make much more money. besides, any business man understands a demand curve and realizes they will make more money if they sell a shitload of milk at 3 dollars a gallon instead of selling it as a luxury item at $50.


why do you think all the gas companies raise their prices around the same time? they know they can.

because variations in supply and demand change the value of crude, thus resulting in fluctuations in price. why do you htink they also lower their prices at the same time?


in communism... the profits these companies make would go back to the workers of that comapny, and being how the worker is the largest consumer, prices would naturally stay low.

there are no "profits" and "prices" in communism. i odn't have to be a communist to know that.


so say the cooperative requires 1.50$ to produce a gallon of milk, they sell it at 1.60$. this forces other companies to keep their prices low to compete. the milk companies hat continue to sell their gallons for 3.00$ each go out of business because everyone buys whatever product is the best priced, i.e. the cooperative company's milk.

thats just an indirect price control and would probably cause shortages and a stunt in growth in the industry.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

regulation is required, even in capitalism. were it not for the government regulations... we'd be paying 50$ for a gallon of milk - all the milk companies would simultaneously raise their prices because they would know they could.

true... but also, you know that if all the milk companies decided to raise their prices to 50$ a gallon at the same time (and believe me, they would if they could)... the government would step in because that's a rediculous price that would only happen in true capitalist countries.

makes me semi-glad i live in amerikka. our government is made up of cretinous knuckle-walkers with real heavy foreheads, but at least they know how to keep us quiet.


because variations in supply and demand change the value of crude, thus resulting in fluctuations in price. why do you htink they also lower their prices at the same time?

you don't actually believe all that bullshit, do you? if you do... then i feel i waste my time arguing my point - it would be like telling the great wall of china it has too many bricks... just get nowhere.


there are no "profits" and "prices" in communism. i odn't have to be a communist to know that.

you thinking of utopianism, not communism. communism is a flexible theory, and has evolved to realise that, if we want to continue innovation, there has to be a reward for it (profits). the profits the company makes (for it's ability to make what the people want and seel it to them for prices they're willing to pay) go straight into the hands of the workers who make those profits possible in the first place.

and everything has a price, no matter what economic system is in control.

TINSTAAFL ... ring a bell?


thats just an indirect price control and would probably cause shortages and a stunt in growth in the industry.

i doubt it. the greedy companies that have to sell their crap at way high prices will either: a) go out of business or b) retail their crap as luxury or high quality (shit, rather than crap).

the government made car is for the everyday person or poor people... the expensive capitalist made car is for the wealthy. they're buying the exact same thing, but the wealthy pay more for the brand name (a chronis watch vs. a rolex)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Thanks for ignoring my previous post in this thread.

Why do you guys do that?

[t_wolves_fan]

true... but also, you know that if all the milk companies decided to raise their prices to 50$ a gallon at the same time (and believe me, they would if they could)... the government would step in because that's a rediculous price that would only happen in true capitalist countries.

Only if a monopoly existed, otherwise a producer could get into the market with a few cows and sell his milk for $2 a gallon, and he'd do quite well.


makes me semi-glad i live in amerikka. our government is made up of cretinous knuckle-walkers with real heavy foreheads, but at least they know how to keep us quiet.

There is no law keeping you here, and considering quite a few poor people have been successful at floating about 90 miles through warm but shark-infested waters, there is literally nothing stopping you from living in socialist paradise in just a week or two. Greyhound could get you to Miami for less than $100 I bet.


you don't actually believe all that bullshit, do you? if you do... then i feel i waste my time arguing my point - it would be like telling the great wall of china it has too many bricks... just get nowhere.

Actually it is quite true, though I'd love to hear why you think it isn't. Let me guess, some guy named Ted who bummed you a smoke at the latest protest rally filled you in on how big oil really works?


you thinking of utopianism, not communism. communism is a flexible theory, and has evolved to realise that, if we want to continue innovation, there has to be a reward for it (profits). the profits the company makes (for it's ability to make what the people want and seel it to them for prices they're willing to pay) go straight into the hands of the workers who make those profits possible in the first place.

And what do they do with those profits, given that your bretheren have stated that societal rewards would be distributed equally?

and everything has a price, no matter what economic system is in control.


the government made car is for the everyday person or poor people... the expensive capitalist made car is for the wealthy. they're buying the exact same thing, but the wealthy pay more for the brand name (a chronis watch vs. a rolex)

Summarize for me how reliable and popular the East German automobile was with the driving public. Then explain why I can go buy a used car right now for a few hundred bucks and why it would make more sense from an ecologically sustainable standpoint for me to have a brand new car so that I have the same car as everyone else so that I don't have my feelings hurt.

Once you've completed that, explain why it's your business whether a rich person wants a brand name watch or not.

[colonelguppy]

true... but also, you know that if all the milk companies decided to raise their prices to 50$ a gallon at the same time (and believe me, they would if they could)... the government would step in because that's a rediculous price that would only happen in true capitalist countries.

well they wouldn't, the only time the government would have to do that is if there is a situation where a commodity has unelastic demand and the barriers to entry in the market are high (and lets be honest, are there any industries like this?)

i'm not to worried about it.


you don't actually believe all that bullshit, do you? if you do... then i feel i waste my time arguing my point - it would be like telling the great wall of china it has too many bricks... just get nowhere.

yeah forget commonly excepted economic theory, its all bullshit.


you thinking of utopianism, not communism. communism is a flexible theory, and has evolved to realise that, if we want to continue innovation, there has to be a reward for it (profits). the profits the company makes (for it's ability to make what the people want and seel it to them for prices they're willing to pay) go straight into the hands of the workers who make those profits possible in the first place.

and everything has a price, no matter what economic system is in control.

ok i was just going on whats commonly excepted dogma here. and yes i agree, everything has a subjective value despite what the utopians think.


i doubt it. the greedy companies that have to sell their crap at way high prices will either: a) go out of business or b) retail their crap as luxury or high quality (shit, rather than crap).

the government made car is for the everyday person or poor people... the expensive capitalist made car is for the wealthy. they're buying the exact same thing, but the wealthy pay more for the brand name (a chronis watch vs. a rolex)

you basically just described what i predicted. yes, they would probably go out of business or have to cut back on production, thus resulting in industry shrinkage.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Only if a monopoly existed, otherwise a producer could get into the market with a few cows and sell his milk for $2 a gallon, and he'd do quite well.

you'd think so, but in real pure capitalism, there's a thing called price gouging. it's where the big companies ally to control prices and eliminate small companies - all the big companies, since they've already made their billions selling milk at 50$ a gallon would drop their prices to 1.98 $ per gallon until the new company selling it at 2$ a gallon goes out of business... then prices sky rocket back to 50 $ a gallon because they can do that.

once again... makes me glad i don't live in a capitalist country.


There is no law keeping you here, and considering quite a few poor people have been successful at floating about 90 miles through warm but shark-infested waters, there is literally nothing stopping you from living in socialist paradise in just a week or two. Greyhound could get you to Miami for less than $100 I bet.

socialist paradise?

aside from the fact that there are none.... the closest we have is probably either sweden, finland, or possibly germany or liechtenstein...

and.... you know a greyhound bus that can get me to sweden for 100$?

... i didn't know a 10 ton bus could transverse a major body of water.

besides... i don't speak svenska.


Actually it is quite true, though I'd love to hear why you think it isn't. Let me guess, some guy named Ted who bummed you a smoke at the latest protest rally filled you in on how big oil really works?

so you're saying that the gas companies pay 3$ a gallon like we do? that's why they dropped their prices to 2.20$/gallon at the threat of a government investigation, despite the fact that the price of oil remained about the same?

i guaranfuckingtee it: out of the 2.20$/gallon of gas you pay, probably about 1.00$ goes towards the gallon of gas, and the the other 1.20$/gallon goes in some schmuck's pocket; some worthless do-nothing-but-sit-on-his-fat-white-ass douchebag that hasn't worked a hard day in his life.

exxon was making 80,000$ a minute in pure profit. that's PROFIT - money left over after liabilities and production costs. that totals 42,048,000,000 (i understand, you're a capitalist, not a thinking-man... all those numbers say: fourty-two billion, fourty-eight million) dollars per year... and all of that is going into the hands of a few.. the workers will never see that, only a bunch of fat, overpaid, overfed assholes who didn't do anything to deserve it will.

exxon could have droped the price of gasoline to 1.50$/gallon (they were making 80 thousand/minute when gas was about 3.00$/gallon), and still would have made 21 billion dollars a year - they'd still be fucking loaded, and we, the consumers would have reaped the benefits just as well.


And what do they do with those profits, given that your bretheren have stated that societal rewards would be distributed equally?

READ THIS VERY CLOSELY:

in modern communism, it's EQUAL pay for EQUAL work. remember now: communism is flexible and HAS changed alot over the past 158 years.

traditional communism would have most likely used the barter system (like the native americans, one of the most communal societies to have existed in modern times). modern communism would use the same system we have in place today, but they'd put control of the companies in the hands of the workers or labour unions, and most of the profits from the company's business (profits (that is, income left over after liabilities/production costs/wages/etc.) would tend to be low, i imagine that most products would be sold at slightly over production cost) would find their ways back into the hands of the workers to make their lives more comfortable; the little bits of the profits not going back to the workers would be invested into the company to make it more eficient/productive and to improve their products and develope new ones.


and everything has a price, no matter what economic system is in control.

yeah... that's exactly what i just said. TINSTAAFL. look it up.

think about it...

you have a 2007 Lincoln Navigator. V6 engine, 22 MPG. everything included.

production cost: 15,000$. retail price: 45,000$

or you have a 2007 Amerikkan Motor Corps Washington Explorer. V6 Engline, 22 MPG. everything included.

production cost: 15,000$. retail price: 18,000$

how are you losing out? you have the exact same vehicle, just a different logo on it. you really want to pay 30,000$ for a Lincoln logo when AMC logo is only costing you 3,000$?

and what's more... when you buy the products made by the government run companies, there would be a good possibility that some that profit is going back into the government: if enough profits become available, and if the people choose to let this happen, some of those profits could be used to fund the government AND make taxes lower.


Once you've completed that, explain why it's your business whether a rich person wants a brand name watch or not.

i like it when they own rolexes. my friends mug them, pawn the watch a few cities away with a fake id, and we party like motherfuckers. win-win situation.

goddamn i'm good.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

well they wouldn't, the only time the government would have to do that is if there is a situation where a commodity has unelastic demand and the barriers to entry in the market are high (and lets be honest, are there any industries like this?)

i'm not to worried about it.

computer operating systems.

gasoline.


yeah forget commonly excepted economic theory, its all bullshit.

now you're getting it.

but... what's the exception to economic theory that you mention?


ok i was just going on whats commonly excepted dogma here. and yes i agree, everything has a subjective value despite what the utopians think.

in a utopia, i imagine we'd have set prices for each commodity / service for each individual based on that individual's specific needs. for me, my yearly rent would be, say 1/10 of my total yearly income, but for a family of 5, who has ALOT more expences than me, their yearly rent would be 1/30 of their total anual income.

and... what is the dogma commonly excepted?


you basically just described what i predicted. yes, they would probably go out of business or have to cut back on production, thus resulting in industry shrinkage.

why would they have to go out of business? the car companies would just have to slightly lower prices... you'd still get morons who'd buy it just because of the brand name... or they could introduce a line of cars that they sell at the same prices as the government run comapny would, while only slightly reducing the cost of their other crap.

believe me, cutting profits would never make a company go out of business, lest that company is run by a truly greedy worthless peice of shit...

besides: if that company declared bankeruptcy or went out of business, a good government would do this: lynch the top executives and put that company under the control of the labour union running its factories.

...

anybody else?

[t_wolves_fan]

you'd think so, but in real pure capitalism, there's a thing called price gouging.

No there isn't, because in pure capitalism a supplier seizes the opportunity to offer a product at a lower price, undercutting the gouger.


it's where the big companies ally to control prices and eliminate small companies - all the big companies, since they've already made their billions selling milk at 50$ a gallon would drop their prices to 1.98 $ per gallon until the new company selling it at 2$ a gallon goes out of business... then prices sky rocket back to 50 $ a gallon because they can do that.

That's called collusion, not gouging. And in theory, it would not last because all of the firms have an incentive to cheat on the collusion - by lowering their price they will gain market share. In practice his happens quite frequently, such as when OPEC members began to cheat by offering more oil after the cartel colluded to raise prices. It's the reason gas prices slowly go down once the price of crude oil goes down.

I know that in your head the big oil companies collude to drive up oil prices, but it isn't the case. Oil prices are going up because demand is going up and because the oil that's easiest to extract is running low.


once again... makes me glad i don't live in a capitalist country.

Then what are you complaining about?


and.... you know a greyhound bus that can get me to sweden for 100$?

... i didn't know a 10 ton bus could transverse a major body of water.

Where do you live?


besides... i don't speak svenska

Not our problem.


so you're saying that the gas companies pay 3$ a gallon like we do?

No. After the cost of extraction, transportation, and refinement their profit margin is about 8-9%, which is pretty much standard for most products. We pay $3 a gallon to cover not only those costs and the companies' profit margin, but we also pay anywhere from 35-65 cents in tax per gallon.


that's why they dropped their prices to 2.20$/gallon at the threat of a government investigation, despite the fact that the price of oil remained about the same?

In what dreamland did this happen? Are you just making this up as you go?

Congress and the states began investigating the oil companies early in the summer, before gas prices peaked. Gas prices have started coming down as a result of oil prices dropping (http://www.tfc-charts.w2d.com/chart/CO/B6), precisely the effect of competition that prevents collusion I mentioned above.

Please stop pretending I'm willing to accept your proclamations as fact.


i guaranfuckingtee it: out of the 2.20$/gallon of gas you pay, probably about 1.00$ goes towards the gallon of gas, and the the other 1.20$/gallon goes in some schmuck's pocket; some worthless do-nothing-but-sit-on-his-fat-white-ass douchebag that hasn't worked a hard day in his life.

I hope you don't gamble. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html)


exxon was making 80,000$ a minute in pure profit. that's PROFIT - money left over after liabilities and production costs. that totals 42,048,000,000 (i understand, you're a capitalist, not a thinking-man... all those numbers say: fourty-two billion, fourty-eight million) dollars per year...

Since I'm not a thinking man, I won't go back in history and look at historical oil company profits, which show that they barely made any profit when oil was $10 a barrell.

Nor will I ask where their profits are actually coming from, only to find that because these firms are mostly vertically integrated (i.e. they not only sell gasoline but they look for oil, extract oil, and refine oil into gasoline) their profits are coming from extracting and refining oil along with selling gasoline.

Then, since I'm not thinking, I won't stop and consider that countries like India and China are starting to industrialize very rapidly which means a couple billion people are now using more oil. Markets being what they are, I won't think that perhaps higher demand is contributing to the rising price of oil which leads to higher profits.


No, I wouldn't want to do any of that. What I want to do, to be a real THINKING MAN like you, is to come up with a few slogans on a topic about which I obviously don't know a whole lot.

THAT's thinking.

:lol:


and all of that is going into the hands of a few.. the workers will never see that, only a bunch of fat, overpaid, overfed assholes who didn't do anything to deserve it will.

Right, because the millions upon millions of people who own stock in oil companies see no gain in their personal portfolio when oil companies do well.

Oh and because selling oil is profitable, the oil companies are not terribly interested in hiring more people to sell such a profitable product.


exxon could have droped the price of gasoline to 1.50$/gallon (they were making 80 thousand/minute when gas was about 3.00$/gallon), and still would have made 21 billion dollars a year - they'd still be fucking loaded, and we, the consumers would have reaped the benefits just as well.

Right, because refining, extracting and transportation costs have held constant over time.


READ THIS VERY CLOSELY:

OK ace.


in modern communism, it's EQUAL pay for EQUAL work.

Great, your slogan has answered all my questions.


modern communism would use the same system we have in place today, but they'd put control of the companies in the hands of the workers or labour unions, and most of the profits from the company's business (profits (that is, income left over after liabilities/production costs/wages/etc.) would tend to be low, i imagine that most products would be sold at slightly over production cost) would find their ways back into the hands of the workers to make their lives more comfortable; the little bits of the profits not going back to the workers would be invested into the company to make it more eficient/productive and to improve their products and develope new ones.

Lower prices = higher demand. Will workers work harder to produce more or will there be shortages?


think about it...

you have a 2007 Lincoln Navigator. V6 engine, 22 MPG. everything included.

production cost: 15,000$. retail price: 45,000$

or you have a 2007 Amerikkan Motor Corps Washington Explorer. V6 Engline, 22 MPG. everything included.

production cost: 15,000$. retail price: 18,000$

how are you losing out? you have the exact same vehicle, just a different logo on it. you really want to pay 30,000$ for a Lincoln logo when AMC logo is only costing you 3,000$?

Me no, others maybe. That's their choice, isn't it?

What if the Lincoln Navigator is widely known to be of higher quality? Rationing requires reducing quality, you understand, because not everything can be made of the highest quality in enough quantity or in a short enough time period to satisfy demand.


and what's more... when you buy the products made by the government run companies, there would be a good possibility that some that profit is going back into the government: if enough profits become available, and if the people choose to let this happen, some of those profits could be used to fund the government AND make taxes lower.

So is there only going to be one model of the government-made car? One color? Or will there be lots of choices as there are now?


i like it when they own rolexes. my friends mug them, pawn the watch a few cities away with a fake id, and we party like motherfuckers. win-win situation.

Wow, so you're a petty thief and criminal. Slogans and crime really are evidence of being a THINKING MAN.

:lol:

[colonelguppy]

computer operating systems.

gasoline.

neither of which have inelastic demand, and neither of which have prices fixed by the industry leaders



now you're getting it.

but... what's the exception to economic theory that you mention?

you might look cool here if you actually made a point. you didn't.


in a utopia, i imagine we'd have set prices for each commodity / service for each individual based on that individual's specific needs. for me, my yearly rent would be, say 1/10 of my total yearly income, but for a family of 5, who has ALOT more expences than me, their yearly rent would be 1/30 of their total anual income.

well i have no idea how you're going to objectively define peoples needs, or the value and utility of the gooods being distributed. and are you saying that the more product you want the less it costs?


and... what is the dogma commonly excepted?

eliminating the price system, but you seem to be advocating that too.


why would they have to go out of business? the car companies would just have to slightly lower prices... you'd still get morons who'd buy it just because of the brand name... or they could introduce a line of cars that they sell at the same prices as the government run comapny would, while only slightly reducing the cost of their other crap.

lower prices = less profit = less incentive to invest = less growth = shortages due to supply decreasing while demand remains the same


besides: if that company declared bankeruptcy or went out of business, a good government would do this: lynch the top executives and put that company under the control of the labour union running its factories.

...

anybody else?

lol

[t_wolves_fan]

Where you at Aeturnal, coming up with some new slogans?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

No there isn't, because in pure capitalism a supplier seizes the opportunity to offer a product at a lower price, undercutting the gouger.

the REAL definition of price gouging is this: a large corporation drops its prices temporarily to ruin small businesses that don't have enough funds to do the same.

if you graduate before the age of 30, you might decide to go to college. there's an introductory class called 'economics 101/102'. they teach you all aboot that.



That's called collusion, not gouging. And in theory, it would not last because all of the firms have an incentive to cheat on the collusion - by lowering their price they will gain market share. In practice his happens quite frequently, such as when OPEC members began to cheat by offering more oil after the cartel colluded to raise prices. It's the reason gas prices slowly go down once the price of crude oil goes down.

ah see... capitalism fucking the world in it's purest form.


I know that in your head the big oil companies collude to drive up oil prices, but it isn't the case. Oil prices are going up because demand is going up and because the oil that's easiest to extract is running low.


no, gas prices go up (more rapidly than the price of crude oil) because of greedy bastards in control of the gas importers. they want their 80 000 $ per minute, and will rape us of every penny we have just to get it. gas is a necessity in amerikkan life; they know we'll continue to buy it no matter what the cost.

o yeah... and fuck yuppies! fucking cocksmooch uppity bastards and their big SUVs using fuckloads of a NONRENEWABLE resourse... they're helping to make the prices go up as well, fucking bastards - that's why i go into the suburbs at nights sometimes when i'm tripping on acid and smash out the windows of SUVs that aren't parked in garages. hahahahaha!


Then what are you complaining about?

i'm complaining because our system is still unfair and it wont evolve into the next stage quick enough. next comes socialism, and finally will be communism.


Where do you live?

obviously, amerikka, land of the "free".



No. After the cost of extraction, transportation, and refinement their profit margin is about 8-9%, which is pretty much standard for most products. We pay $3 a gallon to cover not only those costs and the companies' profit margin, but we also pay anywhere from 35-65 cents in tax per gallon.

after all is said and done, gas could easily be 0.30 $/gallon cheaper. but the fucktards refuse to let their profits (the money left after liabilities and production cost) drop below the billions-per-year mark. you know... inflation... man can't make it these days unless he makes at least a billion fucking dollars a year... iof he only made, say 400 million, he'd go hungry.


Congress and the states began investigating the oil companies early in the summer, before gas prices peaked. Gas prices have started coming down as a result of oil prices dropping (http://www.tfc-charts.w2d.com/chart/CO/B6), precisely the effect of competition that prevents collusion I mentioned above.

demand is still the same (probably actually higher). according to capitalist theory, when demand goes up, so do prices (remember the tickle-me-elmo and beanie bears?). so let's review, young pupils...

demand still increasing, supply still dropping... so why aren't the prices still skyrocketing? logic has it, that when everyone wants lima beans, but there's only a few lima bean trees left in the world, and those aren't going to be here forever, you can sell your lima beans in exchange for masses of gold and gems and tiki men.

but wait... demand = up, dupply = up, but prices = down? "how can this be?" the young ones might ask...

"well," i begin, "my young wondering minds... i will explain it to you"

those lima beans are sacred. every caveman and every cavewoman needs them to survive. so when the lima bean pushers started making their prices too high (demanding a cavebaby and a goat for just 2 lima beans), the cavecouncil had to investigate the situation. they caught the lima bean pushers demanding cavepeople's cavechildren, and punished them, so now the lima bean pushers must drop their prices to just a goat for a lima bean. the cavecouncil looks out for us sometimes.


I hope you don't gamble. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html)

take me word for it: you DO NOT want to trust everything you read on the internet. simple caveminds like yours might be led astray


show that they barely made any profit when oil was $10 a barrell.

well no shit? they didn't have an an excuse to raise their prices.


Then, since I'm not thinking, I won't stop and consider that countries like India and China are starting to industrialize very rapidly which means a couple billion people are now using more oil. Markets being what they are, I won't think that perhaps higher demand is contributing to the rising price of oil which leads to higher profits.

imagine how much they're paying there... huge demand... gives the greedy bastards an even better excuse to raise their prices to ridiculous levels.


Right, because the millions upon millions of people who own stock in oil companies see no gain in their personal portfolio when oil companies do well.

they get a little of it. not nearly enough, considering that it was their investments that helped the company build itself from the dirt up...

but nonetheless, the workers get the least share of it.

the executives of the company give themselves fat raises every year, and the owner take the billions and billions thats left for himself.

you know... inflation. hard for a man to feed his family these days unless he's got a 16 digit income. and what kind of pitiful existence would he be leading if his mansion didn't have its own gymnasium, hotel, movie theatre, 6-story parking garage, airport, cathedral, art museum, zip code, bathroom-with-a-burger-king-in-it, etc. ... ?


Right, because refining, extracting and transportation costs have held constant over time.

that 80,000$/minute is PURE PROFIT. Profit = assets minus liabilities. liabilities include production costs.

who the fuck needs 80,000$ per minute? what does he wipe his ass with 100$ bills? and have explosive chronic diarrhea?


Lower prices = higher demand. Will workers work harder to produce more or will there be shortages?

more sales = more income. leave prices lsighty lover production cost, more people start to buy = more money going back to the workers of that company.


What if the Lincoln Navigator is widely known to be of higher quality? Rationing requires reducing quality, you understand, because not everything can be made of the highest quality in enough quantity or in a short enough time period to satisfy demand.

how is that rationing? it's the exact same car. only difference is that the AMV one is being sold for only 3,000 $ more than the production cost (this is still income), whereas the Lincoln is being sold for 30,000 $ more than the production cost. this is income, but unjustly huge ammounts of it.


So is there only going to be one model of the government-made car? One color? Or will there be lots of choices as there are now?

depends on demand, my friend. what the people want, the people MUST get. if they want a neon green AMV Washington Explorer, they got it. if they want a mud-brown AMV version of the dodge stratus, they got it. if there's demand for a low cost exact-copy of an existing model, they'll make it.


Wow, so you're a petty thief and criminal. Slogans and crime really are evidence of being a THINKING MAN.

i'm not a thief... me friends are.

and besides... i though yuppies like you liked to use euphemisms... wouldn't they be an 'illegal property exchanger'?

...

who's the vicar?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

you might look cool here if you actually made a point. you didn't.

didn't have to. you made it for me.


well i have no idea how you're going to objectively define peoples needs, or the value and utility of the gooods being distributed. and are you saying that the more product you want the less it costs?

no.

the things we need to survive would be fixed at a rate that's something along the lines of 5% higher than the cost of producing that item.

if a load of bread (a basic food, a necessity) costs 50 cents to make, it would be sold at 53 cents (actually, 52.5 cents, thus 1.05 for 2 loaves). there is still a profit, and that profit would go back to the people who made that product (the wheat farmer, miller, transporter, etc.)

naturally, all stores are going to charge an additional fee for the service, which would also be fixed at a small ammount, say 5% (i'm liking 5s today) higher than the cost it was for them to buy the item. that means, that loaf of bread that costed 50 cents to make would reach the customer at 55 cents. everyone gets their pay for what they do, and the customer benefits as well.

remember, this is all just theoretical. a real system, when it is in place, would be much more complicated and regulated by people who know it better than i do.


eliminating the price system, but you seem to be advocating that too.

our price system is regulated by greed.

in a communist system, it would be regulated by a need and want, but controlled by a set of rules for fair practice. and profits (profits = assets minus liabilities, which include production costs, wages, etc.) would be low, because there would be no greedy bastard at the top sucking off of the fat. those little profits would find their way back to the workers, probably added onto their regular wages.


lower prices = less profit = less incentive to invest = less growth = shortages due to supply decreasing while demand remains the same

lower prices (as set by the co-operatives/union-run businesses/government-run businesses/etc.) just means that either a) the existing companies would have to lower their prices (believe me, there would still be a profit - notice how the AMV car costs 18,000 while it only costs 15,000 to make - profit still exists, it's just lowered), or b) continue as they were and hope that people will buy their crap to have the brand name.

...

no no... stay right there... i'll get you a towel.

[t_wolves_fan]

the REAL definition of price gouging is this: a large corporation drops its prices temporarily to ruin small businesses that don't have enough funds to do the same.

if you graduate before the age of 30, you might decide to go to college. there's an introductory class called 'economics 101/102'. they teach you all aboot that.

Really. My High School Econ class told me that the practice you describe is not gouging, it's called Price Dumping or Predatory Pricing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_%28pricing_policy%29)

What's funny is that Price Gouging requires higher than normal prices - the exact opposite of your definition.

Dude, throwing shit out hoping something sticks is not an effective debate tactic. It only makes you look stupid. Do you understand that? Do you understand that just because you say something is true, that's not necessarily the case?


no, gas prices go up (more rapidly than the price of crude oil) because of greedy bastards in control of the gas importers. they want their 80 000 $ per minute, and will rape us of every penny we have just to get it. gas is a necessity in amerikkan life; they know we'll continue to buy it no matter what the cost.

Well, because you say so it must be true. Because you say so, oil apparently now only goes into making gasoline and is not used at all to make plastics and other artificial fibers used by every industrialized and industrializing nation on earth. Oh and because you say so, no other countries have many automobiles or use much gasoline at all. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/pdf/sum0405.pdf)

Silly me, relying on reality all these years when I should have been reading your serious and practical treatises on energy use.


o yeah... and fuck yuppies! fucking cocksmooch uppity bastards and their big SUVs using fuckloads of a NONRENEWABLE resourse... they're helping to make the prices go up as well, fucking bastards - that's why i go into the suburbs at nights sometimes when i'm tripping on acid and smash out the windows of SUVs that aren't parked in garages. hahahahaha!

:lol:

Let me get this straight: people are buying SUVs for the express purpose of raising gas prices, which they themselves would have to pay.


i'm complaining because our system is still unfair and it wont evolve into the next stage quick enough. next comes socialism, and finally will be communism.

If it won't move fast enough, why bother worrying about it?

If you live in America and hate it, why not move? Cuba is a mere 90 miles away. Surely even you could afford a rubber raft.


so let's review, young pupils...

OK, let's.


demand still increasing,

Except that it isn't: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/15666196.htm)

"Experts say the main factors pushing prices down are a decline in the cost of crude oil, high levels of inventory at refineries, an absence of major hurricanes or other catastrophes and a drop in demand that typically happens after Labor Day, when the peak summer driving season ends.


supply still dropping...

For reasons that have nothing to do with capitalist greed (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp) in the short term, but in the long term they are actually up over the same point last year.


so why aren't the prices still skyrocketing?

Because demand is down and the price of a barrell of oil has dropped significantly (http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html).

Shouldn't the teacher know these things?



I hope you don't gamble. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html)

take me word for it: you DO NOT want to trust everything you read on the internet. simple caveminds like yours might be led astray

How about you actually refute what is contained in the link instead of simply dismissing it; that might show some evidence that you're actually a THINKING man.



show that they barely made any profit when oil was $10 a barrell.

well no shit? they didn't have an an excuse to raise their prices.

SCRREEEEECH!

Hold on just a second. Up to this point your brilliant analysis has been that oil companies - run by greedy capitalists - "gouge" people by working together to keep prices high. Now you seem to be saying that the cost of the raw material used in the product may play a role in the retail price of that product.

If oil companies were as greedy as you say they are, and had the power to band together to gouge the consumer, why didn't they just start raising prices at the pump to $3 a gallon when oil was $10 a barrell?

Certainly the teacher can provide an in-depth answer.


the executives of the company give themselves fat raises every year, and the owner take the billions and billions thats left for himself.

Except that if a firm has stockholders, the stockholders themselves are the owners.

Shouldn't the teacher know something as basic as that?



Right, because refining, extracting and transportation costs have held constant over time.

that 80,000$/minute is PURE PROFIT. Profit = assets minus liabilities. liabilities include production costs.

who the fuck needs 80,000$ per minute? what does he wipe his ass with 100$ bills? and have explosive chronic diarrhea?

You didn't address the issue.

Since you are an economics expert, perhaps you could explain the business cycle to me. That would be where business goes from good to bad to good again rather routinely, such as when oil companies were not making high profits when oil was $10 a barrell. Perhaps in your explanation you could point out that it's prudent for companies to maximize profits when business is good for the purposes of A>investing in new technology and B>having cash on hand for when business is not so good, especially in such a capital intensive industry.

I await your scholarly and sensical response.


more sales = more income. leave prices lsighty lover production cost, more people start to buy = more money going back to the workers of that company.

More sales also equal more use, and just a moment ago you complained about SUV owners using so much of a NONRENEWABLE RESOURCE. Reducing profit also means your firm has less money to invest in future technologies.

Shouldn't the teacher know these basics?



What if the Lincoln Navigator is widely known to be of higher quality? Rationing requires reducing quality, you understand, because not everything can be made of the highest quality in enough quantity or in a short enough time period to satisfy demand.

how is that rationing? it's the exact same car. only difference is that the AMV one is being sold for only 3,000 $ more than the production cost (this is still income), whereas the Lincoln is being sold for 30,000 $ more than the production cost. this is income, but unjustly huge ammounts of it.

Take another crack at it and actually answer the question: What if consumers know that the Lincoln Navigator is of higher quality than the AMV vehicle, even at the same production price. Will demand for the Lincoln rise?

Then explain how easy it would be to produce the highest quality product in enough quantity to distribute to everyone equally, considering the cost in terms of resource use and labor time.

This should be easy for the teacher.



So is there only going to be one model of the government-made car? One color? Or will there be lots of choices as there are now?

depends on demand, my friend. what the people want, the people MUST get. if they want a neon green AMV Washington Explorer, they got it. if they want a mud-brown AMV version of the dodge stratus, they got it. if there's demand for a low cost exact-copy of an existing model, they'll make it.

So the producers (workers) are to work according to the will of the consumers, meaning they have little if any say in how much they work, how they work, or what they produce. That is what you're telling me.


i'm not a thief... me friends are.

I judge people by their friends.


and besides... i though yuppies like you liked to use euphemisms... wouldn't they be an 'illegal property exchanger'?

That's political correctness. But then considering you don't know what gouging is, you don't understand that gasoline demand routinely drops in the fall, and you don't understand that publicly-held companies do not have owners, it's hardly surprising you are confused about that as well.

Maybe we should try something you're actually good at, like maybe a spelling contest.

[t_wolves_fan]

the things we need to survive would be fixed at a rate that's something along the lines of 5% higher than the cost of producing that item.

Who decides what things we need to survive? You?

When it comes to food, what foods count?


if a load of bread (a basic food, a necessity) costs 50 cents to make, it would be sold at 53 cents (actually, 52.5 cents, thus 1.05 for 2 loaves). there is still a profit, and that profit would go back to the people who made that product (the wheat farmer, miller, transporter, etc.)

So the farther away from the source of the good you live, the more it will cost.

What about products that require components from several different places? And what about products such as paper and computers that right now have a profit margin near zero, because you've just raised the price for consumer?


naturally, all stores are going to charge an additional fee for the service, which would also be fixed at a small ammount, say 5% (i'm liking 5s today) higher than the cost it was for them to buy the item. that means, that loaf of bread that costed 50 cents to make would reach the customer at 55 cents. everyone gets their pay for what they do, and the customer benefits as well.

At 55 cents I'm gonna buy a hell of a lot of bread. What happens if I and my neighbors buy too much?


remember, this is all just theoretical. a real system, when it is in place, would be much more complicated and regulated by people who know it better than i do.

That would include most of the 5 year-olds in the nation.


in a communist system, it would be regulated by a need and want, but controlled by a set of rules for fair practice.

Explain in depth these rules and fair practices that will regulate need and want; and I take it this means this system has a government.



lower prices (as set by the co-operatives/union-run businesses/government-run businesses/etc.) just means that either a) the existing companies would have to lower their prices (believe me, there would still be a profit - notice how the AMV car costs 18,000 while it only costs 15,000 to make - profit still exists, it's just lowered), or b) continue as they were and hope that people will buy their crap to have the brand name.

No different than the current system then.


no no... stay right there... i'll get you a towel.

Get three, you made me laugh so hard I have soda all over my monitor.

[colonelguppy]

didn't have to. you made it for me.

no i didn't, you said that supply and demand was bullshit and then never elaborated and well here we are.



no.

the things we need to survive would be fixed at a rate that's something along the lines of 5% higher than the cost of producing that item.

if a load of bread (a basic food, a necessity) costs 50 cents to make, it would be sold at 53 cents (actually, 52.5 cents, thus 1.05 for 2 loaves). there is still a profit, and that profit would go back to the people who made that product (the wheat farmer, miller, transporter, etc.)

naturally, all stores are going to charge an additional fee for the service, which would also be fixed at a small ammount, say 5% (i'm liking 5s today) higher than the cost it was for them to buy the item. that means, that loaf of bread that costed 50 cents to make would reach the customer at 55 cents. everyone gets their pay for what they do, and the customer benefits as well.

remember, this is all just theoretical. a real system, when it is in place, would be much more complicated and regulated by people who know it better than i do.

well i don't know how you got 5%, and i don't know how this is set price is going to adjust to differentiating levels of supply and demand.


our price system is regulated by greed.

well yeah


in a communist system, it would be regulated by a need and want, but controlled by a set of rules for fair practice. and profits (profits = assets minus liabilities, which include production costs, wages, etc.) would be low, because there would be no greedy bastard at the top sucking off of the fat. those little profits would find their way back to the workers, probably added onto their regular wages.

yeah once again i don't know how you're supposed to define "need and want"


lower prices (as set by the co-operatives/union-run businesses/government-run businesses/etc.) just means that either a) the existing companies would have to lower their prices (believe me, there would still be a profit - notice how the AMV car costs 18,000 while it only costs 15,000 to make - profit still exists, it's just lowered), or b) continue as they were and hope that people will buy their crap to have the brand name.

...

no no... stay right there... i'll get you a towel.

and i already explained why that would lead to lower growth and shortages. you know, its in the post you responded too...

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 13, 2006 03:04 am
this is something that has always boggled my mind:

we in the united states love the concept of free trade: it's what our "mighty" economy is built upon. it's what makes the bourgeois wealthy (and as well, the rest of us either poor or damn near it)...

so then why is it they try to stop music trading on the internet? is this not a form of free trade? if i send a song to someone somewhere, have i not engaged in free trade?

but anyway... i wonder what's the hard-line communist philosophy on free trade. suppose the reds took control of the world and set it up exactly conforming to pure communist doctrine... would we still be able to sell, trade, and buy the goods that we want and need? would i still be able to go to the supermarket and spend my hard earned cash on pepsi, rather than the generic brand, sovicola? or would hard-line communists realise that free trade has become somewhat a necessity for improvement and allow competition (to a fair extent) between workers' run labour corporations? or would they only try to reform the existing system so that it is run by the workers, rather than greedy individuals so that profits go directly to the workers so thos workers can still buy the things they want and need?

i know, i'm sort of all over the place (forgive me, my nose knows best)
Pirating is not trade, but distribution.

It does not rely on exchange. It is technocratic.

[red team]

the things we need to survive would be fixed at a rate that's something along the lines of 5% higher than the cost of producing that item.

if a load of bread (a basic food, a necessity) costs 50 cents to make, it would be sold at 53 cents (actually, 52.5 cents, thus 1.05 for 2 loaves). there is still a profit, and that profit would go back to the people who made that product (the wheat farmer, miller, transporter, etc.)

So what's 50 cents or 50 dollars for that matter? 50 of "your" country's cents would be very valuable to an afghan, but 50 afghan dollars isn't going to buy you even a slice or your bread. You might question that the afghan currency is poor in value relative to the country's output, but currently afghanistan controls 90 percent of the world's heroin output, so that should be reflected in the value of it's currency shouldn't it? So, would you trade 50 American cents for 50 afghan dollars? If not then what is money anyway?

Oh, and the 50 dollars worth of gas you filled you tank with and used up driving around went to the wealthy oil company shareholders. It was not used up. Hmmmm..... <_<

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Really. My High School Econ class told me that the practice you describe is not gouging, it&#39;s called Price Dumping or Predatory Pricing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_%28pricing_policy%29)

gouging.

economics 101/102.

but no matter what you call it, they still do it to control the market.


Originally posted by Dying Fetus &#045; "Justifiable Homicide"

Profits are the powermad&#39;s motivating force
just a greedy aspiration to be fed
put to the test, they&#39;ll fuck all the rest
Until all their rivals are dead.


the opening verse of "justifiable Homicide" by Dying Fetus. describes it all. and rocks.


Do you understand that just because you say something is true, that&#39;s not necessarily the case?

are you saying that (looking back in the thread), if there no regulation of the economy by the government, that big companies would NOT drop their prices to drive a small company (one with a small profit overhead) out of business?

It is TRUE. it has happened before. they do that. that&#39;s one of the ways microsoft took over.


Because you say so, oil apparently now only goes into making gasoline and is not used at all to make plastics and other artificial fibers used by every industrialized and industrializing nation on earth. Oh and because you say so, no other countries have many automobiles or use much gasoline at all. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/pdf/sum0405.pdf)

please, point out to me the exact location in this thread where I said that oil is NOT used to make synthetic materials.

i don&#39;t recall ever saying that oil is used to make gasoline exclusively.


Let me get this straight: people are buying SUVs for the express purpose of raising gas prices, which they themselves would have to pay.

once again...

where did I say that they do it to raise gas prices? i said that, by them buying SUVs, which require more gas than other vehicles, they are INCREASING usage, which gives the oil companies an excuse to raise prices even further.

say, feller... have you been using LSD, lately? you seem to see ALOT of things that simply are not here.


If it won&#39;t move fast enough, why bother worrying about it?

we communists are here to act as a catalyst. we will help human social evolution into its next stage.


If you live in America and hate it, why not move? Cuba is a mere 90 miles away. Surely even you could afford a rubber raft.


actually... cuba&#39;s more like about 1700 miles away.

pejoratively...

aw... did me young pupil forget where michigan is? it&#39;s that land of industrial cities that&#39;s almost in canada... it looks like a mitten, kind of.

well see... cuba is that big island that floats just below America&#39;s dick (aka florida)... it&#39;s shaped kind of like a fish.

now you see... the mitten and the dick are about 1100 miles away from each other... then you have to add the length of the dick (it&#39;s a big one... gives me competition i don&#39;t like), which is about 500 miles. then you have about 100 miles between the dickhole (miami) and the fish.

now we add it up (you&#39;ll need a calculator for this one, young jedi)...

1100 + 500 + 100 = 1700.


Except that it isn&#39;t: (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/15666196.htm)

"Experts say the main factors pushing prices down are a decline in the cost of crude oil, high levels of inventory at refineries, an absence of major hurricanes or other catastrophes and a drop in demand that typically happens after Labor Day, when the peak summer driving season ends.

o, but it is.

amerikkans are buying more and more non-fuel-efficient vehicles than ever (more demand for gasoline), synthetic products (like fiberoptic cables, durable plastics, contact lenses, etc.) continue to rise in sales, etc.

and besides... i don&#39;t ever remember seeing gas prices just almost 50% (2.00 &#036;/gallon to 3.00 &#036;/gallon) in one season, then drop again to higher-than-before-that-season after it&#39;s over.

i reckon last summer they got up to maybe about 2.50&#036;/gallon (over about 2.00&#036;/gallon - that&#39;s only a 25% increase, to be expected). don&#39;t blame it on the consumer when the fat greedy schmuck that owns the gas company is really to blame.


For reasons that have nothing to do with capitalist greed (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp) in the short term, but in the long term they are actually up over the same point last year.

you&#39;d like to think so, wouldn&#39;t you? think it makes you pious to take the blame? it ain&#39;t your fault, it ain&#39;t my fault, it&#39;s not our fault. period. some douche bag capitalist sits in his office in a chair that costed more than my car, which oil paid for, and you mean to say that the prices go up because of us, rather than because of his love of exploiting us so he can live in the lap of luxury?


Because demand is down and the price of a barrell of oil has dropped significantly (http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html).

believe me.... demand is up.

consider this: i work for a freight handling firm. we deal with truckers every day. the trucking industry expands further every year. semi tractors are a huge gasoline consumer. so if the industry expands (in part, thanks to nafta), the demand continues to go up.

as well... consider how many comercials for new cars you see. people are always upgrading to a bigger car (generally from a car to an SUV). it&#39;s a materialistic thing. the more SUVs, the more gasoline used per consumer.

the price of oil dropped, yes... but not enough to warrant a dollar/gallon-of-gasoline drop. that happened because the government (who would like to make us think that they&#39;re on our side) investigated the major oil companies.


How about you actually refute what is contained in the link instead of simply dismissing it; that might show some evidence that you&#39;re actually a THINKING man.

what? use some url? from a site on the internet?

did you forget already? the internet is not a trusted source of information.


Hold on just a second. Up to this point your brilliant analysis has been that oil companies - run by greedy capitalists - "gouge" people by working together to keep prices high. Now you seem to be saying that the cost of the raw material used in the product may play a role in the retail price of that product.


everytime prices go up, they have yet another excuse to reap the fields that is our wallets.


If oil companies were as greedy as you say they are, and had the power to band together to gouge the consumer, why didn&#39;t they just start raising prices at the pump to &#036;3 a gallon when oil was &#036;10 a barrell?

they know the consequences.

they need a REASON. if they can&#39;t justify it, how can they defend it?


Except that if a firm has stockholders, the stockholders themselves are the owners.

no, they&#39;re the bosses (in a sense). they decide who to put on the board of directors (including the CEO). the owner is the person (or his/her heirs) who started the company.

analogy: the stock holders are the voters. the board of directors is the cabinet. the CEO is the prime minister. the owner is the king.

you don&#39;t think the ruling house (the owner/his heirs) of a monarchy (the company) is going to let the government (the board of directors) and the people (the stockholders) take most of the land&#39;s resources (cash) when the ruling house wants it all for themselves, do you?


You didn&#39;t address the issue.

i sure as hell did.

production costs may have gone up over time, but those fat fucks are still managing to make 80,000&#036;/minute... and that&#39;s what&#39;s left AFTER production costs are considered.


Since you are an economics expert, perhaps you could explain the business cycle to me. That would be where business goes from good to bad to good again rather routinely, such as when oil companies were not making high profits when oil was &#036;10 a barrell. Perhaps in your explanation you could point out that it&#39;s prudent for companies to maximize profits when business is good for the purposes of A>investing in new technology and B>having cash on hand for when business is not so good, especially in such a capital intensive industry.

certainly.

aside from the fact that business is NOT good these days (indicators: price of real estate is low; lots of people selling their spare cars; prices rise, incomes don&#39;t), and they&#39;re still purposely taking in huge sums of cash...

first of all... business doesn&#39;t fluctuate in cycles. it&#39;s somewhat sporadic.

business goes up when there is high demand with relatively low prices (the opposite of the gas situation now: massive demand, high prices - part of the cause of our current recession). demand rises and thus capitalists have a means to justify raising prices. prices reach a maximum accept level, and business slumps until they (the capitalists) realise how bad they fucked over the economy (and especially the consumer) and how bad they fucked themselves out of their own economic &#39;boom,&#39; and they lower their prices again.

when business is good... they raise their prices to take advantage of the situation, and justify it sating that &#39;demand is up,&#39; or that &#39;they need income for investment.&#39;

the investments they make are considered a liability. if your profits, after liabilities are still exceedingly high (like exxon), you&#39;re just plain greedy.

... the investment these capitalists make: an investment in the tourist industry of the bahamas, tahiti, europe, east asia: they take their endless incomes and enjoy vacations while the rest of us have to bust ass everyday and blow our money on their bullshit products so they can take those vacations.

the business cycle.


Reducing profit also means your firm has less money to invest in future technologies.

guess they better learn to be more efficient (i.e., stop letting the owner of the company take expensive business "trips," or make that schmuck pay for them out of his own billions.


Take another crack at it and actually answer the question: What if consumers know that the Lincoln Navigator is of higher quality than the AMV vehicle, even at the same production price. Will demand for the Lincoln rise?

you are a shithead.

i just said "it&#39;s the exact same car." how is there any difference in quality between 2 of the exact same thing?


Then explain how easy it would be to produce the highest quality product in enough quantity to distribute to everyone equally, considering the cost in terms of resource use and labor time.

incredibly easy. they&#39;re doing it the exact same way as the big name company is, just not letting huge profits (which go back to the owner in the big-name company) form. they take their small profits (remember now, a profit is the cash that&#39;s left over AFTER liabilities, which INCLUDE production costs, wages, etc.) and let them go back to the workers.

so... if everything is done in the exact same way, but only the greed is taken out of the equation, prices can remain low, and thus distribution comes easy.


So the producers (workers) are to work according to the will of the consumers, meaning they have little if any say in how much they work, how they work, or what they produce. That is what you&#39;re telling me.

where the fuck did you get that from?

it would be run like any other company, except that the workers would determine who is the boss (by their votes), who would be paid a regular salary for running the operation (this is how prices can remain only slightly higher than production costs - it covers the cost of production, AND leaves a little extra cash to go back into the company - i.e., back to the workers, into investments/improvements/etc.). all companies&#39; business is determined by their customers.


I judge people by their friends.

go ahead. it&#39;s like judging a book by its cover... not right, but who&#39;s to say?


That&#39;s political correctness. But then considering you don&#39;t know what gouging is, you don&#39;t understand that gasoline demand routinely drops in the fall, and you don&#39;t understand that publicly-held companies do not have owners, it&#39;s hardly surprising you are confused about that as well.

lol.

first off: you have a misunderstanding of what gouging is.

second: as i said, no matter what you call it, we&#39;re talking about the same concept. it happens. accept it... it&#39;s your preferred economic system (capitalism should have been mentionedin &#39;the art of war&#39; ... all is fair in love and capitalism and war).

third: of course gas prices drop in the fall (the end of travel season in our northern climate)... but it doesn&#39;t normally jump 50% over the spring prices, then make such a sudden drop... unless, of course... the companies fear government investigation.

fourth: all companies have an owner. in a public company, the owner is either A) the government, B) the workers, or C) the union (the workers&#39; representatives).


Maybe we should try something you&#39;re actually good at, like maybe a spelling contest.

was that a compliment, or a sarcastic insult?

---

rockin&#39; is my business... and business is good.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Who decides what things we need to survive? You?

When it comes to food, what foods count?

as i said, it would be determined by a council - a council of experts and workers&#39; representatives would make those decisions.


So the farther away from the source of the good you live, the more it will cost.

better not move to idaho, unless you like potatoes.

naturally, the cost of transportation has to be considered, and probably, would end up being factored into the production cost.


What about products that require components from several different places? And what about products such as paper and computers that right now have a profit margin near zero, because you&#39;ve just raised the price for consumer?

a computer is not a necessity.


At 55 cents I&#39;m gonna buy a hell of a lot of bread. What happens if I and my neighbors buy too much?

freeze it.

or... get you a membership at sam&#39;s club, buy it in bulk (which lowers costs), and sell it at one of those outdoor markets they have in the summer for 2 cents cheaper than what they sell it for at the store. free trade my friend.

but 55 cents for a loaf of bread isn&#39;t much cheaper than what you can get it for in most places (at least, here in michigan). I generally pay about 70 cents per loaf.

besides... i said if a loaf of bread costs 50 cents to make.........


That would include most of the 5 year-olds in the nation.

aw....

petty insults.

better be careful. i reckon they (the admins) don&#39;t much care when one of their own throw one out... but as for you... you&#39;re our enemy.

i personally don&#39;t care. in fact, i think it makes it all that much better... but nonetheless... i haven&#39;t been here long enough to measure their tolerence to an enemy.


Explain in depth these rules and fair practices that will regulate need and want; and I take it this means this system has a government.

socialist / communist / worker-run government.

first of all: the things we need to survive (food, clothes, shelter) as well as gasoline (it is a necessity for the amerikkan way of life), in their basic forms, would have price limits, as i said before. the more advanced forms (steaks; designer-brand clothes; mansions) would not be controlled, because these are luxury items.

second: the things we want, such as computers and televisions, would not be controlled except in the way I mentioned with the government-run industry (selling things at a slightly-higher-than-production-cost rate), workers&#39; run industries (sell things at prices determined by both supply/demand AND the workers&#39; preferences - for example, if there&#39;s a huge demand for pens, but ink is expensive, that would make for a high price on pens. but if the workers feel that pens should not be costly, then the workers could decide that pens should be sold at very slightly higher than production cost: there has to be some sort of profit, else there is neither an incentive nor a means to keep going about business)

third: the workers of every large corporation (determined by their profit margins) would be able to determine who is in charge of their corporation, from supervisor level through chief executive official. they would do do by holding in-company elections to choose one their own who is qualified to do the job.

fourth: a huge, multi-industry union would be created, and would be automatically given 200 seats in the house of legislature (this is in addition to the 500 or so that are elected by the populus).

i could go on, but there is no point. you&#39;ll misunderstand it all anyway (actually, it&#39;s somewhat like hearing what you want to hear; you wouldn&#39;t care to see a world run by the majority of the population where the working class 99% of the world is in charge, thus you automatically dismiss all these good ideas subconsciously while the conscious simply reports this as misunderstanding).


No different than the current system then.

plenty different.


Get three, you made me laugh so hard I have soda all over my monitor.

good answer to explain a wierd situation to your mother when she cleans your room.

---

btw, that towel was for your mother. mushroom stamps can get crusty.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

no i didn&#39;t, you said that supply and demand was bullshit and then never elaborated and well here we are.

where, my friend?

please point out exactly where i said that.


well i don&#39;t know how you got 5%, and i don&#39;t know how this is set price is going to adjust to differentiating levels of supply and demand.

5 felt like a good number. remember.... this is theoretical. it&#39;s a concept. the actual numbers would (notice how i use the subjunctive &#39;would,&#39; rather than the indicative &#39;will&#39; or &#39;is&#39;) be determined by people who are experts in the field.

supply and demand should (again, with the subjunctive) never be determined when it comes to a necessity, except maybe in extreme cases (like, if the country ran out of food).


well yeah

finally... an opposser who gets it.


yeah once again i don&#39;t know how you&#39;re supposed to define "need and want"

need is items necessary for survival (such as basic foods, clothes, gasoline, shelter).

want is pretty much anything else.

like i said in my last post... this would be determined by a council of experts and workers&#39; & consumers&#39; representatives. people who have the knowledge of the subject AND the time to sit and discuss it.


and i already explained why that would lead to lower growth and shortages. you know, its in the post you responded too...

no, it would make companies revise their plans and do away with their greedy owners. remember now, i said that the workers would be in charge of every company.

with the greed gone, those low profits (keeping in mind, once again, that profit = cash that&#39;s left over AFTER liabilities (which include wages, production costs, advertisement, etc.) have been spent) would be fine, because they will go back to the workers and back into the company for purposes of furthering researche & development/improvements/increased efficiency/etc.

and i imagine that companies who open their corporation to the stock market and let outside investment would be required to put their profits back into the investors (whom would include the workers: i think all companies should either give a share to each worker for free (somewhat of a bad idea) or give them a share and have its buying cost taken out of their checks in installments).

---

"i guess jerry had remembered that my ultimate fantasy was to fuck a girl with no legs. jerry started feeling up her big tits... he slowly rotated audry around on my love muscle until she was literally spinning on my dick like a record on a turn table....

unable to contain myself any longer, i unloaded a huge load of spunk into her"

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Pirating is not trade, but distribution.

It does not rely on exchange. It is technocratic.

o, but indeed it is trade.

i download music from the internet, and share it with other downloaders. we all take and give. it&#39;s a mass barter system :)


So what&#39;s 50 cents or 50 dollars for that matter? 50 of "your" country&#39;s cents would be very valuable to an afghan, but 50 afghan dollars isn&#39;t going to buy you even a slice or your bread. You might question that the afghan currency is poor in value relative to the country&#39;s output, but currently afghanistan controls 90 percent of the world&#39;s heroin output, so that should be reflected in the value of it&#39;s currency shouldn&#39;t it? So, would you trade 50 American cents for 50 afghan dollars? If not then what is money anyway?

Oh, and the 50 dollars worth of gas you filled you tank with and used up driving around went to the wealthy oil company shareholders. It was not used up. Hmmmm.....

too bad illegal heroin/opium/morphine output doesn&#39;t get factored in when they determine the exchange rates... afghanistan would be able to import what they need ALOT better.

but that 50&#036; afghani that can&#39;t buy bread here would buy plenty of it there.

they have a bad external exchange rate... but internally, it&#39;s like any other 2nd world nation... it gets them by.

and by the way... i drive a toyota yaris. 30 &#036; fills the tank and lasts me about 2 and a half weeks - very good gas mileage. i had to put my lincoln towncar (1982, V8 carburetor fuel system) in storeage because the cost of fuel (combined with insurance on 2 cars) was WAY too expensive - about 50&#036; a week, plus 230&#036;/month for insure on both of them).

[colonelguppy]

where, my friend?

please point out exactly where i said that.

ok, right here, on the last page.



because variations in supply and demand change the value of crude, thus resulting in fluctuations in price. why do you think they also lower their prices at the same time?

you don&#39;t actually believe all that bullshit, do you? if you do... then i feel i waste my time arguing my point - it would be like telling the great wall of china it has too many bricks... just get nowhere.


5 felt like a good number. remember.... this is theoretical. it&#39;s a concept. the actual numbers would (notice how i use the subjunctive &#39;would,&#39; rather than the indicative &#39;will&#39; or &#39;is&#39;) be determined by people who are experts in the field.

supply and demand should (again, with the subjunctive) never be determined when it comes to a necessity, except maybe in extreme cases (like, if the country ran out of food).

scarcity is an issue in all economic scenarios, not just in extreme cases. it has to be delt with and keeping prices the same all the time is a horrible way to deal with it.


finally... an opposser who gets it.

i don&#39;t think anyones denied that supply and demand works because of people want the most for themselves.



need is items necessary for survival (such as basic foods, clothes, gasoline, shelter).

want is pretty much anything else.

like i said in my last post... this would be determined by a council of experts and workers&#39; & consumers&#39; representatives. people who have the knowledge of the subject AND the time to sit and discuss it.

council of experts? you gotta be shitting me. yes, give a group of a few guys say over how economic recources should be distributed. you leftists and your faith in councils.....


no, it would make companies revise their plans and do away with their greedy owners. remember now, i said that the workers would be in charge of every company.

with the greed gone, those low profits (keeping in mind, once again, that profit = cash that&#39;s left over AFTER liabilities (which include wages, production costs, advertisement, etc.) have been spent) would be fine, because they will go back to the workers and back into the company for purposes of furthering researche & development/improvements/increased efficiency/etc.

and i imagine that companies who open their corporation to the stock market and let outside investment would be required to put their profits back into the investors (whom would include the workers: i think all companies should either give a share to each worker for free (somewhat of a bad idea) or give them a share and have its buying cost taken out of their checks in installments).

thats not going to get rid of "corporate greed", its just going to make the industry less desirable for investment thus resulting in loss of growth. you know, you could try to respond to my points.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

ok, right here, on the last page.

i&#39;m telling you, it&#39;s not there. you&#39;re seeing things, or assuming i mean things that i don&#39;t.

if you into seeing things... i have some pretty bad ass little seeds from hawaii that&#39;ll make you do just that :)



scarcity is an issue in all economic scenarios, not just in extreme cases. it has to be delt with and keeping prices the same all the time is a horrible way to deal with it.

the basic necessities, like food, are obtained by renewable resources - wheat, corn, cattle, etc.

as far as oil goes... by time it becomes so rare that a price shift would be acceptable, a new, renewable source of feul would be available and perfected (able to be employed in automobiles). corn-by products, at this point, look to be the best hope (being as how corn is a renewable resource).

at that point, since the value of corn would automatically be increased (probably 100 fold), our committe would have to decide on what to do about the price - perhaps leave food-grade corn at the regulated price, since it is a basic, abundant food source, while allowing the producers of fuel-grade corn to follow the rules of supply and demand (if their workers agree it is for the best, of course - the workers must have the final say).


i don&#39;t think anyones denied that supply and demand works because of people want the most for themselves.

i wasn&#39;t talking about supply and demand when i said that. i was talking about greed being the driving force behind every capitalist. remember?


council of experts? you gotta be shitting me. yes, give a group of a few guys say over how economic recources should be distributed. you leftists and your faith in councils.....

they would have nothing to do with distribution, only with determining fair prices (which, actually would be less of a fixed price, and more of a fixed rate - like i said before, perhaps 5% more than production cost. profit has to exist) for necessities, and determining what items are necessities to life.

and by the way... it might not be a group of a few guys, there might be a few women involved, as well. you dumbasses and your strong attachment to sexism.....


thats not going to get rid of "corporate greed", its just going to make the industry less desirable for investment thus resulting in loss of growth. you know, you could try to respond to my points.

if the dumbfuck in the big chair won&#39;t accept small profit margins, he&#39;ll either quit or drive the company into the ground. at which point, it&#39;ll be nationalised, and the owner and all the top officials will be lynched for treason.

well... not that last part... but we could all hope :)

and... are you NOT reading what i&#39;m putting? i said that ONLY necessities would be set at fixed rates, and everything else would be run just as before, except that the workers of the corporation would be in charge, and the people would have an additional choice - if they don&#39;t want to pay ridiculously high prices for sub-standard crap, they buy the government version of the exact same sub-standard crap, but pay the prices that are more based on the true value of the product, not its speculated value.

---

"here&#39;s to gettin&#39; laid... soona an&#39; lata. boys... i know a place, not too far from here... you can get the best gyoddamn piece of ass in the whole gyoddamn world. an&#39; they got girls... they&#39;ll do things to you there ain&#39;t even names for" <-- if you know where that&#39;s from... you&#39;re the vicar

[colonelguppy]

i&#39;m telling you, it&#39;s not there. you&#39;re seeing things, or assuming i mean things that i don&#39;t.

if you into seeing things... i have some pretty bad ass little seeds from hawaii that&#39;ll make you do just that :)

what the hell else could you have meant when you said "you don&#39;t actually believe in that bullshit" after i started talking about supply and demand?

stop being a ***** and own up to what you said.


the basic necessities, like food, are obtained by renewable resources - wheat, corn, cattle, etc.

renewable =/= infinite. production is always limited but demand is not, thats why adjusting prices within a market prevent shortages and set prices causes them.


as far as oil goes... by time it becomes so rare that a price shift would be acceptable, a new, renewable source of feul would be available and perfected (able to be employed in automobiles). corn-by products, at this point, look to be the best hope (being as how corn is a renewable resource).

and demand will be magically consistent and other externalities which effect production won&#39;t happen?


i wasn&#39;t talking about supply and demand when i said that. i was talking about greed being the driving force behind every capitalist. remember?

no actually you said


our price system is regulated by greed.

and our price system is actually directly regulated by supply and demand, which is regulated by greed. good god you can&#39;t even keep up with your own arguements.


they would have nothing to do with distribution, only with determining fair prices (which, actually would be less of a fixed price, and more of a fixed rate - like i said before, perhaps 5% more than production cost. profit has to exist) for necessities, and determining what items are necessities to life.

fixing prices has nothing to do with distribution? thats basically the only thing that determines distribution.


and by the way... it might not be a group of a few guys, there might be a few women involved, as well. you dumbasses and your strong attachment to sexism.....

yep you caught, i&#39;m a sexist


if the dumbfuck in the big chair won&#39;t accept small profit margins, he&#39;ll either quit or drive the company into the ground. at which point, it&#39;ll be nationalised, and the owner and all the top officials will be lynched for treason.

at which point the innefeciencies of bureaucratic rule take over and your worse off than before.


and... are you NOT reading what i&#39;m putting? i said that ONLY necessities would be set at fixed rates, and everything else would be run just as before, except that the workers of the corporation would be in charge, and the people would have an additional choice - if they don&#39;t want to pay ridiculously high prices for sub-standard crap, they buy the government version of the exact same sub-standard crap, but pay the prices that are more based on the true value of the product, not its speculated value.


theres no such thing as "true value", all values are speculated. all nationalizing does is adds government inneffeciency into determining prices and distribution.

[t_wolves_fan]

Rather than continue this ridiculous quote string, I&#39;m going to have to summarize.

"Price gouging" does not mean whatever you want it to mean. Price gouging means raising the price of something well above what it normally is either during an emergency (spiking gas prices during a hurricane) or when a provider is a monopoly. It does not mean reducing prices to eliminate competition.

Publicly-traded companies do not have "owners"; they have stockholders. Any stockholder is a partial owner of the company. The CEO is not an owner - that is why he can be fired.

SUV sales in the United States are dropping due to high gas prices. The market works: when prices rose this summer, consumption of gasoline actually declined. I&#39;d post the evidence but apparently in discussions with you all that matters is opinion-driven proclamations.

The size of a company is not determined by its "profit margin". If that were the case, IBM would be considered a very small company and the oil companies would be in the middle of the pack. Airlines would be non-existant considering they operate at a loss. A company that makes &#036;5 billion but spends &#036;4 billion has a lower profit margin than a company that makes &#036;100 million and spends &#036;25 million. Do you understand that?

So, councils of experts along with workers&#39; representatives would get to determine what foods I may qualify to receive as a "need". What other aspects of my life would they get to determine?

And one very serious question: do you use drugs while you post?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

what the hell else could you have meant when you said "you don&#39;t actually believe in that bullshit" after i started talking about supply and demand?

here&#39;s what i meant:

they&#39;ll tell you that supply / demand is the cause of prices raising. that is not the whole truth. supply / demand plays in the game, but is not the only player. supply vs. demand determinds the true value of the product, while the capitalists push higher value and claim it to be because of supply and demand.

like i keep saying: greed is the most important factor in determining value; supply and demand beguiles - it&#39;s too often used as a means to justify inflated prices.


stop being a ***** and own up to what you said.

at least be witty with your insults. another one of those, i might have to warn you.


renewable =/= infinite. production is always limited but demand is not, thats why adjusting prices within a market prevent shortages and set prices causes them.

if a renewable resource is managed properly, it is perfectly infinite. for instance: with trees (which are as well somewhat of a necessity to survival: we use trees to build shelter) - we have millions and millions of acres of lands that should be left aside for reforestation (not: they&#39;re not: yuppie morons insist on invading what little forest land we have left so they can build their homes away from the real, true hardcore grit that is everyday life in amerikka: denver, seatle, etc.). while the trees in these lands continue to grow and replenish our source of wood, trees from minor forests should be harvested. by time these trees are gone, we already have a perfectly ripe forest ready for harvest, at which time the minor forests would be replanted.


and demand will be magically consistent and other externalities which effect production won&#39;t happen?

demand will always fluctuate. duh. but extreme price shifts are not justifiable just because of an increase in demand or a decrease in supply. small shifts are to be expected; gas prices jumping over a dollar in less than a month is unacceptable, and is nothing more than the capitalists taking advantage of our naivity.





Originally posted by me+--> (me)our price system is regulated by greed.

to which you replied


Originally posted by you+--> (you)well yeah[/b]

to which i replied


Originally posted by me
finally... an opposser who gets it.

to which you replied


Originally posted by you

i don&#39;t think anyones denied that supply and demand works because of people want the most for themselves.

to which i replied:


[email protected]
i wasn&#39;t talking about supply and demand when i said that. i was talking about greed being the driving force behind every capitalist. remember?

to which you replied:


you
no actually you said
[/b]

make sense now?


and our price system is actually directly regulated by supply and demand, which is regulated by greed. good god you can&#39;t even keep up with your own arguements.

like i said... supply and demand is part of it, and is more often than not used as a means to justify capitalists&#39; greed.


fixing prices has nothing to do with distribution? thats basically the only thing that determines distribution.

no, distribution is determined by want/need.

if we want it or need it, they distribute it to us.

that... and i&#39;m part of what determines distribution: i work in the meijer warehouse. if there&#39;s something that i don&#39;t like unloading (and thus, i want less people to buy it - less people buy it, less often meijers orders it = supply & demand), i spit in it.


at which point the innefeciencies of bureaucratic rule take over and your worse off than before.

please, for the love of all your gods and goddesses... don&#39;t confuse soviet bureaucratic totalitarianism with communism. real, modern communism avoids bureaucracy as much as possible: it is the source of government ineficiency (and hense, government financial waste - that&#39;s money the government should rather be using to establish and fund social programs, like free education, free medical services, free day care, tax incentives to private corporations (which, are essentially not privatised, but rather owned and operated by the workers of that corporation, taken collectively, as opposed to national corporations, which are run by either the government or labour unions) who offer far lowered prices to consumers, etc)


theres no such thing as "true value", all values are speculated. all nationalizing does is adds government inneffeciency into determining prices and distribution.

the value of a product is all costs rendered to the producer during the production process, including, as i said before: wages, supplies, equipment, energy costs, transportation, distribution, etc.

the government organisations, since they&#39;re not in business to create massive profits, would not sell things at the speculated value (the value of the product multiplied by both its supply/demand indicators and the greed of the capitalist), but rather only slightly over its real value (like i said: profits are necessary in any business. once greed and speculation are subtracrted from the equation, the profit margins can be minimalised to a point where a prifit is still made (but, naturally, either redistributed to the workers OR invested back into the company for research/increase in productivity/etc. OR used as another form of government income in order that they (the government) can lower taxes to the workingclass many OR a combination of all of these.)

---

"can you blow me where the diapers is?"

[t_wolves_fan]

the government organisations, since they&#39;re not in business to create massive profits, would not sell things at the speculated value (the value of the product multiplied by both its supply/demand indicators and the greed of the capitalist), but rather only slightly over its real value (like i said: profits are necessary in any business. once greed and speculation are subtracrted from the equation, the profit margins can be minimalised to a point where a prifit is still made (but, naturally, either redistributed to the workers OR invested back into the company for research/increase in productivity/etc. OR used as another form of government income in order that they (the government) can lower taxes to the workingclass many OR a combination of all of these.)

Explain specifically how the government determines the "true" value of two commodities: one renewable and one not.

Then estimate how many government bureaucrats will be required to determine the true value of the million or so products and services consumed by people every day, in concert with their demand.

Explain in detail how we can be sure the government, seeking public approval, will not subsidize the cost of these commodities thereby stimulating their demand/use.

Thank you.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

"Price gouging" does not mean whatever you want it to mean. Price gouging means raising the price of something well above what it normally is either during an emergency (spiking gas prices during a hurricane) or when a provider is a monopoly. It does not mean reducing prices to eliminate competition.

suppose i was wrong in the definition of price gouging (which, i am relatively certain i wasn&#39;t)... it doesn&#39;t change the fact that big businesses drop their prices to eliminate small, newer companies who cannot compete. as well, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that you have yet to justify its occurrence.

all you&#39;ve done is say i have the wrong definition of the word, rather than either accept the fact that, in a true capitalist place, that is exactly what would happen and there would be nothing that any body can do about it (all is fair in love and war and capitalism) or try to deny it.

you&#39;re tip-toeing around the subject at hand.


Publicly-traded companies do not have "owners"; they have stockholders. Any stockholder is a partial owner of the company. The CEO is not an owner - that is why he can be fired.

i never said the stock holders don&#39;t have some say in the affairs of the company (in fact, i said just the opposite of that). i never said the ceo owns the company (in fact, i said he/she is appointed by the board of directors).

my point is this: the capitalist class (the owners, the stockholders, the directors, etc) takes all the profit for themselves because they are greedy. when those profits would NOT be possible if it weren&#39;t for the every day working class people, it is not right that they are not the beneficiaries of the profit.

communism will fix that.

communism would have it that, since if it weren&#39;t for the workers, there would be no production/no profits/nothing at all, the profits would be returned to the workers. the workers would have a say in who is in charge of the company (and that person would be on a regular wage just like the rest of us), whether it be by direct election from among their own or choosing some of their own to act much in the same was as parlaiment: form a counciland have them appoint the most qualified person.


SUV sales in the United States are dropping due to high gas prices. The market works: when prices rose this summer, consumption of gasoline actually declined. I&#39;d post the evidence but apparently in discussions with you all that matters is opinion-driven proclamations.

my friend ashleigh works at sundance (a big car dealership here in lansing) selling cars. she sells more domestic model SUVs than all other types of cars combined, aand it&#39;s been the same way since she started working there 2 years ago, and it was the same way when she started in saleswomanship at but kouts (another dealership here).

post all the bullshit you like from the internet. you&#39;ll get the real facts from real life.


The size of a company is not determined by its "profit margin". If that were the case, IBM would be considered a very small company and the oil companies would be in the middle of the pack. Airlines would be non-existant considering they operate at a loss. A company that makes &#036;5 billion but spends &#036;4 billion has a lower profit margin than a company that makes &#036;100 million and spends &#036;25 million. Do you understand that?

well duh.

nonetheless... exxon is making 80,000&#036;/minute. this is after all costs have been taken care of. pure fucking profit. large or small company... that ain&#39;t no ham on rye.


So, councils of experts along with workers&#39; representatives would get to determine what foods I may qualify to receive as a "need". What other aspects of my life would they get to determine?

no, they would determine which foods may be sold at regular prices and which foods (the basics) must be sold at low prices. you still have a choice in what foods you buy, but if you choose to buy the basics, you&#39;d be paying way smaller prices.


And one very serious question: do you use drugs while you post?

not while i post, but generally right after: helps me deal with the retarded shit.

which reminds me... tonight is devil&#39;s night... i have acid to do and SUV windows to smash in...

why... you wanna trip balls with me sometime?

[colonelguppy]

here&#39;s what i meant:

they&#39;ll tell you that supply / demand is the cause of prices raising. that is not the whole truth. supply / demand plays in the game, but is not the only player. supply vs. demand determinds the true value of the product, while the capitalists push higher value and claim it to be because of supply and demand.

like i keep saying: greed is the most important factor in determining value; supply and demand beguiles - it&#39;s too often used as a means to justify inflated prices.

no greed is what makes supply and demand work, the desire for more for onesself. obviously oil companies will want to make as much as possible, and variations and supply and demand determines what price will give them the highest profit. so really were agreeing but theres been a misunderstanding about what is meant by the term supply and demand.


if a renewable resource is managed properly, it is perfectly infinite. for instance: with trees (which are as well somewhat of a necessity to survival: we use trees to build shelter) - we have millions and millions of acres of lands that should be left aside for reforestation (not: they&#39;re not: yuppie morons insist on invading what little forest land we have left so they can build their homes away from the real, true hardcore grit that is everyday life in amerikka: denver, seatle, etc.). while the trees in these lands continue to grow and replenish our source of wood, trees from minor forests should be harvested. by time these trees are gone, we already have a perfectly ripe forest ready for harvest, at which time the minor forests would be replanted.

accept while all of this is occuring there is only a set level of production varrying form time to time, but a definate number none the less. however demand is not limited, thus a price system must be implemented to compensate for that. i repeat, no market commodity will ever be infinite.


demand will always fluctuate. duh. but extreme price shifts are not justifiable just because of an increase in demand or a decrease in supply. small shifts are to be expected; gas prices jumping over a dollar in less than a month is unacceptable, and is nothing more than the capitalists taking advantage of our naivity.

no it isn&#39;t, its a result in rising global demand mixed with uncertainty in the worlds oil produciton supply, which is a very real threat, and has nothing to do with our naivity. without the price swings, there would be mass shortages and our economy would be fucked. sometimes these have to be extreme, and there is no evidence at all that hte oil companies are gouging us. there profit margins are under 10%, as has been previously shown in this thread.


make sense now?

like i said... supply and demand is part of it, and is more often than not used as a means to justify capitalists&#39; greed.

i see what the issue is, you have to realize that greed is supply and demand.


no, distribution is determined by want/need.

if we want it or need it, they distribute it to us.

yes, but more importantly (and realisitcaly) it is determined by logistical affordability, which is determined by price.


please, for the love of all your gods and goddesses... don&#39;t confuse soviet bureaucratic totalitarianism with communism. real, modern communism avoids bureaucracy as much as possible: it is the source of government ineficiency (and hense, government financial waste - that&#39;s money the government should rather be using to establish and fund social programs, like free education, free medical services, free day care, tax incentives to private corporations (which, are essentially not privatised, but rather owned and operated by the workers of that corporation, taken collectively, as opposed to national corporations, which are run by either the government or labour unions) who offer far lowered prices to consumers, etc)

um how exactly is putting production in control of popular rule going to make anyhting more effecient? the bureaucracy has to be formed to make sure that the system is fair to all and not exploited, as opposed to private ownership where everything is directed by however owns the means of produciton.


the value of a product is all costs rendered to the producer during the production process, including, as i said before: wages, supplies, equipment, energy costs, transportation, distribution, etc.

what does any of that have to do with how useful i percieve a product to be? are you telling me that the same clothing made with expensive american labor is any more valuable than different clothing made by cheap labor over seas?


the government organisations, since they&#39;re not in business to create massive profits, would not sell things at the speculated value (the value of the product multiplied by both its supply/demand indicators and the greed of the capitalist), but rather only slightly over its real value (like i said: profits are necessary in any business. once greed and speculation are subtracrted from the equation, the profit margins can be minimalised to a point where a prifit is still made (but, naturally, either redistributed to the workers OR invested back into the company for research/increase in productivity/etc. OR used as another form of government income in order that they (the government) can lower taxes to the workingclass many OR a combination of all of these.)

but the speculated value is all there is. what happens when people value and object at a much higher rate than what it sells for, and therefore by as many as possible on a good bargain? how does this pricing system deal with that?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Explain specifically how the government determines the "true" value of two commodities: one renewable and one not.

by using think tanks, which consider things like: necessity/supply/demand/cost of production/etc.

examples:

nonrenewable: gasoline. necessity: high. supply: low. demand: high. cost of production: medium.

therefore: moderate price at a fixed (but malleable) rate to compensate usage, lack of supply vs. high demand, and necessity.

value: fixed medium, will raise with time (at a fixed rate).

renewable: wheat: necessity: high. supply: high. demand: high. cost of production (into bread): very low.

therefore: moderate prices at a fixed (but malleable) rate to compensate necessity (first and foremost), possible alterations in supply (such as if there is a drought), high demand, and usage.

value: fixed low, can raise with time.


Then estimate how many government bureaucrats will be required to determine the true value of the million or so products and services consumed by people every day, in concert with their demand.

very little. allow very little bureaocracy to ensure efficiency. use direct control from a council in which all members are equal.


Explain in detail how we can be sure the government, seeking public approval, will not subsidize the cost of these commodities thereby stimulating their demand/use.

because we are the government, and we know best.

if the government wasted resources and created false values for an item, it could cause disaster. we react, and throw the elected officials out on their asses and choose new ones, smarter ones.

[t_wolves_fan]

suppose i was wrong in the definition of price gouging (which, i am relatively certain i wasn&#39;t)...

I&#39;m amazed you had a moment of mental clarity that lasted long enough for you to admit you don&#39;t even know what gouging is, though since you refer to Economics 101 and 102 I&#39;d think you could find an acceptable source to look it up.


it doesn&#39;t change the fact that big businesses drop their prices to eliminate small, newer companies who cannot compete. as well, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that you have yet to justify its occurrence.

I don&#39;t justify its occurrence when it is malicious, but the fact is it&#39;s not always malicious. If a large company can offer me the same product or service for a lower cost then as a consumer it is to my benefit, is it not?

If a company practices predatory pricing I do not support it and hope they&#39;re punished.


all you&#39;ve done is say i have the wrong definition of the word, rather than either accept the fact that, in a true capitalist place, that is exactly what would happen and there would be nothing that any body can do about it (all is fair in love and war and capitalism) or try to deny it.

The real question here is, if you don&#39;t even know the difference between two quite basic terms of economics, how credible are your claims on other things? Not very.

Yes, lower prices that can drive competitors out of business happen in capitalism all the time. That&#39;s how it works. Is it necessarily bad? You said yourself that capitalists raise prices on purpose all the time and now you&#39;re incoherently claiming at the same time that they lower prices all the time. Were you to lay off the bong for a week or so you might understand that the reason gas prices came down was because the oil companies compete with one another by dropping the price of gas when they&#39;re able as their costs decline.

Is it necessarily bad if a producer is forced out by lower prices? What if that producer is using inefficient production methods and the reason his cost is higher is because he&#39;s got to buy more raw material (which may be unsustainable) and he&#39;s got to spend more on repairs and maintenance? Does his business deserve to stay in business?


my point is this: the capitalist class (the owners, the stockholders, the directors, etc) takes all the profit for themselves because they are greedy. when those profits would NOT be possible if it weren&#39;t for the every day working class people, it is not right that they are not the beneficiaries of the profit.

Are all of them really greedy? Do you own stock? I own stock. Half of all Americans own stock of some kind. Are you certain the only reason I own stock is out of pure greed? Remember you don&#39;t even know what price gouging is, are you sure you feel qualified to proclaim why people invest in stock? Me, I invest because I want to be able to live halfway comfortably when I retire. Are you saving for retirement?

You say profit would not exist if not for the workers. That is partially true. The other part of that truth is that profit would not exist if not for the capitalist. You and the rest of your Candy Land denizens recognize the role of the capitalist whether you admit it or not, because nearly every one of your fantastical wet dreams about how your society would work involve experts that would help determine how resources should be allocated. That belies the fact that even you recognize that labor for labor&#39;s sake would do little to improve people&#39;s lives and that some people are destined to be in a position to tell others how to allocate resources while some are destined to stand at a machine doing simple tasks all day long.



communism would have it that, since if it weren&#39;t for the workers, there would be no production/no profits/nothing at all, the profits would be returned to the workers. the workers would have a say in who is in charge of the company (and that person would be on a regular wage just like the rest of us), whether it be by direct election from among their own or choosing some of their own to act much in the same was as parlaiment: form a counciland have them appoint the most qualified person.

This sounds very nice but is incredibly naive: office politics mean your council of workers is just as likely to choose an incompetent board of directors or CEO as the current system is.


my friend ashleigh works at sundance (a big car dealership here in lansing) selling cars. she sells more domestic model SUVs than all other types of cars combined, aand it&#39;s been the same way since she started working there 2 years ago, and it was the same way when she started in saleswomanship at but kouts (another dealership here).

Well I&#39;ll be, your friend Ashleigh said it was so at her dealership so it must be so. I tell you what let&#39;s put Ashleigh in charge because her experience is unquestionably replicated at dealership after dealership nationwide (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/automobiles/03auto.html?ex=1304308800&en=1abef7d0b3c5df9e&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss).

Have you bothered to ask the all-knowing Ashleigh whether or not the SUVs she does sell tend to get better gas mileage than those sold in the past? Does she work for Ford and does she sell many Escape Hybrids?


post all the bullshit you like from the internet. you&#39;ll get the real facts from real life.

You&#39;re right, the experience of a produce stock boy and a car saleswoman in Michigan is definitely more credible than say national trends and data. Especially when you&#39;re stoned, which is why I wonder why you&#39;re not teaching Economics at Harvard instead of hucking crates of produce all day. Reminds me of an angry young uber-capitalist gas station attendant who continually amazed me with his business and economics accumen on another.


nonetheless... exxon is making 80,000&#036;/minute. this is after all costs have been taken care of. pure fucking profit. large or small company... that ain&#39;t no ham on rye.

ZOOM goes the point right over your head.


no, they would determine which foods may be sold at regular prices and which foods (the basics) must be sold at low prices. you still have a choice in what foods you buy, but if you choose to buy the basics, you&#39;d be paying way smaller prices.

And so I ask again what happens if demand exceeds supply at the lower prices?


not while i post, but generally right after: helps me deal with the retarded shit.

I don&#39;t think that&#39;s the real reason you do it.


which reminds me... tonight is devil&#39;s night... i have acid to do and SUV windows to smash in...

You are a true man. Seriously.


why... you wanna trip balls with me sometime?

No thank you.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

no greed is what makes supply and demand work, the desire for more for onesself. obviously oil companies will want to make as much as possible, and variations and supply and demand determines what price will give them the highest profit. so really were agreeing but theres been a misunderstanding about what is meant by the term supply and demand.

the concept of which you speak is called coveting.

greed is when the exxon chair takes 80,000&#036;/minute to the bank, claims that that cash is the product of low supply and high demand, and doesn&#39;t look back because he knows he&#39;s gonna have a good vacation.


accept while all of this is occuring there is only a set level of production varrying form time to time, but a definate number none the less. however demand is not limited, thus a price system must be implemented to compensate for that. i repeat, no market commodity will ever be infinite.

and naturally, the determining factor in that production level is demand. however, the supply will never run out, and thus, since the item is automatically available when we want or need it, prices remain low.


no it isn&#39;t, its a result in rising global demand mixed with uncertainty in the worlds oil produciton supply, which is a very real threat, and has nothing to do with our naivity. without the price swings, there would be mass shortages and our economy would be fucked. sometimes these have to be extreme, and there is no evidence at all that hte oil companies are gouging us. there profit margins are under 10%, as has been previously shown in this thread.

you, my friend, are naive.


i see what the issue is, you have to realize that greed is supply and demand.

see above.


yes, but more importantly (and realisitcaly) it is determined by logistical affordability, which is determined by price.

and price is determined by greed & supply vs. demand... where are you going with this?


um how exactly is putting production in control of popular rule going to make anyhting more effecient? the bureaucracy has to be formed to make sure that the system is fair to all and not exploited, as opposed to private ownership where everything is directed by however owns the means of produciton.

the people are the consumer and the supplier. therefore, we know what we have (at least, that is if we are in control of production, anyway) and we know what we need and want.we make the choices, rather than greedy capitalists. everything would still be just as efficient (i&#39;ve said it before, capitalism is very efficient. greed inspires), but would be fair AND efficient, a quality that does NOT exist in capitalism.

and if the people are the system, and the system employs as little bureaucracy as possible, then none will be exploited.


what does any of that have to do with how useful i percieve a product to be? are you telling me that the same clothing made with expensive american labor is any more valuable than different clothing made by cheap labor over seas?

i never said id had anything at all how useful you think it is.

if everyone thinks it&#39;s useful, it gains speculated value.

i&#39;m talking about real, concrete value.


but the speculated value is all there is. what happens when people value and object at a much higher rate than what it sells for, and therefore by as many as possible on a good bargain? how does this pricing system deal with that?

is there every really anything wrong with a good deal?

besides... remember, i said that there would be organisations used to control these set prices for the government corporations. they would certainly take into consideration things like huge demand - huge demand would essentially have the same effect on the government run organisation as it would with private industry, but to less extremes (no greed to be justified). if everyone wants the AMC vehicle i mentioned earlier, they would raise the price from 3,000&#036; over the production cost to say, 6,000&#036; over the production cost (making the AMC washington explorer cost 21,000&#036;). with lincoln... if everyone wanted a navigator, they&#39;d saise the price from 30,000&#036; over the production cost to something like 50,000&#036; over the production cost (making the lincoln cost 65,000&#036; dollars. they love huge demand: gives them the opportunity to take advantage of us).

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 30, 2006 10:05 pm
[if everyone wanted a navigator, they&#39;d saise the price from 30,000&#036; over the production cost to something like 50,000&#036; over the production cost (making the lincoln cost 65,000&#036; dollars. they love huge demand: gives them the opportunity to take advantage of us).
Um, in this scenario isn&#39;t the government-run car company taking advantage of higher demand to raise its price and therefore its profit?

[Tungsten]

Aeturnal Narcosis

however, the supply will never run out, and thus, since the item is automatically available when we want or need it, prices remain low.
Items are automatically available? Haleluja&#33;

Who conjures these items into existence, since they don&#39;t need to be produced and are "automatically available"? Or are you another one of these "robots will do everything" people?

[colonelguppy]

the concept of which you speak is called coveting.

greed is when the exxon chair takes 80,000&#036;/minute to the bank, claims that that cash is the product of low supply and high demand, and doesn&#39;t look back because he knows he&#39;s gonna have a good vacation.

wait how is it not lowered supply and high demand?


however, the supply will never run out, and thus, since the item is automatically available when we want or need it, prices remain low.

and this magically happens how?


you, my friend, are naive.

how so? do you have evidence to prove otherwise?


and price is determined by greed & supply vs. demand... where are you going with this?

that dsitribution cannot be determine by "needs and wants", as that is impossible to define and then execute.


the people are the consumer and the supplier. therefore, we know what we have (at least, that is if we are in control of production, anyway) and we know what we need and want.we make the choices, rather than greedy capitalists. everything would still be just as efficient (i&#39;ve said it before, capitalism is very efficient. greed inspires), but would be fair AND efficient, a quality that does NOT exist in capitalism.

well of course everyone know swha thtey want personally, but its a little more complicated determining waht everyone else wants, which is where the innefeciency comes in.


and if the people are the system, and the system employs as little bureaucracy as possible, then none will be exploited.

how so?


i never said id had anything at all how useful you think it is.

if everyone thinks it&#39;s useful, it gains speculated value.

i&#39;m talking about real, concrete value.

real concrete value doesn&#39;t exist, as i dmeonstrate din my last post. production cost has absolutely zero to do with determining utility.


besides... remember, i said that there would be organisations used to control these set prices for the government corporations. they would certainly take into consideration things like huge demand - huge demand would essentially have the same effect on the government run organisation as it would with private industry, but to less extremes (no greed to be justified). if everyone wants the AMC vehicle i mentioned earlier, they would raise the price from 3,000&#036; over the production cost to say, 6,000&#036; over the production cost (making the AMC washington explorer cost 21,000&#036;). with lincoln... if everyone wanted a navigator, they&#39;d saise the price from 30,000&#036; over the production cost to something like 50,000&#036; over the production cost (making the lincoln cost 65,000&#036; dollars. they love huge demand: gives them the opportunity to take advantage of us).

they would? what if they just wanted to appease everyone and keep things cheap? and even if they do, how is that any different than having a private seller raise prices? how do prevent exploitation in the system?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:20 pm
Um, in this scenario isn&#39;t the government-run car company taking advantage of higher demand to raise its price and therefore its profit?
taking advantage is charging 45,000 for a car that costed only 15,000.

besides, that profit would be going either back to the country (more profit, less need to leave taxes high/ more possibility to offer social welfare programs) or back the workers.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:38 pm
Items are automatically available? Haleluja&#33;

Who conjures these items into existence, since they don&#39;t need to be produced and are "automatically available"? Or are you another one of these "robots will do everything" people?
it was trees i was talking about.

let the consumers decide. if outlook looks to be for a high demand (such as, if real estate is on the rise or property taxes are declining), plant more. like i said: make it immediately available for when we need it.

and as far as automation: great idea (look hos good it&#39;s been for japan: they have the most efficient economy in the world).

but... we will always need people to operate the robots.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 31, 2006 04:10 pm
let the consumers decide. if outlook looks to be for a high demand (such as, if real estate is on the rise or property taxes are declining), plant more. like i said: make it immediately available for when we need it.


Herein lies the conflict, which I asked you about but which you either ignored or misunderstood.

Consumers are in charge of demand, and everything is available IMMEDIATELY.

But,

Workers are in charge of supply, and presumably they&#39;re only going to work as hard as they vote to work.

And,

The government sets the price of everything (which reminds me, you have not yet explained how the government figures out the REAL PRICE of every single product and service on the market).

Blink a couple of times if you understand why these nice-sounding slogans may not be practical.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

wait how is it not lowered supply and high demand?

i don&#39;t hear exxon complaining about losing profits... hell, those greedy bastards are probably making more now.

so even if demand drops, they still manage to take advantage. that&#39;s what they do. it&#39;c called........... capitalism.


and this magically happens how?

constantly replanting trees. see my post previous to this one.


how so? do you have evidence to prove otherwise?

you beleive all the bullshit they feed you.

when was the last time you saw &#39;mass shortages,&#39; except when there weren&#39;t enough tickle-me-elmos for every goddamn yuppie to buy for their spoiled little mistakes?


that dsitribution cannot be determine by "needs and wants", as that is impossible to define and then execute.

it can only be determined by need if it is a necessity and there&#39;s a hand (an economic council) guiding it. want is demand, and is determined by the will of the people. you know this.


well of course everyone know swha thtey want personally, but its a little more complicated determining waht everyone else wants, which is where the innefeciency comes in.

hands shanking? aw...

despite the lack of proper spelling and grammar, i think i managed to get your point.

when i speak of people knowing what they want, i refer to the people in general, the people as a whole unit.



and if the people are the system, and the system employs as little bureaucracy as possible, then none will be exploited.

how so?

the people will not exploit themselves.


real concrete value doesn&#39;t exist, as i dmeonstrate din my last post. production cost has absolutely zero to do with determining utility.

justify this.


they would? what if they just wanted to appease everyone and keep things cheap? and even if they do, how is that any different than having a private seller raise prices? how do prevent exploitation in the system?

retaining low prices when the concrete value AND the speculated value of the product is on the rise would cause economic problems. we&#39;d vote them out of office.

a private corporation (which, in essence, would not exist: all corporations would be owned and controlled by its workers, at least in some form) raises prices for monetary gain. the government-run organisations would raise prices because of a need to do so - such as in a drop in supply, increase in production costs, huge shift in demand, etc.

capitalists exploit the system for their own personal gain. when everyone&#39;s gain is at stake, exploitation would pretty much not exist, and when found, would be investigated and severely punished.

[t_wolves_fan]

i don&#39;t hear exxon complaining about losing profits...

Because nobody cares.


so even if demand drops, they still manage to take advantage. that&#39;s what they do. it&#39;c called........... capitalism.

You don&#39;t understand capitalism at all, do you?

If demand drops, one of the companies is going to drop their price if possible to attract more market share. If they can&#39;t drop their price (because of cost), they&#39;ll ride out the market with the profit they made previously and about which you like to spend so much time *****ing.


when was the last time you saw &#39;mass shortages,&#39; except when there weren&#39;t enough tickle-me-elmos for every goddamn yuppie to buy for their spoiled little mistakes?

We don&#39;t see mass shortages here in capitalist countries - that is precisely the point.

Have you now appointed yourself Pope of Deciding which Christmas Toys People Should Have?


it can only be determined by need if it is a necessity and there&#39;s a hand (an economic council) guiding it. want is demand, and is determined by the will of the people. you know this.

So the Economic Council can determine ahead of time what people are going to want and need. And naturally they will vote every time to provide what the people want and need...which leads to the labor conflict. What if labor doesn&#39;t want to provide what the people need or want?


retaining low prices when the concrete value AND the speculated value of the product is on the rise would cause economic problems. we&#39;d vote them out of office.

Let me get this straight. The mass of people are going to vote out the price-setting board...for..NOT RAISING PRICES...on the things they want?

That is your position, that the mass of people will happily vote themselves a price increase on the things they need?


a private corporation (which, in essence, would not exist: all corporations would be owned and controlled by its workers, at least in some form) raises prices for monetary gain. the government-run organisations would raise prices because of a need to do so - such as in a drop in supply, increase in production costs, huge shift in demand, etc.

You have no political accumen whatsoever, because you neglect the probability that in order to foster good political will, the elected price-setting officials will strive to keep prices as low as possible regardless of the long-term effects. All you need is a slate of candidates who promise to keep the price of good X low because they will rely on some untried technology. Once they fail, you&#39;re hosed. And it will happen again and again because people are fickle, short-sighted and stupid.


capitalists exploit the system for their own personal gain. when everyone&#39;s gain is at stake, exploitation would pretty much not exist, and when found, would be investigated and severely punished.

No it won&#39;t, you&#39;ll simply have an elite who screw the people for their own gain.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Workers are in charge of supply, and presumably they&#39;re only going to work as hard as they vote to work.

this is where modern communism differs from traditional communism. in modern communism, there is &#39;equal pay for equal work,&#39; as opposed to equal pay for all.&#39; essentially all industries would be put on a production pay system (i work for Freight Handlers, Incorporated, unloading trucks in the meijer warehouse. we work on a production pay with efficiency bonus scale: we get payed by the number of cases we have to move, the average weight of the case, average number of layers per pallet we have to move, bands, nets, ice, etc. for example, light cases are 3 cents each, heavier cases 5 cents a piece, and so on. there&#39;s a complicated pay scale, which changes for different types of loads (ex. bulk watermelon (watermelons on the floor, non-palletised) loads are 120&#036;, bulk potatoes pay 100&#036;, etc), but you nonetheless i get paid by how hard i work, and i generally average about 17&#036;/hour. as well, i get a 10% efficiency bonus for completing my trucks quickly and for not damaging product).

if they&#39;re paid by production, they will work as hard as they possibly can because they want to make the money. production-pay is the most efficient possible way.


The government sets the price of everything (which reminds me, you have not yet explained how the government figures out the REAL PRICE of every single product and service on the market).

i never said they set the price of everything. i said they set maximum prices for NECESSITIES, which still isn&#39;t a fixed price, but rather a fixed rate. production cost + a certain percentage allowed. rise in rpoduction cost = rise in price.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Because nobody cares.

you need to take a year and get you a hardcore, down-to-the-grit kind of job. you&#39;ll meet everyday people, and believe me, we care.

and... it&#39;ll ceretainly open your eyes to socialism.

and, what&#39;s more... it might possibly make a man out of you.


You don&#39;t understand capitalism at all, do you?

i understand capitalism in concept AND in reality. you only understand it theoretically.


If demand drops, one of the companies is going to drop their price if possible to attract more market share. If they can&#39;t drop their price (because of cost), they&#39;ll ride out the market with the profit they made previously and about which you like to spend so much time *****ing.

as soon as opec announced a slight rise in the price of crude oil, they raised their prices in unequal ratios. demand remained high, so those fucktards raised their prices further. that&#39;s taking advantage. that&#39;s capitalism. they can do that.


We don&#39;t see mass shortages here in capitalist countries - that is precisely the point.

and socialist countries don&#39;t either. sweden, germany, france, japan, uk, etc.

it&#39;s the totalitarian state-bureaucracy-controlled countries that have to worry about that. north korea, former soviet union, cuba, etc.


Have you now appointed yourself Pope of Deciding which Christmas Toys People Should Have?

not pope. vicar.


So the Economic Council can determine ahead of time what people are going to want and need. And naturally they will vote every time to provide what the people want and need...which leads to the labor conflict. What if labor doesn&#39;t want to provide what the people need or want?

if a person doesn&#39;t want to do his job, he is not meant to do it and should find a diferent one. but since everything would be production pay, the workers would appreciate doing what the people want (afterall, the workers ARE the people). increase in demand, increase in work, increase in pay.


Let me get this straight. The mass of people are going to vote out the price-setting board...for..NOT RAISING PRICES...on the things they want?

That is your position, that the mass of people will happily vote themselves a price increase on the things they need?

ok. i can&#39;t spell it out in letters you understand (because there is no button for the click or whistle sound), but i can put it in english. have your kid sister translate for you...

the councils lower prices to get approval.

prices drop, and everything is fine... at first

then economic problems arise (such as stagnation).

we become aware of these problems.

then we elect a new set of council member to fix the problem.

they either set things straight, or we vote them out of office and choose a whole new set of council members.


You have no political accumen whatsoever, because you neglect the probability that in order to foster good political will, the elected price-setting officials will strive to keep prices as low as possible regardless of the long-term effects. All you need is a slate of candidates who promise to keep the price of good X low because they will rely on some untried technology. Once they fail, you&#39;re hosed. And it will happen again and again because people are fickle, short-sighted and stupid.

you really have that low of an oppinion of your fellow amerikkans?

i feel i no longer need to argue with you. if you think your average amerikkan is &#39;stupid,&#39; you&#39;re a dogmatic stereotypical prick, and therefore i win.

fuck you, and fuck off.

[t_wolves_fan]

if they&#39;re paid by production, they will work as hard as they possibly can because they want to make the money. production-pay is the most efficient possible way.

That sounds fine, but what happens when workers&#39; unions don&#39;t adopt that pay system?


i never said they set the price of everything. i said they set maximum prices for NECESSITIES, which still isn&#39;t a fixed price, but rather a fixed rate. production cost + a certain percentage allowed. rise in rpoduction cost = rise in price.

OK, then how is production cost determined?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

anyway... back to what i was talking about in the first place... free music trade...

has anyone ever downloaded an MP3 and found some kind of "AMRC" bullshit in the IDv3 tags?

what is AMRC?

fuck AMRC

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 16, 2006 08:23 pm
anyway... back to what i was talking about in the first place... free music trade...

has anyone ever downloaded an MP3 and found some kind of "AMRC" bullshit in the IDv3 tags?

what is AMRC?

fuck AMRC
Questions got too hard, huh.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

no, you proved yourself to be a dogmatic stereotypical piece of shit. i no longer need to argue my points (not that you&#39;d understand them anyway).