Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

I really don't think that contradicts him at all.

It doesn't contradict me at all, so I went ahead and fixed it. In fact the leaning was done through regulations.

[Criptfeind]

I am saying if someone meets that price, why should they not be able to buy it?

If the man is paying the price himself, and not the price via the exploited labor and captured resources of others, they're more than entitled to it. But where do their resources come from? Is it built on the backs of others who had their "fair share" restricted so someone else's share is bigger? Does that gold house represent the share that others didn't get and don't get to partake of?

Obviously yes it is not hard to look at a rich person with people starving on the street and say that is not right. In theory at least. In reality it is really hard to pin point a exact thing that many rich people do that is oh so wrong.

I mean, sometimes it is easy, when you see a CEO give himself a seven figure bonus when his company is laying off employers or when you see the number of people ruined by a drug lord. But most of the time it is not that simple.

I really don't think that contradicts him at all.

It doesn't contradict me at all, so I went ahead and fixed it. In fact the leaning was done through regulations.

Well gee. Now he makes even less sense.

[nenjin]

So we should not want more, simply because, one day, we might start trying to control one another? People already do that, and you are just assuming that our desire for more is only later going to strip us of our desire for a happier community. A happier community is part of that desire for more, just like the “ridiculous” golden palace. We are only more justified in wanting a happy community because it pleases us, as does the golden palace.

So the only tangible benefit to supporting a happier community is that it pleases you, not helps everyone else?

Not only is that wrong, it's the same kind of selfish thinking that precedes the golden palace.

Supporting a happier community gives you what they want, them what they want and it's equitable. Christ, if half of people made pleasing others their highest priority, the world would be a pretty nice place to live. Why is this impossible again?

A group of fisherman in the swamp are having their bait lines eaten by a alligator. Big 12 or 13 footer. Guy goes and kills the gator. He could sell it on the market for a good price. Instead he cuts it up and fries a gator meal for all the fisherman whose businesses he just saved, at the cost of his gas, his time and his good will.

It's not impossible. We're still just not ready to accept there's a better way for everyone to provide for each other by sacrificing something.

[Fenrir]

So the only tangible benefit to supporting a happier community is that it pleases you, not helps everyone else?

Not only is that wrong, it's the same kind of selfish thinking that precedes the golden palace.

Why is helping other people a good thing?

[Nikov]

Obviously yes it is not hard to look at a rich person with people starving on the street and say that is not right. In theory at least. In reality it is really hard to pin point a exact thing that many rich people do that is oh so wrong.

Marxists assume that starving person is starving because the rich person is eating his food. In reality, the rich person would like to hire all the starving people to work for him but the factory he manages is unionized. While he could probably have them mop floors, if he doesn't pay $8.25 an hour and file W-2's the government will fine him. So instead he just puts a twenty in their hat which the starving man spends on a hotdog and a handle of vodka.

The assumption that people with more exploited and oppressed those who have less to get it is an enormous fallacy common with all Marxist thought. Really its what the entire Manifesto is built on.

[freeformschooler]

So the only tangible benefit to supporting a happier community is that it pleases you, not helps everyone else?

Not only is that wrong, it's the same kind of selfish thinking that precedes the golden palace.

Why is helping other people a good thing?

At least you're not dodgy about your own beliefs, Fenrir. I approve of that.

[nenjin]

Why is helping other people a good thing?

Nah, you know what, I'm done. I'm not playing the Socratic method with you. If you want to come back with something beyond one line retorts, I'll be here.

The assumption that people with more exploited and oppressed those who have less to get it is an enormous fallacy common with all Marxist thought. Really its what the entire Manifesto is built on.

On the flipside, said owner makes 4.5 million a year in profits and knows the living wage has remained stagnant for years. He could undercut his bottom line by giving out raises, but he knows the shareholders would reject that and possibly threaten their position.

Then he gets an order handed down that HR needs to reduce staffing by another 20%, because rising materials and shipping costs threaten to undercut the companies $1.2 billion annual revenue stream by 5% and affect the shareholder's stock price. So he fires 800 people.

[Fenrir]

At least you're not dodgy about your own beliefs, Fenrir. I approve of that.

Thank you, but do not worry. Being helpful and kind pleases me; I just see little reason to think that there is any better reason to do it, as much as I would like one.

Nah, you know what, I'm done. I'm not playing the Socratic method with you. If you want to come back with something beyond one line retorts, I'll be here.

Very well, though I see little reason that the length of a rebuttal would matter if you had any rational reply for it. When you are prepared to answer my questions and stop tossing red herrings, perhaps you will care to cross blades with me again. Adieu!

[Leafsnail]

Man this is basically the worst debate I've ever seen.  It's not really far above the level of "Nuh uh, communists think THIS and capitalists think THIS" for every response.  I guess I'll challenge the latest unchallenged assumption.

The assumption that people with more exploited and oppressed those who have less to get it is an enormous fallacy common with all Marxist thought. Really its what the entire Manifesto is built on.

So uh... sweatshops and Dickensian factory conditions don't show the kindof thing that happens when there is no labour regulation and no union rights?

Note that arguing against a supposedly capitalist viewpoint doesn't automatically make me a communist blah blah blah.

[nenjin]

I'm just not prepared to derail even further to justify why I think helping people is a good thing and worth striving for versus serving your own interests. If you want to count that as a victory, more power to you. I count it as using the Socratic Method so you don't have to have a point to defend.

[Criptfeind]

On the flipside, said owner makes 4.5 million a year in profits and knows the living wage has remained stagnant for years. He could undercut his bottom line by giving out raises, but he knows the shareholders would reject that and possibly threaten their position.

Then he gets an order handed down that HR needs to reduce staffing by another 20%, because rising materials and shipping costs threaten to undercut the companies $1.2 billion annual revenue stream by 5% and affect the shareholder's stock price. So he fires 800 people.

So the question I have here is who's fault is it? It is not the poor people's because there are no jobs to be had. It is not the CEO's as his hands are tied by the stockholders.

So that leaves the stock holders. Or the government.

I defend the stock holders on the grounds that many of them are too far distanced from it to recognize the actions. And the ones that are not are limited by the ones that are. Essentially you are asking them to decrease their own worth to do something that may or may not help but they will not see the effects anyway. And I defend the government on the grounds that minimum wage and taxes and shizzle are important vaild concerns.

[nenjin]

I defend the stock holders on the grounds that many of them are too far distanced from it to recognize the actions. And the ones that are not are limited by the ones that are.

Do people have an ethical responsibility to know how the money they make gets made? I think they do and in many cases the law says they do. There's this whole passing off of responsibility for action within a corporation, being that they're their own legal entity and all to protect shareholders and CEOs for a large degree of liability. It's that disassociation of responsibility that's why compassionate corporatism is rare. The bigger they get, the harder it is to get everyone to behave in a moral fashion. But what I always ask is, if overhead is paid for, R&D is paid for, the new expansion is paid for, bonuses have been paid out and you're still making a billion dollars a year.....what is $100 million less for the grunts that make your business run?

Essentially you are asking them to decrease their own worth to do something that may or may not help but they will not see the effects anyway.

If we accept there's value in helping people, then it's not a total loss. If we further accept that a better paid, happier work force works harder for you, there's a direct benefit to investing in your workforce. I don't know everyone's cost benefit-analysis, but it doesn't seem like it's weighted toward supporting the things that make business work. It seems weighted toward always being able to show growth, even if you're actually shrinking.

And I defend the government on the grounds that minimum wage and taxes and shizzle are important vaild concerns.

I don't blame the government most of the time. But considering the banking crash, it's clear many investment businesses were totally willing to run the whole system into the ground to make a profit. If it's not the government's job to act, then whose is it? And when business interests have captured government legislation....well, then you're basically completely screwed, on the same level as the depths of communism.

[Criptfeind]

what is $100 million less for the grunts that make your business run?

$100 million.

The thing is, that billion dollars in 'profit' does not mean that the company's bank account now has a billion more dollars in it.  That billion dollars needs to go back into the business in the form of operating costs for next year until they start turning a profit, dividends, emergency funds, or if there is any left over; growth. To pay the 'grunts' more they need to justify it as being a better option then any of the others.

If we accept there's value in helping people, then it's not a total loss. If we further accept that a better paid, happier work force works harder for you, there's a direct benefit to investing in your workforce. I don't know everyone's cost benefit-analysis, but it doesn't seem like it's weighted toward supporting the things that make business work. It seems weighted toward always being able to show growth, even if you're actually shrinking.

I accept the first one, but with the idea that the return is minuscule. Why would anyone spend a dollar of utility to gain a cent of utility where they could gain 2 dollars?

As for the second one. I accept that it is sometimes the case, but not always. And even when it is the case it is not always the best investment. Such as when you can pay a guy 200% to get 150% effect when you could pay two people 200% to get 200% effect?

And: Businesses may be Amoral. And they may not care about anything but profit. But they really really care about profit. I find the idea that such a large number of them are failing on such a easy way to increase profit a hard idea to swallow.

[nenjin]

In terms of the amount of money they're taking home, they're "winning." In terms of how long they can afford to pay workers or support their business models, they're losing. You cannot continue to squeeze money out of the bottom of your business before it starts to affect it. Sustainable growth is slow to cultivate and companies aren't interested in waiting that longThey're focusing on year to year profits and saving the long-term planning on something other than their work force. Work forces change daily, another reality of globalization.

Cheap labor is valued at a premium, loyalty and performance less so. To me it seems like modern businesses practice the equivalent of slash and burn agriculture, where they'll build profits where they can, the business grows to a point where it's no longer making enough money to support itself, then they cut back the whole business, make a huge windfall and move on. And in their wake are left all the displaced workers (or in the case of the banking crisis, small time investors) who weren't making enough to being with, scrambling to find the next job that's going to undervalue their effort for a year before firing them.

[Criptfeind]

That's true of.... Some companies. But honestly I do not think it is true of all or even most.

After all, if a company adopts a plan that will kill it long term, it will die. Whereas a company that does not do so will not die. So theoretically it number of good companies would increase as the number of slash and burn would decease.