I Welcome the GW Price Increase. Bring it On!

[wittdooley]

What's your alternative then to either state pensions or private ones ?

You must have missed that. His solution is giving everyone loans that they'll magically be able to pay back right away.

As Deadlift stated, in order to become an investor, one (typically) had to work to make that money to invest first. Sure, there are families in the US and Europe that are 'old money' and thus the date at which the money was 'earned' goes farther back than others, but that doesn't even matter.

It should be EVERYONE'S goal to have enough in the bank that you can live off the interest your investments earn.

And to insult hedge fund managers like that is absurd. That is one of the most high stress industries in the financial world, and to presume that those folks, in order to successfully manage an investment fund, are idiots its myopic and entirely ignorant. Assessing the market so that you can provide returns that will garner you more clients is not easy. And further speaking to your ignorance on the topic: if a hedge fund manager is 'only' pulling in 100k a year, they're not very good at their jobs.

But really, I'm still waiting on your responses to any of the questions the folks here, myself included, have posed to you. Or at the very least, provide some exemplars for the scenarios you suggest. I mean, please, let me know what from my previous post "isn't correct." I can assure you the anecdotal evidence regarding how my wife and I financially plan for our future is. If you'd like to believe that my statistic about student loan debt is incorrect, I'll kindly direct you to this USA Today article: [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/story/2011-10-19/student-loan-debt/50818676/1"]Studen Loans headed for $1 Trillion[/URL]

I mean, if you really want to participate in this discussion like an adult (and this is presuming you are one--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here), you can't simply stick your fingers in your ears and go "La la la la la" when someone presents an argument that invalidates yours.

[gendoikari87]

You must have missed that. His solution is giving everyone loans that they'll magically be able to pay back right away.

I didn't suggest using loans I was using that as an example of how the eternal payments you get by owning stock are completely retarded.

The solution is to stop thinking in terms of money creating production but the proper way (by definition) of production creating money, and the state can provide that. Why? because there are people to produce. You need nothing else, money will follow.

basically you ask the local communal manicipality to start a business and if it's deemed a worthy project then it gets funded (which by the way is akin to going to the bank asking for a loan to start the company, only here the interests of the community/humanity/fiscal fiesability are considered as opposed to strictly it's financial return), the money comes for the production of labor, not from the hoards of the rich. And you don't own the business you are put in charge of it, and can be recalled if you exploit or are ineffective (and if the project is useless it can be pulled)

[wittdooley]

Also show where i demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the financial world works. Show me.

Are you looking for just this thread, or every thread? I mean, we could probably pen a disseration.

But, from this thread:

"...yes because every joe schmoe is rolling around with money to invest...." - Most, if not all full time, and particularly salaried, employees can and do invest.

"corporate profits....are bad" - This is more or less completely incorrect. The more profitable a company, the more stable it is. The more stable it is, the more risk they can take with adding employees. The more employees a profit-making comany makes, the lower our unemployment rate. The lower our unemployment rate, the less people we have collecting social services. The less people we have collecting social services, the more our tax money can go towards functional things. I'm sure you could extrapolate this further, but you get the idea.

That was just on one page of posts. We can surely dig more.

[gendoikari87]

Are you looking for just this thread, or every thread? I mean, we could probably pen a disseration.

But, from this thread:

"...yes because every joe schmoe is rolling around with money to invest...." - Most, if not all full time, and particularly salaried, employees can and do invest.

"corporate profits....are bad" - This is more or less completely incorrect. The more profitable a company, the more stable it is. The more stable it is, the more risk they can take with adding employees. The more employees a profit-making comany makes, the lower our unemployment rate. The lower our unemployment rate, the less people we have collecting social services. The less people we have collecting social services, the more our tax money can go towards functional things. I'm sure you could extrapolate this further, but you get the idea.

That was just on one page of posts. We can surely dig more.

Yeah because corporate profits completely don't come from exploiting the workers. which in turn creates the need for social services, and unemployment certainly isn't inherent to capitalism. Again your going about the circular existancce route of discussion.

"...yes because every joe schmoe is rolling around with money to invest...." - Most, if not all full time, and particularly salaried, employees can and do invest.

This is less and less true every day and clearly shows where you stand in the world if you think "most" people can invest enough to earn back what has been taken from them.


So uh... try again.

[gendoikari87]

Now, time for you to answer a question, what are you , as the capitalist going to do, to address exploitation of the workforce?

[gendoikari87]

Now, time for you to answer a question, what are you , as the capitalist going to do, to address exploitation of the workforce?

waiting? or are you just dumbfounded because it can't be done without massive assistance programs?

[Defenestratus]

Yeah because corporate profits completely don't come from exploiting the workers.

Which workers are we talking about? Why don't they quit if they're being exploited? I believe that in the modern, western world, that we've outlawed the forced confiscation of a person's labor commodity. (Slavery)

If you do not feel that you, as a worker, are collecting a fair price for your labor services, then you are free to find another buyer for those labor services (Find a new employer).

which in turn creates the need for social services,

Slavery leads to the need for welfare services? This one I need explained to me.

and unemployment certainly isn't inherent to capitalism.

No. The basis of unemployment is a simple supply/demand equation. There is simply more supply of labor than there is demand for it.

Supply and Demand is something that no economic system can escape from.

This is less and less true every day and clearly shows where you stand in the world if you think "most" people can invest enough to earn back what has been taken from them.

Unfortunately you're correct in that people are investing less in their futures because of present and pressing shortcomings in a semi-global economic slowdown. However, you claim that things have been "taken" from them. I'm curious as to how things have been taken from them. Why was it taken from them? Are you talking about taxes? If so I'm right there with you. I'm completely against forced confiscation of the fruits of my labor.

Now, time for you to answer a question, what are you , as the capitalist going to do, to address exploitation of the workforce?

In a capitalistic system, an employer purchases labor from the employee. When the price of that labor is unacceptable to the employee (exploitation) then the employee terminates the agreement between the parties (handing in your resignation).

If you can refer to specific instances of "exploitation" then I can address them more accurately. Basically what I'm saying is that no employee should be forced to accept "exploitation" (which is a completely relative term btw) since nobody is presumably holding a gun to their heads to continue working for them. If so, then a crime is being committed and its not a matter of a economics but a matter of civil liberties.

[Deadlift]

Now, time for you to answer a question, what are you , as the capitalist going to do, to address exploitation of the workforce?

That's what trade unions are for.

[TheBitzBarn]

gendoikari is an idiot who wants to fight logic does not work with him. do not indulge the fool. There is no way to win with him he hates capitalism because he sucks at it and he lack the skills to success in the system so tear it down Like all the OCCUTARDS (Occupy RETARDS) in Wall Street and Oakland

[gendoikari87]

Which workers are we talking about? Why don't they quit if they're being exploited? I believe that in the modern, western world, that we've outlawed the forced confiscation of a person's labor commodity. (Slavery)

If you do not feel that you, as a worker, are collecting a fair price for your labor services, then you are free to find another buyer for those labor services (Find a new employer).



Slavery leads to the need for welfare services? This one I need explained to me.



No. The basis of unemployment is a simple supply/demand equation. There is simply more supply of labor than there is demand for it.

Supply and Demand is something that no economic system can escape from.



Unfortunately you're correct in that people are investing less in their futures because of present and pressing shortcomings in a semi-global economic slowdown. However, you claim that things have been "taken" from them. I'm curious as to how things have been taken from them. Why was it taken from them? Are you talking about taxes? If so I'm right there with you. I'm completely against forced confiscation of the fruits of my labor.



In a capitalistic system, an employer purchases labor from the employee. When the price of that labor is unacceptable to the employee (exploitation) then the employee terminates the agreement between the parties (handing in your resignation).

If you can refer to specific instances of "exploitation" then I can address them more accurately. Basically what I'm saying is that no employee should be forced to accept "exploitation" (which is a completely relative term btw) since nobody is presumably holding a gun to their heads to continue working for them. If so, then a crime is being committed and its not a matter of a economics but a matter of civil liberties.

I'm going to let someone smarter than I am speak for me, these two video (which I've already posted, address all these points.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7G4WIa-HAk[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJikG-p_nho[/url]

Specific instances of exploitation (sever exploitation not just the mild form we suffer here in america as described in the film) include the many sweatshops in operation around the world, the cochabamba water riots, Extortion by Monsanto of the many american farmers, Puss in our milk via again monsanto's pushing of their product, Love canal, Both wars for oil, corruption in our government via corporate control which reinforces all the others, ect, ect, ect, ect. the list could go on for days. I'll post back with refrences to these later tonight.

gendoikari is an idiot who wants to fight logic does not work with him. do not indulge the fool. There is no way to win with him he hates capitalism because he sucks at it and he lack the skills to success in the system so tear it down Like all the OCCUTARDS (Occupy RETARDS) in Wall Street and Oakland

wow. That explains a lot.