Does Profit Equal Theft? by SergeantX

RUE: What DO they do to earn that money, if someone else is minding the business ? What IS their contribution, exactly ?

SARGE:
If they're smart, they oversee the managers. Otherwise, they're likely to lose their asses. They're the ones who are putting everything on the line. Even a CEO gets a paycheck. The owner deals with all the risk. Even if we're talking stock holders, it's the same thing.

And that one of the biggest reasons corporate America is so fucked up. Stockholders have gone the same route as voters. They've been dumbed down and aren't required to take responsibility for their blunders. They've been wasting more and more money on incompetent leadership, voting for and supporting boards that lead their companies to ruin. In short, they fail to oversee the management of the companies they invest in. If they lost their asses for such stupidity, they might learn. But, through monetary manipulation and outright government giveways, our government bends over backwards to make sure that doesn't happen.

RUE:
Profit is - BY DEFINITION - the difference in the value added to your product by your workers, and the value you charge for that product on the market.

In other words, you are not giving the worker the FULL value of their work. Hence, your profit.

CHRIS:
Okay, but when I managed a video store, I was able to give my employees the full value of their work (even to the extent of paying one employee double when someone called out & they worked alone- they had the option to call me in if they wanted, but no one ever did at those times), pay the overhead, give the customers a good service at a reasonable price, & still return a profit to the owner who made the whole thing possible in the first place.
In such a case, profit is not theft, IMO.

SIGNY:

Sarge: Even you're resisting the idea of getting money for nothing.

But that's not what capitalism says.

The basis of capitalism is that the owner of the business is entitled to ALL of the earnings of that business, to pay his employees and expenses as s/he sees fit. Solely based on ownership. Has NOTHING to do with management. The argument is that this person took a risk with their money (or someone else's money) and therefore they "deserve" the rewards.

And what did the owner "do"?
CHRIS:
What owners do. Get in a manager's way.

Seriously, he reviewed our orders for titles, and dealt with irate customers that got charged for melting our videocassettes in their cars during the summers ( 3 in all, I think)...and...not much else.

Hey! I wuz robbed!!!

FREM:
Siggy is speaking Usury, actually, or insofar as the explaination so far convinces me - feel free to correct me on that point...

Whereas Sarge is speaking of Wages, leastways I think so, and yet by applying the term "profit" and meaning different things, ya wind up butting heads in disagreement not because of a fundamental concept difference, but because your applying the same word to different concepts.

Fascinating, I do believe there's potential here to come to agreement and offer solutions instead of winding up at each others throats, for once...

SARGE:
It's in your paragraph. They decide what to pay the employees*. They decide what to risk their money on. That's what I was talking about earlier. Making decisions about which business efforts are worthwhile and will fill are real need and which ones are pointless and doomed to fail is a service that even speculative investors are providing with their decisions. Failures in making these crucial decisions are a big part of the current morass.

*It's also worth noting that a business owner doesn't decide employee wages willy-nilly. They have to come to an agreement with the employees about what that wage should be. It's a two-way street.

Originally posted by SignyM:
NO, you were able to give them the wage they settled for, in the face of unemployment.

CHRIS:
No, they could have worked anywhere at that time, jobs were plentiful then. But we paid a tad better than most places for seriously FUN work!

Quote:
The fact that you returned a "profit" to the owner BY DEFINITION means that you didn't give them the full value of their work.

CHRIS:
I believe that's highly subjective. I mean, I see where you're coming from, but really, it wasn't a sweatshop, and they weren't hauling garbage (well, the exception being when putting away the adult tapes). If anything me & the other manager were the ones being exploited, now that I look back.
Hmmm. Did I just inadvertently prove your point for you, Signy?

CIT:
Actually, that's just the way it works out. The ideal is that the worker's assets are their time and abilities, and they sell those for what they see as a fair price. That's why you enter in to a contract with your employer, you agree to do a certain job, and they to agree to reimburse you for your time and expertise. Of course in practice with a number of potential employees competing for each position the job market is a buyers one. Thus the employer gets to decide both the work, and the recompense, and they get to write the contract in their favour.

Profit isn't necessarily theft though. I came into some empty XBOX 360 HDD Caddies recently. They were going to be thrown out, because they were useless to the owner, so I bought them for ~£3 a throw. XBOX 360 120GB hdd cost about ~£80-£100 brand new from Microsoft, and use Hitachi travelstar drives, which are, and I think I'm being fair to them, shit.

So I take the empty drive caddies, and I put 120Gb Westerndigital or Fujitsu drives in them, which go for about £30. I have to format them properly for XBOX, which is a process I suspect is beyond most casual computer users. Then I sell the new "refurbished drive" for about £50. Total profit ~£15-17. Plus those buying the drives are getting a brand new and superior product to the Microsoft brand, for half the price.

Where's the theft?

The original owner of the caddies was going to throw them away, but instead made money out of them, pure profit. Did they steal from me?

The person buying the finished product could have done all that themselves, assuming they could get hold of the empty drives, and workout how to perform the formatting, but they didn't, I did. And they're getting a superior product, for half the price. I suppose this is all possible because Microsoft are a bunch of money grabbing greedy unscrupulous bastards. If they weren't making 100% profit on every drive, I couldn't afford to do what I do .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:03 PM

Thanks Chris!

Lazyisall...
|
|
\ /
|

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:16 PM

Profit & theft is like sex & rape; the lines can be a bit blurry, but you KNOW when they've been crossed.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Profit & theft is like sex & rape; the lines can be a bit blurry, but you KNOW when they've been crossed.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

Bobby Knight would disagree.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:18 PM

To expand a bit on the idea that usury represents a service:

If we take private ownership of business out of the equation, certain decisions still need to be made. Presumably, in a socialist state, government officers would decide which projects are worth pursuing. Or I suppose we could vote on it. In either case, in a free market, investors are responsible for making those decisions.

Let's say you had this dream of selling robot hamsters to the masses. In the absence of investors I suppose you'd go before a government review board or something and attempt to convince them your project was worthwhile. In weighing the decision, they'd likely carefully consider consumer interest. They'd analyze their data and try to make a good guess on whether robot hamsters will be the next big thing. They'd also likely put you through a vetting process and try to come to some conclusion about your relative skill and sanity (robot hamsters??).

As you've probably guessed by now, my point is that these are exactly the kinds of decisions that investors make. Profit is the reward for being right, and loss is the punishment for being wrong. It's a pretty powerful incentive and I doubt anything as compelling would be on the shoulders of a government agency making these calls. In addition, they'd likely be distracted by political concerns, the desires of influential lobbyist and pressure groups, etc. etc. Regardless of the legitimacy of their concerns, these interests don't address an appraisal of the real needs and wants of consumer, and to the extent that they don't, they'd jam up the process and make it less efficient.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
As you've probably guessed by now, these are exactly the kinds of decisions that investors make. Profit is there reward for being right, and loss is their punishment for being wrong. It's a pretty powerful incentive and I doubt anything as compelling would be on the shoulders of a government agency making these calls.

It's not exactly how it happens in modern Capitalist Corporations though. Now the investor, the shareholders, are often separated from the running of the business. Policy decision is made by the management board, not the investors. The problem with that, is that the investors have no long term stake in the business they are investing in.

The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem. And of course, in that paradigm, the companies always look pretty good, making good quarterly returns, right up until the fall over.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's not exactly how it happens in modern Capitalist Corporations though. Now the investor, the shareholders, are often separated from the running of the business. Policy decision is made by the management board, not the investors. The problem with that, is that the investors have no long term stake in the business they are investing in.

The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem. And of course, in that paradigm, the companies always look pretty good, making good quarterly returns, right up until the fall over.

Exactly! There are several things wrong with the rules surround corporations that need to be addressed. Built-in incentives for shortsightedness, limited or non-existent liability due in part to "corporate personhood", and probably several other issues I'm not educated enough to follow, should all be front and center in the effort to fix what's broke. But we're too busy celebrating the fall of capitalism and ushering in nationalized banking to give it much effort.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But we're too busy celebrating the fall of capitalism and ushering in nationalized banking to give it much effort.

I wouldn't use the word "celebrating", although I always did want severe reform.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:20 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But we're too busy celebrating the fall of capitalism and ushering in nationalized banking to give it much effort.

I wouldn't use the word "celebrating", although I always did want severe reform.

Enjoy socialism. Oh, and where were you this evening. Who was that girl you were with, how long have you known her. Are you headed straight home or did you have somewhere else you were planning to go// yes, where.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ahhh DT, you seem to be confusing socialism (an economc system) with totalitarianism (system of government). Ever heard of democratic socialism?

Anyway, I have more of a bent towards "economic democracy".

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ahhh DT, you seem to be confusing socialism (an economc system) with totalitarianism (system of government). Ever heard of democratic socialism?

Anyway, I have more of a bent towards "economic democracy".

He's just trying to do his troll bit in hope of getting a bite. Best off leaving him to it, like most young children throwing a tempertantrum he'll get bored soon enough and go away.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:01 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem.

While what you say is definitely true there is also a down side to having everyone investing for the long term. Because most investors do favor relatively safe investments that have proven themselves over the long run, capital is often slow to move from failed business models to new more innovative ones. Just about every Dow stock is held by most mutual funds and pension funds and this means companies like GM can stay in business long after their business model should have made them bankrupt. The fast flow of capital is what makes it possible for companies like Google to go from nothing to a billion dollar market cap over a very short period of time. The fact that investors are willing to ride a stock that has done good for them in the past makes for the inefficient flow of capital and limits potential productivity that the same capital could produce in more viable companies. If capital flowed more efficiently GM would have gone out of business in the 1970's when their products were junk and been replaced by a superior company.

On the profit being theft idea, the only time profit is theft is if there is no competition or if there is collusion to fix prices. As long as an individual chooses to make a purchase knowing that the other side is making a fair profit, there's no theft. Every time I demand a raise from my boss I increase the profit I make for my services and if I'm not productive enough I reduce their profit at the same time, what makes it fair is that I can always offer my services to others and my boss can always fire me if I don't make them a profit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If the problem with profit was just a problem with "fairness" then I suppose that we would have two competing ethical systems and we could each insist that our system was better (more ethical).

But the proof of the pudding, so to speak, is what an economic system does for us, which is why we tolerate any economic system at all (unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool idealogue). The problem with profit, as I've long discussed with Fletch2, is that it effectively takes a percentage of money out of circulation with each cycle (production to consumption). Yes SOME of it goes back to retirement funds and other average-type investors and SOME of it goes back to investment (on the upswing of a business cycle) by a percent gets "stuck" in the hands of the very wealthy, who simply do not spend their money.

When wealth becomes severely divided, as it has in third-world countries, demand has been effectively killed. Without the prospect of demand, nobody will invest in "creating jobs" Any form of investment will go to either (1) acquiring a greater SHARE of the shrinking market (buyouts, mergers) or (2) reducing the amount of labor used to make a product or (3) shifting production to cheaper areas. NONE of these activities "grow the market". Without wealth distribution the ONLY way to grow the market is to grow the money supply... a strictly Keynsian solution.

This would all be theoretical, but after so many years of "trickle-down" economics, a wealth spread we would have to go back to 1929 to equal, and a total reliance on credit (houisng bubble) for continued consumption.... I think the theory has been pretty well proven. Again.

BTW- Cit, you clearly don't know what "economic democracy" means.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem with profit, as I've long discussed with Fletch2, is that it effectively takes a percentage of money out of circulation with each cycle (production to consumption). Yes SOME of it goes back to retirement funds and other average-type investors and SOME of it goes back to investment (on the upswing of a business cycle) by a percent gets "stuck" in the hands of the very wealthy, who simply do not spend their money.

We need to have a cap on what individuals can keep out of circulation. Want to be rich? Fine. Just have 1 mill in the bank & buy 50 mill worth of "stuff."

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To continue...

It seems to me that we should be able to devise a system that has all of the benefits of capitalism without the drawbacks. (Capitalism is VERY good at two things: improving production efficiency and meeting demand). I can think of lots of ways to do it: from the European model (some socialized production, but aggressive wealth redistribution) to something more radical: a change in business forms themselves.

For example, if the only form of business was the cooperative, then everybody would be an owner and participate in the profits. Competition would still be a feature, as would "the marketplace". The only thing that would happen is that the power of ownership would be aggressively placed in the hands of the average person... whether they wanted it or not! Government banks, without necessarily having to micromanage which businesses should be created, could simply manage the economy by providing loans at differential rates.

So there is a lot of room for contemplation.

BTW- One of the areas that capitalism does very poorly (aside from circulating money) is in REPLACING obsolete industries. Once a production infrastructure is set up and paid for... oil refineries, tankers, automobiles, gas stations for example... continued operation is a lot more profitable. It becomes very difficult for a "startup" to supply the market with a better technology because the cost of entry is so high. That's why capitalism is great at jumping into things that haven't existed before... copper phone lines for example... but not so good at replacing them with something better ... for example, fiberoptics.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For example, if the only form of business was the cooperative, then everybody would be an owner and participate in the profits. Competition would still be a feature, as would "the marketplace". The only thing that would happen is that the power of ownership would be aggressively placed in the hands of the average person... whether they wanted it or not!

Profit sharing isn't necessarily beneficial though. When you're sharing profit, you're also sharing risk. I worked for a company a couple of years ago that went to an aggressive profit sharing system, where we took a twenty percent pay cut in exchange for significant profit sharing. All things being equal to the year before, we should have all made considerably more money. But things weren't equal. We lost a couple of key contracts and we all ended up with significant pay cut instead.

You're also asking employees to then be responsible for the decisions previously made by owners - either providing top-level management or delegating it effectively. I'm not sure those kinds of decisions benefit from a democratic decision making, especially when the employees might not have the business acumen or foresight to make such calls effectively.

For both of these reasons, I'm leery of companies that tout employee ownership as a benefit. If I'm going to work as an employee, I want steady income and insulation from market analysis and other things I know nothing about.

Quote:
Government banks, without necessarily having to micromanage which businesses should be created, could simply manage the economy by providing loans at differential rates.

Could you expand on this? Not quite sure what you mean.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

I'm game. But keep in mind, my favorite benefit from capitalism is the "free market" aspect, specifically the "free" part - as in minimal governmental involvement.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

The end result is that you can, and often do, get investors pressuring the management to maximise short term profits, and their immediate gain, at the expense of the long term viability of the company. Because, in the long term, the shareholder can just sell their shares and move on to the next company, leaving behind a barely viable shell, literally on it's last legs, as someone else's problem. And of course, in that paradigm, the companies always look pretty good, making good quarterly returns, right up until the fall over.

And if you're George W. Bush, you do the same thing with the federal government!

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BTW- Cit, you clearly don't know what "economic democracy" means.

Since I've not argued for or against it in any way, the only thing I clearly don't know is the basis for this outburst.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/26/india.movie.slumdog.c
hildren/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Young 'Slumdog' stars back in Mumbai slums

From Mallika Kapur
CNN

MUMBAI, India (CNN) -- On Sunday night, Azharuddin Ismail and Rubina Ali were in Hollywood, California, getting celebrity treatment as eight Oscars were awarded to the movie they starred in, "Slumdog Millionaire."

Thursday night, the two children were sleeping at home in Mumbai, India. Azharuddin sleeps under a plastic sheet in a shantytown beside a railway track, where the smell of urine and cow dung lingers in the air. Rubina sleeps with her parents and siblings in a tiny shack beside an open drain.

THIS is the problem of capitalism and profit. THIS is not extreme capitalism, it's essential capitalism, with the niceties removed.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
While what you say is definitely true there is also a down side to having everyone investing for the long term. Because most investors do favor relatively safe investments that have proven themselves over the long run, capital is often slow to move from failed business models to new more innovative ones. Just about every Dow stock is held by most mutual funds and pension funds and this means companies like GM can stay in business long after their business model should have made them bankrupt. The fast flow of capital is what makes it possible for companies like Google to go from nothing to a billion dollar market cap over a very short period of time. The fact that investors are willing to ride a stock that has done good for them in the past makes for the inefficient flow of capital and limits potential productivity that the same capital could produce in more viable companies. If capital flowed more efficiently GM would have gone out of business in the 1970's when their products were junk and been replaced by a superior company.

I'm not sure that's true. I mean if the investor has a long term stake, it's even more important to them that the business has long term viability, and therefore their concern is that they don't operate a defunct business model. The reasoning is simple, a bad business model can still pull in good returns in the short term, so it's no problem for the short term investor, but in the long term it'll harm returns, so it is a problem for the long term investor.

In fact the short term outlook of investing isn't all that new. I'd say it was taking a hold easily by the seventies, so I don't think a long term investment stance could be blamed for an example like GM. I would actually point to more cultural factors for their continued existence despite corporate complacency, and indeed the same cultural factors being responsible for that complacency. I think, up until comparatively recently, the US consumer has been somewhat more nationalistic, desiring to buy "Made in USA", which allowed companies to some extent to put out poorer merchandise. A similar thing happened here, because at one point Britain was the leading manufacturing power in the world, "Made in England" was a badge of pride. Now it's almost a joke, which seems to be a similar trend being experienced in the US. Everyone wanted to buy British, British companies became complacent, and standards dropped. Then people stopped wanting to buy British, because of those poorer standards, which put the end to a lot of British industry.

For instance, we went from having some of the best car manufactures in the world, to having virtually none. Nearly all (outside of short run specialist like Caterham or Lotus) are now owned by American, German and even Indian and Chinese firms. In the sixties British cars were some of the best, in the seventies the manufactures just didn't try, and by the eighties they were all in difficulties.

It's the reverse of what happened with BMW's, they were brilliant in the late sixties and seventies, by modern ones are just feeding off of that reputation. They're a victim of their own success.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/26/india.movie.slumdog.c
hildren/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Young 'Slumdog' stars back in Mumbai slums

From Mallika Kapur
CNN

MUMBAI, India (CNN) -- On Sunday night, Azharuddin Ismail and Rubina Ali were in Hollywood, California, getting celebrity treatment as eight Oscars were awarded to the movie they starred in, "Slumdog Millionaire."

Thursday night, the two children were sleeping at home in Mumbai, India. Azharuddin sleeps under a plastic sheet in a shantytown beside a railway track, where the smell of urine and cow dung lingers in the air. Rubina sleeps with her parents and siblings in a tiny shack beside an open drain.

THIS is the problem of capitalism and profit. THIS is not extreme capitalism, it's essential capitalism, with the niceties removed.

That's a LIE...

Without the ESSENTIAL capitalist profit motive that enables film production , these children would have never had opportunity to bring the world's attention to their plight , or the plight of others like them...

You have to do better than cherry-pick just the parts of the story that you want told...

Hey , these kids have had their consciousness expanded , they've seen a larger world , jet aviation , international travel , Oscar's red carpet and rubbing elbows with Hollywood stars...

They've partied , been to Disneyland , seen firsthand the bounty of capitalist dreams , and have been given something to which they may aspire and work to fulfill...

Then they've gone back to India , and they're 'moving up' :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7909660.stm

'...There was an outcry when it was found they were still living there after the success of the Oscar-winning film.

An official said the children had "brought laurels to the country" and deserved to be rewarded.

Local housing association chairman Amarjeet Singh Manhas added: "Since the children have made the nation proud, they must be given free houses.

"The chief minister of the state has approved this." '

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Local housing association chairman Amarjeet Singh Manhas added: "Since the children have made the nation proud, they must be given free houses.

"The chief minister of the state has approved this." '

How is being given a free house capitalist?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 7:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That they are 'moving up' is not due to the wages they earned making the film. 'Moving up' is due to non-capitalistic factors like - ahem - government intervention. And all the other 'benefits' you point to are also due to non-wage factors - in other words, non-capitalistic outfall.

If they had merely worked in a film that made money for the investors but DIDN'T earn any awards, they would still be in the shit-hole (literally) they've been living in all this time.

And more generally, the SLUMS they live in are a DIRECT result of capitalism in its purest form.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 7:54 AM

" How is being given a free house capitalist ? "

It's not...

The point is that none of the opportunity could have happened without the capitalist action of producing a film with a profit motive...

A fact which is self-evident to most .

If you read the story , then you know that the politicians have been basically shamed into improving the plight of a couple of these little kids...

Sometimes small actions are the beginning of social reforms...Gandhi started small , too...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 7:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You are terribly confused. The opportunities were NON-CAPITALISTIC. Capitalism didn't provide them. Therefore, they are not benefit of CAPITALISM.

Or, if that's too confusing for you, let me put it this way: without the government and the awards, the film would have been a gateway to --- nothing.

Capitalism DID provide the slums they live in, though.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That they are 'moving up' is not due to the wages they earned making the film. 'Moving up' is due to non-capitalistic factors like - ahem - government intervention. And all the other 'benefits' you point to are also due to non-wage factors - in other words, non-capitalistic outfall.

If they had merely worked in a film that made money for the investors but DIDN'T earn any awards, they would still be in the shit-hole (literally) they've been living in all this time.

And more generally, the SLUMS they live in are a DIRECT result of capitalism in its purest form.

See there , Rue ? Your first lie requires the telling of many more...

As always , your results are skewed by the assumptions that you make , and your telling only the part of the story that supports your assumptions...

Who paid for all the corollary benefits the kids received during their outing to the United States ?

Wasn't the Commies or Socialists , it was the Capitalists AND their customers...

But , you characterize that falsely , too , and invent terms like "non-capitalistic outfall"...

Your 'doublethink' requires your 'doublespeak' , yet again...

And , vice-versa...

No wonder you're confuzzled...

The proof is in the fact that you contradict yourself in a single post...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 8:06 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Profit equals theft, like consensual sex equals rape, to some of these morons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Profit equals theft, like consensual sex equals rape, to some of these morons.

EXACTLY !

Amen , Brother...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 8:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The boy's father, Mohammed, who suffers from tuberculosis, told The Times of India: "We have barely got any money from the film-makers. In fact, whatever came, has already been spent.

Critics called the housing gift a political move ahead of a general election, Indian media reported.

Around half of Mumbai's population live in slums and authorities in the state of Maharashtra have long been under pressure to improve conditions there."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 8:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And --- I'm wondering if you can answer this --- WHO paid for the trip to Disneyland ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 12:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Since I've not argued for or against it in any way, the only thing I clearly don't know is the basis for this outburst.

Sorry Cit!!!!

A complete misunderstanding on my part!

Please forgive!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Profit equals theft, like consensual sex equals rape, to some of these morons.-Wulf

EXACTLY ! Amen , Brother... - O2B

Opinion and ad hominem masquerading as fact? Have you joined the Crapo School of Logic and Rhetoric???

Wulf and O2B says so. AND they agree!! Must be true!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Opinion and ad hominem masquerading as fact?"

NO - it's personal, since neither has any concept of actual discussion of actual topics.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
The point is that none of the opportunity could have happened without the capitalist action of producing a film with a profit motive...

A fact which is self-evident to most .

Ahh. Yeah, the Capitalist film drew attention to their situation, which is more or less just a matter of it making it harder for us to ignore, but I think attributing the change in their circumstances as all being down to Capitalism is a bit much. Their present situation was brought to light through a capitalist endeavour, but it's not being changed by one. That is, Capitalism isn't doing anything about it.

Though really what is happening is all bullshit anyway. The government is giving them a house, so we can all go back to ignoring everyone else in that predicament, and feel good about a charitable job well done. Ah well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sorry Cit!!!!

A complete misunderstanding on my part!

Please forgive!

No problem.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Here's an intertesting tidbit:

"A Time poll in 2000 found that 19 percent of Americans thought they were among the richest one percent of Americans, and another 20 percent expected they would get there one day."

I'm guessing they're mostly of one particular political party.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:26 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

MUMBAI, India (CNN) -- On Sunday night, Azharuddin Ismail and Rubina Ali were in Hollywood, California, getting celebrity treatment as eight Oscars were awarded to the movie they starred in, "Slumdog Millionaire."

Thursday night, the two children were sleeping at home in Mumbai, India. Azharuddin sleeps under a plastic sheet in a shantytown beside a railway track, where the smell of urine and cow dung lingers in the air. Rubina sleeps with her parents and siblings in a tiny shack beside an open drain.

But India is much closer to being a Socialist country than, say, the U.S. How could such a thing happen in a near-Socialist country?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

India is not anywhere near being socialist.

But again, you're not addressing countries on the same timescale, something I invited you to do many posts above.

If you were a common person, where would your quality of life be higher - India, or China ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since I can't wait, here's the answer:

"In 2007, the per capita PPP-adjusted GDP for India was US$ 2,659. These figures can be compared to $ 5,292 for neighbouring China."

***************************************************************

Please note: the average person makes more money in communistic China than in capitalistic India.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 9:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So Geezer

You're a sporting person, right ? Want to go double or nothing for bragging rights ?

If you were an average person, where would you have a better quality of life - Cuba, or Haiti ?

I can wait on your answer for a few days.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

I'm still up for this discussion if you are. Or is this thread already lost in the obligatory, senseless grudge-match?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 4:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So Geezer
If you were an average person, where would you have a better quality of life - Cuba, or Haiti ?

If by talking timescale, you mean when a country was colonized by Europeans, then the whole Western Hemisphere is within a century, more or less. Sorta makes your Cuba/Haiti choice look like cherry-picking.

But let's just limit it to the Carribbean, since they're all pretty close.

Aside from Key West, which is just 90 miles from Cuba, and where I really wouldn't mind living, theres these(running kinda northwest to southeast):
Country -------- GDP Per Capita (per CIA World Factbook)
Bahamas -------- 29,900
Cuba ----------- 12,700
Cayman Islands - 43,800
Jamaica--------- 7,700
Turks & Caicos - 11,500
Bermuda -------- 69,900
Haiti----------- 1,400
Dom. Rep. ------ 8,800
Puerto Rico----- 18,700
Virgin Isl (Br)- 38,500
Virgin Isl (US)- 14,500
St. Kitts/Nevis- 20,000
Antigua/Barbuda- 19,100
Dominica ------- 9,500
St. Lucia ------ 11,300
St. Vincent ---- 9,200
Grenada -------- 13,600
Trinidad/Tobago- 28,400
Aruba ---------- 21,800

Couldn't list GINI Index or Household Income since Cuba doesn't show them in Nationmaster or CIA World Factbook, so GDP per Capita is pretty much it.

One other advantage most of these places have over Cuba is that you can leave when you want and return when you want.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:48 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

I'm a little curious Signy and Rue. What do you two do with your "profit"?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so anyone want to discuss how we can keep the positive aspects of capitalism w/o the downside?

Latin lessons for the consumer, beginning with
Caveat Emptor.

Was listening to This American Life on NPR this morning, and they mentioned that the total private debt in the U.S. is currently about equal to the GDP (14 trillion or so), up from 20% of GDP in the '40s/50s. The last time debt equaled GDP was...1929. Didn't mention the rest of the world, but based on the collapse of economies world-wide I'd expect similar figures.

(Also made the point that maybe since we have so much debt already, encouraging the banks to loan more might not be the best idea, but that's another issue.)

How could people who had the least idea of budget get in that much debt? I propose that they didn't have even the least idea.

Another segment of TAL talked about folks who are buying up toxic mortgages for $.50 on the dollar, say $200,000 on a $400,000 loan, and offering the homeowners a new mortgage on $250,000. 3/4 of the homeowners can't even afford that with payments just a bit more than half of what they originally signed on for.

Sure, the banks encouraged these folks to take risky loans, but didn't they have the sense to sit down with a pencil and paper and do a little figuring on what their costs vs. income would be?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:17 AM