Quote:

---

Just wanted to confirm that you are going to stereotype anyone who runs a business in which they have invested their capital - be it money, time, skills, etc. - as interested in only profit to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't disappoint.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So far, you haven't been able to come up with one example that demonstrates your belief (and it IS a belief) that capitalists are in the business for something other than maximum profit

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Not everyone is morally corrupt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Not everyone is morally corrupt.

---

Go find a joke thread for this nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
But you don't own the mean of production or hire out the work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
TH

Please tell me what YOU consider 'ethical investing' - what are it's results that you consider 'ethical'. Just because someone calls themselves by that name, doesn't make it necessarily true.

---

Quote:

---

1kiki
To get return on investment - assuming you're making more than your original investment back plus interest for the loss of use of your money - means that you're getting more than you're helping - you are still the winner in a zero-sum system and they are the losers.

---

Quote:

---

Just wanted to confirm that you are going to stereotype anyone who runs a business in which they have invested their capital - be it money, time, skills, etc. - as interested in only profit to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't disappoint.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

What you are describing is exactly what a bank does when it loans someone the money to buy a home. When the loan is paid off the bank made a profit and the homeowner owns a home worth considerably more than the purchase price. This hopefully makes up for the interest paid on the loan. Both made out.

Not to mention the people who built the home. The people who are hired to maintain the home. I,E, new roof or plumbers, maybe landscapers, you get the point.

si shen

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Scrolling thru the thread, I came across this Geezer gem

Quote:

---

Just wanted to confirm that you are going to stereotype anyone who runs a business in which they have invested their capital - be it money, time, skills, etc. - as interested in only profit to the exclusion of everything else. You didn't disappoint.

---

I call this tactic "flinging poo while running away". Geezer, I see, failed to answer his own question and then ran away.

The problem with capitalism is that it's a form of rentier economy... where people collect money just because they own something. Sometimes, people own apartments or houses. Sometimes they own farmland. Sometimes they own the means of production; "profit" is the "rent" that a worker pays in order to use the tools to make stuff for the owner.(Hmmm... when I put it that way, it really IS screwed up, isn't it?)

In it's most abstract form, if you're a bank you "own" money. Even better- not only do you "own" the deposits (BTW, those of you who have money in a bank account, you should be aware that it is not YOUR money. You're considered an unsecured lender, and if the bank runs into serious financial difficulties your account is forfeit, according to the "bail-in" provisions that the FDIC and the Bank of England signed back in 2012 http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/news/2012/nr156.
pdf) you can get to MAKE MONEY OUT OF NOTHING! Imagine! You "own" something that you can conjure more of out of thin air, with virtually no restrictions!

This is clearly no longer capitalism, but something far beyond.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
troll.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

What you are describing is exactly what a bank does when it loans someone the money to buy a home. When the loan is paid off the bank made a profit and the homeowner owns a home worth considerably more than the purchase price. This hopefully makes up for the interest paid on the loan. Both made out.

Not to mention the people who built the home. The people who are hired to maintain the home. I,E, new roof or plumbers, maybe landscapers, you get the point.

si shen

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's just that people who own a business shouldn't get a 'free money for nothing forever' card.

We can keep everything the same, and just get rid of 'profit'.

---

Quote:

---

1kiki
I don't think you know the definition of socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Yesterday, Ha-Joon Chang exposed the shortest economics textbook ever. Today the Cambridge University Economics professor uncovers everything you didn't know about economics (in 13 simple points)...

1. Economics was originally called 'political economy'

Economics is politics and it can never be a science. Yet the dominant neoclassical school of economics succeeded in changing the name of the discipline from the traditional 'political economy' to 'economics' at the turn of the 20th Century. The Neoclassical school wanted economics to become a pure science, shorn of political (and thus ethical) dimensions that involve subjective value judgments. This change was a political move in and of itself.

2. The Nobel Prize in Economics is not a real Nobel Prize

Unlike the original Nobel Prizes (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology, Medicine, Literature and Peace), established by the Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel at the end of the nineteenth century, the economics prize was established by the Swedish central bank (Sveriges Riksbank) in 1968 and is thus officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Members of the Nobel family are known to have criticized the Swedish central bank for giving prizes to free-market economists of whom their ancestor would have disapproved.

3. There is no single economic theory that can explain Singapore's economy

This is what I call the 'Singapore problem'. If you read the standard account of Singapore's economic success in places like the Economist or the Wall Street Journal, you will only hear about Singapore's free trade and welcoming attitude towards foreign investment. You will never hear about how almost all the land in Singapore is owned by the government, while 85% of housing is supplied by the government's housing corporation. 22% of GDP is produced by state-owned enterprises (including Singapore Airlines), when the world average in that respect is only about 9%.

To put it bluntly, there isn't one economic theory that can single-handedly explain Singapore's success; its economy combines extreme features of capitalism and socialism. All theories are partial; reality is complex.

4. Britain and the US invented protectionism, not free trade

Britain had the most protected economy in the capitalist world in the late 18th and the early 19th century. Much of this protection was provided in order to promote British manufacturers against superior foreign competitors in Europe, the Low Countries (what are Belgium and the Netherlands today) in particular.

The US went even further. Taking inspiration from British protectionist policy, Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary of the US (that's the guy on the ten-dollar bill) developed a theory called the 'infant industry argument' - the view that the government of an economically backward nation should protect and nurture its young industries until they 'grow up' and can compete in the world market. Hamilton died in 1804 in a pistol duel, but the US adopted protectionism in the 1820s and remained the most protected economy in the world for most of the next century.

5. Free trade first spread mostly through un-free means

Free trade spread around the world throughout the 19th century. But its spread mostly owed to something that you would not normally associate with the word 'free' -force, or at least the threat of using it. Colonisation was the obvious route to 'unfree free trade', as the colonial masters forced the subjugated countries to open up their trade completely. But even many non-colonized countries were forced to adopt free trade. Through 'gunboat diplomacy', they were forced to sign unequal treaties that deprived them of, among other things, tariff autonomy (the right to set its own tariffs). The most infamous unequal treaty is the Nanking Treaty that China was forced to sign in 1842, following its defeat in the Opium War, but all the Latin American countries, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey's predecessor), Persia (Iran today), and Siam (today's Thailand), and even Japan were subject to such treaties .

6. It was arch-conservative Otto von Bismarck who introduced the first welfare state in the world

Contrary to what many people believe, the welfare state was originally a 'rightwing' invention. It was the arch-conservative Otton von Bismarck who first introduced it. Bismarck hated socialism, but he wasn't an ideologue. He basically figured out that if you don't provide a minimum safety net to workers, they will be persuaded by the socialists. So he kept workers happy by creating the first welfare state in the world. This suggests that, contrary to their own self-image, those who want to destroy the welfare state may be the biggest enemies of capitalism.

7. Capitalism did best between the 1950s and the 1970s, an era of high regulation and high taxes

Despite what we hear these days about the detrimental economic effects of high taxes and strong government regulation, the advanced capitalist economies grew the fastest between the 1950s and the 1970s, when there were a lot of regulations and high taxes.Between 1950 and 1973, per capita income in Western Europe grew at an astonishing rate of 4.1% per year. Japan grew even faster at 8.1%, starting off the chain of 'economic miracles' in East Asia in the next half a century. Even the US, the slowest-growing economy in the rich world at the time, grew at an unprecedented rate of 2.5%. Per capita income for these economies collectively have since then managed to grow at only 1.8% per year between 1980 and 2010, when they cut taxes for the rich and deregulated their economies.

8. The internet was invented by the US government, not Silicon Valley

Many people think that the US is ahead in the frontier technology sectors as a result of private sector entrepreneurship. It's not. The US federal government created all these sectors.

The Pentagon financed the development of the computer in the early days and the Internet came out of a Pentagon research project. The semiconductor - the foundation of the information economy - was initially developed with the funding of the US Navy. The US aircraft industry would not have become what it is today had the US Air Force not massively subsidized it indirectly by paying huge prices for its military aircraft, the profit of which was channeled into developing civilian aircraft.

9. Before tax and welfare spending, Germany and Belgium are more unequal than the US

Before tax and transfers, quite a few European countries, like Germany and Belgium, are more unequal than the United States. Only after tax and transfers do they become a lot more equal. These examples show that it is possible to fundamentally re-shape a country's inequality through progressive taxes and the welfare state. Despite what many people say, inequality is not a natural phenomenon, like an earthquake or a hurricane, beyond human control.

10. Finland, one of the most equal countries in the world, has grown faster than the US

Not only is there a lot of evidence showing that that higher inequality produces more negative economic and social outcomes, there are quite a few examples of more egalitarian societies growing much faster than comparable but more unequal societies. Despite being one of the most equal societies in the world, more equal than even the former Soviet bloc countries in the days of socialism, Finland has grown much faster than the US, one of the most unequal societies in the rich world.

11. The 'lazy' Greeks are the hardest working people in the rich world after South Koreans

In the ongoing Eurozone crisis, the Greeks have been vilified as lazy 'spongers' living off hard-working Northerners. But they have longer working hours than every country in the rich world apart from South Korea. The Greeks actually work 1.4 and 1.5 times longer than the supposedly workaholic Germans and Dutch. Italians also defy the myth of 'lazy Mediterranean types' by working as long as Americans and 1.25 times longer than their German neighbours. These numbers show that the problem of the Mediterranean countries in the Eurozone is one of productivity, not work ethic.

12. Switzerland and Singapore are not living off banking and tourism alone

Many people argue that we have entered a post-industrial world, in which 'making things' is not very important, as service industries have become the engine of economic growth. They cite Switzerland and Singapore as examples of service-based success stories. Haven't these two countries shown that you can become rich - very rich - through services, like finance, tourism, and trading?

Actually these two countries show the exact opposite. According to the UNIDO data, in 2002, Switzerland had the highest per capita manufacturing value added (MVA) in the world - 24% more than that of Japan. In 2010, Singapore ranked the first, producing 48% more MVA per capita than the US. Switzerland ranked the third.

13. Most poor people don't live in poor countries

Currently, around 1.4billion people - or about one in five people in the world - live with less than $1.25 per day, which is the international poverty line (below which survival itself becomes a challenge).

But most poor people do not live in poor countries. Over 70% of people in absolute poverty actually live in middle-income countries. As of the mid-2000's, over 170 million people in China (around 13% of its population) and 450 million people in India (around 42% of its population) lived with incomes below the international poverty line. These show the enormity of challenges that the two most populous countries face.

---

Quote:

---

….1kiki
Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll.

We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.

---

Quote:

---

…1kiki
And it's not to say that people who own businesses shouldn't make money. If they manage the business, they should be paid the full value of that management work. If they work producing things in their business, they should get paid the full value of their labor. And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.

---

Quote:

---

….signym
To put it bluntly, there isn't one economic theory that can single-handedly explain Singapore's success; its economy combines extreme features of capitalism and socialism. All theories are partial; reality is complex.

---

Quote:

---

…signym

4. Britain and the US invented protectionism, not free trade.

---

Quote:

---

Capitalism did best between the 1950s and the 1970s, an era of high regulation and high taxes

Despite what we hear these days about the detrimental economic effects of high taxes and strong government regulation, the advanced capitalist economies grew the fastest between the 1950s and the 1970s, when there were a lot of regulations and high taxes. Between 1950 and 1973, per capita income in Western Europe grew at an astonishing rate of 4.1% per year. Japan grew even faster at 8.1%, starting off the chain of 'economic miracles' in East Asia in the next half a century. Even the US, the slowest-growing economy in the rich world at the time, grew at an unprecedented rate of 2.5%. Per capita income for these economies collectively have since then managed to grow at only 1.8% per year between 1980 and 2010, when they cut taxes for the rich and deregulated their economies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm sorry you lack imagination.

You must think it was capitalists that invented language. Imagined the bowl. Made tools from rock, wood and bone. Harnessed fire. Built rafts. You must think the only reason anyone does anything is to profit from the work of others. I pity your small mind. It must get awfully boring on your little hamster wheel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Apparently THGRII doesn't know the definition of "profit".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Do you have a point? Or do you enjoy blah blah blah as your entire repertoire?

---

My point is!

If you see me as father time
Then I shall respond in kind
If you see me as the Reaper
Into your soul I shall go deeper




si shen

Quote:

---

All successful democracies practice some socialism

---

Quote:

---

Point out where I posted anything would be owned by the state. Troll. We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.- KIKI

If you eliminate profit who else is going to run industry? -THGRRI

And it's not to say that people who own businesses shouldn't make money. If they manage the business, they should be paid the full value of that management work. If they work producing things in their business, they should get paid the full value of their labor. And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.-KIKI


You made both these comments in the same statement. How is it you see both these ideas working together? Because you are a moron who is clueless and only wants to bitch, Troll.

---

Quote:

---

The kind of profit 1kiki is speaking about has been tried and replaced by something better. It's just not to your liking.

---

Quote:

---

…signym
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives.

---

Quote:

---

…signym
Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?

---

Quote:

---

Incorporation means to join with something that already exists.

---

Quote:

---

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”- Jefferson

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it." -Adams

"The balance of power in a society, accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way, then, of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue,is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society; to make the division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates." - Adams

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." -Jefferson

“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”- Adams

"Incorporated companies with proper limitations and guards may, in particular cases, be useful; but they are at best a necessary evil only."- James Madison

---

Quote:

---

Hmm, this is like the onstage magician whose trick failed to materialize. Do you have a point to this grandiose statement?- Signy

Nope, nothing I wish to elaborate on further.- THGRRI/ MIKER

---

Quote:

---

In calculating economic profit, opportunity costs are deducted from revenues earned. Opportunity costs are the alternative returns foregone by using the chosen inputs. As a result, you can have a significant accounting profit with little to no economic profit.

---

Quote:

---

.....signym

In the economic sense, to incorporate means "to form a legal corporation"- to make a synthetic human being (incorporare, to make a body). There is nothing natural about corporations... or property, for that matter... as both are defined and enforced by society. In the Founding Fathers' day, the incorporating entity was the state (no, I don't mean The State, I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations. Before that, corporations were a creation of the King... Crown Corporations).

---

Quote:

---

…signym
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives.

---

Quote:

---

....signym

I mean each specific state had the authority to create corporations.

---