Coffeehouse Thread

51 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Black Friday

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae: These are Marxist theories and history has proved them wrong time and time again. You are free to believe in them nonetheless.

    If you want to see where people are better off, it's in the areas where societies have embraced, relatively, free trade. The unrestrictive dance of capital and labor, where people get payed close to what they produce, is what is driving these countries forward. People have the option to say no to any transaction. So if two parties have dealings, both benefit. This is the way forward. By coercing people into transactions, one benefits at the expense of the other, wealth is destroyed this way.

    The Bakers could have left Sara Lee and started baking somewhere else. But they didn't. So it must have brought them some advantage. So they allowed the manager his multi mullion dollar salary, who the hell are you to judge that transaction was injust? It was out of their own free will the bakers participated!

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: These are Marxist theories and history has proved them wrong time and time again. You are free to believe in them nonetheless.

    For someone who routinely suggests that we close free markets and that some forms of property (for example intellectual property) should be owned by the state or by everybody for the "greater good", that's an astonishing accusation, Maddus.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor:

    At least I can see that providing a service to your community and being paid for that service, doesn't make the community poorer but richer! You add value and are rewarded close to that value, how is that a bad thing?

    So if I manufacture a certain type of cookie, that gets sold in the billions, I can make a butt load of money and everybody is better off. Me and the guy who bought my cookie. Because they could have bought another cookie!

    I want to shut down the 'free' markets in which government coerces you into buying your cookie from a government licensed cookie salesmen. Or pay some licensed idea holder part of your earnings, because government gave him ownership of the idea of putting dough in the oven.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor:

    At least I can see that providing a service to your community and being paid for that service, doesn't make the community poorer but richer!

    See - abolishing patents also abolishes the bit highlighted in bold above.

     You add value and are rewarded close to that value, how is that a bad thing?

    It's not. And patents are a better way of achieving it than any alternative you've suggested.

    I want to shut down the 'free' markets in which government coerces you into buying your cookie from a government licensed cookie salesmen.

    That scenario exists only in your head Maddus.

    Or pay some licensed idea holder part of your earnings, because government gave him ownership of the idea of putting dough in the oven.

    Putting dough in oven is not a patentable idea because it was invented more than 50 years ago, isn't novel, and is obvious to an expert in the field.

    Try again Maddus.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @evildictaitor: So, let's say I've come up with an idea, I go to the patent office and have it patented.

    What value have I added to society that I should get paid for?

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @evildictaitor: So, let's say I've come up with an idea, I go to the patent office and have it patented.

    What value have I added to society that I should get paid for?

    None. That's why you don't get any money for filing a patent. In fact, it actually costs money to file a patent, so if you patented a "beard-extensions - like hair extensions for your beard!" or a "cheese-powered lamp", you're probably going to be poorer for patenting it. And since patents expire, you can make yourself very poor by patenting stupid inventions and sitting on them.

    Patents are not a magical money machine. They have no value unless they have patented an idea that someone wants to build and expects to sell for profit. And the government does not "assign" them a value.

    Your patent only has value if someone else wants to buy it off you in order to make the invention (or in order to sell it on further). And the specific value? Whatever the buyer and seller agree is the price.

    That's the free-market way Smiley

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    @cbae: These are Marxist theories and history has proved them wrong time and time again. You are free to believe in them nonetheless.

    What I described is neither a theory nor Marxist. I gave you a scenario--a very real one. Prove that it doesn't happen.

    If you want to see where people are better off, it's in the areas where societies have embraced, relatively, free trade. The unrestrictive dance of capital and labor, where people get payed close to what they produce, is what is driving these countries forward. People have the option to say no to any transaction. So if two parties have dealings, both benefit. This is the way forward. By coercing people into transactions, one benefits at the expense of the other, wealth is destroyed this way.

    LMAO @ "dance of capital and labor".  It's so funny that you take your own drivel so seriously too. Waxing poetic as if you think you have some higher-order understanding of capitalism. LOL

    The Bakers could have left Sara Lee and started baking somewhere else. But they didn't. So it must have brought them some advantage. So they allowed the manager his multi mullion dollar salary, who the hell are you to judge that transaction was injust? It was out of their own free will the bakers participated!

    You just said a whole lot of nothing. The company that filed for bankruptcy was Hostess. If Sara Lee workers wanted to go somewhere else, they now have even fewer places to go.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , cbae wrote

    What I described is neither a theory nor Marxist. I gave you a scenario--a very real one. Prove that it doesn't happen.

    I write software for a living. People come to me to write software for them. Why?

    Because I write software at a lower cost then they do, I'm more efficient. They are not software engineers, but a hospital for instance and their core business is operating on people.

    Now, when the hospital hires me, do I get richer at their expense? Not really, because the hospital could have done it themselves at higher cost. So I'm saving the hospital money, we are both better off.

    This is how the real world works, this is how value is created. No one is worse off in voluntary transactions. Where you have coerced transactions, like income taxation, you see that wealth actually gets destroyed.

    LMAO @ "dance of capital and labor".  It's so funny that you take your own drivel so seriously too. Waxing poetic as if you think you have some higher-order understanding of capitalism. LOL

    Without labor, capital is useless. Without capital, labor is useless. Capital seeks out labor and labor seeks out capital. Together they dance all over the world. From the USA, to the EU, to China. It is the great equalizer and bringer of wealth and happiness.

    We call this system laissez faire capitalism.

    You just said a whole lot of nothing. The company that filed for bankruptcy was Hostess. If Sara Lee workers wanted to go somewhere else, they now have even fewer places to go.

    Last time I looked, there is still a market for twinkies, so why don't they get off their backside and start baking some?

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    Where you have coerced transactions, like income taxation, you see that wealth actually gets destroyed.

    I don't follow. Without that income transaction the hospital wouldn't have been able to hire you, because the money that the hospital is spending originated from income tax.

    So either the hospital spending money hiring you is creating wealth, or it's destroying it. Choose one.

    Last time I looked, there is still a market for twinkies, so why don't they get off their backside and start baking some?

    Hostess will no longer make twinkies != there will be no more twinkies made.

    During bankrupcy the assets of Hostess will be sold to the highest bidder. One of those assets is the brand name "twinkies". The new owner will continue to make twinkies if there is public demand for it.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , evildictait​or wrote

    I don't follow. Without that income transaction the hospital wouldn't have been able to hire you, because the money that the hospital is spending originated from income tax.

    So either the hospital spending money hiring you is creating wealth, or it's destroying it. Choose one.

    Hospital was just an example, could have been any company. Last project I did was for a large fashion company, same principle applies.

    Hospitals destroy wealth by spending tax money inefficiently. If it was the patient's money, they would spend it more wisely. The four ways of spending money, remember?

    1. Your own money on yourself, you seek the most value for your money
    2. Your own money on somebody else, you seek the least cost
    3. Other guy's money on yourself, you seek the most quality
    4. Other guy's money on another guy, you are not motivated to watch cost and quality

    Hospital spending tax dollars would fall in the 3rd category. We need to bring it back to the 1st category, to make health care affordable.

    Hostess will no longer make twinkies != there will be no more twinkies made.

    During bankrupcy the assets of Hostess will be sold to the highest bidder. One of those assets is the brand name "twinkies". The new owner will continue to make twinkies if there is public demand for it.

    My point exactly. Hostess business model failed, time for someone new to do it differently. Nothing is actually lost, some capital, but that is it.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    I write software for a living. People come to me to write software for them. Why?

    Because I write software at a lower cost then they do, I'm more efficient. They are not software engineers, but a hospital for instance and their core business is operating on people.

    Now, when the hospital hires me, do I get richer at their expense? Not really, because the hospital could have done it themselves at higher cost. So I'm saving the hospital money, we are both better off.

    *snip*

    Are you really that dense? I'm not talking about the hospital getting poorer because it pays you. I'm talking about the money that's spent on you that isn't going to be spent on buying beds, medical devices, as well as paying doctors, nurses, and candystripers. It's also money that can't be earned by their internal IT people, if they have such a staff.

    If this hospital runs great as a result of your software, that means that they'll be getting more business and making more money at the expense of another hospital.

    There's only a fixed amount of wealth in the world. Sure, countries can print money all they want if they run out, but the value of that currency drops relative to other currencies.

    Again, unless you can dig wealth straight out of the ground, all consumerism does is shuffle money around.

    The idea that capitalism can cause all boats to float is a fallacy. The average standard of living of society as a whole has increased due to advancement of science and technology, although you want to give credit to capitalism for that LOL, but standard of living is not wealth. Wealth is not measured as an absolute value. It's relative.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , evildictait​or wrote

    None. That's why you don't get any money for filing a patent. In fact, it actually costs money to file a patent, so if you patented a "beard-extensions - like hair extensions for your beard!" or a "cheese-powered lamp", you're probably going to be poorer for patenting it. And since patents expire, you can make yourself very poor by patenting stupid inventions and sitting on them.

    I've added no value, but I leave the patent office with a permit to use legal force against everybody that wants to use my idea. Nice, a real advantage for society.

    Patents are not a magical money machine. They have no value unless they have patented an idea that someone wants to build and expects to sell for profit. And the government does not "assign" them a value.

    Yeah, you need to apply that legal force for it to make money, I agree.

    Your patent only has value if someone else wants to buy it off you in order to make the invention (or in order to sell it on further). And the specific value? Whatever the buyer and seller agree is the price.

    That's the free-market way Smiley

    It is not the free market way to grant privileges to a happy few. Government grants you ownership of something you clearly cannot own. You cannot physically own design concepts, as nothing is lost when I copy them. So stealing someones ideas, cannot actually happen in the real world.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    , cbae wrote

    Are you really that dense? I'm not talking about the hospital getting poorer because it pays you. I'm talking about the money that's spent on you that isn't going to be spent on buying beds, medical devices, as well as paying doctors, nurses, and candystripers. It's also money that can't be earned by their internal IT people, if they have such a staff.

    So, the managers should work for less then the value that they add? What gives you the right to be the judge in that?

    If this hospital runs great as a result of your software, that means that they'll be getting more business and making more money at the expense of another hospital.

    Same applies to the value that the manager adds, he gets paid for it. If it's a couple of million, that's up to the company to decide.

    There's only a fixed amount of wealth in the world. Sure, countries can print money all they want if they run out, but the value of that currency drops relative to other currencies.

    No, not really. Look at barrels of oil, gold reserve, wealth is going up up up! It's not finite, that's another Marxist theory. As we advance, more resources will become available to use at less cost.

    Again, unless you can dig wealth straight out of the ground, all consumerism does is shuffle money around.

    You can actually. You dig oil, gold, copper, silver, water, etc. from the ground and create wealth.

    The idea that capitalism can cause all boats to float is a fallacy. The average standard of living of society as a whole has increased due to advancement of science and technology, although you want to give credit to capitalism for that LOL, but standard of living is not wealth. Wealth is not measured as an absolute value. It's relative.

    And why do we advance in science and technology? Because of a capitalist system! It pays off to invest (darn capital!) in more efficient ways of doing the same work. That's the dance of labor and capital I'm referring to!

    edit;

    some light reading for you; https://mises.org/daily/5654/The-Social-Function-of-ProfitandLoss-Accounting

  • User profile image
    cbae

    Maddus Mattus wrote

    *snip*

    No, not really. Look at barrels of oil, gold reserve, wealth is going up up up! It's not finite, that's another Marxist theory. As we advance, more resources will become available to use at less cost.

    *snip*

    You can actually. You dig oil, gold, copper, silver, water, etc. from the ground and create wealth.

    *snip*

    What in the f*ck do you think my original point was? Did you not read my original post about pillaging the world's resources? Sheesh.

    Man, do you realize how mind-blowingly BORING it is having a discussion with you? Instead of nitpicking every sentence as an opportunity to give us a diatribe about the virtues of being able to get stinking rich, go back and try to glean the main point I was making--about the flow of money. I made no judgments about what is right and what is wrong with what happens. My point is about WHAT IS happening, and nothing more.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    @cbae: My main beef is that you are blaming it on capitalism, when it's clearly corporatism,.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.