Laid Off

[BlackSand]

No, I never said they're morons.. But I don't think billions call themselves failures

Of course they don't call themselves failures ... They just fail to achieve their desired goals and conditions which simple makes them failures.
They decide what it is they want to achieve ... And they fail to achieve it ... Doesn't matter what they call it when they simply define it either way.
As long as their failure is rewarded ... It will most certainly continue.

.

 

[Osomir]

Sounds like a society where nothing is produced because no one has an incentive to work and where there are no safety guarantees so lawlessness is rampant. No thanks.

Too bad buddy, look into free Ukraine, the revolutionary Spain territories..

I'm quite familiar with the economic fruits (or lack there-of) of socialism. It set Africa back decades.

Oh yeah, tell me, did Africa give workers the means of production? Look at real examples of socialism please, by referring to welcome to socialism in my signature.

Many Africans already have the means of production: its called owning small farm plots or animal herds. It's also called rural poverty.

You didn't answer the question, and you know what I was referring to, although socialism is the next step after capitalism since capitalism brings about the initial means of production..

I know what you are referring to but find it flawed. In the absence of strong private property rights there is little incentive for investment into the means of production. It is a huge problem that has been holding back development in many African states. In the absence of such institutions you get stagnation and even decline.

 

[Marxist]

No, I never said they're morons.. But I don't think billions call themselves failures

Of course they don't call themselves failures ... They just fail to achieve their desired goals and conditions.
As long as their failure is rewarded ... It will most certainly continue.

.

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

 

[Osomir]

On the contrary, third world countries are experiencing heavy increases in education consumption as well.

The majority of educated laborers come from first world countries, and here's the funny thing, In your ideal world run by robots, skilled labor wouldn't be a concept.

increases in productivity don't just come from college, they come from increases in primary and secondary education as well and education consumption in the third world has been increasing quite rapidly. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be able to outsource things like IT or even manufacturing to them.

Or new technological innovations that take jobs while people struggle to get though education and miners mine to get what is needed for the machines. We outsource to exploit cheap labor, if we didn't, prices in a capitalist economy would be awful.

Prices reflect labor costs, as labor grows more expensive we have incentive to replace it with capital. It is also all relative. Capitalism doesn't depend on abject poverty in order to exist.

Yes it does... Literally, it cannot end poverty, fuck, look at the stories in my signature, they discuss this In great detail.. Unless you're assuming all is perfect 599 years into the future or some shit, no, it won't.

Eventually capital inputs will be our "poor" supply of labor. So us humans will be free to move on up. We've already seen this trend start.

 

[Osomir]

No, I never said they're morons.. But I don't think billions call themselves failures

Of course they don't call themselves failures ... They just fail to achieve their desired goals and conditions.
As long as their failure is rewarded ... It will most certainly continue.

.

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

Preventing them from acquiring IT service sectors and manufacturing that we outsource to them isn't helping people in poverty either.

 

[Marxist]

Too bad buddy, look into free Ukraine, the revolutionary Spain territories..

I'm quite familiar with the economic fruits (or lack there-of) of socialism. It set Africa back decades.

Oh yeah, tell me, did Africa give workers the means of production? Look at real examples of socialism please, by referring to welcome to socialism in my signature.

Many Africans already have the means of production: its called owning small farm plots or animal herds. It's also called rural poverty.

You didn't answer the question, and you know what I was referring to, although socialism is the next step after capitalism since capitalism brings about the initial means of production..

I know what you are referring to but find it flawed. In the absence of strong private property rights there is little incentive for investment into the means of production. It is a huge problem that has been holding back development in many African states. In the absence of such institutions you get stagnation and even decline.

I find capitalism flawed, and it is severely flawed, but looking at a third world shit hole to observe "collectively owning production" is hilarious, again, free Ukraine, territories during the Spain revolution.." Little incentive? You underestimate human beings and don't like history a lot. You know what's holding back African states? Warlords, capitalists, lack of medicine, infrastructure, etc..

 

[Marxist]

No, I never said they're morons.. But I don't think billions call themselves failures

Of course they don't call themselves failures ... They just fail to achieve their desired goals and conditions.
As long as their failure is rewarded ... It will most certainly continue.

.

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

Preventing them from acquiring IT service sectors and manufacturing that we outsource to them isn't helping people in poverty either.

I never said I wanted to prevent it, I don't think it's morally acceptable.

 

[Marxist]

The majority of educated laborers come from first world countries, and here's the funny thing, In your ideal world run by robots, skilled labor wouldn't be a concept.

increases in productivity don't just come from college, they come from increases in primary and secondary education as well and education consumption in the third world has been increasing quite rapidly. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be able to outsource things like IT or even manufacturing to them.

Or new technological innovations that take jobs while people struggle to get though education and miners mine to get what is needed for the machines. We outsource to exploit cheap labor, if we didn't, prices in a capitalist economy would be awful.

Prices reflect labor costs, as labor grows more expensive we have incentive to replace it with capital. It is also all relative. Capitalism doesn't depend on abject poverty in order to exist.

Yes it does... Literally, it cannot end poverty, fuck, look at the stories in my signature, they discuss this In great detail.. Unless you're assuming all is perfect 599 years into the future or some shit, no, it won't.

Eventually capital inputs will be our "poor" supply of labor. So us humans will be free to move on up. We've already seen this trend start.

Yeah, yeah, assume a perfect future centuries later with absolutely no changes and maybe you get this, but look at the article regarding a $1.25 in my signature.

 

[Osomir]

I'm quite familiar with the economic fruits (or lack there-of) of socialism. It set Africa back decades.

Oh yeah, tell me, did Africa give workers the means of production? Look at real examples of socialism please, by referring to welcome to socialism in my signature.

Many Africans already have the means of production: its called owning small farm plots or animal herds. It's also called rural poverty.

You didn't answer the question, and you know what I was referring to, although socialism is the next step after capitalism since capitalism brings about the initial means of production..

I know what you are referring to but find it flawed. In the absence of strong private property rights there is little incentive for investment into the means of production. It is a huge problem that has been holding back development in many African states. In the absence of such institutions you get stagnation and even decline.

I find capitalism flawed, and it is severely flawed, but looking at a third world shit hole to observe "collectively owning production" is hilarious, again, free Ukraine, territories during the Spain revolution.." Little incentive? You underestimate human beings and don't like history a lot. You know what's holding back African states? Warlords, capitalists, lack of medicine, infrastructure, etc..

I say little incentive because I have literally seen it at work and there is mathematically and statistically little incentive for people to sink a lot of time and effort into investments that they aren't seeing a personal return on. Your entire model goes against the very nature of human decision making.

 

[BlackSand]

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

I edited the post to explain the reasoning behind who defines the failure ...
"They decide what it is they want to achieve ... And they fail to achieve it ... Doesn't matter what they call it when they simply define it either way."

And ... You are not helping them at all ... You are making it worse for them, and are too much of an ignorant ass to see that.

.

 

[Osomir]

No, I never said they're morons.. But I don't think billions call themselves failures

Of course they don't call themselves failures ... They just fail to achieve their desired goals and conditions.
As long as their failure is rewarded ... It will most certainly continue.

.

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

Preventing them from acquiring IT service sectors and manufacturing that we outsource to them isn't helping people in poverty either.

I never said I wanted to prevent it, I don't think it's morally acceptable.

Well its doing more for people who live in abject agricultural poverty than your morals are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What business regulations do you feel are the ones pushing businesses away? In my sophomoric opinion , it's the lower cost of labor thus the lower cost of production is what drives them overseas.

Rarely true.

There are many factors involved. If the job is producing manufactured goods, then the location of the source of raw materials and component parts, productivity of local work forces, and the final market are vital.

Moving a job to China that relies on materials which must be shipped from America for a product that will be sold in America makes no financial sense. Moving tech jobs to India where it will take 4 people to match the productivity of an American, and often still results in a loss of creativity, also makes no sense.

Labor intensive processes where materials are locally available and where skills of workers are low are prime for off-shoring. PCB manufacturing is a big one, it is virtually outlawed in America anyway due to environmental laws (NPN arsenic doping) and silicone is widely available in Asia. But off-shoring reversed a decade ago, much of the manufacturing that left is returning. Unfortunately, the jobs are not.

 

[Osomir]

increases in productivity don't just come from college, they come from increases in primary and secondary education as well and education consumption in the third world has been increasing quite rapidly. If it hadn't then we wouldn't be able to outsource things like IT or even manufacturing to them.

Or new technological innovations that take jobs while people struggle to get though education and miners mine to get what is needed for the machines. We outsource to exploit cheap labor, if we didn't, prices in a capitalist economy would be awful.

Prices reflect labor costs, as labor grows more expensive we have incentive to replace it with capital. It is also all relative. Capitalism doesn't depend on abject poverty in order to exist.

Yes it does... Literally, it cannot end poverty, fuck, look at the stories in my signature, they discuss this In great detail.. Unless you're assuming all is perfect 599 years into the future or some shit, no, it won't.

Eventually capital inputs will be our "poor" supply of labor. So us humans will be free to move on up. We've already seen this trend start.

Yeah, yeah, assume a perfect future centuries later with absolutely no changes and maybe you get this, but look at the article regarding a $1.25 in my signature.

Doesn't have to be centuries. We've seen huge economic changes even within the last hundred years. Global markets are a very quickly changing beast.

 

[Marxist]

Oh yeah, tell me, did Africa give workers the means of production? Look at real examples of socialism please, by referring to welcome to socialism in my signature.

Many Africans already have the means of production: its called owning small farm plots or animal herds. It's also called rural poverty.

You didn't answer the question, and you know what I was referring to, although socialism is the next step after capitalism since capitalism brings about the initial means of production..

I know what you are referring to but find it flawed. In the absence of strong private property rights there is little incentive for investment into the means of production. It is a huge problem that has been holding back development in many African states. In the absence of such institutions you get stagnation and even decline.

I find capitalism flawed, and it is severely flawed, but looking at a third world shit hole to observe "collectively owning production" is hilarious, again, free Ukraine, territories during the Spain revolution.." Little incentive? You underestimate human beings and don't like history a lot. You know what's holding back African states? Warlords, capitalists, lack of medicine, infrastructure, etc..

I say little incentive because I have literally seen it at work and there is mathematically and statistically little incentive for people to sink a lot of time and effort into investments that they aren't seeing a personal return on. Your entire model goes against the very nature of human decision making.

You saw nothing at work, don't even pretend to say Africa had socialism. Oh yeah? Oh, the human nature argument... Well, get used to it buddy, its human nature to work for a lord, capitalism goes against human nature. - feudalism supporter

 

[Marxist]

Or new technological innovations that take jobs while people struggle to get though education and miners mine to get what is needed for the machines. We outsource to exploit cheap labor, if we didn't, prices in a capitalist economy would be awful.

Prices reflect labor costs, as labor grows more expensive we have incentive to replace it with capital. It is also all relative. Capitalism doesn't depend on abject poverty in order to exist.

Yes it does... Literally, it cannot end poverty, fuck, look at the stories in my signature, they discuss this In great detail.. Unless you're assuming all is perfect 599 years into the future or some shit, no, it won't.

Eventually capital inputs will be our "poor" supply of labor. So us humans will be free to move on up. We've already seen this trend start.

Yeah, yeah, assume a perfect future centuries later with absolutely no changes and maybe you get this, but look at the article regarding a $1.25 in my signature.

Doesn't have to be centuries. We've seen huge economic changes even within the last hundred years. Global markets are a very quickly changing beast.

Ignore the article and all relevant data? Good job buddy. Oh yeah, just like the Great Depression, 2008, growing child poverty in first world countries

 

[Marxist]

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

I edited the post to explain the reasoning behind who defines the failure ...
"They decide what it is they want to achieve ... And they fail to achieve it ... Doesn't matter what they call it when they simply define it either way."

And ... You are not helping them at all ... You are making it worse for them, and are too much of an ignorant ass to see that.

.

How am I not helping? I support food stamps, free education, free healthcare, state programs to vaccinate and provide water/shelter, and full employment.

 

[Osomir]

Many Africans already have the means of production: its called owning small farm plots or animal herds. It's also called rural poverty.

You didn't answer the question, and you know what I was referring to, although socialism is the next step after capitalism since capitalism brings about the initial means of production..

I know what you are referring to but find it flawed. In the absence of strong private property rights there is little incentive for investment into the means of production. It is a huge problem that has been holding back development in many African states. In the absence of such institutions you get stagnation and even decline.

I find capitalism flawed, and it is severely flawed, but looking at a third world shit hole to observe "collectively owning production" is hilarious, again, free Ukraine, territories during the Spain revolution.." Little incentive? You underestimate human beings and don't like history a lot. You know what's holding back African states? Warlords, capitalists, lack of medicine, infrastructure, etc..

I say little incentive because I have literally seen it at work and there is mathematically and statistically little incentive for people to sink a lot of time and effort into investments that they aren't seeing a personal return on. Your entire model goes against the very nature of human decision making.

You saw nothing at work, don't even pretend to say Africa had socialism. Oh yeah? Oh, the human nature argument... Well, get used to it buddy, its human nature to work for a lord, capitalism goes against human nature. - feudalism supporter

I am talking about the basic field of economics and the basic premise that man seeks to maximize utility for themselves. Humans operated no differently from that under a feudalistic society. Your system depends on man doing something without gain to themselves. It rests on high levels of altruism and suffers from high levels of free rider problems. We have absolutely seen market sectors in various countries collapse due to things such as free rider problems (it is very well documented) and have seen humans refuse to invest in land that they do not have secure private ownership over. We are facing that problem with women farmers in Malawi for example and communal farming groups. They do not have individual ownership over the land and thus have little reason to make investments into it (since they won't be seeing the returns). This keeps them low productivity. This was also the same problem that we saw with feudalism, where serfs had no incentive to engage in labor outside of what was required by their lord.

 

[Osomir]

So you admit you're the one calling them failures when you know nothing about them? Helping people in poverty isn't rewarding failure you ignorant ass.

I edited the post to explain the reasoning behind who defines the failure ...
"They decide what it is they want to achieve ... And they fail to achieve it ... Doesn't matter what they call it when they simply define it either way."

And ... You are not helping them at all ... You are making it worse for them, and are too much of an ignorant ass to see that.

.

How am I not helping? I support food stamps, free education, free healthcare, state programs to vaccinate and provide water/shelter, and full employment.

And fail to support their means of paying for that and supporting such public service systems. You support an unsustainable system prone to collapse (which we have seen historically).

 

[BlackSand]

How am I not helping? I support food stamps, free education, free healthcare, state programs to vaccinate and provide water/shelter, and full employment.

And none of what you support has fixed the problems ... Only compounds the problems and made the middle class and successful take on a greater burden.
You rob from the taxpayer and jeopardize their well-being in order to fail at providing the people you want to help with anything that actually helps them achieve a better life for themselves and their families.

.

 

[Marxist]

You didn't answer the question, and you know what I was referring to, although socialism is the next step after capitalism since capitalism brings about the initial means of production..

I know what you are referring to but find it flawed. In the absence of strong private property rights there is little incentive for investment into the means of production. It is a huge problem that has been holding back development in many African states. In the absence of such institutions you get stagnation and even decline.

I find capitalism flawed, and it is severely flawed, but looking at a third world shit hole to observe "collectively owning production" is hilarious, again, free Ukraine, territories during the Spain revolution.." Little incentive? You underestimate human beings and don't like history a lot. You know what's holding back African states? Warlords, capitalists, lack of medicine, infrastructure, etc..

I say little incentive because I have literally seen it at work and there is mathematically and statistically little incentive for people to sink a lot of time and effort into investments that they aren't seeing a personal return on. Your entire model goes against the very nature of human decision making.

You saw nothing at work, don't even pretend to say Africa had socialism. Oh yeah? Oh, the human nature argument... Well, get used to it buddy, its human nature to work for a lord, capitalism goes against human nature. - feudalism supporter

I am talking about the basic field of economics and the basic premise that man seeks to maximize utility for themselves. Humans operated no differently from that under a feudalistic society. Your system depends on man doing something without gain to themselves. It rests on high levels of altruism and suffers from high levels of free rider problems. We have absolutely seen market sectors in various countries collapse due to things such as free rider problems (it is very well documented) and have seen humans refuse to invest in land that they do not have secure private ownership over. We are facing that problem with women farmers in Malawi for example and communal farming groups. They do not have individual ownership over the land and thus have little reason to make investments into it (since they won't be seeing the returns). This keeps them low productivity. This was also the same problem that we saw with feudalism, where serfs had no incentive to engage in labor outside of what was required by their lord.

Man has done this system before, and they do gain for themselves you moron, if we were all greedy and didn't care about others, we wouldn't have evolved and survive do. You don't know human nature, as you've only observed it under capitalism. Well, you refer to capitalists refusing, what about the working people? They'd all be benefiting, collective ownership and having a say in what gets done at the factory? Yes, yes, this appears under a capitalist system with the constant push for private production ownership, no surprise there. Uh, no, Serfs didn't engage because they thought feudalism was the only working system.