capitalism = exploitation

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, it is necessary that you get paid less than what you produce in order for the company that hired you.

so you agree with me!

Qoute-mining: Fifteen yards, and the loss of down.  

At this point, you're losing audience, due to obvious bullshittery.  Perhaps next time you'll have enough honesty to address her entire post.

I doubt it, though.  hth.

[ped]

Ad homineim attacks are the surest sign of a weak argument.  Why don't you answer the point, instead of the source?

Assuming, of course, that you can glean the point.

i cannot, would you care to explain it to me?

[SSY]

Question:  Would you rather live in a society where everybody is scraping by, just enough to eat simple meals, minimal shelter, but everybody is in pretty much the same boat.  Or .. a society where there are large differences in economic level between the high earners and the low earners, the low earners have just enough to eat and minimal shelter, the high earners live in luxury.

I wish those were the only two options. What of those who have not enough to eat and no shelter?

Anyway, as to "high earners" and "low earners": to 'earn' means to work for something or produce something valuable, does it not? You contribute something; you get something back, ideally of equal value. It seems to me the high earners (the bulk of the population) "scrape by" (or not) with what little their allowed to keep from the produce of their efforts, while the low earners (or non earners, in some cases; a tiny percent of the population) swindle them out of almost all the fruits of their labor and hoard it amongst themselves, without actually creating anything or performing any service (at least not any that serves anyone but ultimately themselves or each other). That's fair, right?  

If, by non earners, you mean business owners and the like, they do provide a valuable service. They will have invested start up costs to buy the machines (etc) that the workers use, something your average factory worker would not be able (or perhaps willing) to do. In doing this, they expose themselves to personal risk. The language you use is very emotive, unfortunately, I feel it may be emotive, in place of a cogent argument.

As with evolution, it seems the people opposed to it, lack understanding of some of the finer points of what they argue against (though I freely admit, most likely any socialist would call me ignorant of their beliefs). I don't mean to be condescending, but to me, the parallel is quite striking.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ad homineim attacks are the surest sign of a weak argument.  Why don't you answer the point, instead of the source?

Assuming, of course, that you can glean the point.

i cannot, would you care to explain it to me?

No.  I insist on speaking only with people smart enough to understand what I am saying.  Either you do, or -- as is apparently the case here -- you don't.

[ped]

So, it is necessary that you get paid less than what you produce in order for the company that hired you.

so you agree with me!

Qoute-mining: Fifteen yards, and the loss of down.  

At this point, you're losing audience, due to obvious bullshittery.  Perhaps next time you'll have enough honesty to address her entire post.

I doubt it, though.  hth.

my alligence is to reason not popularity. her entire post was summerized by her point that i quoted, which happens to be the point of the OP. what exactly would you like me to address in there? gross income - overhead = profit. so the rest of the post is irrelevant.

[ped]

Ad homineim attacks are the surest sign of a weak argument.  Why don't you answer the point, instead of the source?

Assuming, of course, that you can glean the point.

i cannot, would you care to explain it to me?

No.  I insist on speaking only with people smart enough to understand what I am saying.  Either you do, or -- as is apparently the case here -- you don't.

conversely has it occured to you that you're the one not getting it? or are you just simply all out and now relying on mudslinging?

[ped]

If, by non earners, you mean business owners and the like, they do provide a valuable service. They will have invested start up costs to buy the machines (etc) that the workers use, something your average factory worker would not be able

because the only ones who have the ability to make a positive profit are the ones who already own the means of production?

[Thumpalumpacus]

my alligence is to reason not popularity.

Were that the case, you'd try to understand the reason why people do things.

her entire post was summerized by her point that i quoted, which happens to be the point of the OP.

Not so: the rest of that clause:

if you aren't able or motivated enough to find self employment opportunities this is simply a reality you have to face no matter what kind of economic system you are under.

... is substantive enough to warrant serious addressment.  You, however, ignored it, because it undercuts your argument.  Ergo, quote-mining.

what exactly would you like me to address in there? gross income - overhead = profit. so the rest of the post is irrelevant.

You have yet to address my basic point: how would you motivate creation, invention, and industry without the incentive to profit?

No.  I insist on speaking only with people smart enough to understand what I am saying.  Either you do, or -- as is apparently the case here -- you don't.

conversely has it occured to you that you're the one not getting it? or are you just simply all out and now relying on mudslinging?

No, I'm not "all out"; I'm awaiting your reply.  How does cutting down all the Trees raise the average height of the forest?  When you provide a cogent answer, you'll get a non-snarky reply.  Until then, you will get what you give.  The onus is on you.

[ped]

my alligence is to reason not popularity.

Were that the case, you'd try to understand the reason why people do things.

her entire post was summerized by her point that i quoted, which happens to be the point of the OP.

Not so: the rest of that clause:

if you aren't able or motivated enough to find self employment opportunities this is simply a reality you have to face no matter what kind of economic system you are under.

... is substantive enough to warrant serious addressment.  You, however, ignored it, because it undercuts your argument.  Ergo, quote-mining.

what exactly would you like me to address in there? gross income - overhead = profit. so the rest of the post is irrelevant.

You have yet to address my basic point: how would you motivate creation, invention, and industry without the incentive to profit?

No.  I insist on speaking only with people smart enough to understand what I am saying.  Either you do, or -- as is apparently the case here -- you don't.

conversely has it occured to you that you're the one not getting it? or are you just simply all out and now relying on mudslinging?

No, I'm not "all out"; I'm awaiting your reply.  How does cutting down all the Trees raise the average height of the forest?  When you provide a cogent answer, Iyou'll get a non-snarky reply.  Until then, you will get what you give.  The onus is on you.

im still waiting on you to explain the neal peart quote itself.

[ped]

You have yet to address my basic point: how would you motivate creation, invention, and industry without the incentive to profit?

so you concede there is a real profit outside of business expenses? great! so we can move on to address how that isnt exploiting those without the mean of production.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, I'm not "all out"; I'm awaiting your reply.  How does cutting down all the Trees raise the average height of the forest?  When you provide a cogent answer, Iyou'll get a non-snarky reply.  Until then, you will get what you give.  The onus is on you.

i thought you were done? im still waiting on you to explain the neal peart quote.

You denigrated it.  You must explain why you did so.  If you don't even understand what it is that you denigrated, what does that say?  

You must actually think.  I shan't do it for you.  Go re-read the quote, and ponder what it says.  It'll do you good!

[ped]

No, I'm not "all out"; I'm awaiting your reply.  How does cutting down all the Trees raise the average height of the forest?  When you provide a cogent answer, Iyou'll get a non-snarky reply.  Until then, you will get what you give.  The onus is on you.

i thought you were done? im still waiting on you to explain the neal peart quote.

You denigrated it.  You must explain why you did so.  If you don't even understand what it is that you denigrated, what does that say?  

You must actually think.  I shan't do it for you.  Go re-read the quote, and ponder what it says.  It'll do you good!

if you remember right i did not denigrate the quote i used an ad hom attack against neal peart himself.  you posted it, if you cannot explain the quote and it relevance here i have to assume its sheer nonsense.

[Thumpalumpacus]

if you remember right i did not denigrate the quote i used an ad hom attack against neal peart himself. if you cannot explain the quote and it relevance here i have to assume its sheer nonsense.

Hey, I did so in plain English in my last post:

How does cutting down all the Trees raise the average height of the forest?

I am, of course, assuming you can think metaphorically.  I will not think for you, and if you refuse this time to answer, I will regard you as a nonsense artist and move on to other, more remunerative tasks.  such as farming dental floss.  

Ball's in your court, compadre.

[SSY]

If, by non earners, you mean business owners and the like, they do provide a valuable service. They will have invested start up costs to buy the machines (etc) that the workers use, something your average factory worker would not be able

because the only ones who have the ability to make a positive profit are the ones who already own the means of production?

They could take out a massive loan, they could save their wages, several people could come together to form a partnership. Many, many businesses are founded on a shoe string budget.

Edit, is that what you were asking? Your question is unclear.

[ped]

if you remember right i did not denigrate the quote i used an ad hom attack against neal peart himself. if you cannot explain the quote and it relevance here i have to assume its sheer nonsense.

Hey, I did so in plain English in my last post:

How does cutting down all the Trees raise the average height of the forest?

I am, of course, assuming you can think metaphorically.  I will not think for you, and if you refuse this time to answer, I will regard you as a nonsense artist and move on to other, more remunerative tasks.  such as farming dental floss.  

Ball's in your court, compadre.

still havent explained the metaphor and its relevance here. i can only assume you dont actually get it yourself.



and since you like metaphors heres one for you

the blue moon rises when the lights go bright

brilliant, huh! but if you dont get it im not doing your thinking for you...