Shocker: Obama just said he'll keep his campaign promises!! by AURaptor

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Exactly. And that's what business owners do, either directly, or by delegating to others (in which case, choosing the right people and overseeing their efforts becomes the paramount decision).

And insofar as the business owner is ALSO the top manager, s/he should be compensated for their management. Not their ownership.

---------------------------------
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 12:13 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And insofar as the business owner is ALSO the top manager, s/he should be compensated for their management. Not their ownership.

How is ownership different than "top manager"? And, as I was saying, they are compensated for their management - that's the profit thing we've been talking about.

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 12:14 PM

RUE

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

And, SergeantX

"And after they pay the managers a wage to manage the business, what do they do THEN to earn that money ?"

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

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

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:24 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And, SergeantX

"And after they pay the managers a wage to manage the business, what do they do THEN to earn that money ?"

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

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.

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 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

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.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

---------------------------------
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 12:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OH NO! It all disappeared!

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.

Quote:
I was able to give my employees the full value of their work

NO, you were able to give them the wage they settled for, in the face of unemployment. 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. IF YOU were the manager, what did the owner "do"?

---------------------------------
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 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And what did the owner "do"?

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!!!

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Oooh, more meat for the table.

This really, REALLY needs it's own thread, cause I do believe we've found a spot that if we just nail down the terminology, we can find an accord.

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...

That said, really, this deserves it's own thread, honestly - and imma be addin a couple penniesworth later when I got the chance to, busy day today tho.

-F

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:42 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.
Quote:
I was able to give my employees the full value of their work
And what did the owner "do"?

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.

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 12:44 PM

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

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.

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?

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sarge, I'll get back with you later. Needs a loooong discussion!

---------------------------------
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 1:00 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.

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

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 1:43 PM

"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:

Those NSA wiretaps were ruled legal, Kicikie.

By ONE court, and notably NOT the Supreme Court.

So tell me, if a court rules that water-boarding is torture, will you shut up about it being harmless, and accept that it's illegal and wrong?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Those NSA wiretaps were ruled legal, Kicikie.

By ONE court, and notably NOT the Supreme Court.

So tell me, if a court rules that water-boarding is torture, will you shut up about it being harmless, and accept that it's illegal and wrong?

Is it wrong to say that at this point his opinion on matters legal & military are less than well though out?

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We'll just have to get rid of the military.

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

Do away with what amounts to the PRIMARY function of the Federal Government?

You remember, provide for the common defense ?

Yeah, you're funny.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

Well, you seem so eager to do away with the very next thing mentioned in the Constitution:

Quote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sounds like socialism to me...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:50 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So tell me, if a court rules that water-boarding is torture, will you shut up about it being harmless, and accept that it's illegal and wrong?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

Never said it was "harmless", but that it was harsh interrogation, and not torture.

So, to answer your question, "No".

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Why do I always think of James Kirk when I read that bit?

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, to answer your question, "No".

You would not accept a court ruling. Interesting.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:53 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sounds like socialism to me...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

Yeah, only a socialist would misread that sentence and come up w/ the view that it " sounds like socialism ". Promoting and providing are two entirely different concepts. The Constitution is set up so that we can remain free and ABLE to seek out the life we want. No where does it say the Federal Imperial Gov't will PROVIDE for us our daily needs.

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:56 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, to answer your question, "No".

You would not accept a court ruling. Interesting.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

I did not accept McCain Feingold nor did I accept the the KELO VS City of New London rulings. Both treaded on individual's rights.

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, Signym and I are the same person. I just like to argue w/ myself.

We are Signym too. We are Legion, for we are many.

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.

Okay, but which one of you is Spartacus?

Mike

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

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:23 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Okay, but which one of you is Spartacus?

We are. And that means you too. I mean us too. That is we.

Look just shut up and stop talking to myself, or I'll hit us sooo hard...

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 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So tell me, if a court rules that water-boarding is torture, will you shut up about it being harmless, and accept that it's illegal and wrong?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

Never said it was "harmless", but that it was harsh interrogation, and not torture.

So, to answer your question, "No".

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

Then you can understand why I don't accept your court's decision to uphold warrantless wiretaps, eh?

Now, if the Supreme Court of the United States comes out and states unequivocally that water-boarding is NOT harsh interrogation, but rather that it IS torture, you still won't accept their word?

Interesting. I thought you were all about obeying your government and supporting it.

Mike

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

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

Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:00 PM