Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
Like Tree46Likes

Thread: Lee Camp - on the Deep State coup and media "cheering" it on

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    302
    https://www.aei.org/publication/the-...t-5x-too-high/
    > The public thinks the average company makes a 36% profit margin, which is about 5X too high

    http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/pr...ket-17711.html
    > The supermarket business is a low-margin industry, with the average profit margin for supermarkets typically ranging from 1 to 2 percent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Nightmares
    > Kitchen Nightmares is an American reality television series formerly broadcast on the Fox network, in which
    > chef Gordon Ramsay is invited by the owners to spend a week with a failing restaurant in an attempt to revive the business.[

    I'd recommend as it can help show how not to run a business in the first place !
    HAL9000 likes this.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    It is inherently a win-win in the absolute sense when people can get together to freely trade if they want to or not trade if they don't want to, and live in the lap of luxury, than it is for someone to be someone else's repressed slave or go to war to kill each other, destroy the environment, and end up with only crumbs as the spoils of war.

    What you're referring to as a win-win situation that doesn't exist is a more subjective one within the win-win that does exist. Suppose you buy a gallon of milk at one supermarket for $2.50, then find out later on that another supermarket sells it for $2.25; so you lost $0.25 on a gallon of milk. Big deal! Next time you can go to the supermarket that sells it for $2.25, then you win! Don't let the loss of $0.25 for the purchase of a gallon of milk one day make you despise the bigger picture, or there's far more at stake (orders of magnitute bigger) than some pocket change.
    No what I'm referring to is essentially having to Compete for Scarce resources that ALL Capitalism is set on. Believing that people can be organized in this manner where Everyone is looking out for the next man is purely Utopian? I'm not necessarily talking about single transactions but about the way we will inevitably act overall under such influential Economic forces. Don't you remember that it's all just a Game for Survival. This System is playing with our Lives! Winners/Losers, Rich/Poor, Upper Class/Lower Class, Worker/Owner, Government/Public.

    Someone's always ahead, someone's always behind. Humans can't live under Scarcity and not try and get ahead without their actions negatively affecting in some way the others Competing in the same Game. We just don't have the ability of consistent Moral values because the catch-22 being that this Economic System makes it difficult to hold on to them. So if you are advocating for any type of Capitalism, you are essentially advocating for a System where people will have to make decisions for what's best for them First before anything/anyone else. And this will occur from the everyday Supermarket transactions all the way up to the huge Corporate decisions etc..

    Again this wont look like Utopia. The Game will look like any other Capitalist experiment we've had in the past. We've tested it and know what the evidence has shown. That Humans under Scarcity/Competition are Incapable of producing the desired outcomes we all hoped & dreamed for. The Human Condition is just too weak to avoid all the effects that Capitalism has on our Biology. It's just not wise & safe anymore to expect that we can Change our ways if we only designed the right type of Capitalism. It's a Losing battle in my opinion.

    We Need a whole New Different way of running an Economy. One that doesn't throw us in a Game where we have to Fight for Survival because that's exactly what we'll do. But one where the 'game' is to Live in Peace so Everyone can contribute and share in it.

    Where do you think all the clothes, housing, food, land, medicine, etc. etc. originally came from? I can't believe that it really doesn't occur to you that someone somewhere had to exert manual labor in order for practically all of that stuff to exist! Come on, Ernest; what gives!?
    The point was to show the potential in Abundance we already have but have no access to without Cash. Abundance in raw materials & what we can manufacture with them. Everywhere in front of our eyes ...... ABUNDANCE. If you Can't see this then I guess you ain't looking hard enough. Exit to Abundance is always ahead if you ever decide to get off the Status Quo Lane.
    droneBEE, HAL9000 and Phil like this.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post


    I'd recommend as it can help show how not to run a business in the first place !
    Running a business is a nightmare!!! 90% of all new businesses fail in the first year , and even those who don't fail keep struggling for their existence.

    It is in the best interest of both business owners and workers to do away with the current system.
    Neil, Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    What's the point Neil?

    That LABOR comes before CAPITAL? We already know that...its basic economics
    Yes, that would essentially be my point & it's evident that some of us didn't already know that, or are simply ignoring it - which is why it seems I had to make the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    That LABOR is still waiting for its full return for the effort,,,AKA; its SHARE?
    No; it wouldn't be that, because it's inaccurate. Let's look at the possible labor scenarios: (1) labor is both available and free to decide whether or not it's satisfied with its return; (2) labor is available but not free to decide whether or not it's satisfied with its return; (3) labor is not available, so there's nothing there to decide whether or not it's satisfied with its return.

    Scenario #1: when labor is both available and free to decide whether or not it's satisfied with its return, it continues to labor if it's satisfied; if it's not satisfied, it doesn't have to labor if it doesn't want to. This essentially means that there is no scenario where labor waits for its full return; in other words, it's always getting it full return. This is what a free market enterprise system is & libertarians, economic liberals, and fiscal conservatives are some of its proponents.

    Scenario #2: when labor is available but not free to decide whether or not it's satisfied with its return, it may continue to labor if it's satisfied; however, if it's not satisfied, it still has to continue to labor regardless of whether or not it wants to. This is the only scenario where labor might ever have to wait for its full return - assuming that it even gets it some day. In this scenario, it's possible to have situations where labor is not necessarily earning its share. When it's a central planning system, such as North Korea or the now defunct USSR, it's the employer getting a share they probably didn't earn; it is in effect forced slavery of the employee. When it's collective bargaining, it's the employees getting a share they probably didn't earn (until the employer goes out of business, as a result); it is in effect forced slavery of the employer.

    Scenario #3: when labor is not available, there's nothing there to decide whether or not it's satisfied with its return. This happens when the state imposes a ban on some services; for example, the minimum wage (a ban on paying below a certain rate for a type of service) prices some of the most essential jobs out of existence. That - in turn - leads to businesses, that depend on those jobs, either going out of existence or maybe even never being able to come into existence. This is a kind of forced slavery of the employer in the sense that it prohibits the employer from being able to exist.

    Note that both scenarios #2 & #3 are authoritarian, and different versions of socialism. Neither one is as efficient as scenario #1, they're capable of impeding the incentive factor, they deny people certain freedoms (e.g., pursuit of happiness), they repress, and they block or deny progress and opportunity; both are recipes that can lead to economic disaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    ...as long as GREED reigns over us, LABOR never receives its fair DUE....Its never even come close...IMO
    Ok, then unless you want greed to be able to reign over us, let's implement scenario #1; that's the only one where greed cannot dominate us and result in lebor not receiving its fair due.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Neil, as a self proclaimed Libertarian, Trump supporter, my feeling is that you also support capitalism as it is today, perhaps even getting ready to 'make a move' for personal profit real soon????
    Sure, I've made such moves all the time. I've had and continue to have a day job. There are also some peripheral "hobby" things I'm trying or participating in (things that some might consider more risky actions). It's no secret what they are; simply take a look at the signature at the bottom of all my posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    What does a resource based economy have in common with a capitalist base economy? ...besides people to make it all work...?
    It depends on the version of capitalist system; the one that gives the most room for allowing for the application of the scientific method for social concern is effective and the one that's most efficient. Note that only scenario #1 allows for that & that's one thing in common. Neither scenario #1 nor TVP's RBE is advocating for imposing capitalism (trying to force people to use money) or using force to obtain labor; that's another thing they have in common.

    We are currently here (capitalism) and want to transition to get there (RBE); scenario #1 is the only one that not only shows any promise for making it possible, it's also the only one that has anything in common with TVP's RBE.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > they're only trying to make ends meet.

    I'm reminded how most businesses only make around 5% profit as it is, if they are lucky !

    I hear profit from producing food is more like 1% !


    All that competition driving prices down. :-)
    And any way that government gets involved adds to the difficulty & impedance, which is why government involvement should always be kept to the bare minimum - no bigger or more powerful than necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    If only there was another way to achieve the same thing . . .


    > automation & implementation of advancements in technology that wind up making the price tag an obsolete, thing of the past.

    Generally agreed there !
    Sign me up!

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    No what I'm referring to is essentially having to Compete for Scarce resources that ALL Capitalism is set on. Believing that people can be organized in this manner where Everyone is looking out for the next man is purely Utopian? I'm not necessarily talking about single transactions but about the way we will inevitably act overall under such influential Economic forces. Don't you remember that it's all just a Game for Survival. This System is playing with our Lives! Winners/Losers, Rich/Poor, Upper Class/Lower Class, Worker/Owner, Government/Public.
    Of course, I know; this is all given stuff from the moment we're conceived into existence. There's nothing we can do about the givens; that's the essence of what a given is. Even if there are options, the choices tend to be limited; we can choose to go to war with our neighbors over limited raw resources & either kill or enslave them, or we can choose to get along with our neighbors and trade with them. It's better to choose to trade with our neighbors, because resources and the environment aren't wasted on or destroyed by bombs. We don't have any other choices yet, but with the Internet and implementation of other forms of technology we're getting closer.

    BTW, watch out for those who tell you to choose peace or else; they're the ones who have already chose to go to war with you; generally how wars begin. Sure, it is possible that a misunderstanding could also start a war, but how often is that the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Someone's always ahead, someone's always behind.
    Here's something that a classmate back in high school once told me: life isn't fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Humans can't live under Scarcity and not try and get ahead without their actions negatively affecting in some way the others Competing in the same Game.
    Yes, but there's more to that. There are multiple scenarios; for example, in one, it can overall lead to a rising tide that lifts all boats & in another it can lead to no rising tide but some boats getting damaged or destroyed. Let's choose the one that makes the tide rise and not do any damage to any boats.

    Let's examine competition that doesn't do as well; in a free market system they have options. They can provide their goods and services for less to those who cannot afford the top quality goods & services; while they're at it they can try to improve to offer better goods and services. They can also change to a different game, offering a different good or service, including going from producing goods to providing a service, or vice versa. They're free to explore the different games to find out which ones they're good at and which ones they're not good at.

    Let's examine the competition that does do well; in a free market system they too have options. For example, they can also improve themselves. They can do so by trying to make their goods or services even better, or they can explore ways to make their goods and services less expensive, so more customer can have access to and enjoy their goods or services.

    Life is made up of challenging puzzles to solve that are imposed by nature, and the goal of science is to try to solve those puzzles. The more puzzles we solve, the better life gets. Competition is nothing more than a collectively concerted effort to try to solve those puzzles & to try to implement what we learned to better our lives. Competition is a form of collaboration in the sense that they both strive to improve life by both trying to make progress and allowing for the best or better results to be the ones that are put forth. Letting competition be free to compete leads to a win-win for everyone. The standard of living and quality of life for everyone goes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    We just don't have the ability of consistent Moral values because the catch-22 being that this Economic System makes it difficult to hold on to them. So if you are advocating for any type of Capitalism, you are essentially advocating for a System where people will have to make decisions for what's best for them First before anything/anyone else. And this will occur from the everyday Supermarket transactions all the way up to the huge Corporate decisions etc..
    Life forces that constraint on us where we're struggling one way or another, unless or until we just drop dead. It's either trade which is peaceful, or war which is destructive and deadly. This is why there are people who say things like "live free or die" & "give me liberty or give me death"; they don't want to be taken advantage of and suffer as slaves for someone else's benefit. Life is like a struggle to climb up on top of something; we can either build more ladders to help everyone get up, or we can destroy ladders leaving more people stuck at the bottom. Building ladders and helping everyone get up is still a struggle, but that's the struggle I choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Again this wont look like Utopia.
    Who's promising a utopia? I'm about trying to get further away from a dystopia to at least get to that place somewhere in between that can be reached, has been reached, and over time the part closer to a utopia becomes more reachable. We don't notice this because we get used to where we are and spoiled by it; then we get confused and make ourselves believe we can make things better by trying to do things that actually end up making things worse, not better. Furthermore, when things get worse instead of better, we blame the thing that actually does make things better and do even more to oppose it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    The Game will look like any other Capitalist experiment we've had in the past.
    You're right about that, but I wonder if you realize how right on target you are about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    We've tested it and know what the evidence has shown. That Humans under Scarcity/Competition are Incapable of producing the desired outcomes we all hoped & dreamed for.
    We don't know that; we can't know that. Such a statement implies a perfect ability to predict the future & I don't believe we have a perfect ability predict the future. We can certainly predict that something won't work by learning from our mistakes; let's not ignore our mistakes, anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    The Human Condition is just too weak to avoid all the effects that Capitalism has on our Biology. It's just not wise & safe anymore to expect that we can Change our ways if we only designed the right type of Capitalism. It's a Losing battle in my opinion.
    Of course! There's always someone trying to come up with ways to improve capitalism, and they think they have something that looks good on paper. Then sometimes they persuade others to support their idea and we end up with things like a minimum wage, promises of universal or free this or that. Then there's the unintended consequences, and later there's the ignoring that certain actions lead to the same consequences (making dubious the notion that they're "unintended"), and there's the blaming the wrong thing as the cause of the problem. Let's not forget that they also involve putting guns to people's heads to force compliance; those ideas for trying to improve capitalism can only be implemented as a ban, restriction, or mandate by the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    We Need a whole New Different way of running an Economy. One that doesn't throw us in a Game where we have to Fight for Survival because that's exactly what we'll do. But one where the 'game' is to Live in Peace so Everyone can contribute and share in it.
    Yeah, and we already know what that is. If society isn't willing to accept it, society will continue to go down the same path of decay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    The point was to show the potential in Abundance we already have but have no access to without Cash. Abundance in raw materials & what we can manufacture with them. Everywhere in front of our eyes ...... ABUNDANCE.
    I'm not disputing that your point was to show potential abundance; I know there's potential abundance & it's about what it takes to get actual abundance that I'm referring to.

    There is a very limited way to access abundance and it's imposed on us as a given by nature, reality. You (and droneBEE) make it sound as though initially we're all spawned into existence in some imaginary world of unlimited access to abundance, then some bad people came along and took away all that access to unlimited abundance.
    No, no bad people came along form Meanieville and did anything of the sort (I'm not trying to sound disparaging here, I'm trying to be humorous; did it work?). The people who are labeled as the bad people are too often actually the good people who create jobs, create more goods and services, innovate, take risks, and overall increase access to abundance.

    Maybe the reason we have this impression is because when we're small children, we don't have to worry about paying the bills & have no concept of such a thing, yet. Ah, now I think I see where the illusion comes from.

    We're shooting ourselves in the foot, then shooting ourselves in the other foot without realizing it the first time. We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't want to make it more difficult to walk or run.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    If you Can't see this then I guess you ain't looking hard enough. Exit to Abundance is always ahead if you ever decide to get off the Status Quo Lane.
    Maybe you're right; I don't mind considering the notion that I could be wrong. I could be wrong. The thing is, though, that at some point you're going to have to advance from claiming I can't see it to putting effort into showing me what I fail to see.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,126
    Labor has never gotten its Fair SHARE..nor is it ever FREE to decide much of anything these days, if ever......Not ever in the History of Humanity has LABOR ever gotten close to a Fair Share.... The period immediately following WWII was the closest we've ever been to a 'fair; economy....and even that wasn't close.

    That LABOR has ever gotten a fair share is a myth perpetuated by Libertarian Capitalists (and wannabes) and reflects a societal generated ignorance related to Economics and how we allowed a twisted/corrupted version to reign over us that will always benefit the wealthy...until we stop repeating the SOS that our Master's have planted in our brains....:roll eyes:

    Based on many of the posts lately....its becoming obvious to this old man that our conditioning is 'firmly in place' and that most folks would rather blather on ....constantly informing us and offering up 'proof' for how important they/we think we/they are by running the mouth (typing finger) instead of joining in the ACTION....

    "People who know little about a subject always wind up saying enough to prove it"

    This may help for those interested in learning about ECONOMICS..... Understanding Economics - Site Map

    But we'll have to do some READING, and refrain from picking stuff out of our rear ends....just because it 'feels' right....
    Last edited by droneBEE; 03-18-2017 at 03:23 AM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,126
    One can only be led to knowledge, but one must want to think for themselves.... that ol 'leading a horse to water' analogy ....

    "If we are unable to see what is right in front of us.....the burden is on the one with closed eyes" ...not on the one who can SEE....
    Ernest likes this.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    302
    > Labor has never gotten its Fair SHARE..

    I think I might disagree there. :-)

    A while back I saw some figures showing how labour get the lions share of most business income, which strikes me as a fair share if anything is !

    Just to be sure on that, lets dig into some examples to see just what % of income labour does get in a business..

    Anyone care to start ?


    I'll look at the John Lewis Partnership:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership

    In 2014-2015 with turnrover of 10.94 Billion, they made profits of 140 odd Million after paying their staff, and paid their 89,000 odd staff 1.5 Billion in wages.

    So staff got around 90%+ of the profits so to speak, that seems fair to me !

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,126
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > Labor has never gotten its Fair SHARE..

    I think I might disagree there. :-)

    A while back I saw some figures showing how labour get the lions share of most business income, which strikes me as a fair share if anything is !

    Just to be sure on that, lets dig into some examples to see just what % of income labour does get in a business..

    Anyone care to start ?


    I'll look at the John Lewis Partnership:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership

    In 2014-2015 with turnrover of 10.94 Billion, they made profits of 140 odd Million after paying their staff, and paid their 89,000 odd staff 1.5 Billion in wages.

    So staff got around 90%+ of the profits so to speak, that seems fair to me !

    No problem...Disagree all you want, just get your Facts straight...

    Of course 'the entire cost' of labor receives the so-called lion's share.....:roll eyes:...... But the 'Wealth' generally goes to the already well off, the CEO's, their minions, and Share Holders.... with Labor getting the proverbial 'sh1tty' end.

    We must consider the fact there are an Awful LOT of Laborer's that make up the workforce, right? Failing to recognize LABOR can be excused, because that's what business's do all the time, forget to consider Labor, until Labor finally gets tired of getting screwed and fights back.

    YouTuber's version above conveniently leaves out some facts when speaking about LABOR, something corporations have done since the beginning of corporations....

    Where would the Capitalists be without LABOR creating the capital used to make wealth? Well, they'd likely be Laborer's, heh?
    Ernest likes this.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1