aha wrote
I really like your attitude of openness. In life, it’s key to look for truth and be open to new ideas.
However, it’s also fact that truth is not open to opinion.
I will post something a little later. This probably sounds silly, and it definitely speaks more ill of me than Rex, but his post has me really seething to a point where I need a break. I’m going to see a Blues Clues Live thing with my son and come back tonight.
Enjoy and try not to seeth.
[Moderator Hat ON]
I hope remarks like this are not going to become a habit, SarumanRex. I am gently advising you to use the Pit if you need to vent about other posters.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I’m sorry, I won’t do it again. I hope there aren’t any hard feelings…
As compensation for flaming and for posting that novel (I’m thinking of calling it “Why Billionaires Suck”), I’ve decided to stop posting to this thread and let ** billehunt ** have the last word.
First, thanks for spelling my name correctly. Many don’t, so I appreciate that.
Second, I’ve now seen a few sharp posts from you initiating and contributing to other threads, and I appreciate that as well. Now to the meat of the matter…
There is a key point that you base a lot on that is mistaken. Notably: Money is not a zero-sum game.
You talk as though the only way one person can have a dollar is for another person to be without a dollar. It just doesn’t work that way. Money is frozen work. If you do 8 hours of valuable work today, there will be more money in the world than if you only do 4 hours. This is not my opinion vs. your opinion, this is a well-accepted economic principal. I can find a cite if you want, or you can create another thread and one of the many experts can bring you up to speed.
You state that an honorable rich person will retire, and that only a crooked person will work and create more wealth. There is implication behind your words that by continuing to work, the rich person is taking money from someone else. That’s simply not true; money is frozen work and his working creates money. People who do not work are not honorable; they are lazy.
You’ve got a bunch of silly claims here:
Find me one reasonable expert who claims that Edison invented the light bulb for the express purpose of exploiting workers by making them work ungodly hours. If you can find an example of someone who actually used the lightbulb for this purpose it proves nothing. Find me one cite where someone reasonable claims that this was Edison’s intent.
What you say about Edison claiming AC was more dangerous than DC is true and lobbying to that effect by killing animals is true, but your paragraph about cooking a guy in the electric chair is irrelevant. Edison didn’t invent the electric chair (contrary to your claim), didn’t sell it, didn’t operate it, and certainly didn’t operate it incorrectly to torture anyone. Your implication that Edison “cooked a guy until smoke poured out of his eye sockets” in order to become ungodly rich is highly theatrical and in fact nothing short of lying.
Then you say “If it were up to Edison he’d have no problem with (requiring you to work 18 hour days)”. Please show me one cite where Edison took efforts to force people to work 18 hour days. When you say things like this without proof or backing, it’s lying. Don’t do that.
Then you bring the hypothetical of Hitler inventing the light bulb into the picture. You’ll find on this board and elsewhere on the Internet that people who have no good argument compare their adversary to Hitler. I do not appreciate you comparing Edison to Hitler, and I don’t appreciate you implying that I admire Hitler. Please don’t do that again, especially in a space where Hitler had absolutely no relevance. I mean, where the heck did you even get the Edison/Hitler connection? There’s zero logic here.
And this is wrong how? In business, it is your obligation to be better than your competitor. Being Mergers are the markets way of creating efficiencies.
And for this I and most Americans are extremely grateful. A huge variety of merchandise is now much more widely available at considerably lower prices. WalMart didn’t hurt the competitors; they offered something better to the public and the public abandoned the competitors. And now it’s a better world; hooray!
Please. Lay off the theatrics. Do you think we should subsidize buggy-whip makers?
I’m not going to cover the rest of the ramblings about other Entrepreneurial Greats. It’s basically the same drivel as above. Beating out your competitors is good for the Consumers, and good for the Economy. And if an employee is truly under-paid, then by definition he can go elsewhere for a better paying job. If he can’t get better pay elsewhere, then by definition he is not underpaid.
Again, just a little lower volume on the theatrics would be appreciated. But to the point: Have you ever gone into a job and demanded to be paid less? If you could get 10 times your current salary, would you take it? Of course you would. This is standard economic stuff. Buyers and Sellers meet at a price determined by the market. The buyer wants to go low, the seller high. They meet where the market dictates.
I have no idea what this means. Do you want rich people to create jobs or not? Pick a side.
I don’t appreciate the personal insults. And again, I have no idea what this has to do with your argument. What if there are rich there? What if there aren’t? What’s it have to do with anything?
I’m literally speechless. Is this your idea of logic? Is there a point in there somewhere? Is this a real example? Please post a cite; I don’t remember reading about this.
And your point? The “bare minimum necessary” that you refer to is really just a theatrical phrasing for their value as defined by the market. Companies pay what the market will bear.
I think this is my favorite quote. Let me get this straight: Car manufacturers are evil (that’s right you said ‘evil’) because the reason they built a car for you was that they expected to make a profit? Again, I’m speechless.
Again: Do you mourn for the buggy-whip makers as well? The economy constantly churns. On the plus side, more and better products are available to consumers for cheaper prices. And on the negative side, jobs are created and lost. On the whole it’s an extremely positive system, and the best devised to date. BTW, I can see why you like Michael Moore. His whole shtick is non-logical theatrics. Like Rush Limbaugh if he were left-wing.
Your post is nonsensical ramblings. It’s neither pointed nor logical. It rates only in the theatrical department. So, no, I can’t “see that”. What does that say about me?
Yes I do, so therefore yes I am.
And by the way, I’ve got a bit of success under my belt, and am in circles of pretty successful people. I run a company, I’m on the boards of two companies, I’m an investor in additional companies, I’m on the boards of advisors to three other companies, and an informal advisor to senior management in a dozen additional companies. I can tell you what these people talk about when they talk business: They talk about finding something people need and selling it to them. They don’t talk about how to screw the poor. You don’t have to believe me; you can go on in your conspiracy-filled world. But I’m not lying; that is how they talk, that is how they think.
SarumanRex wrote
By the nature of this community and the nature of the world, I’m in the minority on this thread subject. Let’s face it, everybody has a boss and everybody is smarter, more ethical and harder-working than that boss. But I enjoy debate and being in the minority can make things that much more fun.
I would appreciate a lower flame and theatric level, but I hope if you have something to say you’ll say it.
If I knew who said it first, I’d give credit:
“Cream and bastards rise to the top.”
Bill wrote
Let’s say you’re right. A good salesman convinces a bunch of retailers to buy a poor product. Few people buy it. Those that do get little use out of it. The retailers slash the price to dump what they can and write off the rest. Who has the salesman brought value to aside from himself and his employer? Initially you argued:
Bill wrote
But a good salesman will sell whatever he’s given, valuable or not. The degree to which the product or service makes other peoples lives better is dependent entirely on the product itself, and therefore its makers. In this discussion, the coders. The salesman can only determine whether the product reaches the market, not whether it has any value.
It seems that what you’re actually arguing is:
People receive money because they deliver products or services that make their employers lives better…
To which I would add: …in the judgement of those employers, a judgement which is only human, and therefore sometimes flawed.
Kai Nielson created a great philosophy. It is called ethical egoism and the basic idea is that everyone acts out of their own egotistical desire. You may not agree with it, but let me ask:
If I save your life solely because I want to get to heaven, does that discount my act? If I donate money to Charity because it makes me feel good, does that make my gift less valuable?
Te beauty of capitalism is that you can often act totally selfishly and still creat a great deal of benefit.
Can I get a job like that?
Peace,
mangeorge
Dumbguy wrote
The definition of something’s value is what someone is willing to pay for it. The salesman directly creates value by selling it.
Sure. Companies pay employees (for work) because it makes their own lives better. Customers pay companies (for products and services) because it makes their lives better. Everyone in the chain adds value and gets compensation.
Yes, mangeorge, I am at work. But it is not as great as it sounds. My life is a few emergency products, making sure everyone shows up on time and long stretches of nothing.
I go nuts when there is nothng to do, which is why I am lookig for a different job.
That may be your definition of value. It’s not mine.
It’s a fairly circular definition of value that excludes even the idea of fairness. Something would be unfair when cost didn’t equal value, but since value is defined as cost, that’s not possible. The market defines value. The market by definition cannot be wrong. Ethics are defined out of the equation. Everything is as it should be. Problem solved.
Fair enough. What is the definition of a “fair” price?
Thanks, Mr.Zambezi.
Also, Dumbguy, I suspect your above post can be rearranged to spell “Life isn’t fair”.
Well, I suppose you’re right. If you build something and noone wants to pay you for it, that’s not fair. But it sure keeps everyone honest. Frankly, I think it’s very good system. And by the way, when I say “system”, I’m talking very broad, to the inclusion of ecologies for example. Things that don’t produce value (as defined by the market or the rest of the ecology or the rest of the world) wither and die. There are no islands; everything counts on other things for support and in return delivers something to those other things.
In my mind, life (as defined above) is beautiful and productive, not unfair.
I suppose I could as easily dismiss yours as, "I deserve everything I have because I rock.’
I was trying to avoid falling inito trite rhetoric and cliches, although for the life of me I can’t remember why.
Dumbguy wrote
a) I didn’t mean to dismiss it. I thought it was a fair rephrasing. Do you disagree? If so, why?
b) Actually, I consider myself very lucky and fortunate to have the mild success I’ve had. Others can decide if I rock or not.
I was talking specifically about how we compensate employees. And I didn’t say it was unfair, I said your view of value defines away the idea of fairness, so it wouldn’t be possible even to suggest that someone is over or under paid.
I certainly wasn’t trying to present a worldview, particularly a dreary and pointless one like “Life isn’t fair”. Fairness is a human ideal. ‘Life’ doesn’t conform to our conceptual hierarchies, much as we’d like to think it does.
I don’t think it it removes the idea of fair orm not fair. You can still say your pay is unfair if you are getting under market value. That is usually what I bring up if I have a problem with my pay, and I’ve found it has pretty good results.
PeeQueue