 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Getting the 'best price' for a good and attempting to control markets are two VERY different things. No matter what, if you are going to sell something on Craigslist or the classifieds, what 'evil' is there in getting the best possible price a person is *willing* to pay for an item? It doesn't mean the seller is 'evil' - it means he doesn't want to loose on his item, either. One could say that the highest price an item will get is it's 'fair market value'.
Overcast,
I am going to be as careful as I can in responding to your welcome response, in this discussion.
What do you mean by getting the 'best price'?
How does that work in your mind? An exchange occurs. Two or even more than two people are involved in an exchange. Actual stuff is exchanged. Who in the exchange gets the 'best price' when the exchange is over and done with, complete, and the "getting" part is history?
I am asking so as to quantify the exchange in a measurable way. The exchange will be:
1. "better" for one and not "better" for others (inequitable)
2. "better" for one and "better" for the others (equitable)
Which is the goal? The goal can't be a third answer, unless you know something I have yet to know. I suppose we could introduce the concept of charity at this point, but even that factor does not change the measure of equitable exchange relative to inequitable exchange.
Which is your version of the goal?
What do you mean by "Getting the 'best price' for a good"?
Do you mean that the goal is an equitable exchange or do you mean something else?
As to the difference between voluntary capitalism and involuntary capitalism I've already covered that with giant walls of text, so you may be writing to anyone, and not exclusively to me. I am fully aware of the difference between voluntary capitalism and involuntary capitalism.
Voluntary capitalism ends up as cost price, or equity, since competition forces people to increase quality and lower cost, that is just how it works, and I can offer much in the way of explanation as to why that works that way, but my guess is that you already know how competition works. Involuntary capitalism cannot exist without power transferring from producers of surplus wealth, and then the stolen power is used to destroy all competition where ever and when ever competition arises, which ends, or impedes the force that causes producers to increase quality and lower cost, which, then, allows for more, and more, and more inequitable exchanges, which is the goal for some people. Some people have as their goal in life: inequitable exchanges.
In a voluntary association the people who have as their goal in life: inequitable exchanges are no more powerful than someone who has a goal in life that is equitable exchanges, so who cares if someone is a capitalist, or a socialist, in a voluntary association, exchanges are forced down to equity anyway, as a result of the force of competition, as producers are then forced to produce higher quality, at lower cost.
No matter what, if you are going to sell something on Craigslist or the classifieds, what 'evil' is there in getting the best possible price a person is *willing* to pay for an item? It doesn't mean the seller is 'evil' - it means he doesn't want to loose on his item, either. One could say that the highest price an item will get is it's 'fair market value'.
Evil is defined by me as a willful plan to injure an innocent person followed by the execution of that plan, over, and over, and over, again, and again, proving, defining, evil, in fact.
I hope that you are not targeting me with this lesson of quantifying true evil, taking the full measure of it, and avoiding mistakes. If a person plans on injuring an innocent person and then follows through with that plan, that is what the person does, even if he calls himself a capitalist, or a socialist, or a politician, or a lawyer, or a salesperson.
What is the goal when a person sets out to cause an inequitable transfer of stuff? You tell me, I try not to do that, and if that happens, I try not to do it again, and penny's, and nickles, and dimes, worth of inequity isn't worth a second's concern on the subject of evil, and how to avoid it.
It is merely a saying that someone can be nickle and dime'd to death; although it is food for thought.
I've already confessed to the fact that I know that there are many capitalists out there who want me to get the short end of the stick, so therefore, in defense, I too seek to avoid being taken to the cleaners, and in that measure I too seek the best price, which to me is an equitable price, a price that is measurable as cost.
What is evil, in your mind, now that you have show (someone) what isn't evil?
One could say that the highest price an item will get is it's 'fair market value'.
One person's fair market value, based upon calculations chosen by that person, is another person's inequitable price, when other calculations are chosen.
It does not matter in an involuntary association, whose calculation is used, since competition will force producers to increase quality and lower cost, which ends up with price being at cost, or very near to cost, depending upon a particular example of the force of competition. Some forces of competition will be very low, such as a Rock Star's Number 1 song, and the price can be jacked up to whatever anyone is willing to pay for that song, and the power of numbers work in such monopolistic supplies of extremely scarce examples of surplus wealth, that each consumer may be willing to pay a fraction of a cent and the producer, absent much competition, gains lots of power, perhaps too much, for his, or her, own good, but even such an example as that, isn't an example that is free from the involuntary association factor; whereby access to mass media is selective, exclusive, and by that measure an enforced reduction in competition.
Examples like restaurant meals, where competitors are almost on every other block, in a high population density area, are very good examples of how high forces of competition work, as competitors are forced to continuously raise the bar by increasing quality, and cutting costs. The setting of "price" by the restaurant owner can be any calculation, capitalist, socialist, cost price, whatever calculation imaginable, but it if isn't low enough, for the quality of food produced, compared to the competition, then it isn't a valid calculation. The calculation is meaningless in the face of competition. Competition forces the price down to cost, if quality is equal.
It does not matter if a person is a capitalist, seeking inequitable transfers, in a voluntary association, what will matter is how high the competition has raised the quality, and how low the competition has lowered the cost. If the competition is too good, the capitalist, or anyone else, is inspired to find something to do where their specialty is competitive, rather than waste another second failing to compete in a specialty where they are incapable of being competitive. It is the involuntary associations that cause destruction, cause unemployment, cause too much or too little of everything, all the time, on purpose, so as to keep power production down to a manageable level. If that throttling down of production is not throttled down to a manageable level: the victims grow to be powerful enough to defend against legal crime, which is unacceptable for the legal criminals, that will not do for them. The routine of the legal criminals is BOOM and BUST or The Business Cycle, so it is in their best interest to make sure that there is too much, on schedule, and then there is too little, on schedule, so as to keep the victims stupefied, and ready, and willing, to be victimized.
Begging for it.
Voluntary capitalism, nickle and dime'd, to death, or just short of it, won't be a problem, compared to Involuntary capitalism, and the same measure works for socialism.
Voluntary socialism, charity to the point of starvation, will be fine for those whose goal is within reach for them, voluntarily, and compared to Involuntary socialism, there is no comparison, it is the difference between good and evil, night and day, black and white, right and wrong.
I am taking care in responding, in my way, which isn't anyone else's way, and anyone can choose to read something better.
That's the spin, isn't it?
Falsehood is the naked term; without the false fronts, or euphemisms, or spin. Falsehood is produced by liars, deceivers, people who are evil, people who are planning on injuring innocent victims, and the fact that falsehood is now abundant, is a measure of how effective the evil people have become, how powerful they are, in fact.
Lies are not accidents. Lies leave trails back to the sources of lies.
The spin on the whole thing is how we are fed this 'concept' of these corporations being totally 'capitalist'. When it's not really the case. They create laws and environments where it's close to impossible for the 'normal person' to compete in the market - well, that's not capitalism, maybe it should be called monopolitism.
Again, you may be trying to reach anyone, as your words are different version of the perceptions I've been communicating for many years.
What is the goal of a capitalist? Any one? A fair price? By what calculation is it fair?
1. "better" for one and not "better" for others (inequitable)
2. "better" for one and "better" for the others (equitable)
What is the goal?
Is the goal equity, or is the goal not equity? Why mince words, why create complication where no complication is needed, or wanted, who demands unnecessary complication?
Is the capitalist goal equity, or not?
If the capitalist goal is equity, then the capitalist goal is the same goal as the socialist goal - if socialism is followed back to the beginnings, not the alterations.
I've followed capitalism back to the beginnings, not the alterations.
Here is what I found:
http://mises.org/etexts/menger/two.asp
...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
I am still working on the puzzle, your help is appreciated, welcome, needed, and a competitive check on my own quality product (or lack of) and a check on the cost of what I produce (which is very expensive at this point).
But that supposed definition is contradictory of itself.
Dictionaries help in understanding how language changes, from something effective, into something ineffective. When honest productive people communicate effectively, they are very powerful, and when their communications can be corrupted, they may then fail to accurately identify friend from foe, they may even begin to transfer their earnings to the legal criminals.
How many opposite meanings can a word have at the same time? If I say: "Stop running, you are heading off a 100 foot cliff" do you, the runner, have time to check to see if I may be saying: "Run faster, there is a great reward for you on that path."?
This society would also insure that government is ran from the bottom up, not the top-down.
The idea behind a Democratic Federated Republic, complete with Trial by Jury, appears to be, as far as I've seen so far, the least evil choice.
Trial by Jury is the bottom up part. Any person can accuse any other person of wrongdoing, and any one can acquit the supposed criminal. Punishment requires the mutual agreement of 12 people, in the Trial by Jury examples provided by history.
Currently there is no Trial by Jury, not here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). Currently the jurors do not have absolute power, since they are conditioned to obey, unconditionally, the orders demanded from them by the Judge. If a juror ignores the judge, and if the juror volunteers to assume absolute power, and get away with it, then Trial by Jury works as intended, bottom up.
Any criminal can be judged as innocent by any single individual. Each person is as powerful as each other, and no person is more powerful, legally, than any other single individual, in Trial by Jury, when it works as intended.
That renders all laws enforced by any other power - powerless - without the consent of each individual.
That is bottom up. It is still evil, if it involves punishment, in my opinion. A criminal, if found guilty, has volunteered, by willfully committing a crime, to exclude him-self, or her-self, from honest productive society, and his reward (which you can say is a form of punishment, but I think you are "playing with words", not me) is exclusion from all that honest productive society has to offer.
An effective method of excluding, or avoiding, the known criminals, includes Trial by Jury, and includes well informed, and well armed honest productive people - there are no short cuts.
And sending hard earned surplus wealth to legal criminals who then use that power to produce falsehood, and produce threats of violence, and produce punishment upon anyone, guilty or innocent, who threaten that monopoly law power, and that monopoly legal money power, is not a viable solution to the criminal problem.
Competitive solutions to the legal crime problem (what I call, merely, The Problem):
A. The problem is claimed to be the solution to The problem.
B. Democratic Federated Republican forms of governments, legal fictions, that include Trial by Jury, and a competitive legal currency.
C. Affective methods by which criminals are disconnected from their victims.
The first solution is obviously the problem, and therefore a false solution. The next two solutions may be the same thing, depending, in my mind, on how jurors employ the power to punish, if the power to punish, by the jurors is abused, if it punishes the innocent, then the false solution returns, as The Problem, not the solution.
Avoiding, separating from, and not becoming the criminal problem, is the solution to the criminal problem.
Making crime legal, is not a solution to the criminal problem.
The Democratic Federated Republic (such as The Articles of Confederation experiment, or the Swiss model), as opposed to The Constitution, which is a Nation State, intends to allow competition.
A. Democratic Federated Republic allows competition
B. Nation State (The Constitution) enforces monopoly
The idea, behind a Democratic Federated Republic, is to have experimental governments (which may or may not intend to allow competition or enforce monopoly), and have those experimental governments volunteer to associate, competitively, within a voluntary union, much in the same way that one city, within an experimental government, will compete against another city.
The better, higher quality city government, with the lower cost, tends to grow more powerful compared to the worse, lower quality, government, with the higher cost, people vote with their feet, from city to city, voluntarily, even while one city may be resorting to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of vicious, aggressive, violence, against the innocent people withing the city, or without the city, and people can move to the better city, voluntarily, or stay and be victims, if that is what they want, which makes them not victims, at all, it makes them willing participants in whatever the criminals will do.
One city employee, a governor of some power, may claim that the next city is abusing it's citizens, and that city collects enough surplus wealth from the city tax payers, and then armed with that collected power supply, they go and they annex the next city, calling that brave move by such a name as spreading democracy, or a rescue mission, or whatever, and The State government, above that city government, may see that move, that annexation, as a criminal gang robbing the poor victims in the next town, and the greater legal power then does something.
The State may not see that move to annex as a crime. The employees empowered by that legal fiction may not see that move to "spread democracy" as a crime.
The State may encourage such things between cities, by all means, annex each other at will, have at it, and send me my piece of the action.
Which State becomes more powerful sooner?
How can the legal criminals stop The People from gaining too much power?
Look into the events leading up to The Constitution, you will know the answer.
The legal criminals cannot allow competition, there can be no competition among sovereign and separate legal fictions, not on the city level, not on the county level, not on the State level, no amount of people can be allowed to compete, whatsoever, as the legal criminals must consolidate all legal power, and all economic power, into one power, one consolidated government, with one leader only, and only one legal currency.
You may not believe in the truth; but that does not make the truth go away.
Top-down government has proven itself to be of benefit only to a small group of elites, regardless if it's called 'socialism', 'communism', 'a republic', or a 'democracy' - it doesn't matter, the 'top-down' model is self-destructive and will not last.
The Constitution was designed to be Top Down, so as to replace, or usurp, the experimental Bottom Up Articles of Confederation, as confessed by the actual people who planned on that very thing happening; and as warned by the people who were against that very thing happening.
Two sources:
A.
The plan to consolidate power into one Nation State:
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutional-Convention/dp/1410203638
B.
Those who blew the whistle and exposed the fraud:
http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html
There is much more too it, involving the power over legal money. But that may divert too far off the present topic at this point.
This is how our founding fathers framed this country - for small government and small business to run things in their own corner of the world.
Which founding fathers?
A.
The Nationalists (Alexander Hamilton being the prime culprit) who hid behind the false front of Federalism
B.
The Federalists (who were falsely labeled as Anti-Federalists by the Nationalists)
It was the Nationalists who ramrodded The Constitution into being, and doing so by running a very effective false advertisement campaign that targeted the very Mob that the Nationalists claimed to be too dangerous to be allowed to have any legal power - and their point is well taken, by that very example, the very example that they caused.
The Nationalists fed a pack of lies, via mass media, at that time, media that they controlled, so as to remove competition among separate and sovereign states, where those states could join or leave the Union under The Articles of Confederation, and the Nationalists used those lies to force those legal fictions, those states, to have to listen to their duped tax payers, and by that fraud The Constitution became the unconditional obedience PATH we are on today, as warned by those who opposed it at the time, and in great detail, all warnings are now true.
Which founding fathers are you referring to in your words?
Alexander Hamilton, a known British Agent, along with others, like Robert Morris, had as a target, a legal currency monopoly, and The Constitution fraud was the step needed to get to that goal.
Those founding fathers?
The Nationalists who history is recorded by the winners as The Federalists, as in "The Federalist Papers"? They were Nationalists, or Monarchists, they were hiding behind a thin veil of Federalism, and their opponents blew the whistle, but who listened?
Who is listening today?
Even James Madison was duped. He later saw his error, and later, after his error took effect, after the Nationalists began their reign of terror, James Madison fought the Nationalists, along side of Thomas Jefferson, both taking their parts in The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
I have a reverence right here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037
I can quote from it, especially the parts referring to how people vote with their feet when a working Democratic Federated Republic works as it is designed to work, and how The Constitution interpreters, of the day, made such things, as competition, against the law.
Tax evaders, and slaves, have no place to run, and no place to hide, not in a Nation State. Is this news?
This is old news.
All other forms of government - have been proven, by history, to be a failure. This one will fail too, not just the 'US' government, but this supposed 'world government'. Mark my words - it WILL fail.
I may have news for you, or news for anyone. They do not fail from the eyes of those who cause them to fail. They are meant to fail. They must fail, because failure to have powerful legal fictions failing, amounts to too much power to manage. The top most powerful legal criminals have figured out a long time ago that one powerful legal fiction must not be allowed to grow too powerful, and therefore there must be conflict. There must be a way by which power can be throttled down to a manageable level, war is the answer.
I think it is even more fundamentally true to say that, from the perspective of the legal criminals, destruction is the goal, and production is merely a necessary evil, a thing that must be tolerated only so long as enough power is produced to accomplish the goal, which is destruction.
Just like these big corporations are starting to implode upon themselves.
Again, that is the viewpoint from the eyes of the ready victims, from the perspective of the legal criminals, those legal fictions are merely hosts that will be bled dry and then discarded, according to the overall plan, any, and all, competitors, of any measurable power, must be targeted, access must be gained, all power must be drained out, as quickly as possible, and then the dead, or dying carcass, is left to rot, and to cause the survivors more loss of power, as the survivors expend their scarce remaining power in the futile effort of reviving the victim - beating a dead horse to the point of exhaustion. America is on the BUST cycle, it is on the way out, China is on the Boom cycle, or some other base of operations, no longer America. America has served its useful purpose for the length of time allotted. Regime change is afoot.
In a big way.
The only ones that will make it - for a time - are the ones that have a bit of control over other big companies and can stay off the implosion for a while. Not forever, but for a while.
Anyone, and therefore potentially everyone, except the legal criminals, can avoid all of the effects of the legal crime managed BUST cycle, by merely disconnecting from it, and by merely choosing an alternate currency, legal or otherwise.
Do you want an example?
How about the work being done by Elon Musk with his 3 very competitive companies called:
Space X
Tesla Motors
Solar City
Elon Musk was formerly involved in Pay Pay.
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/PayPal-Wars-Battles-Media-Planet/dp/0977898431/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310063109&sr=1-1
Pay Pal Wars, Battles With Ebay, the Media, the Mafia, And the Rest of Planet Earth
Currently, as far as I know, Tesla motors will make the best Electric Cars in the world, and they will do so, paying the highest wages, and they will do so despite all the power being stolen from their customers, as that stolen power flows to their competitors as subsidies. Do you understand the full measure of just how competitive an American based productive manufacturer can be, in the face of immeasurable odds against success?
Elon Musk was famous, during Pay Pal Wars, for taking part in collecting start up capital, from investors, so as to begin producing high quality and low cost risky products: Pay Pal was a pioneer in the on-line currency industry. Then, in 2008, when the legal criminals began BUSTING the American economy, by removing credit access, and at the same time DOUBLING the dollar supply, and spending that DOUBLE the entire supply of legal dollar units, somewhere, much of it going to the competition in China, the famous Elon Musk was unable to find investment capital to expand his already profitable Electric Car production, for some strange reason. Elon Musk ended up going off-shore, for capital, so as to continue the plan to corner the Electric Car market, world-wide, with his California based new car factory. You know, the supposed worst place on earth to conduct honest productive business, where the "liberals" cost the manufacturers too much useless regulations, and where wages are forced too high by those terrible Unions, etc.
Elon Musk went to Germany, and to Japan, for capital, and as far as I know to date, Tesla is back on schedule, despite all the efforts to BUST America, by cutting off the flow of credit, capital, and by stealing, by way of inflation, all the surplus wealth in American, by DOUBLING the supply of money, just in 2008, and then by further inflation, stealing, euphemistically called "quantitative easing", and where does that capital go? It goes to destroy. It goes to produce deception. It goes to finance threats of violence. It is employed in the work of destruction. It is used to throttle down the production of power to a manageable level, and it goes to destroy competition where ever, and when ever competition arises.
And you can claim that China is being competitive.
Really?
The power produced by honest productive people is stolen, by fraud, and then sent to pay off the people who criminally injure innocent people in China, causing injury by way of terrible pollution, causing injury by way of terrorizing debt, causing injury by way of excessive work hours exchanged for less than living wages, and all the profits realized from the sale of all those "competitive" products just so happen to accumulate in very same, very few, bank accounts, denominated in whichever legal currency is engineered to be the highest in power to purchase that day.
You call that competition?
Not you, specifically, you anyone who is wearing that shoe, that badge of stupidity.
Henry Ford for two:
1.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Henry_Ford/
There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
When did the capitalist's brains turn to mush? How about when they resorted to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence?
2.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
I may be reading too much in between the lines, on that one, but to me that says that a revolution can happen over night, because the revolution occurs in our minds - first.