Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:The hoi polloi want to do less work at higher pay and more benefits, and that's the reason they join labor unions to extort these demands from employers with the help of the government.

Money should follow labour, not just capital. Who can buy anything for business to profit, if most don't have money? (I'm certain you have an answer, so don't bother.)

Dalek Prime wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The hoi polloi want to do less work at higher pay and more benefits, and that's the reason they join labor unions to extort these demands from employers with the help of the government.

Money should follow labour, not just capital. Who can buy anything for business to profit, if most don't have money? (I'm certain you have an answer, so don't bother.)

The trouble is that the government is responsible for too much money, leading to inflation that robs everyone of a repository of value.

bobevenson wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The hoi polloi want to do less work at higher pay and more benefits, and that's the reason they join labor unions to extort these demands from employers with the help of the government.

Money should follow labour, not just capital. Who can buy anything for business to profit, if most don't have money? (I'm certain you have an answer, so don't bother.)

The trouble is that the government is responsible for too much money, leading to inflation that robs everyone of a repository of value.

The banks are, actually, creating equal amounts on the loans they give. And that still doesn't account for why money shouldn't follow labour as well as capital.

You no pay, I no buy. Right?

Dalek Prime wrote:And that still doesn't account for why money shouldn't follow labour as well as capital.

What do you mean, "money should follow labor." I don't get it, what are you saying? It doesn't make any sense to me.

bobevenson wrote:The trouble is that the government is responsible for too much money, leading to inflation that robs everyone of a repository of value.

*Yawn* And you have no solution, or at least not one that if implemented wouldn't lead to hyper-inflation.

bobevenson wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:And that still doesn't account for why money shouldn't follow labour as well as capital.

What do you mean, "money should follow labor." I don't get it, what are you saying? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Labour produces. If not for labour, no production. No production, no product. No product, no business. No business, no money. No money, guess who's in the labour force? The guy who wanted to pay bugger all for labour, and now wants money for his labour, so he can save a little, and stimulate the economy through his money, which gets plowed back in.

Bob, how can business exist without a healthy consumer base? And a healthy consumer base requires money. So, if money does not follow labour (in a liveable wage), business has nowhere to make money, except in an ever shrinking consumer base of others with that money. This is why society is polarized at the moment between those with so much money they can waste it on luxury goods, and those that shop at Walmart. And the guys with the money own both. And own the banks that loan the money to everyone else, who need to borrow it because they are not getting paid enough by these same jokers who won't pay a decent wage in the first place, and are now charging their own labour interest on loan money that could have, and should have, been reasonable wages in the first place. And every time a bank makes a loan, it duplicates the money in another account. So don't be blaming the government for how the economy works, because they only facilitate those in power, their corporate masters, that have the power to create money and profit from everyone else's debt, through interest on money that they themselves created, and created the demand for the loan, through lower wages.

It is one big fucking scam on most of the world.

bobevenson wrote:What you are proposing is some kind of communistic or socialistic society that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Ever think that maybe people should get paid what they're worth in a free market? No you don't, you just want to steal from people or put a fucking gun to their head, oh I'm sorry, you can't put a fucking gun to their head in England since there are no fucking guns, so how about a fucking cricket bat instead, huh?

Again, I'm Canadian Bob. And labour is worth more than you suppose, as is their consumer contribution to those becoming richer. And you completely ignored, otherwise, what I said, preferring to defend the grotesqueries of the system as it is, through generalised name calling, and silly national references.

You are unteachable Bob. Crazy, closed minded, and to be pitied, if you weren't so obnoxious, or noxious.

Dalek Prime wrote:

bobevenson wrote:What you are proposing is some kind of communistic or socialistic society that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Ever think that maybe people should get paid what they're worth in a free market? No you don't, you just want to steal from people or put a fucking gun to their head, oh I'm sorry, you can't put a fucking gun to their head in England since there are no fucking guns, so how about a fucking cricket bat instead, huh?

Again, I'm Canadian Bob. And labour is worth more than you suppose, as is their consumer contribution to those becoming richer. And you completely ignored, otherwise, what I said, preferring to defend the grotesqueries of the system as it is, through generalised name calling, and silly national references.

You are unteachable Bob. Crazy, closed minded, and to be pitied, if you weren't so obnoxious, or noxious.

You're a Canadian? Well, you certainly sound like a limey, or maybe you're just a limey wannabe. Unfortunately, my friend, the value of labor is what it will fetch in the marketplace, not what you, I or anybody else "supposes"!

bobevenson wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

bobevenson wrote:What you are proposing is some kind of communistic or socialistic society that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Ever think that maybe people should get paid what they're worth in a free market? No you don't, you just want to steal from people or put a fucking gun to their head, oh I'm sorry, you can't put a fucking gun to their head in England since there are no fucking guns, so how about a fucking cricket bat instead, huh?

Again, I'm Canadian Bob. And labour is worth more than you suppose, as is their consumer contribution to those becoming richer. And you completely ignored, otherwise, what I said, preferring to defend the grotesqueries of the system as it is, through generalised name calling, and silly national references.

You are unteachable Bob. Crazy, closed minded, and to be pitied, if you weren't so obnoxious, or noxious.

You're a Canadian? Well, you certainly sound like a limey, or maybe you're just a limey wannabe. Unfortunately, my friend, the value of labor is what it will fetch in the marketplace, not what you, I or anybody else "supposes"!

I sound like a limey because Brits and Canadians are, on average, better educated than Americans. And my ancestry is almost purely Anglo-Norman. As to the marketplace, it's rigged to make job security precarious ie. what business 'supposes'.

Dalek Prime wrote:I sound like a limey because Brits and Canadians are, on average, better educated than Americans.

Maybe better educated but definitely more ignorant.

bobevenson wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I sound like a limey because Brits and Canadians are, on average, better educated than Americans.

Maybe better educated but definitely more ignorant.

That's ridiculous, and I shouldn't need to point out why.

Dalek Prime wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I sound like a limey because Brits and Canadians are, on average, better educated than Americans.

Maybe better educated but definitely more ignorant.

That's ridiculous, and I shouldn't need to point out why.

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I should have said "stupid," but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt!

bobevenson wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I should have said "stupid," but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt!

I doubt the benefit.

You're aware that stupidity and ignorance are separate issues, yes? (No, I doubt you do.)

Dalek Prime wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I should have said "stupid," but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt!

I doubt the benefit.
You're aware that stupidity and ignorance are separate issues, yes? (No, I doubt you do.)

Let me put it into limey terms you might be able to understand. Although Isaac Newton had a brilliant mind and was well-educated, he was ignorant of the fact that alchemy had no future at all, OK?