Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Boom Boom

New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Boom Boom

  1. As a consequence of repeated deletions of posts I've made without any explanation, and having my account altered such that all posts require moderator approval (again without any explanation), I cannot continue to contribute here. Indeed, this very post will itself require moderator approval.

  2. Would this be the same 'failed state' in which they generate the wealth that gives rise to their tax liability?

    And would you extend this right to decline taxation to all Citizens, or only the very wealthy?

    It's the old exceptionalism at work again.Having significant wealth seems to require that an individual be elevated above the laws by which the proles are bound.

  3. Did I say give- or did I say offer? At least read the post before wheeling out the reflex response.

    Your question was how to motivate human beings- my answer was to offer them more. Surely this is not rocket science?

    I talked of the prospect of gain, not the realised certainty of it.

    Why do you find the prospect of offering positive incentives to the unemployed so disturbing?

    I suspect it is because it works against the interests of those looking to pluck the unemployed from the dole queue. Aided by the venomous spite of the right wing press, the intention seems to be to get the unemployed so brow beaten, that they'll tolerate pretty much anything from an employer. It also serves to keep those in employ in line, lest they wish to join the dole queue. What is entirely absent from this discourse is any mention of how half a million jobs (and a good percentage of them will be fake vacancies) can meet the job needs of a few million unemployed people.

  4. I didn't say a free market was free from coercion- you did. Or at least tried to pretend that the existence of basic needs do not limit freedom, when they clearly do.

    Your basic claim that you can be free to choose but not free to evade the consequences of choosing is essentially meaningless- if you can't evade the consequences then those consequences will constrain your freedom of choice- in which case you are not acting with complete freedom.

    But ok- even if we were to allow this absurdity to stand and accept that the consequences of choice do not limit freedom of choice- we then run into the problem that in this scenario coercion would be impossible, because the threats of the Coercer would not limit the freedom of the one being coerced- they would still be be acting freely- so your entire model falls over right there.

    So when you or Bogbrush insist that the sweatshop worker has 'freely' chosen to work 14 hours a day for a derisory sum, it is the half baked model above that you draw on to legitimise that view.

    Free choice is not 'consequence immune'- and if you want to claim it is perhaps you could explain to me how you would go about coercing a 'consequence immune' individual, who's freedom of choice could not be impacted by your threats?

    There seem to be 2 types of coercive activity defined by free market fundamentalists. Once comes under the aegis of the state, and in their minds is the nexus of all evils The other is that employed by those of wealth and power to exploit people and resources to further their position in the 'free market'. Seems to me to be another example of the Capitalist imperative to destroy all competition playing out. These people aren't arguing for an end to coercion, they just want a monopoly on it,

  5. Low skilled workers earn low pay because they have lowered thei prices.

    if you want to moan, moan at the low paid for lowering their prices.

    Hoist by the petard of your own illogic you spring this new argument on us. If simply demanding more money was for ones labour was all it took, there would be very little poverty.

  6. The answer is, yes

    I have seen you ask this same question (In various forms) about once or twice a week for at least a year. You keep getting the same answer, you just don't like it.

    To take it to extremis, if everyone could snap their fingers and produce an apple, apples would have no value to us because we can always have one whenever we want.

    Your theory seems very much at odds with CEO remuneration. Whatever metric by which they are rewarded it certainly is not scarcity of suitable candidates.

  7. Complete BBC propaganda

    The objective by the Been is to label the Tea Party movement as being; racist, hillbilly hicks, facists etc

    In fact the Tea Party just wants a smaller state, with less tax. And also an end of the TBTF bull chrony capitalism

    People at the Beeb don't like free markets and free competiton, just like Mr Bogbrush.

    The Beeb propaganda does show that the Beeb and the establishment are worried about independent political parties that are not connected to the big corporations.

    Obama / Brown / Camoron all wotk for the gig corporations, not for the people that elected them

    Rant over.

    In fact for a group supposedly calling for a smaller state, it is strange they are seeking to use the power of the state to enforce religious nonsense in schools. Their core agenda is a the creation of a theocratic state.

  8. But you admit, his value is based on how easy he is to replace, right?

    I don't know his business well enough to be sure of that. Not a problem though, as the business world is replete with people remunerated on a basis far removed from their ease of replacement. Have company executives become consistently harder to replace over the last few decades? The rate at which their pay has increased would suggest so.

  9. Not at all, to suggest a persons value is merely the sum of what he sells some of his labour for is a depressing philosophy in the extreme.

    My personal reward for my labour doesn't come close to representing all that I am about, and it is the whole that wonderpup so lazily accuses an employer of commoditising.

    That's because you hold yourself to a different metric to determine remuneration. Your staff are paid based on the ease with which you can replace them. The easier they are to replace, the less they get paid..

  10. It applies to everyone.

    No idea why you think it doesn't.

    It clearly does not. One party is subjected to a valuation based solely on the ease with which they can be replaced. The other there is a relationship between the value they create and their remuneration

  11. Oh come on, we've seen people abused for racial, religious, economic, and political reasons, and just about everything else in between, throughout history. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a free market where people make honest agreements.

    We're talking about wonderpups determination to attack anyone suggesting two folk making a deal on money for time as being tantamount to murderers. I've gone to the trouble to explain step by step how he dishonestly links the two positions.

    How can the agreement be honest when one party applies a metric for determining renumeration to the other that they fail to apply to themselves?

  12. As the only way to reduce them to dogfood is to attack them, this can't happen in a free market.

    Free means "free from attack" - you do understand this, right?

    Given freedom some choose to employ that freedom in the pursuit of violence against others for their own financial gain.

  13. No, it's nothing of the sort.

    Firstly there is a sleight of hand trick which he does which is to equate the value of their time (to an employer) with "their value". Those are two different things entirely - their times value (to the employer) is a function both of the value he can sell its output for, and the price other people are prepared to sell their own time for whereas "their value" as a human being is quite immeasurable.

    Secondly, having tried and got away with that one, he next suggests that if the person is only worth this or that, there's no big deal about mincing them up for food. The trick here is to move from value to violence.

    Both are dishonest tricks, designed to make anyone suggesting that traded time is a commodity has the values of a murderer. It'd be highly offensive put explicitly and he wouldn't get away with it (probably end up being banned or something) but by these two tricks he can even sound high minded about it.

    It's utter garbage though.

    If there was no historical precedent your counterargument might hold some weight. How frequently though have we seen persons deemed to offer little value to their host economy abused?

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.