Let's talk about..

[GabonX]

..capitalism, free enterprise, and entrepreneurship.

Go!

[Army of GOD]

What's capitalizm?

[KristenAmazon]

In the words of Kevin O'Leary, "I want to go to bed richer than I woke up".

I really admire and appreciate the spirit of an entrepreneur who does their homework and understands how to build, establish, maintain and value a business.

[luns101]

People should be free to make as much $$ as they want without anybody pronouncing moral condemnation against them. They should be able to enter into as many economic relationships as they feel like. As long as the relationship between employer and employee is consensual there should be nothing prohibiting them from pursuing economic happiness.

[GabonX]

People should be free to make as much $$ as they want without anybody pronouncing moral condemnation against them. They should be able to enter into as many economic relationships as they feel like. As long as the relationship between employer and employee is consensual there should be nothing prohibiting them from pursuing economic happiness.

Nice

[xelabale]

People should be free to make as much $$ as they want without anybody pronouncing moral condemnation against them. They should be able to enter into as many economic relationships as they feel like. As long as the relationship between employer and employee is consensual there should be nothing prohibiting them from pursuing economic happiness.

Agreed - as long as you take advantage of no-one, you have the right.


Often happens like that, eh....?

[KristenAmazon]

Define "Taking advantage of". That's the great thing about the spirit of entrepreneurship. Marketshare is the "map" (if we are going to bring a correlation to CC - unnecessary but whatever) of the game of business. There is only so much to go around. There are only so many buyers and to be a successful entrepreneur, you have to capture and control marketshare. When other businesses pop up threatening your marketshare, you need to study them extensively and decide how you are going to compete.

This is where good patents come in huge. In addition to the strategy of lowering cost, providing higher quality models to the consumer and enhanced marketing and promotions... Patents allow you to strike at your competitors on a legal level where your products and company have purchased and claimed the sole right to sell a product that does what your competitor is trying to do. Hence you find yourselves capable of shutting down your competitors very fast, perhaps even absorbing their own stock at such a discounted deal that they will still be happy to do because of the legal bullet they dodge.

Manufacturing entrepreneurs look to cut costs and raise revenues, it is the basic formula but only if it doesn't affect the efficiency and standard of their business.

So what do you define as "Taking advantage of" when the marketshare... the field of consumers is the battleground for all these competing businesses?

[xelabale]

Okay, one example...

I make paper.
I use trees, I plant others, I do not take advantage.
I use electricity, I pay for it. I do not take advantage.
I offer pay, my employees accept it, I do not take advantage.
I sell my paper at a profit, this is my right, I do not take advantage.

So, how can this scenario go wrong?

I do not plant enough trees. I am profiting from the resource of the world, this is a finite resource, and thus unfair. I am taking advantage of something that belongs to everyone.
I plant enough trees, however they take time to grow. In the mean time the world is losing oxygen production from that tree. I should be paying for that somehow, but I'm not, therefore I am taking advantage of the world as above.
I use the cheapest electricity company, which is a bad company. I justify this because of the price, I have a responsibility to my shareholders, after all. However, I am profiting from the electricity company's bad practices, therefore I am taking advantage of their bad practices, and am implicit in their crimes.
I am a big employer, and the economic situation is bad. I can offer unfairly low wages to my employees because I know they have to work right now, if they resign they may not find other jobs, and in any case I can employ immigrants more cheaply. I am taking advantage of my workers.

Every dollar profit that I make comes from somewhere. The world is a closed system, finite, thus to make a profit somewhere somehow someone or something is making a loss. At the moment it is mostly "the world" making that loss as we exploit it, though of course people are exploited too, but the last laugh is on us - there is only one world.

Remember, every time you make a profit, you ARE taking advantage of someone or something, that is the fact of the system.

[KristenAmazon]

I make paper.
I use trees, I plant others, I do not take advantage.
I use electricity, I pay for it. I do not take advantage.
I offer pay, my employees accept it, I do not take advantage.
I sell my paper at a profit, this is my right, I do not take advantage.

In business, sometimes you have to be lucky. There is a gentleman who had a cleaning product introduced recently in the UK. He went from a loss to a massive profit in a very short time because of the influenza.

That is circumstancial climate of the business.

Using your example:

Say I make paper as well

- I use trees, I also plant them or support them. This is not just to "avoid taking advantage" but rather to ensure the sustainability of my own business. It is good business to ensure sustained growth and the ability to return for more later.

- I use electricity as well to operate my business. Without it, my business does not operate, I generate no revenue. If I go for a lower quality provider, I affect the calibre of my business. I enhance the chances of something going wrong, I am gambling by utilizing something very low key. Regardless of price, the cost of an accident will hurt my business much more than paying the same high calibre company you would pay for electricity.

- I offer pay as well. It is required as term of employment. The workers accept it based on their need for income. If they can make more money elsewhere and have greater job security, they will turn me down or pass that back to me to re-negociate what I am willing to pay to have them work for me.

**** If circumstance dictates that as of now these people cannot turn me down and go elsewhere, that is not the concern of my company. They have the same right to resign and go elsewhere in hope of a better deal as they would if times were good. Kevin O'Leary is famous for saying (while looking to aquire equity in up-and-coming companies requiring his investment): I will invest the 300,000$ you need, but for that, I will want 50% of the company because it's not worth 1,000 000$ now, It really is only worth 500,000$ or so and I will need to put in work to help you grow this. There's no way you can get money from a bank for this, they're just not lending to this stuff now, that's why your heads have to be squeezed occasionally, It's not my fault that the markets are cruel. So that's the deal I offer, embrace it for what it is - real cash that will help you achieve something that is otherwise unachievable due to market conditions that are "again - not my fault"****

In this case, if I am willing as an employer to pay X ammount of dollars for work to be done, it comes down to the workers to decide whether or not they want to "accept" or go elsewhere. If times are good, the confidence in going elsewhere is higher if the pay is lower. If times are hard, the confidence in going elsewhere is lower, regardless of pay at my company. In good economic times, I would probably sustain lesser workers than I would in hard economic times for paying average wages.

This is a case of the market circumstance being "cruel". Note also that in tough times, my business will incur to me additional expenses that will directly affect what I am able to pay employees.

- I sell my paper at a profit, that is my right (our right) and I do not take advantage. My margin of profit can be molded based on my electric company bills, payments to workers and remaining expenses. Depending on those items, my pricing can undercut other paper companies and take more marketshare. As my company increases it's business due to selling more by undercutting other companies who can't sell as low as me due to higher expenses, I can then re-evaluate my wages and such.

Sometimes finding a less expensive electricity producer does not mean you sacrifice that much quality, especially in hard times people are willing to provide the same product (often the exact same performance-wise) at lesser profit just to ensure that they get the sale. Again, market circumstance. I would rather make 30% of what I would have made at full profit than 0% because someone else got your money.

Remember, every time you make a profit, you ARE taking advantage of someone or something, that is the fact of the system.

Exactly. That is where the balance and valuing of companies comes in. Someone has to be paid at the end of the day for work done. It is rare that someone maintains a business if they can't make a good sum of money from it because the labor of love only goes so far. To make a satisfactory ammount of money, people want to be earning more than the company is worth. They want that mustard-seed effect. They will do the work and plant the seed and tend to that seed... but they want the revenue of a large tree.

To trade-off the tree for a seed is stupid because the tree is the end result, the work isn't needed, the planting isn't needed, the tending isn't needed, the seed's "value" is the promis of the tree... People want to expect and collect enhanced values for the work they put in. It is the system as you say. And we need to find sustainable ways of doing it.

[xelabale]

I make paper.
I use trees, I plant others, I do not take advantage.
I use electricity, I pay for it. I do not take advantage.
I offer pay, my employees accept it, I do not take advantage.
I sell my paper at a profit, this is my right, I do not take advantage.

In business, sometimes you have to be lucky. There is a gentleman who had a cleaning product introduced recently in the UK. He went from a loss to a massive profit in a very short time because of the influenza.

That is circumstancial climate of the business.

Using your example:

Say I make paper as well

- I use trees, I also plant them or support them. This is not just to "avoid taking advantage" but rather to ensure the sustainability of my own business. It is good business to ensure sustained growth and the ability to return for more later.

agreed, and possible, but not common practice - why?

- I use electricity as well to operate my business. Without it, my business does not operate, I generate no revenue. If I go for a lower quality provider, I affect the calibre of my business. I enhance the chances of something going wrong, I am gambling by utilizing something very low key. Regardless of price, the cost of an accident will hurt my business much more than paying the same high calibre company you would pay for electricity.

I'm not talking quality, I'm talking "taking advantage". If your company is morally perfect, but you use a company that is not, you are still implicated in their crimes.

- I offer pay as well. It is required as term of employment. The workers accept it based on their need for income. If they can make more money elsewhere and have greater job security, they will turn me down or pass that back to me to re-negociate what I am willing to pay to have them work for me.

**** If circumstance dictates that as of now these people cannot turn me down and go elsewhere, that is not the concern of my company. They have the same right to resign and go elsewhere in hope of a better deal as they would if times were good. Kevin O'Leary is famous for saying (while looking to aquire equity in up-and-coming companies requiring his investment): I will invest the 300,000$ you need, but for that, I will want 50% of the company because it's not worth 1,000 000$ now, It really is only worth 500,000$ or so and I will need to put in work to help you grow this. There's no way you can get money from a bank for this, they're just not lending to this stuff now, that's why your heads have to be squeezed occasionally, It's not my fault that the markets are cruel. So that's the deal I offer, embrace it for what it is - real cash that will help you achieve something that is otherwise unachievable due to market conditions that are "again - not my fault"****

In this case, if I am willing as an employer to pay X ammount of dollars for work to be done, it comes down to the workers to decide whether or not they want to "accept" or go elsewhere. If times are good, the confidence in going elsewhere is higher if the pay is lower. If times are hard, the confidence in going elsewhere is lower, regardless of pay at my company. In good economic times, I would probably sustain lesser workers than I would in hard economic times for paying average wages.

Right, but there is a moral side to this. In the bad old days when people worked down t' pits in N. England they were paid a wage they could barely support their families with, worked 6 days a week and regularly died due to poor conditions. Just because the mines could pay low wages and not care, doesn't mean they should. It is taking advantage, and you are justifying it by saying "I take advantage because I can." The fact is, it is not a victimless crime.

This is a case of the market circumstance being "cruel". Note also that in tough times, my business will incur to me additional expenses that will directly affect what I am able to pay employees.

No, it's not "the market"'s fault - you as the employer decide the wages, it's your decision. As above, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

- I sell my paper at a profit, that is my right (our right) and I do not take advantage. My margin of profit can be molded based on my electric company bills, payments to workers and remaining expenses. Depending on those items, my pricing can undercut other paper companies and take more marketshare. As my company increases it's business due to selling more by undercutting other companies who can't sell as low as me due to higher expenses, I can then re-evaluate my wages and such.

I don't understand where your profit comes from? How are you undercutting other companies and not taking advantage somewhere? The system rewards those who take more advantage, by definition.

Sometimes finding a less expensive electricity producer does not mean you sacrifice that much quality, especially in hard times people are willing to provide the same product (often the exact same performance-wise) at lesser profit just to ensure that they get the sale. Again, market circumstance. I would rather make 30% of what I would have made at full profit than 0% because someone else got your money.

You have not addressed my main point. The world and financial system is a closed system. If you profit, somewhere there is a loser. Mostly this has been "the earth" and "people who can't fight against it" up to now. Just because it's a complicated system that removes you directly from responsibility, doesn't make you less responsible.

I do not remove myself from this, I am responsible as a consumer just as much as the companies themselves, and I must do everything I can to not take advantage.

[obliterationX]

Re: Let's talk about..

Pop muzik!

[Titanic]

You have not addressed my main point. The world and financial system is a closed system. If you profit, somewhere there is a loser. Mostly this has been "the earth" and "people who can't fight against it" up to now. Just because it's a complicated system that removes you directly from responsibility, doesn't make you less responsible.

I do not remove myself from this, I am responsible as a consumer just as much as the companies themselves, and I must do everything I can to not take advantage.

I do not think a profit necessarily comes from cutting back in certain areas. Most profit comes from selling at a higher price to make sure that you recieve a profit. As long as there is enough demand then this prodit will come with the higher price.

Also on the supply side you could reduce costs through technological innovation, changing working practices (ie. Ford), outsourcing expensive operations, getting raw materials from a cheaper supplier (who could also be reducing their costs in lega/moral ways), etc...

I do agree that most business's do try to cut costs however they can, whether it is exploiting workers or cutting corners on health and safety, but the simple notion of a profit does not mean that the company is committing a crime.

[xelabale]

You have not addressed my main point. The world and financial system is a closed system. If you profit, somewhere there is a loser. Mostly this has been "the earth" and "people who can't fight against it" up to now. Just because it's a complicated system that removes you directly from responsibility, doesn't make you less responsible.

I do not remove myself from this, I am responsible as a consumer just as much as the companies themselves, and I must do everything I can to not take advantage.

I do not think a profit necessarily comes from cutting back in certain areas. Most profit comes from selling at a higher price to make sure that you recieve a profit. As long as there is enough demand then this prodit will come with the higher price.

Also on the supply side you could reduce costs through technological innovation, changing working practices (ie. Ford), outsourcing expensive operations, getting raw materials from a cheaper supplier (who could also be reducing their costs in lega/moral ways), etc...

I do agree that most business's do try to cut costs however they can, whether it is exploiting workers or cutting corners on health and safety, but the simple notion of a profit does not mean that the company is committing a crime.

I agree, profit is not intrinsically bad.

However the system is set up to encourage exploitation, and surprise, that's what happens, therefore it is legitimate to criticise the system. If you are making your profit without exploitation and get tarred with the same brush as others I sincerely apologise.

[KristenAmazon]

What Xela is getting at is that the principle of profit is a system of enhanced value somewhere along the line of trade in a system that is finite. The best example I can think of here is the balance.

Suppose your company has 50 000$ in it. You have nothing to start. Your company's only asset is that 50 000$

First you buy a small private building (say you pay 10 000$ up front). Now your business has 40 000$ in cash and a building asset valued at 10 000$. If he has to pay an inspector 1000$ to come and clear his building for usage, it's an expense incurred to his company. The inspector has to be paid for his service, and the company recieves the service of inspection, but that doesn't add to the value of the company. The company now has 39000$ cash and 10 000$ of building.

That 50 000$ is all that the entrepreneur has to work with until he starts earning revenue.



Taking again the sale of paper:

- Xela pays for electricity to allow his operation to run. His company is absorbing and using the resource of the planet, and he is compensating by paying for it.

- Xela pays replaces the trees that are being taken down by his company so that his company can produce. His company is absorbing the resource for handling and re-sale, he is compensating by re-planting.

- Xela pays workers yz ammount of dollars hourly to work for his business. They are providing him with a value of work done, he is compensating by providing them with a value of money paid.

- Xela now has product (paper) available and created for him. It's his curtesy of the expenses he's paid to have the paper made for him. Now he sells this product to a buyer who will compensate him with value of money paid (since they are paying for the paper which is the value xela is giving them).
In the closed system that xela is talking about (and I agree with), in any of those steps, if the value is perfectly balance, no one can make a profit.

If in step A) Xela is paying for just the straight equal and fair ammount of electricity he is using, then the "earth system" is not being cheated because he is paying a fair ammount of what he is using.

If in step B) Xela is paying the same ammount of money to replant the trees that he has taken, the earth is not being cheated by his taking of trees because he is replacing the same ammount.

If in step C) Xela values the work he is getting from his employees very well and pays them the exact ammount of money their work is worth to him then his workers are not being cheated because they are working hard and getting alot of money, or not working hard and not getting alot of money. If Xela is very "fair about it" then his workers will have the same value of work output as money income.

(Finally) If in step D) Xela sells his paper for just what it cost him to produce it, the final consumer, his buyer is not being cheated because he is only paying for the paper what Xela paid to have the paper.


That is the closed "perfect system". A finite system where nobody is cheated of anything. Xela pays for the electricity he uses not getting more value from that than he is paying for. Xela pays to replace the same value of trees he took. He doesn't replace less than he took to conserve money, otherwise he's cheating "nature - earth". He doesn't recieve more work from his employees than the money he's paying them. Finally, he doesn't force a buyer to pay more than he paid to have it made.

That is the perfect system. But you can see in that system no one makes a profit. For Xela to make a profit... he has to recieve more income for his output in order to make money.

- Either he gets more electricity for less money (so he saves money)
- Or he takes and works more trees than he pays to replace (so he saves money)
- Or he recieves higher valued work from his employees for the same money (so he gets more money for the same work)
- Or he charges more money from the final buyer than it cost him to make the paper himself (so the final buyer has to pay more to have it from Xela than Xela paid to get it).


This is where I believe Xela understands that the perfect system of profit comes from "somebody getting more value for less" or someone being "cheated"

In the case of the trees and electricity we are cheating the planet. In the case of workers value and final consumers, we are cheating other people.

So what branch does Xela claim his profit?

(Is that about right Xela? Do we pretty much agree there? lol)

[Titanic]

Yer in theory it would all work that way. That is pretty much what a perfect market is desribed as and it is used as a key theoretical tool in economics. However, in real life there a huge amounts of factors that affect this, and whilst I do agree that most companies do try to find as many ways as possible to break the perfect market to increase their profits, a good regulator of the market would still let them keep that profit but also make sure that they do not exploit labour or have hazerdous policies.

[Timminz]

I wish to express my disapproval with the fact that this thread is not about Salt'N Peppa.

[KristenAmazon]

Yer in theory it would all work that way. That is pretty much what a perfect market is desribed as and it is used as a key theoretical tool in economics. However, in real life there a huge amounts of factors that affect this, and whilst I do agree that most companies do try to find as many ways as possible to break the perfect market to increase their profits, a good regulator of the market would still let them keep that profit but also make sure that they do not exploit labour or have hazerdous policies.

You're right. Alot of the time the best we can hope for in today's world of business is that people strive for the best potential balance of regulation.

Contracts agreed upon between unions and big business... laws set by governments for minimum wage, Health and Safety acts that must be applied under penalty of sever financial strain, these are all ways to regulate the overall performance of several companies. Sadly though, there will always be companies looking to get ahead by means of cutting corners and in so doing will force their competition to do likewise.

We strive to encourage entrepreneurs, but given that everyone wants a return on their investment, no entrepreneur is going to put in years of labour and sweat equity to get back just what they put into their business today. If I asked you for 25,000$ to start up my business and told you that after 10 years, you would get your 25,000$ back, would you do it? Most likely not. I don't know if it's an important sum to you or not but it's irrelevent in the fact that you can put it in the bank and get a guaranteed return on it than I am giving you.

I would be offering you absolutely no incentive to invest in me if I only offered you back what you would give me today. I would need to tell you that I could double your money in 3 years. I would have to make your money work for me. I would have to work hard with it, establish my business, get my wheels rolling and be able to pay you not only your initial investment, but the sum of money that I promised you to make you decide it was worth giving me 3 years ago. Maybe my business earns me 100,000$ yearly. Maybe 150k... who knows, but I would have to give you back the 50k simply because even though you did nothing but sign the money over to me, you wanted your money to make you a return.

In a system where a perfect balance gives no one a profit... you are looking at a pure labour of love or maybe a small ma-and-pa company if you are willing to take such a small profit that it is hardly recognizeable. In certain businesses where the markets don't fluctuate, you have alot of lee-way.

Discuss if you will:

- If you ran a Morgue (There is always a market).

- If you had developped (or funded the development) of the cure for cancer giving you rights to the formula.

Certain industries are very hard to regulate because of the sheer power of the monopoly involved. I keep looking back at the example of the Federal Reserve in the states. What a business that in itself was.

[Neoteny]

I wish to express my disapproval with the fact that this thread is not about Salt'N Peppa.

We can make it so.

Let's talk about sex, baby.

[thegreekdog]

I wish to express my disapproval with the fact that this thread is not about Salt'N Peppa.

We can make it so.

Let's talk about sex, baby.

Who will be the one to reply to Timminz? Not me... Nothing against the lifestyle, but I don't swing that way.

[Neoteny]

I wish to express my disapproval with the fact that this thread is not about Salt'N Peppa.

We can make it so.

Let's talk about sex, baby.

Who will be the one to reply to Timminz? Not me... Nothing against the lifestyle, but I don't swing that way.

Let's talk about you and me.

[thegreekdog]

I wish to express my disapproval with the fact that this thread is not about Salt'N Peppa.

We can make it so.

Let's talk about sex, baby.

Who will be the one to reply to Timminz? Not me... Nothing against the lifestyle, but I don't swing that way.

Let's talk about you and me.

Let's talk about all the good things and the bad things...

[Neoteny]

Let's talk about sex for now to the people at home or in the crowd

[xelabale]

insects

http://urbanext.illinois.edu/insects/

choose the Spanish version for extra fun...

[beezer]

People should be free to make as much $$ as they want without anybody pronouncing moral condemnation against them. They should be able to enter into as many economic relationships as they feel like. As long as the relationship between employer and employee is consensual there should be nothing prohibiting them from pursuing economic happiness.

Yeah, I see where you're going with that

[luns101]

I'm disgusted by the amount of bigotry shown by leftists here on CC against capitalists. People with a strong work ethic were born that way. All they want is the same equal access to wealth and prosperity that are enjoyed by people who associate with the Democrat Party such as trial lawyers, union thugs, and ACORN officials.

It's not like any liberals are going to be hurt by capitalists being productive. They can still all go out and be lazy, unproductive, and dependent on govt.-run programs.