Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (8120)	4/21/2006 1:42:28 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

So is banditry; a highwayman is a capitalist under this definition. We are what we think we are. If you imagine you are are capitalist, you are capitalist. All 'crats imagine themselves to be capitalists. I submit that a highwayman avoids individual risk to get self gain by using cooperation, but a capitalist must seek risk for self gain using coordination. He risks his horse and weapons for gain without cooperation. A robber cooperates in order to avoid risk. As you and Smith point out this gain is necessarily limited without the division of labour and other cooperation made possible by information gained by individuals. Socialism also depends upon division of labor and information distribution. A band of highwaymen is a cooperative, capitalist individual. Can a highwayman trust those who have been joined? Do you see how the cooperation isn't cooperation at all, but treacherous usury? Is the band an individual? It's a socialist unit where every component seeks to get out more than was put in. If capitalists other than highwaymen are to thrive, it is necessary to extirpate highwaymen. This is a dictum coming out of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And so it starts. And so it ends. True, but ordinary chinese folk will continue to have bad food in their markets until the farmers get real control over the land they use. Au contraire, if the farmers gained "real control", they'd unintentionally return the country back to the dictatorship of the proletariat! The US is in high danger of doing exactly that, and taking Canada with her, western Canada. Income growth at the lowest level in China is proceeding three times as fast as it is at the lowest level in the West. I hope you can appreciate what this little item means. "Owner is alienated from the means of production", a strong point from a utilitarian standpoint. With regard to SBUX. I agree with you. I think they're better off attracting employees by telling prospective employees, "Work for us, exercise your options, buy our stock, own the company, and get rich," rather than offering health care coverage. Then you agree with my statement that the unit of socialism is actually alienating its owners from the means of production, if only because e.g., SBUX, doesn't try to make its employees owners. The point here is that any business which has employees who aren't owners, is merely a form of socialist tyranny. The owners use the slavery contributed by those who don't think they can own to get more than they could by themselves. You spoke of banditry. I'm willing to bet that a coordinated effort of individuals all of whom equally own the enterprise can defeat any other form of capitalism. Is cooperation the same as coordination? Absolutely not, for cooperation has the element of coercion where coordination has the notion of freedom of action and choice. It is through the Net that the tyranny will be broken. Health care is a bad drug that everyone thinks they need. It's tyranny and it's worthless. How tyrannical it actually is would be more obvious if it actually was worthless. It is doing at least as much harm as good, since most of it is merely the handing out of questionable drugs. It does have some value, but that's constantly declining. How could something have value if its value is constantly declining? Wouldn't that imply it would get to zero value? You'd think there's some value in value, but the only value that's of value in economics, is changing, rising, value. For example, how much value is there in a declining stock? The only value in a declining stock is the value you can get by getting rid of it, immediately. The only value in health care is getting rid of it immediately. In my part of the world I think folk cling to the health care program because of the random reinforcement. You may pay for health care out of your pocket. Everything else is tyranny, a racket, paying the protection money, where no one is protected, yet everyone lives in fear, until the state comes along and forces you under its tyranny. Give me liberty from healthcare, or give me death. One 6 year old to another: "What are you planning for your retirement? Response: "I want to be a healthcare portfolio manager for assisted living".