| [jimmyjames] Monday, December 29, 2008 1:06:59 PM | |
|
Especially when God or Gods of any type don't exist. How the hell, in this day and age, can people expect to be taken seriously when they spend their time praying to some non-existant deity. Even going to church once a week for an hour, what's that about? Crazy, meaningless rituals that are based on the fact that people can't face their own mortality. Losers.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by MG_Metalgoddess from Monday, December 29, 2008 11:07:06 AM)| |  | MG_Metalgoddess wrote: | | OMG What the HELL is going on over in LONDON !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geesh..
I wish people could just get over this entire religious thing!!!!! Who cares what religion you are!
So long as you are a kind good hearted individual, with good intentions, ... I mean its ridiculous the amount of
Violence and hardship this causes... I have meet so many people that I adore in this world.. I could care less what religion they are, that is thier personel buisness...
I think its sad, that people base the value of another person because of this.. Esp because alot of people are born, into different religions and continue to follow that religion because of thier heritage...
Anywase my Rant for the day!
MG~ |
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, December 29, 2008 12:40:05 PM | |
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Monday, December 29, 2008 11:07:06 AM | |
|
OMG What the HELL is going on over in LONDON !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Geesh..
I wish people could just get over this entire religious thing!!!!! Who cares what religion you are!
So long as you are a kind good hearted individual, with good intentions, ... I mean its ridiculous the amount of
Violence and hardship this causes... I have meet so many people that I adore in this world.. I could care less what religion they are, that is thier personel buisness...
I think its sad, that people base the value of another person because of this.. Esp because alot of people are born, into different religions and continue to follow that religion because of thier heritage...
Anywase my Rant for the day!
MG~ |
|
| [Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Monday, December 29, 2008 8:28:59 AM | |
|
Strat, what BSE means is that whenever countries ask for American or British help, we jump in and assist. Be it Taiwan, Philippines, Bosnia, Somalia, etc...And no, we don't provide aid whenever it purely suits our interests. We provide aid when there are people in trouble. That's what America and Great Britain do.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, December 29, 2008 7:25:29 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if all this moronic patriotism about "the blood of our nation" was true, it would still hardly be a compensation for the legacy of centuires of colonialism and modern day neo-colonialism. And it would definatly not be a good enough excuse for the corporate exploitation of the workforce in east Asia.
As for "whenever you are in need"... I do not know who this "you" refers to, but the fact is that the majority of the conflicts that are going on around the world never appear on our (and I suppose your) news and newspapers. If it really was about solidarity with the third world, then I guess Africa would be full of NATO troops. It isnt, tho. Western powers only interfere when their interests are in question, that is the fact of the matter.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | Very good answer. The 3rd world thinks that we here in the UK and you in America contribute little to the world's suffering. That's we don't give you enough from our own pockets. That we don't share the spoils of our labour. That we don't contribute enough to assist you in your wars. That our Imperialism has done little good in the plight of the poor. For heaven's sake.....we give you the most precious posession and gift we have. Our blood. The blood of our nation whenever you're in need. And then you have the odacity to condemn us? Shame us into guilt? Belittle and betray us? What more do you want from us? Thank you. a. Hammerstein
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! 
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Monday, December 29, 2008 8:20:04 AM | |
|
I agree HB. The vast majority of Africa is beyond help. And the worst part of cleaning up that particular mess would be equal to genocide - because putting them in prison or 'rehabiliting' them is a joke.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, December 29, 2008 8:01:02 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Well, first of all, even our vast countries have limited resources. fact is, there are troops in africa, central america, asia, etc. but, like I said we (combined rich nations) only have so many troops. Canada, has 1/3 of its troops overseas, be it afganistan, cyprus, or wherever. are there places that need more help, sure. we do the best we can. Africa though, quite frankly most of that is beynd help IMO
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if all this moronic patriotism about "the blood of our nation" was true, it would still hardly be a compensation for the legacy of centuires of colonialism and modern day neo-colonialism. And it would definatly not be a good enough excuse for the corporate exploitation of the workforce in east Asia.
As for "whenever you are in need"... I do not know who this "you" refers to, but the fact is that the majority of the conflicts that are going on around the world never appear on our (and I suppose your) news and newspapers. If it really was about solidarity with the third world, then I guess Africa would be full of NATO troops. It isnt, tho. Western powers only interfere when their interests are in question, that is the fact of the matter.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | Very good answer. The 3rd world thinks that we here in the UK and you in America contribute little to the world's suffering. That's we don't give you enough from our own pockets. That we don't share the spoils of our labour. That we don't contribute enough to assist you in your wars. That our Imperialism has done little good in the plight of the poor. For heaven's sake.....we give you the most precious posession and gift we have. Our blood. The blood of our nation whenever you're in need. And then you have the odacity to condemn us? Shame us into guilt? Belittle and betray us? What more do you want from us? Thank you. a. Hammerstein
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, December 29, 2008 8:01:02 AM | |
|
Well, first of all, even our vast countries have limited resources. fact is, there are troops in africa, central america, asia, etc. but, like I said we (combined rich nations) only have so many troops. Canada, has 1/3 of its troops overseas, be it afganistan, cyprus, or wherever. are there places that need more help, sure. we do the best we can. Africa though, quite frankly most of that is beynd help IMO
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, December 29, 2008 7:25:29 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, even if all this moronic patriotism about "the blood of our nation" was true, it would still hardly be a compensation for the legacy of centuires of colonialism and modern day neo-colonialism. And it would definatly not be a good enough excuse for the corporate exploitation of the workforce in east Asia.
As for "whenever you are in need"... I do not know who this "you" refers to, but the fact is that the majority of the conflicts that are going on around the world never appear on our (and I suppose your) news and newspapers. If it really was about solidarity with the third world, then I guess Africa would be full of NATO troops. It isnt, tho. Western powers only interfere when their interests are in question, that is the fact of the matter.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | Very good answer. The 3rd world thinks that we here in the UK and you in America contribute little to the world's suffering. That's we don't give you enough from our own pockets. That we don't share the spoils of our labour. That we don't contribute enough to assist you in your wars. That our Imperialism has done little good in the plight of the poor. For heaven's sake.....we give you the most precious posession and gift we have. Our blood. The blood of our nation whenever you're in need. And then you have the odacity to condemn us? Shame us into guilt? Belittle and betray us? What more do you want from us? Thank you. a. Hammerstein
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, December 29, 2008 7:25:29 AM | |
|
Well, even if all this moronic patriotism about "the blood of our nation" was true, it would still hardly be a compensation for the legacy of centuires of colonialism and modern day neo-colonialism. And it would definatly not be a good enough excuse for the corporate exploitation of the workforce in east Asia.
As for "whenever you are in need"... I do not know who this "you" refers to, but the fact is that the majority of the conflicts that are going on around the world never appear on our (and I suppose your) news and newspapers. If it really was about solidarity with the third world, then I guess Africa would be full of NATO troops. It isnt, tho. Western powers only interfere when their interests are in question, that is the fact of the matter.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, December 29, 2008 1:26:54 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | Very good answer. The 3rd world thinks that we here in the UK and you in America contribute little to the world's suffering. That's we don't give you enough from our own pockets. That we don't share the spoils of our labour. That we don't contribute enough to assist you in your wars. That our Imperialism has done little good in the plight of the poor. For heaven's sake.....we give you the most precious posession and gift we have. Our blood. The blood of our nation whenever you're in need. And then you have the odacity to condemn us? Shame us into guilt? Belittle and betray us? What more do you want from us? Thank you. a. Hammerstein
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Monday, December 29, 2008 6:05:47 AM | |
|
BSE, I think you meant that for _strat_, not Timboni.
In response to your post, I believe that a lot of the food and supplies we ship to these 3rd world countries gets hijacked (for lack of a better term) by the petty regimes and warlords who dominate the landscape of those places (calling Africa).
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Monday, December 29, 2008 1:26:54 AM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | Very good answer. The 3rd world thinks that we here in the UK and you in America contribute little to the world's suffering. That's we don't give you enough from our own pockets. That we don't share the spoils of our labour. That we don't contribute enough to assist you in your wars. That our Imperialism has done little good in the plight of the poor. For heaven's sake.....we give you the most precious posession and gift we have. Our blood. The blood of our nation whenever you're in need. And then you have the odacity to condemn us? Shame us into guilt? Belittle and betray us? What more do you want from us? Thank you. a. Hammerstein
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Monday, December 29, 2008 1:26:54 AM | |
|
Very good answer. The 3rd world thinks that we here in the UK and you in America contribute little to the world's suffering. That's we don't give you enough from our own pockets. That we don't share the spoils of our labour. That we don't contribute enough to assist you in your wars. That our Imperialism has done little good in the plight of the poor. For heaven's sake.....we give you the most precious posession and gift we have. Our blood. The blood of our nation whenever you're in need. And then you have the odacity to condemn us? Shame us into guilt? Belittle and betray us? What more do you want from us? Thank you. a. Hammerstein
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:32:52 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, December 28, 2008 6:55:43 PM | |
|
probably fear of either being shot, or losing what job they had. if those in say vietnam organized then the jobs go to bangledesh. and the police in these sorts of places dont mind mass graves.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, December 28, 2008 5:35:54 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Then I guess that the managers shouldnt bother with outsourcing in the first place.
The thing with rights above all takes organization and determination from those that need them. I dont know why dont the workers in the third world countries get organized and do it, but if they did, I can assure you that the stuff that goes on now with sweatsop and legal slave labour would have been washed away so soon you wouldnt even beleive it. And that would have been the right thing to do as well.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they cant get paid the same though, otherwise how would you pay to ship the products to north america and europe? and if you dont make more, why do it? I agree with the rights thing, but it takes time. Japan in the 50's was like that, by the 90's they had one of the highest standards of living around.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I wouldnt know about how bad they are. But the money that is saved with outsourcing is an indicator that people that do the jons overseas are terribly underpaid. Not to mention that they dont enjoy the same labour rights as we do.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, are they not beter off with those jobs than the no jobs they had before hand, no farms, no hope. at least its some hope. not perfect, but a start. some of the sweatshops need a kick in the ass, but most overseas jobs are not that bad.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, December 28, 2008 5:35:54 PM | |
|
Then I guess that the managers shouldnt bother with outsourcing in the first place.
The thing with rights above all takes organization and determination from those that need them. I dont know why dont the workers in the third world countries get organized and do it, but if they did, I can assure you that the stuff that goes on now with sweatsop and legal slave labour would have been washed away so soon you wouldnt even beleive it. And that would have been the right thing to do as well.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, December 28, 2008 10:45:58 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | they cant get paid the same though, otherwise how would you pay to ship the products to north america and europe? and if you dont make more, why do it? I agree with the rights thing, but it takes time. Japan in the 50's was like that, by the 90's they had one of the highest standards of living around.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I wouldnt know about how bad they are. But the money that is saved with outsourcing is an indicator that people that do the jons overseas are terribly underpaid. Not to mention that they dont enjoy the same labour rights as we do.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, are they not beter off with those jobs than the no jobs they had before hand, no farms, no hope. at least its some hope. not perfect, but a start. some of the sweatshops need a kick in the ass, but most overseas jobs are not that bad.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Sunday, December 28, 2008 10:45:58 AM | |
|
they cant get paid the same though, otherwise how would you pay to ship the products to north america and europe? and if you dont make more, why do it? I agree with the rights thing, but it takes time. Japan in the 50's was like that, by the 90's they had one of the highest standards of living around.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:33:08 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I wouldnt know about how bad they are. But the money that is saved with outsourcing is an indicator that people that do the jons overseas are terribly underpaid. Not to mention that they dont enjoy the same labour rights as we do.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, are they not beter off with those jobs than the no jobs they had before hand, no farms, no hope. at least its some hope. not perfect, but a start. some of the sweatshops need a kick in the ass, but most overseas jobs are not that bad.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:33:08 AM | |
|
I wouldnt know about how bad they are. But the money that is saved with outsourcing is an indicator that people that do the jons overseas are terribly underpaid. Not to mention that they dont enjoy the same labour rights as we do.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:22:23 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, are they not beter off with those jobs than the no jobs they had before hand, no farms, no hope. at least its some hope. not perfect, but a start. some of the sweatshops need a kick in the ass, but most overseas jobs are not that bad.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:31:05 AM | |
|
Yeah, lol. Jesus can kiss my ass, I can run miles on water...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:13:50 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | see, we dont always disagree. I too have a beach then water that is in a form that can be walked upon by mere mortals
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe in California it is. With our temperatures, Id have to bring an icepick to the beach.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | | Dive right in, the water's fine. Everyone has something to say and it all counts equally in my book. I think you summed it up perfectly if I'm reading you right. Creative mind + quality product = success ( reward ) Simple math to me. |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:29:26 AM | |
|
Well, I guess we could squeeze in a word or two about the US supported juntas and totalitarian regimes as well. Not everything that the US does outside its borders is good.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| | | spapad wrote: | | A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:27:40 AM | |
|
I agree, they are not interchangable, and my mistake if I sometimes use them like they are. Communism: a classless, stateless society, with no private ownership over the means of production, and also an ideology that strives for that. Socialism: a movement that includes communism, anarchism, social democracy, and other similar ideologies. Thats how I generaly define and use the terms. And yes, ideology and real life practice are very different. Thats why I often say that the so-called communist countries arent and werent communist.
Now to our elections... As I pointed out, the parties that appeared on the elections were those that were on the winning side in the war. The right wing parties collaborated with the axis, and I see that as a good enough reason as to why they shouldnt be let to participate on those elections. Hell, they shouldnt participate in any elections since. It is well known what happened to Yugoslavia when the right wing nationalists came back to power in the late 80s.
I said "propaganda" because I think that much of what you say about communism comes from the anti-communist propaganda that is and was rampant in the US. No hard feelings, its just an impression that I get.
As for the creativity and weapons... While creating and designing weapons may be creative, we still have to keep in mind the purpose behind it. The AK-47 and the M-16 assault rifles are not hunting weapons. They were made with killing humans as their purpose, as is the case with nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy itself is not a military thing. It can be used for many purposes. But nuclear weapons really only have one purpose.
As for the nuclear bombing of Japan, I cant really say much. I dont know much about the war in the pacific, although I guess it could succed without nukes, or maybe by dropping them on military instead of civilian targets. IDK.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:39 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Ideology and real life practice are very far apart and we both know it. You also seem to use the terms Communism and Socialism interchangeably. They are not the same.
Let's see. The parties in the election were, as you stated, the Communitst Party, Social Democrates and Christian Socialists. Doesn't sound like much of a choice and the results were as to be expected. I think if you look around, you will find that those margins are to be expected in an "election" in which the Communist Party is a participant.
"Propaganda" ? I don't recall using that word. You're revealing yourself Comrade !
I agree on the subject of weapons being a waste of time, however the actual creativity that I love is usually not at that level. Normally, the creativity is in the theory not the application. Splitting the atom and nuclear power was genius. The military application is another matter. Let me pose this to you. Being that most people cannot see into the future, aside from Nostradamus ( nice little Priest reference ! ), how do you see the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan ? Did they help to end a war that was unprovoked by a surprise attack ? Was it the mis-use of a creative vision ? Something other ?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | " Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:47:59 PM | |
|
Sad but true 
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:44:38 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | It would be nice. Too many people ready to be offended, ready to be right, ready to hate in the name of a higher purpose.
| | | spapad wrote: | | Amen! 
Still with all the hostility in this world. Let peace reign someday!
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:44:38 PM | |
|
It would be nice. Too many people ready to be offended, ready to be right, ready to hate in the name of a higher purpose.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:42:26 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Amen!
Still with all the hostility in this world. Let peace reign someday!
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:42:26 PM | |
|
Amen!
Still with all the hostility in this world. Let peace reign someday!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:32:52 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:32:52 PM | |
|
Or better said, hated by those that find out that freedom comes with a price tag. We paid for it with the lives of our own. If you can't get it done yourself, then you owe the people that gave their lives for your freedom. I'll say it again because it bears repeating . . . . NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE !
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:11:58 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:23:06 PM | |
|
good CEO's are rare, good bartenders are more comon, good broom pushers even more comon
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The company could have grown and it could have developed into a much better and fairer company than it is without Gates calling the shots in the first place. I understand that he is a good computer programmer. All fine and well. Imo, he should do that job and get his fair share for it. Thats it.
The thing is (as I believe I also said before) that the entire structure of any company (not just Microsoft or GM) is wrong, as is the entire economic system.
The thing about people that have skill in runnig things is... Yes they are limited. But good people are limited in any proffesion. Why is it that only the people that can run things get so much, as opposed to others? Well, because they run things. But why arent they limited in running things? Well, fuck knows.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | leaving aside the fact that no one (well almost no one) likes windows
replace gates early on, you get no where. everyone else loses their jobs. Replace gates today, dunno, might go ok. then again, to do that you have to hire someone from outside, someone with experience running a huge company, and with the skills to keep it going. they probably need a lot of programing knowledge also. take one of the department or product managers, make him CEO, and it wont work. I would give it a 1% chance.
we go back to supply and demand. the people with the skills, training, drive and ambition to be a major CEO are limited.just as gold is more expensive than iron, that which is rare is in demand.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | ...doing bussines as usual? Only of course, someone would pick up where Gates left, and they would be in the same situation.
Tho, of course, Gates can be credited with ideas that helped make Microsoft what it is today (for better or for worse). But again... The same question we went over and over again. Is he entitled to such a fortune just for the work he did? I dont think so.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | sure, but without gates, where are they? without any of the workers, he hires a different worker.
its not all about him, but he is a large chunk of it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I would imagine that he employed them as he went along. The fact here is that Microsoft (the name is allegedly inspired from Bill Gatess genitals) is an international corporation, that has its subsidiaries in practicly every country in the world, and does more than just develop new crap, but sells it, promotes it, provides service for it... ect. Even though Gates may have had the idea and did work in his field, there is still much more to Microsoft than just what he does or did.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:22:23 PM | |
|
but, are they not beter off with those jobs than the no jobs they had before hand, no farms, no hope. at least its some hope. not perfect, but a start. some of the sweatshops need a kick in the ass, but most overseas jobs are not that bad.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:49:36 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:13:50 PM | |
|
see, we dont always disagree. I too have a beach then water that is in a form that can be walked upon by mere mortals
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:52:54 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe in California it is. With our temperatures, Id have to bring an icepick to the beach.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | | Dive right in, the water's fine. Everyone has something to say and it all counts equally in my book. I think you summed it up perfectly if I'm reading you right. Creative mind + quality product = success ( reward ) Simple math to me. |
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:11:58 PM | |
|
While that is true, we can not cut ourselves off. We are like the comic book hero. Feared by many, hated only by those who know we are comming for them. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM)
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
| |
|
spapad wrote: |
| |
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 8:15:31 PM |
|
| [TIMBONI] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:54:02 PM | |
|
Hurrah ! Another one of my pet peeves. The world seems to want to spite us, but when the "pit bull" is needed they don't hesitate to call or even blame us for not forseeing the need even if the call never came ! Protect the world, feed the world, but leave the world alone. NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE ! If the world wants to be left alone, leave the U.S. out of it and stop asking us to give "life and limb" for you and then spit on us and tell us to get out.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:48:08 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:39 PM | |
|
Ideology and real life practice are very far apart and we both know it. You also seem to use the terms Communism and Socialism interchangeably. They are not the same.
Let's see. The parties in the election were, as you stated, the Communitst Party, Social Democrates and Christian Socialists. Doesn't sound like much of a choice and the results were as to be expected. I think if you look around, you will find that those margins are to be expected in an "election" in which the Communist Party is a participant.
"Propaganda" ? I don't recall using that word. You're revealing yourself Comrade !
I agree on the subject of weapons being a waste of time, however the actual creativity that I love is usually not at that level. Normally, the creativity is in the theory not the application. Splitting the atom and nuclear power was genius. The military application is another matter. Let me pose this to you. Being that most people cannot see into the future, aside from Nostradamus ( nice little Priest reference ! ), how do you see the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan ? Did they help to end a war that was unprovoked by a surprise attack ? Was it the mis-use of a creative vision ? Something other ?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | " Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:48:08 PM | |
|
A very interesting point of view from a place I have never been. You see, americans are dreadfuly aware that we live in a free country and we boast of it all the time, and go to other countries and generally make asses out of ourselves.
I have been abroad, like many of my friends on this site, and it is sad to find out that our aspect of us as Americans is seen so diffterent around the world becuase of our foreign policy mostly. We Americans don't know our foreign policy, we just live and watch news, that is slanted to our view.
We are also though, not to my happiness, the world's Pit Bull. ...........Something going on no one wants to get their hands dirty with but wants the job done, well, Hell Yeah~! Call the U.S. of A.!
With that said!
Yes we are blissfully ignorant about some things!
Yes we are obnoxious!
Yes we are proud even where others think we should not be!
BUT We as a collective, are a great country just like yours and any other country. I BIG PLACE built by idividuals who stand as a whole.
Love to all! [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:50:03 PM |
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:35:11 PM | |
|
Now thats a thought... Nah. We only do that for minor offenses.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:22:52 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Timbo, well said! I enjoyed every word of that!
Strat, as for the Justin Timberlake punishment. May I opt for death by bamboo shoots being inserted under my fingernails?
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | " Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:33:49 PM | |
|
Communism as a political ideology actualy supports full democratic decision making in regards to how busineses should be run. It is in the Manifesto, and has been advocated (although admitedly not actualy carried out as it should have been) by all socialist regimes so far.
And that was not a joke. I do not know the details for other parts of Yugoslavia (although it is a fact that the elections took place in all republics and both autonomous provinces), but in Slovenia the elections were held on the 11th November 1945. The parties were those that were on the winning side in WW2, and included the Communist Party, the Social Democrats and the Christian Socialists. Although I do not remeber the exact percentage of the vote, the Communist party won with well over 50% (come to think of it, it was higher even than that). Also, they were the first elections in our history where women were allowed to vote.
Do not think for a minute that just because you live in a so called "free country", that there is no propaganda. Infact the anti-communist propaganda in the USA is something that even Goebbels would have been proud of.
Moving on... As far as Im concerned, any minute spent on designing, manufacturing and above all using weapons is a minute wasted. Shame that the people who do it always think that they should use it as well, making us all inseczre and threatened.
And unions... Was it their idea? Did they come up with it? Not bloody likely. What I find much more likely is that the CEOs and managers didnt want to give up what would have been a small part of their spoils, and instead moved the factories to China.
And as I said, creativity can be good or bad, depending on how we use it, so I agree on the atomic energy bit.
Accordingly can be difficult to decide, I know. I like to compare it to freedom. You only get as much as you can without interfering in somebody elses. I guess this should apply to dealing the profit as well? That is something that should be thought on. Though right now not by me, because I will be going to bed shortly. So, if I am MIA, that means good night, and see you tomorrow.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:11:20 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | " Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:22:52 PM | |
|
Timbo, well said! I enjoyed every word of that!
Strat, as for the Justin Timberlake punishment. May I opt for death by bamboo shoots being inserted under my fingernails?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:11:20 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | " Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:11:56 PM | |
|
I am mercifull. I will let you off with only a fifth of the punishment. You will only listen to Justin Timberlake CDs... And youll be loving it!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:01:49 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Im on my knees sir! .................PLEASE! Have Mercy!..................Not the N'Sync CDs! ARRRRGGGHHHHH!!! Anihilated!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Its "The Great Socialist Federal Soviet Democratic Peoples Republic of Judas Priest", for your information.
Now, of to the gulag with you... "Guards, prepare the N´Sync CDs!"
| | | spapad wrote: | | | LONG LIVE THE PEOPLES' REPUBLIC OF PRIEST! LMAO! |
|
|
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:11:20 PM | |
|
" Blue collar " is a term used to describe the working class. The "get your hands dirty" portion of the workforce.
Elections ? That's funny ! You always have that sense of humor. I think that aside from knowing our history, we need a little more realism and honesty. Communism has NEVER supported open and honest elections.
"Lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requirement for the musician to make good music" ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREED.
Kalashnikov's design of the AK-47 was extremely creative. A "blue collar" weapon and deserving of all the credit he has received. It's influence being positive or negative is perspective.
This is where we disagree the most. Creativity is EVERYTHING. It is ideas . . . invention . . . something from nothing ! Atomic energy was an amazing discovery that has changed the world, both for better and worse. It creates power for lighting, heat, etc. It also has the power to take lives. The idea has no contribution until the user decides how to use it.
Now to "how it is used": outsourcing. We have come full circle. UNIONS ! Unions created outsourcing. They created an atmosphere where there is no loyalty ( yes, I already know the return fire but if we are at unions we are beyond the point prior to their creation ) The pendulum swung the other direction and the employees ( unions ) became the ogre in the workplace "creating" the necessity to find a cheaper workforce in order to supply the same product at an affordable price. It's a vicious circle. The worker wants more to afford wants, the company charges more for the goods to pay the employee, the prices of goods go up and worker want more to afford them, etc . . .
Lastly, I would like to know what you consider accordingly and who decides that ? Here, the market decides. If one is willing to pay for it, it is "accordingly". If the market considers it out of line, purchases cease and the product either dies or the price is adjusted to suit the willingness of the consumer to buy.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:49:36 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:01:49 PM | |
|
Im on my knees sir! .................PLEASE! Have Mercy!..................Not the N'Sync CDs! ARRRRGGGHHHHH!!! Anihilated!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:59:34 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Its "The Great Socialist Federal Soviet Democratic Peoples Republic of Judas Priest", for your information.
Now, of to the gulag with you... "Guards, prepare the N´Sync CDs!"
| | | spapad wrote: | | | LONG LIVE THE PEOPLES' REPUBLIC OF PRIEST! LMAO! |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:59:34 PM | |
|
Its "The Great Socialist Federal Soviet Democratic Peoples Republic of Judas Priest", for your information.
Now, of to the gulag with you... "Guards, prepare the N´Sync CDs!"
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:55:41 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | | LONG LIVE THE PEOPLES' REPUBLIC OF PRIEST! LMAO! |
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:55:41 PM | |
|
| LONG LIVE THE PEOPLES' REPUBLIC OF PRIEST! LMAO! |
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:53:28 PM | |
|
Yes sir, that is right!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:51:33 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | | Dive right in, the water's fine. Everyone has something to say and it all counts equally in my book. I think you summed it up perfectly if I'm reading you right. Creative mind + quality product = success ( reward ) Simple math to me. |
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:52:54 PM | |
|
Maybe in California it is. With our temperatures, Id have to bring an icepick to the beach.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:51:33 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | | Dive right in, the water's fine. Everyone has something to say and it all counts equally in my book. I think you summed it up perfectly if I'm reading you right. Creative mind + quality product = success ( reward ) Simple math to me. |
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:51:33 PM | |
|
| Dive right in, the water's fine. Everyone has something to say and it all counts equally in my book. I think you summed it up perfectly if I'm reading you right. Creative mind + quality product = success ( reward ) Simple math to me. |
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:49:36 PM | |
|
First of all, could you please explain "blue collar"? First time I hear of that term.
Well, the communist party had a very wide public support, that was expressed in very well documented and trasparent elections right after WW2, and with the popluar support during the war itself. But I think its better that we leave this subject behind. Im sure that we each know the history of our nations.
As for Priest, I dont exactly know how they actualy do business. I know how business is done in my area of expertise, and Im coming out of that position. Tho I will say that lavishly rewarding the musician is not a requierment for the musician to make good music.
Ok, creativity... First of all we need to make clear what creativity are we talking about. Mikhail Kalashnikov was very creative and inovative when he designed the AK-47, but that doesnt necesarily mean that his invention was a positive contribution to the humanity. Infact, it was quite the opposite, as is with practicly every weapon that was, is, or will be designed. What Im basicly trying to say is that creativity is not an inherently good thing. It entirely depends on how it is used and for what. A business example: outsourcing. I guess that when ot first came along it was creative. Move the work to somewhere where its cheaper, save money, higher profits, the CEO bags more money in rewards. Workers in developed countries lost their jobs, while workers in 3rd world countries got jobs... That are more similar to slavery than employment.
Sure creativity can be used for "good", or so to speak, but we must be carefull about what is good, for whom and why is it good. And reward it accordingly, instead of lavishly.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:59:42 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [spapad] Saturday, December 27, 2008 6:48:18 PM | |
|
This is like wadding into the water and finding it a bit deep! Halford manages his business like a good business man. I makes every penny count and I am glad to be one of his customers.
Priest, as a whole have the reputation and the craft to put together things no record company with any forsight is going to decline. A Grammy Nomination this year.
As for the rest, It sounds like, "we will drive the peoples truck, carrying the peoples message, for as long as the peoples gas holds out. LOL
Sorry, little shallow on Politico! |
|
| [TIMBONI] Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:59:42 PM | |
|
I have to say that this is incredibly interesting to see how the same subject is viewed from different perspectives. I understand your point about the work environment being created by and serving the community without the need for an individuals desires for greatness. It's a very "blue collar" view as we would call it.
I'm not exactly so sure that the entrance and exit of communism was as voluntary as you would like to believe and there are ALWAYS foreign governments influencing EVERYTHING. No matter what country you are in. Even here.
As for the Priest, I give them far more credit than you. I'm no expert, but I've played "the game" at the elementary level. At this point in their career, the record company had better be the ones serving them or they have done something drastically wrong. Look at Rob. He has made bold moves to gain as much control of his "product" as possible. Look at how he distributes his music, mostly via download eliminating the "middle man".
The one thing I think you are not allowing to enter the equation is creativity. This is one of the primary aspects of a capitalist economy and that is why it can be so richly rewarded.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:56:44 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36:41 PM | |
|
The company could have grown and it could have developed into a much better and fairer company than it is without Gates calling the shots in the first place. I understand that he is a good computer programmer. All fine and well. Imo, he should do that job and get his fair share for it. Thats it.
The thing is (as I believe I also said before) that the entire structure of any company (not just Microsoft or GM) is wrong, as is the entire economic system.
The thing about people that have skill in runnig things is... Yes they are limited. But good people are limited in any proffesion. Why is it that only the people that can run things get so much, as opposed to others? Well, because they run things. But why arent they limited in running things? Well, fuck knows.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, December 27, 2008 11:27:53 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | leaving aside the fact that no one (well almost no one) likes windows
replace gates early on, you get no where. everyone else loses their jobs. Replace gates today, dunno, might go ok. then again, to do that you have to hire someone from outside, someone with experience running a huge company, and with the skills to keep it going. they probably need a lot of programing knowledge also. take one of the department or product managers, make him CEO, and it wont work. I would give it a 1% chance.
we go back to supply and demand. the people with the skills, training, drive and ambition to be a major CEO are limited.just as gold is more expensive than iron, that which is rare is in demand.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | ...doing bussines as usual? Only of course, someone would pick up where Gates left, and they would be in the same situation.
Tho, of course, Gates can be credited with ideas that helped make Microsoft what it is today (for better or for worse). But again... The same question we went over and over again. Is he entitled to such a fortune just for the work he did? I dont think so.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | sure, but without gates, where are they? without any of the workers, he hires a different worker.
its not all about him, but he is a large chunk of it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I would imagine that he employed them as he went along. The fact here is that Microsoft (the name is allegedly inspired from Bill Gatess genitals) is an international corporation, that has its subsidiaries in practicly every country in the world, and does more than just develop new crap, but sells it, promotes it, provides service for it... ect. Even though Gates may have had the idea and did work in his field, there is still much more to Microsoft than just what he does or did.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 27, 2008 11:27:53 AM | |
|
leaving aside the fact that no one (well almost no one) likes windows
replace gates early on, you get no where. everyone else loses their jobs. Replace gates today, dunno, might go ok. then again, to do that you have to hire someone from outside, someone with experience running a huge company, and with the skills to keep it going. they probably need a lot of programing knowledge also. take one of the department or product managers, make him CEO, and it wont work. I would give it a 1% chance.
we go back to supply and demand. the people with the skills, training, drive and ambition to be a major CEO are limited.just as gold is more expensive than iron, that which is rare is in demand.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 27, 2008 10:32:51 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | ...doing bussines as usual? Only of course, someone would pick up where Gates left, and they would be in the same situation.
Tho, of course, Gates can be credited with ideas that helped make Microsoft what it is today (for better or for worse). But again... The same question we went over and over again. Is he entitled to such a fortune just for the work he did? I dont think so.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | sure, but without gates, where are they? without any of the workers, he hires a different worker.
its not all about him, but he is a large chunk of it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I would imagine that he employed them as he went along. The fact here is that Microsoft (the name is allegedly inspired from Bill Gatess genitals) is an international corporation, that has its subsidiaries in practicly every country in the world, and does more than just develop new crap, but sells it, promotes it, provides service for it... ect. Even though Gates may have had the idea and did work in his field, there is still much more to Microsoft than just what he does or did.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 27, 2008 10:32:51 AM | |
|
...doing bussines as usual? Only of course, someone would pick up where Gates left, and they would be in the same situation.
Tho, of course, Gates can be credited with ideas that helped make Microsoft what it is today (for better or for worse). But again... The same question we went over and over again. Is he entitled to such a fortune just for the work he did? I dont think so.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 26, 2008 9:55:55 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | sure, but without gates, where are they? without any of the workers, he hires a different worker.
its not all about him, but he is a large chunk of it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I would imagine that he employed them as he went along. The fact here is that Microsoft (the name is allegedly inspired from Bill Gatess genitals) is an international corporation, that has its subsidiaries in practicly every country in the world, and does more than just develop new crap, but sells it, promotes it, provides service for it... ect. Even though Gates may have had the idea and did work in his field, there is still much more to Microsoft than just what he does or did.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 26, 2008 9:55:55 PM | |
|
sure, but without gates, where are they? without any of the workers, he hires a different worker.
its not all about him, but he is a large chunk of it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 26, 2008 4:38:40 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I would imagine that he employed them as he went along. The fact here is that Microsoft (the name is allegedly inspired from Bill Gatess genitals) is an international corporation, that has its subsidiaries in practicly every country in the world, and does more than just develop new crap, but sells it, promotes it, provides service for it... ect. Even though Gates may have had the idea and did work in his field, there is still much more to Microsoft than just what he does or did.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 26, 2008 4:38:40 PM | |
|
I would imagine that he employed them as he went along. The fact here is that Microsoft (the name is allegedly inspired from Bill Gatess genitals) is an international corporation, that has its subsidiaries in practicly every country in the world, and does more than just develop new crap, but sells it, promotes it, provides service for it... ect. Even though Gates may have had the idea and did work in his field, there is still much more to Microsoft than just what he does or did.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, December 25, 2008 6:16:23 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, December 25, 2008 6:16:23 PM | |
|
but he didnt have legions of workers. and if it sucks, he must be briliant to convince everyone to buy it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:53:28 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, December 25, 2008 6:15:50 PM | |
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:56:44 AM | |
|
Well, I still think that it is very much correct. The enviroment is created by all the people that work for it. A company would not be able to hire new employees, if it wasnt for the old employees making enough profit to make it possible. Now, I know that it had to start somewhere, with some guy who just started a business and employed an assistant, or something similar, but the further we go from there, the more alienated the leadership will become with the rest of the employees. My work enviroment was not created by the CEO of my company. It was created by the people that worked in a particular section of the company that decided that they need another employee to get the work done. And with my work I am repaying for it.
Now, you totaly missed the next point. We went under "communist control" as you put it, volountarily, just as we left it volountarily, in both cases with certain sacrifices and a strong popular support, without the intervention of "foreign governments". But that is beside the point, really. What I was trying to illustrate is that there are alternatives to capitalist mode of production, and we had one of it, that was working well. Most of the companies that still form the bulk of our economy today were not created in private hands. They were created in a socialist, state-planned economy. They were created not because of "one mans dream of greatness" or anything like that. They were established when and where there was need for them, and they were developed and expanded accordingly. And more importantly, they were not created by one man that would make great risks or sacrifices. They were made collectively, and served the entire society, instead of one mans pocket. Im also absolutely sure that we are not the only such example. They can be found all over the former eastern bloc, even in the "evil empire", the former USSR. Now, say what you want about communism and red scare, and stuff like that, but that aproach to economy is better than just letting the busineses to do what they want, and then throw billions at them when they are in trouble.
If anything, Judas Priest serve a corporation that is their record company, and it is exactly because of the greed of the record companies that we have to pay such ridiculously high prices for the music.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:03:36 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:03:36 PM | |
|
Unfortunately, it would be the fifth time you have incorrectly pointed out that. It is NOT the poor that have created the environment in which they work. It is the "rich" or at least someone who is able to "risk" that has done that. You claim is was not the CEO that took the risk. In some instances you are correct, in others you are not. How big of a company are we speaking ? In most of the environments that you and I might earn a living, the CEO is the one that took the risk. We don't all work for IBM, GM or other such initialed companies.
There are always risks. It's just a matter of who took them. In your case, your country took them. Along with the backing of all the countries that did not want your country to come under communist control. Do not for one minute think that there was no risk. It was just not by an individual, it was by multiple governments. I agree that there are many alternatives to capitalism, but let's be clear when we speak.
By the way, I would check carefully. Although I have not checked myself, I would almost be willing to bet that Judas Priest is a corporation. I agree that, to make a point, I stretched the subject but at this point Judas Priest is not just artistic. They took a chance ( risk ) and are reaping the rewards. They had an idea and are reaping the rewards. They employ a workforce and do not necessarily share their income equally with that workforce even though they would be back in the clubs without them.
Think ! It might not be what you want to hear, but it's a perfect comparison !
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:08:17 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:53:28 PM | |
|
Yeah right. The guy makes a new system that is exactly like the old one, except it crashes more often, and thats why he should get billions. And of course, he has legions of employees all over the world that do his bidding for him.
He is a hypocrate, thats what he is.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:38:33 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | bill gates, and he gave it all away!
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:51:29 PM | |
|
Sssssssssssssoooo... You hearsssssss them toooo.... Itsss them filthy hobitsessssss, preciousssssss...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:38:24 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right, its not a sick and cynical mind, its personalities, as in multiple
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, thats just the way it is... St. Nicholas is a clerofascist, Santa is a corporate maniac. Grandfather Frost is the only one that is more or less decent.
Oh, and I dont have a sick and cynical mind. I just type what the voices tell me...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OY! Leave it to you guys to turn poor old Santa into some kind of evil icon for big corporations! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What sick and cynical minds you have!!! |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:38:33 PM | |
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:38:24 PM | |
|
thats right, its not a sick and cynical mind, its personalities, as in multiple
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:15:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, thats just the way it is... St. Nicholas is a clerofascist, Santa is a corporate maniac. Grandfather Frost is the only one that is more or less decent.
Oh, and I dont have a sick and cynical mind. I just type what the voices tell me...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OY! Leave it to you guys to turn poor old Santa into some kind of evil icon for big corporations! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What sick and cynical minds you have!!! |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:19:21 PM | |
|
IDK, there is still the fate worse than minimal wage, which is unemployment. Or, rather, it depends on what the minimal wage is in comparison to the aid for the unemployed.
That, and the minimal wage usualy doesnt suffice for much more than just paying the bills and buying enough food and clothes to survive. And even that is not always the case. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:23:56 AM)
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
kiss plays for money, the music is secondary
shouldnt people who have those skills get paid accordingly?
I dont mind minimum wages, everyone needs a starting point, but make them too high, and before long, no one is working
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Dunno why Kiss is a better example... Anyway, employment. First of all, starting your own business is not an option for everyone, infact its not an option for most people. Not everyone has the ability to run a business. And if everyone was a business owner, what would the world look like? Who would work behind the assembly lines?
Changing your skills is not all that easy. There are many jobs that require a full comitment over many years to learn to do properly. Its not like I can just change my proffesion to find another job. Its a long procces.
Stay or leave. Where would this end? If there werent some minimums that an employer has to provide... We would get back into the 19th centruy, when workers literary slept in factories and worker just for bare existance.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
priest might not be the best example, try kiss
the thing is, the employer decides what your work is worth to him. you decide what the job means to you, if they match, you stay, if not you leave. if your not happy with the jobs offered or the pay you move, or you change your skills, or you start your own business.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| |
|
TIMBONI wrote: |
| |
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:24:30 PM |
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:17:03 PM | |
|
True, but wealth that is created by whom?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:22:57 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | no. for the poor to have more doesnt nessesarily reduce what the rich have.
and for the rich to have less, wont give the poor less. you see the pool of money which we draw from is not a set number. it varies with the wealth that is created
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Both. One goes with the other, doesnt it?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | strat, do you want the poor to have more or the rich to have less?
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:15:41 PM | |
|
Well, thats just the way it is... St. Nicholas is a clerofascist, Santa is a corporate maniac. Grandfather Frost is the only one that is more or less decent.
Oh, and I dont have a sick and cynical mind. I just type what the voices tell me...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:56:42 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OY! Leave it to you guys to turn poor old Santa into some kind of evil icon for big corporations! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What sick and cynical minds you have!!! |
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:23:56 AM | |
|
kiss plays for money, the music is secondary
shouldnt people who have those skills get paid accordingly?
I dont mind minimum wages, everyone needs a starting point, but make them too high, and before long, no one is working
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:23:55 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Dunno why Kiss is a better example... Anyway, employment. First of all, starting your own business is not an option for everyone, infact its not an option for most people. Not everyone has the ability to run a business. And if everyone was a business owner, what would the world look like? Who would work behind the assembly lines?
Changing your skills is not all that easy. There are many jobs that require a full comitment over many years to learn to do properly. Its not like I can just change my proffesion to find another job. Its a long procces.
Stay or leave. Where would this end? If there werent some minimums that an employer has to provide... We would get back into the 19th centruy, when workers literary slept in factories and worker just for bare existance.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | priest might not be the best example, try kiss
the thing is, the employer decides what your work is worth to him. you decide what the job means to you, if they match, you stay, if not you leave. if your not happy with the jobs offered or the pay you move, or you change your skills, or you start your own business.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:22:57 AM | |
|
no. for the poor to have more doesnt nessesarily reduce what the rich have.
and for the rich to have less, wont give the poor less. you see the pool of money which we draw from is not a set number. it varies with the wealth that is created
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:19:02 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Both. One goes with the other, doesnt it?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | strat, do you want the poor to have more or the rich to have less?
|
|
|
|
| [scorpion01] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:18:20 AM | |
|
FATHER CHRISTMAS, GIVE ME YOUR MONEY, I'VE GOT NO TIME FOR YOUR SILLY TOYS. WHO WAS THAT? THE KINKS I BELIEVE?
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE. |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:56:42 AM | |
|
OY! Leave it to you guys to turn poor old Santa into some kind of evil icon for big corporations! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What sick and cynical minds you have!!! |
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:23:55 AM | |
|
Dunno why Kiss is a better example... Anyway, employment. First of all, starting your own business is not an option for everyone, infact its not an option for most people. Not everyone has the ability to run a business. And if everyone was a business owner, what would the world look like? Who would work behind the assembly lines?
Changing your skills is not all that easy. There are many jobs that require a full comitment over many years to learn to do properly. Its not like I can just change my proffesion to find another job. Its a long procces.
Stay or leave. Where would this end? If there werent some minimums that an employer has to provide... We would get back into the 19th centruy, when workers literary slept in factories and worker just for bare existance.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:52:02 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | priest might not be the best example, try kiss
the thing is, the employer decides what your work is worth to him. you decide what the job means to you, if they match, you stay, if not you leave. if your not happy with the jobs offered or the pay you move, or you change your skills, or you start your own business.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:19:02 AM | |
|
Both. One goes with the other, doesnt it?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:13:16 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | strat, do you want the poor to have more or the rich to have less?
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:13:16 AM | |
|
strat, do you want the poor to have more or the rich to have less?
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:57:13 AM | |
|
sure, I dont have any coke with santa on it this year anyway.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:50:30 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ummm... Lets jsut say that he doesnt exist, and be done with it, ok?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, his job is apearing in comercials, thats a volenteer spot, if you are a volenteer, how can you be exploited
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No, he is exploited. He has to circle the globe in a single night, and give presents to little brats, and gets only milk and cookies in return.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, not exploited, the image of santa in red was created by coke, they spent money developing the image santa has today, shouldnt they be able to profit from that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | He does, and he is being exploited by the Coca Cola corporation to appear in their adds. Ever wondered why he is all derssed up in red? Comrade Clause will be the leader of the new world revolution!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:52:02 AM | |
|
priest might not be the best example, try kiss
the thing is, the employer decides what your work is worth to him. you decide what the job means to you, if they match, you stay, if not you leave. if your not happy with the jobs offered or the pay you move, or you change your skills, or you start your own business.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:08:17 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:50:30 AM | |
|
Ummm... Lets jsut say that he doesnt exist, and be done with it, ok?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:49:25 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, his job is apearing in comercials, thats a volenteer spot, if you are a volenteer, how can you be exploited
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No, he is exploited. He has to circle the globe in a single night, and give presents to little brats, and gets only milk and cookies in return.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, not exploited, the image of santa in red was created by coke, they spent money developing the image santa has today, shouldnt they be able to profit from that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | He does, and he is being exploited by the Coca Cola corporation to appear in their adds. Ever wondered why he is all derssed up in red? Comrade Clause will be the leader of the new world revolution!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:49:25 AM | |
|
no, his job is apearing in comercials, thats a volenteer spot, if you are a volenteer, how can you be exploited
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:41:03 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No, he is exploited. He has to circle the globe in a single night, and give presents to little brats, and gets only milk and cookies in return.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, not exploited, the image of santa in red was created by coke, they spent money developing the image santa has today, shouldnt they be able to profit from that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | He does, and he is being exploited by the Coca Cola corporation to appear in their adds. Ever wondered why he is all derssed up in red? Comrade Clause will be the leader of the new world revolution!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:41:03 AM | |
|
No, he is exploited. He has to circle the globe in a single night, and give presents to little brats, and gets only milk and cookies in return.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:38:37 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, not exploited, the image of santa in red was created by coke, they spent money developing the image santa has today, shouldnt they be able to profit from that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | He does, and he is being exploited by the Coca Cola corporation to appear in their adds. Ever wondered why he is all derssed up in red? Comrade Clause will be the leader of the new world revolution!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:38:37 AM | |
|
no, not exploited, the image of santa in red was created by coke, they spent money developing the image santa has today, shouldnt they be able to profit from that?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 4:49:49 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | He does, and he is being exploited by the Coca Cola corporation to appear in their adds. Ever wondered why he is all derssed up in red? Comrade Clause will be the leader of the new world revolution!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 5:08:17 AM | |
|
Youre not reading well, in that case. "For no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have"? I say that the poor create what the rich have. I think this has to be about the fifth time I made that point in the course of this discussion.
How does the employer judge what we earn? If anything the employer judges what we will get. There is a massive difference between the two. We can, as you say, accept it or not. But the fact is that we need jobs. And if every employer is only willing to give us so much... What power of choice do we actualy have? Only the power to pick the lesser of many evils. Thank the unions for their historic role, since its because of them and because of the two centuries worth of class struggles that there are at least some minimums that an employer has to fulfill! They cannot give us less than the minimal wage, cannot force us to work longer than the maximum work hours, and cannot fire us for looking at them the wrong way. But outside of that, its still the game of supply and demand... But with people instead of products.
Risk... Ok, someone took the risk. It can be done without it, but lets forget about that for a line or two. Was it the CEO of a big and well established corporation that took the risk to create it? No. Was it the great grandson that inherited the business? No. Sure, some people had to take risks, but then again, how do you value that risk in terms of money? Not to mention that we can do it without risks. We established our entire post-WW2 economy within the framweork of state planning. No one took big loans, no one risked his/her home, yet we developed big and succesfull companies, that are still alive and well! There are plenty alternatives to the capitalist economy, and the capitalist way of doing business.
Judas Priest are not a corporation. They are a band, and their greatness comes from skill and musicianship. You took my statement well out of context here, since I think you know perfectly well what sort of "greatness" I was refering to, since we were tlaking about economy and big corporations.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:30:14 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 24, 2008 4:49:49 AM | |
|
He does, and he is being exploited by the Coca Cola corporation to appear in their adds. Ever wondered why he is all derssed up in red? Comrade Clause will be the leader of the new world revolution!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:32:58 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:30:14 PM | |
|
I really cannot believe what I am reading. If I understand you correctly, you want Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor for no other reason than that the poor want what the rich have. You state that the working class " should be getting what they earn". Who judges what they earn. I'll tell you who. The employer that hired them at a certain wage for a certain job. The employee either accepts this or not. The power is actually with the worker at this point. If the worker takes the job, DON'T COMPLAIN !
You also state that "upper clases that get rediculously more than they earn". It's not entirely about "earning". It's also about risk. I believe HB has already gone into this, but to cut to the chase it's gambling. Someone risked their money, home, savings, future, etc on an idea and they deserve the lion share of the return for that. Their willingness to risk themselves for this return created the jobs for the workers. If people did not risk, the jobs would not exist.
Now let's get to "stiffling greatness . . . why the fuck not ? ". Let's make it obvious. We are all on a Judas Priest site chatting. This site would not exist because the band would not exist. They would never, AND I DO MEAN NEVER, have gone through what they did if they were required to share it all with those that did not experience those sacrifices with them. Without the possibility of great reward, there will never be any great sacrifice. Thus we all become mediocre and plain and the world SUCKS for all of us.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:33:32 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:32:58 PM | |
|
Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:33:32 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:00:55 PM | |
|
start an airline or major asembly plant with less? cant do it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:44:33 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | ...assuming that there was absolutely no way of risking far less, and gradualy getting to the same result.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | took the risk that endangered everyone. but if he didnt take that risk, all those people wouldnt have jobs. and if he didnt take said risk, the car would still be an item for the upper class, not the average. sorry, went back to ford. no risk, no reward. everyone is equal, and has nothing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:44:33 PM | |
|
...assuming that there was absolutely no way of risking far less, and gradualy getting to the same result.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:42:00 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | took the risk that endangered everyone. but if he didnt take that risk, all those people wouldnt have jobs. and if he didnt take said risk, the car would still be an item for the upper class, not the average. sorry, went back to ford. no risk, no reward. everyone is equal, and has nothing
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:42:00 PM | |
|
took the risk that endangered everyone. but if he didnt take that risk, all those people wouldnt have jobs. and if he didnt take said risk, the car would still be an item for the upper class, not the average. sorry, went back to ford. no risk, no reward. everyone is equal, and has nothing
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:33:32 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:38:54 PM | |
|
sure, here you can beg, or work. simple choice.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:19:45 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | In a predominantly capitalist world, would they have a choice? Also, there is always Venezuela...
| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, for sanctions to mater they have to be engaged in global trade, and isnt global trade a capitalist venture?
they spend more on guns to point at citizens than on anything else. sort of like the berlin wall. its a beautiful place, but stuck with a system that keeps people looking for ways to beg for money from tourists.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I dont know about Cuba or what particular type of socialism are they using. i do know that they are still under sanctions that go back to the crisis in 62, and that has to be taken into consideration. But in any case, I know how we had it, and thats what Im talking about in all the previous posts. And if socialsm is bad... Well, lets look at some present and past capitalist countries, like Chile under Pinochet, or countries in south east Asia (China - I dont care what they have on the flag, they are as capitalist as it gets).
| | | kiamat wrote: | | This summer I spent three weeks in Cuba doing conservation work and I failed to see any sign of socialism providing a decent life for the many. Instead, money made by the economy (and there must be plenty, much of Cuba is very fertile agricultural land) is poured into posh tourist hotels and a propaganda campaign that practically deifies Castro and Che Guevara. You could credit their government with excellent healthcare and educational services, but what good is that when the hospitals fall down and most of the university graduates leave the country on the basis that they can earn more cleaning toilets in Miami than they can in the highest paid jobs in Havana?
The only money people there can get outside of government restricted earnings is from tourists (which only aids those in tourist areas- poverty in most of the countryside is widespread). And the more tourists come, handing out extravagant tips left, right and centre, the harder it is for the government to persuade people that Cuba really is doing well out of socialism.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:02:31 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:33:32 PM | |
|
Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:20:47 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:19:45 PM | |
|
In a predominantly capitalist world, would they have a choice? Also, there is always Venezuela...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:54:35 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | but, for sanctions to mater they have to be engaged in global trade, and isnt global trade a capitalist venture?
they spend more on guns to point at citizens than on anything else. sort of like the berlin wall. its a beautiful place, but stuck with a system that keeps people looking for ways to beg for money from tourists.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I dont know about Cuba or what particular type of socialism are they using. i do know that they are still under sanctions that go back to the crisis in 62, and that has to be taken into consideration. But in any case, I know how we had it, and thats what Im talking about in all the previous posts. And if socialsm is bad... Well, lets look at some present and past capitalist countries, like Chile under Pinochet, or countries in south east Asia (China - I dont care what they have on the flag, they are as capitalist as it gets).
| | | kiamat wrote: | | This summer I spent three weeks in Cuba doing conservation work and I failed to see any sign of socialism providing a decent life for the many. Instead, money made by the economy (and there must be plenty, much of Cuba is very fertile agricultural land) is poured into posh tourist hotels and a propaganda campaign that practically deifies Castro and Che Guevara. You could credit their government with excellent healthcare and educational services, but what good is that when the hospitals fall down and most of the university graduates leave the country on the basis that they can earn more cleaning toilets in Miami than they can in the highest paid jobs in Havana?
The only money people there can get outside of government restricted earnings is from tourists (which only aids those in tourist areas- poverty in most of the countryside is widespread). And the more tourists come, handing out extravagant tips left, right and centre, the harder it is for the government to persuade people that Cuba really is doing well out of socialism.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:02:31 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:59:27 AM | |
|
you hit the nail on the head, provide individual incentive. I dont realy care what happens to others, sure it would be nice, but I am not going to bust my butt, so that someone else can do less and have the same as me.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:20:47 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:20:47 AM | |
|
Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:55:03 AM | |
|
but, for private health care, you pay as much, just thru your taxes instead.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:19:16 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Another wild assumption, but thats what comes from private healthcare.
| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | So much for social equality. Check this out. A little more info on those "poor" auto workers.
Gold-Plated Health Care
Health care costs the Big Three so much because the UAW negotiated gold-plated health benefits that include medical, hospital, surgical, and prescription drug coverage. These benefits also cover durable medical equipment (e.g., hearing aids), dental benefits, and even Lasik eye surgery.[4] For all this, GM workers and retirees must pay monthly premiums of $10 for an individual and $21 for families.[5] As a result, UAW workers and retirees have some of the most comprehensive and least expensive health care in America.
Competitive Disadvantage
These gold-plated health care benefits put the Big Three, and especially GM, at a competitive disadvantage. For example, GM has three times as many retirees as active workers, and health care costs for both groups cost the company $4.6 billion in 2007. The UAW's lavish health benefits added $1,200 to the cost of each vehicle produced in the United States.
The Japanese automakers, by contrast, provide standard health benefits to their American employees. Consequently, health care for active workers cost Toyota $215 per vehicle in 2006.[6]
Every American buying an auto made in Detroit pays an extra $700 to $1,000 to support health benefits far more generous than most Americans receive.
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:54:35 AM | |
|
but, for sanctions to mater they have to be engaged in global trade, and isnt global trade a capitalist venture?
they spend more on guns to point at citizens than on anything else. sort of like the berlin wall. its a beautiful place, but stuck with a system that keeps people looking for ways to beg for money from tourists.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:12:24 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I dont know about Cuba or what particular type of socialism are they using. i do know that they are still under sanctions that go back to the crisis in 62, and that has to be taken into consideration. But in any case, I know how we had it, and thats what Im talking about in all the previous posts. And if socialsm is bad... Well, lets look at some present and past capitalist countries, like Chile under Pinochet, or countries in south east Asia (China - I dont care what they have on the flag, they are as capitalist as it gets).
| | | kiamat wrote: | | This summer I spent three weeks in Cuba doing conservation work and I failed to see any sign of socialism providing a decent life for the many. Instead, money made by the economy (and there must be plenty, much of Cuba is very fertile agricultural land) is poured into posh tourist hotels and a propaganda campaign that practically deifies Castro and Che Guevara. You could credit their government with excellent healthcare and educational services, but what good is that when the hospitals fall down and most of the university graduates leave the country on the basis that they can earn more cleaning toilets in Miami than they can in the highest paid jobs in Havana?
The only money people there can get outside of government restricted earnings is from tourists (which only aids those in tourist areas- poverty in most of the countryside is widespread). And the more tourists come, handing out extravagant tips left, right and centre, the harder it is for the government to persuade people that Cuba really is doing well out of socialism.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:02:31 AM |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:49:41 AM | |
|
is it ok to fire someone to get someone with more productivity? well, whats ok? should said business owner let the poor productivity drive him out of business, after all, if he pays the guy $10 per hour, he also has to pay rent on the building, and get back the costs that he spent on the tools and equipment the guy uses. just for doing that the business owner should get some money back, but he also has someone out there selling the service, trying to find work, and an acountant sometimes, he probably pays a payroll company, lawers ocasionaly, and I hear now that you have to heat buildings people work in. so probably he has to sell this guys services for $30 per hour, and if he can convince a client that a job is normaly 4 hours, but it takes this guy 5, he will end up losing. but first he has to make sure that the employee knows that the speed is important, that its a requirement, and why.
but, its not fair, nothing is. I want to be 6' tall, its not fair....
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:11:31 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not in my particular case, since I only arrange and type the stuff that others have designed, but yeah, that would hold true for a regular graphic artist. That was basicly an example. But yes, the boss will value it more. BUT, there is the matter of job security. Is it ok to fire one guy, because another guy can make it look a bit better in 10 mins less time? Where would this line be drawn? What kind of improvement to the end result is enough to replace the worker? Imo, none, but there is a thing called "labour market". Basicly, all of us are treated like products on a store shelf, when it comes to employment. Now, fair, not fair, economic, uneconomic... I dont care. I dont think its right, period.
Well, yes, Fords employees would have to find a new job. Maybe some of the couldnt? Maybe some of them had families? What would they do then? One mans risk could cause a lot of people a lot of harm. Again, I dont think its right, period.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, I only have a couple of minutes here, but...
your a graphic artist, right. your work gets valued based on creating what your boss needs, and how long it takes, right? but if someone has the skills to make something that looks beter, or can get it done faster, the boss will value that more, right?
Ford, if he failed, all the people he hired would have to find a new job. he would have been out tons of money, as would anyone who invested with him. its a gamble, you lend money, you expect it back, with intrest, and you price the interest, based on the risk. if I borow money to buy a house, the intrest is low, because the bank knows the house can be reposesed and sold if I dont pay, so they should get their money one way or the other. if I borow money to start a business selling wine, they have more concern, how do they get the cash back? price the loan higher.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Umm... IDK, but from my experiences, the only thing that is valued in my work is the result, and the time it takes me to to a certain task. My own commitment, or my special skills, or how hard I work matter only to the extent that is neccesary to make what I have to.
More equaly... Ok, maybe bad expression on my part. What I was aiming for is that the power should not be concentrated in such a narrow circle of people. That, and, the people who hold actual power should answer to the people at the bottom. Thats my idea of it anyway... I dont expect that system to come back again, no matter how well it actualy worked (because it did work well, infact). So the two of you can stop worrying. Im not about to grab an AK-47 and start a revolution.
The decisions can always be made, even if it takes a while longer, and includes more compromises. But compromises are inevitable when a group of people has to live together. In this particular case that you provided (Ford), lets just assume that he gambled and failed. Of course, we now know that he succeded, but what if he didnt? Well, his company would like as not fail, people would lose their jobs, and we would never know that a guy called Henry Ford ever existed. It would be interesting to see a statistic of such cases. How many succeded, and how many failed. And out of those that failed, what were the consequences of the failures?
And of course, everywhere there are experts. Design is the dominion of designers. Marketing of margeting specialists, management of managers. I never said that is inherently wrong, its just the hieratchical structure of bussineses, and the disproportionate partition of responsability and profit that I have a problem with.
When it comes to politics, tho, I think that things change a lot. There were not talking about a single business, but about the soceity as a whole. Basic human rights. Everyone is born with equal rights, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ect. Or gay rights. Im against the entire population deciding wheter its ok for two men to marry each other. Its their buisines, not of the rest of us. The entire point of me advocating collaborative decision making (and even that only to certain extents) is to ensure a fair and open society. Not the opposite.
Wine: I dont need a penguin in a suit to tell me which wine is good and which is not. That is a matter of personal opinion, and fuck the expert. That is way only the expenses in the procces of getting that bottle to the shelf in a store should matter.
Moving on to Freeze (always saving the best for last ;)
No, we hadnt dropped anything. Infact... I have holidays starting thursday, so were only just begining.
Life not fair... I guess its true. But is that a reason not to try to make it just a little bit fairer? And some fairness exists, thats for sure. It exists in (some of) the laws, and (some of) the most widely accept morals. Why not try to have more?
Certain people shouldnt have the power of decision, and even those that have, shouldnt have the power to decide anything, I agree. But, I explained all this above, and I cant be bothered to type it all again.
As for feasible way of operating a business... I HATE to go on about it... But we had it. And it worked. It was a feasible way of operating businesses. Not exactly the way I explained above, but there was a great level of collective decision making. And it was the most industrious and prosperous time in our history. Granted, there was a great level of state planning that coordinated the economy as a whole, and that failed every now and then, but in general it was a lot better than having a privately owned economy that we have now, where we have CEOs screwing up companies, selling them abroad, and cashing in the profits.
OK, 25 mins to midnight, and Im off to bed. See you lot in the morning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep, the mechanic went to school for 4 years, and takes upgrading courses every year. The other thing with a mechanic that you have to recognize is that your paying for him (or her) and his tools. a mechanic has to own basic hand tools, my mechanic figures he owns $20,000 worth. now, the education of a mechanic is thru aprentiship, where he is paid a bit while he is learning, not like getting a degree. but in value of those 2 comitments, a mechanic is paid quite well. a general labourer, well, might work hard, but anyone is capable of that, paid less. you value the work the person does, the effort, and the skill, and the comitment to learning that skill.
if the power is more equaly shared, how do you make decisions? when henry ford started producing the model T, it came in black, and in one configuration. there were no diferences. that car is what made ford a major player today. now he owned the company, took the risk of spending all his money, but the decision making process was the same as if he was a CEO, he decided. what if everyone decided? design would take longer, costing money in lost sales. what if such a simple decision as to sell 5 colours instead of 1? well the cost of the car would have gone up $50, moving it out of many peoples range. why? you would need equipment to paint different colors, or if you decided to paint each days production one colour, you would have to move the production slower 4 days a week, because the reason he used black is it dried the fastest. colaborative decision making is fine, but when said company is losing ,money and has to lay off people, you wont find people laying themselfs off, and you create conflict or ineficiencys. can top down be too dictatorial, sure, but its the fastest method of decision making. politicaly, even though we are in a democracy, our head of government can make decisions without consultation, because if he had to determin what everyone wanted, then do it, it would be to late. and what if what the people wanted wouldnt work? after all, the people here might want to invade the USA, but he could quickly determine that we would get killed. should he do a bad thing because the people want it? if decisions were colaborative, blacks in the states might still be slaves.
sure, we can research that wine, but how does it taste? after all, a beter tasting wine should cost more no? what if the store is staffed by wine experts, that can help you make choices, food pairings, etc? they should be able to charge more, right, after all, they are selling their expertise, not just wine. if you want expertise, you go there, if you know what you want, you go to the store that has a 19 year old kid and a cash register, find what you want and get out.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:12:24 AM | |
|
I dont know about Cuba or what particular type of socialism are they using. i do know that they are still under sanctions that go back to the crisis in 62, and that has to be taken into consideration. But in any case, I know how we had it, and thats what Im talking about in all the previous posts. And if socialsm is bad... Well, lets look at some present and past capitalist countries, like Chile under Pinochet, or countries in south east Asia (China - I dont care what they have on the flag, they are as capitalist as it gets).
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by kiamat from Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:01:12 AM)| | | kiamat wrote: | | This summer I spent three weeks in Cuba doing conservation work and I failed to see any sign of socialism providing a decent life for the many. Instead, money made by the economy (and there must be plenty, much of Cuba is very fertile agricultural land) is poured into posh tourist hotels and a propaganda campaign that practically deifies Castro and Che Guevara. You could credit their government with excellent healthcare and educational services, but what good is that when the hospitals fall down and most of the university graduates leave the country on the basis that they can earn more cleaning toilets in Miami than they can in the highest paid jobs in Havana?
The only money people there can get outside of government restricted earnings is from tourists (which only aids those in tourist areas- poverty in most of the countryside is widespread). And the more tourists come, handing out extravagant tips left, right and centre, the harder it is for the government to persuade people that Cuba really is doing well out of socialism.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:02:31 AM |
|
|
| [kiamat] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:01:12 AM | |
|
This summer I spent three weeks in Cuba doing conservation work and I failed to see any sign of socialism providing a decent life for the many. Instead, money made by the economy (and there must be plenty, much of Cuba is very fertile agricultural land) is poured into posh tourist hotels and a propaganda campaign that practically deifies Castro and Che Guevara. You could credit their government with excellent healthcare and educational services, but what good is that when the hospitals fall down and most of the university graduates leave the country on the basis that they can earn more cleaning toilets in Miami than they can in the highest paid jobs in Havana?
The only money people there can get outside of government restricted earnings is from tourists (which only aids those in tourist areas- poverty in most of the countryside is widespread). And the more tourists come, handing out extravagant tips left, right and centre, the harder it is for the government to persuade people that Cuba really is doing well out of socialism.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:02:31 AM |
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:19:16 AM | |
|
Another wild assumption, but thats what comes from private healthcare.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Monday, December 22, 2008 9:34:40 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | So much for social equality. Check this out. A little more info on those "poor" auto workers.
Gold-Plated Health Care
Health care costs the Big Three so much because the UAW negotiated gold-plated health benefits that include medical, hospital, surgical, and prescription drug coverage. These benefits also cover durable medical equipment (e.g., hearing aids), dental benefits, and even Lasik eye surgery.[4] For all this, GM workers and retirees must pay monthly premiums of $10 for an individual and $21 for families.[5] As a result, UAW workers and retirees have some of the most comprehensive and least expensive health care in America.
Competitive Disadvantage
These gold-plated health care benefits put the Big Three, and especially GM, at a competitive disadvantage. For example, GM has three times as many retirees as active workers, and health care costs for both groups cost the company $4.6 billion in 2007. The UAW's lavish health benefits added $1,200 to the cost of each vehicle produced in the United States.
The Japanese automakers, by contrast, provide standard health benefits to their American employees. Consequently, health care for active workers cost Toyota $215 per vehicle in 2006.[6]
Every American buying an auto made in Detroit pays an extra $700 to $1,000 to support health benefits far more generous than most Americans receive.
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:18:10 AM | |
|
Ok, that is another matter. If a worker gets 75$/hour... I get 4.50€, and call it a good wage. Not to mention that since I have a status of a student, I dont pay taxes, and nothing gets into my pension fund.
BUT... Im absolutely sure that looking hard enough, we would find many people that work for a lot less money. Infact, most of the world population is, we were just discussing the money rich northwestern part.
Yes, someone at the bottom of the ladder. But most of us are at the bottom of the ladder. So, whats it gonna be? A system that ensures a decent life for a majority (socialism) or capitalism, which ensures lavish lifestyles for the small minority.
Red scare... I would seriously have thought it was over. If I take a risk of a major assumption, the majority of people who bash socialism have never experienced it, even as remotely and belatedly as I did. Still, the most shit over it I hear from Americans and western Europeans. Funny, not so much where I live.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Monday, December 22, 2008 9:19:17 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | You've not done the math correctly. If a worker earns $75 per hour, he is costing the employer roughly $150 per hour. Imagine overtime @ time and a half ! How about the 85% pay for retirees plus the benefits. How many workers and retired workers are being payed versus how many workers are actually producing anything to sell ? Now, how many CEO's are there ? You've got it backwards. I'm no great advocate for the CEO's of the world doing a whole lot of nothing for millions, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the union workers and ex-union workers still being payed for doing nothing.
As for the comparison between the worst socialism v.s. the best capitalism ( I'm going to risk some major assumptions here ), sounds like the voice of someone at the bottom of the ladder. Once you start climbing that ladder, your tune will likely change.
Lastly, "Crazy Ivans" are Communists not Socialists no matter what the late Soviet Union would like one to think. Or is that believe. Or is that become re-educated to follow.
I will say this. I do agree that the be all value of one's work is not all about money. I personally have foregone much in the way of monetary compensation in order to live the life I have chosen ( concentrating on my kids versus money ) however that is my choice. I am grateful to have to opportunity to make that choice myself and I did not have it chosen for me.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:11:31 AM | |
|
Not in my particular case, since I only arrange and type the stuff that others have designed, but yeah, that would hold true for a regular graphic artist. That was basicly an example. But yes, the boss will value it more. BUT, there is the matter of job security. Is it ok to fire one guy, because another guy can make it look a bit better in 10 mins less time? Where would this line be drawn? What kind of improvement to the end result is enough to replace the worker? Imo, none, but there is a thing called "labour market". Basicly, all of us are treated like products on a store shelf, when it comes to employment. Now, fair, not fair, economic, uneconomic... I dont care. I dont think its right, period.
Well, yes, Fords employees would have to find a new job. Maybe some of the couldnt? Maybe some of them had families? What would they do then? One mans risk could cause a lot of people a lot of harm. Again, I dont think its right, period.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, December 22, 2008 4:59:21 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, I only have a couple of minutes here, but...
your a graphic artist, right. your work gets valued based on creating what your boss needs, and how long it takes, right? but if someone has the skills to make something that looks beter, or can get it done faster, the boss will value that more, right?
Ford, if he failed, all the people he hired would have to find a new job. he would have been out tons of money, as would anyone who invested with him. its a gamble, you lend money, you expect it back, with intrest, and you price the interest, based on the risk. if I borow money to buy a house, the intrest is low, because the bank knows the house can be reposesed and sold if I dont pay, so they should get their money one way or the other. if I borow money to start a business selling wine, they have more concern, how do they get the cash back? price the loan higher.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Umm... IDK, but from my experiences, the only thing that is valued in my work is the result, and the time it takes me to to a certain task. My own commitment, or my special skills, or how hard I work matter only to the extent that is neccesary to make what I have to.
More equaly... Ok, maybe bad expression on my part. What I was aiming for is that the power should not be concentrated in such a narrow circle of people. That, and, the people who hold actual power should answer to the people at the bottom. Thats my idea of it anyway... I dont expect that system to come back again, no matter how well it actualy worked (because it did work well, infact). So the two of you can stop worrying. Im not about to grab an AK-47 and start a revolution.
The decisions can always be made, even if it takes a while longer, and includes more compromises. But compromises are inevitable when a group of people has to live together. In this particular case that you provided (Ford), lets just assume that he gambled and failed. Of course, we now know that he succeded, but what if he didnt? Well, his company would like as not fail, people would lose their jobs, and we would never know that a guy called Henry Ford ever existed. It would be interesting to see a statistic of such cases. How many succeded, and how many failed. And out of those that failed, what were the consequences of the failures?
And of course, everywhere there are experts. Design is the dominion of designers. Marketing of margeting specialists, management of managers. I never said that is inherently wrong, its just the hieratchical structure of bussineses, and the disproportionate partition of responsability and profit that I have a problem with.
When it comes to politics, tho, I think that things change a lot. There were not talking about a single business, but about the soceity as a whole. Basic human rights. Everyone is born with equal rights, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ect. Or gay rights. Im against the entire population deciding wheter its ok for two men to marry each other. Its their buisines, not of the rest of us. The entire point of me advocating collaborative decision making (and even that only to certain extents) is to ensure a fair and open society. Not the opposite.
Wine: I dont need a penguin in a suit to tell me which wine is good and which is not. That is a matter of personal opinion, and fuck the expert. That is way only the expenses in the procces of getting that bottle to the shelf in a store should matter.
Moving on to Freeze (always saving the best for last ;)
No, we hadnt dropped anything. Infact... I have holidays starting thursday, so were only just begining.
Life not fair... I guess its true. But is that a reason not to try to make it just a little bit fairer? And some fairness exists, thats for sure. It exists in (some of) the laws, and (some of) the most widely accept morals. Why not try to have more?
Certain people shouldnt have the power of decision, and even those that have, shouldnt have the power to decide anything, I agree. But, I explained all this above, and I cant be bothered to type it all again.
As for feasible way of operating a business... I HATE to go on about it... But we had it. And it worked. It was a feasible way of operating businesses. Not exactly the way I explained above, but there was a great level of collective decision making. And it was the most industrious and prosperous time in our history. Granted, there was a great level of state planning that coordinated the economy as a whole, and that failed every now and then, but in general it was a lot better than having a privately owned economy that we have now, where we have CEOs screwing up companies, selling them abroad, and cashing in the profits.
OK, 25 mins to midnight, and Im off to bed. See you lot in the morning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep, the mechanic went to school for 4 years, and takes upgrading courses every year. The other thing with a mechanic that you have to recognize is that your paying for him (or her) and his tools. a mechanic has to own basic hand tools, my mechanic figures he owns $20,000 worth. now, the education of a mechanic is thru aprentiship, where he is paid a bit while he is learning, not like getting a degree. but in value of those 2 comitments, a mechanic is paid quite well. a general labourer, well, might work hard, but anyone is capable of that, paid less. you value the work the person does, the effort, and the skill, and the comitment to learning that skill.
if the power is more equaly shared, how do you make decisions? when henry ford started producing the model T, it came in black, and in one configuration. there were no diferences. that car is what made ford a major player today. now he owned the company, took the risk of spending all his money, but the decision making process was the same as if he was a CEO, he decided. what if everyone decided? design would take longer, costing money in lost sales. what if such a simple decision as to sell 5 colours instead of 1? well the cost of the car would have gone up $50, moving it out of many peoples range. why? you would need equipment to paint different colors, or if you decided to paint each days production one colour, you would have to move the production slower 4 days a week, because the reason he used black is it dried the fastest. colaborative decision making is fine, but when said company is losing ,money and has to lay off people, you wont find people laying themselfs off, and you create conflict or ineficiencys. can top down be too dictatorial, sure, but its the fastest method of decision making. politicaly, even though we are in a democracy, our head of government can make decisions without consultation, because if he had to determin what everyone wanted, then do it, it would be to late. and what if what the people wanted wouldnt work? after all, the people here might want to invade the USA, but he could quickly determine that we would get killed. should he do a bad thing because the people want it? if decisions were colaborative, blacks in the states might still be slaves.
sure, we can research that wine, but how does it taste? after all, a beter tasting wine should cost more no? what if the store is staffed by wine experts, that can help you make choices, food pairings, etc? they should be able to charge more, right, after all, they are selling their expertise, not just wine. if you want expertise, you go there, if you know what you want, you go to the store that has a 19 year old kid and a cash register, find what you want and get out.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:34:51 AM | |
|
| Dollars for effort & production is the only way to equate & differentiate. I'm not a bleeding heart. My time is valuable. My credentials took many years (and dollars) to acquire. Thus, I'm worth every penny that comes my way. I work for money. I work for pride and ego. And at the end of the day, I'm not interested in what greater good my effort put forth did in this world. All I care about is what I can get for myself. My team is productive to generate commerce. And the more we generate, the more we have. And the more I have, the happier I am. Less is not more. More is more. And I like more.
a. Hammerstein |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:44:45 PM | |
|
I read that GM spends more on health care than all levels of government in canada combined. dont know if thats true, but its scary. the total costs are insane, and the fact that some of these guys dont want to bend to keep their jobs, well its insane.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Monday, December 22, 2008 9:35:50 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | | Sounds to me like GM is paying healthcare benefits to what amounts to 4 full work forces with only one actually producing cars. |
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:35:50 PM | |
|
| Sounds to me like GM is paying healthcare benefits to what amounts to 4 full work forces with only one actually producing cars. |
|
| [TIMBONI] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:34:40 PM | |
|
So much for social equality. Check this out. A little more info on those "poor" auto workers.
Gold-Plated Health Care
Health care costs the Big Three so much because the UAW negotiated gold-plated health benefits that include medical, hospital, surgical, and prescription drug coverage. These benefits also cover durable medical equipment (e.g., hearing aids), dental benefits, and even Lasik eye surgery.[4] For all this, GM workers and retirees must pay monthly premiums of $10 for an individual and $21 for families.[5] As a result, UAW workers and retirees have some of the most comprehensive and least expensive health care in America.
Competitive Disadvantage
These gold-plated health care benefits put the Big Three, and especially GM, at a competitive disadvantage. For example, GM has three times as many retirees as active workers, and health care costs for both groups cost the company $4.6 billion in 2007. The UAW's lavish health benefits added $1,200 to the cost of each vehicle produced in the United States.
The Japanese automakers, by contrast, provide standard health benefits to their American employees. Consequently, health care for active workers cost Toyota $215 per vehicle in 2006.[6]
Every American buying an auto made in Detroit pays an extra $700 to $1,000 to support health benefits far more generous than most Americans receive.
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:30:08 PM | |
|
| Sorry for the poor quality, but I think it serves it's purpose. |
|
| [TIMBONI] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:27:50 PM | |
|
Edited at: Mo
The average private sector worker earned $25.36 an hour in 2006--$17.91 an hour in cash wages and $7.45 an hour in benefits such as pensions, paid time off, and health insurance.[1] Autoworkers at Japanese plants located in the United States earn substantially more than this: between $42 and $48 an hour in wages and benefits, which amounts to over $80,000 a year in total compensation--hardly cheap labor.[2]
The typical UAW worker at the Big Three earned between $71 and $76 an hour in 2006. This amount is triple the earnings of the typical worker in the private sector and $25 to $30 an hour more than American workers at Japanese auto plants. The average unionized worker at the Big Three earns over $130,000 a year in wages and benefits.[3]
nday, December 22, 2008 9:28:31 PM Edited at: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:29:08 PM Edited at: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:29:41 PM
Edited at: Monday, December 22, 2008 9:32:00 PM |
|
| [TIMBONI] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:19:17 PM | |
|
You've not done the math correctly. If a worker earns $75 per hour, he is costing the employer roughly $150 per hour. Imagine overtime @ time and a half ! How about the 85% pay for retirees plus the benefits. How many workers and retired workers are being payed versus how many workers are actually producing anything to sell ? Now, how many CEO's are there ? You've got it backwards. I'm no great advocate for the CEO's of the world doing a whole lot of nothing for millions, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the union workers and ex-union workers still being payed for doing nothing.
As for the comparison between the worst socialism v.s. the best capitalism ( I'm going to risk some major assumptions here ), sounds like the voice of someone at the bottom of the ladder. Once you start climbing that ladder, your tune will likely change.
Lastly, "Crazy Ivans" are Communists not Socialists no matter what the late Soviet Union would like one to think. Or is that believe. Or is that become re-educated to follow.
I will say this. I do agree that the be all value of one's work is not all about money. I personally have foregone much in the way of monetary compensation in order to live the life I have chosen ( concentrating on my kids versus money ) however that is my choice. I am grateful to have to opportunity to make that choice myself and I did not have it chosen for me.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:28:47 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, December 22, 2008 4:59:21 PM | |
|
well, I only have a couple of minutes here, but...
your a graphic artist, right. your work gets valued based on creating what your boss needs, and how long it takes, right? but if someone has the skills to make something that looks beter, or can get it done faster, the boss will value that more, right?
Ford, if he failed, all the people he hired would have to find a new job. he would have been out tons of money, as would anyone who invested with him. its a gamble, you lend money, you expect it back, with intrest, and you price the interest, based on the risk. if I borow money to buy a house, the intrest is low, because the bank knows the house can be reposesed and sold if I dont pay, so they should get their money one way or the other. if I borow money to start a business selling wine, they have more concern, how do they get the cash back? price the loan higher.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, December 22, 2008 4:37:51 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Umm... IDK, but from my experiences, the only thing that is valued in my work is the result, and the time it takes me to to a certain task. My own commitment, or my special skills, or how hard I work matter only to the extent that is neccesary to make what I have to.
More equaly... Ok, maybe bad expression on my part. What I was aiming for is that the power should not be concentrated in such a narrow circle of people. That, and, the people who hold actual power should answer to the people at the bottom. Thats my idea of it anyway... I dont expect that system to come back again, no matter how well it actualy worked (because it did work well, infact). So the two of you can stop worrying. Im not about to grab an AK-47 and start a revolution.
The decisions can always be made, even if it takes a while longer, and includes more compromises. But compromises are inevitable when a group of people has to live together. In this particular case that you provided (Ford), lets just assume that he gambled and failed. Of course, we now know that he succeded, but what if he didnt? Well, his company would like as not fail, people would lose their jobs, and we would never know that a guy called Henry Ford ever existed. It would be interesting to see a statistic of such cases. How many succeded, and how many failed. And out of those that failed, what were the consequences of the failures?
And of course, everywhere there are experts. Design is the dominion of designers. Marketing of margeting specialists, management of managers. I never said that is inherently wrong, its just the hieratchical structure of bussineses, and the disproportionate partition of responsability and profit that I have a problem with.
When it comes to politics, tho, I think that things change a lot. There were not talking about a single business, but about the soceity as a whole. Basic human rights. Everyone is born with equal rights, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ect. Or gay rights. Im against the entire population deciding wheter its ok for two men to marry each other. Its their buisines, not of the rest of us. The entire point of me advocating collaborative decision making (and even that only to certain extents) is to ensure a fair and open society. Not the opposite.
Wine: I dont need a penguin in a suit to tell me which wine is good and which is not. That is a matter of personal opinion, and fuck the expert. That is way only the expenses in the procces of getting that bottle to the shelf in a store should matter.
Moving on to Freeze (always saving the best for last ;)
No, we hadnt dropped anything. Infact... I have holidays starting thursday, so were only just begining.
Life not fair... I guess its true. But is that a reason not to try to make it just a little bit fairer? And some fairness exists, thats for sure. It exists in (some of) the laws, and (some of) the most widely accept morals. Why not try to have more?
Certain people shouldnt have the power of decision, and even those that have, shouldnt have the power to decide anything, I agree. But, I explained all this above, and I cant be bothered to type it all again.
As for feasible way of operating a business... I HATE to go on about it... But we had it. And it worked. It was a feasible way of operating businesses. Not exactly the way I explained above, but there was a great level of collective decision making. And it was the most industrious and prosperous time in our history. Granted, there was a great level of state planning that coordinated the economy as a whole, and that failed every now and then, but in general it was a lot better than having a privately owned economy that we have now, where we have CEOs screwing up companies, selling them abroad, and cashing in the profits.
OK, 25 mins to midnight, and Im off to bed. See you lot in the morning.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep, the mechanic went to school for 4 years, and takes upgrading courses every year. The other thing with a mechanic that you have to recognize is that your paying for him (or her) and his tools. a mechanic has to own basic hand tools, my mechanic figures he owns $20,000 worth. now, the education of a mechanic is thru aprentiship, where he is paid a bit while he is learning, not like getting a degree. but in value of those 2 comitments, a mechanic is paid quite well. a general labourer, well, might work hard, but anyone is capable of that, paid less. you value the work the person does, the effort, and the skill, and the comitment to learning that skill.
if the power is more equaly shared, how do you make decisions? when henry ford started producing the model T, it came in black, and in one configuration. there were no diferences. that car is what made ford a major player today. now he owned the company, took the risk of spending all his money, but the decision making process was the same as if he was a CEO, he decided. what if everyone decided? design would take longer, costing money in lost sales. what if such a simple decision as to sell 5 colours instead of 1? well the cost of the car would have gone up $50, moving it out of many peoples range. why? you would need equipment to paint different colors, or if you decided to paint each days production one colour, you would have to move the production slower 4 days a week, because the reason he used black is it dried the fastest. colaborative decision making is fine, but when said company is losing ,money and has to lay off people, you wont find people laying themselfs off, and you create conflict or ineficiencys. can top down be too dictatorial, sure, but its the fastest method of decision making. politicaly, even though we are in a democracy, our head of government can make decisions without consultation, because if he had to determin what everyone wanted, then do it, it would be to late. and what if what the people wanted wouldnt work? after all, the people here might want to invade the USA, but he could quickly determine that we would get killed. should he do a bad thing because the people want it? if decisions were colaborative, blacks in the states might still be slaves.
sure, we can research that wine, but how does it taste? after all, a beter tasting wine should cost more no? what if the store is staffed by wine experts, that can help you make choices, food pairings, etc? they should be able to charge more, right, after all, they are selling their expertise, not just wine. if you want expertise, you go there, if you know what you want, you go to the store that has a 19 year old kid and a cash register, find what you want and get out.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, December 22, 2008 4:37:51 PM | |
|
Umm... IDK, but from my experiences, the only thing that is valued in my work is the result, and the time it takes me to to a certain task. My own commitment, or my special skills, or how hard I work matter only to the extent that is neccesary to make what I have to.
More equaly... Ok, maybe bad expression on my part. What I was aiming for is that the power should not be concentrated in such a narrow circle of people. That, and, the people who hold actual power should answer to the people at the bottom. Thats my idea of it anyway... I dont expect that system to come back again, no matter how well it actualy worked (because it did work well, infact). So the two of you can stop worrying. Im not about to grab an AK-47 and start a revolution.
The decisions can always be made, even if it takes a while longer, and includes more compromises. But compromises are inevitable when a group of people has to live together. In this particular case that you provided (Ford), lets just assume that he gambled and failed. Of course, we now know that he succeded, but what if he didnt? Well, his company would like as not fail, people would lose their jobs, and we would never know that a guy called Henry Ford ever existed. It would be interesting to see a statistic of such cases. How many succeded, and how many failed. And out of those that failed, what were the consequences of the failures?
And of course, everywhere there are experts. Design is the dominion of designers. Marketing of margeting specialists, management of managers. I never said that is inherently wrong, its just the hieratchical structure of bussineses, and the disproportionate partition of responsability and profit that I have a problem with.
When it comes to politics, tho, I think that things change a lot. There were not talking about a single business, but about the soceity as a whole. Basic human rights. Everyone is born with equal rights, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ect. Or gay rights. Im against the entire population deciding wheter its ok for two men to marry each other. Its their buisines, not of the rest of us. The entire point of me advocating collaborative decision making (and even that only to certain extents) is to ensure a fair and open society. Not the opposite.
Wine: I dont need a penguin in a suit to tell me which wine is good and which is not. That is a matter of personal opinion, and fuck the expert. That is way only the expenses in the procces of getting that bottle to the shelf in a store should matter.
Moving on to Freeze (always saving the best for last ;)
No, we hadnt dropped anything. Infact... I have holidays starting thursday, so were only just begining.
Life not fair... I guess its true. But is that a reason not to try to make it just a little bit fairer? And some fairness exists, thats for sure. It exists in (some of) the laws, and (some of) the most widely accept morals. Why not try to have more?
Certain people shouldnt have the power of decision, and even those that have, shouldnt have the power to decide anything, I agree. But, I explained all this above, and I cant be bothered to type it all again.
As for feasible way of operating a business... I HATE to go on about it... But we had it. And it worked. It was a feasible way of operating businesses. Not exactly the way I explained above, but there was a great level of collective decision making. And it was the most industrious and prosperous time in our history. Granted, there was a great level of state planning that coordinated the economy as a whole, and that failed every now and then, but in general it was a lot better than having a privately owned economy that we have now, where we have CEOs screwing up companies, selling them abroad, and cashing in the profits.
OK, 25 mins to midnight, and Im off to bed. See you lot in the morning.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, December 22, 2008 7:53:14 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep, the mechanic went to school for 4 years, and takes upgrading courses every year. The other thing with a mechanic that you have to recognize is that your paying for him (or her) and his tools. a mechanic has to own basic hand tools, my mechanic figures he owns $20,000 worth. now, the education of a mechanic is thru aprentiship, where he is paid a bit while he is learning, not like getting a degree. but in value of those 2 comitments, a mechanic is paid quite well. a general labourer, well, might work hard, but anyone is capable of that, paid less. you value the work the person does, the effort, and the skill, and the comitment to learning that skill.
if the power is more equaly shared, how do you make decisions? when henry ford started producing the model T, it came in black, and in one configuration. there were no diferences. that car is what made ford a major player today. now he owned the company, took the risk of spending all his money, but the decision making process was the same as if he was a CEO, he decided. what if everyone decided? design would take longer, costing money in lost sales. what if such a simple decision as to sell 5 colours instead of 1? well the cost of the car would have gone up $50, moving it out of many peoples range. why? you would need equipment to paint different colors, or if you decided to paint each days production one colour, you would have to move the production slower 4 days a week, because the reason he used black is it dried the fastest. colaborative decision making is fine, but when said company is losing ,money and has to lay off people, you wont find people laying themselfs off, and you create conflict or ineficiencys. can top down be too dictatorial, sure, but its the fastest method of decision making. politicaly, even though we are in a democracy, our head of government can make decisions without consultation, because if he had to determin what everyone wanted, then do it, it would be to late. and what if what the people wanted wouldnt work? after all, the people here might want to invade the USA, but he could quickly determine that we would get killed. should he do a bad thing because the people want it? if decisions were colaborative, blacks in the states might still be slaves.
sure, we can research that wine, but how does it taste? after all, a beter tasting wine should cost more no? what if the store is staffed by wine experts, that can help you make choices, food pairings, etc? they should be able to charge more, right, after all, they are selling their expertise, not just wine. if you want expertise, you go there, if you know what you want, you go to the store that has a 19 year old kid and a cash register, find what you want and get out.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, December 22, 2008 1:54:28 PM | |
|
| HA. DF, you know we never drop anything for long here. |
|
