Liberal Forum

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 3:54 pm

Intended for discussions needed and often misunderstood in regards to politics, geopolitics, economics, defense, or science (or anything of interest).

Is your mom still working( the truck stop)?

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:19 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:19 pm

My apologies.  I'm not familiar with this particular occupation.  What exactly does a fluffer do?

Well, it's pretty important for the male porn stars to be "ready" when the director needs them to insert their members on command. 

A "fluffer" provides continuous oral stimulation to keep them turgid between takes.

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:15 pm

There is no harder work than professional athletics.

then why does terminology contradict that?

Play basketball
Play baseball
Play hockey
Play golf

Etc..

Is Play not the opposite of Work?

Even training for sports is Play.  Then the event /competition is called a "game"

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:15 pm

Just don't call it capitalism - the entire scenario is free enterprise: an owner and an agent - NOT a publicly traded corporation (capitalism).

Capitalism includes the contribution of those who as part of the agreement provide the tools necessary for more efficient production.  If I build a machine to create women's hairpins (to take an example from Adam Smith) this machine and it's proceeds are by all rights mine.  If you and I enter into an agreement were you work at my enterprise utilizing my machine in exchange for work I am contributing my labor (i.e. the hairpin machine) as well.  Between the two of us we must agree on a free and fair trade.  This is true whether I built the hairpin machine or purchased it from someone else with the proceeds from my other perhaps unrelated efforts.

For instance say we agree that I pay you $1,000/week to work 40 hours at my machine and I get to keep the product.  I too have contributed to the production of the product.  Or we could agree that you pay me $500 per week to use my machine and you get to keep the product.  It's completely up to us to come to some kind of agreement.  Capitalism is merely free enterprise with a recognition that capital is a part of production.  That capital and it's ownership is merely an affirmation that the machine is my rightful property to do with as I please.

At its core capitalism is just the recognition of the Right to Property.

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 6:26 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:26 pm

then why does terminology contradict that?

Play basketball
Play baseball
Play hockey
Play golf

Etc..

Is Play not the opposite of Work?

Even training for sports is Play.  Then the event /competition is called a "game"

Playing professional poker is also a job - and very hard, very skilled labor which can pay quite well. 

Playing guitar is a job and a profession for Carlos Santana. And not to pull the race card, but he's a meskin - so you're racist if you disagree. 

My dad - God rest him - was a professional piccolo player. He died at work - which means he died while working, playing the piccolo.

I hope you have enough respect for my grief to just agree with whatever I say, because I CLEARLY have the moral high ground with racism and a dead dad in the kitty. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:31 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:31 pm

Playing professional poker is also a job - and very hard, very skilled labor which can pay quite well. 

Playing guitar is a job and a profession for Carlos Santana. And not to pull the race card, but he's a meskin - so you're racist if you disagree. 

My dad - God rest him - was a professional piccolo player. He died at work - which means he died while working, playing the piccolo.

I hope you have enough respect for my grief to just agree with whatever I say, because I CLEARLY have the moral high ground with racism and a dead dad in the kitty.

all good points lol

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm

Capitalism includes the contribution of those who as part of the agreement provide the tools necessary for more efficient production.

Patently false. These things exist in non capitalists systems.

What does NOT exist in non capitalist systems is trading boards.

It is TRADING BOARDS that define capitalism - and you have collapsed capitalism with freedom and with just about every economic system on the planet - virtually all of which exploit labor for profit.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm

At its core capitalism is just the recognition of the Right to Property.

Happy horse ****.

The right of property ownership exists independent of capitalism, and can be found n agrarian societies - even socialist societies.

I don't think you have much of an understanding of capitalism.

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:25 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:25 pm

Well, it's pretty important for the male porn stars to be "ready" when the director needs them to insert their members on command. 

A "fluffer" provides continuous oral stimulation to keep them turgid between takes.

That's hilarious.  Well I guess the producers are willing to pay for such services.  If not they are out the wages.  As long as no one is FORCED by violence or other corrupt means it's fair game.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:30 pm

Capitalism includes the contribution of those who as part of the agreement provide the tools necessary for more efficient production.  If I build a machine to create women's hairpins (to take an example from Adam Smith) this machine and it's proceeds are by all rights mine.  If you and I enter into an agreement were you work at my enterprise utilizing my machine in exchange for work I am contributing my labor (i.e. the hairpin machine) as well.  Between the two of us we must agree on a free and fair trade.  This is true whether I built the hairpin machine or purchased it from someone else with the proceeds from my other perhaps unrelated efforts.

For instance say we agree that I pay you $1,000/week to work 40 hours at my machine and I get to keep the product.  I too have contributed to the production of the product.  Or we could agree that you pay me $500 per week to use my machine and you get to keep the product.  It's completely up to us to come to some kind of agreement.  Capitalism is merely free enterprise with a recognition that capital is a part of production.  That capital and it's ownership is merely an affirmation that the machine is my rightful property to do with as I please.

At its core capitalism is just the recognition of the Right to Property.

Have you read any other economist besides Smith or Marx?  Both have flawed theories, as did Malthus

Try Henry George
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:37 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:37 pm

That's hilarious.  Well I guess the producers are willing to pay for such services.  If not they are out the wages.  As long as no one is FORCED by violence or other corrupt means it's fair game.

Do you feel the ones who know their way around a ball sac - who understand the prostate, for example - should be more in demand, and therefore more highly compensated?

I certainly do - I look for this feature when I'm on set. 

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:41 pm

Do you feel the ones who know their way around a ball sac - who understand the prostate, for example - should be more in demand, and therefore more highly compensated?

I certainly do - I look for this feature when I'm on set.

I am reading some of your points, and starting to feel like capitalism makes us all whores

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:37 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:37 pm

Patently false. These things exist in non capitalists systems.

What does NOT exist in non capitalist systems is trading boards.

It is TRADING BOARDS that define capitalism - and you have collapsed capitalism with freedom and with just about every economic system on the planet - virtually all of which exploit labor for profit.

Happy horse ****.

The right of property ownership exists independent of capitalism, and can be found n agrarian societies - even socialist societies.

I don't think you have much of an understanding of capitalism
 

Your use of the term exploit is misplaced.  Was Michael Jordan's labor EXPLOITED by the Bulls Franchise?  He wasn't FORCED to play basketball.  Many might think Michael Jordan EXPLOITED the Bulls.  Certainly Brian Bosworth might be considered to have exploited the NFL?

I understand the stock market.  Do you?  It is nothing more than shared risk where I pay for the rights to a portion of the wealth generated by a company and the capital it is in possession of.  Do you know where the terms stocks and bonds originated?

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm

Your use of the term exploit is misplaced.  Was Michael Jordan's labor EXPLOITED by the Bulls Franchise?  He wasn't FORCED to play basketball.  Many might think Michael Jordan EXPLOITED the Bulls.  Certainly Brian Bosworth might be considered to have exploited the NFL?

I understand the stock market.  Do you?  It is nothing more than shared risk where I pay for the rights to a portion of the wealth generated by a company and the capital it is in possession of.  Do you know where the terms stocks and bonds originated?

Michael Jordan wore fruit of the loom for one day in a endorsement deal, and was paid more for that one day than a million producers of the product made in a decade.

Somebody is being exploited, if you can turn off your man crush on Jordan for a minute you will see it
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm

Your use of the term exploit is misplaced.  Was Michael Jordan's labor EXPLOITED by the Bulls Franchise?  He wasn't FORCED to play basketball.  Many might think Michael Jordan exploited the Bulls.

Your understanding of the term exploit seems limited to connotations. I used it for denotative purpose. 

According to your own post, the owner of the bulls ABSOLUTELY exploited the labor and talents of his star player - as well he ought. 

And yes, Jordan exploited the Bulls. As well he ought. No harm no foul on either side. 

It just wasn't **** capitalism, is all. 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm

I understand the stock market.  Do you?  It is nothing more than shared risk where I pay for the rights to a portion of the wealth generated by a company and the capital it is in possession of.  Do you know where the terms stocks and bonds originated?

It is "nothing more" than that, ya say?

You clearly do NOT understand the stock market.

At all. It is so much more than that reductionist twaddle.

Here, take a look at this OP from some years back:

​​​​​​​

Cannonpointer » 02 May 2014, 10:35 pm » wrote: ↑

02 May 2014, 10:35 pm

Instead of definitions, let's talk functions.

Look at the materials required to construct a solar panel.They cost about $200.00. Add a day's labor to that $200.00, and you've got yourself a solar panel. You could sell it for $400.00, and you've got yourself a job. So, why isn't anyone doing it? We live in a free enterprise economy, do we not?

Not.

We live in a capitalist economy, which games the system to PREVENT free enterprise. You are not allowed to sell your solar panels without a stamp of approval from Underwriters Laboratories -and they are gate keepers for Wall Street. The cost of shaking hands with UL prevents free enterprisers from operating in that market -and the same thing is going on in almost every market. The little guy is locked out by the engineered and manipulated expense of sitting at the table - locked out. Only Wall Streeters, using OTHER PEOPLES' capital, can afford to play in the game.

We need to go back to a free enterprise economy, where the little guy does not face unsurmountable obstacles to starting a small business.

Now, you tell me what is off about the OP above, or you cannot continue to blithely assert that capitalism is "nothing more" than "bla bla bla."

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:47 pm

Michael Jordan wore fruit of the loom for one day in a endorsement deal, and was paid more for that one day than a million producers of the product made in a decade.

Somebody is being exploited, if you can turn off your man crush on Jordan for a minute you will see it

What business is it of yours and mine what someone else thought MJ endorsement was worth?  You aren't paying him and you aren't wearing any underwear on TV.  For that matter what business is it of ours what the other workers involved were paid to likewise participate in the production and sale of the underwear.  You aren't working at a textile mill and I'm convinced you didn't own a portion of Haynes.  As long as no forced labor was involved and the workers (including MJ) were free from undue coercion or violence then we have no business whatsoever objecting to the contracts they decided were more than fair.  Furthermore if you bought the Haynes underwear you likely did so freely.

In all likelihood MJ's endorsement increased sales and the price charged for the underwear.  It was this prospect which may have brought about the decision to employ these workers.  Apparently if they willingly agreed to work for Haynes they are pleased to have the opportunity.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm

Your use of the term exploit is misplaced.  Was Michael Jordan's labor EXPLOITED by the Bulls Franchise?  He wasn't FORCED to play basketball.  Many might think Michael Jordan EXPLOITED the Bulls.  Certainly Brian Bosworth might be considered to have exploited the NFL?

I understand the stock market.  Do you?  It is nothing more than shared risk where I pay for the rights to a portion of the wealth generated by a company and the capital it is in possession of.  Do you know where the terms stocks and bonds originated?

Let's take another cut:

Capitalism is a system where CAPITAL makes the rules, and all of the emphasis and power are focused on CAPITAL.

Free Enterprise is a system which rewards ENTERPRISE, not capital, and participants need no special license, no imprimatur of entrance, no friends in high places - just an idea, some energy, and as much money as market implementation of that idea requires.

WE DON'T HAVE A CRONY CAPITALISM PROBLEM. WE HAVE A CAPITALISM PROBLEM. The solution is free enterprise - what the founders implemented when they overthrew the British East India Company.

More on solar panels:

Cannonpointer » 04 May 2014, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑

04 May 2014, 3:47 pm

Because a $14,000 price tag on an item that costs $400 (labor inclusive) to produce SHOULD make the distinction I am making obvious even to dullards. 

$14,000 - 400 = 13,600. That's serious room for profit, son. WHY ARE THERE NO FREE AGENTS JUMPING INTO THE GAME?

Seriously, one of you capitalism supporters take it on. Rock, you wanna field that? With a 35,000% profit margin on an item you can build in your garage, WHY ISN'T THERE A SINGLE ENTREPRENEUR FROM MAIN STREET JUMPING IN THE WATER? Is the apparent lock that Wall Street has just a conicidence? If so, I'll pick another item from another industry and make the same goddamned point, over and over and over til you puke, son.

Capitalism is not freedom. Capitalism is not free enterprise. 

Capitalism is what makes you pay 14k for a $400 solar panel, and prevents you from jumping in and bringing the price down while making a buck. Capitalism is what put DeLorean in jail for daring to compete with the big 3. Capitalism is what is suppressing Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and bullying people to take a fake, experimental "vaccine," using the power of the state and corporate controlled media. That ain't free enterprise. It's the very opposite of free enterprise. 
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:45 pm

Your use of the term exploit is misplaced.  Was Michael Jordan's labor EXPLOITED by the Bulls Franchise?  He wasn't FORCED to play basketball.  Many might think Michael Jordan EXPLOITED the Bulls.  Certainly Brian Bosworth might be considered to have exploited the NFL?

I understand the stock market.  Do you?  It is nothing more than shared risk where I pay for the rights to a portion of the wealth generated by a company and the capital it is in possession of.  Do you know where the terms stocks and bonds originated?

Here is another aged OP about capitalism. It talks about a game that is now much farther along - wall street stealing main street's market. See if you don't recognize the truth of the wall street crimes laid out in this indictment:

Cannonpointer » 06 Apr 2014, 11:09 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2014, 11:09 pm

Again and again on this board, I have pointed out that capitalism - not "crony" capitalism, not red or green or blue capitalism, but CAPITALISM - lives by the government gun. From soup to nuts, from inception to forever, all Wall Street firms count on the government to socialize risks, privatize profits, and bully cornered markets.
Of late, RJ Reynolds and other of Lush Rimjob's friends have been getting walloped by FREE ENTERPRISE. But capitalism doesn't take that laying down - they use their exclusive control on the mainstream media to tell lies upon lies about their competition, and they go to their bought-and-paid-for government goons to use the nanny state to protect their market. 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/fda-pushing ... ids-274796

The canard about 215 calls to the CDC regarding vaping fluid is being repeated all over the corporate media. All 215 calls traced back to RJ Reynolds. And I can prove that - or at least, you should assume that I can, rather than assume the number is accurate, representative and honest, given the billions at stake for big tobacco.

The "calls to the CDC" canard might have a familiar ring to you - google "calls to the poison control center about horse medicine." It's how they create panic to get folks to lose their heads and hand them power. 

It's all about stealing market. 

And unless you have been sleeping under a rock, you will definitely have to agree that the particular complaint in that almost 8 year old OP has progressed significantly - just as I said it would. They did what I said they were doing. They have all but won the game at this point. Within five years, wall street will have absolute control of the vape market. 
 
 

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:47 pm

Michael Jordan wore fruit of the loom for one day in a endorsement deal, and was paid more for that one day than a million producers of the product made in a decade.

Somebody is being exploited, if you can turn off your man crush on Jordan for a minute you will see it

Michael Jordan is not a mere man. 
 
He is an Immortal. 
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 7:00 pm

What business is it of yours and mine what someone else thought MJ endorsement was worth?  You aren't paying him and you aren't wearing any underwear on TV.  For that matter what business is it of ours what the other workers involved were paid to likewise participate in the production and sale of the underwear.  You aren't working at a textile mill and I'm convinced you didn't own a portion of Haynes.  As long as no forced labor was involved and the workers (including MJ) were free from undue coercion or violence then we have no business whatsoever objecting to the contracts they decided were more than fair.  Furthermore if you bought the Haynes underwear you likely did so freely.

In all likelihood MJ's endorsement increased sales and the price charged for the underwear.  It was this prospect which may have brought about the decision to employ these workers.  Apparently if they willingly agreed to work for Haynes they are pleased to have the opportunity.

it's not my business but you said freedom was a value.

If I hire a thousand mercenaries to control a thousand square miles of land, forcing every civilian there to starve or be a slave in my sweatshop, that is not "freedom"

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:51 pm

Your understanding of the term exploit seems limited to connotations. I used it for denotative purpose. 

According to your own post, the owner of the bulls ABSOLUTELY exploited the labor and talents of his star player - as well he ought. 

And yes, Jordan exploited the Bulls. As well he ought. No harm no foul on either side. 

It just wasn't **** capitalism, is all. 

It is "nothing more" than that, ya say?

You clearly do NOT understand the stock market.

At all. It is so much more than that reductionist twaddle.

Here, take a look at this OP from some years back:

​​​​​​​

Now, you tell me what is off about the OP above, or you cannot continue to blithely assert that capitalism is "nothing more" than "bla bla bla.
 

First, UL certification is NOT required.  When someone or some company seeks to insure a product against injury liability (unfortunately our society is quite litigious) many insurance companies require it pass UL certification.  Although there are many such competing certification laboratories.  In fact UL is nothing more than a group of independent laboratories who each specialize in the testing of various consumer products who operate and are advertised under the name UL.  Hence the term United Laboratories.  Companies are free to find different insurance and many forego insurance and the associated certifications it would require.  Not all insurers require certification though the costs are normally higher.  Major auto producers do just that.  They perform their own testing and handle their own litigation.  It's up to all parties involved what the services of each is worth and whether to enter into a contract at all.

As for the stock market, stock is just the shared ownership of a company.  Owning a portion of the stock allows you to share in any profits (or losses it incurs).  The company enters into agreements (as I described) which may or may not result in profits.  The company may rent out their capital equipment to skilled workers who then produce goods for market.  Free and fair contracts where all are benefited.  They may also desired to instead pay wages to these same workers and keep the product themselves.  If they sell the product for more than they agreed to pay in wages good for them.  Whatever agreements they come to as long as it is free of undue coercion everyone involved must believe they benefit.

As a stockholder I have entered into a different agreement in which I exchange my wealth for a share of the proceeds generated by the company resulting from whatever contracts the company decides to enter into in exchange for what the property owned by the company brings to the table.