This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Universe Prince
Pages: 1 ... 222 223 [224] 225 226 ... 244
3346
« on: December 22, 2006, 08:31:07 AM »
Choose your goals and pursue them, yeah, sure.
Luck is probably more important than any other single element here.
Yes, choose your goals and pursue them. If you don't, luck won't get you there. Winning the lottery is, I think we would all agree, a luck based situation. But if you don't buy at least one lottery ticket you will never win the lottery, and luck has nothing to do with that. One of the few clichéd sayings that really has much merit is this: fortune favors the prepared mind. Pasteur said that about "fields of observation" but the basic concept holds true in other areas. One does not become a doctor by luck. One does not become a computer programmer by luck. One does not find employment by luck. You have to actually do something toward achieving the goal. Yes, luck may play a part in how successful one ultimately becomes, but that doesn't mean pursuing a goal is a waste of time.
3347
« on: December 19, 2006, 06:10:54 PM »
I know there are some replies (to my posts) to which I have not yet responded, but I'm out of time right now. I'll have to get to them later or tomorrow.
3348
« on: December 19, 2006, 06:07:30 PM »
And yet there is no real reason to consider [bartering] capitalism, other than to provide a simplistic definition.
It is the exchange of privately owned property. Why shouldn't it be considered capitalism?
We could have an entire discussion on just this. I would think that Pinochet's Chile and it's link to Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" was a nice testament to the fact that freedom of market does not correlate to freedom of people.
That assumes that Pinochet's Chile was an example of freedom of market. Oh, and the link between Pinochet and Friedman is minuscule. I recommend checking out Brian Doherty's article, "The Economist and the Dictator", about Friedman, Pinochet and Chile over at Reason Online.
Can you explain how interest rates and exchange rates are artificial constructs within capitalism that do not have to exist?
Interest rates and exchange rates are artificial in that they are not naturally occurring things. Money or property does not earn interest by itself. It does so because people have established a system wherein they agree to the concept of interest and a specific rate of interest. Exchange rates have to do with currency, which is itself really an artificial construct. We have and use currency, money, because we all essentially agree to use it as a means of exchange rather than bartering with deeds, physical objects and the like. I don't know how things like interest rates and exchange rates could not be seen as artificial constructs. I realize I'm probably not explaining this very well, but I am not an economist.
I'm especially keen on understanding how interest rates do not have to exist as this would seem contradictory to the entire concept of the time value of money. Without it, the entire system of annuities, credit, banking, discounting, etc would be gone. So, let's start there and we can tackle currency exchange at a later time.
The time value of money exists because people tend to prefer a sum of money now rather than the same sum of money in the future, and therefore there needs to be a reason to invest money, which leads us to the concepts of interest and the time value of money. We do not have to have these concepts for people to own property or to use it to increase wealth. These concepts make that easier certainly, but they are not required. Yes, without interest we would see a vastly different operation of capitalism, but that things would be different does not make interest a necessary concept. I'm not saying it isn't an extremely valuable and useful concept, I'm just saying it isn't absolutely necessary.
We didn't even touch on arbitrage, surely that's a capitalistic endeavor?
Of course it is. So is currency exchange and investment with interest. I never said they were not. They fit within capitalism; they do not define it. I would have thought that was obvious.
3349
« on: December 19, 2006, 05:28:31 PM »
Capitalism is an equalizing system? Are you kidding me?
No. I'll say this again since you seem to have missed it the first time. Life itself is full of roadblocks, and capitalism is a system that allows people to overcome or circumvent those roadblocks. Class, race, gender, education, these are not insurmountable barriers in capitalism. They may seem to loom large in our society, but that is our fault, the fault of people, not the fault of capitalism. There are other artificial barriers too, created by laws and regulations that were intended to help but that mostly just get in the way. And the nature of capitalism is such that those barriers can also be overcome.
In this country, the haves are about 1% of the country and the rest is the have a littles to have nots.
That is a ridiculous categorization that looks very much like envy to me. My family is not in the top 1% or even in the top 10%, and we have plenty. We have food, a nice house, automobiles, clothes, a few television sets, a couple of computers, electricity, running hot and cold water, furniture, books, movies, and we're all buying presents for each other this year. No, we don't have limos or butlers or plasma televisions or caviar or a wine cellar or horses or a multimillion dollar house or things like that. We don't wear furs and silks or $100 shirts. We don't take trips to Europe, don't have all the latest gadgets, or any of those other things that wealthy people spend their pocket change on. But we do have things and we live a nice life, thank you very much, and I bet you do too.
You guys love to throw around the Ponzi Scheme model when you're talking about taxes but, in reality, all of capitalism is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme for those who become the Haves are rare and the rest of us wind up working for them in some fashion or other.
I have to wonder if you know what a Ponzi scheme is.
Capitalism maintains the status quo.
Oh please. You're still talking as if what we have in America is somehow the ultimate in capitalism, as if what we have is pure capitalism. This is not even remotely the case. What we have here is a mixed economy with some capitalism, some socialism and some corporatism. The last two parts together making our overall economic system closer to fascism than laissez faire capitalism.
For the most part, the rich stay rich and get richer and the poor stay poor. Statistics show, in America, the middle class is shrinking. The top 1% who were extremely wealthy have gotten a lot wealthier since Bush took office and the not-extremely wealthy have either stayed the same or slid down to be poorer.
The rich stay rich and get richer because for the most part, they have government on their side. They get the influence with the politicians. They get called in to advise the government on policy matters. They are able to afford the vast regulations and bullsh-- that government lays down as "necessary" controls on the market. If you want to campaign against government propping up the rich with subsidies and needless regulations the inhibit competition and entrepreneurship, I will be happy to help you out. Just ask. If you want to criticize Bush's overall economic policy, again, I'm right there with you.
Sure, sure, assuage yourselves with the idea that there are grants and loans out there by the millions to get people educated and therefore more attractive to hiring companies and all that. But the reality is that no matter how educated the lower or middle classes get in this country, they will never be able to get jobs back from overseas that companies ship over there to hire people who are willing and able to work for pennies on the dollar of what they would have to make in order to simply survive in America.
You're like a never ending fount of economic nonsense. Get jobs back? Jobs are not a finite resource. Jobs can be created anytime, anyplace, anywhere. We don't need to get jobs back, because we can create as many new jobs as we need. But what is really ridiculous about your complaint is all the things that have caused businesses to want to move jobs overseas are really creations of people who keep trying to correct what they see as the "failures" of capitalism. Folks like you keep trying to make doing business more and more difficult in the goosechase after "fairness" and in the name of protecting the people. And then you complain when businesses find it easier and more profitable to move jobs somewhere else. And then you complain that the poor can't seem to get a break, that all the cards are stacked against them. And so naturally, you blame capitalism. It is almost as if you have no grasp of the basic concept of cause and effect.
We have returned to the glorious Guilded Age in America with robber barons running the country and working people like slaves without recourse through representation in unions.
If that is so, and I doubt that, it is because of socialist policies that have partnered corporations with government and interfered with the common citizen's access to economic opportunity.
A person who starts out in America at birth in a poor family with little or no opportunity for quality education is virtually gauranteed to stay in that environment.
Only if they don't try to get out of it. Of course, artificial price floors on employment and oodles of regulations that interfere with basic entrepreneurial attempts don't help people escape poverty at all, but by all means, you ignore that and just put all the blame on capitalism.
Capitalists like act like everyone can hustle and get faster and smarter and "win" but that's just a fairy tale they make movies out of with Will Smith.
No, it isn't. Of course not everyone is going to end up with a six or seven figure income, but not everyone wants one. Not everyone defines "winning" as being a millionaire. It is possible to move from a low economic status to a higher economic status. I know because my father did it. I know because millions of people have done it.
Is everyone standing around starving and living in ditches and mud huts? Certainly not. But that's only because some companies take it upon themselves to stay in America.
That makes even less sense than your previous statements.
3350
« on: December 19, 2006, 05:27:53 PM »
and how we should fashion our legal/economic system to assure that the "burdens of society" are carried equitably, that is, not only by ability to contribute but degree of benefit derived.
First you need to define the "burdens of society".
3351
« on: December 19, 2006, 04:23:47 PM »
It does not make them capitalist transactions either. Bartering existed long before capitalism.
Bartering existed before capitalism and related concepts were actually defined as such. The exchange of privately owned capital in one form or another for someone else's privately owned capital has been around for a very long time. Bartering is one example of this. I see no reason not to consider it capitalism.
If you believe that such transactions are capitalism, then you cannot believe that capitalism and political freedom have any connection. Clearly such a transaction can exist (and has historically existed) under the most brutal of regimes.
On the contrary, I believe that capitalism and political freedom are very much connected. Where brutal regimes attempt to control trade, blackmarkets arise and prosper. People will seek the liberty of capitalistic trade and to oppress it is to oppress the people and the rightful liberty of the people. Economic and political freedom are linked. Part of the functioning of capitalism is the liberty of the individual to decide for himself what to do with his own property. Property rights and the liberty that goes with that is inextricably linked to the freedom of the individual in society. Capitalism does not make people free, certainly, but where it is supported, liberty flourishes, and where it is opposed, liberty is diminished.
The example Brass gave is one where the information is well known in both cases. Now start applying principles such as arbitrage, profit margin, supply costs, discounting, compounded interest rates, currency exhcange rates, escrow accounts, etc to that "mutual exchange" and you'll see that your pollyanna example isn't one of pumpkins and watermelons and skipping through the tulips.
I'm not sure what "pollyanna" example you're talking about. I did not say there are not other concerns in the way businesses operate. And some of what you mention are artificial constructs within capitalism: interest rates, exchange rates, et cetera. These are part of how people have chosen to do business within capitalism, but they are not required parts of capitalism. Other things like profit margins and supply costs, these are part of the calculations that go into deciding what the benefits of exchange are and how to make the most beneficial exchanges. They can hardly be said to contradict the idea of capitalism as mutual exchange for mutual benefit.
The rest of your post has to do with Amianthus's arguments directly, so I'll leave it to him to answer that.
3352
« on: December 19, 2006, 08:40:17 AM »
They [pharmaceutical companies] are forcing people to pay exhorbitant prices for medicines or stay sick or die.
They are? They force people to not join one of the multitude of prescription discount plans around the country? Perhaps they force people not to use Wal-Mart pharmacies? No? Maybe they force people to not take them up on the prescription cost help offered by the companies? Um, no, that doesn't happen either. Of course I should make note here that without the medicines that the pharmaceutical companies develop, there would be nothing to pay prices for (exorbitant or otherwise) that would help people remain alive and/or alleviate their maladies.
They have the same thing to offer that you and I have. They own their lives, their skills, their labor, their time. If you take a job, are you not exchanging your time, your labor, your skill for something in return? Of course you are.
You're really making a simplistic argument here.
No, you're just not grasping it.
How is someone in Darfur supposed to buy food for their kid? What jobs are there in Darfur, for instance, that allows someone who lives there to earn a decent wage? And where is someone there supposed to get education or learn a trade? You're thinking in terms of those of us on this board. The world is filled with billions of people who can't afford a CAT Scan or even freaking vitamins. They're basically scratching the dirt to get enough rice so they don't starve TODAY. Don't you get it?
Yes, I do. Do you? What these people need is more capitalism, not less. You ask what jobs are there in Darfur, and apparently do not consider people starting their own business. But this is difficult in a place where property rights are not protected to any degree. There are fundamental problems in Darfur, and I know full well they cannot all be addressed by capitalism. Human rights is not a capitalism issue. That said, among the things that could be done to help Darfur and the rest of Africa is recognition and legal protection of property rights. Once people are allowed to own property, to keep it and use it, then people will begin to trade on their own. And if anything is going to be done about the economic situation in places like Darfur, trade the way to make positive change happen.
Yeah, Bill Gates? This is your rags to riches story?
No, I didn't say that. He may not be the best example, but his company did start small.
The Pursuit of Happyness is the exception to the rule. That's why its a movie!
But it is not the exception to the rule. It is an extreme example, yes, one that gotten attention because the guy wrote a book and got some TV airtime. That is why it is a movie. But less extreme examples of people starting with very little or nothing and becoming successful financially are all around us. Throughout U.S. history people have come here from other countries to make a better life for themselves. Many of those people were dirt poor, and they became a large part of America's middle class. And some of them became wealthy.
Capitalism doesn't empower anyone to do anything. It is merely a system.
A fair point. Capitalism does not give power to people, but it does not try to take power or opportunity away from people.
The eventual potential is what a person can make happen within that system. Capitalism is a system frought with roadblocks. Imagine how many Bill Gates' there would be if children were given all the opportunities his parents were able to give him? This country would be frought with Bill Gates' if so many people didn't give up trying to be like him because they can't even get a handle on making enough money just to buy the bare necessities much less go to college.
College is not necessary to be successful. Anyway, no capitalism is not fraught with roadblocks, except the ones that we put there. Life itself is full of roadblocks, and capitalism is a system that allows people to overcome or circumvent those roadblocks. Class, race, gender, education, these are not insurmountable barriers in capitalism. They may seem to loom large in our society, but that is our fault, the fault of people, not the fault of capitalism. There are other artificial barriers too, created by laws and regulations that were intended to help but that mostly just get in the way. And the nature of capitalism is such that those barriers can also be overcome. Left mostly alone, capitalism is an equalizing system because it allows anyone to choose his goals and to pursue them. No, it does not eliminate the roadblocks that happen in life, we still have to do that. And the idea that most of life's problems will go away if we just do away with money and/or property rights is naive, to put it politely.
3353
« on: December 18, 2006, 07:03:58 PM »
Such a transaction may easily occur in any economic system, including communism.
That does not make the exchange any less capitalistic.
The complexity comes from the fact that we no longer live in the 18th century when Adam Smith wrote about Classical Liberal Economics. We live in an age where cash money is a fraction of actual cash management and global economics, currency and commodity exchange, and foreign holdings are far too complex for such a simplistic definition.
It might be simple, but it is not simplistic. And all of those global economics and currency exchanges, et cetera, all still are basically voluntary transactions mutually agreed upon by the parties involved. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit.
3354
« on: December 18, 2006, 06:53:56 PM »
How anyone can look at the way pharmaceuticals operate and not call that rape is beyond me.
What are pharmaceutical companies forcing people to do against their will?
What you fail to take into account of your oh, so cheery view of capitalist operations is that there are billions more people who have NOTHING to offer in exchange for the most basic needs of life that are held by a small proportion of the populace of this planet. That is not so much rape as hostage taking.
Complete nonsense. They have the same thing to offer that you and I have. They own their lives, their skills, their labor, their time. If you take a job, are you not exchanging your time, your labor, your skill for something in return? Of course you are.
Capitalism engenders that state of helplessness.
More nonsense. Much of the economic success of America has come from people who started with nothing or next to nothing and built a better life for themselves and their families because here exist the opportunities of capitalism. The richest man in the world started his company with a few cobbled together parts in in his garage. In cinemas around the country right now is a movie about a man who had almost nothing, found economic opportunity, worked to take advantage of the opportunity and became successful. Capitalism empowers the individual to create his own success and progress without tying him down because of class or race or other irrational barriers. No, it does not give success to the individual, but the individual can decide his own path and work to achieve it.
And the major capitalist endeavours in the form of "corporations" will eventually take on the task of engendering that state of helplessness rather than making the need irrelevant. An Exxon is not going to look for a way for humanity to do without oil no matter what the effect of the use of such oil has on humans, the environment, etc as long as people will put up with those effects.
Exxon doesn't have to look. They should, but if they don't, other people will. Other people are. Ford Motor Co. and BP have partnered to establish a biofuels research center and they also opened a hydrogen fuel station in Taylor, Michigan, to provide fuel for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as part of a test of real world application of fuel cell technology. That Exxon may be doing nothing about moving from oil to something else does not hinder other people from doing so. If Exxon does nothing, they will be the ultimate losers, and they may even go out of business altogether. Why? Because someone else took privately owned capital and pursued a different path. This is capitalism in action.
And, in fact, to protect its power status and that state of helplessness, the corporation will make the cost of its activities to engender those part of the cost to purchase its "product" thus the victim of its assault pays for the assault.
And yet, as has been pointed out previously, no one has to buy Exxon gasoline. You can buy your gas from other companies. No one is forcing you to go to the Exxon station to buy your gas. Exxon does not take money from your paycheck, and no one is going to come to your house and arrest you and/or confiscate your property if you never give Exxon any money. So there is no assault and no victim.
This is not a happy-go-lucky tool that is abused by "bad apples". This is the natural progression of an un-natural process created by power-loving madmen.
It is not an unnatural process. Mutual exchange for mutual benefit is perfectly natural. And you're the one demanding conformity to your social ideas so you really should be careful about calling other people "power-loving madmen".
If it was simply a matter of you have some carrots and I have a watemelon, let's swap, then that would be cool with me. It would be in the interest of all the parties involved. But that is not the way capitalism works.
Yes, actually that is the way capitalism works. JS's protestations that it could take place in any sort of economic system aside, that sort of exchange the essence of capitalism. What I exchange might be carrots, or it might be my time and effort, or it might be money, or might be any number of other things. But the exchange of what I own for what you own is capitalism.
As we move into a world where people more and more use less cash, actual money in their hands given in exchange for goods and services, we will see more and more people willing to ignore payment altogether. More and more, I'm seeing stories of people not caring for personal gain but relative comfort in favor of more people being relatively comfortable.
Good. If that makes them happy, more power to them.
More people will be willing to have less in favor of a greater number of the populace having some. Capitalism will give way to an RBE-styled form of operating.
Perhaps, but I doubt it.
3355
« on: December 16, 2006, 01:28:32 AM »
Lord, son.
You're not a Lord, and I'm not your son.
Craigslist charges money for job listings, but only in seven of the cities it serves ($75 in San Francisco; $25 in the others). And it charges for apartment listings in New York ($10 a pop). But that is just to pay expenses.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/craigslist-meets-the-capitalists/
In the very damned article I posted about.
Okay. Fair enough. Though I notice the person saying this is the author of the DealBook blog article, not Buckmaster himself. I haven't seen any other article make that claim. And I have to say, 10 million dollars seems like a lot of expenses.
Do you just assume I come up with stuff out of my head?
Sometimes you seem to do so. For example, your talk about capitalism has little relation to reality.
And your quote here exemplifies your ignorance.
Craiglist is a growing company, which means they make a profit. If Craiglist didn't make a profit, if they just took in enough to cover what they do now, they couldn't grow.
It's a growing online community, not a company in the way you think of it. It's a social endeavour. Craig and them surely receive a salary but who can blame them for that? They gotta eat!
Would you please stop assuming that you know how I think about this? Because clearly you haven't got even a foggy notion. Yes, I know Craigslist is not a company like Sears or Google. But I also know they have expanded operations from merely San Fransisco to hundreds of cities worldwide, from a few computers to hundreds of computers, from one guy operating the business to employing 22 people. Craigslist is a growing company, an expanding company, which means they made enough profit to expand. Duh. The company didn't get where it is now on goodwill, smiles and happy, happy RBE thoughts. What Craigslist has achieved it achieved by making and spending money. The ignorance exemplified here is yours and yours alone.
They don't care about going corporate or raping people for all the money that they possibly can. That is clearly not the point of capitalism. CAPITALISM means CAPITALIZING.
Case in point, the quote above. Capitalism does not mean capitalizing. Capitalism, to put this crudely, means the use of privately owned capital in business endeavors. Your use of the word "raping" clearly shows your ignorance of the matter. To rape is to plunder or abuse by force. Capitalism functions by voluntary exchange. (That the folks who want the government to take money by force are so frequently the ones who compare capitalism to rape or theft has always seemed ironic to me. But I'm not sure if it is ironic in a humorous way or in a sad way.) The point, and the beauty, of capitalism is voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. I give you something you want in exchange for something I want. There is no raping and no coercion. It doesn't require us to agree on politics or religion or music. It doesn't require us to agree about why we want what we are making an exchange for. All it requires is us to be willing to make the exchange. We are free to make it or not. If I force you to make the exchange against your will, that isn't capitalism. That is stealing. Or, if government forces you to make the exchange against your will, that is taxation.
Oh, and by the way, that whole voluntary exchange thing is one reason why focusing on providing what the customer wants is a good and sound business practice in capitalism.
Apparently you want to think capitalism is only about greed and sticking it to the next guy, while communism/RBE is about love and helping one's fellow humans, but that is a false dichotomy. Greed and sticking it to the next guy are problems that exist in any society, regardless of its economic basis. This has been true throughout history, even in supposedly communist/socialist countries. To place the blame at the feet of capitalism is ignorant. Greedy and self-serving people will take advantage of whatever social structure they live in, and eliminating money to create a RBE won't change that one iota.
Capitalism is not the end-all-be-all of human existence, nor the answer to all of society's problems. It is an answer to some problems. No, it will not result in a utopia where everyone is happy all the time. It does, however, serve liberty and human rights by allowing individuals to choose for themselves rather than having choices forced upon them. Yes, our capitalistic society has flaws. It will continue to have flaws so long as people are involved. I can support capitalism without supporting those flaws. I can oppose those flaws without opposing capitalism.
If you don't like capitalism, fine. I'm not saying you have to like it. But don't try to sell me horse hockey and tell me it's chocolate because I'm not buying it.
3356
« on: December 15, 2006, 05:31:37 PM »
Actually, Buckmaster is running Craigslist in almost exactly an RBE manner. They take in money. Yes. But they only take in enough to cover costs. That's what they said in the article.
I want to ask if you're joking, but I know you're still serious. I don't know where the "only take in enough to cover costs" bit comes from, because I can't find any article making that claim. What I see in the information about this is that Craiglist takes in plenty of revenue, just not as much as some people think Craiglist could if Craiglist did things more like Google or Yahoo.
Now, you'll want to go out of your way to hunt down how they, in fact, do turn a profit and that's all well and good;
I don't have to hunt down anything. Craiglist is a growing company, which means they make a profit. If Craiglist didn't make a profit, if they just took in enough to cover what they do now, they couldn't grow.
but, the "CEO" of Craigslist, the point is to help people NOT to make as much money as possible.
The goal is to serve customers. I cannot find anywhere that quotes Jim Buckmaster as saying their goal is not to make money. All he said was that maximizing profits was not their goal. And as I said before, there is nothing anti-capitalist about serving the customer.
Now, in a RBE system, those "costs" would be born by everyone and therefore no one. That's the system. He's operating in an RBE manner within a capitalist society.
He is operating a privately owned business in a capitalist manner within a capitalist society. You can twist this all you like, but that is the simple truth of the matter. Yes, I know you want to keep capitalism confined to some sort of bizarrely narrow definition that includes not caring about customers, but you're wrong. Putting customer service ahead of profits is a good business practice and fits comfortably within the realm of capitalism.
3357
« on: December 15, 2006, 12:23:40 AM »
They were able to get a bullet, which instantly vaporized when it was fired. The heat is too much for the bullet.
That was always what seemed to me to be the major flaw of an ice bullet. It would have to practically be supercooled to withstand the temperatures of being fired from the gun, and I'm not sure that would solve the problem.
I hardly ever watch the show, so I did not know they did retests.
3358
« on: December 14, 2006, 11:46:44 PM »
What problem did you have with that episode?
Well, the guy who was making the ice bullet tried to make one with a mold, and he couldn't make it work, so he said it couldn't be done. I would never have tried making one with a mold. The obvious way to make an ice bullet is to carve one from a piece of ice. The guy on the show never tried that or even mentioned it. He moved on to trying frozen meat bullets or some such.
3359
« on: December 14, 2006, 11:00:44 PM »
"Mythbusters" built a quicksand tank to test it.
After watching the episode where they "proved" that ice bullets were impossible, I find one has to take the show with a grain or two of salt, so to speak.
3360
« on: December 14, 2006, 03:01:42 PM »
What you continually ignore is that while your precious capitalism supposedly works in such and such a way, in reality, corporations work every way they can, especially in the realm of "public good", to maximize profits whether legal or illegal. Legal defence, tax evasion attorneys, even governmental fines are factored into operating costs and budgeted for. And until it becomes too expensive to ignore the plight of their fellow man in return for greater wealth, they will continue to do so.
I don't know why you think I ignore that. You seem to be confusing my support for capitalism with support for the status quo. You apparently hold the misconception that the way things are now is the the ultimate height of capitalistic endeavor, but I do not have that problem. And of course you and I probably have differing notions of what constitutes the "public good". But you are quite mistaken if you think I do not realize that that corporations generally work to maximize profits. Of course they do, even to the point of partnering with government in the form of subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, regulations, et cetera, to increase their profit margins and to interfere with the competition. I am fully aware of these things and would like to see an end to them.
Your cheerleading for capitalism is fine but in reality, that system is more abused than christianity. You can try to believe that Exxon is doing on some scale what Craigslist is doing but that just ain't reality.
Of course they're not, and I never said otherwise. In point of fact, I did not say anything about Exxon. Did not say, as in, never mentioned Exxon, never refered indirectly to Exxon, did not make any sort of comparison at all between Craiglist and anyone else.
Exxon is not interested in putting more Tiger Marts on every corner so it will be more convenient for you to get gas or a giant Mountain Dew. They just want your dollars. All of them.
And if they get my dollars, they my dollars by providing me with convenience and a cheaper price than the next gas station. If they don't, I spend my money somewhere else. Neat how that works, eh? Or, if I just don't like Exxon, I never have to go to an Exxon station. I can go to a BP station or Chevron or Shell or Hess or that discount place in front of Wal-Mart. If someone starts a gas station chain and proclaims that his goal is customer service not profits, I might even drive a little further and pay a little more just to spend my money there. All this is possible because of capitalism. I like it.
That's why they throw those TM's up and then close them down leaving blight everywhere. It makes them more money.
I doubt that really makes Exxon more money. But where I live, there are no abandoned Tiger Marts. No other brand of gas stations have been abandoned either. So there is no gas station blight here. Too bad if that happens where you live, but I doubt seriously it is part of some money making scheme.
To compare how Exxon does business with how Craigslist does business is just plain apples and oranges.
Probably so, but again, I did not make such a comparison. All I did was point out that Jim Buckmaster isn't pushing an RBE or communist agenda. If he could be said to be pushing any sort of agenda at all, it would be a customer service agenda, and there is nothing anti-capitalism about that. Maybe I should be sorry if that bursts your bubble, but I'm not.
Pages: 1 ... 222 223 [224] 225 226 ... 244
Show Posts