Craigslist Exec To Soon Catch Bullet With His Forehead

[Amianthus]

So, if you see all this as a mutually agreed upon transaction, you're kind of crazy.

There are people who live without paying a dime for gasoline.

It's a matter of deciding what you want, and then doing it.

No one is forcing anyone to buy gasoline.

When you make the choice to buy gasoline at the price it's being sold at, that is a mutually agreed upon transaction. If you don't want to pay that price, you are free to find someone else selling at a better price, or not buying at all. If you're locked into buying gasoline for some reason, it's most likely because of a previous choice you made - like your living location or the job you accepted. You should have factored in the gasoline cost as well, including price increases.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Brassmask]

So, if you see all this as a mutually agreed upon transaction, you're kind of crazy.

There are people who live without paying a dime for gasoline.

It's a matter of deciding what you want, and then doing it.

No one is forcing anyone to buy gasoline.

When you make the choice to buy gasoline at the price it's being sold at, that is a mutually agreed upon transaction. If you don't want to pay that price, you are free to find someone else selling at a better price, or not buying at all. If you're locked into buying gasoline for some reason, it's most likely because of a previous choice you made - like your living location or the job you accepted. You should have factored in the gasoline cost as well, including price increases.

So, then it must be acceptable to everyone who lives in a city all their life as a child and who has family in that city and loves it there, to be wide open to the thought that they should move to another city for lower gas prices and all decisions should be factored on the price of gasoline?

As for no one being forced to buy gasoline, that is patently false.  The reality is if you don't buy gas, your life is going to be radically impacted and you're going to lose A LOT of options.  You are not free to just not buy gas without radical changes to your lifestyle that have nothing to do with gas.  If my mother decided to no longer use gas, she wouldn't be able to take daytrips to visit my grandmother 100 miles away.  She could always just call her, huh?  

Not being able to afford gas excludes one from the mutually agreed upon transaction and in this world today, gas has moved beyond a product.  It is a necessity.  Finding a different price is negligible in that the price would only differ by a few cents at most.  We are forced to buy gasoline.

When I buy gasoline it is NEVER in a mutually agreed upon transaction.  It is a transaction under duress.  I couldn't decide to stop buying gasoline if I want to continue sending my kid to the daycare I want, working at the job I could find and seeing my friends and family who are scattered hither thither and yon.  That's not even counting how I would have to give up the one or two little trips I get to make a year out of this town.  Your idea that no one is forced to buy gas is laughable.

If you have some notions on how I could do all those things that I do without gas then please let me in on them.  And please don't mention a horse.  I don't want a horse and I'd have to be up at 4 am every day in order to get the horse ready and then get my kid loaded and then drive him to his daycare on the horse and then to my work on the horse.  On a horse, I figure if I trot on it because of traffic and having to keep  my kid steady, that's about 10 mph TOPS.  That means I'd be on my horse for at least an hour and half nearly every day, just to get to work.  Then another hour and a half home.  So three hours a day, just getting to work when the round trip is something like 26 miles.  Not to mention, I'd be worn out from riding the freaking horse by the time I get to work!  Get out of here with that horse.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[Amianthus]

As for no one being forced to buy gasoline, that is patently false.  The reality is if you don't buy gas, your life is going to be radically impacted and you're going to lose A LOT of options.

And that is your choice to make. No one is forcing you to buy gasoline. This guy doesn't buy any, and he lives a fine life, one of his own choosing. And he also does not force you to live his life, as you are advocating with your RBE.

[Brassmask]

What are pharmaceutical companies forcing people to do against their will?

They are forcing people to pay exhorbitant prices for medicines or stay sick or die.


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.

You're really making a simplistic argument here.  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?

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.

Yeah, Bill Gates?  This is your rags to riches story?  The Pursuit of Happyness is the exception to the rule.  That's why its a movie!  Capitalism doesn't empower anyone to do anything.  It is merely a system.  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.

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.

anything is possible, I suppose but they won't go out of business in our lifetimes no matter what they do.

[Brassmask]

And that is your choice to make. No one is forcing you to buy gasoline. This guy doesn't buy any, and he lives a fine life, one of his own choosing. And he also does not force you to live his life, as you are advocating with your RBE.

So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.

[Amianthus]

So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.

No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it.

But you're not required to convert to their brand of Christianity to stop buying gasoline. You can remain an atheist and stop buying gasoline as well.

Or, you can make the choice that paying for gasoline is worth the convenience you get in other parts of your life.

Again, your choice. No one is forcing you to take any of those paths.

Maybe you should get a subscription to "Mother Earth News" - they have lots of tips and suggestions for living a more independent lifestyle.

[Brassmask]

So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.

No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it.

But you're not required to convert to their brand of Christianity to stop buying gasoline. You can remain an atheist and stop buying gasoline as well.

Or, you can make the choice that paying for gasoline is worth the convenience you get in other parts of your life.

Again, your choice. No one is forcing you to take any of those paths.

Maybe you should get a subscription to "Mother Earth News" - they have lots of tips and suggestions for living a more independent lifestyle.

See you're validating my point.  I can't just decide to stop buying gasoline without making a complete change in lifestyle.  I would not have to become an Amish theist, that is true but I would, in effect, have to live like one.  I like driving.  I like going distances in a short time.  Without a car that runs on gas, I'm just out of luck.  I MUST by gas in order to continue living the lifestyle I want.  Thus I have no choice.  The Amish do without gas but they have a totally different lifestyle that I don't want to take up.

My mom could just stop buying gas and talk to her mother on the phone rather than driving the hundred miles in a car and seeing her.  She could make that "choice". 

Oooooh, let's think of it this way.  I could stop buying gas and then if my kid falls and breaks his arm, I could just take him to the emergency room on a bus or by bike.  Why should I be held hostage for the gas it would take to make my kid's pain lesser in a shorter amount of time?  That's an honorable choice I could make, right?

Sheesh.

 

[Plane]

So, I should become Amish in order to not have to buy gasoline anymore.

No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it.

But you're not required to convert to their brand of Christianity to stop buying gasoline. You can remain an atheist and stop buying gasoline as well.

Or, you can make the choice that paying for gasoline is worth the convenience you get in other parts of your life.

Again, your choice. No one is forcing you to take any of those paths.

Maybe you should get a subscription to "Mother Earth News" - they have lots of tips and suggestions for living a more independent lifestyle.

See you're validating my point.  I can't just decide to stop buying gasoline without making a complete change in lifestyle.  I would not have to become an Amish theist, that is true but I would, in effect, have to live like one.  I like driving.  I like going distances in a short time.  Without a car that runs on gas, I'm just out of luck.  I MUST by gas in order to continue living the lifestyle I want.  Thus I have no choice.  The Amish do without gas but they have a totally different lifestyle that I don't want to take up.

My mom could just stop buying gas and talk to her mother on the phone rather than driving the hundred miles in a car and seeing her.  She could make that "choice". 

Oooooh, let's think of it this way.  I could stop buying gas and then if my kid falls and breaks his arm, I could just take him to the emergency room on a bus or by bike.  Why should I be held hostage for the gas it would take to make my kid's pain lesser in a shorter amount of time?  That's an honorable choice I could make, right?

Sheesh.

 

On this Planet only the top 25% have been presented with the choice of buying a car or not.

Most of the world has not given enough capitol to individuals for this choice to be availible.

You are too accustomed to being among the wealthy , you do not feel as if you are as wealthy as you actually are. These choices of lifestyle that you do not see as choices are indeed choices . These are choices that are not availible in places with insufficient distribution of Capitol.

Imagine yourself as a Median Income Indian , Cuban , Mexican , Congolnese , Mynamarian, Figian or whatever.

You would be without the freedom to choose to buy a car and a lifetime of survitude to that car is thereby avoided.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/StudyRevealsOverwhelmingWealthGap.aspx

[Amianthus]

See you're validating my point.  I can't just decide to stop buying gasoline without making a complete change in lifestyle.  I would not have to become an Amish theist, that is true but I would, in effect, have to live like one.  I like driving.  I like going distances in a short time.  Without a car that runs on gas, I'm just out of luck.  I MUST by gas in order to continue living the lifestyle I want.  Thus I have no choice.  The Amish do without gas but they have a totally different lifestyle that I don't want to take up.

Actually, you're validating my point. I could point to thousands of New Yorkers that do not own cars. I don't even need to point to people who live in cities, there are many cases of people who gave up their modern lifestyle and live without a vehicle in Mother Earth News. I know some people who live near my parents, out in the boonies of western NC, who don't own vehicles. Matter of fact, some of them don't even use money, they have no need. They provide themselves with their own food, pump their own water, have no electricity, etc. They made a choice. Your point is that you made a choice to live in a way that requires a car. Which is my point as well - you chose this lifestyle, which came with a need to buy a car and fuel for it. It was your choice.

Oooooh, let's think of it this way.  I could stop buying gas and then if my kid falls and breaks his arm, I could just take him to the emergency room on a bus or by bike.  Why should I be held hostage for the gas it would take to make my kid's pain lesser in a shorter amount of time?  That's an honorable choice I could make, right?

Last time I checked, the ambulance services didn't ask you if you owned a car before they came out to pick you up. And yes, if you did not own a car, you would need to find another way to the hospital.

I never said that life would be the same if you chose to live without a car. I said that you chose to own a car, and that choice required a tie to the fuel companies. It was still a choice you made, not a requirement for fuel pushed upon you.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[_JS]

That does not make the exchange any less capitalistic.

It does not make them capitalist transactions either. Bartering existed long before 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.

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.

No, it is very simplistic. 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.

No, you make the decisions for your life. If that decision is to become Amish, so be it

What Brass is talking about are commodities with inelastic demand. You likely know that, so it makes your little game of semantics all the more surreal. Why don't you discuss this at a level of genuineness with each other instead of posting pictures of the Amish, because honestly you are arguing for capitalism from a level that cannot convince or persuade anyone of its usefulness if you're honestly offering a horse drawn buggy as a real choice.

If you wish to discuss the positive aspects of capitalism then why not do so from an honest level. Clearly Brass is pointing out commodities (or maybe even services) with inelastic demand. Let's have a decent discussion from that point, not a ridiculous assertion of lifestyle choices that includes a horse and buggy. I'm fairly certain that Maggie Thatcher's just gasped somewhere.

[Brassmask]

They made a choice. Your point is that you made a choice to live in a way that requires a car. Which is my point as well - you chose this lifestyle, which came with a need to buy a car and fuel for it. It was your choice.
I never said that life would be the same if you chose to live without a car. I said that you chose to own a car, and that choice required a tie to the fuel companies. It was still a choice you made, not a requirement for fuel pushed upon you.

Ah, but see therein is the point.  I would have to make a total lifestyle change, saying goodbye to my friends and non-immediate family if I "chose" to not buy gasoline anymore.  Therefore, unless I want to give up some of the things that are most precious to me, I  MUST continue to buy gasoline.  There is no choice for me because I wouldn't want to move away from my friends and family.  The "choice" to not buy gas has become so personally expensive to my way of life that I MUST buy gas or experience a total lifestyle change.  The ultimate point being that buying gas is NOT a mutually agreed upon transaction anymore than paying the mafia for "protection" is a mutually agreed upon transaction.

Sure, Luigi at the dry cleaners can choose to stop paying Santos when he comes around to collect but there will be repercussions for his "choice".  Afterall, it's his own fault for opening a dry cleaners in the neighborhood where he lives.  He can always "choose" to move his business to another neighborhood or city.  It's his "choice".

If buying gas were a truly mutually agreed upon transaction then I'd be able to stop buying gas and "choose" to buy some other kind of fuel like, I don't know, Soy-based fuel of some kind without even thinking about it.  It would be more like the mutually agreed upon transaction I make when I buy cereal.  Frosted Flakes or Mueslix?  I agree to buy Fruit Loops today.  When I go to buy cereal, I'm not told,  "here are the different brands of Raisin Bran (Post, Kelloggs, etc).  They all cost about $4 a box and they have bran flakes and raisins.  This one has raisins with frosting.  And everyone who wants to be regular has to eat Raisin Bran in the morning.  Which box do you want?"  That's how gas is sold.  It's basically all the same and just comes from different colored boxes at about the same price and you must have it in order to be "regular".

Your delightful tales of people who don't use gas or money are quaint and more power to them but you know better than I that those people are the exception to the rule.  No one should have to become farmers or move away from the family and hometown they love just so they can stop buying some product that they're forced to buy.

Death, taxes and buying gas.

[Brassmask]

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.

This thread had grown stale to me but a couple of things are re-kindling it for me.  One is this totally ludicrous statement here.  Capitalism is an equalizing system?  Are you kidding me?  In this country, the haves are about 1% of the country and the rest is the have a littles to have nots.  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.

Capitalism maintains the status quo.  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.

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.  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.

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.  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.

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.

I'll get to the other point from _JS when I get back from having a BBQ sandwich with my wife.