dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed
« geography
This is a sub-selection from Not entirely wrong

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to CXM_Splicer

Re: Not entirely wrong

We agree that production in excess of need is a good thing.
Why, however, would anyone invest in overproducing, if they didn't believe they had the opportunity to do so at a profit? I'm as altruistic as anyone, but history has shown us that self-interest, by far, produces abundance, while feel-good / marxist philosophy yields hoarding, scarcity, black markets and bureaucracy.

Any obsession can be deleterious to one's well-being.
The trouble here is that you're implying an "obsession with money" where there is none.

Wealth is not created by labor. It is created by investment - taking risks, in the hopes of adding value and returning a profitable result. Labor is often a major factor in that process, but labor is renumerated through payroll, independent of the capital risks. Your personal wealth derives from your paycheck and how you choose to manage it.

If you believe you're entitled to a greater portion of the potential pie, then you need to assume some of the risk, you need to buy in.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
Of course people will desire to profit from producing extra and there is nothing wrong with that per se. Breaking even though would not be altruistic and many non-profits operate in exactly this manner. Altruism would be to produce at a loss to yourself.

I disagree completely on creation of wealth but that is an entirely different discussion. I was not speaking of individual wealth. From your statement 'The wealth', I didn't think you were either.

If a producer is in stasis... they are producing in excess and generating a profit from that excess... why alter the parameters in zero-sum fashion to profit more? Simply because they have the power to do so? That crosses the boundary of need into greed, an obvious obsession not to the eyes of the envious but the eyes of those being taken away from. Do you think it would be better to remove any restrictions on monopolies?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
Apartment rentals are not a monopoly. Far from it. There are approximately 10,000,000 sellers in this country.

There are natural monopolies, de facto monopolies, and de jure monopolies. Each requires a different set of rules. But in general, the more rules we apply, the worse the outcome is for the consumer. In the case of NYC apartments, forcing the owner to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to wire the building would be a disaster both physically and financially for all players.

Producers are never in stasis; profit is something that must be pursued on an on-going basis, and can disappear overnight. Who are you to decide that a given person or entity has "too much"; should we be allowed to decide the same for you?

Producers aren't "taking" from you - most often, they're the ones taking the risk and providing you with the opportunity to earn a living, or the goods you desire.

Very, very few companies have any power to simply set prices for additional profit - there is always a reaction in the market.

Have you ever run a substantial, profitable business, with a payroll?

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
True apartment rentals are not a monopoly but you moved the discussion away from the particulars of rentals to include production. My question was regarding business in general... if greed is good shouldn't we remove any legal restrictions on monopolies and let them flourish to the best of their ability?

Producers (and landlords) can most certainly be in stasis. There is no given that it will last forever true, things change and they can be expected to adapt and plan ahead for such changes proactively. But at what cost? Anything and everything that doesn't cross the line of blatantly illegal? No, sorry.

It is funny that you (and most others with this position) resort to the 'who are you to decide' moral argument when the greed we are discussing and the business practices that effect it are most definitely amoral and sometimes immoral. But the real answer to that question is very simple... We are the ones being taken away from and we have every right to decide. While there may not be anything that can be done about it in many instances, there are laws which are intended to protect people from these situations. The question in relation to landlords would be: Should we remove all legal restrictions to what landlords can & must do and let the 'market' decide where people live?

No, I have never run a business with a payroll.