You're viewing part of a thread.
But when they do that it doesn't change the demand for nuclear fuel pellets. The demand is largely static, so in order to sell X more pellets, X pellets from other producers must go unsold/not made. Somebody else has to lose, which makes it a zero sum game.
The production of anything means it's not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn't matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it'll drive down the price. But we're not discussing prices here.
It does. Not everybody is an MIT grad or has the skills to be one, and yet you say that just anybody can compete with google. That is a contradiction.
It's a matter of drive. Anyone can try to compete with Google. Someone must be adequately driven, and reasonably intelligent to succeed. But everyone who fails will gain the opportunities to build on those failures and start a more successful venture.
60% of the country cannot because they are living paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford it.
Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.
Basically every other developed nation seems to think otherwise. For example, we are more or less the only one without universal healthcare, that's what's naive.
Why would we Americans care what other countries think? We're blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth. People flock from around the world to live here, and they want to so badly that they're willing to become illegal just to live here. It's very rare that you can find a principle applicable to other countries which also happens to be applicable to the US. If some other country wants to give out "free" ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.
literally just the basic necessitites, not cable. Etc.
My point was that it's subjective what the "necessities" are. Some people like me will say it costs $0, while others may insist it's a minimum of $250k. This is complicated by the fact that the dollar is worth dramatically different values in different parts of the country, a fact often ignored. Generally speaking it's worth much less in urban areas.
Nobody can survive on $0. You need to have food water and shelter.
Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.
If it is unrealistic for everyone then it isn't a reasonable answer to what the minimum wage should be.
Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a "livable wage" as an abstract concept, but now you're changing it to minimum wage. The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.
First and foremost, it's a free country, and so we're all allowed to negotiate our own terms of business. If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, not the government's, nobody's.
Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again. When you run a business, you have a certain budget to spend on compensation. Let's say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day to hire them. That means you can pay them about $6 per hour maximum. Now some busybody steps in, and introduces an oppressive law that you have to pay more than $6. Well that sucks, doesn't it. That means you can't hire two people after all. You can still hire one person up to $12 per hour, but you'll have to overwork him to produce the results of two workers. Meanwhile somebody else will be jobless. Now let's say the busybody comes back and says $12 is still too low! Well fine, that means you can't hire anyone at all. So now we have two people out of work who would have had jobs. And it also means you'll need to find a robot that's cheaper than $100 per day, because if you can't then the busybody just drove you out of business.
The concept of minimum wage is un-American and downright evil.
Blaming individuals for the failures of a system, and suggesting individuals change to deal with that defect in the system is irrational.
What system? We're all individuals.
The production of anything means it's not zero-sum. Demand can expand and contract over time in any market, but that doesn't matter. If you grow an apple or produce a nuclear fuel pellet, you add value to the economy. Now if there are multiple sellers competing, then it'll drive down the price. But we're not discussing prices here.
Value to the economy isn't the issue here though. The topic is about whether or not a company hurts another through competition, and economic value cannot explain or measure the of hurting other companies.
If 10,000 fuel pellets are needed for the year, then the market will create and sell roughly 10,000 pellets for the year. If company A sells extra pellets, going from 1k/yr to 2k/yr those sales need to come from somewhere within that 10,000 demand limit. As a result all other companies lose 1k/yr in sales. Maybe the majority of that loss goes to company B or C, or maybe it is spread out. It would only be a positive sum game if the 10,000 pellet demand was able to increase, but it can't due to the restrictive amount of reactors. As a result of all of this, this industry is a zero sum game.
It's a matter of drive.
That's a part of it, but not the whole.
Again you can start a business for $0 or next to nothing.
Even if that is true (which it is instead highly misleading), it has nothing to do with the impact of losing a business. One is the cost of startup the other is the cost of loss.
Why would we Americans care what other countries think?
I didn't say that we should, but you said that kids are naive when it is instead developed nations that are implementing these policies.
We're blessed by God to be the greatest country on Earth.
Seems to me that having the highest number of school shootings should instantly disqualify us from such a title.
If some other country wants to give out "free" ice cream to all of its citizens (in exchange, of course, for an obscenely high tax), they can have at it, for all we care.
Actually it doesn't quite work out that way. Americans overall spend more on healthcare than most other nations because of how inefficient it is to have insurance companies leeching money away from the american people.
Overall countries spend less on healthcare with socialized medicine.
My point was that it's subjective what the "necessities" are.
Only to a degree. We can objectively measure the amount of food and water you need, what kind of shelter is the mimimally viable product while still being healthy, etc.
Again, grow your own food, haul your own water up from the stream, and build your own shelter out of logs you felled yourself. $0, just like our forefathers.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Whoa, I thought we were discussing your notion of a "livable wage" as an abstract concept, but now you're changing it to minimum wage.
The two are tied together. There should be a minimum wage, and it should be a livable one. That's how it was started and it should have stayed.
The concept of a minimum wage is evil for multiple reasons.
No it's not. Poverty wages are what's evil and the solution to them is a minimum, livable wage.
If I want to hire someone for $1 a day, and that person agrees to the compensation, it's nobody else's business. Not yours, not the government's, nobody's.
It is the business of the government to protect the people, and greedy corporations who pay poverty wages is one such thing that we need protection from.
Secondly, minimum wages are absolutely disastrous for the economy, and that has been shown time and again.
I disagree that it is disastrous, but even if it was I wouldn't mind much since the economy is the main driving force for pollution.
Let's say you want to hire two people to help you, and you can afford a maximum of $100 per day
Right there is your lie about it being $100 per day. These companies absolutely have the money to pay a living wage yet they only set the "maximum" they are willing to pay such that it is a poverty wage. These companies rake in billions upon billions of dollars a year in profits. The money is absolutely there they just like to pretend that it isn't.
What system? We're all individuals.
The government/capitalism.
As a result of all of this, this industry is a zero sum game.
I doubt any economists would agree with this. Even with declining demand, the addition of every grain of rice is a contribution to the economy.
One is the cost of startup the other is the cost of loss.
The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience. Let's say you extract clay from your backyard and use it to make pottery, which you then sell at your local market. Startup cost is $0, as you hand-made your own kiln and your own cart to transport your pottery.
You have a few sales, but not many. When you see people walk away from your table without buying anything, you stop them to ask them why. Several of them tell you that your products are all too small for their taste.
So you close down your shop, head back home, and get to work rebuilding your kiln to be ten times larger. Two months later you open up a brand new shop, based on your gained experience, and now your pottery sells like wildfire.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You seem to misunderstand that phrase. It is commonly used to express the limitations of government provision. But I was talking about God's provision, and there's no limitation to that.
It is the business of the government to protect the people, and greedy corporations who pay poverty wages is one such thing that we need protection from.
Where did you get that idea? Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that government is supposed to protect the people.
Every time you imply that corporations are "greedy", you sound out of touch and inexperienced. Please start your own company. You will learn so much about the real world. It doesn't need to be anything fancy. Sell an old book on ebay. You will learn so much.
These companies absolutely have the money to pay
You make it so clear that you've never run a business and hired anyone. You're completely out of touch. Businesses have tight budgets. Sell that old book on ebay, and grow your nascent business enough that you want to hire someone to help you out. You will quickly learn that you can afford very little to hire someone, yet you're overburdened with work so you need to hire someone as cheap as possible.
I doubt any economists would agree with this. Even with declining demand, the addition of every grain of rice is a contribution to the economy.
There are many actually. There are markets for which the demand cannot increase. And like I said earlier "contribution to the economy" isn't the issue here, the market's capability for demand is. As a result there are industries that are zero sum games, with an overall tendency to move towards zero sum.
The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience.
Not when your house or car is collateral. Not when it is the only thing paying your rent and keeping food on the table.
But I was talking about God's provision, and there's no limitation to that.
We were talking about homesteading, which absolutely has a limit.
Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that government is supposed to protect the people.
Then why do we have an army? If the government has no responsibility to protect us, then we could easily save hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money by disbanding all armed forces.
Every time you imply that corporations are "greedy", you sound out of touch and inexperienced.
I don't care about how it sounds, it is the truth.
You make it so clear that you've never run a business and hired anyone
This is just an ad hominem.
Businesses have tight budgets.
Only because they budget boat loads of money for executives and shareholders.
As a result there are industries that are zero sum games, with an overall tendency to move towards zero sum.
The economy is fundamentally not a zero sum game. It cannot be, under any circumstances. I'm done arguing this point, as I'm not an economist or a game theorist, and you're not either.
[Re: "The cost of business loss is equivalent to gained experience." Not when your house or car is collateral. Not when it is the only thing paying your rent and keeping food on the table.
Sure it is. We can lose all of our material possessions, and all of our food, while we retain all of the wealth in the world through our faith in God. I advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34, but even though that's only ten verses, for brevity I'll only quote one here:
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
We were talking about homesteading, which absolutely has a limit.
I was not talking only about homesteading. I speak of all of us who walk upon the earth.
Then why do we have an army? If the government has no responsibility to protect us, then we could easily save hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money by disbanding all armed forces.
The government has a responsibility to protect our nation as an institution; not to protect us each individually.
I don't care about how it sounds, it is the truth.
Except it's not. You frequently come across as confidently incorrect.
[Re: "Businesses have tight budgets."] Only because they budget boat loads of money for executives and shareholders.
Do you have any awareness that 99.9% of businesses in the US are small businesses? Literally 99.9%. (Source) Normal businesses are far closer to my example of making pottery out of clay from your backyard than they are to giant multinational corporations. But all companies, no matter the size, are normally somewhat strapped for cash, because they need to reinvest profits to grow.
Please start a business. The only reason you have not to is if you're afraid of realizing that your entire economic theory is bunk.
I'm done arguing this point, as I'm not an economist or a game theorist, and you're not either.
I'm probably more of a game theorist than you if I am being honest. I've done game development on the side for a little while now.
But I think my point still stands because you haven't identified a flaw in my argument.
We can lose all of our material possessions, and all of our food
People can't afford to do that though. It is a financially bad decision to put yourself at financial risk of losing your home, transportation, or food source.
The government has a responsibility to protect our nation as an institution; not to protect us each individually.
And the government cannot protect one if it fails to protect the other. Our nation is our people. It's not just the land itself.
Except it's not. You frequently come across as confidently incorrect.
It's objectively true:
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
If corporations were not greedy there would be no gap between productivity and pay.
Do you have any awareness that 99.9% of businesses in the US are small businesses?
You already brought this up in a different thread. You may have missed it so I will copy and paste:
- I'm not sure that data is really helpful for determining true business size since so many people have more than one job, and corporations like to own other corporations to hide how big they are. And employee count is only one factor in how big a business is. Market share, net worth, profit, all of which contribute to a business' size. It also doesn't take into account the power/influence a company has. A media company of 20 people has far more power and influence over a pizza shop for instance. A restaurant/grocery store might only employee about 50 people in total but have a fraction of the market share for the local area or no market share at all on a regional/national level. And on the other hand a landlord might own a company with 10-20 people, and owns a huge chunk of the city's housing.
In other words, judging a company of less than 500 employees as automatically being a small business is a terrible methodology for determining how much power/how big a company is.
Other thread: https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/305925/New-York-City-Using-Brooklyn-Parks-as-Migrant-Housing#entry-comment-1680242
Please start a business. The only reason you have not to is if you're afraid of realizing that your entire economic theory is bunk.
I have plenty of reasons. I don't want to lose what little assets I have. The time and effort requirements for such an endeavor is huge. I have no capital to start a business with. I have a disabled girlfriend who requires a lot of care (time). On top of all that, I don't really intend to live my whole life in this country, and feel I might have to leave soon due to the rise in fascism here. Why would I start a business in such a place? It just doesn't make sense.
As is I barely have enough time at the end of the day to relax to myself, let alone start a business.
I'm probably more of a game theorist than you if I am being honest. I've done game development on the side for a little while now.
That's like a plumber claiming he's familiar with the Plumb Line Method of theoretical physics because it has the word "plumb" in it. Game development requires no understanding of game theory.
People can't afford to do that though. It is a financially bad decision to put yourself at financial risk of losing your home, transportation, or food source.
I find it confusing that you thought you used to be a Christian, when not only did you never form a relationship with God, but you never even learned Jesus's teachings. I quoted from the Sermon on the Mount to you. This is literally Gospel. Again, I strongly advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34.
Game development requires no understanding of game theory.
Then I have misunderstood the term, I apologize.
when not only did you never form a relationship with God, but you never even learned Jesus's teachings.
You cannot speak for me. At the time I fully believed I had such a relationship. And I absolutely was raised as a christian, having been tought Jesus' word.
I quoted from the Sermon on the Mount to you. This is literally Gospel.
That doesn't mean it is true though.
Again, I strongly advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34.
Yeah, it's all kind of just meaningless to me. It would be like if I told you to read a passage with a vague moral from a Star Trek book. It's all just fiction, made by men.
Then I have misunderstood the term, I apologize.
Apology accepted. In case you're curious to learn about it, you might click here. It's a good topic for online classes, in case you ever find yourself with spare time.
I absolutely was raised as a christian, having been tought Jesus' word.
Did they skip all the parts about mammon, or did you just ignore them? They're fairly central to Jesus's ministry.
That doesn't mean it is true though [that it's Gospel].
It does, in fact.
Yeah, it's all kind of just meaningless to me. It would be like if I told you to read a passage with a vague moral from a Star Trek book. It's all just fiction, made by men.
Even if it was written in Klingon, I'd do my best to read it and wrap my head around the point you were trying to make.
All of the Bible verses I've quoted to you and linked to you have been (by far) the wisest and truest words I'm able to speak. In most if not all cases, they've provided the point I was trying to make. So I find it discouraging and disheartening to know you haven't been reading them, and seriously considering them.
Whenever you encounter a quote from the Bible, begin by thinking to yourself that you're about to read something true and holy — even if you don't believe that yet, start out by telling yourself that. Then ask God — and I know you deny Him, but at least try your best to ask God — that you may receive His holy words with a sober mind, and that you may unquestioningly accept their eternal truth. Then read, and reread, and read once more, the passage until you know it well. Read the context of the passage, as much context as needed, and read it in various other translations, to help you deeply understand its truth.
And with that, yet again, I strongly advise you to study Matthew 6:24-34. That's certainly not the only thing you ought to read, but it'd be a solid start.
Apology accepted. In case you're curious to learn about it, you might click here. It's a good topic for online classes, in case you ever find yourself with spare time.
Thank you, I'll try to take a look at some point.
Did they skip all the parts about mammon, or did you just ignore them? They're fairly central to Jesus's ministry.
No matter what I answer here, it will just feed into this no true scottsman fallacy you have with the definition of "christian".
It does, in fact.
It seems that you are beginning with the premise that it is true. Again, that would ultimately mean that much of what you say is based on a circular argument.
I'd do my best to read it and wrap my head around the point you were trying to make.
I'm not talking about understanding though. I'm talking about the value you derive from something you read. I don't get any value out of bible verses. It's just junk to me even if I understand it.
So I find it discouraging and disheartening to know you haven't been reading them, and seriously considering them.
I've definitely been reading them. But it's next to impossible for me to take them seriously when the whole think is so wrong.
No matter what I answer here, it will just feed into this no true scottsman fallacy you have with the definition of "christian".
I don't have that fallacy in my definition of "Christian" at all. A Christian is a genuine follower of Christ, of which there are many, and many more every day. The fact that some people claim to be Christian without actually following Christ does not mean there's no true Christian. It's entirely possible for you to choose to become Christian.
I don't get any value out of bible verses. It's just junk to me even if I understand it.
The only value we can have in life comes from God. When someone gives you a Bible verse, that is likely the most valuable thing you receive all day, if not all year.
And on that point, we have reached an impasse. I must abide by 2 Timothy 3:2-5, and turn away:
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.Thank you for all of this thought-provoking conversation. I wish you all of the best, and I pray you may yet find God.