|
|
#431
12-13-2006, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
Worker controlled firms fall miserably. They are perfectly legal and workable under the current system we have now, and under a completely capitalistic system too, but they can't really get the job done. [/ QUOTE ] In the industries in my area where I have a choice between worker controlled vs. "normal" firms, the worker controlled ones offer lower prices and better variety. [ QUOTE ] It's ridiculous that you say the managers, supervisors, and accountants aren't important in running a business. If you take a managerial accounting class, you may see why your socialists beliefs are bunk. Completely useless? Ok, these evil capitalists are shelling out money to pay for them because they are completely useless. Tell me more about your socialist paradise where workers know the right moves to make without making economic calculations. [/ QUOTE ] No one believes they are useless, but they should only be compensated for the work that they do, and they should get their damn hands out of the workers' pockets. If a worker does everything in producing X, and all I do is sign a sheet of paper saying it's complete, do I deserve the same or more compensation as the worker? [ QUOTE ] Or how about the part where we have a different job every day, because specialization is an evil product of capitalism. I'll drive the zambony on Monday, work at Burger King on Tuesday, do acquistions and mergers on wednesday, teach a 5th grade class on thursday, work as a scientist on friday, pray to god Mooroboterian on saturday/sunday. Moorobertian is my shephard, i shall not want... Say 5 hail mooroboterians and you'll cleanse yourself of sin. [/ QUOTE ] Stop reading TomCollins' posts. "Moorobertian"/"Moopertarian" etc etc are stupid terms and prove that you have no idea what's going on. I know it's fashionable to harass Moorobot or Propertarian, but you sound like a 4th grader when you do it. 
|
|
#432
12-13-2006, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
Once you eliminate those poor that are capable of work, what you have left is basically just the mentaly/physically disabled. In an AC society I dont see how these peoples immediate families and private charities couldnt take care of these people. Look at how much charity there is now, even with our high taxes people still have the desire to help poor people out. [/ QUOTE ] You believe AC will eliminate prolonged unemployment and non-insane poverty? A 0% unemployment rate isn't even efficient. The market will demand X few percentage points. Welfare benefits are a very sizeable portion of the budget. Cut it in half with AC "efficiency" and you still have a big problem. AC will not eliminate most of the need for those funds. I think the idea that incredible charity growth bridges the welfare gap for often expensive and prolonged benefits, in a world where we already have charitable giving, is not very realistic. Again, not a statement about "worth it" or "moral" to support people to a bare necessity level, I just see AC bring up the argument that the government's waste hurts poor people, and sort of assume away the notion you won't have more extreme poverty for those who are in it. And it's not just your crazy Uncle Al.
|
|
#433
12-13-2006, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
why don't you read the pdf instead of continuing your ignorance? It gives a better definition of technical efficiency that I can. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have an hour to devote to reading a 25 page piece of blabber for one simple definition.
|
|
#435
12-13-2006, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] why don't you read the pdf instead of continuing your ignorance? It gives a better definition of technical efficiency that I can. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have an hour to devote to reading a 25 page piece of blabber for one simple definition. [/ QUOTE ] how about to learn about the subject instead of spewing ignorance? Is that too hard?
|
|
#436
12-13-2006, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] why don't you read the pdf instead of continuing your ignorance? It gives a better definition of technical efficiency that I can. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have an hour to devote to reading a 25 page piece of blabber for one simple definition. [/ QUOTE ] how about to learn about the subject instead of spewing ignorance? Is that too hard? [/ QUOTE ] Which is why I am asking you to educate me. Is it too hard to put a simple definition in simple terms?
|
|
#437
12-13-2006, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
it's not a simple term, that's just it. you have to read the paper, or at least skim it, to understand what they mean. however i did say a little bit about productivity they studied, the three ratios defined above.
|
|
#438
12-13-2006, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
it's not a simple term, that's just it. you have to read the paper, or at least skim it, to understand what they mean. however i did say a little bit about productivity they studied, the three ratios defined above. [/ QUOTE ] Why are these three ratios important?
|
|
#439
12-13-2006, 03:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
Stop reading TomCollins' posts. "Moorobertian"/"Moopertarian" etc etc are stupid terms and prove that you have no idea what's going on. I know it's fashionable to harass Moorobot or Propertarian, but you sound like a 4th grader when you do it. [/ QUOTE ] Other than the fact that everyone on this board knows they are the same person.
|
|
#440
12-13-2006, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A sub-point
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] it's not a simple term, that's just it. you have to read the paper, or at least skim it, to understand what they mean. however i did say a little bit about productivity they studied, the three ratios defined above. [/ QUOTE ] Why are these three ratios important? [/ QUOTE ] so you didn't read it?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
