quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange if so, what seems fair and what is out of bounds? if not, why not?

What I consider to be unfair and out of bounds:

• Making profits off products that require a proganada campaign (i.e. most modern advertising) to convince people to buy things they don't need. Virtually all modern economies would collapse if this practice disappeared.
  
• From products that harm customer in the long run.
  
• Making profits while simoutaneously imposes large external costs is not only unfair, but irresponsible (and reflects an disgusting disregard of other human beings) .
  
• Generating profits via interest based loans, and statistically, most people wouldn't be able to pay back in a life time (in more honest terminology, extortion). Fractional Reserve banking would cease to exist if we did away with interest based banking.
  
• Profits relying on fear and ignorance of people (organized religion).
  
• An industry where private interests rely on warfare to exists and generate obsenely large profits, like the weapons manufacturing industry and companies involved in reconstruction (especially post war periods).
  

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 speculators who purchased calls in the $140s and $150s just lost a shit-ton of money. you can bet they will sit out of the market for a good amount of time. I wish i purchased some puts at those prices: big profits right now!!! Speculation doesn't affect the long range pricing of the commodity. Obviously, however, it drives volatility and short term pricing; but it doesn't change the long range fundamentals. Supply and demand still play the dominant role. A free market will always sort these situations out, however, people must be patient. It works better than regulation if people have the patience.

How patient can we be when worldwide demand rises 1% but the price of oil rises 100%. The market has disconnected from supply & demand. Can the economy as a whole absorb such a disconnect?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What I consider to be unfair and out of bounds: Making profits off products that require a proganada campaign (i.e. most modern advertising) to convince people to buy things they don't need. Virtually all modern economies would collapse if this practice disappeared. From products that harm customer in the long run. Making profits while simoutaneously imposes large external costs is not only unfair, but irresponsible (and reflects an disgusting disregard of other human beings) . Generating profits via interest based loans, and statistically, most people wouldn't be able to pay back in a life time (in more honest terminology, extortion). Fractional Reserve banking would cease to exist if we did away with interest based banking. Profits relying on fear and ignorance of people (organized religion). An industry where private interests rely on warfare to exists and generate obsenely large profits, like the weapons manufacturing industry and companies involved in reconstruction (especially post war periods). Those are ones that come to mind immediately although there may be more.

EXCELLENT post, shaolin! I knew I was missing something in my previous post, there's more to this profit thing ...

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What I consider to be unfair and out of bounds: [list] [*]Making profits off products that require a proganada campaign (i.e. most modern advertising) to convince people to buy things they don't need. Virtually all modern economies would collapse if this practice disappeared.

and who makes the call of what is acceptable advertising and what is an "out of bounds propaganda campaign" ?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z [*]From products that harm customer in the long run.

that's rather paternalistic or big brother nanny state of you, wouldn't you say shaolin? who decides what the relative "harm" of a product is? what happens to all the wonderful reefer?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z [*]Making profits while simoutaneously imposes large external costs is not only unfair, but irresponsible (and reflects an disgusting disregard of other human beings) .

but how can you change the nature of a transaction between two willing participants? if i am willing to pay X amount of dollars for product Y, what business is it of yours?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z [*]Generating profits via interest based loans, and statistically, most people wouldn't be able to pay back in a life time (in more honest terminology, extortion). Fractional Reserve banking would cease to exist if we did away with interest based banking.

so you advocate a system whereby the rich keep all their money because there is no gain to be made by lending it?

building good debt is one of the few ways for average people to make extraordinary amounts of money. how would people be able to afford things like houses if nobody was willing to loan them any cash? who are these people that are unable to pay back their loans? certainly the minority (or the banking sector would be bankrupt).

again, if i am willing to borrow $X at Y interest, who are you to prevent me from doing so?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but how can you change the nature of a transaction between two willing participants? if i am willing to pay X amount of dollars for product Y, what business is it of yours?

I think what he's getting at is that some transactions incur negative externalities (i.e. a transaction between person x and person y incurs a cost on person z). Australia's proposed carbon trading system goes a long way to eliminating these externalities (in relation to carbon anyway)

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz I think what he's getting at is that some transactions incur negative externalities (i.e. a transaction between person x and person y incurs a cost on person z). Australia's proposed carbon trading system goes a long way to eliminating these externalities (in relation to carbon anyway)

oh, ok i see. well, then the problem becomes defining what a 'negative externality' is. if i buy a house and put the rent up so you (or many others) can no longer afford to live there, is that considered a negative externality?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, ok i see. well, then the problem becomes defining what a 'negative externality' is. if i buy a house and put the rent up so you (or many others) can no longer afford to live there, is that considered a negative externality?

No, that just means you're being priced out of the market. You are still one of the primary agents in the transaction - and any imposed costs are internalised to the renter and not the greater society (i.e. you can definatively calculate the costs incurred - like removal and transport costs once the landlord gives you get the flick). If an independant and unrelated third party were to be negatively impacted, then yes, you have a negative externality.

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and who makes the call of what is acceptable advertising and what is an "out of bounds propaganda campaign" ?

Well, when you're hiring psychologists to facilitate advertising to children as young as 5 and 6, and you explicitly stated that part of the reason is to condition them to be obedient consumers as adults, I think that pretty out of line and revolting.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's rather paternalistic or big brother nanny state of you, wouldn't you say shaolin? who decides what the relative "harm" of a product is? what happens to all the wonderful reefer?

Not really, far from it. All it takes is good science and not Monsantos junk science to keep dangerous amounts of aspartame out of common products like diet sodas etc .

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but how can you change the nature of a transaction between two willing participants? if i am willing to pay X amount of dollars for product Y, what business is it of yours?

By respecting other people's right to live in an organic and non-toxic environment. By having some minimal consideration maybe .

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so you advocate a system whereby the rich keep all their money because there is no gain to be made by lending it?

?? No... ??

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN building good debt is one of the few ways for average people to make extraordinary amounts of money. how would people be able to afford things like houses if nobody was willing to loan them any cash? who are these people that are unable to pay back their loans? certainly the minority (or the banking sector would be bankrupt). again, if i am willing to borrow $X at Y interest, who are you to prevent me from doing so?

There's no such thing as good debt, it's always going to be imposed one of the participants in a transaction because one party has no choice or it will be imposed on a third party that didn't even have anything to do with it.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Yeah, PKC, as 3rd party, we consumers get exposed to many toxins and chemicals in our foods, that we dont even know about. Ingredients arent even clear, and so many chemicals are allowed to be ommitted from ingredients because its more important to protect trade secrets than people's health.

Countless pharmaceuticals contaminating our water, food and air.

All in the name of focking profits!

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

so shaolin, if nobody is allowed to borrow money, how exactly will people get loans for homes, cars, to start up a small business, etc?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt so shaolin, if nobody is allowed to borrow money, how exactly will people get loans for homes, cars, to start up a small business, etc?

Well, we'd have a completely different system. That's a question with a humongous answer, better directed at an economist . Don't get me wrong though, I don't think the current system we have bears much resemblance to the ideas of Adam Smith. I'm not necessarily proposing his ideas either, I think different economic doctrines have their good point and short comings and an ideal system would be a hybrid of the aspects pertaining to each system that come together in such a way as to encourage individuals and groups to pursue private interests, provided there is some kind of system of oversight ensuring it's doesn't result in imposing externalities on the public or third parties... while simultaneously providing social programs as a safety net... not a hand down, as a means to get out of poverty. I know that's very ambiguous but it's just a short response to a question that essays can be written on.

EDIT: I actually didn't say there's anything wrong with loans, just interest based loans, debt, and compound interest. There's alternatives to interest that would give investors incentive.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, when you're hiring psychologists to facilitate advertising to children as young as 5 and 6, and you explicitly stated that part of the reason is to condition them to be obedient consumers as adults, I think that pretty out of line and revolting.

well, let's say i don't have a problem with mercendising to children. but you do have a problem with it. who is the arbiter that decides between our two mutually-exclusive opinions?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Not really, far from it. All it takes is good science and not Monsantos junk science to keep dangerous amounts of aspartame out of common products like diet sodas etc .

what about dangerous levels of carcinogens in tobacco? or salt in potato chips? or trans fats in take away food? where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable danger and who draws that line? and why am i not allowed to engage in behaviour that's only bad for me?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z By respecting other people's right to live in an organic and non-toxic environment. By having some minimal consideration maybe .

again, who is making the call of what is and isnt a toxic environment? who is the arbiter between competing interests?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z ?? No... ??

then how will those without money ever get it if they cannot take on good debt to do so?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z There's no such thing as good debt, it's always going to be imposed one of the participants in a transaction because one party has no choice or it will be imposed on a third party that didn't even have anything to do with it.

incorrect. good debt is a perfectly free choice that many ordinary people can embrace to make themselves money. borrowing to invest is how to get rich. if i am borrowing money freely from a bank, and they are just as freely lending it to me at a given interest rate, what business is it of anybody elses in how i choose to manage my debt?

___________________