Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

To the people that support redistribution of income... Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the following?
    I support the redistribution of income and marks
    0.91%
    I support the redistribution of income, but not marks
    47.27%
    I support the redistribution of marks, but not income
    0
    0%
    I support neither form of redistribution
    52.73%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    Earning a salary is quite a good reason. As I've said a hundred times before: I'm expected to work 'just' for a salary, too, am I not?

    How about actually reading anything I write? It seems I don't have to bother to write anything, really, as you either won't understand it or won't read it at all.
    I've read it and its incoherent. You say that its okay if part of the price of a sandwich goes to paying salaries, and its okay if it goes toward expansion of business, or investment, or pretty much anything else. But it's not okay to make a profit? It makes no sense.

    Not really what I've been arguing for. Again, please read my posts or don't bother to reply.
    Your arguing that stealing and then redistributing money is morally equivalent to trading, and that therefore it can be done as much as one feels is necessary; are you not?

    Yeah, and that's still bull****.
    So how do you measure the value of something? If I possess a good and know that I can reliably and honestly sell it for £20 then in what sense is it not worth £20? Handwave all you like; it's a simple, demonstrable economic fact that everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.

    So what does that have to do with anything?

    Really, are you just trying to write something for the sake of your post count, or are you actually trying to make any kind of argument? Because I can't really find the connection between what I've written and what you've replied.
    Kind of slow huh? If you were to remove all profits from the price of the sandwich would that lower the price? Think long and hard about that one; it's apparently a difficult question for you to answer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    I've read it and its incoherent. You say that its okay if part of the price of a sandwich goes to paying salaries, and its okay if it goes toward expansion of business, or investment, or pretty much anything else. But it's not okay to make a profit? It makes no sense.
    What exactly doesn't make sense?

    It doesn't make sense to you that I'm willing to pay for any costs incurred for producing and providing the sandwich, but NOT willing to pay more?

    (Original post by Nick100)
    Your arguing that stealing and then redistributing money is morally equivalent to trading, and that therefore it can be done as much as one feels is necessary; are you not?
    No I am not. But don't worry, you can always try again.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    Handwave all you like; it's a simple, demonstrable economic fact that everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
    Well no. It's what everybody is told, and obviously you are not even remotely contemplating asking yourself if there might be another approach to it.

    I wouldn't even want to say it's completely wrong, but it's bull**** to say that that's all there's to it.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    If you were to remove all profits from the price of the sandwich would that lower the price?
    Oh, I've got an even harder question for you: what do you think has been my point in arguing against profit?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    You don't need to buy from that particular store, you don't need to buy that particular sandwich; those things are both voluntary. Should the government subsidize even the most expensive foods because eating isn't voluntary?

    You say I forget to factor in reality while completely ignoring the reality of the situation. Brilliant; absolutely genius.

    You need to buy food from somewhere. So same arguments apply.

    What was that about reality, poindexter?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    What exactly doesn't make sense?

    It doesn't make sense to you that I'm willing to pay for any costs incurred for producing and providing the sandwich, but NOT willing to pay more?
    So if an employee is earning more than the bare minimum they need to survive, are you not paying him more than the costs incurred for producing and providing the sandwich?

    No I am not. But don't worry, you can always try again.
    You're not arguing that profit is morally equivalent to wealth redistribution?

    Well no. It's what everybody is told, and obviously you are not even remotely contemplating asking yourself if there might be another approach to it.

    I wouldn't even want to say it's completely wrong, but it's bull**** to say that that's all there's to it.
    If I know that I can reliably and honestly sell a good for £20 in what sense is it not worth £20?

    Oh, I've got an even harder question for you: what do you think has been my point in arguing against profit?
    Because "I'm willing to pay for any costs incurred for producing and providing the sandwich, but NOT willing to pay more"? So I ask again, if you removed profit what would happen to prices and what would the result be give that supply won't change?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You need to buy food from somewhere. So same arguments apply.

    What was that about reality, poindexter?
    We're talking about a £2 sandwich; you can buy a cheeseburger meal for less than that - don't act as if its either buy a £2 sandwich or starve.

    My point about reality was that you are ignoring it. Should I be subsidized to eat at the fanciest restaurants around town? After all I have to buy food from somewhere!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    We're talking about a £2 sandwich; you can buy a cheeseburger meal for less than that - don't act as if its either buy a £2 sandwich or starve.

    My point about reality was that you are ignoring it. Should I be subsidized to eat at the fanciest restaurants around town? After all I have to buy food from somewhere!
    Yes to avoid answering the point you have to bring in some straw man crap. Well done.

    Everyone has to buy food (and other things necessary for survival). Now tell me how trade is purely voluntary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Yes to avoid answering the point you have to bring in some straw man crap. Well done.

    Everyone has to buy food (and other things necessary for survival). Now tell me how trade is purely voluntary.
    The trade we have been discussing is as voluntary as buying food from a fancy restaurant. We aren't talking about the bare essentials here - if we were then maybe you'd have a point but even when it comes to bare essentials one has an element of choice about where to buy them and what specifically to buy. And if its possible to provide those essentials at a much lower price then why doesn't someone do that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    The trade we have been discussing is as voluntary as buying food from a fancy restaurant. We aren't talking about the bare essentials here - if we were then maybe you'd have a point but even when it comes to bare essentials one has an element of choice about where to buy them and what specifically to buy. And if its possible to provide those essentials at a much lower price then why doesn't someone do that?
    I note you're avoiding the main point. Pro free market types always flail about on this issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I note you're avoiding the main point. Pro free market types always flail about on this issue.
    We were discussing the purchase of a £2 sandwich. Maybe there is an argument to be made about the bare essentials for survival but that wasn't what we were discussing.

    In any case there is an element of choice even when discussing the bare essentials, and the effects of supply and demand mean that such essentials must be provided at a palatable price.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We have equality of opportunity? What a load of poo...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    We were discussing the purchase of a £2 sandwich. Maybe there is an argument to be made about the bare essentials for survival but that wasn't what we were discussing.

    In any case there is an element of choice even when discussing the bare essentials, and the effects of supply and demand mean that such essentials must be provided at a palatable price.
    You're avoiding the issue because it blows a hole in your ideology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You're avoiding the issue because it blows a hole in your ideology.
    What issue? I addressed the issue of bare essentials, which you apparently think includes an expensive sandwich. Low demand and high supply of these things keeps the price low, and there are a lot of choices that can be made even when buying the bare minimum to survive. Where's the "hole"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    What issue? I addressed the issue of bare essentials, which you apparently think includes an expensive sandwich. Low demand and high supply of these things keeps the price low, and there are a lot of choices that can be made even when buying the bare minimum to survive. Where's the "hole"?
    Tell me again how exchange is voluntary. This time without avoiding the issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Tell me again how exchange is voluntary. This time without avoiding the issue.
    Please tell me how Trade isn't voluntary. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wiska)
    Please tell me how Trade isn't voluntary. :rolleyes:
    Eating is voluntary now is it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    So if an employee is earning more than the bare minimum they need to survive, are you not paying him more than the costs incurred for producing and providing the sandwich?
    How so?

    (Original post by Nick100)
    You're not arguing that profit is morally equivalent to wealth redistribution?
    No I'm not. I'm asking where the moral argument for profit is.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    If I know that I can reliably and honestly sell a good for £20 in what sense is it not worth £20?
    If you bought it for £10, you're just ripping off people. You can do that, if you, for example, have a monopoly or a cartel. It was already shown that trade generally is not always as 'voluntary' as you seem to see it. That still doesn't mean the good is worth £20.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    So I ask again, if you removed profit what would happen to prices and what would the result be give that supply won't change?
    What are you trying to say here? And why would supply not change?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Eating is voluntary now is it?
    Yes it is, have you ever heard of fasting? Whether you put stuff in your mouth or not is completely voluntary.

    If you are talking about access to food then you do know there are things such as food banks right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    .
    Elcano, tell me something.

    If you were the Prime Minister and never face opposition when it comes to ideas and changes then what would you change?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    How so?
    Because they don't need to live a particularly comfortable life to make your sandwich. Surely anything they ask for above that is morally equivalent to making a profit?

    No I'm not. I'm asking where the moral argument for profit is.
    Where's the moral argument for sport? Or owning a TV? Or earning a wage? Or anything which isn't strictly altruistic or necessary for one's survival? The onus is on you to show that it is immoral to make a profit from a mutually beneficial trade. If you want an argument in terms of how it benefits society; it sends a message through the price system about where people should focus their creative efforts to satisfy consumer demand.

    If you bought it for £10, you're just ripping off people. You can do that, if you, for example, have a monopoly or a cartel. It was already shown that trade generally is not always as 'voluntary' as you seem to see it. That still doesn't mean the good is worth £20.
    We weren't talking about cartels and monopolies. What exactly is stopping these alleged victims from buying the good from elsewhere for £10? How can I reliably and honestly sell something for £20 if it can easily be bought elsewhere for £10? And what if people are competing to buy the good and bid the price up to £20; is it immoral to sell it for £20 then?

    What are you trying to say here? And why would supply not change?
    If the supply doesn't change while the price drops then there will be a shortage as demand increases. I would expect that eliminating profit would cause the supply itself to drop, exacerbating the problem you created in combating the "immorality of profit".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Tell me again how exchange is voluntary. This time without avoiding the issue.
    The exchange in question is a person buying a £2 sandwich correct? A sandwich does not cost £2 to make, and as I pointed out you can get more caloric food from McDonald's for less than that (although it is still more expensive than the ingredients). The exchange is voluntary because there is cheaper food elsewhere, and there may even be better foods at a similar price elsewhere.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.