"I think you are wasting our time"
-
@morbiuswilters said:
And what do you think the definition of Communism is? It's government control of production.
Not exactly. It's common ownership of the means of production. In monarchies like most arab states, governmental control cannot be equaled to common property.
-
@ammoQ said:
@morbiuswilters said:
And what do you think the definition of Communism is? It's government control of production.
Not exactly. It's common ownership of the means of production. In monarchies like most arab states, governmental control cannot be equaled to common property.
Nonsense. The "common ownership" of Communism is absolutely meaningless and nothing more than a basis for propaganda that convinces the people they are somehow in control of their lives. Additionally, monarchies frequently use the same ideological arguments as Communism to justify their existence, primarily that the ruling class is better equipped to manage the economic activity "for the good of the people". In reality, there is little difference between Communism and Feudalism, except that one usually claims a right to power on a religious basis and the other on the basis of a sort of secular divinity. Communism is just Feudalism for the Industrial Age.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Nonsense. The "common ownership" of Communism is absolutely meaningless and nothing more than a basis for propaganda that convinces the people they are somehow in control of their lives. Additionally, monarchies frequently use the same ideological arguments as Communism to justify their existence, primarily that the ruling class is better equipped to manage the economic activity "for the good of the people". In reality, there is little difference between Communism and Feudalism, except that one usually claims a right to power on a religious basis and the other on the basis of a sort of secular divinity. Communism is just Feudalism for the Industrial Age.
Communism is based on the idea of equality. We know how it eventually turned out, but it's meant to be classless, while feudalism is inherently hierachical. In that sense, classical capitalism (as described in Marx' book) is a lot more like feudalism.
-
@ammoQ said:
Communism is based on the idea of equality. We know how it eventually turned out, but it's meant to be classless, while feudalism is inherently hierachical. In that sense, classical capitalism (as described in Marx' book) is a lot more like feudalism.
Learning about capitalism from The Communist Manifesto is kind of like learning about Jewish culture from Mein Kampf. I recommend neither.
-
@tster said:
Learning about capitalism from The Communist Manifesto is kind of like learning about Jewish culture from Mein Kampf. I recommend neither.
Actually, i meant "Das Kapital", not "The Communist Manifesto".
-
morbiuswilters
You don't know what you're talking about, and really I shouldn't be bothered responding. Trust me you don't.
@morbiuswilters said:
Iraq has very little to do with oil prices. The increased demand is causing a problem, but as I pointed out originally the state-run oil companies are pretty bad at managing supply which is why this sudden increase in demand is causing them problems and driving up price. In the long run, however, we will see massive investment in oil production to take advantage of the high prices. As has happened many times in the past, the state-run companies will over-extend their operations and end up with a surplus of oil which will cause the bottom to fall out the market and lead to another 10 years of very low prices.
Totally incorrect. The "state run oil companies" as you incorrectly assert, don't mine oil at all. The "state" (in most producer companies) grants oil companies concessions to mine. The infrastructure, workforce, the whole shebang is owned by the miners - oil companies, Shell, Total, Chevron etc. OPEC is standing on supply, well really not increasing supply because of increased demand from the communists in China (see I gave you that one, you can blame the commies) and the fact that there is no new oil being found- so they are managing a dwindling resource.
Refining capacity has very little to do with it. If there was a lack of refining capacity, then we would see the price of gas but not crude oil go up. However, the increase in gas price has been almost entirely due to surges in crude oil prices. There is plenty of refining capacity in China and even the US imports very little gasoline to deal with refining shortfalls.
The local refining infrastructure is designed to refine a specific type of crude - the supplies of which are limited. The price of petrol (gas) has increased over the price of crude, I suggest you look at the prices of both since 1990. It's quite telling. The loss of refining capability in Louisiana is one factor that has caused a pump spike in the US.
@morbiuswilters said:
Iraq and the sabre rattling over Iran actually has a fair bit to do with the price of oil going up. Iraq was a large producer nation, now it is not poroducing. The instability in the region has forced oil futures to be heavily traded, and this feed into price because futures actually set the price in a defacto sense as it lets the producers know what the market is prepared to pay.
-
@matterific said:
You don't know what you're talking about, and really I shouldn't be bothered responding. Trust me you don't.
Wow, excellent job composing a garbled post. I'll try to reply to whatever muck I can pull out of it.
@matterific said:
Totally incorrect. The "state run oil companies" as you incorrectly assert, don't mine oil at all. The "state" (in most producer companies) grants oil companies concessions to mine. The infrastructure, workforce, the whole shebang is owned by the miners - oil companies, Shell, Total, Chevron etc. OPEC is standing on supply, well really not increasing supply because of increased demand from the communists in China (see I gave you that one, you can blame the commies) and the fact that there is no new oil being found- so they are managing a dwindling resource.
It doesn't matter who performs the physical act of pulling the oil out of the ground. The oil is owned by the state, contracts are handed out by the government, supply is managed by the government at a price set by the government. So what if they contracted out the actual drilling? And you are full of shit anyway. Many state-run oil companies "mine" oil (as you put it) including those of Venezuela, Saudia Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Iran. And that's just the first four I bothered confirming. Feel free to shut your *censored* mouth if you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to support your *censored* claims.
Also, the Chinese who are consuming oil are hardly Communists as, you know, they are usually privately-held corporations. The political situation in China is certainly screwy, but it's not the Communist government that is fueling the economic growth of China.
Finally, new oil is being found all the time. You once again show your ignorance here. Oil is not being found at the rate that production is being expanded, but there is still plenty of untapped oil in the world.
@matterific said:
The local refining infrastructure is designed to refine a specific type of crude - the supplies of which are limited. The price of petrol (gas) has increased over the price of crude, I suggest you look at the prices of both since 1990. It's quite telling. The loss of refining capability in Louisiana is one factor that has caused a pump spike in the US.
The problem with this *censored* little theory is the lack of US refining capacity were the only thing driving up gas prices, then the rest of the world would not see an increase. Additionally, other countries that did have refining capacity would be selling finished gasoline to the US. Our refining capacity could certainly stand to grow some, but it doesn't account for the massive surge in gasoline prices worldwide. The US refineries are keeping pace with consumption well enough, although it would be nice if we could build another refinery to increase capacity further. However, there are plenty of reasons why this hasn't happened, mostly due to short-sighted actions on the part of federal and state governments as well as the fact that investing in a new refinery isn't a very smart move at this point because most of the capacity would go unused initially since there isn't the massive demand for refining capacity that you seem to think there is.
Moderator's note: post has been partially censored to separate actual content from flame bait
-
@wooter said:
A funny guy that is professional in his work is much more trusted than a funny guy that is funny with his work.
Or in this case: Any guy is much more trusted than an arrogant money-grabbing smiley fetishist.
-
@matterific said:
I really, really gotta agree with some of morbiuswilters' comments. State-run oil companes do have their own mining operations. Mexico's PEMEX does most of the stuff, and in fact recent attempts at giving mining operations to other companies has led to a lot of controversy over here.@morbiuswilters said:
Iraq has very little to do with oil prices. The increased demand is causing a problem, but as I pointed out originally the state-run oil companies are pretty bad at managing supply which is why this sudden increase in demand is causing them problems and driving up price. In the long run, however, we will see massive investment in oil production to take advantage of the high prices. As has happened many times in the past, the state-run companies will over-extend their operations and end up with a surplus of oil which will cause the bottom to fall out the market and lead to another 10 years of very low prices.
Totally incorrect. The "state run oil companies" as you incorrectly assert, don't mine oil at all. The "state" (in most producer companies) grants oil companies concessions to mine. The infrastructure, workforce, the whole shebang is owned by the miners - oil companies, Shell, Total, Chevron etc.
Our own state-run oil company should have more than enough money to cope with demand; however the federal government taxes Pemex so high, the company sometimes ends up having net losses after taxation. Talk about bad politics ...
-
for Pete sakes, stop talking about oil if you don't understand anything about it. No one "mines" for oil. It's called "drilling for oil." After you have drilled, it's called extracting or pumping. There are no miners getting oil.
-
FYI true communism (i.e. communism as it was intended) is a utopian society. The reason communism can never work is because humans by nature are greedy, arrogant shitbags. Nobody wants to make the same as "the other guy", especially not if your chosen profession is more prestigious (e.g. a lawyer doesn't want to make the same money as a plumber or a programmer, because being a lawyer is seen as "better") so communism can never work.
I believe, however, that corporations can learn a lot from Communism in base theory (instead of being an adaptation of Feudalism with strict hierarchies and methods in place to keep the "serfs" toiling the fields whilst the King enjoys fine wine and lavish parties), but again there is the perception that if you're an excutive in a company, you ARE somehow better than a regular worker.
Remember, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
-
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
FYI true communism (i.e. communism as it was intended) is a utopian society. The reason communism can never work is because humans by nature are greedy, arrogant shitbags. Nobody wants to make the same as "the other guy", especially not if your chosen profession is more prestigious (e.g. a lawyer doesn't want to make the same money as a plumber or a programmer, because being a lawyer is seen as "better") so communism can never work.
Anything can be conceived as being a utopian society. Have you heard about Morbiusism? We put you and the population of The Netherlands on a rocketship to the Sun. It will result in everlasting world peace and a utopian society. Communism doesn't work because it ignores simple basic facts about the natural world. It's as useless as a theory of physics that ignores gravity. All resources are limited and any rational person will attempt to better the amount of resources they have. This is greed in it's most basic form, the greed that causes us to draw a breath and continue living. It has nothing to do with arrogance or being better than someone else and everything to do with the individual bettering their own situation. The reason a lawyer, plumber and programmer do not make the same money is because their skills are valued differently.
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
I believe, however, that corporations can learn a lot from Communism in base theory (instead of being an adaptation of Feudalism with strict hierarchies and methods in place to keep the "serfs" toiling the fields whilst the King enjoys fine wine and lavish parties), but again there is the perception that if you're an excutive in a company, you ARE somehow better than a regular worker.
There is nothing worthwhile to be learned from Communism. It is an utter failure as an economic system that has silenced, oppressed and murder hundred of millions of its own people. You live in some delusional world where the fact that somebody makes more money than you must be because they are cheating or arrogant or a shitbag. You don't even seem to consider the fact that whatever skills you possess are of very little value to anyone else. I don't know how you've managed to insulate yourself completely in paranoid fantasies about those better off than you -- living in denial of your own minimal worth to society -- but I hope you snap out of it.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
PROTIP: Talking to a prospective employer is not like a txt message to a teenage friend.
I second that. Also, since when is personal usage of a company car a "usual" fringe benefit? What are we, basketball players??¿
-
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
FYI true communism (i.e. communism as it was intended) is a utopian society. The reason communism can never work is because humans by nature are greedy, arrogant shitbags. Nobody wants to make the same as "the other guy", especially not if your chosen profession is more prestigious (e.g. a lawyer doesn't want to make the same money as a plumber or a programmer, because being a lawyer is seen as "better") so communism can never work.
1. The idea that "true communism" is an ideal system is one of the greatest lies told to today's youth. Communism ignores the aspirations of people. It neglects the inherent differences between people and destroys their desire and ability to better themselves. Communism takes from every person the fruits of their labor and as such defeats a fundamental need and desire of human beings. True communism is trash. It works only in the case of family units, where each member depends on each other member and there is a mutual binding love. The failure of communism is not a failure of the human species to accept it, but rather a fundamental flaw in communism that ignores the needs and desires of all humans. Since communism is suppose to be a form of government to govern over human beings, it's pretty stupid to say, "yeah, communism is great, it just doesn't work in the case of human beings."
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
I believe, however, that corporations can learn a lot from Communism in base theory (instead of being an adaptation of Feudalism with strict hierarchies and methods in place to keep the "serfs" toiling the fields whilst the King enjoys fine wine and lavish parties), but again there is the perception that if you're an excutive in a company, you ARE somehow better than a regular worker.
Remember, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Corporations are owned by stock holders, which might be the lowest workers. I don't see what your point is. In a feudal society, the lords made the peasants work or they would kick them off their lands and kill their families. Last time I checked, this isn't even close to corporations. As an individual contributor at my company I can save my money and buy company stock. Then I can go to shareholders meetings and vote for what I want. Doesn't sound like a feudal system to me.
Remember, all posts are stupid, but some posts are more stupid than others.
-
And last I checked, the President/CEO of a corporation treated his employees like they were serfs, toiling away for the privilege of working for him and a stipend to live on. They aren't considered equals, but peasants. Managers are analogous to barons, the executives are analagous to kings. The whole thing stinks of feudalism, instead of being based on equality.
-
@matterific said:
The local refining infrastructure is designed to refine a specific type of crude - the supplies of which are limited. The price of petrol (gas) has increased over the price of crude, I suggest you look at the prices of both since 1990. It's quite telling. The loss of refining capability in Louisiana is one factor that has caused a pump spike in the US.
oil:
1990: $23.19
2000: $27.39
Current: $140.39
gas:
1990: $1.19
2000: $1.46
current: $4.027
oil increases since 1990:
2000: 18%
current: 505%oil increases since 2000:
current: 413%
gas increases since 1990:
2000: 23%
current: 238%gass increases since 200:
current: 176%
epic fail
-
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
And last I checked, the President/CEO of a corporation treated his employees like they were serfs, toiling away for the privilege of working for him and a stipend to live on. They aren't considered equals, but peasants. Managers are analogous to barons, the executives are analagous to kings. The whole thing stinks of feudalism, instead of being based on equality.
then I suggest you quit and find a new job because you must work at an aweful company. Either that or you have an aweful attitude.
-
@tster said:
@matterific said:
The local refining infrastructure is designed to refine a specific type of crude - the supplies of which are limited. The price of petrol (gas) has increased over the price of crude, I suggest you look at the prices of both since 1990. It's quite telling. The loss of refining capability in Louisiana is one factor that has caused a pump spike in the US.
oil:
1990: $23.19
<snip>
as further proof of your wrongness:
here is a chart of gas prices in the US around the time of katrina (late August, 2005)
<col style="width: 80pt;" width="106"> <col style="width: 100pt;" width="133">Jun 20, 2005 212.8 Jun 27, 2005 218.6 Jul 04, 2005 218.9 Jul 11, 2005 229.2 Jul 18, 2005 227.2 Jul 25, 2005 223.5 Aug 01, 2005 223.9 Aug 08, 2005 232.3 Aug 15, 2005 251.9 Aug 22, 2005 258.3 Aug 29, 2005 258.1 Sep 05, 2005 303.7 Sep 12, 2005 291.2 Sep 19, 2005 273 Sep 26, 2005 276.7 Oct 03, 2005 292.2 Oct 10, 2005 282.8 Oct 17, 2005 269.3 Oct 24, 2005 256.4 Oct 31, 2005 243.8 Nov 07, 2005 233.6 Nov 14, 2005 225.8 Nov 21, 2005 216.8 Nov 28, 2005 212.4 Dec 05, 2005 212.7 Dec 12, 2005 217.5 Dec 19, 2005 220.5 Dec 26, 2005 218.8 particularly interesting is the steady drop of gas prices afterwards as the market adapted to the lost refining facilities.
as a further analysis, lets look at the price increase of gas vs. oil from January 2005 (7 months before katrina, so there was no speculation of this problem)
oil (jan 3 - 2005) - $42.16
oil (current) - $140.39gas (jan 3 - 2005) - $1.745
gas (current) - $4.027increases:
oil = 233%
gas = 131%as you can see, I do look at numbers, unlike you who appearantly just spouts shit about numbers even when they don't agree with you at all in the vain hope that everyone is too lazy to prove you wrong. Honestly, if you think we are that stupid you should probably go to a different forum. This one is filled with people that actually bother to know things and we won't be fooled by idiotic political ranting.
-
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
And last I checked, the President/CEO of a corporation treated his employees like they were serfs, toiling away for the privilege of working for him and a stipend to live on. They aren't considered equals, but peasants. Managers are analogous to barons, the executives are analagous to kings. The whole thing stinks of feudalism, instead of being based on equality.
You're perfectly free to leave any job like this and even go out and start your own company or get a management degree so you can oversee other people. However, given the fact that you view employees like serfs I don't think you'd make a very good manager at all. Ironically, it's people like you who give management a bad name to begin with. You are so convinced that management is corrupt and that the point of management is to lord power over others that the second you achieved any sort of authority you'd abuse the hell out of it because it's how you view the relationship between employee and employer.
And what's this "equality" nonsense? Of course you and your boss are not equals at your place of employment. That doesn't mean managers should be tyrants, but inequality is the obvious nature of the relationship. Their value to the company is in organizing things in such a way that your value to the company is efficiently realized. Managers that abuse their power are generally disliked by their employees, other managers and any customers they interact with. I've dealt with a few like that in my time and every single one was quickly sidelined by the competent managers that weren't interested in playing games or treating their employees like shit. It doesn't always happen, but there is no incentive to make your employees hate you. That doesn't mean a manager doesn't have to lay down the law sometimes, but a good manager can do that without alienating everybody.
-
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
Managers are analogous to barons, the executives are analagous to kings. The whole thing stinks of feudalism, instead of being based on equality.
You really should seek professional help.
Seriously, we have talked to you a number of times and each time we do, you bring out truly ridiculous facts about the way you think that reek of mental illness.
-
@ObiWayneKenobi said:
And last I checked, the President/CEO of a corporation treated his employees like they were serfs, toiling away for the privilege of working for him and a stipend to live on. They aren't considered equals, but peasants. Managers are analogous to barons, the executives are analagous to kings. The whole thing stinks of feudalism, instead of being based on equality.
at this point I feel obliged to point out that if you show sufficient initiative and competence you can be promoted to management, and that this is not an unusual occurance, so your feudal analogy breaks down quickly.
