Video Vigilante Brian Bates

[NightOwl]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

So what happens when every ok looking woman in America realizes they can make significantly more than they already are simply by whoring themselves out? Have sex all the time AND make great money? Unpossible! Sign me up.

All of a sudden we're losing a large part of the workforce to a "job" that accomplishes nothing for the economy other than a redistribution of money.

Have sex and make money...sign yourself up, I'm not a pimp. It's out there and possible, the only person preventing you is you.

However, due to supply and demand, if "every ok looking woman in America" starts doing it, supply increases dramitically, reducing the cost of the services if the prostitutes want to maintain competative pricing and have work. Eventually it reaches a point where it's more effective to get a regular nine to five job. Would there be more prostitutes? Yes, but hardly every good looking woman in the country.

AWDstylez wrote:

Art generates income for its respective places of display. The artists are paid a sum that is worth more than the capital invested in the art piece, and the people paying them receive greater benefit than is being paid out. It fits into the capitalistic cycle of upward transfer of wealth (nowadays called creation of wealth), thus it is considered productive.

Prostitution only moves money from one party to another. It does not create wealth and is therefore not productive for the economy. No capital is invested and no wealth is created, it is only moved. It's economic masturbation (no pun intended).

That would only be true if said prostitute never spent any of the money s/he made. Food, clothing, shelter, etc...the money doesn't come to a complete halt with said prostitute. Also, I'm not sure why you turned prostitution into an exclusively female thing, but whatever. Predominantly, sure, exclusively, no.

As you mention later in the thread, you're just playing games,as opposed tolooking for actual discussion, so debating the issue with you is pointless. You asked for an example of how it could be beneficial to society, I gave you a real world example, which you conveniantly overlooked since, I suppose, you had no counter-arguement (or counter-game-playing) for it.

R a Z o R wrote:

Would you worry about your wife , sister , mother , daughter , or yourself trading any type of body fluid ? To what degree ? There is always some body fluids and cell exchange of some kind . SYPHILLIS , CHLAMYDIA , HIV , HERPES , . . .

How much does Jane charge now$ Before you know it Christmas will be here $

Is sterile technique with Saran Wrap extra ?

Perhaps you've heard of condoms and common sense? No, perhaps you haven't, if the content of that post is any indicator.

Anyhow, I wouldn't worry about it. If they're so desperate for money that they're willing to risk their life/safety for it, that's what family (such as me, given the women you indicated) is for, to help out. I've no problem helping my (insert female relative of your choice here) with a place to live and help getting back on their feet. With proper precaution it's relatively safe. Nothing in life is completely risk free. Got any family in the military? How about family who walks (could trip, fall, break their neck), eats (could die of food poisoning), breathes (airborne illnesses), or does anything but sit in a bubble of "I'm safe"? Do you worry about it?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

How can you prove that they have been driven to poverty by others' wealth, rather than simply having never accumulated wealth from their ancestors "caveman equality"? As you yourself argued, they have synthetic clothes, but they are no better off than the subsistence life of the caveman. Are they measurably poorer than the caveman? Or, perhaps more pertinently, are their lives measurably harder than the hand-to-mouth living of the caveman? How can you prove they are worse off rather than simply not better off?

Tiny fantasy worlds are so easy to understand, aren't they?



Let me make it simple. 10,000 years ago:



Upper-class living:

Lower Class living:

Today...

Upper class living:

Lower class living:

The wealth DISPARITY has increased. The rich are richer, the poor are poorer. There IS NO NET GAIN. Everyone used to be "middle class." Over the centuries the middle class is being separated out into the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor. It is the nature of a free market.

If you justify it in your own mind by saying that wage slavery and living in filth, garbage, and disease (which is INFINITELY below the average standard of living in the world)is better than hunting and gathering and living in a cave (which IS the average standard of living in that world)... then maybe you need to expand your horizons and pull your head out of your ass.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

So what happens when every ok looking woman in America realizes they can make significantly more than they already are simply by whoring themselves out? Have sex all the time AND make great money? Unpossible! Sign me up.

All of a sudden we're losing a large part of the workforce to a "job" that accomplishes nothing for the economy other than a redistribution of money.

Have sex and make money...sign yourself up, I'm not a pimp. It's out there and possible, the only person preventing you is you.

However, due to supply and demand, if "every ok looking woman in America" starts doing it, supply increases dramitically, reducing the cost of the services if the prostitutes want to maintain competative pricing and have work. Eventually it reaches a point where it's more effective to get a regular nine to five job. Would there be more prostitutes? Yes, but hardly every good looking woman in the country.

So you know exactly where the equilibrium level for nationwide, legal prostitution would be? Enlighten me.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I didn't exactly intend to argue that a rising tide lifts all boats. That's not the same thing as disputing that I must steal from you in order to hoard a stash of berries. Which is what your position basically boils down to. If wealth is value, then whose enslavement is my accumulating a store of berries (thus relative wealth) dependent on?

You did, and continue, to argue exactly that.



As for the berries. The more berries you have, the less everyone else has. There is a limited quantity of berries in the world. Every berry you pick and stash is a berry that someone else can't pick. That's a direct zero-sum situation. And on top of that.... The more you control that limited supply, the morethe price ofberries increases. Everyone else loses because they now have to pay more for berries.

Just because you're too small-minded to see the losers, doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

When did I ever advocate a gold standard? I don't see that it much matters, since value is an arbitrary construct.

So now you're FOR fractional reserve banking and a central bank? I wish you would make up your mind.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

That would only be true if said prostitute never spent any of the money s/he made. Food, clothing, shelter, etc...the money doesn't come to a complete halt with said prostitute. Also, I'm not sure why you turned prostitution into an exclusively female thing, but whatever. Predominantly, sure, exclusively, no.

No, but see, that's where you're not getting it. That's a TRANSFER of wealth. The $10 the guy paid her is the same $10 he had in the first place. No wealth has been generated. Whether he spends it or she spends it, it's only $10. She invested capital (time and labor), and created no economic benefit; she merely transfered wealth. She wastedcapital that could have been used to generate wealth. That's lost productivity.

When you go work in a productive job, you invest your capital (time, labor)and itgenerates more wealth for the company than they're paying you. That's productivity. When you own your own (successful) business, you invest your capital (time, labor, money) and it creates a return greater than the investment. That's capitalism productivity.

When a hooker goes to work. She invests capital (time, labor) and produces no benefit. She merely transfers money from one person to another. There's no wealth generation. The $10 that she'll go out and spend is the same $10 that the guy would have gone out and spent. The only difference is that capital has been wasted in atransfer that, in the grand scheme of the economy, accomplished nothing.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

All these pages of back and forth debating and it is not even gun related! What a waste!! :lol:


We are always going to have people who are poor. That is just how it is. Success cannot be "given" to everyone. You have to go out and earn it on your own.

But there are people who either do not care to go get it and want everything handed to them for free or they have too many kids too early in life and are now unable.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

When a hooker goes to work. She invests capital (time, labor) and produces no benefit. She merely transfers money from one person to another. There's no wealth generation. The $10 that she'll go out and spend is the same $10 that the guy would have gone out and spent. The only difference is that capital has been wasted in atransfer that, in the grand scheme of the economy, accomplished nothing.

I loaned the guy the $ 10 and he will gladly pay me back Tuesday $ 11 .

She rents the back apartment in my 6200 sq. ft. southern mansion that I changed into a triplex for $ 375 .

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

All these pages of back and forth debating and it is not even gun related! What a waste!! :lol:


We are always going to have people who are poor. That is just how it is. Success cannot be "given" to everyone. You have to go out and earn it on your own.

But there are people who either do not care to go get it and want everything handed to them for free or they have too many kids too early in life and are now unable.

So there's no such thing as someone that works hard but is stuck being poor?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

That would only be true if said prostitute never spent any of the money s/he made. Food, clothing, shelter, etc...the money doesn't come to a complete halt with said prostitute. Also, I'm not sure why you turned prostitution into an exclusively female thing, but whatever. Predominantly, sure, exclusively, no.

No, but see, that's where you're not getting it. That's a TRANSFER of wealth. The $10 the guy paid her is the same $10 he had in the first place. No wealth has been generated. Whether he spends it or she spends it, it's only $10. She invested capital (time and labor), and created no economic benefit; she merely transfered wealth. She wastedcapital that could have been used to generate wealth. That's lost productivity.

When you go work in a productive job, you invest your capital (time, labor)and itgenerates more wealth for the company than they're paying you. That's productivity. When you own your own (successful) business, you invest your capital (time, labor, money) and it creates a return greater than the investment. That's capitalism productivity.

When a hooker goes to work. She invests capital (time, labor) and produces no benefit. She merely transfers money from one person to another. There's no wealth generation. The $10 that she'll go out and spend is the same $10 that the guy would have gone out and spent. The only difference is that capital has been wasted in atransfer that, in the grand scheme of the economy, accomplished nothing.

The only way you are going to "generate wealth" is if you get something for nothing.

All of us that work make many and pay our bills hoping there will be something left at the end of the month. Normally, there is not much there so call wealth. You have to save and invest the money.

But in the case of a hooker... She is a private business owner investing only her time and maybe the overhead cost to buy condoms and renta hotel room but these are optional. The rest that she makes is profit and not taxed.

Her getting $10 for a "transaction" does accomplish something. The guy could have taken care of business on his own and never spent the money... or he could pay her. She then takes the money and buys lunch and condoms plus the hotel room. Sop three businesses profited by her being there.

And a forth if she saved up enough to buy a gun from a FFL dealer. :lol:

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

But there are people who either do not care to go get it and want everything handed to them for free or they have too many kids too early in life and are now unable.

So there's no such thing as someone that works hard but is stuck being poor?

Sixteen tons and what do you get ?

Another dayolder and deeper in debt .

St. Peter don't you call me , cause I can't go .

I owe my soul to the company store . . . . . Tennessee Earny Ford

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

She then takes the money and buys lunch and condoms plus the hotel room. Sop three businesses profited by her being there.

And a forth if she saved up enough to buy a gun from a FFL dealer. :lol:

:lol:

No, but that's exactly the point. Nothing has been generated. It's just $10. She'll spend it or he'll spend it, it's just $10. Her spending it didn't benefit the economy any more than him spending it. So it's just economic self-service to waste capital transfering it from him to her.

What I'm talking about is the idea that your employer... ok not YOUR employer, because they enjoy operating at a loss... but MY employer pays me less than the wealth I generate for them. That's productivity. I hire you for $10/day, but you're generating $15/day for me. Your investment of capital has generated $5 in wealth for the corporation and you've been compensated with a wage that you feel was worth the capital (that doesn't change the fact that your capital IS worth more than you're paid).

The prostitute isn't generating wealth for anyone. She's taking $10 from someone else and putting it in her pocket. That's the equivalant of me paying you the $15/day that you're making me. It's a break-even business and no wealth is generated.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

All these pages of back and forth debating and it is not even gun related! What a waste!! :lol:


We are always going to have people who are poor. That is just how it is. Success cannot be "given" to everyone. You have to go out and earn it on your own.

But there are people who either do not care to go get it and want everything handed to them for free or they have too many kids too early in life and are now unable.

So there's no such thing as someone that works hard but is stuck being poor?

How are you stuck being poor where it is not your own fault? I was poor once but I took steps to get better and better jobs.

I was smart enough not to "knock up" some girl and have to work the next 18 years having to spend all my money on the child. This is the biggest contributor to people staying poor. But that is not the fault of anyone but the two that decided to have sex when they could not afford a family.

I cannot think of one instance when I asked a poor family how many kids they had and they did not tell me at least one... if not more. Two adults pool their money and resources and get established first. Then have a kid when they can afford it and are secure in their jobs.

But let's face it... there are not enough high paying jobs out there for everyone. If we paid the poor class more money the cost would go up for everything and they would be in the same position they are in now. The only difference would be the tax on the higher price so the governments would make more money.

BK and McDonaldsare not a career jobs. They are a stepping stones. You go in and establish awork history and you try to become a manager. You should always be looking for a better job when one opens up and you qualify.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

But let's face it... there are not enough high paying jobs out there for everyone. If we paid the poor class more money the cost would go up for everything and they would be in the same position they are in now. The only difference would be the tax on the higher price so the governments would make more money.

That's the whole point. So by saying that, you just contradicted your idea that no one is stuck being poor. There is a whole class of people stuck being poor because it's economically impossible for them to be anything else.

And let me give you an example of stuck poor. It's called wage slavery. Let's say you live in a third world country. You're single, no wife, no girlfriend, no kids, so the "irresponsible" argument is out the window. Due to large population and no real economy to speak of, there's massive unemployment. You have a choice, you can work at the local Nike factory making shoes, or you can beg and eventually starve to death. There's just one catch. Nike only pays $1/year, salary. You work until your work is done, which can be from 60-90 hours per week. You don't like it? No problem, go die.

That's called wage slavery. No one in their right mind would work 90 hour weeks for a penny a year, but when your choice is that or death, you take the money. People in these situations face the same choice as slaves, work for whatever we feel like giving youor die. There's no getting ahead in that position because you have have NO bargaining ground, NO power, NO advantage. You're an expendable part of a massive corporation and you do what they tell you to or you can go die. It's paid (barely) slavery and it's justified by people like marshaul because "well it's better than starving."



Broaden your horizons. Look outside this land of the rich and draw your examples from the real world. As poor as you ever were, you made you the truly poor people of this world look like kings.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

She then takes the money and buys lunch and condoms plus the hotel room. Sop three businesses profited by her being there.

And a forth if she saved up enough to buy a gun from a FFL dealer. :lol:

:lol:

No, but that's exactly the point. Nothing has been generated. It's just $10. She'll spend it or he'll spend it, it's just $10. Her spending it didn't benefit the economy any more than him spending it. So it's just economic self-service to waste capital transfering it from him to her.

What I'm talking about is the idea that your employer... ok not YOUR employer, because they enjoy operating at a loss... but MY employer pays me less than the wealth I generate for them. That's productivity. I hire you for $10/day, but you're generating $15/day for me. Your investment of capital has generated $5 in wealth for the corporation and you've been compensated with a wage that you feel was worth the capital (that doesn't change the fact that your capital IS worth more than you're paid).

The prostitute isn't generating wealth for anyone. She's taking $10 from someone else and putting it in her pocket. That's the equivalant of me paying you the $15/day that you're making me. It's a break-even business and no wealth is generated.

I see what you are saying.

But you have to think about this....

Sure... you made the company $5 but the company has to pay rent, insurance, state unemployment dues, Federal taxes, State taxes, Local taxes, business licensing, FICA, electric, gas, water, building maintenance, accountants, and try to draw a salary for the ownertoo and maybe dividends for shareholders.

You are being compensated for your time at a rate you are willing to work for. You are not entitled to any wealth created by your labor since you are already being paid a rate you accepted by taking the job.

Any company that shared the "wealth" with the employees would go out of business. Unless you, as an employee, would like share in all the known and unexpected operating expenses. And I doubt that because it is going to be more than your salary.

I know this because I own a business!!! :lol:

The business is not there to make the employee wealthy. They are providing a way to earn pay for their time. So you can sit at home for 8 hours and not make any money... or you can work flipping burgers. You choose. The alternative is 8 hours on the street selling yourself.

And think of it this way... the hooker is her own boss so what she makes is her salary and the wealth she made for the "company" and she gets to keep too!! :lol:

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

She then takes the money and buys lunch and condoms plus the hotel room. Sop three businesses profited by her being there.

And a forth if she saved up enough to buy a gun from a FFL dealer. :lol:

:lol:

No, but that's exactly the point. Nothing has been generated. It's just $10. She'll spend it or he'll spend it, it's just $10. Her spending it didn't benefit the economy any more than him spending it. So it's just economic self-service to waste capital transfering it from him to her.

What I'm talking about is the idea that your employer... ok not YOUR employer, because they enjoy operating at a loss... but MY employer pays me less than the wealth I generate for them. That's productivity. I hire you for $10/day, but you're generating $15/day for me. Your investment of capital has generated $5 in wealth for the corporation and you've been compensated with a wage that you feel was worth the capital (that doesn't change the fact that your capital IS worth more than you're paid).

The prostitute isn't generating wealth for anyone. She's taking $10 from someone else and putting it in her pocket. That's the equivalant of me paying you the $15/day that you're making me. It's a break-even business and no wealth is generated.

I see what you are saying.

But you have to think about this....

Sure... you made the company $5 but the company has to pay rent, insurance, state unemployment dues, Federal taxes, State taxes, Local taxes, business licensing, FICA, electric, gas, water, building maintenance, accountants, and try to draw a salary for the ownertoo and maybe dividends for shareholders.

You are being compensated for your time at a rate you are willing to work for. You are not entitled to any wealth created by your labor since you are already being paid a rate you accepted by taking the job.

Any company that shared the "wealth" with the employees would go out of business. Unless you, as an employee, would like share in all the known and unexpected operating expenses. And I doubt that because it is going to be more than your salary.

I know this because I own a business!!! :lol:

That's exactly what I was saying. What's your point?



The hooker is keeping all the money she TRANSFERED to herself. Yes, SHE made money, but someone else lost the exact same amount. Her expenditure of capital didn't benefit the economy.

When the employee makes $10, he's leaving the business with the remaining $5. That's a net benefit to that local economy.

The employee put his time and labor into the economy they were productive and turned into money, and the economy came out $5 ahead. When the hooker expends time and labor, the economy has the same $10 it started out with.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

But let's face it... there are not enough high paying jobs out there for everyone. If we paid the poor class more money the cost would go up for everything and they would be in the same position they are in now. The only difference would be the tax on the higher price so the governments would make more money.

That's the whole point. So by saying that, you just contradicted your idea that no one is stuck being poor. There is a whole class of people stuck being poor because it's economically impossible for them to be anything else.

And let me give you an example of stuck poor. It's called wage slavery. Let's say you live in a third world country. You're single, no wife, no girlfriend, no kids, so the "irresponsible" argument is out the window. Due to large population and no real economy to speak of, there's massive unemployment. You have a choice, you can work at the local Nike factory making shoes, or you can beg and eventually starve to death. There's just one catch. Nike only pays $1/year, salary. You work until your work is done, which can be from 60-90 hours per week. You don't like it? No problem, go die.

That's called wage slavery. No one in their right mind would work 90 hour weeks for a penny a year, but when your choice is that or death, you take the money. People in these situations face the same choice as slaves, work for whatever we feel like giving youor die. There's no getting ahead in that position because you have have NO bargaining ground, NO power, NO advantage. You're an expendable part of a massive corporation and you do what they tell you to or you can go die. It's paid (barely) slavery and it's justified by people like marshaul because "well it's better than starving."



Broaden your horizons. Look outside this land of the rich and draw your examples from the real world. As poor as you ever were, you made you the truly poor people of this world look like kings.

So what do you propose be done?

How about the wealthy Americans pay 10 x the cost for products manufactured outside the US so that the profit can be passed on down the line to the employee?

As I said... there are ALWAYS going to be poor people. Get over it.

Unless you have a fix ready that does not include income redistribution... you are getting nowhere.

Many poor people are born into the situation by those who were poor and the cycle continues. They then have kids and have little chance at getting out.

I got out... and I have friends that did but went right back to the poor way of life!! I could not believe it. There was no reason for them to return but it was what they were comfortable with. It was their choice!!!

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The alternative is 8 hours on the street selling yourself.

Yes, exactly. This allows YOU to get by and live. It offers no benefit to anyone else or the economy as a whole. That's my whole point. It's lost productivity for the overall economy.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

So what do you propose be done?

I don't have a solution. I don't think anyone does. It's an unfortunate evil of a free market. To fix it would require that we all lower our standard of living in order to raise theirs. Again, demonstrating that thisIS ZERO-SUM.

If you read back in the thread (which I'm guessing you didn't because I'm repeating points to you a lot), I'm merely trying to show marshaul that economics is, in fact, zero-sum, the rising tide does not raise all boats, and "anyone can be rich if they work for it" simply isn't true.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

That's exactly what I was saying. What's your point?



The hooker is keeping all the money she TRANSFERED to herself. Yes, SHE made money, but someone else lost the exact same amount. Her expenditure of capital didn't benefit the economy.

When the employee makes $10, he's leaving the business with the remaining $5. That's a net benefit to that local economy.

The employee put his time and labor into the economy they were productive and turned into money, and the economy came out $5 ahead. When the hooker expends time and labor, the economy has the same $10 it started out with.

So nobody should work on their own then?

We shall all work for a company and make themmoney because this is good for the economy?