Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

Not true. As a software developer and employee, I couldn't write off my travel to and from work or the clothing. And when I was building homes during college, I couldn't write off my tools even when I had to replace them. Being an employee is not a business, and if you really don't know that, know that your whole approach is bogus. (But we both know you know it.)

Fine.

What "business"? Does he have a business license? Stop being silly. "Silly" is the only way you can think you "won" this one. Is that the kind of a "win" you want?

 

LOL!!! When you refuse to face your own? LOL!!!

We only get to share in what we create, and that is the revenue from the product that we help create. And if you keep wasting my time with this line of nonsense, I'll leave you to yourself.

 

and if the paycheck is not adequate under Republican capitalism the worker is free to quit and work for those who pay a fair wage. Try starting a business and pay a substandard, unfair wage or produce a substandard product. Can the commie guess what would happen thanks to capitalism?? This is econ 101, class one day one.

 

"Writing off" expenses for taxes has nothing to do with being a business. That's a formality for an immoral system of taxation that wrongfully steals the fruits of ones labor.

 

?? we want accounting to reflect true profit so writing off expenses is a very good idea. It enables us to know where to allocate scarce resources.

 

My own contradictions? What are those?

 

What entitles you to that revenue?

 

The only contradiction I saw in the exchange relating to the chair business is that the employees were not hired to make chairs, but to perform one of several or perhaps a great many functions resulting in the assembly of a chair. The solution to the complaint being proffered by Kode would be a simple one, the employee could quit and produce chairs by him/her self and reap all the profits of his/her labours.
The undeniable fact of the matter is that employees most always, if not always, are paid far more than they could earn without their employers help. They are provided a place to perform their labours, the raw materials and tools to work with, and are paid for their work leaving their employer with the responsibility to recover all the costs.

 

Those who are entitled to some of the revenue produced by a business are the ones who the business has made purchases from, the lenders from whom money was borrowed,and lastly the investors/stockholders who risked their own money creating the business. The employees are paid as long as the business has a need to employ them and can afford to pay them. Unless the employees have invested in the business they have little to lose but their jobs, with no responsibilities for any debts of the business.

 

"Your own" contradictions in your position.... on capitalism. ,,,-the contradictions inherent in capitalism.

 

Now you're asking about law again. "Entitled" implies a legal condition. I wasn't talking law. I'm talking about a logical stake in the revenue.
How many ways do you want to ask about this? We both know you're like a predator here just waiting and looking for an opening to act on. I don't intend to give you any.

 

What are those?

 

Gosh, I thought you knew economics. Ok, I'll give you an example.

Competition is one of the capitalists' biggest selling points for capitalism. They dedicate plenty of hype on how competition is so great for capitalism. It assures us of the best product at the best price in their idealistic theories. Competition is essential to capitalism, or so they say. But when the promotional books on ideal capitalism close and capitalists open their businesses, one of the first things they do is to plot on how to minimize or even undermine and eliminate competition. They don't welcome it. They don't encourage it or improve it. They end it.

 

Doesn't work! Free market economists are happy to employ concepts such as creative destruction. It's not competition which then drives innovation, but the threat of competition.

 

You mistakenly see a contradiction because you are conflating the entire system with one actor within the system.

The fact that firms must compete with each other for customers benefits customers. However, this doesn't mean that any particular firm is happy to lose customers to a more attractive competitor.

The system as a whole benefits from competition, but competition from an upstart can be very unpleasant for any particular firm.

No contradiction at all, once you think about it.

 

And apparently you didn't think about it. As capitalism advances and evolves and top corporations become more dominant and more powerful, they collude. They strike agreements on competition between them. They divide up the market. They cooperate. This all minimizes competition. and together they work to suppress and destroy smaller upstarts.

And when Marx referred to "contradictions", he meant what we would call "antagonisms". Income and wealth disparity, over-work alongside massive unemployment, banks taking away homes, gentrification, racial tensions, violence against women, labor struggles, environmental apartheid, police brutality, gang violence, hate groups, massive dislocations of populations, and lots of war.

These are some of the "contradictions" of capitalism.

 

Which corporations are colluding?

 

He's conflating capiltalism with statism.

A capitalist system does not require the state to work, while Marxist systems do. The the existence of statism in either system is the common, corrupting factor.

 

Am I to assume that once businesses move to WSDE structure, there won't be any income and wealth disparity, over-work alongside massive unemployment, banks taking away homes, gentrification, racial tensions, violence against women, labor struggles, environmental apartheid, police brutality, gang violence, hate groups, massive dislocations of populations, and lots of war?

 

Well, those things never happened in the USSR!

 

you have learned 37 times now that collusion is illegal under capitalism. Shall we go for 38??

 

Oh, come on, Ted! That wasn't *real* (tm) communism

 

You never hear a Nazi say that...

 

You're confusing guess work with facts.

Name one example of capitalism with no state involved. One.

 

Not within WSDEs. Until the system is true socialist in every real sense, these things will plague us, but less and less as socialism grows and strengthens. How do I know? -an understanding of socialism plus common sense.