Topic: What is the opposite of "Fuck you, got mine?" - page 4. (Read 13393 times)

That's actually specifically my point: they make money on trade, by providing a service, not by using and exploiting natural resources.

They are not exactly related though. You are thinking that if someone has $1 of crude oil (a limited natural resource), then the only way for them to double their wealth is to get another $1 of crude oil; and that the total wealth in this example is now only limited to $2.
The fact is, you can refine that crude, and from the products sell black tar for $0.10, gasoline for $0.75, airplane fuel for $0.50, kerosene for $0.30, and plastic for $0.25. You can then collect and recycle that plastic for another $0.10 (prices are very rough estimates purely for example). You can then make even more money by forming that plastic and black tar into useful objects instead of just selling the raw materials for $0.10 and $0.25. So $2+ from just that single $1 resource, and that second $1 worth of oil is still free for someone else to take. Even more so, the people you sell those refined components can make even more wealth by trading it and using it to produce other things, like farming food, or transporting people. Then even more people can use that wealth to figure out and invent yet more services on top of those, thus growing what we can get out of that $1 exponentially. That's what wealth is, and how it was able to grow so much faster in the last century than the amount of mined resources.

Do you know what wealth exists in biodiversity? Honest question.

Wealth doesn't come from natural resources. It comes from trade and from the mind: thinking, inventing, creating new ways to use resources or services. The most obvious example of this is in the Middle East, when you compare Israel and Dubai, two nations that have practically no resources to speak of, and make all their resources from their minds, to the rest of the countries in the area, which are dirt poor and torn by war.

This reminds me of the nonsense myrkul and company write about their right to land modifications (or decimation) sans regulation. They claim that they are free from regulation of activities on land they own because they bought the land with their own money (presumably hard earned). I showed the absurdity of it. It goes like this:

Myrkul works his ass off for Joe on the east coast putting up fences around Joe's plot of land, cutting down the trees, and building a big mansion. Joe pays myrkul. Myrkul, flush with cash, moves to the west coast, and buys land. He then proceeds to do the same to his plot of land. Myrkul claims the government has no right to tell him he can't cut down trees on his new plot of land because he bought it with his money.

Consider though: myrkul's money came from decimating land on the east coast. Apparently that buys him the right to decimate land on the west coast. Myrkul believes money buys him rights which cannot be contested. Myrkul in fact precisely believes (if we work out the chain of effects) that engaging in environmental destruction on the east coast affords him exactly the rights to engage in environmental destruction on the west coast. That's wealth creation in the eyes of myrkul.

Myrkul claims he has done nothing but create wealth. Has he? Or has he made the planet a poorer place?

Furthermore, apparently those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, in myrkul's eye of the way the world works, have more rights to create devastation than those who don't have the money.

That is myrkul's world.

LOL! I think pretty much everyone ignored your take on the meaning. I'm sorry myrkul, but the discussion was not built on that.


Speaking of movies, since you brought it up, I rewatched Yasujiro Ozu's Late Autumn last night. Great film.

As for you being done discussing this with me, nothing would please me more. Please keep your word.

You can't untangle personal wealth from the global flow of wealth in the same way you can't untangle a rain forest from the ice caps, doing so is EXACTLY the kind of intentional simplification used in order to rationalize....

hell, forget it.

No, this discussion was built on this:
Resources are limited. Wealth is not.

Yes, an outgrowth of the discussion. A tangent. The same tangent, I'll add, that you always go on. Go back to your movies. I'm done discussing this with you.

Not an appropriate cop-out for stewardship of the seas.

Because Rassah, who started this thread, recently made some comments related to tariffs and overseas jobs in which the most recent discussion occurring right now has now built upon. That's why. And furthermore, an outgrowth of the discussion relates to the planet's resources. Pretty simple if you pay attention.

 

What makes you think I was talking about world economy?

This entire discussion is about personal wealth, not national GDP.

Lovely post FA, really.

It is always painful to see someone oversimplify the natural world in order to rationalize some reckless and selfish action that puts many many things at risk. What is the cost we would pay to clear the sky again if the rain was so bad it ate through clothing on contact? Is there any price we WOULDN'T pay? What is the fiscal investment to return the seas to their original state?  

Rehabilitating the oceans from their obscene overfished state would be a herculean task, maybe an impossible one, and those costs are not considered by someone who thinks the sea is infinite and endless; a handy assumption to make when hauling tons of fish at a time and claiming it 'your labors'. Those fish are the labor of eons of development, a global ecology, and a fragile lifecycle; more than any man on a boat with a net. Just because the ocean spirits don't send you an invoice for their removal doesn't mean there is no impact, and cherry picking studies of oceanic life to prove yourself devoid of responsibility doesn't mitigate it in any real way.

I'm not even an environmentalist.

edit: So If you have a car and want a fish, and I have a fish and want a car, and the marine ecology has started catastrophic collapse due to overfishing and the wellbeing of billions of humans is at risk; where is the wealth? Do we look upon the next generation and say, well... FY;GM I really liked that car and I didn't have anything to do with it anyway maybe you should try to find a new market somewhere. Space maybe, I dunno it isn't my problem.

You don't understand everything. http://capitalinstitute.org/blog/growth-and-free-trade-brain-dead-dogmas-still-kicking-hard

Resources are limited (assuming we stay on earth - not a valid assumption). Wealth is not, because wealth (value of possessions) is subjective, because value is subjective. If you have a car, and want a painting, and I have a painting, and want a car, when we trade, I am getting something I value more than what I am giving up, and you are getting something that you value more than what you are giving up. When the trade is completed, we are both wealthier than when we started. Wealth is created by free trade, and destroyed by aggression - either directly, by damaging or destroying things of value, or subjectively, by forcing someone to give up something they value more for something they value less.

Which explains why socialist regimes impoverish their peoples.

What a concise way of summing it all up. Of course, myrkul will argue that there's the whole Universe, as if we can count on cheap space travel soon, and everyone's content to live on Mars or in orbit around Jupiter.

There is a thread here entitled 'Greed'. I wrote a post in it. A lot of libertarians are just plain ignorant of why people rail against them because they have false assumptions about our planet - mostly they simplify the complexity of the foundations of our existence. This is the post, which was in reply to some ridiculous assumptions by posters above me: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

Last time I checked, we have only one pie called planet earth and some of it is renewable and some of it is not.   So just there is a valid discussion about how the pie is divided.   

Its like this, if Rupert Murdoch finally got to a point where he had enough money to buy all the newspaper, radio and TV stations,  should we let him just because he can.  My answer, hell no, double hell no, the public interest and common good would not be served and that matters before a single persons ambitions.  No I would not take this approach on many things but there is limits and until all people of different ideologies realize this, their thinking has no present or future. 

Actually, while discussing this, I remembered that there is one more level to this. It's the classic battle between the parasites and the productive, which stems from the battle between the Marxists who think the pie is only so big, and capitalists who think the pie can expand.
The parasites believe that there is only so much wealth in the world (limited size "wealth pie"), and the wealthy have most of it, so the only way for others to have wealth is to take the piece of the pie from the wealthy. The productive have witnessed how their own wealth was created largely out of nothing, without taking anyone else's wealth by force, and thus believe that the amount of wealth in the world isn't really limited, and the "wealth pie" can just get bigger, expanding to give more pieces to those who work for it.

Man, Marx has really infected the collective human mind with one hell of a viral parasitic thought 

(P.S. I knew this before, especially since this concept was described in detail at my "evil, liberal brainwashing, public university, but I often forget about it, and mainly described the "pie" in detail to those who aren't familiar with the concept yet)

The only way he could profit from that resource is by selling it to other people, for their greater good. You can't profit from a resource by sitting on it.

The reason this derogatory statement buried me is because it seems to be quite often misapplied to Radians and AnCaps. I can see it applying to the casting off by yourself in a lifeboat scenario. Another couple of examples where FY,GM applies:

Illegal immigrant policies (fuck your lack of jobs in your country. I got mine, and you ain't taking it)
Regulations against shipping jobs overseas (same as above)
Tariffs (taxes) on imports like steel and sugar (fuck your resources, production, and need to trade for food, got mine here)
Minimum wage laws (There is only so much revenue from this company to spread around, so fuck you, employee whom the company can no longer afford, rest of us got our $7.25)
Continued support for farm subsidies (fuck your family farm, got my gov check to undermine your prices with)
Continued support for highway and road construction (fuck your struggling railways, got my trucking and roads)

These are things that both of the popular political spectrums are guilty of (Dems and Repubs). They are also all things that libertarians like Randians and AnCaps, are against. So I think a term that would fit libertarians best would be
"Got mine, go get yours"
I don't think I've met a libertarian who would actually prevent someone who doesn't have something from getting it, as long as they went for it in a fair way, through their own work. So I'm not sure the "fuck you" applies. Rand was certainly all for everyone getting everything they wanted, as long as they worked for it, and used their heads instead of relying on bailouts.