I see an economic diasater coming...

[WilbyInebriated]

You cannot see the relationship?

can you clearly demonstrate it?

[HowardRoark]

can you clearly demonstrate it?

Sure, I can make it more clear for you. In his essay, B comes across as a raging socialist. "The man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is therefore injuring others as well as himself." I don't see this as true. Many things are learned from failed business. And the money that went through the business didn't exactly disappear from the market. Does B suggest individuals have less control over their investments? "If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization." So, you think we should have people like B implement some sensible measures of organization... and that afterwards everyone will have food, shelter, medical, etc,. Personally, I believe such measures would destroy society. It would mean a terrible government presence in our economy and (thus) in our lives.

[WilbyInebriated]

In his essay, B comes across as a raging socialist.

such gross hyperbole... but you are welcome to your opinion.
"For my part, while I am as convinced a Socialist as the most ardent Marxian, I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase the happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race." â€" Bertrand Russell

"The man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is therefore injuring others as well as himself." I don't see this as true. Many things are learned from failed business. And the money that went through the business didn't exactly disappear from the market. Does B suggest individuals have less control over their investments?

are you suggesting that no one is injured when an investment goes bankrupt?
did B suggest that things aren't learned from failed business? no. did B suggest that money disappeared from the market? no. did B suggest individuals have less control over their investments? no.  and what in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does that any of that have to do with " 'The man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is therefore injuring others as well as himself.' I don't see this as true."?

"If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization." So, you think we should have people like B implement some sensible measures of organization... and that afterwards everyone will have food, shelter, medical, etc,.

what kind of asinine logical fallacy is this? and why would there be needed any more 'sensible organization' than there is now?

Personally, I believe such measures would destroy society. It would mean a terrible government presence in our economy and (thus) in our lives.

denied. logical fallacy known as a 'false dilemma'.

[HowardRoark]

It doesn't sound like B was satisfied with organization then; so why would he be now? There are still people who don't have the basic standard of living. Many overworked people out there. Many with no work at all, no? That's why I don't think B would be satisfied with our current organization. So, what measures could be taken? People need four hours of work per day to pay for minimum standards. Who provides the work? Does everyone get paid the same? Who provides the basic standards? I am lead, reasonably, to believe that measures to meet such questions would result in a large government presence. Historically, such a force has proven to be utterly destructive.

"are you suggesting that no one is injured when an investment goes bankrupt?
did B suggest that things aren't learned from failed business? no. did B suggest that money disappeared from the market? no. did B suggest individuals have less control over their investments? no.  and what in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does that any of that have to do with " 'The man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is therefore injuring others as well as himself.' I don't see this as true."?"

No, I did not suggest that. That being said-- I cannot imagine a world where every business venture was successful. It is an inherent part of the market. B gives the vibe hes got organizational ideas for those aspects of human life also. So, that's where it's coming from...

[WilbyInebriated]

It doesn't sound like B was satisfied with organization then; so why would he be now? There are still people who don't have the basic standard of living. Many overworked people out there. Many with no work at all, no? That's why I don't think B would be satisfied with our current organization. So, what measures could be taken? People need four hours of work per day to pay for minimum standards. Who provides the work? Does everyone get paid the same? Who provides the basic standards? I am lead, reasonably, to believe that measures to meet such questions would result in a large government presence. Historically, such a force has proven to be utterly destructive.

i didn't say he would be... you are the one making assumptions...
reasonably? well... then using reason, demonstrate it. simply stating it doesn't make it so. nor does it convince me.

No, I did not suggest that. That being said-- I cannot imagine a world where every business venture was successful. It is an inherent part of the market. B gives the vibe hes got organizational ideas for those aspects of human life also. So, that's where it's coming from...

yes. you did... in point of fact you explicitly declared it. you said, and i quote:

"The man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is therefore injuring others as well as himself." I don't see this as true.

see that bold part? that's you saying the previous sentence, a quote from B, is untrue...  when it's obviously not.