Clear Channel ready to lay off close to 1,000 people so Rush Limbaugh gets a raise

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pretend you buy a huge plot of land. You build something, with your bare damned hands, from the materials around you. You just increased the value of the land by more than you put into it. You literally became wealthier just by changing the conditions of your assets. That is similar to creating wealth from thin air. True, that you paid for the materials and the land. The whole is greater than its parts. (My Father in law builds his own damn houses. I lol'd when he told me he did....but he just buys land, the materials, and builds it...like a friggin' one man construction crew.)

Now, that is one example. I'm sure that there are many examples similar through invention or service ideas...but those rely on currenty a bit too much to get the idea across. Also, new wealth is consistantly being added to the system..which is why it isn't a "zero sum" system.

But that wealth isn't in the system until he tries to sell it at which point it does get subsumed into the zero-sum game. No one can pay more for the house than already exists and he cannot sell it if he asks for more.

Imagine there are two people in the universe and each has an equal amount of money:

Alic builds a house. She asks for money to let Bob buy it. If she requests more money than Bob has the house will never sell because the value she's looking for doesn't exist.

If we add Carol to the mix then Bob can ask Carol for money to buy the house from Alice. But still no new value is created because if Alice asks for more than Bob and Carol have combined the house will never sell.

The same thing extends to any finite number of people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that wealth isn't in the system

Stop right here. No need to continue. It is in the system. It is an asset. It just isn't on the market. Is the individual owning these not considered wealthier for having obtained this wealth? (Also, he has to get a title for it...n'stuff.)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Imagine there are two people in the universe and each has an equal amount of money:

Alic builds a house. She asks for money to let Bob buy it. If she requests more money than Bob has the house will never sell because the value she's looking for doesn't exist.

If we add Carol to the mix then Bob can ask Carol for money to buy the house from Alice. But still no new value is created because if Alice asks for more than Bob and Carol have combined the house will never sell.

The same thing extends to any finite number of people.

But you're only thinking in terms of currency, not wealth.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a theoretical maximum to all resources in the universe

Lulz.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting, though this doesn't account for the scarcity of land and building supplies

Of course, as you pointed out above...there is a finite amount of resources.

Originally posted by inimalist
Maybe it is just me, but I get the impression you are talking about infinite wealth in an economy...?

Mostly no.....

More like, if one wants to increase their wealth as long as they are intelligent enough, they can. Since the number of individuals who posses the desire and are intelligent enough will always be finite...those individuals are accomodated in most systems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is by no means a scarcity of land and building supplies. Not even close.

Of course, as you pointed out above...there is a finite amount of resources.

indeed, scarcity here meaning that there is a limit, not that it is rare.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Mostly no.....

More like, if one wants to increase their wealth as long as they are intelligent enough, they can. Since the number of individuals who posses the desire and are intelligent enough will always be finite...those individuals are accomodated in most systems.

then you get into the scenario that Sym described above.

One can continue to work on a home, so long as there is a finite amount of currency and other wealth, which there is, it is impossible to get out of the zero-sum game. If you work on a home until it is more valuable than there is money/wealth to trade for it...

Originally posted by inimalist
then you get into the scenario that Sym described above.

One can continue to work on a home, so long as there is a finite amount of currency and other wealth, which there is, it is impossible to get out of the zero-sum game. If you work on a home until it is more valuable than there is money/wealth to trade for it...

But...it doesn't matter if the builder wants to sell or not. That's my point. You guys are getting hung up on currency when it doesn't matter.

To make it easier, consider all of currency evaporates right now. The majority of the Wealthy continue to remain wealthy because of their assets.

If there is a no currency, only assets, I have 10 cows and 2 bulls, and you have 2 cows and no bulls, I am far wealthier than you. Capsice? I also have more potential to become wealthier than you. Still follow? You then farm your ass off and trade many food items for 15 cows and 2 bulls. Capsice?

The next season, you have 22 cows and 3 bulls. I have 15 and 3 bulls (because you figured out a system of making cattle in the quickest time possible). Now you are wealthier. Capisce?

At no point is money involved...just work and determination.

Now, had our conversations started about currency, I would fully agree with both of you. But it is not about currency alone...it is about wealth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This assumes a zero-sum wealth. Isn't it possible to create new wealth/assets?

True that at any moment, there is a finite amount of USD in circulation...but that's not what I mean.

No. Resources can't be created; there is a very limited amount of energy and resources upon the face of the planet, and we ultimately depend upon it in order to satisfy our needs. We cannot continue to over-indulge in material resources upon the logic that the planet will always have more for us- it will eventually deplete, leading to an environmental apocalypse of sorts.

Consider the following analogy: say, we have, in supply, 10 gallons of water. Now, Rush Limbaugh already has 8 of them- and Unnamed Person has 2. Naturally, it is fair, going on the sheer proportion of the job, but the fact of the matter is that Limbaugh has far more than he needs for the purposes of survival; Unnamed Person has barely enough. And in order to live a life of greater luxury and material indulgence, Limbaugh commands to have 9 gallons of water- leading Unnamed Person to have only 1 gallon at hand, which is below his basic survivalist needs. This is not fair.

The amount of resources we have are limited- if somebody gets more, then somebody else must get less. It's impossible otherwise.

And outside of that specific scenario, it's the problem of overpopulation- limited resources must be met with the demand. Naturally, when demand lessens (less people), the goods are cheaper and everybody is capable of affording a higher standard of living- the reverse happens when there are too many people. And when the supplies cannot sustain the populace, starvation, excessive poverty, and war ensue. We therefore must conclude that the variable we must focus upon are the amount of people- by preventing excess reproduction, we create a better functioning society that adheres to quality over quantity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. Director has a MUCH bigger customer base per "job."

And the director also contributes more to society. But I have a problem when people get more they do not need in order to buy material goods for the sake of buying material goods, and that leads to innocent children living in a state of poverty and suffering.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, it is the fault of the people for propping Rush up. He is allowed to thrive because the people WANT him to. Think of it this way: If no one ever responded to trolls, troll threads, or trolling, would trolls actually be trolling? (Oddly enough, Rush fits the trolling definition quite well.)

Well, yeah, it's the 'fault' of the people for making Limbaugh anything more than the absurd joke he really is. But it is the fault of Limbaugh for whining about values and subsequently leading to the unemployment of, apparently, a thousand people- all in order to feed his gluttonous lifestyle.

What I meant by "American Values" was what Limbaugh and his ilk espouses to be for which they usually define as some brand of populism. that somehow gets him the affection of some of the lower class (by all means not all considering that based on recent opinion polls, over 70% of Americans have an extremely negative opinion of Rush Limbaugh which is only more justification that "Boss Hog" shouldn't be making that much money). Besides, Clear Channel is pretty much the only game in town. Who else is gonna have him? He's slandered satellite radio so much that he's definitely not going there. They should've been firm with him instead of kissing his front-ass and firing a thousand people. Considering their financial straights right now it's almost conceivable that unless they have a major buy out and break up their company (which would actually be kind of a good thing), the only thing they'll be able to afford to have on clear channel stations is Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh reruns.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What I meant by "American Values" was what Limbaugh and his ilk espouses to be for which they usually define as some brand of populism. that somehow gets him the affection of some of the lower class (by all means not all considering that based on recent opinion polls, over 70% of Americans have an extremely negative opinion of Rush Limbaugh which is only more justification that "Boss Hog" shouldn't be making that much money). Besides, Clear Channel is pretty much the only game in town. Who else is gonna have him? He's slandered satellite radio so much that he's definitely not going there. They should've been firm with him instead of kissing his front-ass and firing a thousand people. Considering their financial straights right now it's almost conceivable that unless they have a major buy out and break up their company (which would actually be kind of a good thing), the only thing they'll be able to afford to have on clear channel stations is Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh reruns.

Your hate for this person is clouding your view.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Stop right here. No need to continue. It is in the system. It is an asset. It just isn't on the market. Is the individual owning these not considered wealthier for having obtained this wealth? (Also, he has to get a title for it...n'stuff.)

He's not effecting the system until he tries to sell it. Even if he is considered to be more wealthy he really isn't because no one wants the house yet. The house has no objective value, if someone kills him and takes the house then it has been exchanged for free.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But you're only thinking in terms of currency, not wealth.

No I'm not. It's easy to translate into abstract wealth.

If Alice asks for a mass of objects greater than the are available in the universe she cannot sell. If Alice asks for something that Bob cannot make she'll never sell. Again this applies to any finite number of people and objects. Value and wealth can be stored in many different forms but never created or destroyed.

If Alice finds a gemstone that has never been seen before it is extremely valuable. But then if a billion more are discovered the gems become worth less individually even though the value of the all the known gems is static. 1 gem is worth $100 if it's the only one, 100 gems are worth $1 each if there are 100.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If there is a no currency, only assets, I have 10 cows and 2 bulls, and you have 2 cows and no bulls, I am far wealthier than you. Capsice? I also have more potential to become wealthier than you. Still follow? You then farm your ass off and trade many food items for 15 cows and 2 bulls. Capsice?

The next season, you have 22 cows and 3 bulls. I have 15 and 3 bulls (because you figured out a system of making cattle in the quickest time possible). Now you are wealthier. Capisce?

One is wealthier, yes, but that isn't because welath is created it is because the value of each animal has decreased due to them becoming increasingly common.

If he donated more money to charity he would just be hated by the Democrats even more and loved evne more by the conservatives.

Originally posted by KidRock
If he donated more money to charity he would just be hated by the Democrats even more and loved evne more by the conservatives.

That doesn't make the slightest sense.

Democrats have no reason to dislike charity, on the other hand true republicans consider charity to be socialistic and would probably skin him alive then give the skin as an offering to their spider god.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesn't make the slightest sense.

Democrats have no reason to dislike charity, on the other hand true republicans consider charity to be socialistic and would probably skin him alive then give the skin as an offering to their spider god.

Originally posted by Bardock42
T-those are crazy Republicans you thinking about, bro. Not true ones.

Oh yeah, true republicans would sacrifice him to Jesus.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh yeah, true republicans would sacrifice him to Jesus.

I just heard Barry Goldwater roll over in his grave

Originally posted by inimalist
I just heard Barry Goldwater roll over in his grave

More Libertarian than a true Republican.

They would argue that Republican is a larger umbrella than the theocrats who run the party now would have you believe.

This intense christianity is, afaik, a product of the 80s

Republican isn't a political ideology- it's a party affiliation. One can be a libertarian and a Republican, it is simply that the 'mainstream' and dominating ideals of the Republican party is one of conservatism, in all of its theocratic glory.

I never got why libertarians often vote Republican, though. After all, is the social aspect not important? How can libertarians vote for a party that is blatantly opposed to the concept of private/relative morality and thus advocates forced conformance? Libertarians disagree with liberals and conservatives equally, but they seem to have a tendency to support the conservatives for some reason.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Republican isn't a political ideology- it's a party affiliation. One can be a libertarian and a Republican, it is simply that the 'mainstream' and dominating ideals of the Republican party is one of conservatism, in all of its theocratic glory.

I never got why libertarians often vote Republican, though. After all, is the social aspect not important? How can libertarians vote for a party that is blatantly opposed to the concept of private/relative morality and thus advocates forced conformance? Libertarians disagree with liberals and conservatives equally, but they seem to have a tendency to support the conservatives for some reason.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Republican isn't a political ideology- it's a party affiliation. One can be a libertarian and a Republican, it is simply that the 'mainstream' and dominating ideals of the Republican party is one of conservatism, in all of its theocratic glory.

I never got why libertarians often vote Republican, though. After all, is the social aspect not important? How can libertarians vote for a party that is blatantly opposed to the concept of private/relative morality and thus advocates forced conformance? Libertarians disagree with liberals and conservatives equally, but they seem to have a tendency to support the conservatives for some reason.

Ha, when was the last time the Republican Party pushed conservatism? Certainly not in the last 8 years.