Free market for Capital: effect

Choose:
3 investment opportunities present themselves, where do you
place your 100.000 ? The following stories you receive from
the people who want to receive your investment.

            A. Hello financier, I want to tap into the labor market
               for seamstresses, because they live under hard conditions
               and need money. They will want to work for almost any
               wage, and the work will provide them with income they
               need. I will make sure they work as hard as they can,
               you and me will split the profits ! I am man enough to
               fire seamstresses that are lazy.
            B. Hello financier, I want to start a logging company with
               a group of friends. There is a lot of wood here and the
               market looks good, what do you say ? We want to set up
               the company so that we own it, new staff will then become
               our employees. We could split the profit after we deducted
               our own wages, as to be negotiated.
            C. Hello financier, I want to set up an animal farm, where
               people can work who have diminished abilities. I believe
               in making the world a better place for everyone and therefore
               I want to treat my colleagues with the utmost respect, and
               that means I will set up the company as a true cooperative.
Your choice: 
A
B
C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Great, thanks. I have found 30 seamstresses that want to work for 5,- units an hour, which means that after 10 hours of work they should be able to feed themselves. The trousers they make I can sell for 200,- per unit, buying the cloth costs me 30,- machines and building would cost me another 70,- per sold unit. It takes a seamstress 1 hour to make one trousers. The cost per trouser is therefore 105,- and the profit is 95,- after costs + wages deduction. This should mean 47,50 for me per worked hour of the seamstresses, and 47,50 for you per worked hour, 5,- for the seamstresses. What a deal ! Who can resist that kind of margins ! Let's celebrate, my treat ! ... one year passes ... (next)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Great, thanks. We have bought the stuff we need and are already busy with the timber. We have hired some additional help, whom we pay 45,- units per hour, which means after 8 hours per day they should be able to live normally. The logs can be sold at 200,- per 10, maintenance on the machines and building rent would cost roughly 100,- per 10 logs. It takes 1 hour to cut and process for shipping 10 logs. We have hired 50% more helpers (that is 15 men at 40,-/hour,) on average the cost for their logs is 145,- if a helper did it. We want 95,- an hour so the average cost for 10 logs is ( 195,- + 145,- ) / 2 = 170,- because we work on as many logs as our helpers. The profit per 10 logs is therefore about 30,- after costs + wages deductions. This should mean 15,- per worked hour for you the financier, 15,- for us together at 15,- / 15 = 1,- each for all worked hours by us or our helpers, besides our wages at 95,- for each their own worked hours, and 45,- for the helpers. ... one year passes ... (next)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Great, thanks. We have bought the animals we need, maintenance is costing us 100,- We never compute any wages because we simply split the income among all workers according to hours worked at medium intensity. People come in to pet our animals and we sell them tea and coffee. From this our revenue is about 200,- per hour, which leaves 100,- to be divided between us and you, our financier. We have decided that, since you don't do any work, that repaying the loan + 5% should be enough, do you agree ? But you take some risk so we want to make good on that. The less money we lose from financing, the more stable our business will be, and with that the repayment of our loan. We have already decided this, nobody wants to pay more or else it is not a deal. We have decided to dedicate 5,- per worked hour to repaying the debt. This should mean we each get 95,- per worked hour, and you the financier gets 5,-, until the loan is re-payed plus 5%. We work, you don't, so it is a sweet deal, let's celebrate ! ... one year passes ... (next)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Business is going well, we sold 10,000 trousers, taking 1 hour to make. Sold at 200,- = total turnover: 2,000,000,- 10,000 * 47,50 for you = 475,000,- You have made a big profit ! 475,000,- for me. We each have made a huge 375% profit !!! ... a problem: bad summer ... (next)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Business is going well, we sold 10,000 10 log bundles, taking 1 hour to make. Sold at 200,- = total turnover: 2,000,000,- 10,000 * 15,- = 150,000,- for you You have made a 50% profit ! 150,000,- for us besides wages, split between the 15 of us: 10,000,- each. ... a problem: bad summer ... (next)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Business is going well, we had 10,000 people petting animals and drinking refreshments, causing us per visitor 1 hour of work in all. Sold at 200,- = total turnover: 2,000,000,- 10,000 * 5,- = 50,000,- for you Still 50,000,- to pay down. For us 0,- in additional profits, but of course we had 95,- an hour in wages. Everyone, none included. ... a problem: bad summer ... (next)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Do you want to invest some more money in this business ? You have the money to invest in 3 more such businesses, you have your original 100,000,- back, and you can still take 75,000,- in profits. What a sweet deal ! Of course you want to go investing like that. Who cares for those seamstresses ... nobody ! They must like it or they wouldn't do it, right ? (end) You have chosen to be an evil investor, and therefore you became rich. Rich enough to continue on investing, grow bigger and abuse more people. Go to conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Do you want to invest some more money in this business ? You have your investment back plus 50,000,- in profits. Your call as what to do next ... (end) You have chosen to be a medium evil/good investor, you didn't got too rich or lost too much money, either of which might still happen next. Go to conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Do you want to invest some more money in this business ? Well ... you've run up a 50,000,- loss so far, but maybe you will be able to recover that if the business makes it with that additional credit. (end) You have chosen to be a moral investor, as a consequence you did not squeeze money out of workers and allowed them self respect, that meant the return on your investment was low. If it goes on like this you might not be an investor for long. Go to conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Conclusion:
The investor investing in A invested in a boss who gives his workers as little as possible, as a consequence there was a high profit for both the boss and the investor. By acting immorally they acted in a successful way, added power to their power: slowly but surely this type of investor and boss take over society, to the degree such people exist and to the degree they are not opposed.

The exact opposite happens to the morally acting investor: allowing workers more means less for the investor, by being moral he became a failure as an investor. Slowly but surely this good type of investor and business initiative are pushed to the margins of the market and society.

This is the reversed morality of the business investment game: in the world of money selling, good is bad and bad is good. Bad comes to power, evil will rule, good will be in the dust, morality will be oppressed. Humanity has cooked a poisonous law for itself, bathing in it century in century out. The effects currently (year 2008/5768) are exactly what one should rationally expect from them, to an amazing detail !

Therefore I scientifically claim, for other people to disprove or failing that accept as objective fact of science, to be taught in every university teaching these general subjects: not only has the negative effect been rationally proven (business cost factor, the essential and unique place of labor cost in the economy since ultimately everything done in the markets comes back to human labor one way or the other), the real world as a test tube proves the theory correct by showing the exact same makeup as the theory would predict to happen given a random selection of individuals with more or less the same moral distribution as humanity has (proof by predicting the same actual outcome as has happened in the real world, to a perfect detail (in my humble opinion)).

(This reversed morality lines up more or less with aspects of violent naked animal morality for survival, which is the likely source of the negative morality that the business investment game has been feeding on.)

There can only be one response to these findings: the business investment sector has to be immediately restructured to prevent this effect.

 

The problem is gambler finance,
not companies or trade itself.
Without gambler finance the high
wage companies could thrive.
The bosses become the extraction
tool for the financiers. Without
extraction tool, no method of
extracting the money easily. This
cooperation between boss and
financier is similar to the
cooperation feeding-tube and body
of a stinging fly. Without
feeding-tube, finance has a
hard time gaining the for it
necessary decisions within the
company, nobody would have an
interest in looking after the
financier interests. The company
would have an interest in ganging
up against the financier instead.
Financier on financier competition
makes that financier have no
choice but to suck out as much as
possible, unless they can
manage to get enough activist
consumers on their side somehow,
who are willing to take losses.
A

 

B  

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Theory:
./aksie/newretailbanking.txt
./democracy.html
./constitution-short.html Action:
./aksie/reboot-with-banks.txt
./aksie/virtual-reboot-sim.txt
http://www.socialism.nl/fund/een Set up social investment funds to stimulate immediate improvements. Wider action:
http://www.socialism.nl/petition Sign petition.
http://www.socialism.nl/party/nl/david-we Taking over the due political process.
./revolution.html If an elite minority resists succesfully: forced revolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Did I get the math right ... ? Hope so.