SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The World Socialist Web Site reports
Three US states--New Jersey, Maine, and Illinois--with a combined population of 23 million people entered a new fiscal year [July 1] without a state budget, forcing widespread shutdowns of public services, state offices, and schools, as well as the closure of state parks on the Fourth of July holiday weekend.
In a fourth state, Connecticut, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy ordered across-the-board spending cuts totaling $2.1 billion after the legislature failed to pass a balanced budget. Malloy's cuts include the elimination of summer youth employment programs and rental assistance for low-income families, as well as a reduction in education funding.
Six more states entered the new fiscal year without a final budget, but without, as yet, any significant shutdown of state services: Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Cuts are to be expected in all of these states if new budgets are not enacted by July 5, the first workday after the holiday.
[...] In a display of elitist arrogance, [Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey] spent the weekend with his family at an official residence in a state park that had otherwise been closed to the public by his own executive order.
[...] In Maine, Republican Governor Paul LePage ordered the first statewide shutdown of government services since 1991 after the legislature failed to bow to his demand that it adopt a new, two-year, $7 billion budget without any tax increases.
In a brazenly antidemocratic action, LePage and Democratic and Republican state legislators had already agreed that the new budget would repeal a measure approved last November by the votes of more than 357,000 people in a statewide referendum. The referendum imposed an additional three percent income tax on the wealthiest state residents--those who make more than $200,000 a year--to increase funding for public education.
Additional Coverage: ABCNews
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:44PM (8 children)
I think you misunderstand the word "profit".
Suppose I go over to the orange grove and buy a truckload of oranges. That cost me (let's say) $1000. Now I drive around to a bunch of grocery stores and sell them oranges. Wear and tear on my truck, plus fuel: $100. But I sold the oranges for $1200, so at the end of the day I have $100 left over. That is my profit.
The store managers were happy to pay me (a total of) $1200, in part because they didn't have the time or inclination to drive out to the orange grove for just one crate of oranges.
If the store managers were not happy to pay me $1200 they would not have paid me $1200. But they were. In fact, they might have been willing to pay even more. But the fact is they agreed to the bargain because buying my oranges seemed better to them than not buying my oranges. In other words they profited on the deal too although perhaps the exact dollar value of their profit may be hard to calculate.
We can now see that every time two people agree to a trade they both profit. Otherwise they would not have agreed.
Every voluntary transaction increases the happiness in the world, because both parties are happier.
The amount of profit you make each day is a measure of how much happiness you added to the world.
Unless of course you stole the money. In that case the other party did not agree, and you should go to jail. Like thieving politicians, who make the world unhappier every time they force a transaction on unwilling participants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:53PM (4 children)
Oh, dear, now I see why you flunked out of micro-economics.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:56PM (3 children)
Feel free to enlighten us where he went wrong, O Almighty AC, instead of just pointing and laughing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:04AM (2 children)
He forgot labor! Just like a capitalist apologeticist! He forgot to pay himself for the 10 hours of work, loading, unloading, driving, waiting, and dead-heading back. At a decent minimum wage of $15/hr, he would be -$50 of profits. I do not expect someone this challenged by numbers to stay in business very long. Which is good, because we forgot to factor in unemployment insurance, health insurance, retirement benefits, liability insurance, and Social Security.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:41AM
If the man sells the oranges for $150M, and pays himself $15M/hour in wages for those 10 hours of work, would you say he's down $1000 on the day? That's a silly question, your above statement demonstrates that you would say that. And if you wouldn't then that would demonstrate that you are happier contradicting yourself than anything else.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 06 2017, @03:28PM
If the guy is working for himself, the profit *is* his pay.
"That's what governments are there for: to get in a man's way."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by BK on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:11PM (1 child)
That's microeconomics 101... but the reality is more complex.
FTFY.
If everyone has equal information and analysis, then everyone should profit, or at least break even. But often enough, that is not the case.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 06 2017, @10:49AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:25PM
Your last sentence really shows the problem with your idealized scenario of basic capitalism. There are many caveats, so like every other system it falls prey to exploitation. As humans we have to agree on the problems we face, and come to terms with how to handle such problems. History seems to show that diversity is the answer, conservative and liberal ideologies applied where desired, economic systems of socialized versus privatized used where applicable.