A real non-profit dispensary to compete

[zenoonez]

Pharma, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't think you should be required to have insurance, however, at the same time I do think that if you get into a wreck you should have to pay for the damages the other person's car and person sustained if it was your fault. So it is a good idea to have insurance.

 

[Blue Dot]

Everyone has the opportunity to create wealth, and to make the pie bigger. If you want to be a success, you need to add to the pie, not try to take a slice away from someone who has done so.

You do realize all these 1%'ers "earned" their wealth by merely inheriting it don't you.

Look it up, the 1%'ers are the Rockefellers, etc. Sure they had a great Grandad that obviously did great things but since then all the top 1% wealth has merely been passed down thru inheritence.

Don't be fooled thinking that working hard will one day get you seat next to a Rockefeller. That's just the great American myth.

 

[NOYB]

You do realize all these 1%'ers "earned" their wealth by merely inheriting it don't you.

Look it up, the 1%'ers are the Rockefellers, etc. Sure they had a great Grandad that obviously did great things but since then all the top 1% wealth has merely been passed down thru inheritence.

Don't be fooled thinking that working hard will one day get you seat next to a Rockefeller. That's just the great American myth.

A friend of mine was born into a family that controls oil leases in the Gulf area. He's never worked a day in his life and never will. For sure not the top 1% but have to agree with Blue Dot in that the wealthiest peeps on the planet were born into it. Yes opportunity to make some big $ but them folks are few and far between.

 

[PharmaCan]

Pharma, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't think you should be required to have insurance, however, at the same time I do think that if you get into a wreck you should have to pay for the damages the other person's car and person sustained if it was your fault. So it is a good idea to have insurance.

Actually, I think that requiring insurance is a good idea. What I don't like is how the insurance companies have raised their rates and their profits because it is required.

PC

 

[zenoonez]

Actually, I think that requiring insurance is a good idea. What I don't like is how the insurance companies have raised their rates and their profits because it is required.

PC

I disagree. However, that being said, I operate on the idea that it doesn't matter that you have a family in situations such as car accidents. If you were at fault and you don't have insurance then whatever the courts decide you owe, you pay regardless of whether it means losing your house, car, rv, atv, trailer, land, etc. But I am not the most compassionate guy when it comes to issues like this. Oh and btw, congrats on hitting 2 thousand posts as your next one will be

 

[Pythagllio]

It's so ironic the way people defend capitalism, when it has become exactly what they are so ardently opposed to - unfair redistribution of wealth. I am not saying we should redistribute wealth by force. I am saying that are current system, while wildly effective initially, has become twisted to ensure the wealthy stay that way. There's a pretty forceful distribution of wealth, IMO.

More ironic is that people blame capitalism for this, when it is not the system's fault. The very things you are arguing against are present because we allow the powerful to restrict access to the market. The wealthy stay that way the same way the Demopublicans and the Republicrats have turned the US into a '2 party' system, by making the barriers to entry for new players extremely difficult to pass. That the system has been perverted is by no means an indictment of the system, it is an indictment of underlying human corruption.

True, but money determines the ratios of the distribution of wealth at any given moment. Only the gov't can create money. The value of the money is determined by the ratio of it to whatever we consider worthwhile.

Because we represent material wealth with money, if someone has 90% of the money, they control 90% of what we value as worthwhile. No? Seriously, I'm asking.

Only the gov't can create gov't issued currency, anyone can create money. Currency is merely a representation of value, it is not value. If the nuclear war happens, and you survive with a $billion in currency the true value of that cash will soon become apparent, as it will have utilitarian value only as toilet paper or kindling to start fires. Survive with a $billion of electronic bits on a computer and you'll have absolutely nothing. The main thing you're missing is that the reason these people control 90% of the wealth is because they've created more than 90% of the wealth. If they didn't have that wealth you wouldn't get squat because it wouldn't exist. You can still live your life without playing the game. The only reason people 'need' to play the game is because it makes their lives a whole helluva lot easier.

Capitalism can be win/win, but much of the absurd wealth is created from win/lose.

At the top of the list of richest people are two men that have made their fortune by creating win-win-win situations. Those that do win-lose end up bankrupt (Enron) or in prison (Madoff).

If you want to make money figure out a way to make people's lives easier. If you want to make a lot of money make a lot of people's lives easier. Taking might work for a while and on a limited basis, but it doesn't work forever and it sure doesn't work as well.

We can level the playing field without abandoning the game.

 

[Pythagllio]

How do you make money without someone else losing money? Become the United States mint. Otherwise you are selling a product which means that you provide a good or service which is then paid for by the person receiving it which means that they are immediately less well off because they don't posses that money anymore

Totally untrue. The only reason to purchase an item is because you value the item more than you value the money. Everything I buy I buy because having the item or service makes my life better than having the money, with the exception of the occasional mistake, but the mistake is almost always mine.

Exactly how does having a pile of money make a person better off, if he can't buy stuff? Well, you'd never want for toilet paper...

 

[Pythagllio]

You do realize all these 1%'ers "earned" their wealth by merely inheriting it don't you.

Look it up, the 1%'ers are the Rockefellers, etc. Sure they had a great Grandad that obviously did great things but since then all the top 1% wealth has merely been passed down thru inheritence.

Don't be fooled thinking that working hard will one day get you seat next to a Rockefeller. That's just the great American myth.

Yes, sure, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Warren Buffet, all trust babies, lol.

At 49 I sure don't ever expect to sit next to any Rockerfellers because of my hard work, but I sure won't find myself keeping you company in pathetic loserville.

 

[PharmaCan]

Pythagllio - great comments! Well thought-out explanations.

PC

 

[SuperZero]

Y

 

[Pythagllio]

Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. The subject was 'all really rich people inherited, so no one has a chance of being as rich as them'and , my point was the last 3 people to hold the title did not inherit their money, nor come from particularly wealthy money. The uber rich are all exceptions, there's no way to make such a list without the entire list being exceptional people.

Aside from that, the better answer would have been that the inheriting thing is just a red herring in this argument, because the entire argument is that the 90% of wealth that the top 1% control would somehow be in the hands of the everyman had it not been 'taken', and my counter argument is that the everyman wouldn't get squat because almost all of that wealth wouldn't have been created without the economic opportunities and property rights protection afforded under our system. It is totally irrelevant to the argument that the people that created the wealth subsequently died and willed that wealth to their heirs. Yes indeed, I took the bait aqnd fell for this nonsense argument at first. Now if you want to argue that the system would be better for the everyman with a confiscatory death tax I'd likely be on your side, but that a tweak of the system, not a total 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' approach so many here seem to fantasize will work.

 

[Blue Dot]

Bill Gates STOLE the GUI from Bell Labs.

Without a GUI you probably wouldn't even be interested in a computer.

Sam Walton drove 100,000's of small businesses out of the market.

So your arguement that Capitalism is good (aside from the 1%'ers who inherited their wealth) is based on a theif and a ruthless destroyer of the small-businessman ideal?

 

[Blue Dot]

double post

 

[kmk420kali]

Bill Gates STOLE the GUI from Bell Labs.

Without a GUI you probably wouldn't even be interested in a computer.

Sam Walton drove 100,000's of small businesses out of the market.

So your arguement that Capitalism is good (aside from the 1%'ers who inherited their wealth) is based on a theif and a ruthless destroyer of the small-businessman ideal?

Hahaha!! Don't Hate the Player...Hate the Game!!

 

[zenoonez]

Bill Gates STOLE the GUI from Bell Labs.

Without a GUI you probably wouldn't even be interested in a computer.

Sam Walton drove 100,000's of small businesses out of the market.

So your arguement that Capitalism is good (aside from the 1%'ers who inherited their wealth) is based on a theif and a ruthless destroyer of the small-businessman ideal?

What is wrong with one business driving others out of business? If they can't compete they can't compete. Now personally I hate walmart because of the lacking quality of their products but hell you can't fault them because they are good at what they do. That is how things work.

 

[MrGreen]

What is wrong with one business driving others out of business? If they can't compete they can't compete. Now personally I hate walmart because of the lacking quality of their products but hell you can't fault them because they are good at what they do. That is how things work.

Yes it is the American way to undercut all of your competitors, drive them all out of business and then jack up the prices once you have a monopoly. Seems like that's how every other industry works...

 

[zenoonez]

Yes it is the American way to undercut all of your competitors, drive them all out of business and then jack up the prices once you have a monopoly. Seems like that's how every other industry works...

Which opens up the door for someone to undercut you and drive you out of business. Thats how capitalism works. If you don't like it shop at mom and pop places. I am in a city and they still exist even here.

 

[Blue Dot]

What is wrong with one business driving others out of business?

Lots of reasons.

For example, in my area time warner cable is the ONLY cable option.

NOT because time warner is better then all the rest but because somewhere along the line time warner payed some lobbiests big bucks to force congress to enact laws that actually protect their monopoly.

This happens ALL THE TIME in America and just becuase it's "how things are done" certainly doesn't make it right. It actually makes it quite wrong.

Pythagillo convieniently forgets to mention in his posts about bill gates that microsoft was accused of unfair business practices/anti-trust, etc.

 

[zenoonez]

Lots of reasons.

For example, in my area time warner cable is the ONLY cable option.

NOT because time warner is better then all the rest but because somewhere along the line time warner payed some lobbiests big bucks to force congress to enact laws that actually protect their monopoly.

This happens ALL THE TIME in America and just becuase it's "how things are done" certainly doesn't make it right. It actually makes it quite wrong.

Pythagillo convieniently forgets to mention in his posts about bill gates that microsoft was accused of unfair business practices/anti-trust, etc.

Comcast is the only option in my area unless you want satellite. As far as the government being paid to protect big interests, that isn't capitalism's fault, it is corruptions fault. It is ironic that YOU Blue Dot are arguing that because its how it things are done doesn't make it right sense that seems to be a place where you bump heads with a lot of people, how mj laws are currently vs how they should be. Microsoft was accused of unfair business practices but at the same time you are arguing for the same system you just argued against. The people deciding whether their actions were ethical or not are the same people at the green end of the lobbyists checkbooks. Can't have it both ways friend. Now maybe Microsoft did violate antitrust laws, they have paid out their fair share of settlements, I think the last ones were in Europe but hey, whatever. They chose to make those decisions which landed them in hot water and they chose to sell their products in European countries where they knew there would be legal challenges. I am sure good ole Bill isn't worried about it. Monopolies will always happen because one company will be willing to cut costs to destroy the other competitor. It is what happens when that monopoly decides to try to squeeze the customers that we see the true freedom. You are perfectly free to not purchase their service or good if it becomes too expensive.

 

[Pythagllio]

Personally I'm very grateful for Microsoft and Wal-Mart. Both have made my life richer and considerably easier.

Let's see, Sam put those poor 'mom & pop's' out of business. If Mom & Pop opened a small for profit cannabis outlet our village idiot would scream for their heads, and demand that they be put out of business, possibly in jail. Hypocrisy in action.

I also like how bureaucrats with fixed government salaries determined on a bureaucratic issued schedule, that have no concern for the bottom line nor shareholders to answer to are included in 'capitalism' by some people. It's just plain amusing how thick some people are.