Not quite: The idea is that you pay as much as the work is worth to the worker, and charge as much as the product is worth to the customer. The difference between these two can still be a positive number because the same good can be worth different amounts to different people. If it is, you profit. If it isn't, why did you start that business, when a market survey should have told you not to. Nobody pays more than what they have to to get workers, or gives a customer a better deal than will gain sales. Still, thank you for at least saying customers rather than consumers.

Here's a nice video of Dr. Feynman explaining why a mirror works the eay it does - be thou unstymied!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Republicans are opposed to giving your hard earned money to people such as wounded veterans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

There's the latest group of "lazy poor'"people the Republican party kept from getting any of your hard earned money.
        Every single vote against this bill came from a Republican, and the 60 vote Super-majority rule in the US senate means a pure Republican minority managed to block the bill. Reasons given include the claim that the VA backlog has increased and spending the money would encourage veterans to try and use the system instead of giving up on it. VA backlogs had been steadily decreasing until the sequester kicked in.
          I'm pretty sure this particular case of stupid Republican thinking has affected you, and will continue to affect you. It's certainly affected me - now every time a Republican says "Thank you for your service", I hear "... you sucker that thought we really meant it.".

                  TOMMY, by Rudyard Kipling

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
        O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
        But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
        The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
        O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
        For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
        But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
        The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
        O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
        Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
        But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
        The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
        O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
        While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
        But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
        There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
        O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
        For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
        But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
        An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
        An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

The producer in this case pled to four criminal counts relating to his contracts with the actors, and has been convicted and is now serving time. He also has a previous history of multiple felonies, including a previous fraud conviction. The whole of every single contract was invalidatable, not by some technicality, but by the very fact that he was a felon still on parole, and used an alias in all his dealings and signings, and that is entirely settled law that such contracts are invalid, before we even get to the counts where he actually admitted to fraudulent representations in those contracts. I'd just about guarantee you that's enough to make the lawsuit, and others like it from other actors involved, both reasonable and prone to survive appeal in any circuit. They could probably survive an appeal to SCOTUS, in the Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis Brandeis or Thurgood Marshall eras.

Find my earlier post in this thread, and read it. You owe a couple of people, at least one of which is ten times the person you might ever hope to be, an apology (starting with the judge you keep calling a thug, and ending with Holi). The question is not whether you will hear nonsense, it's will you hear facts, when those facts make you look petty and judgemental.

The director didn't "trick" the actors - if the judge is correct in his analysis, the director committed fraud against the actors. No quotation marks, just a real criminal act, which, if true, also makes releasing the film automatically a criminally negligent act, (reckless endangenrment) again without any quotes around the facts.
It's like Traci Lords may have genuinely tricked the directors of her first few films into thinking she was over 18, or she may have "tricked" them, but it doesn't matter, as you still have no right what-so-ever to watch an X rated film that features a person still a minor under US law. People can argue over whether the producers knew Ms. Lords was under 18, or not, but it simply doesn't change whether you have a right to watch those films, either way.
        The argument in this case runs the same way, the judge has ruled that, at the very least, there wasn't a valid contract. (The producer was a previously convicted felon, who had legal restrictions as part of his probation against using an alias, and yet used one in representing himself to the actors and in signing their contracts, and who has pled guilty to this, and three other charges including making false statements, He's already convicted and serving time). Presumption of who is "tricking", or tricking whom also follows. You're trying to make this a debate over who may have committed this or that other act of trickery that is yet unproven, and may be just a matter of tort law either way, and ignoring that one side has been convicted of criminal acts, which makes your whole point moot. The contract is invalid, and all the actors have the right to seek protection from the consequences of their involvement. They are threatened with death, and that threat exists as a consequence of whole set of proven criminal acts.
        They have that right in some jurisdictions even if every single one of them suspected, or even knew that the producer was an ex con, or that the law prohibited him from using an alias, just like we can charge one person who planned a bank robbery with murder in the commission of a felony, even though the 'victim' was one of his fellow robbers. But if you want to claim you know for an absolute fact that all the actors knew the producer was committing a crime, go right ahead and claim it. They still have a right to be protected as much as possible from being killed as a consequence of the producer's felonious actions, and you don't have a right to have them put at further risk, whether that feels like your first amendment right is what you're invoking, or not.

My mother was a mouse, you insensitive clod! (And I turned out OK...)

I really hate to see the whole "big invisible guy in the sky" type argument, because it works for everything. If you treat Capitalism as though that whole "Invisible Hand of the Market" was entirely literal and not a metaphor, Capitalism sounds like a bunch of lunatic thinking too. Reduce Marxism to the idea that the state has to become stronger to wither away, and it looks like you've instantly refuted all Communism. Take strict materialism down to its soundbites and you are likely to 'prove' all action is irrational. (Indeed, someone once said that the only person ever to fully articulate a pure materialist-existentialist position outside of an asylum was H. P. Lovecraft). Take any philosophy that has dualistic elements, whether it's Cartesian Dualism, the left-right political dichotomy, or some form of supernaturalism, and you can easily make it sound like nothing new has happened in philosophy since Zoroaster.
            State the fundamentals of modern science the right way, and you can easily make all modern scientists look every bit as silly as any old religion. (Really, "truth is not the same as provability"? I can write that claim in a way that sounds just like Donald Rumsfield rambling about known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and falsely portray that as what Godel claimed and all modern scientists march in lockstep to, and probably if some right wing pundit put that claim on the air, Niel Tyson would get death threats for redoing Cosmos). The "Big Sky Guy's gonna zap you if you're naughty" type argument is just the same sort of straw man that was used to try and refute Einstein (turning Relativity into "Everything's Relative" and then saying that there's no un-relative basis to Special Relativity to even need refuting).
          All modern religions are built on philosophical roots - all of them. The fact that many people follow those religions without having learned or even heard of those roots means nothing, any more than the fact that there are many people who claim to be Capitalists in the USA who have never actually read "The Wealth of nations", let alone Von Mises. If anyone, as an Atheist, wants to debate about religion, they need to look at the real fundamentals of that religion. Raising an arugument that was addressed as long ago as St. Augustine or even Martin Luther and thinking the Atheist has spotted something brand spanking new that all those billions of Christians never considered because they weren't as smart as said Atheist is a fundamentally delusional state, even if there really isn't a God.

He doesn't need facts, his mind is already made up, and reality will just have to give in to his opinions. Note that he's citing Zimbabwe as a counter-example to Switzerland, on a question which hinges upon which nation understands economics more - and that there's no welfare system for the average citizen in Zimbabwe at all, let alone universal minimum income, so what he's really saying is that 'even a country with no welfare has hyperinflation, so Switzerland, in its current state, let alone the hypothetical future state, is impossible'. rudy_wayne is basically claiming he doesn't believe Switzerland circa 2014 exists! "A four minute mile? Don't be rediculous! Bob here has no arms and legs, how could he ever run a four minute mile? And if he can't, nobody can! There, I've refuted you!".

      To rudy_wayne, I take the remark about "anyone with even the most basic understanding" as an attempt to personally insult every single person who disagrees with you, on anything at all, and win the argument by insult instead of facts. I was tempted to stoop to your level and "kindly suggest" you STFU, as the last thing Slashdot needs more of is people who can't be bothered to read the article/thread/link, before they have to descend to personal attacks, but I'll ask you to actually think instead - read the wiki, follow through as needed, and then quote some things you want to refute, make an arguement and I'll read it. Right now, your'e all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's obvious you feel personally threatened by the very idea Switzerland might deviate from True Capitalism, but I'll hope you can control the emotional explosion until you actually look at some facts first and form an opinion second, whether that opinion is similar to wvmarle's, mine, or your current one in the end.

It's far from a sane, balanced view, simply because it's not a choice between "the current US administration" and a next one that "doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary" - it would be a choice to wait for various future states, not one future state and one current.
              If Assange really is just waiting out the current administration, he will be up against either a Republican administration that really likes the NRO, NSA, CIA and all the rest having near unlimited powers, and will put anybody those organizations don't like on their "High Priority - No Good Bum" list, or a Democratic administration where Hillary herself is likely to be Commander in Chief. There's very, very little chance the US will actually elect either a Republican that actually wants to reign in Homeland Security and would promote compromise on the Assange case to help do it, or a Democrat that isn't Hillary herself. Both states that migh prevail if Assange waits are likely to be worse than the state right now, from his point of view.
            Saying Assange is playing a waiting game is effectively saying he is desperate, and gambiling on very low odds outcomes.

Where are you going?:
No Wait... nobody will get this part... Nevermind! Forget I said anything, before this thread turns into some sort of crusade.

The crooks printed more than a couple of million dollars worth. Still, the government could print $40 million to $200 million less in total for the year, and if they got that number near enough to what the criminals actually printed, then the crime has actually done no damage to the financial system, not contributed to inflation risk, and actually saved the US government some operating costs.

What's spooky is, if they really only printed 40 M to 200 M in bills in that time, their start up costs probably come to a significant fraction of total profits, and if they had been caught only two or three months into the operation, they could have actually taken a loss.

Have too! Several in fact. The first two were named Neil and Buzz. Autonomous as all hell...

In a recent speech, the President of the United States said, in just one sentence, that Snowden did not first approach his own supervisors with his concerns and that Snowden was protected by a particular law reguarding whistleblowing. Both those points are demonstratably false. (That Snowden did discuss the situation with some supervisory authorities first is a matter of record both sides of the debate have agreed to, and the law President Obama mentioned specifically does not apply to contractors but only goverment grade system persons.).
          I'd say that's supporting evidence right there - the POTUS either actually lying or uncritcally believeing what he's told by one side and using those statements to influence the public, when a trial may still happen and his government is still actively supporting just such a trial. I don't know if Snowden would have successfully been silenced, as that's a prediction on a hypothetical. That the attempts would have been made is overwhelmingly likely, given what attempts are being made to either stop others considering futher revelations or punish the man now. Trying to prejudice a jury with false statements is playing pretty dirty pool - I think that puts the ball in your court*, to prove the people who are doing it won't go "a little farther", into illegal detention or even assassination.

* not so much you personally, as all the people who are claiming the government wouldn't be doing anything illegal or dirty if Snowden hadn't done X, Y, or Z first. We know the government is currently breaking the law re. Snowden, and trying to taint a man's right to a fair trial is a damned serious case of both illegal and dirty - that means the burden of proof is to you, and others who agree with you, to prove the government won't go any further into felony level actions, or is doing this only reluctantly because Snowden crossed certain thresholds first, etc.
            Normally, when we see people breaking laws, we assume they are likely to break others. I'll even use a simple car analogy if that will make it clearer. If I see a young adult just attempting to syphon gas from my car, and it's parked on the street, not my property, that's probably not even a felony unless he broke a lock to enter, but I have the right at that point to consider the man as probably willing to use force to keep me from detaining him for the police, and to draw a weapon to defend my property (I'm not in Florida, and If I was, I personally still wouldn't just shoot him unless he actually attacked me anyway (because I'm not a hate filled psychopath - taking a man's life is the ultimately serious choice, and even if he doesn't value his life all that much, I do), but he can't get me charged with 'intimidation by threat of lethal force' or anything like that either - the law protects my presumption). The police approaching him have that same right, and can also presume he might be responsible for other, possibly more serious crimes in the area - for examples, when they arrest him, they can look for his prints on other cars and on my home entrances, they can take DNA samples whch would probably only be useful in the case where he also commmited a rape or murder, they can question him about where he was when other thefts in the area were occuring, et cetera. That's all reasonable for a crime of less than felony status. So why shouldn't we, the people, presume that if Snowden had worked 'within the system' for longer before going out, the same people who are playing dirty now would have played dirty in your hypothetical? Again, the burden of proof shifts to your side, by any normal logic.