[quote]ReignIB wrote:ok then, so now there’s more demand for his production.
he sees an opportunity and decides to work for 12 hours to make more bread. he is ok making bread himself still but has no time to take care of the books.
so he hires an accountant part time. accountant charges a fair market fee and the baker is comfortable paying small percent of his profit (which you insist on calling a “wage” for some reason) so that he can concentrate on making more bread.
so far so good? [/quote]
Yes, but importantly, I want to sort of harp on the distinction between wages and profit, as it’s crucial to understanding Marx’s economics (and any economics, really). Wages are what you get for work. Profit is income paid to you based on your ownings. To give you some examples, doctors, lawyers, engineers, professionals of all types, fast food workers, construction workers, waiters, none of them make profits, unless they invest in the market. Warren Buffet, by contrast, makes the vast majority of his money through profit.
[quote]orion wrote:Without wanting to go all Zeb on you, 2 years might be a long and important part of your life, for me it really isnt.
Plus, in the very same time millions of Chinese and Indians made significantly more money- I love it how you get all global when it comes to evil exploitation and very territorial when teh wealth shifts from relatively rich people to dirt poor people in other countries.
Chinese need to feed their children too.
[/quote]
Who said anything about it being a long and important part of my life? I realize two years is not a long time in the grand scheme of things. But it is a long time to be without a job, a fact that belies your ridiculous statement.
And I’m not talking about wealth shifting from country to country. I’m talking about US companies profiting because they’ve laid off their workers. Impoverishing the American middle class is not necessary to feed China. It is necessary for profit, though.
[/quote]
So?
Still the poorest of the poor benefit.
[/quote]
But in this case, they benefit at the expense of others, and only while it enriches the elites. You’re obviously OK with this, but there are a lot of people who aren’t, and this system is perilously close to collapsing, so there will be some change. “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”
[quote]Rockscar wrote:Right, because you cannot explain your way, but instead you just resort to telling people they don’t know what they are talking about.
[/quote]
If I really have to explain to you how reckless mortgage gambling and too-complex financial instruments caused this recession, I will, but I shouldn’t have to.
[quote]orion wrote:Without wanting to go all Zeb on you, 2 years might be a long and important part of your life, for me it really isnt.
Plus, in the very same time millions of Chinese and Indians made significantly more money- I love it how you get all global when it comes to evil exploitation and very territorial when teh wealth shifts from relatively rich people to dirt poor people in other countries.
Chinese need to feed their children too.
[/quote]
Who said anything about it being a long and important part of my life? I realize two years is not a long time in the grand scheme of things. But it is a long time to be without a job, a fact that belies your ridiculous statement.
And I’m not talking about wealth shifting from country to country. I’m talking about US companies profiting because they’ve laid off their workers. Impoverishing the American middle class is not necessary to feed China. It is necessary for profit, though.
[/quote]
So?
Still the poorest of the poor benefit.
[/quote]
But in this case, they benefit at the expense of others, and only while it enriches the elites. You’re obviously OK with this, but there are a lot of people who aren’t, and this system is perilously close to collapsing, so there will be some change. “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”
[/quote]
“at the expense of others” ?
That sounds as if anyone had the right to do a particular job.
That sounds as if anyone had the right to do a particular job.
[/quote]
Not a particular job, but a job. People have the right to a job. They have the right to work to support themselves. Capitalism has never been able to supply enough jobs. I’m sure that after 200 years, though, it’s about to happen.
[quote]Bauber wrote:
For a true socialist utopia to occur and work properly, every human would have to work for the greater good of everyone else. Greed, selfishness, etc would have to be eliminated. In essence human nature would have to radically change.
Good luck. I shall be in the corner hoarding my coins.[/quote]
It will work because Ryan says it will. The heck with the facts this college kid knows his stuff - LOL
My point by the comparison is that not one of us is born equal to another in any way. And it’s certainly not the governments job to try to equalize the masses. That only creates disillusionment for those capable of creating jobs and thus helping the masses.
Stop looking for equality through some sort of "economic “justice”. That has been tried and doesn’t work. The government ends up with all the power and control. You’re a bright person you know that eventually leads to pain for the masses.
[/quote]
Read my posts. I’m not talking about regulation to ensure “economic justice.”
I’m saying our economy is a reflection of our cultural values. Those should change.[/quote]
We’re currently over regulated. No, we are I live it daily.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:Right, because you cannot explain your way, but instead you just resort to telling people they don’t know what they are talking about.
[/quote]
If I really have to explain to you how reckless mortgage gambling and too-complex financial instruments caused this recession, I will, but I shouldn’t have to.
[/quote]
I think we are saying the same thing to an extent. I allege that the mortgage crisis was cause by government intervention into the banking system. You allege it was the banking system itself.
All we need to do is look at Clinton, Bush and Janet Reno. Telling banks to make loans to people who would never qualify under it’s own rules caused the first brick to shatter.
The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
[/quote]
That is why instead of widespread class envy, I propose a nat’l day of thanking the top earners. Leeches need to kiss the ass of their providers. Somehow they thank the gov’t…That I will never understand.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:I think we are saying the same thing to an extent. I allege that the mortgage crisis was cause by government intervention into the banking system. You allege it was the banking system itself.
All we need to do is look at Clinton, Bush and Janet Reno. Telling banks to make loans to people who would never qualify under it’s own rules caused the first brick to shatter.
[/quote]
But once you look at the details, there’s precious little evidence to support the idea that government intervention caused anything. Fannie and Freddie have been around for years without causing any problems, so that wasn’t the issue. The CRA is most definitely not the culprit, because not only had it been around for over two decades, but the banks who made the most bad loans were subject to CRA regulations:
“University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.”
Moreover, the securitization of mortgages meant that these institutions did not care too much about the quality of the loans, especially since they thought they were protected through CDS swaps, which were entirely unregulated.
No, the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes, which only accounts for about half of all taxes. And so what? They control 42% of the wealth in the country, so they’re still underpaying. That’s even before you consider all the other taxes that people pay, which are mostly regressive. Funny, I guess the Heritage Foundation just forgot about them.
The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
[/quote]
That is why instead of widespread class envy, I propose a nat’l day of thanking the top earners. Leeches need to kiss the ass of their providers. Somehow they thank the gov’t…That I will never understand. [/quote]
Why would we thank the top earners, when their income increases have done nothing to increase wages for 30 years?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:ok then, so now there’s more demand for his production.
he sees an opportunity and decides to work for 12 hours to make more bread. he is ok making bread himself still but has no time to take care of the books.
so he hires an accountant part time. accountant charges a fair market fee and the baker is comfortable paying small percent of his profit (which you insist on calling a “wage” for some reason) so that he can concentrate on making more bread.
so far so good? [/quote]
Yes, but importantly, I want to sort of harp on the distinction between wages and profit, as it’s crucial to understanding Marx’s economics (and any economics, really). Wages are what you get for work. Profit is income paid to you based on your ownings. To give you some examples, doctors, lawyers, engineers, professionals of all types, fast food workers, construction workers, waiters, none of them make profits, unless they invest in the market. Warren Buffet, by contrast, makes the vast majority of his money through profit.
[/quote]
Well, lets not get into investing just yet.
So now, the baker who now has a part time accountant hired and is working 12 hour days to cope with the demand realizes that demand has increased again and he needs some help around the bakery, mostly cleaning stuff. Basically he needs a janitor.
So he sits down with his accountant, they look at the books and figure out that he can hire one and pay him.
He don’t want a high school kid or someone just looking to get by so he is willing to pay over the minimum wage even though obviously the work can be performed by anyone physically capable of wiping their ass. His “Help Wanted” sign attracts a few ppl and he chooses one to work for him full time .
Now he has an accountant and a janitor. So far so good aka no unfair exploitation of proletariat noticed?
The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
[/quote]
That is why instead of widespread class envy, I propose a nat’l day of thanking the top earners. Leeches need to kiss the ass of their providers. Somehow they thank the gov’t…That I will never understand. [/quote]
Great point, as if the government actually makes money. Funny stuff.
No, the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes, which only accounts for about half of all taxes. And so what? They control 42% of the wealth in the country, so they’re still underpaying. That’s even before you consider all the other taxes that people pay, which are mostly regressive. Funny, I guess the Heritage Foundation just forgot about them.[/quote]
Collectively yes, but that has nothing to do with a guy who starts out with nothing, makes 1 million a year and is now taxed just about 50% depending on the state he lives in. Unfair, and harmful to a healthy economy.
Remember, when we take money from someone who has earned it and give it to someone who has not earned it we harm them both!
The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
[/quote]
That is why instead of widespread class envy, I propose a nat’l day of thanking the top earners. Leeches need to kiss the ass of their providers. Somehow they thank the gov’t…That I will never understand. [/quote]
Why would we thank the top earners, when their income increases have done nothing to increase wages for 30 years?[/quote]
Could it be because they have virtually single handedly funded the US government? Yeah that must be it.
