Income Redistribution

[JoeGood]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
here is a nugget you libertarians and conservatives can think about.

its possible to have a operating economic system with just workers, but it is impossible to have a operating economic system with just capitalists.

[/quote]

Only if the Government serve as the rich and finance the materials, manufacturing distribution and marketing costs. Did you really just ask that?[/quote]

It was a retorical question, wich means I know the answer. haha… The answer is not government. Its “human labor is the cornerstone in any human ecomony/production system”. In simple words: you dont get a table if nobody cuts a tree down to get the materials for the table. you dont get a table if nobody builds the table out of the materials. So in short human labor are essential, governmets and capitalists are not. [/quote]

Everyone who studies any amount of economics knows that entreprenuership/enterprise is one of the four factors of production. If you do not know this you shouldn’t be arguing economics, you should be reading

[kilpaba]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

It’s quite simple–you want to earn money? Earn it. Work for it. Don’t aspire to earn your living off the sweat of another man’s brow.
[/quote]

Thank you.

Orion, look at who the rich in this country are and how they make money.

The business owner makes money off of the services provided by, or products created by, his or her workers.

The landlord/property owner makes money off the ownership of property.

The investor makes money off of the success of businesses, which, see above, make money off the work of employees.

Insurance companies make a profit when you pay for years in exchange for nothing, and actively go to lengths to make it hard for you to get any benefits from the money you’ve given them.

And people scream about how fair the sytem is because any one person could be the boss, or the investor, or the landlord – nevermind that all of these positions cannot exist without a workforce of people getting paid much less than the value of the work they do.

But working 50 or 60 hours a week and barely getting by because the boss needs a huge salary, and the shareholders need to get as much as possible, and what money they are paid has to be doled out to rent/mortgage, car insurance, health insurance, is fine. If you’re one of the majority who works to make other people rich, and you have a problem with it, you are just jealous, or lazy, or stupid.

How do people not see that this is bullshit?

[/quote]

And where oh where would all of these workers be working if it wasn’t for some entrepreneur risking his own money and possibly livelihood in order to create the business that required those workers? Who would be held liable for any litigation if the company were sued? Assuming that the business goes south, who loses his ass in this equation?

The reason workers do not get all of the benefits of starting, running, managing and maintaining a business is the same reason that in Vegas you don’t get million dollar payouts for playing the penny slots. With great risk comes great reward. If you are not willing to sacrifice and risk anything why should you expect to get a massive amount back in return?

Let us not also forget that intellectual, white collar work exists because other things besides muscular labor can produce value. Coordinating and directing the efforts of others produces something greater than the sum of its parts in many cases. This increase in productivity provided by the direction of others labor is valuable even if it does not necessarily produce a physical good such as a day labor might produce with his tools and hands.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]orion wrote:What you describe is not a capitalist but the outlook of someone who buys a lottery ticket.

The very word implies that he needs capital and that forces him to hire people to operate it.

Of course he tries to do more with less and that is a good thing.

[/quote]

Newsflash, that’s a great deal of modern capitalism in a nutshell. Now, I don’t think you’re a bad dude, orion. I think you’re probably a nice guy. But I also think that’s why you just can’t manage to wrap your head around the mindset of many businessmen. Because YOU would not do these things, you imagine that no one else would, either.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works. This post of yours is nothing but pure semantic game-playing. “Not a capitalist.” There’s the No-True Scotsman fallacy. “He needs capital, and that forces him to hire people to operate it.” True, but you simply choose to concentrate on the intermediate goal. His main goal, as you have spent many posts emphasizing to me, is profit. Usually, you use this a defense of capitalism, but now you try to de-emphasize it, because it supports my point.

So yes, he needs capital, but he doesn’t want, except as a means to an end. As you have have said, he wants profit, and he knows that he must employ people to do it. If he didn’t have to, if he could pluck profit off of a tree, he would do that. Hence the conspicuous growth of the financial sector. It’s not unheard of even for manufacturers to make more from financial transactions than their actual business of manufacturing. It is attractive because it is profit without workers.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]orion wrote:No, it is because wages are not allowed to drop to a point where it reflects their skills and because they can make more by not working.

Back to my point, if they have a right, someone else has an obligation.

So who should be forced to employ them against his will?
[/quote]

No. Once again, you express an asinine opinion that can only be held by insulating yourself from the Real World. I desire that you tell all the workers in this country, who have had to file bankruptcy because of medical bills, that the REAL PROBLEM is that THEY ARE SIMPLY BEING PAID TOO MUCH.

Tell me, do you honestly think this is the case?

I desire that you explain this chart:

http://tinyurl.com/2c8thf8

Especially when the real problem for the US economy right now is morbid lack of demand, do you really think the problem is too-highly-paid workers? If so, who will buy anything to provide those profits you love so much once you slash their wages even more?

Orion, it’s time for you to admit what everyone who works already knows: the American worker is tapped-out, and screwing them further will do absolutely nothing to help the economy.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]orion wrote:And again, wealth does not fall from the sky but is created, and the wealth of some individuals just reflects the wealth that has been created, usually by them.

If they stop doing that you do not have less but more poor people.

I know that that door is closed to you while subscribing to an objective price theory, but I am hardly to blame for your outdated economic fallacies. [/quote]

Yes, wealth is created, by workers. I’ll remind you that, looking at this chart:http://tinyurl.com/2c8thf8

it’s easy to see that the wealth gained by the rich in this country has come from robbing the workers. There’s simply no other way to interpret the facts (which is probably why you’re not interested in them). If it is your sincere opinion that taxing a worker for the privilege of doing his work, and putting his money in your bank account means you “created” that wealth, then there’s obviously nothing anyone can do to change your mind. But don’t act like other people are simpletons when they disagree with you, and express the savage opinion that those who actually do the work that keeps society running deserve the bulk of the payoff from that work.

And I would not dream of “blaming” your for the “fallacies” of the labor theory of value, when those “fallacies” have resulted in a more-or-less exactly correct prediction of the current world situation. Whereas the “sophisticated” subjective theoriest are unable even to acknowledge simple statistics without compromising their theory.

At any rate, even if the labor theory were wrong, you wouldn’t know–when I asked you to tell me what the problem with it was, you replied with an incorrect critique that was addressed on page 1 of Capital. So anyone who has paid attention to your posts knows that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Probably why your critiques are so vehement. You have make up for a lack of any substance.

No, I think I’ll stick to a value theory that works.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

JoeGood wrote:Everyone who studies any amount of economics knows that entreprenuership/enterprise is one of the four factors of production. If you do not know this you shouldn’t be arguing economics, you should be reading

No, it is one of the four factors of production ACCORDING TO a group of people whose whole goal is to legitimize existing relations of production. There are other schools with other ideas who, incidentally, have much better predictive track records.

[apbt55]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:No, it is because wages are not allowed to drop to a point where it reflects their skills and because they can make more by not working.

Back to my point, if they have a right, someone else has an obligation.

So who should be forced to employ them against his will?
[/quote]

No. Once again, you express an asinine opinion that can only be held by insulating yourself from the Real World. I desire that you tell all the workers in this country, who have had to file bankruptcy because of medical bills, that the REAL PROBLEM is that THEY ARE SIMPLY BEING PAID TOO MUCH.

Tell me, do you honestly think this is the case?

I desire that you explain this chart:

http://tinyurl.com/2c8thf8

Especially when the real problem for the US economy right now is morbid lack of demand, do you really think the problem is too-highly-paid workers? If so, who will buy anything to provide those profits you love so much once you slash their wages even more?

Orion, it’s time for you to admit what everyone who works already knows: the American worker is tapped-out, and screwing them further will do absolutely nothing to help the economy.
[/quote]

in the instance of a worker with medical bills

um he had a service provided he could not afford.

And there in lies the problem. Just because something is available doesn’t mean you have the right to force others to provide it.

But somehow when it comes to healthcare that changes.

I have sacrificed getting things done because I could not afford them.

workers are not tapped out. a majority of the population still has a job and is paying their bills, we are just sick of having to pay the bills of those who are not responsible, who feel they are entitled to whatever.

[orion]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:“at the expense of others” ?

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]

People do not have the right to work. They have the right to exist and compete with other like skilled workers for a wage.

In a world with so much to do why is anyone unemployed? It is not because capitalists do not want to employ unemployed labor but because government prevents them from doing so.[/quote]

No, they have the right to work.

And haha, you have no idea how the economy works. Employing people is the LAST thing a capitalist wants to do. The capitalist wants a profit. He doesn’t care about employing anyone, they’re a drain on his profits, after all, and if he didn’t have to to produce a product, he wouldn’t. The whole process of production is just a bothersome detail. Just look at the exponential growth of the financial sector in western economies. In the financial sector, you don’t have to employ people to make a profit (at least, not nearly as many). You just have to have the right pieces of paper at the right time.[/quote]

What you describe is not a capitalist but the outlook of someone who buys a lottery ticket.

The very word implies that he needs capital and that forces him to hire people to operate it.

Of course he tries to do more with less and that is a good thing.

[/quote]

Yeah, thats a great thing. He can fire a few hundred workers, make a bigger profit, and all those workers… well, shit on them.

Right?[/quote]

In the long run yes, IF he makes a bigger profit and that is a big if.

Else we would still all be working the fields 16 hours a day.

[orion]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

It’s quite simple–you want to earn money? Earn it. Work for it. Don’t aspire to earn your living off the sweat of another man’s brow.
[/quote]

Thank you.

Orion, look at who the rich in this country are and how they make money.

The business owner makes money off of the services provided by, or products created by, his or her workers.

The landlord/property owner makes money off the ownership of property.

The investor makes money off of the success of businesses, which, see above, make money off the work of employees.

Insurance companies make a profit when you pay for years in exchange for nothing, and actively go to lengths to make it hard for you to get any benefits from the money you’ve given them.

And people scream about how fair the sytem is because any one person could be the boss, or the investor, or the landlord – nevermind that all of these positions cannot exist without a workforce of people getting paid much less than the value of the work they do.

But working 50 or 60 hours a week and barely getting by because the boss needs a huge salary, and the shareholders need to get as much as possible, and what money they are paid has to be doled out to rent/mortgage, car insurance, health insurance, is fine. If you’re one of the majority who works to make other people rich, and you have a problem with it, you are just jealous, or lazy, or stupid.

How do people not see that this is bullshit?

[/quote]

Because your whole point is nonsense.

People forego consumption and take risks in order to provide the capital so that other people have those jobs, and yes, they expecto be compensated.

Take that away and they will blow it on a Ferrari, what would stop them?

You are actually expecting that other people take on your risks (insurance) or let you work with their equipment for free?

Why?

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

It doesn’t produce wealth. Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

[/quote]

In and of itself it isnt, but the very fact that people expect “economic rent” ensures that capital is created and employed in a productive manner.

Machines do not fall from the sky, they are built for a reason.
[/quote]

Even if I acknowledge the necessity of this at the beginning of new industries, it still is no justification for the necessity of profit in, say, the textile industry. Not a whole lot of new stuff going on there.
[/quote]

Even if that were true, and it isnt, machines need to be replaced anyway.

Nobody needs to justify anything, buy your own machines, if you want to use someone elses compensate him.

Of course if you use your own machines, you profit from capital anyway, so maybe that would not solve your problem.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:What you describe is not a capitalist but the outlook of someone who buys a lottery ticket.

The very word implies that he needs capital and that forces him to hire people to operate it.

Of course he tries to do more with less and that is a good thing.

[/quote]

Newsflash, that’s a great deal of modern capitalism in a nutshell. Now, I don’t think you’re a bad dude, orion. I think you’re probably a nice guy. But I also think that’s why you just can’t manage to wrap your head around the mindset of many businessmen. Because YOU would not do these things, you imagine that no one else would, either.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works. This post of yours is nothing but pure semantic game-playing. “Not a capitalist.” There’s the No-True Scotsman fallacy. “He needs capital, and that forces him to hire people to operate it.” True, but you simply choose to concentrate on the intermediate goal. His main goal, as you have spent many posts emphasizing to me, is profit. Usually, you use this a defense of capitalism, but now you try to de-emphasize it, because it supports my point.

So yes, he needs capital, but he doesn’t want, except as a means to an end. As you have have said, he wants profit, and he knows that he must employ people to do it. If he didn’t have to, if he could pluck profit off of a tree, he would do that. Hence the conspicuous growth of the financial sector. It’s not unheard of even for manufacturers to make more from financial transactions than their actual business of manufacturing. It is attractive because it is profit without workers.
[/quote]

All of this is true, except that money does not invest itself, the financial industry is quite big- I dont see the point though.

A capitalist does not have to be a nice guy, he just has to combine means of production efficiently.

Human labor is one of them.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

It doesn’t produce wealth. Owning capital and demanding economic rent is not productive.

[/quote]

In and of itself it isnt, but the very fact that people expect “economic rent” ensures that capital is created and employed in a productive manner.

Machines do not fall from the sky, they are built for a reason.
[/quote]

Even if I acknowledge the necessity of this at the beginning of new industries, it still is no justification for the necessity of profit in, say, the textile industry. Not a whole lot of new stuff going on there.
[/quote]

Even if that were true, and it isnt, machines need to be replaced anyway.

Nobody needs to justify anything, buy your own machines, if you want to use someone elses compensate him.

Of course if you use your own machines, you profit from capital anyway, so maybe that would not solve your problem.

[/quote]

why should a worker compensate the owner for machinery? As we all know its from the labor of the workers the owner gets capital to pay down loans on machinery or repare them or buy new ones. In short the workers are the ones paying for the factory an everything in it with theire labor, It would be beyond stupid to ask them to pay a entry.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]ZEB wrote:But I do know this : still waiting for you to tell us all where in the world socialism has ever succeeded in a positive way in the long-term. Your ideas are not practical and have failed everywehre for a long time.

[/quote]

Don’t you get it? Right here. They’re the only thing holding your precious capitalist country together. And you STILL have not responded to any material I’ve posted. Please explain.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]ReignIB wrote:Well, correct me if I’m wrong then, isn’t a perfectly valid employer/employee relationship baker/janitor or baker/accountant viewed by marxists as “unfair exploitation” since the baker owns “the means of production” ?
[/quote]

If he uses his ownership to extract a higher payment than another baker, who did not own equipment, would get. In short, if he gets paid for more than his work, yes.

But again, since Marxism has no ethical objection to the situation, only a efficacious one, such a small operation (Marx would call the baker a member of the petit-bourgeoise, and probably say that since it made such little impact, he didn’t care) really doesn’t attract a whole lot of attention from Marxists.

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]florelius wrote:why should a worker compensate the owner for machinery? As we all know its from the labor of the workers the owner gets capital to pay down loans on machinery or repare them or buy new ones. In short the workers are the ones paying for the factory an everything in it with theire labor, It would be beyond stupid to ask them to pay a entry.
[/quote]

Don’t you get it? The worker won’t be productive unless the owner gets paid extra. It makes sense.

[florelius]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:why should a worker compensate the owner for machinery? As we all know its from the labor of the workers the owner gets capital to pay down loans on machinery or repare them or buy new ones. In short the workers are the ones paying for the factory an everything in it with theire labor, It would be beyond stupid to ask them to pay a entry.
[/quote]

Don’t you get it? The worker won’t be productive unless the owner gets paid extra. It makes sense.[/quote]

haha maybe on mars it make sense:P

[apbt55]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:why should a worker compensate the owner for machinery? As we all know its from the labor of the workers the owner gets capital to pay down loans on machinery or repare them or buy new ones. In short the workers are the ones paying for the factory an everything in it with theire labor, It would be beyond stupid to ask them to pay a entry.
[/quote]

Don’t you get it? The worker won’t be productive unless the owner gets paid extra. It makes sense.[/quote]

No you don’t get it. It is the owner’s business. He has the right to do with it what he wants. And the workers have the right to not work there if they feel like they are being oppressed.

[florelius]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:why should a worker compensate the owner for machinery? As we all know its from the labor of the workers the owner gets capital to pay down loans on machinery or repare them or buy new ones. In short the workers are the ones paying for the factory an everything in it with theire labor, It would be beyond stupid to ask them to pay a entry.
[/quote]

Don’t you get it? The worker won’t be productive unless the owner gets paid extra. It makes sense.[/quote]

No you don’t get it. It is the owner’s business. He has the right to do with it what he wants. And the workers have the right to not work there if they feel like they are being oppressed. [/quote]

And who grants him that right is the question we must ask, and the answer is the state. In short he is backed by the “big bad government”. Without the government he could not hold onto that amount of property except if he had hes own privat army( feudalism anyone? )

[dnlcdstn]

Business owners pay enough for their workers not to leave. Workers work hard enough not to get fired. There is a compromise.

[JoeGood]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

JoeGood wrote:Everyone who studies any amount of economics knows that entreprenuership/enterprise is one of the four factors of production. If you do not know this you shouldn’t be arguing economics, you should be reading

No, it is one of the four factors of production ACCORDING TO a group of people whose whole goal is to legitimize existing relations of production. There are other schools with other ideas who, incidentally, have much better predictive track records.
[/quote]

Where?