Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
there ARE NO socialist countries, except possibly Cuba.[/quote]

(Jaw dropping to floor) All you can come up with is Cuba? Is that why so many from Cuba risk life and limb to ride refrigerator doors across the ocean to get to America?

WHahaha Ryan I’m done with you - You’ve got nothing but shallow ideas of how things ought to be. Plenty of criticism and absolutely nothing to back it up. Mere words cannot make up for the incredible success that the US has been for the past 234 years.

You’re a kid and you prove it every time you post.

CUBA? LOL [/quote]

Actually, not that many do. Again, if you knew anything about the subject, you’d know this. The emigration rate from Cuba is comparable to other countries in Latin America. They produce more doctors per capita than any other country in Latin America, and their medical professionals engage in humanitarian work all over the world. AIDS is 1/6 as common there as in the US:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

They have a lower infant mortality than we do:

Their life expectancy is higher than almost any other Latin American country, and is less than a year behind ours:

They have the biggest biotechnology industry in the Carribbean, and sell to countries including China, Malaysia, India, and Iran:

“According to the United Nations, the rate of literacy among people 15 and older in Cuba was 97%, compared to 99% in Canada and the United States, 96% in Costa Rica, and 83% in the Dominican Republic.”

“Cuba’s achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. As the human development index of the United Nations makes clear year after year, Cuba should be the envy of many other nations, ostensibly far richer. [Cuba] demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy.”
– Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, April 11, 2000

Too bad about all those poor, oppressed Cubans:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02FE1988srext/610x.jpg

http://www.farandfurther.com/habana/viva-fidel.jpg

And all of this under the crushing 50-year economic blockade perpetrated by the United States. You understand that the most powerful nation in the world is doing everything it can to sabotage Cuba’s economy, right? You understand that it makes it impossible for Cuba to trade for many things they need, even with countries other than the US, right?

Is it even hard to believe that the US has been systematically lying for years about the conditions in Cuba? In the past the months, Wikileaks has revealed that the US has been covering up tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the mideast, perpetrated and turned a blind eye toward torture, secretly deployed civilian-slaughtering cruise missiles in Yemen, illegally spied on UN diplomats, and bullied other countries into accepting unfavorable terms in negotiations.

Is it surprising that people like John Bolton would lie about Cuba, and then try to fire officials who speak out against their lying?

http://www.counterpunch.org/valdes0528.html

With the US government’s literally unprecedented record of deception and manipulation, why is it so hard to believe that they would lie about Cuba too?

You say you’re “done with me,” (as if you had actually attempted to debate to begin with) and I suspect this post won’t change your mind. You haven’t even begun to respond to my many documented corrections to your previous statements, so why would you address these either?

But it would benefit you to take some time to think about who really needs to grow up here. Me, who simply states facts, and supports them, or you, who has spent pages denying them, with NO support whatsoever?

I urge you, do not ignore this: please explain to me why anyone ought to even take you seriously when you have produced NO response to numerous corrections of your statements.

362

[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]

But it doesn’t need to be one owner’s business, and the continuation of these arrangements will only worsen our economic condition.

Thanks for your opinion, though.

363

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Move to Cuba Ryan. I hope you enjoy all of your freedom in CUBA - LOL[/quote]

I can’t move to Cuba. Thanks to my American “freedom,” I am legally prohibited from traveling there.

Thanks again for making my points for me.

364

[quote]orion wrote:Shallow ideas is true.

His whole baker example is bullshit.

Obviously a baker needs the tools of his trade, i.e capital .

That does make him more productive than he otherwise would be, so his profit cannot come from work alone.

So the other part must necessarily come from his capital goods.

If that is so however, that is also true for other bakers he might employ, so it cannot be said that he is exploiting them if they are that much more productive with his capital .

Now obviously it is a problem how to determine what the specific capital and labor is worth in this equation, which the market solves quite nicely by attaching a monetary value to capital goods and employed labor.

I do not see the problem there, and he does not see the problem with the gaping wounds in his theory because he completely blind to them.

Meh.
[/quote]

Once again, you don’t know what my ideas are, since when I ask you to critique them, you always get them wrong. Secondly, it wasn’t my baker example. But anyway, it shouldn’t surprise you to learn that you’re wrong again:

The baker gets a price of $A for a load of bread. He adds capital, making him more productive. Perhaps he temporarily receives an extra profit, if $A is the going price for bread baked by persons not possessed of his capital. However, once this new capital becomes widespread and standard, he will receive $(A-B) for a loaf of bread. His wage is diminsihed commensurately with the diminution in the amount of labor required to bake a loaf of bread.

For someone so intolerably smug, it’s amazing how bad you are at this.

365

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, they have the right to work.
[/quote]

Prove it.[/quote]

Prove they don’t. If anyone can be said to have a right to do anything, the very first one must be to exist, and to do that, they must be required to support themselves. Capitalism, however, makes his equal access to the resources of society contingent upon that access enriching an idle capitalist.

366

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
OK, semantics. Yes, we have the right to work. But we do not have the right to force someone to provide us a a job and pay us for it.

Saying we have the right to work is like saying we have the right to breathe. It is something we need to do in order to merely exist but I cannot force someone to provide me air to breathe should I ever happen into that situation.[/quote]

But we can provide the jobless with jobs. It not only helps that jobseeker, but also helps society, by diverting an otherwise idle person to a productive purpose. We do not have to force “someone” because it is not “someone’s” place to provide employment to begin with.

367

[quote]apbt55 wrote: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.[/quote]

Yes, that is precisely the point. At a time in which we are far and away more productive than any country at any time in history, our economic system fails to provide these workers with an income sufficient to maintain their health. And yet, you defend this system, that has slowly been impoverishing the citizens?

Great, but it doesn’t work as well when you have cancer or a heart condition.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

They have a job and are paying their bills, barely, because the government has stepped in to prevent the economy from collapsing. If it were up to the market, we’d be in much worse condition.

And no, they are not entitled to anything (other than a job if they want one). But that’s the problem–they work for them, but they still don’t get them. Their wages are instead used to pay the idle and unproductive. Profit is the ultimate entitlement.

368

[quote]orion wrote: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]

Yes, let me buy my own textile factory to compete with existing companies.

This is expensive–I cannot do it unless I exploit my workers to provide me with the money to do it, or raise money with the promise of future exploitation of workers.

Leave the machines running with no workers there. See how much profit you make.

369

[quote]orion wrote: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.[/quote]

Originally, the point was simply to illustrate lifticus’ error. I’m glad you’ve acknowledged it.

370

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

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?[/quote]

The Marxists are one such group.

371

Ryan you’re a babbling little boy. Now go catch your breath and if you love Cuba so much take the next flight to Cuba…LOL CUBA!!

372

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ryan you’re a babbling little boy. Now go catch your breath and if you love Cuba so much take the next flight to Cuba…LOL CUBA!![/quote]

Nothing to say, huh?

I’m not surprised. Now, are you going to pout much longer?

373

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ryan you’re a babbling little boy. Now go catch your breath and if you love Cuba so much take the next flight to Cuba…LOL CUBA!![/quote]

Nothing to say, huh?

I’m not surprised. Now, are you going to pout much longer?[/quote]

I hear the weather is really nice in…CUBA this time of year. Need a ticket?

374

All this has been tried before and it always ends up an oligarchy. It’s completely incompatible with human nature.

What is anyone’s motivation for being part of a society that ultimately needs to quash their freedom?

375

[quote]Dijon wrote:
All this has been tried before and it always ends up an oligarchy. It’s completely incompatible with human nature.

What is anyone’s motivation for being part of a society that ultimately needs to quash their freedom? [/quote]

It has been explained to little Ryan repeatedly. He talks until everyone gets sick of him and by then it’s time for him to go back to school and we don’t usually hear from him again until spring break. When all his contemporary’s are in Florida having fun Ryan is on T Nation talking about Karl Marx. He’s an odd kid for sure, but he’ll mature …in time.

376

[quote]orion wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

Forego consumption? Are you telling me that most people who make considerable profits on investments are foregoing reasonable consumption in order to make those investments?

Yeah, they’d buy an expensive car. Which would pay people, who would in turn buy things, etc, etc, as opposed to one rich person sitting back and getting paid for having money.

I’m expecting that people should make money for doing work that actually creates things rather than shuffling money around and getting rich off of other peoples work.

377

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Yawn. Where oh where did I say anything about workers getting a massave amount back or workers getting all the benefits of running a business?

But reading what I actually wrote is much harder than reading what you want to read, so keep on responding to things I didnt say.

But, lets look at starting up a business. What do most people have to do? Take out loans, which have a high interest because the banks and the people who have a lot of money in the banks need to get paid. Even though transferring money around doesn’t actually produce anything, they should get lots of money.

And then they have to rent a space for the business. Even though the simple ownership of property doesnt actually produce anything, the owner of the property should get lots of money.

And pay for all kinds of licences, insurances, taxes, etc etc.

Now eventually add in stockholders.

All these people needing lots of money severely limits the business owners ability to pay his employees.

When everybody wants to be the one profiting from a business without being the one to actually do the work that creates the wealth, and the workers start to see that they work hard to make other people rich, the system won’t last.

378

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Move to Cuba Ryan. I hope you enjoy all of your freedom in CUBA - LOL[/quote]

I can’t move to Cuba. Thanks to my American “freedom,” I am legally prohibited from traveling there.

Thanks again for making my points for me.[/quote]

Now that’s bullshit right there and you know it. People go to Cuba all the time. If you honestly believed they were so great, you’d go there…and maybe you’ll survive the trip back on the raft in a couple years.

379

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

Forego consumption? Are you telling me that most people who make considerable profits on investments are foregoing reasonable consumption in order to make those investments?

Yeah, they’d buy an expensive car. Which would pay people, who would in turn buy things, etc, etc, as opposed to one rich person sitting back and getting paid for having money.

I’m expecting that people should make money for doing work that actually creates things rather than shuffling money around and getting rich off of other peoples work.[/quote]

Just because you deem work to be unnecessary does not mean that it does not create wealth. The financial industry does have legitimate functions like spreading risks that would be to large to bear for a single individual and to direct resources where they are most needed.

Just because they do this in a way you do not undestand makes it no less valuable.

Second, what you deem “reasonable” consumption is irrelevant. The very fact that they want to indulge in “unreasonable” consumption at a later point makes them forego consumption now and frees resources to be ploughed back into the economy.

380

[quote]florelius wrote:

[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? )[/quote]

True, we expect governments to protect private property, not take it at gunpoint.

Without that protection however nobody works hard to better his circumstances, what would be the point?