Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]orion wrote:So?

There was no actual point there.

Or is it that once the same machines are everyhwere they suddenly lose their value? Why do they then not sell their equipment or do not replace it?

edited[/quote]

It is that, since usually, no one seller is in a position to set market prices, the price will average out to rest within a small range. The concept underlying this is socially necessary labor time. It is this average labor time that determines prices. If one person has managed to become more productive, then they can profit extra by charging the same price as everyone else, but put less labor into their product. This extra profit does not represent value, but is essentially a rent. A rent that they are no longer able to charge once productivity everywhere has increased to the new level.

Again, capital has an exchange value, but it produces no new value.

422

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

That’s how capitalism started.
[/quote]

Capitalism didn’t start. It is inherent in every human action. In that regard it is timeless.[/quote]

So it was inherent in the Egyptians’ centralized economy of redistribution?

You are very entertaining, but eventaully, you have to explain how these witticisms mesh with reality.

423

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[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.[/quote]

No, where has this ever worked?

There are alos people who believe that the earth is flat but belief is not proof.[/quote]

Worked? Marxism is method of analysis. If it successfully explains events and proves to have predictive power, then it works. The fact that our present situation very closely resembles what Marxists have written about for over a hundred years is telling.

424

No, that same document gives me the right to stay here and advocate for causes I care about.

If you don’t respect that right, I see your and your ideals as treasonous.

BWAHAHAA!!

I’m sorry, I can’t keep a straight face while I do this. This talk of “treason” is simply too hilarious.

425

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote: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?

[/quote]

That’s how capitalism started.
[/quote]

Capitalism didn’t start. It is inherent in every human action. In that regard it is timeless.[/quote]

So it was inherent in the Egyptians’ centralized economy of redistribution?
[/quote]

The pharaohs did not build the pyramids themselves. They enslaved labor to do it. Before they did that they had to make the decision to quit employing slaves to produce other stuff that they could have otherwise consumed. That is capitalism!

Inherent in capitalism is the idea that labor can be saved only after delaying consumption somewhere else – this goes for the employment of ones own labor and also slaves.

426

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But we can provide the jobless with jobs. [/quote]

With whose capital?[/quote]

Society’s capital provided by…look away here…taxes.

427

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But we can provide the jobless with jobs. [/quote]

With whose capital?[/quote]

Tsk, tsk a minor detail - Besides they do it in Cuba and that’s little Ryan’s dream world–CUBA! LOL
[/quote]

Oh, are you still here? Haha.

428

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Everybody wants to be an investor, nobody wants to do any damn work.[/quote]

Investors get paid for taking a risk. As Orion points out: investors delay consumption in the hopes of turning a profit for their time. We call this interest.

Would you front your own money and not expect a return on it? If this is the case then you better not even have a savings account because you are profiting from NOT DOING ANY WORK.

In fact, any one who works or saves their money can be considered a capitalist – Ryan P. included!![/quote]

Indeed, it would be foolish not to play the rules of capitalism while you live within a capitalist system.

429

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If I work hard to save up money and start a business of my own, actually just was able to. Then I have the right to run the business as I see fit. Now a others have a right to purchase or not purchase whatever goods or services I provide. And I should be able to pay whatever I deem appropriate for wages to whoever I deem appropriate as and employee.

There my rights are already violated. But you don’t care about that. the government says how much I have to pay and what grounds I can use to hire. If I don’t pay fair wages, people won’t work for me, I will not produce anything and will go out of business. But we don’t let systems work the way they are intended, you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my life or how to run my business.

Bet you wouldn’t like me telling you what to do with your stuff. I don’t care what you do with your stuff, just don’t take mine to do it. [/quote]

Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?

[/quote]

and product cost would go down genious
[/quote]

No they wouldn’t. Capitalists would charge the same price so they could make a higher profit, genius (by they way, “genius” has no o), that’s the whole point.

But even if it did, nobody would be able to buy enough to provide you with your precious profits.

You see how superficial conservatives’ understanding of economics is?

430

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But we can provide the jobless with jobs. [/quote]

With whose capital?[/quote]

Society’s capital provided by…look away here…taxes.[/quote]

Reductio ad absurdum. How can there beanyone to pay taxes if they do not have the capital to produce an income in the first place?

Do your magic communist fairies produce capital out of thin air?

Good grief! Drop the Marx and take some classes on logic will you?

431

Sounds like government planning, to me.

Um, that’s not capitalism. That’s physical reality. And my understanding is that, as ridiculous as they are, current patent laws do not allow you to patent physical reality.

432

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Reductio ad absurdum. How can there beanyone to pay taxes if they do not have the capital to produce an income in the first place?

Do your magic communist fairies produce capital out of thin air?

Good grief! Drop the Marx and take some classes on logic will you?[/quote]

Capital does not produce income. You’re incoherent here. There was a time, yes, before capitalism, when there were no machines. Hell, there were barely even any proper tools. How did those people ever produce a surplus with no capital?

I suppose it shall remain a mystery to you, limited as you are by your adherence to the Austrians’ ego-stroke of a “system.”

433

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Reductio ad absurdum. How can there beanyone to pay taxes if they do not have the capital to produce an income in the first place?

Do your magic communist fairies produce capital out of thin air?

Good grief! Drop the Marx and take some classes on logic will you?[/quote]

Capital does not produce income. You’re incoherent here. There was a time, yes, before capitalism, when there were no machines. Hell, there were barely even any proper tools. How did those people ever produce a surplus with no capital?

I suppose it shall remain a mystery to you, limited as you are by your adherence to the Austrians’ ego-stroke of a “system.”
[/quote]

There you go with your word play again. Capital is not just money. It merely refers to something that holds value. So in that era it could refer to the berries picked, the stick for hunting. I give you some vegetables for some meat, my daughter so you stay in the village in hunt.

434

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If I work hard to save up money and start a business of my own, actually just was able to. Then I have the right to run the business as I see fit. Now a others have a right to purchase or not purchase whatever goods or services I provide. And I should be able to pay whatever I deem appropriate for wages to whoever I deem appropriate as and employee.

There my rights are already violated. But you don’t care about that. the government says how much I have to pay and what grounds I can use to hire. If I don’t pay fair wages, people won’t work for me, I will not produce anything and will go out of business. But we don’t let systems work the way they are intended, you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my life or how to run my business.

Bet you wouldn’t like me telling you what to do with your stuff. I don’t care what you do with your stuff, just don’t take mine to do it. [/quote]

Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?

[/quote]

and product cost would go down genious
[/quote]

No they wouldn’t. Capitalists would charge the same price so they could make a higher profit, genius (by they way, “genius” has no o), that’s the whole point.

But even if it did, nobody would be able to buy enough to provide you with your precious profits.

You see how superficial conservatives’ understanding of economics is?[/quote]

yepp I see oh wise one. You are right. The collective is the answer I should strip all I am and sacrifice it all for the good of the collective.

Everyone should.

Oh wait that won’t work. then no one will have or do anything. we’ll need some totalitarian dictator to guide us all.

Without the individual there is no society.

we have had this debate and well you are lacking in this area, no people are not cells they are whole organisms.

I for example and completely capable of living and functioning without society. But does not even exist without the person first.

We have individual rights, and your ideas rob the individual of their rights, devalues their person, their time and their life.

When you get out, get a family and have bills and responsibilities. real ones not college ones, I know I was there somewhat recently. Then you can give your earnings to the collective, but you have no right to force others too and as er our original guiding documents no authority to do so.

435

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Reductio ad absurdum. How can there beanyone to pay taxes if they do not have the capital to produce an income in the first place?

Do your magic communist fairies produce capital out of thin air?

Good grief! Drop the Marx and take some classes on logic will you?[/quote]

Capital does not produce income. You’re incoherent here. There was a time, yes, before capitalism, when there were no machines. Hell, there were barely even any proper tools. How did those people ever produce a surplus with no capital?

I suppose it shall remain a mystery to you, limited as you are by your adherence to the Austrians’ ego-stroke of a “system.”
[/quote]

There you go with your word play again. Capital is not just money. It merely refers to something that holds value. So in that era it could refer to the berries picked, the stick for hunting. I give you some vegetables for some meat, my daughter so you stay in the village in hunt.

[/quote]

No word play here, just apbt55 who leaps into the conversation before he has a clear idea of what’s going on. No one ever said capital was “just money.” In fact, it’s “not really” money at all. It is a surplus, available either to support or facilitate labor. Yes, all those things you mention are capital, and some were mentioend explicitly by Ricardo (Marx’s point of departure) in his book.

436

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Sounds like government planning, to me.

Um, that’s not capitalism. That’s physical reality. And my understanding is that, as ridiculous as they are, current patent laws do not allow you to patent physical reality.
[/quote]

The pharaohs privately owned the government and everything produced by their slaves. In that regard their actions must be considered capitalistic.

And yes, human action is inherently capitalistic. That is the reality I am trying to make you understand.

The idea that capital should be privately owned is only understood because logically, the motivations of individuals will always bring about a greater utility than when when motivated by a centrally planned agency – especially if we consider that we own our own labor.

437

[quote]apbt55 wrote:yepp I see oh wise one. You are right. The collective is the answer I should strip all I am and sacrifice it all for the good of the collective.

Everyone should.[/quote]

And there you go again, wildly and baselessly mischaracterizing my argument. You act like non-conservatives are a bunch of morons for not thinking like you, but do you honestly expect any conversion to take place when you’re so petty and vindictive at any criticism, no matter how well-reasoned?

I critique your extreme, right-end-of-spectrum idea, and so I MUST simply be advocating the EXACT OPPOSITE. Your individualism is flawed, and so I must of course be advocating complete servitude to the collective. I’m not really even sure how that would work, but no matter, it allows you to FEEL LIKE you’ve rebutted an argument, and makes the dismantling of your philosophy less painful.

But without the society, there is no individual. Right-wingers, being ego-driven, vain people by nature, are attracted to self-gratifying bullshit like this, but it’s not true. Everything about you, you got from “the collective.” Your language, and thus your basic outlook on reality, your culture, your values. Why do you think you support capitalism so staunchly? Because it works the best, and it’s correctness is self-evident? HA! If you lived in North Korea, you’d be goose-stepping along the public square right alongside the rest of them.

But it’s unpleasant to think about such things, so you won’t.

It’s very generous to call your two-line, name-calling posts “debate.” Don’t kid yourself. You REFUSE to address the debate, BECAUSE you know you’re wrong.

But, like I said: you’d have no language, no religion, ambiguous moral values, no artistic sensibility, no political opinions, no knowledge of myriad things passed down to you by society. So yeah, you’d exist. But that would be the extent of it.

You allege that my ideas rob people of their rights, while YOUR philosophy is ACTUALLY DOING IT as we speak. I would love to have this debate with you, if you’re not afraid to commit to actually saying something, as opposed to spouting of generalizations that mean nothing.

But you DO have a right to force people to give their earnings to a small group of privateers? Don’t you get it? There is not RIGHT to anything. If we disagree, we either resolve the disagreement, or we fight. Your “philosophy” is no exception to this.

I know you’ve never really thought about these things, because it makes you uncomfortable, but if you want to talk like this, you’re going to have to. You don’t get a pass.

438

Very well then: the government privately owned industry in the USSR, and so in that regard, their actions must be considered capitalistic. See? I can play word games, too.

You don’t realize this, but I’m way up here. You’re trying to “make me understand” something that was refuted over a hundred years ago. Whether we’re talking about the inherently very social nature of humans, to the mutual cooperation that made mammals dominant, everything you are saying is laughably wrong, believed only by a handful of throwback, self-styled economists, who never bothered to look too-closely at the real world anyway.

But in the case of society, it’s not individual utility we’re worried about. It’s easy to provide for any individual. The problems now are health care, energy, the environment. In short, things that can only be accomplished by the joint, coordinated labor of many hundred, thousands, or millions of people. All of these things, it has been dramatically demonstrated, are accomplished far more efficiently by a central, coordinating body.

439

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Very well then: the government privately owned industry in the USSR, and so in that regard, their actions must be considered capitalistic. See? I can play word games, too.
[/quote]

And right you are! Capitalists make investing mistakes all the time.

The point was that in our intent we are inherently capitalistic regardless if our intent is what actually happens.

Do the consequences of your actions jibe with the original intent?

And here I would remind you: Actions speak louder than words.

440

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
If I work hard to save up money and start a business of my own, actually just was able to. Then I have the right to run the business as I see fit. Now a others have a right to purchase or not purchase whatever goods or services I provide. And I should be able to pay whatever I deem appropriate for wages to whoever I deem appropriate as and employee.

There my rights are already violated. But you don’t care about that. the government says how much I have to pay and what grounds I can use to hire. If I don’t pay fair wages, people won’t work for me, I will not produce anything and will go out of business. But we don’t let systems work the way they are intended, you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my life or how to run my business.

Bet you wouldn’t like me telling you what to do with your stuff. I don’t care what you do with your stuff, just don’t take mine to do it. [/quote]

Poor thing. You couldn’t exploit workers by paying them three dollars an hour if you wanted. What a shame.

Whats that, if you only paid three dollars an hour nobody would work for you? Maybe. But if everywhere else was only paying three dollars an hour, and all the beter jobs were taken, well, they’d just be stuck wouldn’t they?

[/quote]

and product cost would go down genious
[/quote]

When the market eventually forced it to. But what would happen in the meantime?

First the workers would simply make less and the owners and investors would get more money.

Then workers would be required to produce more and more, as product costs slowly fell, to make up for the “profit” lost.

But, sure, eventually it would even out, with a few people getting filthy rich and a whole lot of people getting dirt poor in the process.