[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]
So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?
A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages above what is produced and the markets dissolve.[/quote]
No, the fisherman who catches 10 fish gets paid 2 fish, because the boss takes 2 fish and the government takes a fish and the bank takes 2 fish… well, you get the point.
And eventually the fisherman says fuck this, I’m sick of working hard to catch ten fish a day and only get two, I’ll let the government give me one fish and do nothing.[/quote]
No, no you are wrong. He only gives up his other fish if the capital goods he used to catch those fish belonged to someone else. For example, if he did not own the fishing pole. And besides, who is to say what wage is right that is negotiated between the fisherman and fishing pole owner?
And your solution is ludicrous. Why would everyone not work and let the government do the fishing if that were possible?[/quote]
My solution is exactly why more and more people are on some form of government assistance.
Its not that they’re stupid, or lazy, or feel “entitled” to anything. Its that they see something wrong with the profit from their work feeding everyone except them.
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.
[/quote]
But your “socially necessary labor time” is determined by the amount of capital employed by that society!
And that amount is by now means a given, it is highly determined by the fact whether people employing it professionaly are recompensated and to what degree.
I guess you could call me barbaric in nature, I actually do like fighting. I think it is fun.
But on topic.
You say the individual would merely exist without society and that is one of the major points. They could exist without society.
But a society cannot exist unless people want to join together and be part of it. The problem with government, and I do mean big business in government and using government, having too much power is that forces he point. Instead of being individuals voluntarily working together, they are forced to conform. In a free society, you are also free to not participate. But with entitlements coming from government and not the charity of people this is not possible. The people are forced to give their money, and since to me that means time away form my family I have sacrificed too provide for them I consider this taking some of my life, this is not free.
Now in order for government to function we need to give some. But I support the bare minimum. Leave the rest for people to give charitably. Will there be some that don’t, of course that is human nature. But the government should not take one person’s property to give to another. This in our current political climate is buying votes. And it works both ways, we should not give business political control either so it can strangle society with regulations.
See here is the major problem. If our structure was such that it was a “pay to play system”. Then I see no problem with the government providing services. But it is not. In fact they generally don’t allow those who pay to play. If you make money it is hard to get help, so if you do pay into the system it is harder for you to get services for things. But if you aren’t putting in it is easier. That goes against natural law and creates a dependent lazy society.
So if you want to pay into some system to use later great you should have that option. But if I don’t want to and later waive all rights to use that system I should have that option. That is the only truly fair and just way to run it.
Life is not fair, are not equal. We have different talents, abilities, levels of wealth, … But it is not right to strip someone of those abilities. It is not right to take money some has earned, or that their family earned before them to distribute, just as it is not right to cut off someone’s leg to give to some one who was born with only one leg. Just as it is not right to force the 45 year old couple down the street who has practiced restraint in the number of children they have and their lifestyle to pay for someone else child’s education.
Voluntary interactions are the only truly fair and just way to go about this and taxes are not voluntary.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I have no idea why my posts are not going through, but here is the summation of both my previous posts:
From experience I can say confidently, IT IS IN FACT 100% YOUR FUCKING FAULT IF YOU STAY POOR.[/quote]
rolls eyes[/quote]
This doesn’t make poor folks bad people by any stretch, but it does mean they are in the end responsible for their station. I am not saying everyone can given their circumstances be Rockefeller, but they can drastically improve their station in life.
I don’t want to retype my whole CV and parents CV, but suffice it to say my parent have been dirt poor and so have I. I had a child at 22 (wife 19) and know exactly what it feels like to support a family on one income. I work two jobs, 70-80 hours a week on average one white collar and the other manual. I have had a huge assortment of jobs ranging from construction and carpet cleaning to teaching. I have family members who have been on welfare. I have also seen first hand from my father someone create a business and work his ass off to make it a success and become one of these “wealthy fat cats” everybody on here wants to fleece so badly for “not working for his living”.
Suffice it to say I probably have more real world experience with all the situations people on this board THEORIZE about and I can, indeed, say with certainty that 99.99999999% of all cases of poverty are self inflicted and could be changed if the people really wanted to change it.
I know this upsets people but it is a cold brute fact. You get what you earn in life. Unless of course you vote it from someone else. But then once we start doing that, why would you want to work so damn hard? Does THAT sound like a sustainable system to anyone?
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I have no idea why my posts are not going through, but here is the summation of both my previous posts:
From experience I can say confidently, IT IS IN FACT 100% YOUR FUCKING FAULT IF YOU STAY POOR.[/quote]
rolls eyes[/quote]
I would agree, I had this conversation with my father. My father worked two jobs to support us, we lived in a trailer park while I was in high school, he worked the second job to pay for me to go to a private school instead. I worked my way through college. had no money when I got out. I worked at burger king while I looked for a job in my field.
My wife had the same background. We both worked up until recently. I am not rich by any stretch but I do pretty decent.
People do not take responsibility for their life and they need to. Your decisions have an impact on your life. And you are the one who has to deal with it, you should not become someone else’ burden.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I have no idea why my posts are not going through, but here is the summation of both my previous posts:
From experience I can say confidently, IT IS IN FACT 100% YOUR FUCKING FAULT IF YOU STAY POOR.[/quote]
rolls eyes[/quote]
This doesn’t make poor folks bad people by any stretch, but it does mean they are in the end responsible for their station. I am not saying everyone can given their circumstances be Rockefeller, but they can drastically improve their station in life.
I don’t want to retype my whole CV and parents CV, but suffice it to say my parent have been dirt poor and so have I. I had a child at 22 (wife 19) and know exactly what it feels like to support a family on one income. I work two jobs, 70-80 hours a week on average one white collar and the other manual. I have had a huge assortment of jobs ranging from construction and carpet cleaning to teaching. I have family members who have been on welfare. I have also seen first hand from my father someone create a business and work his ass off to make it a success and become one of these “wealthy fat cats” everybody on here wants to fleece so badly for “not working for his living”.
Suffice it to say I probably have more real world experience with all the situations people on this board THEORIZE about and I can, indeed, say with certainty that 99.99999999% of all cases of poverty are self inflicted and could be changed if the people really wanted to change it.
I know this upsets people but it is a cold brute fact. You get what you earn in life. Unless of course you vote it from someone else. But then once we start doing that, why would you want to work so damn hard? Does THAT sound like a sustainable system to anyone?
[/quote]
And that is the key, how badly do you want to change it, what does it mean to you.
Is it worth your extra effort.
Just like unemployment now, by extending it to those who have been on so long is only reinforcing the idea it will be there again next year. If they really want income they can find it. But if someone is willing to give you money borrowed for china that we can’t really pay for, why should you work for less.
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.[/quote]
So I ask you: what’s the point? It seems like you’ve watered down the definition of “capitalist” so much that it ceases to be of any use. If everybody is a capitalist, what’s even the point of having the word, since it contains no information?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]
So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?
A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages above what is produced and the markets dissolve.[/quote]
No, the fisherman who catches 10 fish gets paid 2 fish, because the boss takes 2 fish and the government takes a fish and the bank takes 2 fish… well, you get the point.
And eventually the fisherman says fuck this, I’m sick of working hard to catch ten fish a day and only get two, I’ll let the government give me one fish and do nothing.[/quote]
No, no you are wrong. He only gives up his other fish if the capital goods he used to catch those fish belonged to someone else. For example, if he did not own the fishing pole. And besides, who is to say what wage is right that is negotiated between the fisherman and fishing pole owner?
And your solution is ludicrous. Why would everyone not work and let the government do the fishing if that were possible?[/quote]
My solution is exactly why more and more people are on some form of government assistance.
Its not that they’re stupid, or lazy, or feel “entitled” to anything. Its that they see something wrong with the profit from their work feeding everyone except them.[/quote]
Yes, and as a result in socialism everyone goes hungry because no one works.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I have no idea why my posts are not going through, but here is the summation of both my previous posts:
From experience I can say confidently, IT IS IN FACT 100% YOUR FUCKING FAULT IF YOU STAY POOR.[/quote]
rolls eyes[/quote]
This doesn’t make poor folks bad people by any stretch, but it does mean they are in the end responsible for their station. I am not saying everyone can given their circumstances be Rockefeller, but they can drastically improve their station in life.
I don’t want to retype my whole CV and parents CV, but suffice it to say my parent have been dirt poor and so have I. I had a child at 22 (wife 19) and know exactly what it feels like to support a family on one income. I work two jobs, 70-80 hours a week on average one white collar and the other manual. I have had a huge assortment of jobs ranging from construction and carpet cleaning to teaching. I have family members who have been on welfare. I have also seen first hand from my father someone create a business and work his ass off to make it a success and become one of these “wealthy fat cats” everybody on here wants to fleece so badly for “not working for his living”.
Suffice it to say I probably have more real world experience with all the situations people on this board THEORIZE about and I can, indeed, say with certainty that 99.99999999% of all cases of poverty are self inflicted and could be changed if the people really wanted to change it.
I know this upsets people but it is a cold brute fact. You get what you earn in life. Unless of course you vote it from someone else. But then once we start doing that, why would you want to work so damn hard? Does THAT sound like a sustainable system to anyone?
[/quote]
And that is the key, how badly do you want to change it, what does it mean to you.
Is it worth your extra effort.
Just like unemployment now, by extending it to those who have been on so long is only reinforcing the idea it will be there again next year. If they really want income they can find it. But if someone is willing to give you money borrowed for china that we can’t really pay for, why should you work for less.
[/quote]
I know of two guys I have played rugby with that actually admitted they refused to get a job at a grocery store because they would earn the same or nearly the same as they did on unemployment. One of them even had the audacity to complain about how hard it was to get his free money taken from someone else. Do some people need assistance? Sure. But the reality is tons of people out there do in fact turn down work because of unemployment benefits because the work they can get is “beneath” them. It’s nice they can have such high standards as a result of living off of someone else. Of course, only wealthy capitalist pigs can live off the labor of others right?
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.[/quote]
So I ask you: what’s the point? It seems like you’ve watered down the definition of “capitalist” so much that it ceases to be of any use. If everybody is a capitalist, what’s even the point of having the word, since it contains no information?[/quote]
To show that is a part of our nature and not worth arguing against.
By doing that we can further demonstrate that the most efficient use of capital is determined by consumers of goods and not by a central planning agency.
And by doing that we can show how socialism must fail since it is against our human nature to be made to exist by a central planning agency’s whim.
The point ultimately is to logically refute socialism.
Of course it is. This is nothing new, and Marx never said any differently.
No, you’re conflating it with profit. Not a surprise, since the whole point, for you, is to justify the unearned income that is increasingly at-odds with the further development of society.
In reality, the amount of capital in a society is regulated by the proportion of productive to non-productive members of society, the productivity of the former group (which is itself a function of the amount and quality of capital), and the proportion between the resources used for consumption and those invested.
That is all. How people are compensated is, at this abstract, general point, irrelevant.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Yes, and as a result in socialism everyone goes hungry because no one works.
See how awesome that idea is?
[/quote]
So people refuse to work when they are given their entire wage? They insist that part of it be stolen and given to those who do no work?
[/quote]
So who should do the organizing of all these laborers? If it is the government, how are they to make a living themselves? Perhaps by paying themselves a wage based on the work of others in the form of taxes rather than profits? Oh shit…
But perhaps we could predetermine how much their organizing skills are worth and only take a small amount of gain from the work of others. But then is that a difference in kind to the profit/loss system or simply a difference in scale? It would appear that logically it is not very different from capitalism and the profit/loss system as you see it, at least in regards as to how some folks are remunerated as compared to others. Let’s forget the ethics of either system for the time being.
I guess you could call me barbaric in nature, I actually do like fighting. I think it is fun.[/quote]
So do I. It’s in our nature.
[quote]You say the individual would merely exist without society and that is one of the major points. They could exist without society.
But a society cannot exist unless people want to join together and be part of it. The problem with government, and I do mean big business in government and using government, having too much power is that forces he point. Instead of being individuals voluntarily working together, they are forced to conform.[/quote]
But that’s just it–people DO want to join together in societies. This should be obvious. The rise of Facebook and social networking in general is a glaring reminder of just how infuriatingly social human beings are. So, you will have societies, and they will be governed somehow, whether you call it government or you call it the market, or you call it something else.
Let me say that while I do respect your argument from principle, I don’t think there’s any other conclusion than that it is fatally flawed. For one thing, since people will live in societies (many people complain loudly about our government, but few move), they will derive benefits from that society. They don’t even have to do anything. Merely by living in society, you take advantage of the safety it brings, the modern economy present that allows you to eat without farming or hunting for food, the roadways that allow you to easily go from one location to another. Many of these benefits are not tangible, and so you don’t necessarily think of them, but you certainly benefit from them.
So you see, just like a mass of many cells forms an organ which accomplishes a function that no individual cell could accomplish by itself, many people work together to accomplish tasks that would be impossible for any individual. When you realize this, you realize that, economically, it’s basically impossible to talk about an individual apart from his society.
This is not an attack on individual rights. I believe in them strongly. But it IS a recognition that without society, no one would have anything, and so it’s only reasonable to expect everyone to contribute something toward the maintenance of society’s institutions.
Now, your specific argument, about entitlements, falls prey to what I think of as a “book-keeper’s fallacy.” I’ll quote your paragraph, and then respond.
In particular, your statement, “the government should not takeone person’s property to give to another,” in my mind, completely masks the real debate. As stated, I would agree with you: the government should not take your property to give to me, or mine to give to someone else, but then you assume the whole debate away by stating that it is “your property.” That’s the whole argument. There are many (myself included), who would say that when the government taxes, for instance, Paul Allen, for several million dollars, it’s not really his property, especially when he has not really done any work for the vast majority of it. He has benefitted from one of society’s institutions, and the very least that he owes is a contribution to the public welfare proportional to his income. This is the book-keeping aspect of it comes in. It’s like the situation of an employer and an employee. My employer might pay me a wage, but few people would say he has the right to withhold “his property” from me. In that case, it is because it is not really his property–a small portion of his income is due to my work, and so rightfully belongs to me. Yet in the same situation on a larger scale, you say simply because an accountant would record one person paying out the money, that it is illegitimate.
This is not necessarily designed to change your mind, but hopefully it will let you understand how some other people think, and realize that they are not evil for it.
But all you’ve done is show that people expect a return for their trouble–this is otherwise known as a wage. The whole concept of seeking payment for use of your material resources and evaluating everything from a financial point of view shows up nowhere in human history until a few hundred years ago.
[quote]By doing that we can further demonstrate that the most efficient use of capital is determined by consumers of goods and not by a central planning agency.
And by doing that we can show how socialism must fail since it is against our human nature to be made to exist by a central planning agency’s whim.
The point ultimately is to logically refute socialism.[/quote]
Well good luck with that. Hopefully you won’t be successful in destroying the world in the process.
I guess you could call me barbaric in nature, I actually do like fighting. I think it is fun.[/quote]
So do I. It’s in our nature.
[quote]You say the individual would merely exist without society and that is one of the major points. They could exist without society.
But a society cannot exist unless people want to join together and be part of it. The problem with government, and I do mean big business in government and using government, having too much power is that forces he point. Instead of being individuals voluntarily working together, they are forced to conform.[/quote]
But that’s just it–people DO want to join together in societies. This should be obvious. The rise of Facebook and social networking in general is a glaring reminder of just how infuriatingly social human beings are. So, you will have societies, and they will be governed somehow, whether you call it government or you call it the market, or you call it something else.
Let me say that while I do respect your argument from principle, I don’t think there’s any other conclusion than that it is fatally flawed. For one thing, since people will live in societies (many people complain loudly about our government, but few move), they will derive benefits from that society. They don’t even have to do anything. Merely by living in society, you take advantage of the safety it brings, the modern economy present that allows you to eat without farming or hunting for food, the roadways that allow you to easily go from one location to another. Many of these benefits are not tangible, and so you don’t necessarily think of them, but you certainly benefit from them.
So you see, just like a mass of many cells forms an organ which accomplishes a function that no individual cell could accomplish by itself, many people work together to accomplish tasks that would be impossible for any individual. When you realize this, you realize that, economically, it’s basically impossible to talk about an individual apart from his society.
This is not an attack on individual rights. I believe in them strongly. But it IS a recognition that without society, no one would have anything, and so it’s only reasonable to expect everyone to contribute something toward the maintenance of society’s institutions.
Now, your specific argument, about entitlements, falls prey to what I think of as a “book-keeper’s fallacy.” I’ll quote your paragraph, and then respond.
In particular, your statement, “the government should not takeone person’s property to give to another,” in my mind, completely masks the real debate. As stated, I would agree with you: the government should not take your property to give to me, or mine to give to someone else, but then you assume the whole debate away by stating that it is “your property.” That’s the whole argument. There are many (myself included), who would say that when the government taxes, for instance, Paul Allen, for several million dollars, it’s not really his property, especially when he has not really done any work for the vast majority of it. He has benefitted from one of society’s institutions, and the very least that he owes is a contribution to the public welfare proportional to his income. This is the book-keeping aspect of it comes in. It’s like the situation of an employer and an employee. My employer might pay me a wage, but few people would say he has the right to withhold “his property” from me. In that case, it is because it is not really his property–a small portion of his income is due to my work, and so rightfully belongs to me. Yet in the same situation on a larger scale, you say simply because an accountant would record one person paying out the money, that it is illegitimate.
This is not necessarily designed to change your mind, but hopefully it will let you understand how some other people think, and realize that they are not evil for it.
Oh shit indeed, for you’ve removed one of the main planks in the classic attempt to justify profit–the “managing and directing” function of capitalists.
That’s just it–managing and organizing is itself a form of work- This is one reason that competent government management is usually more efficient than market-driven approaches. If it is truly organization that needs to occur, then the work that is organized oculd be definition not be done as efficiently without it, and so of course the organizers deserve a part of the increased produce.
Indeed, day-to-day operations would NOT be very different in most industries, because the workers themselves are 99.9% of the time the ones who manage and organize. The only difference is, the money would go exclusively to those who work. This would also free industry to be used for the satisfaction of community-determined needs, not chasing profit.
Of course it is. This is nothing new, and Marx never said any differently.
No, you’re conflating it with profit. Not a surprise, since the whole point, for you, is to justify the unearned income that is increasingly at-odds with the further development of society.
In reality, the amount of capital in a society is regulated by the proportion of productive to non-productive members of society, the productivity of the former group (which is itself a function of the amount and quality of capital), and the proportion between the resources used for consumption and those invested.
That is all. How people are compensated is, at this abstract, general point, irrelevant.[/quote]
What has the level of capital goods to the with the " proportion of productive to non-productive members of society, the productivity of the former group (which is itself a function of the amount and quality of capital), and the proportion between the resources used for consumption and those invested."
At any given proportion people could decide to consume instead of ploughing money back into the system.