[quote]JesseS wrote:
What about the following laborer and business relationship:
I just bought a small retail shop that nets me $200,000 a year if I hire one full time employee: i can work it myself 60-70 hours a week, but have people lined up to stand behind a register and ring up my customers: what pay should one of my employees receive if he/she is not producing anything and just ringing up merchandise? Is the employee “putting in more than they are getting out” by standing behind a register and ringing up customers in my very busy shop? What if the employee believes he/she deserves more money but i have hundreds of applicants who want the position and are willing to work for less? Maybe one is a student and is very happy with $10-$12 an hour while this employee has a family and “needs” more money?
What if an employee aspires to nothing more than showing up to work and doing this job; does he/she deserve more money for being around for an extended period of time if the work is simple and there is a line out the door of folks who would be happy to get paid their hourly wage?
[/quote]
Good point.
First off, I’d imagine that just one full time employee would do more than just stand behind the register and ring up customers. Would that person be doing other things, or would you take care of everything else and their only job be ringing up customers?
I really thought this scenerio over and I think the important thing is how you approach it: are you considering what you can pay the employee, or what the least someone will do it for is? Maybe you can find somebody willing to work for 7.25. Just don’t be surprised when a lot of people would rather take the government assistance that gets them more than your full time job would pay.
Also, consider the broader implications: if every employer only pays the bare minimum they can find a person to work for, people are going to keep having less and less money; so, if you’re the only person paying minimum wage, you’ll do well. But when every other store/business/company in town is paying minimum wage, suddenly nobody in town has much money to spend in your store - eventually putting you out of business.
And consider that the employee working there frees up your time to do other things which can help the business, that you otherwise couldnt do if you had to be in the shop all the time ringing up customers.
So, what it comes down to, IMO, is this: are you doing all you reasonably can for that employee, or trying as much as possible to get the labor for as cheap as you can?[/quote]
I pay more than minimum wage, and the job is little more than register work. All of your questions are valid and i ask them myself on a regular basis when hiring people.
My experience is often that those who aspire to more than working for me also aspire to do better than the minimal amount of work i require. If someone goes above and beyond for a few months and has aspirations for beyond the workplace i will offer to pay for school and/or work around their school and/or family obligations…
Competition also fuels my desire to benefit my employees better than they may expect to benefit working elsewhere, but its not my obligation; it’s just good business.
I pay more than minimum wage, and the job is little more than register work. All of your questions are valid and i ask them myself on a regular basis when hiring people.
My experience is often that those who aspire to more than working for me also aspire to do better than the minimal amount of work i require. If someone goes above and beyond for a few months and has aspirations for beyond the workplace i will offer to pay for school and/or work around their school and/or family obligations…
Competition also fuels my desire to benefit my employees better than they may expect to benefit working elsewhere, but its not my obligation; it’s just good business. [/quote]
Thats good, and exactly why I’m all for as many small businesses as possible.
But imagine if you were legally obligated to make as much money for your stockholders as possible – would you even have the option of helping them pay for school? Wouldn’t paying minimum wage make them more money?
I pay more than minimum wage, and the job is little more than register work. All of your questions are valid and i ask them myself on a regular basis when hiring people.
My experience is often that those who aspire to more than working for me also aspire to do better than the minimal amount of work i require. If someone goes above and beyond for a few months and has aspirations for beyond the workplace i will offer to pay for school and/or work around their school and/or family obligations…
Competition also fuels my desire to benefit my employees better than they may expect to benefit working elsewhere, but its not my obligation; it’s just good business. [/quote]
Thats good, and exactly why I’m all for as many small businesses as possible.
But imagine if you were legally obligated to make as much money for your stockholders as possible – would you even have the option of helping them pay for school? Wouldn’t paying minimum wage make them more money?[/quote]
The problem as i see it that fraud in association with government has corporations running like government and state institutions, that is to say they is a mandatory “maintenance of effort” that sacrifices the long term solvency of the business and/or institution in order to provide a short term illusion of benefit.
“Maintenance of effort” is government speak for spending every penny you get so you can get the same amount - if not more - next year/quarter. There is NEVER an effort made to save money because less money this year means no more money allocated(or no excuse for increased costs) next year.
Making money for shareholders has turned into a credit juggling game and the foundation of all of it is the knowledge that the government will not only permit fluffed numbers, but will protect and help finance those efforts to keep the corporate/government relationship turning and not allow.
If i kite a check and/or get net terms that i cant pay I have to deal with the consequences: many corporations do not these days, and neither does the government.
I pay more than minimum wage, and the job is little more than register work. All of your questions are valid and i ask them myself on a regular basis when hiring people.
My experience is often that those who aspire to more than working for me also aspire to do better than the minimal amount of work i require. If someone goes above and beyond for a few months and has aspirations for beyond the workplace i will offer to pay for school and/or work around their school and/or family obligations…
Competition also fuels my desire to benefit my employees better than they may expect to benefit working elsewhere, but its not my obligation; it’s just good business. [/quote]
Thats good, and exactly why I’m all for as many small businesses as possible.
But imagine if you were legally obligated to make as much money for your stockholders as possible – would you even have the option of helping them pay for school? Wouldn’t paying minimum wage make them more money?[/quote]
The problem as i see it that fraud in association with government has corporations running like government and state institutions, that is to say they is a mandatory “maintenance of effort” that sacrifices the long term solvency of the business and/or institution in order to provide a short term illusion of benefit.
“Maintenance of effort” is government speak for spending every penny you get so you can get the same amount - if not more - next year/quarter. There is NEVER an effort made to save money because less money this year means no more money allocated(or no excuse for increased costs) next year.
Making money for shareholders has turned into a credit juggling game and the foundation of all of it is the knowledge that the government will not only permit fluffed numbers, but will protect and help finance those efforts to keep the corporate/government relationship turning and not allow.
If i kite a check and/or get net terms that i cant pay I have to deal with the consequences: many corporations do not these days, and neither does the government. [/quote]
I really do think we’re on the same side of the fence here. When corporations and the government dont have to deal with consequences, everybody at the bottom has to.
You have a point here, if and only if the crushing American embargo is considered “a result of their policies.” It’s illuminating how you still ignore the wooly mammoth in the room.
But once again, not only do you (yes) dishonestly ignore the issue of the embargo, which denies them, among other things, important medicines, but you ALSO ignore the fact that, whatever their current condition, it is better than it was before the revolution.
Make your case for liberalization, that’s fine, but don’t attempt to mislead to do it.
I am confused as to how you are allegedly linking this issue to economic planning (I don’t need to defend planning, as history clearly records how much more efficient it is than the market). In reality, it has nothing to do with it, but the concept of the impossibility of “socialism in one country” is relevant, and is lent credence by the example of Cuba–capitalist countries will always attempt to sabotage socialist ones, and there is nowhere on earth a better example of this than Cuba. Their natural resources are limited, and they hadn’t built up a significant industrial base before the revolution, and so they were sitting ducks in the face of the embargo, which hampered trade in their main export, sugar. It all boils down to a strategic issue, not an economic one, and their misfortune really was just that–misfortune.
This betrays your ignorance of Marx’s theory, as almost every important prediction he made has proven to be nearly spot-on. Details follow.
Without question. Don’t you? Americans distrust the large banks. As people are being asked to sacrifice more and more, they resent (rightfully) the profiteering of those who caused their misfortune.
It has been a while, but what’s your point? The assault on labor (itself a clear example of class warfare) over the past 30 years, and the relentless propagandizing of the conservative-controlled media has made unions a four-letter word. Are you surprised that union membership is down?
But, let’s not confine ourselves to the United States, with its peculiar stance on union membership (for capitalism is a global system), and what do you know? We DO see labor riots. In fact, we’ve seen several over the past few months, and they will only worsen and the European debt crisis continues and the public is further fleeced.
In fact, this comment shows that you are unaware that Marx addressed this type of thing with his work on ideology, and along with this:
demonstrates that you unaware that he qualified his long-term predictions by enumerating several “countervailing tendencies.” With respect to the wages issue, the stagnation of wages in this country conforms very closely to his predictions, and when you add in the fact that the expansion of credit has been utilized in exactly the way that he explained to compensate for these falling wages, it becomes hard for even an Austrianist to deny his foresight.
Furthermore, Marx nowhere said that wages could not temporarily increase under capitalism, perhaps even for sustained periods (remember, he acknowledged the transformative power of capitalism and its capacity to increase the standard of living, he simply refused to irrationally cling to it once its usefulness had faded) rendering that last paragraph moot.
I’m sorry, Americans now are unemployed, 1 in 7 is on food stamps, and they are being evicted from their homes in large numbers. Forgive me if your debt-fueled illusion of prosperity (bought by the parsimony of foreigners) does not impress me. What you are seeing now is the real economy. Anyone can run up the credit card for a while and achieve impressive growth–that’s what capitalism has done and it’s not hard.
So really, when you actually think about it–what important thing HASN’T he been correct about?
The way you phrase it, it would not be worth basing current policy on. However, if you acknowledged that he provided many supporting arguments, which have all been correct, and the fact that the crises become worse and worse over time, you’d be a fool to dismiss him.
At any rate, who really sounds more foolish? Marx, who refuses to die, and whom even his detractors acknowledge was brilliant, or the Austrians, whom even the capitalists whose boots they lick have discarded? Who say, “THIS time, we’ll get it right, and there will be no more recessions?”
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You have a point here, if and only if the crushing American embargo is considered “a result of their policies.” It’s illuminating how you still ignore the wooly mammoth in the room.[/quote]
Surely, as it is that you ignore the fact that Cuba’s leaders have admitted that they are not even as productive as they were before communism in areas that are not nearly as susceptible to trade fluctuations namely land usage. Why is this? I freely admitted the embargo has an effect and in that vein, for the sake of trying to level the comparison as best as possible, I chose an area that would be least effected by this, especially given huge new improvements in technology- agriculture. Cuba used to need little in the way of imports food wise and in fact were quite the exporter in many things like sugar. Now lo and behold that have to import huge amounts of food and large sections of land once under production no longer are. But why is this? Embargo? While it is convenient to blame every economic calamity Cuba faces on the embargo, given the remarkable increase in agricultural productive and technology in the global agricultural sector, surely such an efficient centrally planned economy could at least match an agricultural model that was performed with primitive industrial equipment or in many places simply by hand? If nothing else, why is all of the land, regardless of productivity, not in production? The land is laid uselessly fallow now and the fields are not simply not being used to be rested. Perhaps Raul is just faking us out by claiming he and his brothers economic planning is a near-total failure.
[quote]
But once again, not only do you (yes) dishonestly ignore the issue of the embargo, which denies them, among other things, important medicines, but you ALSO ignore the fact that, whatever their current condition, it is better than it was before the revolution.[/quote]
On what do you base this claim? I work with a Cuban man, with family in both Miami and in Cuba who would lustily disagree with you. But I assume you have a very scientific measure to back this up.
But they weren’t all alone at one point were they? In fact I seem to remember there being quite a few very powerful (seemingly) communist countries hanging about with them for a while. Before they collapsed or starting “selling out” the revolution for a market economy that is. Perhaps it was only the efforts of the unified capitalist world order that undermined them, let’s go ahead and grant you they collapsed due to no fault of their own.
Just provide me some examples of how you don’t need to defend central planning if you don’t mind. Clearly the evidence is so overwhelming that it is superior to capitalism you will have hoards of examples to send my way.
On a similar note, to China. Let’s see if we can see the emerging pattern. China starts out as a collectivized, totalitarian Communist state with strict regulations and government ownership of all. Things do not progress very rapidly economically. The Party decides to open special zones that have much less regulation than other areas and also start allowing small types of property rights. Things begin improving massively.
Is the government still heavily involved? Yes. Were the government heavily involved before, in fact more so? Yes. What is different now to the previous time when they were not growing so fast? Less regulation and nascent private property rights. It would seem that they only difference is less communist party control.
I am not sure how you cannot see the very simple logic in this example, but trying to skirt the results of lower regulation and privatization by pointing to the fact the government still exists and acts in the economy is simply stunning.
[quote]
Without question. Don’t you? Americans distrust the large banks. As people are being asked to sacrifice more and more, they resent (rightfully) the profiteering of those who caused their misfortune.[/quote]
No, I don’t. Marx predicted things would get worse and worse relationship wise. Yet there has been less and less labor related violence. Fewer and fewer strikes. Wouldn’t the fact unionism is down, despite increasing laws that protect unionism, seem to contradict your assessment of the situation? Or is it illogical to assume that when murders and violent crime in a neighborhood go down that things are improving from a safety standpoint?
I would also point out I am not a fascist, and thus I do not think supporting big bankers and wall street is a good policy. They should be treated no differently than anyone else, no better and no worse.
If I am a Marxist yes I am. Class warfare is inevitable after all. And given a couple of hundred years I would in fact expect things to be a little bit worse. At least flat. But less demonstrable class warfare? It would seem a bit odd given the supposed inevitability of it. But I guess Marx’s predictions and theories get a millennium long pass, at least until that amount of time passes and he needs another extension for his theories.
Talk about a dishonest post since you are so fond of chucking that phrase around. Yes we have recently seen some labor riots (this still does not address long term trends which to my knowledge are still decreasing even in Europe). The most recent labor riots have been in response to austerity measures. Why austerity measures? Because these governments over spent on their welfare states and now they are going bankrupt. Not sure how this can be laid at the foot of the free market when it is the government spending all the money, but I am sure those dirty business owners are to blame somehow. Remember if what you are referring to is the state sponsored companies and industries that are “too big to fail” and get special treatment, you are referring to something more akin to fascism than a truly free market.
[quote]demonstrates that you unaware that he qualified his long-term predictions by enumerating several “countervailing tendencies.” With respect to the wages issue, the stagnation of wages in this country conforms very closely to his predictions, and when you add in the fact that the expansion of credit has been utilized in exactly the way that he explained to compensate for these falling wages, it becomes hard for even an Austrianist to deny his foresight.
Furthermore, Marx nowhere said that wages could not temporarily increase under capitalism, perhaps even for sustained periods (remember, he acknowledged the transformative power of capitalism and its capacity to increase the standard of living, he simply refused to irrationally cling to it once its usefulness had faded) rendering that last paragraph moot.[/quote]
Real wage rates adjust for inflation (credit expansion causes inflation thus this is accounted for) so yeah his ideas on countervailing tendencies regarding credit increases wage rates is not germane here.
Secondly, this is called having your cake and eating it too. Marx is effectively claiming that whether things get a lot better or a lot worse he is right. Things getting a lot better for everyone under capitalism? “Countervailing tendencies” must be at work and all we need do is wait a couple hundred more years. All part of the plan. Things getting worse? I was right all along!
Now you might say, just wait and see what happens with this most recent economic downturn. But didn’t we also have a great depression as well as other serious economic calamities like the stagflation during the 80’s as bad or worse than what we are going through now? What if we make it through this time and things improve again? Does Marx get yet another pass? How can his predictions EVER be falsified? Can he be wrong? What would it take for him to be proven wrong as you see it?
Making predictions that play both sides and have an infinite amount of time to come true are the tools of CHARLATANS.
Good job dodging the substance of my point. Having A/C, heating, hot water, running water, indoor plumbing, plenty of food for everyone, and yeah I am definitely saying our poor are, in very real and non-illusory ways, better off than they have ever been in history.
People taking silly mortgages out on their homes because of cheap credit (again, I agree this was a huge mistake made BY THE GOVERNMENT) and being evicted is hardly the fault of the free market. Blame the fed for creating the credit boom, blame the people for making bad decisions and taking out 100% loans with no fixed rate on a 2.5% loan they can barely afford at those historically low rates, but don’t blame the free market for this mess. Dropping this on the markets door ignores THE GIANT WOOLY MAMMOTH in the room the private enterprise did not create this cheap credit you keep harping on as the illusion of our prosperity. That is a direct result of the policy of central bankers. If you are going to play like you are the academically honest one in the room at least hold yourself to your own standards.
[quote]The way you phrase it, it would not be worth basing current policy on. However, if you acknowledged that he provided many supporting arguments, which have all been correct, and the fact that the crises become worse and worse over time, you’d be a fool to dismiss him.
At any rate, who really sounds more foolish? Marx, who refuses to die, and whom even his detractors acknowledge was brilliant, or the Austrians, whom even the capitalists whose boots they lick have discarded? Who say, “THIS time, we’ll get it right, and there will be no more recessions?”[/quote]
You really need to study your Austrian economics more, because I think you would be better friends with them than you think. They also would argue that you can’t blame any of the booms or busts on the free market but rather the government intervention. By their predictions they haven’t been wrong either, in the same way Marx hasn’t been wrong according to you. Lumping the Austrians in with Bernanke and the other neo-Keynesians mainstream economists makes about as much sense as lumping a Marxist in with that same lot.
I pay more than minimum wage, and the job is little more than register work. All of your questions are valid and i ask them myself on a regular basis when hiring people.
My experience is often that those who aspire to more than working for me also aspire to do better than the minimal amount of work i require. If someone goes above and beyond for a few months and has aspirations for beyond the workplace i will offer to pay for school and/or work around their school and/or family obligations…
Competition also fuels my desire to benefit my employees better than they may expect to benefit working elsewhere, but its not my obligation; it’s just good business. [/quote]
Thats good, and exactly why I’m all for as many small businesses as possible.
But imagine if you were legally obligated to make as much money for your stockholders as possible – would you even have the option of helping them pay for school? Wouldn’t paying minimum wage make them more money?[/quote]
Wages for the hired workforce are determined by various factors.
In the market capitalist economy the primary factor is market itself, using basically the same supply/demand approach as when establishing the price of goods.
There are variations, such as say Union-negotiated wages for example, as recent history shows they aren’t always sustainable though and have to be adjusted due to - you guessed it - market conditions.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Then consider how we define people based on income, into “lower class”, “middle class”, and “upper class”.
Or the reaction people collectively give to a person with a huge house (and wonder why all those McMansions which harmed the housing market were built)
Or consider the fraudulent advertising many supplement companies will engage in, rationalizing the practice with “We’re a business, we need to make money”.
I know, I know, these are all small examples. But life is a whole bunch of small examples that add up to bigger facts.[/quote]
But you still miss the larger point:
The only way to change people’s minds is to set the example by living a virtuous life. Talking about it and actually doing it are two separate things. For this reason it takes many generations to make a significant change of “social attitude”.
Personally, I think you are too focused on the collective. You should worry about your own success rather than worry about what the automatons are are watching on TV.[/quote]
Right. I should just worry about getting as much money as possible and finding ways to get some other fool to work hard so I can profit from it. [/quote]
As opposed to what? Sitting on your ass an complaining when someone else gets ahead of you?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Then consider how we define people based on income, into “lower class”, “middle class”, and “upper class”.
Or the reaction people collectively give to a person with a huge house (and wonder why all those McMansions which harmed the housing market were built)
Or consider the fraudulent advertising many supplement companies will engage in, rationalizing the practice with “We’re a business, we need to make money”.
I know, I know, these are all small examples. But life is a whole bunch of small examples that add up to bigger facts.[/quote]
But you still miss the larger point:
The only way to change people’s minds is to set the example by living a virtuous life. Talking about it and actually doing it are two separate things. For this reason it takes many generations to make a significant change of “social attitude”.
Personally, I think you are too focused on the collective. You should worry about your own success rather than worry about what the automatons are are watching on TV.[/quote]
Right. I should just worry about getting as much money as possible and finding ways to get some other fool to work hard so I can profit from it. [/quote]
As opposed to what? Sitting on your ass an complaining when someone else gets ahead of you?
Wages for the hired workforce are determined by various factors.
In the market capitalist economy the primary factor is market itself, using basically the same supply/demand approach as when establishing the price of goods.
There are variations, such as say Union-negotiated wages for example, as recent history shows they aren’t always sustainable though and have to be adjusted due to - you guessed it - market conditions.
[/quote]
How much of a factor is personal greed?
Example: I work at for a major package shipping company. Within the last few years, since the recession, everyone at the manager level and above took a pay cut, while recently those at my level got a small raise. This is really good, because it shows that they care about their workers.
However, it also means that back when the company was making more, they could have paid the workers more. But instead the excess went to everyone above the level of laborer, who, even after the pay cuts, are still not at risk of not being able to feed their families. So even when “market conditions” were very good, the hired workforce saw litle of the benefit.
Or perhaps, just maybe, the loss of ~80% of its trading partners (and hence the increased effectiveness of the embargo) had a mildly adverse effect on the economy, and had little to do with the productivity of its workers. This interpretation, however, would require looking at the data, which clearly show a significant increase in economic growth following the revolution up until the collapse of the USSR (and thus the loss of its trading partners earlier referred to). Without Soviet clients, Cuba had no relief from the embargo.
It also makes sense–your favored interpretation raises the question: why did the Cuban people suddenly become less productive? Their productivity increased after the revolution, yet all of a sudden, they just decided to stay home, or what?
It really does beggar belief that the capitalist clergymen will make excuse after excuse for the pitiful performance of capitalism in improving the lives of its citizens, when capitalism controls the world, yet the tiny island of Cuba–despite providing a better quality of life for its citizens than its previous capitalist government did, even in the face of the suffocating embargo enacted by the most powerful nation in the world–is constantly demonized. You don’t have to like socialism, but acknowledge the impressive accomplishments of the Cuban people, who still support the Castros and the revolution.
Almost every (I think every one, but just to be safe, I will be conservative, and say almost every) indicator of quality of life has improved since the revolution: life expectancy (less than a year behind ours), daily caloric intake, literacy levels, poverty rates, infant mortality rates, income inequality, have all improved.
Even people critical of the Cuban government acknowledge their successes, such as this person who has been to Cuba personally:
Here is a telling quote regarding economic progress:
“The real story of Cuba’s economic development over the past 30 years is obscured by exclusive focus on allocational and management deficiencies. The long-run growth, the successful structural change and the virtually universal provision of basic needs provide a more revealing picture. Real income growth per capita in Cuba averaged 3.1 percent per year between 1960 and 1985, compared to 1.8 percent in the rest of Latin America. As a result of this growth, per capita income in Cuba in 1987 exceeded $3,500 while the average in Latin America was $2,223 (in 1986 dollars).”
The above is a very good article, and, I think you’ll find, quite balanced. No one is saying Cuba is the most dynamic or productive economy in the world, but its successes are real, and deserve to be acknowledged just as capitalist achievements deserve to be acknowledged.
Regarding your Cuban friend, I am not surprised that he is critical of Castro, and neither should you be: when the revolution had triumphed, wealthy anti-Castro Cubans left en masse, and most ended up in Miami. Thus, the overwhelming majority of Cubans here are, or are descended from anti-Castro Cubans. You’re essentially hearing half of the story here.
We have, of course, the ones already cited: the unprecedented rate of industrialization in Soviet Russia (excepting other nations, like Japan, which also utilized heavy state involvement), China’s impressive economic performance (they have proven far nimbler than we have in moving quickly and decisively to developer strategic industries, such as clean energy), the building of the railroads here in America, the building of the atom bomb, Hitler’s rebuilding of Germany…in fact, most of the great economic transformations in history have been at least partly state-guided.
[quote]Is the government still heavily involved? Yes. Were the government heavily involved before, in fact more so? Yes. What is different now to the previous time when they were not growing so fast? Less regulation and nascent private property rights. It would seem that they only difference is less communist party control.
I am not sure how you cannot see the very simple logic in this example, but trying to skirt the results of lower regulation and privatization by pointing to the fact the government still exists and acts in the economy is simply stunning.[/quote]
What is stunning is that you are still trying to play games at this point. Did China improve after it began to allow private enterprise? Yes, I have never denied it. But this is exactly the way Marx described the development of an economy. If Marx had been alive, he would have supported the liberalization–it is after capitalism has built up the means of production that it has accomplished its task and should give way to socialism, which better utilizes these resources.
In addition, you are, I believe, a self-described Libertarian. But in extolling the virtues of liberalization in China, you still refuse to acknowledge that, even though there is less regulation, China still bears no resemblance to your Libertarian-ideals. It is simply a different kind and degree of government intervention, and in no way argues for any of the Libertarians’ prescriptions.
Perhaps you do not understand that Marx was concerned with historical epochs. You choose to focus on the last few decades, because it serves your purposes, but a few decades are a short time in the entire history of capitalism. Our housing bubble, for instance, lasted the better part of a decade, but this is a brief time in the whole scheme of things. Reduced union membership, based on propaganda and the false increases in living standards provided by the expansion of credit, does indeed make sense, and has been talked about at length by various people.
Look at the data; you admit yourself that wages have either been stagnant or declined over the last 30 years, while the economy has drastically expanded. In the absence of the countervailing effect provided by the extension of credit, is it logical to suspect that we would indeed have seen more unrest? Or course it is. But because this trouble was (temporarily) averted via the use of this mechanism, people had no reason to become upset. Things seemed fine. Now, things are not fine, and unrest is rising. Due to a variety of factors, it is unfocused, and frequently directed at the wrong targets, but the Tea Party is one example of this unrest.
But, step outside the United States, and nothing you wrote is relevant at all.
Well, good luck getting the capitalist government to go along with that.
Then you are one of those Marxists who has not read Marx.
Once again, look abroad if you dare and you’ll see plenty of it.
Not at all–the end point is when the entire world has been developed and industrialized. In other words, when there are no new markets to expand into. This may take longer than you would like, and you may complain and attack Marx for not formulating more convenient theories, but that is how the theory goes.
Rather, they are bankrupt because the working class is expected to foot the bill for the government, which lavishes its benefits on the rich.
Now here, it is obvious you do not understand–first of all, you are still stuck in the Libertarian error of seperating the government from the economy. The government does not exist outside of the capitalist economy (or any economy), but they continue in their mistake anyway because it is simply too convenient for them to be able to blame all the ills of capitalism on the government.
But more telling is your mention of the free market. I am not criticizing the free market–it has been dead and irrelevant for well over 50 years, if it was ever relevant at all.
But the facts are simple, if you are willing to examine them–nothing was wrong with Europe’s economies until the global recession (hint: not caused by poor people, or welfare states) set in, and now the working class is asked to pay for it all. They do not like this, leading to the unrest you barely acknowledged (which has certainly not been decreasing since the crisis began).
A popular criticism from people attempting to discredit Marx who have no idea what he actually said. Think about it: if things proceed exactly as he described (which they have), don’t you think he was on to something? Specifically, if he says that the economy will deteriorate UNLESS A happens, and you go look, and the economy collapses the moment A stops happening, don’t you think that deserves to be looked into further? Especially since, when you follow his logic, it makes perfect sense?
In actuality, though it has probably taken longer than he expected, global progress strikingly resembles his predictions. Global growth rates have fallen in recent decades (your liberalization has caused this global growth rate to fall from about 3% through the 60s to barely 1%). To get more detailed, capitalism can increase standards of living until an economy has been industrialized to the point where further accumulation of productive capital is not profitable. It is at this point that countries must either expand into markets, or some contrivance like expansion of credit must be undertaken, or the government must become involved and redistribute wealth in order to avoid an inevitable decline. And we have seen precisely this pattern. In the US, government was relatively hands-off through most of the 19th century, until the Great Depression, at which point government intervention became necessary. What followed was great period of ecnonomic growth marked by expansion into foreign markets. This was enough to last quite a while, until the 70s, at which point labor had become too powerful, and was a drain and profits. Labor was attacked, and credit exploded.
So you see, when you follow the course of events, they typically conform fairly closely to Marx’s logic. Of course, the development of the global economy is a huge, centuries-long process, of which we observe only a small part, and so someone determined to oppose Marx’s analysis will always find a way to do it.
I feel I have addressed this. In short, when the time comes that the global economy again crashes, but when there are no new markets to expand into, and credit cannot be extended, that will be the test.
Of course, at that point, capitalism still may not collapse, IF the government sufficiently intervenes. Theoretically, capitalism may last indefinitely so long as the government maintains its health. Socialism is not inevitable. Socialization is.
Before you accuse others of being charlatans, make sure you understand the arguments you are attacking. At present, it is evident that you do not.
Who said they were not? But remembering past accomplishments does nothing to help the victims of capitalism-run-amok now.
buzz Wrong. Attempting to blame this crisis on poor people, while ignoring the huge volumes of transactions by large institutions across the world (only to a Libertarian is a global crisis the exclusive fault of the American government), is a transparent attempt to evade reality. Do it yourself, if you wish, but do not ask me to go along.
Again, the free market is irrelevant, and the Fed’s actions have very little effect on mortgage rates:
Wages for the hired workforce are determined by various factors.
In the market capitalist economy the primary factor is market itself, using basically the same supply/demand approach as when establishing the price of goods.
There are variations, such as say Union-negotiated wages for example, as recent history shows they aren’t always sustainable though and have to be adjusted due to - you guessed it - market conditions.
[/quote]
How much of a factor is personal greed?
Example: I work at for a major package shipping company. Within the last few years, since the recession, everyone at the manager level and above took a pay cut, while recently those at my level got a small raise. This is really good, because it shows that they care about their workers.
However, it also means that back when the company was making more, they could have paid the workers more. But instead the excess went to everyone above the level of laborer, who, even after the pay cuts, are still not at risk of not being able to feed their families. So even when “market conditions” were very good, the hired workforce saw litle of the benefit.[/quote]
“Greed” or “desire to succeed financially” is one of the primary forces driving the economy so of course it’s a factor.
But no matter how “greedy” the employer, if they pay their employees less then what the market dictates, they will end up with low-quality workforce and will have to deal with huge turnover since, once trained and with some experience under their belts, their employees will look for a job elsewhere.
This will drive the cost of operation up, so money “saved” by underpaying in wages will be “spent” anyway.
As for your personal example - the question is why do you think you should be paid more ?
“Greed” or “desire to succeed financially” is one of the primary forces driving the economy so of course it’s a factor.
But no matter how “greedy” the employer, if they pay their employees less then what the market dictates, they will end up with low-quality workforce and will have to deal with huge turnover since, once trained and with some experience under their belts, their employees will look for a job elsewhere.
This will drive the cost of operation up, so money “saved” by underpaying in wages will be “spent” anyway.
[/quote]
So, what you’re saying holds true, unless (a) psychology is real and people get physically and mentally tired from the job and therefore are unlikely to go out and try to get a new job while working full time, (b) the jobs are simplified to the point where “training” is a joke and workers are easily replaced, (c) most other entry level jobs pay a low wage as well, or (d) the government gives you money for each new employee (in which case high turnover is good).
From the book “Fast Food Nation”:
While quietly spending enormous sums on research and technology to eliminate employee training, the fast food chains have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies for “training” their workers. Through federal programs such as the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit and its successor, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, the chains have for years claimed tax credits of up to $2,400 for each new low-income worker they hired. In 1996 an investigation by the US Department of Labor concluded that 92 percent of these workers would have been hired anyway - and that their news jobs were part-time, privided little training, and came with no benefits. These federal subsidy programs were created to reward American companies that gave job training to the poor.
Attempts to end these federal subsidies have been strenuously opposed by the National Council of Chain Restaurants and its allies in Congress. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit program was renewed in 1996. It offered as much as $385 million in subsidies the following year. Fast food restaurants had to employ a worker for only four hundred hours to recieve the federal money - and then they could get more money as soon as the worker quit and was replaced. American taxpayers have in effect subsidized the industry’s high turnover rate, providing company tax breaks for workers who are employed for just a few months and recieve no training. The industry front group formed to defend these government subsidies is called the “Committee for Employment Opportunities.” Its chief lobbyist, Bill Singer, told the House Chronicle there was nothing wrong with the use of federal subsidies to create low-paying, low-skilled, short term jobs for the poor. Trying to justify the minimal amount of training given to these workers, Singer said, “They’ve got to crawl before they can walk.”
I think everybody at my level should make more because we perform an essential duty without which the company cannot function and no one at my level can even reasonably support themselves on their earnings.
So, what you’re saying holds true, unless (a) psychology is real and people get physically and mentally tired from the job and therefore are unlikely to go out and try to get a new job while working full time, (b) the jobs are simplified to the point where “training” is a joke and workers are easily replaced, (c) most other entry level jobs pay a low wage as well, or (d) the government gives you money for each new employee (in which case high turnover is good).
…
I think everybody at my level should make more because we perform an essential duty without which the company cannot function and no one at my level can even reasonably support themselves on their earnings.
I fail to see how that could possibly be unfair.[/quote]
Well, yeah looking for a job is a job so to speak. Don’t mean to sound patronizing, but you can’t expect for someone else to take care of you - if you want a higher paying job it’s up to you to make that happen - education, job search, etc, all of that is at play but ultimately it comes down to you doing something to succeed.
As for the essential nature of your job - it’s not about how essential it is, it’s about how many people are able to perform these duties.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Then consider how we define people based on income, into “lower class”, “middle class”, and “upper class”.
Or the reaction people collectively give to a person with a huge house (and wonder why all those McMansions which harmed the housing market were built)
Or consider the fraudulent advertising many supplement companies will engage in, rationalizing the practice with “We’re a business, we need to make money”.
I know, I know, these are all small examples. But life is a whole bunch of small examples that add up to bigger facts.[/quote]
But you still miss the larger point:
The only way to change people’s minds is to set the example by living a virtuous life. Talking about it and actually doing it are two separate things. For this reason it takes many generations to make a significant change of “social attitude”.
Personally, I think you are too focused on the collective. You should worry about your own success rather than worry about what the automatons are are watching on TV.[/quote]
Right. I should just worry about getting as much money as possible and finding ways to get some other fool to work hard so I can profit from it. [/quote]
As opposed to what? Sitting on your ass an complaining when someone else gets ahead of you?
Or perhaps, just maybe, the loss of ~80% of its trading partners (and hence the increased effectiveness of the embargo) had a mildly adverse effect on the economy, and had little to do with the productivity of its workers. This interpretation, however, would require looking at the data, which clearly show a significant increase in economic growth following the revolution up until the collapse of the USSR (and thus the loss of its trading partners earlier referred to). Without Soviet clients, Cuba had no relief from the embargo.
It also makes sense–your favored interpretation raises the question: why did the Cuban people suddenly become less productive? Their productivity increased after the revolution, yet all of a sudden, they just decided to stay home, or what?
It really does beggar belief that the capitalist clergymen will make excuse after excuse for the pitiful performance of capitalism in improving the lives of its citizens, when capitalism controls the world, yet the tiny island of Cuba–despite providing a better quality of life for its citizens than its previous capitalist government did, even in the face of the suffocating embargo enacted by the most powerful nation in the world–is constantly demonized. You don’t have to like socialism, but acknowledge the impressive accomplishments of the Cuban people, who still support the Castros and the revolution.
Almost every (I think every one, but just to be safe, I will be conservative, and say almost every) indicator of quality of life has improved since the revolution: life expectancy (less than a year behind ours), daily caloric intake, literacy levels, poverty rates, infant mortality rates, income inequality, have all improved.
Even people critical of the Cuban government acknowledge their successes, such as this person who has been to Cuba personally:
Here is a telling quote regarding economic progress:
“The real story of Cuba’s economic development over the past 30 years is obscured by exclusive focus on allocational and management deficiencies. The long-run growth, the successful structural change and the virtually universal provision of basic needs provide a more revealing picture. Real income growth per capita in Cuba averaged 3.1 percent per year between 1960 and 1985, compared to 1.8 percent in the rest of Latin America. As a result of this growth, per capita income in Cuba in 1987 exceeded $3,500 while the average in Latin America was $2,223 (in 1986 dollars).”
The above is a very good article, and, I think you’ll find, quite balanced. No one is saying Cuba is the most dynamic or productive economy in the world, but its successes are real, and deserve to be acknowledged just as capitalist achievements deserve to be acknowledged.
Regarding your Cuban friend, I am not surprised that he is critical of Castro, and neither should you be: when the revolution had triumphed, wealthy anti-Castro Cubans left en masse, and most ended up in Miami. Thus, the overwhelming majority of Cubans here are, or are descended from anti-Castro Cubans. You’re essentially hearing half of the story here.
We have, of course, the ones already cited: the unprecedented rate of industrialization in Soviet Russia (excepting other nations, like Japan, which also utilized heavy state involvement), China’s impressive economic performance (they have proven far nimbler than we have in moving quickly and decisively to developer strategic industries, such as clean energy), the building of the railroads here in America, the building of the atom bomb, Hitler’s rebuilding of Germany…in fact, most of the great economic transformations in history have been at least partly state-guided.
[quote]Is the government still heavily involved? Yes. Were the government heavily involved before, in fact more so? Yes. What is different now to the previous time when they were not growing so fast? Less regulation and nascent private property rights. It would seem that they only difference is less communist party control.
I am not sure how you cannot see the very simple logic in this example, but trying to skirt the results of lower regulation and privatization by pointing to the fact the government still exists and acts in the economy is simply stunning.[/quote]
What is stunning is that you are still trying to play games at this point. Did China improve after it began to allow private enterprise? Yes, I have never denied it. But this is exactly the way Marx described the development of an economy. If Marx had been alive, he would have supported the liberalization–it is after capitalism has built up the means of production that it has accomplished its task and should give way to socialism, which better utilizes these resources.
In addition, you are, I believe, a self-described Libertarian. But in extolling the virtues of liberalization in China, you still refuse to acknowledge that, even though there is less regulation, China still bears no resemblance to your Libertarian-ideals. It is simply a different kind and degree of government intervention, and in no way argues for any of the Libertarians’ prescriptions.
Perhaps you do not understand that Marx was concerned with historical epochs. You choose to focus on the last few decades, because it serves your purposes, but a few decades are a short time in the entire history of capitalism. Our housing bubble, for instance, lasted the better part of a decade, but this is a brief time in the whole scheme of things. Reduced union membership, based on propaganda and the false increases in living standards provided by the expansion of credit, does indeed make sense, and has been talked about at length by various people.
Look at the data; you admit yourself that wages have either been stagnant or declined over the last 30 years, while the economy has drastically expanded. In the absence of the countervailing effect provided by the extension of credit, is it logical to suspect that we would indeed have seen more unrest? Or course it is. But because this trouble was (temporarily) averted via the use of this mechanism, people had no reason to become upset. Things seemed fine. Now, things are not fine, and unrest is rising. Due to a variety of factors, it is unfocused, and frequently directed at the wrong targets, but the Tea Party is one example of this unrest.
But, step outside the United States, and nothing you wrote is relevant at all.
Well, good luck getting the capitalist government to go along with that.
Then you are one of those Marxists who has not read Marx.
Once again, look abroad if you dare and you’ll see plenty of it.
Not at all–the end point is when the entire world has been developed and industrialized. In other words, when there are no new markets to expand into. This may take longer than you would like, and you may complain and attack Marx for not formulating more convenient theories, but that is how the theory goes.
Rather, they are bankrupt because the working class is expected to foot the bill for the government, which lavishes its benefits on the rich.
Now here, it is obvious you do not understand–first of all, you are still stuck in the Libertarian error of seperating the government from the economy. The government does not exist outside of the capitalist economy (or any economy), but they continue in their mistake anyway because it is simply too convenient for them to be able to blame all the ills of capitalism on the government.
But more telling is your mention of the free market. I am not criticizing the free market–it has been dead and irrelevant for well over 50 years, if it was ever relevant at all.
But the facts are simple, if you are willing to examine them–nothing was wrong with Europe’s economies until the global recession (hint: not caused by poor people, or welfare states) set in, and now the working class is asked to pay for it all. They do not like this, leading to the unrest you barely acknowledged (which has certainly not been decreasing since the crisis began).
A popular criticism from people attempting to discredit Marx who have no idea what he actually said. Think about it: if things proceed exactly as he described (which they have), don’t you think he was on to something? Specifically, if he says that the economy will deteriorate UNLESS A happens, and you go look, and the economy collapses the moment A stops happening, don’t you think that deserves to be looked into further? Especially since, when you follow his logic, it makes perfect sense?
In actuality, though it has probably taken longer than he expected, global progress strikingly resembles his predictions. Global growth rates have fallen in recent decades (your liberalization has caused this global growth rate to fall from about 3% through the 60s to barely 1%). To get more detailed, capitalism can increase standards of living until an economy has been industrialized to the point where further accumulation of productive capital is not profitable. It is at this point that countries must either expand into markets, or some contrivance like expansion of credit must be undertaken, or the government must become involved and redistribute wealth in order to avoid an inevitable decline. And we have seen precisely this pattern. In the US, government was relatively hands-off through most of the 19th century, until the Great Depression, at which point government intervention became necessary. What followed was great period of ecnonomic growth marked by expansion into foreign markets. This was enough to last quite a while, until the 70s, at which point labor had become too powerful, and was a drain and profits. Labor was attacked, and credit exploded.
So you see, when you follow the course of events, they typically conform fairly closely to Marx’s logic. Of course, the development of the global economy is a huge, centuries-long process, of which we observe only a small part, and so someone determined to oppose Marx’s analysis will always find a way to do it.
I feel I have addressed this. In short, when the time comes that the global economy again crashes, but when there are no new markets to expand into, and credit cannot be extended, that will be the test.
Of course, at that point, capitalism still may not collapse, IF the government sufficiently intervenes. Theoretically, capitalism may last indefinitely so long as the government maintains its health. Socialism is not inevitable. Socialization is.
Before you accuse others of being charlatans, make sure you understand the arguments you are attacking. At present, it is evident that you do not.
Who said they were not? But remembering past accomplishments does nothing to help the victims of capitalism-run-amok now.
buzz Wrong. Attempting to blame this crisis on poor people, while ignoring the huge volumes of transactions by large institutions across the world (only to a Libertarian is a global crisis the exclusive fault of the American government), is a transparent attempt to evade reality. Do it yourself, if you wish, but do not ask me to go along.
Again, the free market is irrelevant, and the Fed’s actions have very little effect on mortgage rates:
Since you are so interested in maintaing academic honestly, now that you have been shown your error, you will retract your misinformed statements?[/quote]
The Fed’s purchasing of treasury bonds has a huge effect on keeping interest rates lower because treasury bonds are sold at auction. The Fed Funds Rate is by no means the only way they have of supressing interest rates.
Now you can argue if they should or should not be doing that but their purchases at auction have supressed treasury rates which does indeed carry over to mortgage rates.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:The Fed’s purchasing of treasury bonds has a huge effect on keeping interest rates lower because treasury bonds are sold at auction. The Fed Funds Rate is by no means the only way they have of supressing interest rates.
Now you can argue if they should or should not be doing that but their purchases at auction have supressed treasury rates which does indeed carry over to mortgage rates.[/quote]
First of all, I note that you object without addressing any of the data which contradicts your statements.
Second of all, you say: “The Fed’s purchasing of treasury bonds has a huge effect on keeping interest rates lower because treasury bonds are sold at auction.”
True, true, but it is primarily long-term rates we are interested in here. These long-term rates are primarily influenced by expectations of inflation.
“The Fed Funds Rate is by no means the only way they have of supressing interest rates.”
Well then, by all means, tell me how else they are responsible for keeping mortgage rates low. Explain yourself.
After you are done with that, explain how this Fed action was responsible for the housing bubbles in Europe.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:The Fed’s purchasing of treasury bonds has a huge effect on keeping interest rates lower because treasury bonds are sold at auction. The Fed Funds Rate is by no means the only way they have of supressing interest rates.
Now you can argue if they should or should not be doing that but their purchases at auction have supressed treasury rates which does indeed carry over to mortgage rates.[/quote]
First of all, I note that you object without addressing any of the data which contradicts your statements.
Second of all, you say: “The Fed’s purchasing of treasury bonds has a huge effect on keeping interest rates lower because treasury bonds are sold at auction.”
True, true, but it is primarily long-term rates we are interested in here. These long-term rates are primarily influenced by expectations of inflation.
“The Fed Funds Rate is by no means the only way they have of supressing interest rates.”
Well then, by all means, tell me how else they are responsible for keeping mortgage rates low. Explain yourself.
After you are done with that, explain how this Fed action was responsible for the housing bubbles in Europe.
[/quote]
…speaking of the housing bubble, the whole thing started with democrats “fighting” to get the banks to relax their mortgage approval criteria so that those who wouldn’t qualify on the basis of their credit history/income previously would be able to do so.
Sweet baby Jesus, I will have to get to this tonight. All of my work and grown up shit is getting in the way of my internet forum debates.
When I see good evidence to the contrary, I will certainly do just that. It is why I stopped being a socialist about mid-way through college in the first place.
