Stupid Pilot Tricks - Insurance Co. Trying to Back Out

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...

snip

It means that citizens help other citizens, sharing their skill and good
fortune with the less able (ie: "the people"). In most civilized
circles
that is considered a "good" thing.

Yes, it is generally considered a "good thing", but forcing that
"sharing of skill and good fortune" is anathema to many people. Most
people realize that it's in their self interest to share some, but they
would like to exert control on the extent of the sharing. When
government goes and shares YOUR wealth beyond what you would do on your
own, there are some sour grapes.

....by those who do not accept that "it's in their self interest to share
some..." We can argue endlessly as to what is the appropriate share.


Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap
between
rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no
indication
that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just
a
matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and
fifteen.

I am flabbergasted every time that I hear the argument that "the market
system concentrates wealth", implying that there is a zero sum game
called "the market" where some people are the winners and everyone else
loses. The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce
more than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value,
and we go beyond that zero sum.

It is not the exchange that creates value. It is the work, the labour.
Free Enterprise encourages one to work, and I work to do something that you
need and in return you work to do something that I need, and we are both
better off and have something which we did not have before. The value of
your work was directly proportional to the "increased wealth" that it
created.

As long as Free Enterprise followed somewhat along that model, things worked
fine. It was very difficult for me to hide the value of my work from you,
or you to do so from me.

But along came big corporations and we shifted from placing a value on your
labour in terms of the incremental benefit it provides, and instead we
valuate it like any commodity.... if it is plentiful, we buy it low, use it,
sell its benefits high, and when we are done, we discard it.. It is no
longer "people", it is commodity. We have written it out of the equation as
far as being a "partner" in the creation of this wealth.

Instead, we place a "value" of your "company" and its "potential". This
"Value" that the Exchange creates can be very false, as in, say, Enron. Or
Nortel, Yahoo, about any other tech company pre-early-2000. I would say THAT
little piece of market history certainly WAS a zero-sum game with winners
and losers, even a negative-sum game.

Does the market create the opportunity
for some individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT
because of skin off of anyone else's back. So we have a bunch of people
that benefited from their engagement in the market now more wealthy than
before, and some that also benefited from their engagement in the market
to a greater extent, sometimes becoming very wealthy. What is
inherently wrong with that?

Maybe nothing. Unless, as pointed out above, the share of the total benefit
that resulted from that market "engagement" was inappropriately divided
amongst the players. Maybe the "very wealthy" would only have become
"moderately wealthy", had the benefits been divided equitably. We can argue
endlessly about what constitutes an equitable division.

There might be a large gap, but the fact
remains that those at the bottom are still better off than before. In a
well regulated market (which bars monopoly and dishonesty), the overall
effect is that everyone is better off.


"Which bars monopoly and dishonesty...." Isn't it interesting that the "free
market" has been unable to do this, with quite spectacular results for some
of those investors (and workers) who were hoping to benefit from its
"opportunity"...


The best feature of the market economy and freedom is that rich and poor
do not remain in either of those classes for very long. There is
economic mobility that sees people creating value and becoming richer
and rich people that become complacent and become poorer.

Very true in the original Free Enterprise model where my labour and your
labour were valued by their contribution to the increase in wealth. Less
so, today, because they are not, they are valued as a commodity. Very
difficult to live my life over.... if I chose a skill that looked good 10
years ago, and puts me on amongst the pink slips today, very difficult to
have "economic mobility"...


This is why a
revolution is NOT inevitable, as you suggest. Why have a revolution
that makes us all equal, but equally miserable, when I could work a
while, start a business, and bring myself and my family to riches?


A revolution is not inevitable because, first of all, the government is a
lot more Socialist that it cares to admit. Minutes ago there was an
announcement that Mel Brooks will shoot a film version of "The Producers" in
New York, because of new Tax breaks for the film industry.

It is also not inevitable because, once in a long while, some sanity does
prevail amongst the electorate and the elected.


Unless, of course, the "government" clamps down on the revolutionaries
with
military might, in which case we have something akin to feudalism or
dictatorship, as in any number of countries you could point at recently,
or
even today.

Whoa, hold on there. There is no need for revolution. This is a
democratic country - those "revolutionaries" could simply run for
office. Luckily their ideas are so far removed from the values of most
Americans that they won't stand a chance in hell getting elected.

"could simply run for office..." Well, yes, they could, provided they had
the money to do so.

Democracy used to pretend to work that way, but a few things have changed.
For one, a long time ago, the mainstream media use to educate the public
about the policy proposals, and would provide a myriad of editorial
opionions about the perceived consequences. The media today has merged into
just a few (loud and obnoxious) voices that has largely abandoned rational
thought in favor of partisan political spin. They have totally abrogated
their watch-dog responsibilities in favor of scooping the sensational,
sound-biting the important, and dwelling on the incidental.... It has become
more important to sell a lot of Viagra or whatever, than to inform the
public.

It is pretty hilarious that the most rational political debates probably
occur on the late-night-comedy talk shows.


We know what has made this country great, and it's not government control
of the economy!

Yes, I notice that. See the discussion of Governor Pataki and tax breaks,
above, or search google about farm and lumber subsidies, for a start.





The founding Fathers wrote in some stuff to prevent that. I hope it is
still holding up???

Yes, the founding fathers wrote in some pretty neat stuff about
governing this nation, protecting freedom of speech, while at the same
time protecting EVERYONE's life and liberty. That excludes
"revolutionaries" that wish to impose their will on others by means
other than democratic election. The government does not have the
authority to "clamp down on revolutionaries with military might" under
our constitution unless they are breaking the law.

.... mmm ... I'd like to think that. But they DO have the right to "clamp
down" and invade the privacy of people who are NOT breaking the law, but are
under suspicion that they MIGHT do so one day in the unspecified future???


So the Communist
Party USA can operates as freely as it wants, so long as they are not
breaking any laws. Laws that are checked by our judicial branch and
that must be constitutional. Although it is constantly under
bombardment, the constitution is still holding up.

How well would it hold up under socialism/communism? I assert that it
couldn't.



Of, for sure not, under a socialist or communist dictatorship.... But be
very careful that democracy-for-the-well-connected,
Free-Enterprise-but-not-quite-for-everybody, or
Freedom-if-you're-not-suspicious.... does not slowly slide into
dictatorship, also.


--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

Icebound wrote:

It is not the exchange that creates value. It is the work, the labour.

In fact, it is both. If you have something that you value at 10 but I value
at 15, and I buy it from you for 12, then the net value has increased: I've
gained 3 and you've gained 2.

This doesn't only apply to things; services are subject to the same effect.

This is also why investment works. I give you 10 to use for a while. You
use it to make 5 more, and pay me back 12.

Sure, work plays a role too. But if we assume that you bought labor
(another word for "service") with that 10 I loaned to you, then absent the
loan of 10 that service could never have been purchased.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Icebound wrote:

It is not the exchange that creates value. It is the work, the labour.

In fact, it is both. If you have something that you value at 10 but I
value
at 15, and I buy it from you for 12, then the net value has increased:
I've
gained 3 and you've gained 2.


Well, yes and no. The "net value" has not really increased. It is just
that I did not recognize the true value because there is information that I
did not have. Part of what I said earlier about the ability to hide the
worth of work. One reason the rich-poor gap grows is because one of those
segments has the better ability to understand and "hide" the value of work.

Now if you had bought it for 12, added some work to improve it, then sold it
for 15, that's a different story.


This doesn't only apply to things; services are subject to the same
effect.

This is also why investment works. I give you 10 to use for a while. You
use it to make 5 more, and pay me back 12.


Investment is a way of paying for the privilege of not doing labour and
that's okay, assuming that the original money was honestly earned in the
first place. You give me 10 and I put in some labour that adds value to
your 10 so that I can sell it for 15. I could not have achieved the result
without your 10, so I am happy to share the extra 5 with you. I give you
your original 10 plus 2 and only keep 3. In effect, you have received 2 for
MY work, but that's okay, I couldn't have done it without you.


Sure, work plays a role too. But if we assume that you bought labor
(another word for "service") with that 10 I loaned to you, then absent the
loan of 10 that service could never have been purchased.

Not exactly true. The provider of the "service" could "trust" me to
eventually compensate for his provision. Rather than you loaning me 10, he
can loan me the equivalent work. When I eventually "sold" the final
product, I would be able to give HIM the 12 and keep 3. You are simply a
convenient middle man, so that he does not have to do that. Without you, he
would have been happy with 1.5, but you have overhead keeping track of all
those you loan to, and you ARE providing some additional convenience, so you
need something more.

...by those who do not accept that "it's in their self interest to share
some..." We can argue endlessly as to what is the appropriate share.

Yes, and it's an argument we have all the time in public discourse. The
line ebbs and flows one way or the other, but at any given time is at an
equilibrium responding to the prevailing economic conditions and
national mood. When people have a vote, they sway it one way or the
other, and that's the way it should be.


Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap

between

rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no

indication

that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just

a

matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and

fifteen.

I am flabbergasted every time that I hear the argument that "the market
system concentrates wealth", implying that there is a zero sum game
called "the market" where some people are the winners and everyone else
loses. The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce
more than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value,
and we go beyond that zero sum.


It is not the exchange that creates value. It is the work, the labour.
Free Enterprise encourages one to work, and I work to do something that you
need and in return you work to do something that I need, and we are both
better off and have something which we did not have before. The value of
your work was directly proportional to the "increased wealth" that it
created.

I still maintain that it's the exchange that creates the value - since
each person's labor is not worth as much before the exchange. If I
value my labor at $10 and you value my labor at $15 and we agree on a
price of $12, then you gained $3 after the exchange and got a good deal
exactly as I gained $2 above my break even point. We both won!

As long as Free Enterprise followed somewhat along that model, things worked
fine. It was very difficult for me to hide the value of my work from you,
or you to do so from me.

Hide the value of your work from me?!? The value of my work is worth to
you exactly what you are willing to pay - it has nothing to do with how
much it costs me. A case in point is a baseball card. It's essentially
worthless, but people are willing to pay for them much more than what
they cost to produce. This is a very important point, and fundamental to
the capitalist system. The BUYERS set the price.

But along came big corporations and we shifted from placing a value on your
labour in terms of the incremental benefit it provides, and instead we
valuate it like any commodity.... if it is plentiful, we buy it low, use it,
sell its benefits high, and when we are done, we discard it.. It is no
longer "people", it is commodity. We have written it out of the equation as
far as being a "partner" in the creation of this wealth.

Do you consider YOUR labor to be a commodity? Are you like everyone
else? Are you not more proficient in some skills than others at the
same skills? This is communist thinking - everything is the same!

In point of fact, every person is unique and has a unique set of skills,
traits, and abilities. Corporations and small businesses go out of
their way and pay big bucks to find those that have particular skills or
sets of skills and attract and retain those people. Sir, you are wrong,
people are NOT commodities, and businesses don't act as if they were.
If a person feels underpaid in their current situation, in a free market
system they have more options than in any other system, including
furthering their education to get a better job, finding a job that
capitalizes on other strengths they may possess, or striking out on
their own by starting their own business.

That last one is one of the reasons that Americans are paid as much as
they are - there is a certain amount of money that American businesses
must pay their workers to keep them from leaving for greener pastures.
The easier it is to start a new business, the more pressure on current
businesses to pay higher salaries. This is important to keep in mind in
light of the fact that starting a business becomes a much more difficult
choice if government regulation strangles new business creation.

This has more info on this point:
http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/ar...dence_o_3.html

Instead, we place a "value" of your "company" and its "potential". This
"Value" that the Exchange creates can be very false, as in, say, Enron. Or
Nortel, Yahoo, about any other tech company pre-early-2000. I would say THAT
little piece of market history certainly WAS a zero-sum game with winners
and losers, even a negative-sum game.


Who placed a "Value" on the "Potential?" The BUYERS of the stock!
Speculation is something that humans do. All of those people KNEW that
there is no guarantee of return. They knew that they could lose some or
all of their money playing that game. But if we wouldn't have people
willing to invest and risk capital, where would we be? If you look at
the big picture, not little snippets of time, you will see that overall
we have seen AMAZING growth and AMAZING improvements in standards of
living over the course of the last 100 years, bringing unprecedented
prosperity to Americans and more and more of the world. No sir, this is
no zero sum game!

Does the market create the opportunity
for some individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT
because of skin off of anyone else's back. So we have a bunch of people
that benefited from their engagement in the market now more wealthy than
before, and some that also benefited from their engagement in the market
to a greater extent, sometimes becoming very wealthy. What is
inherently wrong with that?


Maybe nothing. Unless, as pointed out above, the share of the total benefit
that resulted from that market "engagement" was inappropriately divided
amongst the players. Maybe the "very wealthy" would only have become
"moderately wealthy", had the benefits been divided equitably. We can argue
endlessly about what constitutes an equitable division.


Who decides what is appropriate and inappropriate? Should people that
never invested have gotten to ride other people's coattails? If you
don't throw your hat in the ring, you don't get to play. The
interesting twist to all of this is that indeed many people DID get to
ride investor's and entrepreneur's coattails, in that the progressive
tax system transfers money from the affluent to the poor. We had a
surge of tax money that financed all sorts of social programs, defense,
education, as well as balancing the budget and paying down our national
debt. This at a time when the bottom 20% of earners in the U.S. paid
exactly ZERO income taxes. They got to ride coattails, no? Is that
equitable?

Now, before you jump all over me, let me state that I actually think the
progressive tax system is overall a good thing. But it just galls me
when people conveniently forget who's paying who's way, and still
complain about "inequities".

There might be a large gap, but the fact
remains that those at the bottom are still better off than before. In a
well regulated market (which bars monopoly and dishonesty), the overall
effect is that everyone is better off.



"Which bars monopoly and dishonesty...." Isn't it interesting that the "free
market" has been unable to do this, with quite spectacular results for some
of those investors (and workers) who were hoping to benefit from its
"opportunity"...


The market system punishes dishonesty better than ANY other system.
Just take a look at the dishonesty and corruption that socialist planned
economies brought about. Who got in trouble for Chernobyl? Who got in
trouble when there was bread only on Tuesdays and Fridays from 3PM to
5PM? Take a look closer to home - the dishonesty and corruption that
happens with any number of government programs, including, on the grand
scale, mismanagement of the treasury by getting us into HUGE deficits.
Who is punished? Who is held accountable? The market at least punished
the Enrons of the world. They are no longer around. The regulators
that were supposed to watch the industry are finally getting back on the
right path, and that is appropriate. But the punishment has already
been swift and severe, courtesy of the market, which makes it less
likely it will happen again.


The best feature of the market economy and freedom is that rich and poor
do not remain in either of those classes for very long. There is
economic mobility that sees people creating value and becoming richer
and rich people that become complacent and become poorer.


Very true in the original Free Enterprise model where my labour and your
labour were valued by their contribution to the increase in wealth. Less
so, today, because they are not, they are valued as a commodity. Very
difficult to live my life over.... if I chose a skill that looked good 10
years ago, and puts me on amongst the pink slips today, very difficult to
have "economic mobility"...


Back to the commodity argument... Once again, no one is a commodity!
Even if you chose ten years ago to specialize in a particular skillset,
you would have plenty of skills besides the one that is no longer as
highly valued. Use what you have to do as well as you can. No one will
pay for people to sit on their bum (except maybe the government, but
only for a period of time).

I understand that it's difficult for people to change tacks mid-career.
But that's just life - we must adapt to prevailing conditions. There
is a reality out there that precludes lifetime employment for most
people. If the fortune 500 of 100 years ago only has one original
member still in it today (GE), then what makes one think that they
personally will not need to also adapt and change? It's tough, but it's
the only realistic outlook to have. Luckily most people in the
workforce have more than one skill, and can eventually find something
else to do that is productive enough to make a living. The buggy whip
makers did not all starve to death when the automobile became commonplace!


This is why a
revolution is NOT inevitable, as you suggest. Why have a revolution
that makes us all equal, but equally miserable, when I could work a
while, start a business, and bring myself and my family to riches?



A revolution is not inevitable because, first of all, the government is a
lot more Socialist that it cares to admit. Minutes ago there was an
announcement that Mel Brooks will shoot a film version of "The Producers" in
New York, because of new Tax breaks for the film industry.

It is also not inevitable because, once in a long while, some sanity does
prevail amongst the electorate and the elected.


Here we agree. I mentioned earlier that there is a constant tug of war
in terms of how much socialism we should have, and that I am not opposed
to some of it. But I do like to stand up and reiterate that we should
be careful how far we go with it, because having been born in a rather
socialist state and having lived in Europe, I know that it can really go
too far. There has to be a balance, and I advocate a balance that does
not kill the business and commerce side, which makes everything else
possible.

Unless, of course, the "government" clamps down on the revolutionaries

with

military might, in which case we have something akin to feudalism or
dictatorship, as in any number of countries you could point at recently,

or

even today.

Whoa, hold on there. There is no need for revolution. This is a
democratic country - those "revolutionaries" could simply run for
office. Luckily their ideas are so far removed from the values of most
Americans that they won't stand a chance in hell getting elected.


"could simply run for office..." Well, yes, they could, provided they had
the money to do so.

Democracy used to pretend to work that way, but a few things have changed.
For one, a long time ago, the mainstream media use to educate the public
about the policy proposals, and would provide a myriad of editorial
opionions about the perceived consequences. The media today has merged into
just a few (loud and obnoxious) voices that has largely abandoned rational
thought in favor of partisan political spin. They have totally abrogated
their watch-dog responsibilities in favor of scooping the sensational,
sound-biting the important, and dwelling on the incidental.... It has become
more important to sell a lot of Viagra or whatever, than to inform the
public.

It is pretty hilarious that the most rational political debates probably
occur on the late-night-comedy talk shows.


Nothing has changed. The people running the presses have always been
quite powerful. The good thing is that today, the cost to own your own
press is a small barrier to entry. Grassroots organizations have
mobilized millions of people for and against the current administration,
and the charges of mainstream media bias are way overblown. And in any
case, for CNN's alleged liberal bias there is Fox's alleged conservative
bias. There is no such thing as completely unbiased journalism, but if
you look at the big picture, media outlets generally shy away from going
too far one way or the other lest they alienate too many people.

Having said that, I must profess my love for the Daily Show :-)


We know what has made this country great, and it's not government control
of the economy!


Yes, I notice that. See the discussion of Governor Pataki and tax breaks,
above, or search google about farm and lumber subsidies, for a start.


I happen to be against most subsidies. They distort the market and
trade. They are generally inappropriate.



The founding Fathers wrote in some stuff to prevent that. I hope it is
still holding up???

Yes, the founding fathers wrote in some pretty neat stuff about
governing this nation, protecting freedom of speech, while at the same
time protecting EVERYONE's life and liberty. That excludes
"revolutionaries" that wish to impose their will on others by means
other than democratic election. The government does not have the
authority to "clamp down on revolutionaries with military might" under
our constitution unless they are breaking the law.


... mmm ... I'd like to think that. But they DO have the right to "clamp
down" and invade the privacy of people who are NOT breaking the law, but are
under suspicion that they MIGHT do so one day in the unspecified future???


I don't agree with this either. I alluded to this in my next line.
Security vs. Liberty is as tough of a debate as the debate about how
much progressivity there should be in the tax system, except with higher
stakes. I tend to side with the Liberty side, but understand some
security concessions. This doesn't include what you just remarked about.


So the Communist
Party USA can operates as freely as it wants, so long as they are not
breaking any laws. Laws that are checked by our judicial branch and
that must be constitutional. Although it is constantly under
bombardment, the constitution is still holding up.

How well would it hold up under socialism/communism? I assert that it
couldn't.




Of, for sure not, under a socialist or communist dictatorship.... But be
very careful that democracy-for-the-well-connected,
Free-Enterprise-but-not-quite-for-everybody, or
Freedom-if-you're-not-suspicious.... does not slowly slide into
dictatorship, also.

Hey man, I'm on your side there. There is constant pressure to distort
and manipulate the interpretation of the constitution, and that is 100%
to be expected. My conclusion, having said that, is that we must be
ever vigilant as Americans about fighting for upholding our rights and
making this country as good as it can be. As long as no one side gets to
dominate, we'll have a nice, moderate set of policies that don't cause
revolutions.

-Aviv

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...



...by those who do not accept that "it's in their self interest to share
some..." We can argue endlessly as to what is the appropriate share.

Yes, and it's an argument we have all the time in public discourse. The
line ebbs and flows one way or the other, but at any given time is at an
equilibrium responding to the prevailing economic conditions and
national mood. When people have a vote, they sway it one way or the
other, and that's the way it should be.


Perhaps a return to those concepts WOULD be "a huge step forward".

The pure "market" is not so perfect, either, producting its own set of
problems. It continues to concentrate wealth, and spread the gap

between

rich and poor.... If that continues, (and right now there is no

indication

that it will not), the ultimate result will be civil revolution... just

a

matter of whether it is reached in fifteen years, or a hundred and

fifteen.

I am flabbergasted every time that I hear the argument that "the market
system concentrates wealth", implying that there is a zero sum game
called "the market" where some people are the winners and everyone else
loses. The market system is the only system where all the participants,
under normal circumstances, benefit from their engagement in commerce
more than before their engagement. The exchange itself CREATES value,
and we go beyond that zero sum.


It is not the exchange that creates value. It is the work, the labour.
Free Enterprise encourages one to work, and I work to do something that
you
need and in return you work to do something that I need, and we are both
better off and have something which we did not have before. The value
of
your work was directly proportional to the "increased wealth" that it
created.

I still maintain that it's the exchange that creates the value - since
each person's labor is not worth as much before the exchange. If I
value my labor at $10 and you value my labor at $15 and we agree on a
price of $12, then you gained $3 after the exchange and got a good deal
exactly as I gained $2 above my break even point. We both won!


I am afraid I have to disagree. If we value the same labour differently,
one of us does not have all the relevant information, and so the one with
the incorrect information "loses". Eventually, that labour will produce
something which I will market for N. If N is more than 12, You lose, I win.
If N is less than 12, I lose, you win.


As long as Free Enterprise followed somewhat along that model, things
worked
fine. It was very difficult for me to hide the value of my work from
you,
or you to do so from me.

Hide the value of your work from me?!? The value of my work is worth to
you exactly what you are willing to pay - it has nothing to do with how
much it costs me. A case in point is a baseball card. It's essentially
worthless, but people are willing to pay for them much more than what
they cost to produce. This is a very important point, and fundamental to
the capitalist system. The BUYERS set the price.


A price, set by the BUYERS in this way, has nothing to do with "value". A
price of a baseball card is simply "inflation-deflation". In the meaningful
economy we introduce measures to curb these.


But along came big corporations and we shifted from placing a value on
your
labour in terms of the incremental benefit it provides, and instead we
valuate it like any commodity.... if it is plentiful, we buy it low, use
it,
sell its benefits high, and when we are done, we discard it.. It is no
longer "people", it is commodity. We have written it out of the equation
as
far as being a "partner" in the creation of this wealth.

Do you consider YOUR labor to be a commodity? Are you like everyone
else? Are you not more proficient in some skills than others at the
same skills? This is communist thinking - everything is the same!

In point of fact, every person is unique and has a unique set of skills,
traits, and abilities. Corporations and small businesses go out of
their way and pay big bucks to find those that have particular skills or
sets of skills and attract and retain those people. Sir, you are wrong,
people are NOT commodities, and businesses don't act as if they were.

....mmm.... 300-thousand jobs per year leaving the high-paid US to low-paid
third world countries suggests to me the labour IS being treated as a
commodity.

If a person feels underpaid in their current situation, in a free market
system they have more options than in any other system, including
furthering their education to get a better job, finding a job that
capitalizes on other strengths they may possess, or striking out on
their own by starting their own business.

That last one is one of the reasons that Americans are paid as much as
they are - there is a certain amount of money that American businesses
must pay their workers to keep them from leaving for greener pastures.
The easier it is to start a new business, the more pressure on current
businesses to pay higher salaries. This is important to keep in mind in
light of the fact that starting a business becomes a much more difficult
choice if government regulation strangles new business creation.

This has more info on this point:
http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/ar...dence_o_3.html


One of the reasons for the increased regulation is because history shows
that in our rush to have a "bouyant economy", we chose some short-cuts with
respect to the health of the population and the environment, and we left
some toxic garbage around whose cleanup was never really figured into the
cost of doing business.

Admitedly, that is not to say that all regulation is good and productive,
but it should not be dismissed out of hand.


Instead, we place a "value" of your "company" and its "potential". This
"Value" that the Exchange creates can be very false, as in, say, Enron.
Or
Nortel, Yahoo, about any other tech company pre-early-2000. I would say
THAT
little piece of market history certainly WAS a zero-sum game with
winners
and losers, even a negative-sum game.


Who placed a "Value" on the "Potential?" The BUYERS of the stock!
Speculation is something that humans do. All of those people KNEW that
there is no guarantee of return. They knew that they could lose some or
all of their money playing that game. But if we wouldn't have people
willing to invest and risk capital, where would we be? If you look at
the big picture, not little snippets of time, you will see that overall
we have seen AMAZING growth and AMAZING improvements in standards of
living over the course of the last 100 years, bringing unprecedented
prosperity to Americans and more and more of the world. No sir, this is
no zero sum game!

AMAZING growth and improvements in the overall economy do not come from the
growth in the price of stock. They came from the addition of real value
through the creation of goods and provision of services. In other words,
because of somebody's work.


Does the market create the opportunity
for some individuals to become extremely wealthy? Sure - but it's NOT
because of skin off of anyone else's back. So we have a bunch of people
that benefited from their engagement in the market now more wealthy than
before, and some that also benefited from their engagement in the market
to a greater extent, sometimes becoming very wealthy. What is
inherently wrong with that?


Maybe nothing. Unless, as pointed out above, the share of the total
benefit
that resulted from that market "engagement" was inappropriately divided
amongst the players. Maybe the "very wealthy" would only have become
"moderately wealthy", had the benefits been divided equitably. We can
argue
endlessly about what constitutes an equitable division.


Who decides what is appropriate and inappropriate? Should people that
never invested have gotten to ride other people's coattails? If you
don't throw your hat in the ring, you don't get to play. The
interesting twist to all of this is that indeed many people DID get to
ride investor's and entrepreneur's coattails, in that the progressive
tax system transfers money from the affluent to the poor. We had a
surge of tax money that financed all sorts of social programs, defense,
education, as well as balancing the budget and paying down our national
debt. This at a time when the bottom 20% of earners in the U.S. paid
exactly ZERO income taxes. They got to ride coattails, no? Is that
equitable?

Now, before you jump all over me, let me state that I actually think the
progressive tax system is overall a good thing. But it just galls me
when people conveniently forget who's paying who's way, and still
complain about "inequities".

....in the same way that it galls me when people constantly deride
"socialism" as some sort of sinister evil, when their very own economic
system depends on it to help adjust some of the imperfections of the "free
market" system.

The bottom 20% of earners may well have deserved to ride the coattails, if
their labor was undervalued in the overall scheme of things, or if they lost
out on other fiscal opportunities because they did not have access to the
same information that the rest had. Or not, but there too we can argue
forever.


There might be a large gap, but the fact
remains that those at the bottom are still better off than before. In a
well regulated market (which bars monopoly and dishonesty), the overall
effect is that everyone is better off.



"Which bars monopoly and dishonesty...." Isn't it interesting that the
"free
market" has been unable to do this, with quite spectacular results for
some
of those investors (and workers) who were hoping to benefit from its
"opportunity"...


The market system punishes dishonesty better than ANY other system.
Just take a look at the dishonesty and corruption that socialist planned
economies brought about. Who got in trouble for Chernobyl? Who got in
trouble when there was bread only on Tuesdays and Fridays from 3PM to
5PM?

I am certainly not advocating dictatorial socialism which did produce the
features which you cite. By the same token, I do not particularly fear
inserting a few useful "socialist" policies into a "free-market" democracy.

Take a look closer to home - the dishonesty and corruption that
happens with any number of government programs, including, on the grand
scale, mismanagement of the treasury by getting us into HUGE deficits.
Who is punished? Who is held accountable? The market at least punished
the Enrons of the world. They are no longer around. The regulators
that were supposed to watch the industry are finally getting back on the
right path, and that is appropriate. But the punishment has already
been swift and severe, courtesy of the market, which makes it less
likely it will happen again.


The market has "punished" thousands of innocent investors and workers. The
truly guilty are working their way through the courts independantly of the
"market".


The best feature of the market economy and freedom is that rich and poor
do not remain in either of those classes for very long. There is
economic mobility that sees people creating value and becoming richer
and rich people that become complacent and become poorer.


Very true in the original Free Enterprise model where my labour and your
labour were valued by their contribution to the increase in wealth.
Less
so, today, because they are not, they are valued as a commodity. Very
difficult to live my life over.... if I chose a skill that looked good
10
years ago, and puts me on amongst the pink slips today, very difficult
to
have "economic mobility"...


Back to the commodity argument... Once again, no one is a commodity!
Even if you chose ten years ago to specialize in a particular skillset,
you would have plenty of skills besides the one that is no longer as
highly valued. Use what you have to do as well as you can. No one will
pay for people to sit on their bum (except maybe the government, but
only for a period of time).

I understand that it's difficult for people to change tacks mid-career.
But that's just life - we must adapt to prevailing conditions. There
is a reality out there that precludes lifetime employment for most
people. If the fortune 500 of 100 years ago only has one original
member still in it today (GE), then what makes one think that they
personally will not need to also adapt and change? It's tough, but it's
the only realistic outlook to have. Luckily most people in the
workforce have more than one skill, and can eventually find something
else to do that is productive enough to make a living. The buggy whip
makers did not all starve to death when the automobile became commonplace!



See my comment on jobs leaving the USA, above.

This is why a
revolution is NOT inevitable, as you suggest. Why have a revolution
that makes us all equal, but equally miserable, when I could work a
while, start a business, and bring myself and my family to riches?



A revolution is not inevitable because, first of all, the government is
a
lot more Socialist that it cares to admit. Minutes ago there was an
announcement that Mel Brooks will shoot a film version of "The
Producers" in
New York, because of new Tax breaks for the film industry.

It is also not inevitable because, once in a long while, some sanity
does
prevail amongst the electorate and the elected.


Here we agree. I mentioned earlier that there is a constant tug of war
in terms of how much socialism we should have, and that I am not opposed
to some of it. But I do like to stand up and reiterate that we should
be careful how far we go with it, because having been born in a rather
socialist state and having lived in Europe, I know that it can really go
too far. There has to be a balance, and I advocate a balance that does
not kill the business and commerce side, which makes everything else
possible.



We agree on a lot more that might seem at first glance.

1. I favor and am part of the "free-market" economy.
2. I advocate the insertion of "socialist" policies because the
"free-market" economy is far from perfect and requires a reasonable
regulation.
3. I dislike the implication that socialist policies are inherently evil,
and that countries which advocate them are somehow not to be trusted.
Socialist dictatorships are one thing. But "free-market" economies would be
out of control without some "socialist" regulation.

.... and in the interest of shortening this totally out-of-control
discussion, I have snipped the rest because we seem to have reached some
semblance of understanding...

If we value the same labour differently,
one of us does not have all the relevant information


Ice is more valuable to somebody with no freezer. My labor is more valuable to
somebody who can't do what I just did. My knowledge is more valuable to
somebody who is partly ignorant (and of no value to somebody who is wholely
ignorant or totally educated).

Sometimes the value of a thing (concrete or not) is based on circumstances, and
it doesn't take labor to change the circumstances. A diplomat can change the
value of an atomic bomb by talking. An atomic bomb can change the value of
milk if the diplomat doesn't talk well.

What is the value of water in a bottle? Why is one person willing to pay $5
and the person next to her unwilling to even carry it to the car if it's free?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

If we value the same labour differently,
one of us does not have all the relevant information


Ice is more valuable to somebody with no freezer.

No, the person with the freezer may not have a need to buy ice, but if he
DOES buy it, he should be buying it for exactly the same value of money or
labour which the person without a freezer would pay. That is because the
maker/vendor of the ice spent a certain amount on materials, overhead, and
expects a certain amount of profit, and it should be the same no matter who
the buyer. Otherwise it becomes an aberration of the free-market which we
call price-gouging.

My labor is more valuable to
somebody who can't do what I just did.

.... true, but in return, his labor is valuable to you because he can do what
you cannot. That provides both of you with an incentive to work and add
value to the economy.

My knowledge is more valuable to
somebody who is partly ignorant ...(and of no value to somebody who is
wholely
ignorant or totally educated).

Your knowledge means something only when it is combined with labour to
create additional value in the economy. If you use the advantage of your
superior knowledge to undervalue someone elses labour, or distort facts
about contents and performance of a product, that is an aberration of the
free-market system which allows the wealthy to accumulate at the expense of
others, and even free market economies have to curtail that. I think one
example is called "insider trading".


Sometimes the value of a thing (concrete or not) is based on
circumstances, and
it doesn't take labor to change the circumstances.

No, I don't believe that. Circumstances cause inflation or deflation, but
they do not change the base value. Inflation and deflation are considered
disruptive charateristics of an economy, which Mr. Greenspan and the
Government try to control. Disruptive circumstances such as hurricanes or
desparation within segments of the poplulace cause short term price gouging
and the like. I would not consider this as a healthy aspect of a
free-market economy and we put mechanisms in place to control them. Does
that make these socialistic mechanisms bad policies?

A diplomat can change the
value of an atomic bomb by talking. An atomic bomb can change the value
of
milk if the diplomat doesn't talk well.

We are not talking politics here, we are talking economy.

A bomb is a negative on the economy, because if it is not used, it has
wasted labor, and if it IS used, it will destroy the fruits of other labor.
If it is used to destroy other bombs, that only means that somebody else's
labour was also wasted in the creation of THOSE bombs, and on and on in a
vicious circle. Building and using bombs is a presumption that we WILL have
losses, and all we are doing is cutting the losses, rather than attempting
to improve our growth.


What is the value of water in a bottle? Why is one person willing to pay
$5
and the person next to her unwilling to even carry it to the car if it's
free?


Because one of those people does not have all the information. Thus one of
these people is a "loser" in the economy. This has been argued several posts
back.

A free-and-open-market economy is not meant to have "losers". I do a little
work for you, you do a little work for me, we both gain. ...and so on and so
on.... If I choose to do little, I gain less than the guy who does more.
But this concept has morphed into something considerably different, where it
has become much easier to "win" (and lose), and where there are blatant
attempts to hide information so that a losers are created such that the rest
of us can win. Governemnts try to control this, (and to compensate for the
Market's errors) with a few socialistic policies.

This does not make them evil agents of the communist devil.

Our OT time is up, we now return you to your regular programming.

No, the person with the freezer may not have a need to buy ice, but if he
DOES buy it, he should be buying it for exactly the same value of money or
labour which the person without a freezer would pay. That is because the
maker/vendor of the ice spent a certain amount on materials, overhead, and
expects a certain amount of profit, and it should be the same no matter who
the buyer. Otherwise it becomes an aberration of the free-market which we
call price-gouging.


There is no reason that he =should= be buying it for exactly the same price.
Who is going to dictate that price? (especially if you reject the idea that
the individuals who =make=up= the market shouldn't.


My labor is more valuable to
somebody who can't do what I just did.

.... true, but in return, his labor is valuable to you because he can do what
you cannot. That provides both of you with an incentive to work and add
value to the economy.


While this (incentive thing) may be true, it is irrelevant to my point, which
is that my labor (or anything) does not have a fixed value, but a value that is
dependent on to whom, when, and how it is presented. Just like ice to eskimos.


Your knowledge means something only when it is combined with labour to
create additional value in the economy.


My knowledge (such as of a better process) can allow me to =avoid= labor. It
can allow me to get along =without= buying something. It can keep me healthy
in the face of McDonalds. It can keep my airplane (obligatory reference) out
of the repair shop, and it can do so =without= labor. Giving this knowlege to
others (free or at a price) to allow them to reap the same benefits is of
value, but only to those who don't have that knowlege already, and know that it
would be helpful to them.

Disruptive circumstances such as hurricanes...

Hurricaines and such are not disruptive; we only see them that way because we
look short term. An engine overhaul is not an "extraordinary disruptive
expense" either. It is an expected part of flying, and one the intellegent
airplane owner counts on having (see my knowledge point above). It's
disruptive only if you do not have a reserve built in. "The market" does not
build in a reserve for hurricaines, though the insurance industry makes a
start.

[re. A-bombs and milk] We are not talking politics here, we are talking
economy.

They are interrelated. I have a piece of land I'd like to develop. It's zoned
for four acre housing, and is vacant. I can sell it for no more than $10,000
an acre. I make nice to the town council, they vote to rezone the land for
"mixed use", which includes businesses and quarter acre housing. Now I can
sell this land for ten times as much. It's the same land.


What is the value of water in a bottle? Why is one person willing to pay $5
and the person next to her unwilling to even carry it to the car if it's
free?


Because one of those people does not have all the information. Thus one of
these people is a "loser" in the economy.


Nope. One person is not thirsty and has good tap water at home. The other has
tap water that tastes of salt and chlorine. It has nothing to do with
information, and everything to do with circumstances. Nobody is a loser.

So how much is the water "worth"? The real answer is "to whom?". The concept
of "the market" is a convenient abbreviation for very complex forces, and is
very useful. However, when examined too closely, it fails.

This is ok... it's just a convenient moniker. But don't mistake it for a real
force in its own right.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

There is no reason that he =should= be buying it for exactly the same
price.

The idea of a fixed price, as opposed to each transaction involving
negotiation, is a relatively recent innovation. How this innovation has
become a Law of the Universe, I cannot say.

But look at how angry people became when Amazon experimented with the old
fashioned approach.

Apparently, the "shopping for the lowest price" permitted by the Internet is
a Good Thing, while "shopping for the consumer willing to pay the highest
price" is a Bad Thing.

No, that's not quite right. This is accepted in auctions. Maybe only
stores aren't permitted to work in their own best interests.

- Andrew

What you folks are discussing is known to economists as "pricing
discrimination," and it is rampant in the American economy.

It would be an exaggeration to say that "everybody does it," but not
by much.

It would take me all night to list all the examples of pricing
discrimination I know about, and I'm sure I don't know about all of
them. Movie theatres charge more at night than in the afternoon, and
charge kids less than adults. Miami hotels charge less in summer than
in winter. Airline fares are notoriously discriminitory. The bus
line in this town lets old folks ride free--the ultimate in pricing
discrimination. Many if not most maker of brand-name products sell
the same product to chain drug stores and supermarkets at lower
prices, to be sold as generics or private labels.

Some pricing discrimination is requried by law. For example,
hospitals that receive federal funding are required to treat indigent
patients free of charge.

vince norris