If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bob:
That was the fine print on page 13 of the Avemco insurance policy. Have a great one! Bush On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:47:04 -0400, "Bob Chilcoat" wrote: Apparently, the insurance co of the pilot who lost his amphibious float plane on landing (see "Stupid Pilot Tricks" and Followup a couple of weeks ago) and parked it in a hangar with a Comanche already inside, is trying to get out of paying anything since the pilot was on drugs. Not surprising, but that leaves the owners of the two other planes involved and the airport (hangar owners) with no recourse but to claim on their own insurance. I guess this is just the way it works, but it's a shame that the pilot's insurance won't at least pay the innocent parties' claims and then go after the pilot themselves. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote:
"Aviv Hod" wrote in message ... [...] 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. 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. Your description sounds great. I wish that's how things really worked. The truth is that the wealthy use their wealth to protect their wealth, even to increase it, while at the same time to prevent the poor from getting wealthy. How do the wealthy prevent the poor from getting wealthy?!? Is there a diabolical scheme that keeps the rich busy plotting how to keep everyone else poor? That is so ridiculous! The biggest factor in determining how well a person does in this country is still down to individual choices, not anyone putting anyone else down. Does every wealthy person behave this way? No. But plenty do, and enough do that it's a serious problem. Only in a first grade schoolchild's fantasy is it true that everyone has equal opportunity, and any random poor person can become wealthy through simple hard work and perseverence. I'm not saying that everyone grows up in the exact same environment and has exactly the same opportunities. But apparently unlike you, I DO believe that hard work, perseverance, making correct (sometimes difficult) choices, and maybe a little bit of luck is what it takes for ANYONE to make it in the United States. I am not an ideological purist or a rabid Libertarian, so I also happen to think that some of the social programs and things like the progressive tax system and free public education (from which I benefited) is important for giving everyone a relatively fair shake and an honest attempt at an equal opportunity. We have those things, and that is why I believe that those that have the drive, talent, and ambition in this country can make it. No rich person will get in their way. More likely than not, the rich people will be the ones that enable the poor person's success, by paying for their talents with a nice salary or buying the poor entrepreneur's products and services. Talk to anyone that has started a business. As a general rule, they start out pretty poor! -Aviv |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
...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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Icebound wrote:
...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. And many of the outsourcers are discovering the labour wasn't quite the commodity they thought it was. Sadly, there are too many Dilbert-style PHBs in management. As a defensive measure, I've shifted from a pure software development job to one that requires at least some on-site presence (someone has to install hardware and pull cables) instead of waiting like a lamb to the slaughter as the PHBs jump on the outsourcing bandwagon. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
More Stupid Govenment Tricks | john smith | Piloting | 8 | September 2nd 04 04:35 AM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
Stupid Pilot Tricks | David Dyer-Bennet | Piloting | 3 | October 19th 03 12:22 AM |