Fairness and Redistribution

[PoliticalChic]

Oldstyle:

I would invite you to consider the psychological roots of ambition. What, for example, drives anyone to try to possess more "stuff" than what they need? Why would anyone want to control people, or goverments, or societies? What is unique about individuals that are driven to hoard more and more money--far, far beyond what they need for personal sustainance?

What personal need drives ambitious people to elevate wealth over all other aspects in their lives?

So sad that you both lack education....and that you show it so easily.



1. “Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to society... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention” ― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1



2. “Just for fun, find a Marxist professor- who scoffs at the idea that people work less if they lose the incentive of money- how he would feel if his name were not put on the academic articles he published. Instead the articles would be published under the name of another academic who needed the recognition more than he did. After all…he would still have the satisfaction of having written the articles….His completely reasonable response would be that he earned’ the right to have his name on those articles, and denying him that measure of earned success is viciously unfair. Exactly.”
Arthur Brooks, “The Road to Freedom,” p. 26.

 

[Freemason9]

I'm sorry, PoliticalChic . . . but as much as I'd like to respond to your many and lengthy dissertations, I have neither the time nor desire to do so. By the time I finish reading your diatribes, I no longer recall the original context.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry if I made you blush PoliticalChic.

I'm not normally speechless.....but...




Thank you so much.

 

[Wiseacre]

Back to the issue of fairness vs redistribution. We're talking about taking wealth from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone else who has not. I see no moral or ethical way to justify that as "fair". One could say that a compassionate society should support those who cannot do support themselves, but the extent to which that is done and also the methods used are open to question. One could also make the argument that temporary support should be given to those who could support themselves but cannot due to misfortune or injury; most people are not adverse to giving a helping hand to get somebody else back and their feet and becoming productive again. Key word being temporary, when temporary stretches into year after year, at some point the aid has to stop or people become dependent and lose the motivation to provide for themselves.

But redistributing money to someone for the sole reason that they have less than someone else is not 'fair'. It is tantamount to theft, we should be looking at ways to improve opportunities for the lower income people so they can boost themselves up. I don't think most rich people mind a progressive tax rate, most are already very philanthropic with their wealth anyway. But when those tax rates get too high, at some point tax avoidance measures come into play and that is counter productive to the economic health of the country. The higher the tax rate, the more avoidance you get, and eventually they sell out, pack up, and leave. These people are very helpful to starting or expanding businesses, which grows the economy and creates jobs. That is why raising taxes on them when your economy is not strong is such a poor idea; you want them to be acively tring to make mney by investing inour economy rather than looking for ways to preserve what they already have.

In terms of economics, Wiseacre, I don't see redistribution (I prefer to call it, "distribution") as an option. If the working, productive persons in a society are not adequately compensated, then they will not spend money. If no money is spent, demand disappears; if demand disappears, there is no driver for production . . . and the economy collapses.


Let's start with the definition of "adequate". I presume you are talking about the so-called 'living wage', IOW paying somebody more than what the market will bear so they can live in a style to which they want to become accustomed. Sounds great, but that ain't realistic, nobody is going to pay an employee $20/hr when there are 10 other people who will do the same work just as well for $10. I do wish that particular foolish notion would disappear, it simply cannot and will not happen. As for the demand issue, I'll get to that later; it is IMHO a misconstrued as the living wage nonsense.


That is what is happening today. For some reason (I'll let you politicos hammer that out), too much wealth is concentrating in the non-producing top 1%--and far, far too little is being accrued (through labor compensation) to the working masses.


You say non-producing, I say otherwise. Capital and management are as necessary to production as anything else. And I have yet to hear of any economic idea that promotes full economic growth that does not benefit those at the top over those at the bottom.


This clearly cannot continue.

I have no problem with wealth, but the sort of divide that exists in the U.S. today is absolutely absurd. No society in history with this kind of concentrated and hoarded wealth has endured.


How many societies have endured for a long time where wealth wasn't concentrated? I am unaware of any gov't that redistributed income and remained prosperous. I would submit to you that prior to the industrial revolution, everyone outside of the nobility/royalty were living in abject poverty. I don't think you can say the same for today's lower income Americans.


This is insanity, and it's even crazier that so many Americans insist that it's okay.

Is it okay? Well, no. We oughta be taking steps to encourage more competition, improve our education and training systems so more people have more options. I think our largest corps are too big, the real answer to 'too big to fail' is to not allow any company to get that big in the first place. We should be making it easier to start a business, and creating a more favorable business climate to do so.

Now, about that demand issue. That is the standard liberal democrat answer, it's always spend more money with no regard for where it comes from. And no evidence either that it'll actually work. First off, we aren't in a position to provide that much money to that many people on a sustained basis. You just can't get that much in extra revenue from the top 1 or 2%, you're just not. Which means you gotta borrow it. And that means you gotta pay interest on whatever you owe. You guys always assume people that get redistributed wealth will spend it all; really, where's the data to support that conclusion? In times like these, I'd suspect a whole lot of people are going to save as much of it as possible to make sure they can make their payments, or save it for when bad times hit again.

Over the past couple of years we cut the SS tax rate down for employees so they end up up with extra money to spend. And it wasn't that insignificant either, but what good has it done? Has the economy taken off when I wasn't looking? We're still just barely scraping by just above stall speed, and this is after the famous Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate anything. So let me ask you something:

How long do you think the gov't can subsidize economic growth by redistributing wealth? And how much more money will it take to achieve it? And how can you possibly think there won't be consequences to taking wealth from those who earned it? And here's the really big question: why should I believe that whatever your answers are could be correct, you guys really fucked up the last time.

 

[Freemason9]

Well, if we're diggin' copy-and-paste quotations from famous folks of antiquity (namely, Adam Smith):

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."

AND

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”

AND

“When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.”

Right back atcha.

 

[Freemason9]

Is it okay? Well, no. We oughta be taking steps to encourage more competition, improve our education and training systems so more people have more options. I think our largest corps are too big, the real answer to 'too big to fail' is to not allow any company to get that big in the first place. We should be making it easier to start a business, and creating a more favorable business climate to do so.

Now, about that demand issue. That is the standard liberal democrat answer, it's always spend more money with no regard for where it comes from. And no evidence either that it'll actually work. First off, we aren't in a position to provide that much money to that many people on a sustained basis. You just can't get that much in extra revenue from the top 1 or 2%, you're just not. Which means you gotta borrow it. And that means you gotta pay interest on whatever you owe. You guys always assume people that get redistributed wealth will spend it all; really, where's the data to support that conclusion? In times like these, I'd suspect a whole lot of people are going to save as much of it as possible to make sure they can make their payments, or save it for when bad times hit again.

Over the past couple of years we cut the SS tax rate down for employees so they end up up with extra money to spend. And it wasn't that insignificant either, but what good has it done? Has the economy taken off when I wasn't looking? We're still just barely scraping by just above stall speed, and this is after the famous Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate anything. So let me ask you something:

How long do you think the gov't can subsidize economic growth by redistributing wealth? And how much more money will it take to achieve it? And how can you possibly think there won't be consequences to taking wealth from those who earned it? And here's the really big question: why should I believe that whatever your answers are could be correct, you guys really fucked up the last time.

Wait, wiseacre, that's not what I'm getting at at all. You seem to think that wealth "redistribution" happens through tax policy--no, Giant Federal Deficits happen through tax policy. The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, labor unions (imperfect though they were) provided a way for workers to claim profits of their labor. Since Reagan made them illegal in the 1980's, though (the right wing always goes after labor), the middle class has basically collapsed. So has union membership, and that isn't accidental.

Labor creates everything--everything, and all wealth. Shareholders place a claim on labor through concentrated holdings of dollars. A dollar, after all, is nothing more than a claim on labor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, if we're diggin' copy-and-paste quotations from famous folks of antiquity (namely, Adam Smith):

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."

AND

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”

AND

“When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.”

Right back atcha.

WHAT?????


No Karl Marx???



"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

OMG....and all this time I thought you were from the United States...

 

[Freemason9]

Try these from Marx:

"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks."

AND

"Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society."

AND

"While the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is it okay? Well, no. We oughta be taking steps to encourage more competition, improve our education and training systems so more people have more options. I think our largest corps are too big, the real answer to 'too big to fail' is to not allow any company to get that big in the first place. We should be making it easier to start a business, and creating a more favorable business climate to do so.

Now, about that demand issue. That is the standard liberal democrat answer, it's always spend more money with no regard for where it comes from. And no evidence either that it'll actually work. First off, we aren't in a position to provide that much money to that many people on a sustained basis. You just can't get that much in extra revenue from the top 1 or 2%, you're just not. Which means you gotta borrow it. And that means you gotta pay interest on whatever you owe. You guys always assume people that get redistributed wealth will spend it all; really, where's the data to support that conclusion? In times like these, I'd suspect a whole lot of people are going to save as much of it as possible to make sure they can make their payments, or save it for when bad times hit again.

Over the past couple of years we cut the SS tax rate down for employees so they end up up with extra money to spend. And it wasn't that insignificant either, but what good has it done? Has the economy taken off when I wasn't looking? We're still just barely scraping by just above stall speed, and this is after the famous Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate anything. So let me ask you something:

How long do you think the gov't can subsidize economic growth by redistributing wealth? And how much more money will it take to achieve it? And how can you possibly think there won't be consequences to taking wealth from those who earned it? And here's the really big question: why should I believe that whatever your answers are could be correct, you guys really fucked up the last time.

Wait, wiseacre, that's not what I'm getting at at all. You seem to think that wealth "redistribution" happens through tax policy--no, Giant Federal Deficits happen through tax policy. The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, labor unions (imperfect though they were) provided a way for workers to claim profits of their labor. Since Reagan made them illegal in the 1980's, though (the right wing always goes after labor), the middle class has basically collapsed. So has union membership, and that isn't accidental.

Labor creates everything--everything, and all wealth. Shareholders place a claim on labor through concentrated holdings of dollars. A dollar, after all, is nothing more than a claim on labor.

Oh....I see it....here's Karl Marx....
....you were holdin' out.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's compare countries that employed free market capitalism with those that employed socialism or communism, Free. Do so and tell me that it's REALLY capitalism that is "cruel". I would make the point that capitalism has brought more joy into the lives of the people that live under it than any other economic system out there. There is a REASON why people risked death to leave other systems and make their way to the United States and it wasn't because capitalism is "cruel"...it's because capitalism offered them hope for a better life.

A good conversation, Oldstyle. I thank you.

It is difficult to answer your comment regarding socialism and/or communism, because I am unaware of any governments that practiced those economic systems. Some used those words, but they were mostly right wing command economies. The Soviet Union began with the ideals of socialism but soon succumbed to the lure of power and control. To their credit, though, the USSR advanced far more quickly than did the US in overlapping time spans (from 1920 through 1965) before collapsing from corruption and the cost of Empire. (They went from a peasant society with no middle class to an industrial and military power with space flight technology.)

Germany is nearly socialist--they have a highly social democracy, but they have fewer conflicts because of their rather homogenous culture. Not much infighting, they work together.

And in all truthiness, one of the biggest lures for immigrants was U.S. Government handouts. Ever hear of the Homestead Act? It is probably the single greatest source of original wealth in the U.S. today. Land was stripped from the original inhabitants by the U.S. military and given to "settlers" that occupied the land. That land was sold/accumulated over time, and the descendents are now beneficiaries of that single greatest government program in history. That wasn't capitalism, by the way--it was Empire.

If you look at any of the countries that practiced Communism you'll notice that they either don't exist anymore (the USSR, East Germany, ect.) or that they have integrated aspects of a free market economy to stimulate economies that were floundering (China and Cuba). The "reason" that Communism doesn't work as a viable economic system is that it's impossible to have a "planned" economy that uses resources in an efficient manner. Communism is hardly a "rightwing" concept by the way, Free...it's taking a left wing concept, Socialism to an extreme.

Not quite sure how you arrive at the concept of the Homestead Act being "Empire", Free. It was really a continuation of a very American idea...that of citizen's owning property and creating a living for himself from that property rather than having it owned by the State and citizens working upon it for a wage like serfs. As for the land being "stripped" from the original inhabitants? I guess you could make a case for that but because the Indians typically didn't believe that they "owned" land it made it relatively simple for new settlers to "claim" it as their own. What you really were witnessing in that process is a more efficient use of resources making one system obsolete and another system prosper. The American Indian was a "hunter-gatherer" in a world that had moved beyond that concept. Did they get jobbed by the new arrivals? Oh, yeah...in a huge way. That's what generally happens when a lesser developed civilization runs into a more advanced one. Is it wrong what happened? I guess you could make a case for that but if things were the same as before then the world wouldn't be getting fed by vast fields of wheat and corn that now exist in the Mid-West.

I disagree that the biggest lure for others to come to the US were "handouts". Most immigrants came here for opportunities...opportunities that didn't exist where they came from. Have we slowly morphed into a country where many people now DO come for the handouts? I would say that is more and more becoming the case over the past fifty years...hence many of our growing problems.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is it okay? Well, no. We oughta be taking steps to encourage more competition, improve our education and training systems so more people have more options. I think our largest corps are too big, the real answer to 'too big to fail' is to not allow any company to get that big in the first place. We should be making it easier to start a business, and creating a more favorable business climate to do so.

Now, about that demand issue. That is the standard liberal democrat answer, it's always spend more money with no regard for where it comes from. And no evidence either that it'll actually work. First off, we aren't in a position to provide that much money to that many people on a sustained basis. You just can't get that much in extra revenue from the top 1 or 2%, you're just not. Which means you gotta borrow it. And that means you gotta pay interest on whatever you owe. You guys always assume people that get redistributed wealth will spend it all; really, where's the data to support that conclusion? In times like these, I'd suspect a whole lot of people are going to save as much of it as possible to make sure they can make their payments, or save it for when bad times hit again.

Over the past couple of years we cut the SS tax rate down for employees so they end up up with extra money to spend. And it wasn't that insignificant either, but what good has it done? Has the economy taken off when I wasn't looking? We're still just barely scraping by just above stall speed, and this is after the famous Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate anything. So let me ask you something:

How long do you think the gov't can subsidize economic growth by redistributing wealth? And how much more money will it take to achieve it? And how can you possibly think there won't be consequences to taking wealth from those who earned it? And here's the really big question: why should I believe that whatever your answers are could be correct, you guys really fucked up the last time.

Wait, wiseacre, that's not what I'm getting at at all. You seem to think that wealth "redistribution" happens through tax policy--no, Giant Federal Deficits happen through tax policy. The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, labor unions (imperfect though they were) provided a way for workers to claim profits of their labor. Since Reagan made them illegal in the 1980's, though (the right wing always goes after labor), the middle class has basically collapsed. So has union membership, and that isn't accidental.

Labor creates everything--everything, and all wealth. Shareholders place a claim on labor through concentrated holdings of dollars. A dollar, after all, is nothing more than a claim on labor.

Once again, Free...you fundamentally misunderstand how the process works. Profits do not start in the pockets of "shareholders" and trickle down to workers...profits are what may or may not be left over after a product or service is provided. Profits trickle upwards, not the other way around. The worker ALWAYS gets paid before the shareholder and the worker gets paid whether or not a profit is EVER REALIZED.

 

[Freemason9]

All Empires, Oldstyle, are actually private ventures backed by governments. Empires always resulted in private ownership of acquired territory.

I would argue that classical communism has never existed; in fact, pure communism would have no government. Government would be unnecessary.

Please explain how feudal serfs differed from current American workers in terms of freedoms.

By the way==thanks for the civil conversation.

 

[Freemason9]

Is it okay? Well, no. We oughta be taking steps to encourage more competition, improve our education and training systems so more people have more options. I think our largest corps are too big, the real answer to 'too big to fail' is to not allow any company to get that big in the first place. We should be making it easier to start a business, and creating a more favorable business climate to do so.

Now, about that demand issue. That is the standard liberal democrat answer, it's always spend more money with no regard for where it comes from. And no evidence either that it'll actually work. First off, we aren't in a position to provide that much money to that many people on a sustained basis. You just can't get that much in extra revenue from the top 1 or 2%, you're just not. Which means you gotta borrow it. And that means you gotta pay interest on whatever you owe. You guys always assume people that get redistributed wealth will spend it all; really, where's the data to support that conclusion? In times like these, I'd suspect a whole lot of people are going to save as much of it as possible to make sure they can make their payments, or save it for when bad times hit again.

Over the past couple of years we cut the SS tax rate down for employees so they end up up with extra money to spend. And it wasn't that insignificant either, but what good has it done? Has the economy taken off when I wasn't looking? We're still just barely scraping by just above stall speed, and this is after the famous Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate anything. So let me ask you something:

How long do you think the gov't can subsidize economic growth by redistributing wealth? And how much more money will it take to achieve it? And how can you possibly think there won't be consequences to taking wealth from those who earned it? And here's the really big question: why should I believe that whatever your answers are could be correct, you guys really fucked up the last time.

Wait, wiseacre, that's not what I'm getting at at all. You seem to think that wealth "redistribution" happens through tax policy--no, Giant Federal Deficits happen through tax policy. The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, labor unions (imperfect though they were) provided a way for workers to claim profits of their labor. Since Reagan made them illegal in the 1980's, though (the right wing always goes after labor), the middle class has basically collapsed. So has union membership, and that isn't accidental.

Labor creates everything--everything, and all wealth. Shareholders place a claim on labor through concentrated holdings of dollars. A dollar, after all, is nothing more than a claim on labor.

Once again, Free...you fundamentally misunderstand how the process works. Profits do not start in the pockets of "shareholders" and trickle down to workers...profits are what may or may not be left over after a product or service is provided. Profits trickle upwards, not the other way around.

Dammit, dammit, dammit . . . all I am saying is that labor is the origin of all wealth. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand. Profits should not have to "trickle down" to workers if they could retain the fruits of their labor to begin with.

 

[Wiseacre]

Is it okay? Well, no. We oughta be taking steps to encourage more competition, improve our education and training systems so more people have more options. I think our largest corps are too big, the real answer to 'too big to fail' is to not allow any company to get that big in the first place. We should be making it easier to start a business, and creating a more favorable business climate to do so.

Now, about that demand issue. That is the standard liberal democrat answer, it's always spend more money with no regard for where it comes from. And no evidence either that it'll actually work. First off, we aren't in a position to provide that much money to that many people on a sustained basis. You just can't get that much in extra revenue from the top 1 or 2%, you're just not. Which means you gotta borrow it. And that means you gotta pay interest on whatever you owe. You guys always assume people that get redistributed wealth will spend it all; really, where's the data to support that conclusion? In times like these, I'd suspect a whole lot of people are going to save as much of it as possible to make sure they can make their payments, or save it for when bad times hit again.

Over the past couple of years we cut the SS tax rate down for employees so they end up up with extra money to spend. And it wasn't that insignificant either, but what good has it done? Has the economy taken off when I wasn't looking? We're still just barely scraping by just above stall speed, and this is after the famous Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate anything. So let me ask you something:

How long do you think the gov't can subsidize economic growth by redistributing wealth? And how much more money will it take to achieve it? And how can you possibly think there won't be consequences to taking wealth from those who earned it? And here's the really big question: why should I believe that whatever your answers are could be correct, you guys really fucked up the last time.

Wait, wiseacre, that's not what I'm getting at at all. You seem to think that wealth "redistribution" happens through tax policy--no, Giant Federal Deficits happen through tax policy. The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, labor unions (imperfect though they were) provided a way for workers to claim profits of their labor. Since Reagan made them illegal in the 1980's, though (the right wing always goes after labor), the middle class has basically collapsed. So has union membership, and that isn't accidental.

Labor creates everything--everything, and all wealth. Shareholders place a claim on labor through concentrated holdings of dollars. A dollar, after all, is nothing more than a claim on labor.

Giant federal deficits happen through tax policy? I don't think so.


The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders? - WHAT? Workers, productive or otherwise, have no claim whatsoever to profits generated by the company, other than via 401ks or bonuses at the company's discretion. They get paid whether the company makes a profit or not - they are a cost of production.

Reagan made unions illegal? Really? I don't think so.

Interesting ideas concerning labor, I'll be honest and say I don't fully understand what you're saying here. But I ain't afraid to offer my 2 cents on it: labor is just another commodity that is needed to produce a good or service. It's mandatory, but so is capital. A worker enters a bargain with an employer, my labor for your compensation. Both sides are free to walk away if they don't like the terms. If the worker wants a higher wage, he/she has to have skills to negotiate for. It's hard to get more money or better bennies if there are 10 other guys who can do what you can do for less. But it gets easier if there's nobody, or if the costs of retraining and replacing are high. So you can complain about company greed, maybe not without some justification, but the worker also has the right to find a better job at any time and leave his employer hanging. Which is why most companies should have good employee relations if at all possible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait, wiseacre, that's not what I'm getting at at all. You seem to think that wealth "redistribution" happens through tax policy--no, Giant Federal Deficits happen through tax policy. The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, labor unions (imperfect though they were) provided a way for workers to claim profits of their labor. Since Reagan made them illegal in the 1980's, though (the right wing always goes after labor), the middle class has basically collapsed. So has union membership, and that isn't accidental.

Labor creates everything--everything, and all wealth. Shareholders place a claim on labor through concentrated holdings of dollars. A dollar, after all, is nothing more than a claim on labor.

Once again, Free...you fundamentally misunderstand how the process works. Profits do not start in the pockets of "shareholders" and trickle down to workers...profits are what may or may not be left over after a product or service is provided. Profits trickle upwards, not the other way around.

Dammit, dammit, dammit . . . all I am saying is that labor is the origin of all wealth. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand. Profits should not have to "trickle down" to workers if they could retain the fruits of their labor to begin with.

I've got the music for this post!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpvwh292VKI]Интернационал (The Internationale - Russian lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you can complain about company greed,

not in a Republican capitalist economy. If a company is greedy, i.e, if it doesn't offer the lowest possible price to its customers, its customers go elsewhere.

The beauty of Republican capitalism is that it makes all companies slaves to their customers. This is exactly how you get the highest standard of living in the world.

 

[Oldstyle]

All Empires, Oldstyle, are actually private ventures backed by governments. Empires always resulted in private ownership of acquired territory.

I would argue that classical communism has never existed; in fact, pure communism would have no government. Government would be unnecessary.

Please explain how feudal serfs differed from current American workers in terms of freedoms.

By the way==thanks for the civil conversation.

Once again I have to disagree. Empires have long used the gifting of ownership of acquired territory to explorers and military leaders as an incentive to make that happen but the Empire itself was usually the main beneficiary of acquired lands not private ventures. There were private ventures backed by governments that acquired territory...the Hudson Bay Trading Company and the East India Company spring to mind but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. When a monarchy ruled an Empire it's hard to describe "ownership" of territory as being private since most monarchs had the power to give or take lands from citizens at their whim.

As for your statement about classical communism? I've heard this argument made for decades, Free that communism isn't to blame for it's failings because it wasn't "real" communism but a perverted version and THAT is the reason it didn't work. To be honest with you I've always been amused by people who try to make that case. In your example you state that government doesn't exist in "pure communism" which is utter nonsense. A form of government is going to exist in any system...unless you are calling for anarchy. Since communism at it's core calls for "society" to own and share all...there is always going to be rules as to how the "all" will be collected and distributed and if you have rules then you have to have people who make and enforce them.

The main difference between feudal serfs and modern workers in a capitalist system like we have in America is that serfs were born serfs and died serfs...it was impossible for them to better their lives because they were not free to choose the jobs they held, where they lived or how much they got paid for their labor. The reason that America was so attractive to much of the world was that we didn't have a system like that here. There was no rule stating that you couldn't become rich because you were born to a certain person or in a certain place. There were opportunities here that simply didn't exist in other places. You really COULD make a better life for yourself and more importantly...your family.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Please explain how feudal serfs differed from current American workers in terms of freedoms.

American workers get paid the most posible, if not they are free to go where ever they do get the most posible. This is why American workers are the richest in human history!! This is why ARod gets 20 million a season. Why did you think they paid him $20 million????

Econ 101 class one day one.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wait, wiseacre, that's not what I'm getting at at all. You seem to think that wealth "redistribution" happens through tax policy--no, Giant Federal Deficits happen through tax policy. The distribution of wealth is directly attributable to how much profit is withheld from the productive workers by shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the past, labor unions (imperfect though they were) provided a way for workers to claim profits of their labor. Since Reagan made them illegal in the 1980's, though (the right wing always goes after labor), the middle class has basically collapsed. So has union membership, and that isn't accidental.

Labor creates everything--everything, and all wealth. Shareholders place a claim on labor through concentrated holdings of dollars. A dollar, after all, is nothing more than a claim on labor.

Once again, Free...you fundamentally misunderstand how the process works. Profits do not start in the pockets of "shareholders" and trickle down to workers...profits are what may or may not be left over after a product or service is provided. Profits trickle upwards, not the other way around.

Dammit, dammit, dammit . . . all I am saying is that labor is the origin of all wealth. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand. Profits should not have to "trickle down" to workers if they could retain the fruits of their labor to begin with.

Trickle down is a hard concept to understand, Free because it only exists in the minds of people who don't understand economics. Workers DO retain the fruits of their labor to begin with. They are paid a wage which IS the fruit of that labor. Profits on the other hand may or may not EVER come to pass. Think about it and you'll see that I'm right. Many businesses never make a profit or only make one after many years of incurring losses. The workers at those businesses will realize the "fruits of their labor" every time that they get paid. That pay doesn't "trickle down" from profits...that pay exists whether or not a profit is ever made.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Dammit, dammit, dammit . . . all I am saying is that labor is the origin of all wealth.

of course thats perfectly idiotic and perfectly liberal. We got from the Stone Age to here because a few geniuses like Steve Jobs invented new stuff!! That has nothing to do with labor!!

A child can understand this.