Social Justice and Other Fallacies

Why do you believe Freemason, that investors don't manage and work? Ooops, that time I didn't think. Seriously, saying "...ALL wealth--came from the efforts of laborers.." is like saying "...ALL wealth--came from the efforts of investors..." or "--of management..."
No, Expat_Panama, that's not right at all. If you really think about it, you would agree with my statement; investors only purchase the productive efforts of labor, and management only manages the productive labor. ONLY productive labor creates intrinsic value. I don't argue that other "hangers-on" do not subsequently extract or confiscate value from this labor, but all material things of value comes from original labor.

Nonsense.

1. The ideas are the basis for success....labor can be replaced, and upgraded or even obviated via mechanization.
For some reason, folks like you will do every twist and turn to avoid giving the credit where it is due.

a. Wages equal the marginal productivity of labor, meaning that the outcome in terms of income and wealth is a function of what one does. It is also a function of how many people do the same.

b. Babe Ruth, being asked how he felt holding out for a salary higher than that of the US President Hoover: “Why not, I had a better year than he did.”


2. So, as productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."
 
Why does a quote from Michael Moore have any bearing on this discussion? I could very easily extract a quote or two from Hitler's past that correspond exactly with some current GOP position as well. That is a common thing to do in political bickering, but it has no real meaning.

And, of course, you've answered you own question.

Moore is associated both with OWS and with the view that you suggested.

So??

So, it is appropriate to take the words of another who propounds what you do, and show how truly foolish the view is.

A wise individual would realize same, and consider rethinking the view.
 
PoliticalChic says:

Wages equal the marginal productivity of labor, meaning that the outcome in terms of income and wealth is a function of what one does. It is also a function of how many people do the same.
That is, indeed, a classical definition of wages. That is not necessarily in alignment with spiritual, ethical, and moral requirements. As one example, PC, how does your definition apply in a world in which ALL human labor has been replaced by robotics and AI? Will people, then, have no income? (This WILL happen, by the way, and economics will need to address this issue. It is already a component of unemployment.)

So, as productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.
Actually, measured productivity actually increases as worker wages decrease--that is what happens when you demean labor to a mere commodity, as you indicated in an earlier post. (FYI, P=V/C)
 
PoliticalChic says:

Wages equal the marginal productivity of labor, meaning that the outcome in terms of income and wealth is a function of what one does. It is also a function of how many people do the same.
That is, indeed, a classical definition of wages. That is not necessarily in alignment with spiritual, ethical, and moral requirements. As one example, PC, how does your definition apply in a world in which ALL human labor has been replaced by robotics and AI? Will people, then, have no income? (This WILL happen, by the way, and economics will need to address this issue. It is already a component of unemployment.)

So, as productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%.
Actually, measured productivity actually increases as worker wages decrease--that is what happens when you demean labor to a mere commodity, as you indicated in an earlier post. (FYI, P=V/C)

The only one doing any demeaning is yourself.

E.g....the stupid things you said about Romney.

Those workers, laborers, who suddenly come up with an idea...and pour work and treasure into the venture...and are successful, are suddenly eligible for vituperation from simpletons.


Shoe fit?
 
“We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike.”

--Adolf Hitler
 
“We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike.”

--Adolf Hitler

I'm certain you have no clue as to how jejune your post is, and how less than germane it is in this thread....
You might as well have posted "sure do love that Saran Wrap."

Did you find any post suggesting "reduce workers salaries and take away their right"?

Did you?

I certainly made no such suggestion.
 
...ONLY productive labor creates intrinsic value...
What I'm getting here is that your belief is absolute; that it doesn't matter to you if virtually all value is created only when both labor and capital are present together, and you don't care about the increase in produced value when more capital is added to labor.

Marx's creed is founded on that point, an acceptance that only labor matters and the 'hanger-on' institutions of management and capital would eventually wither away once labor's might prevailed over the oppressors. This is a tenet of faith which has long defied all reason. Sometimes Marxists say the fact that none of these things have ever come to pass in real life just proves how very far into the future Karl Marx's vision reached.
 
I fairly agree, expat_panama. This really is an illustration that neither capitalism nor socialism provides a reality-based environment for a successful, sustained economy.

You say that capital is necessary for production, but you know that isn't true; in pre-industrial economies, for example, no capital was present in agricultural societies. HOWEVER, I wish you good luck in creating production with only capital . . .
 
Right wing or not, helping people should not be compulsory from the government.

It just should be done.

How can it be achieved?
 
Right wing or not, helping people should not be compulsory from the government.

It just should be done.

How can it be achieved?

Are you serious, four-eyes???

This is America. It's chock full of American people.
People like this:

"We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01


I hope you are also aware that, although Liberal folks make more than conservative folk, it is the latter who give the most charity.
True story.
 
Last edited:
So, Chic, welfare is redundant and unnecessary and the figures have escaped our fine representatives in Congress?
 
Ah, no answer , eh? So, as usual, you admit I'm right, er, correct! Good, now that that is clear, I will continue........

(juuuussst kidin witchas!)
 
Last edited:
So, Chic, welfare is redundant and unnecessary and the figures have escaped our fine representatives in Congress?

OMG....you guys think I have to be at your beck and call 24-7!!!!


Jeezzzz....

Unwire yourself....instruction is on the way.


1. First query should be as to the purpose of 'welfare.'

The second...is it constitutional for the federal government to engage in same.
Mull those two over for a moment.



2. Background: Americans have always taken care of the needy.

On January 6, 1657 twenty-eight “Scottish men” signed the Laws Rules and Order of the Poor Boxes Society” in Boston, New England and formed the Scots’ Charitable Society. The founder stated that “…our benevolence is for the releefe of our selves being Scottishmen or for any of the Scottish nation whome we may see cause to helpe…”[1] Almost 350 years later this dedication to benevolent acts continues to guide the work of the Scots’ Charitable Society.
In 1841, when the members of the Society marched in the Boston funeral procession in honor of President Harrison, the Society was recognized as the oldest charitable society in the United States. Among the Boston organizations that marched only the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, founded in 1638, was older. The next oldest Boston society was the Irish Charitable Society which was founded in 1737. [2] Today the Society remains the oldest charitable organization in the United States.
http://www.linknet1.com/scots-charitable/menu1/index1.html



3. But...who are the needy? Answer: poverty means no home, no heat, no food.
Not some capricious definition designed to produce a federal cottage industry, and keep the Left in power.

4. The ability to create a federal welfare industry is not only not allowed in the Constitution (see the enumerated powers, Article I, section 8), but this was pretty well understood up until the Imperial Presidency of FDR.



5.OK....pop quiz:

How much voluntary charity...as opposed to funds confiscated by the federal government and squandered a Leftists are wont to do....did Americans contribute to charity in 2010....in the teeth of a recession?


Hint: I gave the answer in an earlier post.



6. As for your frivolous "welfare is redundant and unnecessary"....depends what the meaning of "is" is....

...where did I hear that before? Oh...yes....the Democrat icon, the rapist.
 
Frivolous? Eye - I mean, I?
This poster is every bit as much as you for care of the needy done by people directly and not passing through the government.
Some more thinking may be in the cards for 'needy'.
In fact, a lot of thinking is in the cards.
A lot more than the 'welfare system' needs overhauling, and it is certain after that many present problems will be resolved at the same time.
 
Frivolous? Eye - I mean, I?
This poster is every bit as much as you for care of the needy done by people directly and not passing through the government.
Some more thinking may be in the cards for 'needy'.
In fact, a lot of thinking is in the cards.
A lot more than the 'welfare system' needs overhauling, and it is certain after that many present problems will be resolved at the same time.

"Some more thinking may be in the cards for 'needy'."


A very succinct encapsulation of my point, eey-ore!!


Everybody the government calls poor....isn't.

And many are made so by government programs.

And....many of those who'd like to get off the programs are prevented from doing same.


That's the reason I gave my definition of poor.

First chance to change it is 82 days hence.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top