Do the rich earn their income?

[Intense]

Cooper's character gives the impression that human creators produce their edifices without using the collective inheritance of techniques and tools that have been handed down to all of us since the dawn of civilization. Language would be first and foremost among those cultural inheritances.

How does that entitle welfare parasites to anything he has produced? They certainly didn't participate in what he created. They're just here to cash in.

I'm saying in today's economy capitalists control the terms of how and who benefits from thousands of years of cultural inheritances that rightly belong to all human beings collectively, and this isn't fair compensation by any stretch of language..

They only control the terms of who benefits from what they produce. You and all the other parasites are free to cash in on our "cultural inheritance" any time you like. Unfortunately, you can't do it, can you?

Sucks to be you, I imagine.

Not as much as reading the droppings from a brain dead shit bird like you, I imagine.

Creators and parasites are victimized by a banking system that gives itself cash with a few strokes on a keyboard then lends the money to others at interest, making everyone's dollars worth less and less while ensuring we work harder to pay off the FIRE sector's Wall Street gambling losses.

Which parasites, in your uneducated opinion, are responsible for the price of gold rising $1300 an ounce since 1982? Do you blame the long term unemployed for the Fed's decision in March of 2006 to stop revealing how many dollars were in circulation?

While I'm sure a functional illiterate like you finds all of this challenging, to say the least, it doesn't change the fact the richest parasites pose the biggest threat to the US economy. Apparently you're content to suck up whatever table scraps they toss your way.

Go ahead. It's probably what you do best.

I trace it back to Alexander Hamilton and his National Bank Scheme, which both Jefferson and Madison were opposed to. He blatantly fucked up the role of the impartial referee. I think the Federal Reserve is a problem too. It is too secretive and manipulative. In one sense, it needs to be audited. In another sense, that exposure could bring everything tumbling down. The SEC needs to be investigated and audited too.

 

[Sundial]

How so? How do you gain money from property? You have to actually do something with it. It doesn't just sit their and magically make money. You can rent it to someone (thus selling it for periods of time, thus providing a service) you can farm it and sell the food from the farm, you can start a business on it...exactly how does owning property result in unearned income?

You don't have to actually do something with property to make money, so long as you're able to prevent other people from using it without paying you. That's the beauty of property. In the case of land you can prevent people from farming unless they pay you. In the case of water, you can prevent them from drinking. Copyrights allow you to prevent people from singing your song.

Collecting money for the use of property is not a "service". At most, you could say the property itself provides a service. But even that's inaccurate. Since property is inanimate it can't really do anything by itself, it needs a user.

All of those methods (profits, rent, capital gains) are examples of earned income. Not by silly government definition, but by reality.

Owners are workers. If they own something and do nothing with it, they make no money. The profit IS their salary! Calling part of their profit a salary in no way changes the means through which it was obtained. How can you not see this?



All salaries are derived from the profits of the company. What is leftover is for the owner of the company to keep for organizing the whole operation. You make this distinction between salary and profit that is false. They are only distinct for tax purposes.


Define unearned income.

I'm using the dictionary definition, which is income derived from property rather than work. I know you reject that definition. What would you use?

Profits go to owners because they're owners, not because they organize anything. If I own IBM, and receive a dividend, is it for organizing IBM, or for owning it?

In order to demand something, you have to have the means to pay. Your supply is your demand.

Strictly speaking, desire plus ability equals effective demand. Either way, coins alone are not demand, or effective demand. They may be necessary, but they're not sufficient.

 

[FactFinder]

Do the rich earn their income?

Heh! Heh!

 

[Auxous]

This thread reminds me of the The Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest
Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest

 

[ShackledNation]

How so? How do you gain money from property? You have to actually do something with it. It doesn't just sit their and magically make money. You can rent it to someone (thus selling it for periods of time, thus providing a service) you can farm it and sell the food from the farm, you can start a business on it...exactly how does owning property result in unearned income?

You don't have to actually do something with property to make money, so long as you're able to prevent other people from using it without paying you. That's the beauty of property. In the case of land you can prevent people from farming unless they pay you. In the case of water, you can prevent them from drinking. Copyrights allow you to prevent people from singing your song.

Collecting money for the use of property is not a "service". At most, you could say the property itself provides a service. But even that's inaccurate. Since property is inanimate it can't really do anything by itself, it needs a user.

Sorry, but when I rent a house, the landlord is providing me a HUGE service. I could not afford to buy the entire house. Thanks to the landlord, I have affordable living. Also, if I want to move, I won't be stuck having to sell property. I can just move. I consider that to be a huge service. The same is true of the leasing of any property. It is much cheaper to rent property than to buy it. Say you are starting a business. If you are not sure it will work, would you rather buy property that costs 1 million dollars, or rent it out for a couple thousand a month instead? Obviously the latter. If it fails, you lose less money. There is less risk. If you do absolutely nothing with your land and do not rent it, it will rot away and lose value. If I bought a plot of dirt, I would not make money off of it because I owned it. I would have to use it to make it valuable in any way.

Those are services providing by renting property. Your assumption that renting land provides no service is completely false. You also offered absolutely no reason behind the assumption, so I can't even understand where you are coming from.

All of those methods (profits, rent, capital gains) are examples of earned income. Not by silly government definition, but by reality.

Owners are workers. If they own something and do nothing with it, they make no money. The profit IS their salary! Calling part of their profit a salary in no way changes the means through which it was obtained. How can you not see this?



All salaries are derived from the profits of the company. What is leftover is for the owner of the company to keep for organizing the whole operation. You make this distinction between salary and profit that is false. They are only distinct for tax purposes.


Define unearned income.

I'm using the dictionary definition, which is income derived from property rather than work. I know you reject that definition. What would you use?

That definition is useless when discussing economics. It only means anything when talking about taxes, and that is why it is in the definition at all. Again, that definition is derived from the early cost or labor theory of value, according to which only labor produces or "earns" increased values. I already discussed in length why such theories are not correct.

I will leave the rest to read in this article. It talks all about the socialist and Georgist fallacies of unearned income.
Murray Rothbard and Henry George

Profits go to owners because they're owners, not because they organize anything. If I own IBM, and receive a dividend, is it for organizing IBM, or for owning it?

You do not get dividends simply for owning part of IBM. You get dividends because you providing IBM with money to use in their business. The condition is added that you only get the money if the business makes a profit, so you have to invest wisely. Your money is being used to produce and create profit, and if it does so successfully you get part of the profit. You are paid because you help facilitate production, not because you own the company.

In order to demand something, you have to have the means to pay. Your supply is your demand.

Strictly speaking, desire plus ability equals effective demand. Either way, coins alone are not demand, or effective demand. They may be necessary, but they're not sufficient.

First sentence yes. However, the act of holding coins is the act of demanding them. By not exchanging them you are demanding them. If you did exchange them for something else, then you demand something else. Holding on to something constitutes reservation demand. Getting rid of something in favor of something else constitutes exchange demand. Both are important concepts to understand.

Keynes and Marx, never really grasped how this all works. Keynes went wrong when he thought he could aggregate everything, and that demand could grow the economy without supply (hence his call to spend spend spend). Marx thought value was determined by labor (hence his mischaracterization of profit as exploitation). But in order to criticize free markets, you have to understand them. Few critics actually do.

 

[Auxous]

"Socialists" have long argued that exploitation exists in a capitalistic society since the owners of capital can extract economic rents and unearned incomes. They often resorted to the the LTV to show this. Unfortunately, the LTV is flawed and been amended over the years, particularly by Kevin Carson. However, utility theory is not without its concern - value should not be subjective and manipulated by producers (re: DeBeers).

Landlords do provide valuable services. However, some of them charge a rent that is above the value of the factors of production. Some of them also don't give a **** and earn a passive income providing limited or no services besides renting out the apartment.

To demarcate between actual value and economic rent and unearned incomes is a difficult matter. I don't dismiss the fact that the wealthy and others extract economic rents and unearned incomes for a moment.

 

[Texanmike]

This thread reminds me of the The Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest
Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest

Somebody quoting Bastiat? Say it ain't so...

Mike

 

[Auxous]

This thread reminds me of the The Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest
Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest

Somebody quoting Bastiat? Say it ain't so...

Mike

huh? and Proudon.

????

 

[editec]

Peers of the realm once argued that without them OWNING EVERYTHING society would collapse.

CApitalism is based on the assumption that laborers must be paid less than they produce so that capital can be concentrated for future projects.

And that is a good economic system when the economy is CLOSED.

But when that capital can migrate to other economies, then the basic concept of how this system works is flawed.

And that is what is happening to this nation right now.

"CApitalism is based on the assumption that laborers must be paid less than they produce so that capital can be concentrated for future projects."

Reference the above quote, if you will.

Okay I will.

I'm quoting myself.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Do unions earn their dues?

No, people are forced to pay.

Do governments earn their tax revenue?

No, people are forced to pay.

I earned every penny i have

And you wont get one more from me.

Try force, make my day.

 

[editec]

Good lord!

Some of you folks are so fearful of Marxism that you see marxism in every post you are too clueless to understand.

The source of all human wealth is human labor, kids.

That'
s not marxism talking, that's an apodectic truth so obvious that it boggles my mind that any of you can imagine otherwise.

A nugget of gold laying on the street has NO VALUE until an human hand picks it up.

The best farmland in the world has no value until a human exploits it.

CAPITALISM (an every other economic system known to man) becomes an ONGOING economic system when some of the benefits from that human LABOR is put aside to support ADDITIONAL human LABOR in the future.

That isn't communism thinking, kids, that's pure LOGIC speaking to you.

 

[dblack]

Some of you folks are so fearful of Marxism that you see marxism in every post you are too clueless to understand.

The source of all human wealth is human labor, kids.

That's not marxism talking, that's an apodectic truth so obvious that it boggles my mind that any of you can imagine otherwise.

I think that's a bit of a strawman, because that's not really what's being disputed. What we're disagreeing on is whether the resource allocation, the investments, the risk assessment, or any of the general decision-making that goes on in generating what Sundial is referring to as 'unearned income' should count as labor.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Good lord!

Some of you folks are so fearful of Marxism that you see marxism in every post you are too clueless to understand.

The source of all human wealth is human labor, kids.

That'
s not marxism talking, that's an apodectic truth so obvious that it boggles my mind that any of you can imagine otherwise.

A nugget of gold laying on the street has NO VALUE until an human hand picks it up.

The best farmland in the world has no value until a human exploits it.

CAPITALISM (an every other economic system known to man) becomes an ONGOING economic system when some of the benefits from that human LABOR is put aside to support ADDITIONAL human LABOR in the future.

That isn't communism thinking, kids, that's pure LOGIC speaking to you.

Well it is debatable and you ignore the other factors of production , as well
the concept of "Economic Rent" to create wealth.

Marx actually promoted the Labour Theory of Value
as did some classical economists, but is flawed

At the time the "water-diamond" paradox was the question
Water which is essential to life had little value
and diamonds which are not essential have a lot of value?
The Labour Theory of Value seemed to be an answer- i.e. more
work goes into making diamonds for use.


After the onset of modern economics and the marginal revolution
it became clear that it is simply a factor of supply and demand

Indeed, if one is in desert for three days with no water
then they are offered to buy a diamond or a glass of water
the water would be worth more at that time

Likewise, one could invest a lot of labour into making something
but the demand is not there, is has no real value and no real
overall net positive wealth will be produced e.g. Chevy Volt

So labour is only one of many factors needed to produce wealth
but the overall ability for some output to create wealth is determined not by labour
but the market interaction between supply and demand.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you saying labor "is simply a factor of supply and demand?"

btw, Marxists wouldn't even consider selling water to the thirsty.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Are you saying labor "is simply a factor of supply and demand?"

btw, Marxists wouldn't even consider selling water to the thirsty.

Yes for labour

and you assume Marxists would be able to supply the water.

Of course Marxists are not above starving some .....

Holodomor

 

[Uncensored2008]

I will leave the rest to read in this article. It talks all about the socialist and Georgist fallacies of unearned income.
Murray Rothbard and Henry George

With all due respect Shackled, if Sundial had the ability to grasp the teachings of Rothbard, she wouldn't be making these absurd arguments in the first place.