Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,584 Year: 2,841/9,624 Month: 686/1,588 Week: 92/229 Day: 3/61 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 350 (606869)
02-28-2011 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Straggler
02-28-2011 6:18 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
Phage writes:
"Wealth can be applied to enhance productivity."
Whose productivity?
Either the productivity of the person who owns the wealth, or those allowed to use the wealth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2011 6:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2011 6:38 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 350 (606874)
02-28-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Straggler
02-28-2011 6:38 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
Does the productivity of the workforce come into it at all? Are they included in your "those who use the wealth"?
Yes, the "workforce" are people who use the wealth.
So, do you agree the wealth can be used to enhance productivity of people who use it? (this is like pulling teeth)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2011 6:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2011 6:48 PM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 341 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2011 12:59 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 350 (606877)
02-28-2011 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Straggler
02-28-2011 6:48 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
It can - yes.
Ok, so should those who devote their wealth through investment be able to reap some of the increase in productivity while retaining their investment's value?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2011 6:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 3:20 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 350 (606882)
02-28-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
02-28-2011 7:16 PM


Re: still worse on the bottom than on the top.
RAZD writes:
You are getting it. Without the invested money your efforts are not terribly profitable.
So you assert without any evidence of it being true.
So quit and go it alone. Oh, that doesn't cut it? Well then you really know the answer, you are just trying to deny it.
RAZD writes:
Nope. The overall real value of things does not change that dramatically year to year.
But the number of things available can.
RAZD writes:
and in that case the poor lost out way more than the rich
In percentage or total amount? I don't see how you could possibly argue in total amount.
RAZD writes:
The problem is that stock values are artificial, manipulated and not based on real value of products,
No, stock values are not based on the value of products. Thats... not at all what they are or symbolize.
RAZD writes:
Stocks are a way that big companies use to print new money.
No, stocks are a way companies obtain investment capital.
RAZD writes:
Real value is what some product sells for. You can ask $300,000 for your house, but if it sells for $100,000 then that is - and was - the value of the house.
Thats... no. Thats not it. Thats not it at all. The term you were looking for is "market value".
RAZD writes:
Every time someone makes\takes a profit somebody else loses,
Still wrong, try taking basic economics.
I can't be bothered to slog through the rest of your ignorant rantings. The vast majority of your claims are contradicted by established economic theory and observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2011 7:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 350 (606954)
03-01-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Straggler
03-01-2011 3:20 AM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
It's all about what we are trying to achieve with the economic system we put in place isn't it?
I suppose that is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 3:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 1:27 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 350 (607032)
03-01-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Straggler
03-01-2011 1:27 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
So what do you think we are trying to achieve?
With our economic system, I would say that we are trying to achieve a system which pushes people to perform at their best through being rewarded in kind. Everyone should have the freedom to allocate their hard-won resources toward whatever ends they choose, including making the future of their children more secure. It should be conducive to free trade with informed participants, a system which is gainful to all involved.
Straggler writes:
And is the ever increasing concentration of wealth conducive to that aim?
Yes it is. The criticisms being leveled such as "But the rich will inevitably rule the poor," are not economic criticisms, but social and government issues.
I recognize that the goals of government are going to impinge upon such an economic system, as well they should. But those are not criticisms of the economic system itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 1:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 1:55 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 350 (607040)
03-01-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Straggler
03-01-2011 1:55 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
But surely our reasons for preferring one economic system over another are always social and political aren't they? Surely we choose the economic system that we think will best achieve our social aims (whatever they may be)?
No, they should be economic. We should choose the society we prefer to achieve our social aims, and the political system to achieve our political goals.
There is a certain elegance about the approach that grows on you.
Straggler writes:
But surely this is perfectly achievable without accepting the runaway concentration of "unearned" wealth that...
Why do you say its "unearned"? If a ditch digger earns his wages does the person who rents him the use of a shovel not earn his rental fee?
You are still throwing around terms like "theft", or "stolen", or "unearned" wealth without ever saying what the fuck you are talking about. What transaction is unearned, or undeserved? Spit it out or shut up!
Straggler writes:
I am still struggling to see what exactly your problem is with the relatively small degree of redistribution that is being proposed in this thread.
I'm going to rob you. Its just a small degree of redistribution in the grand scheme of things.
You haven't even tried to say how wealthy people are gaining illegitimately. You haven't even tried to explain why poor people deserve to have the legitimately earned wealth of the rich. All you have said is that the rich have a bunch of money, the poor don't have as much, and that "surely" this must be some ill-defined "bad thing".
Well I'm against the concept of taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have not's" purely based upon that difference.
Straggler writes:
The sort of changes being proposed here as far as I am aware consist of little more than the stratospherically wealthy contributing a bit more to the system that made them that wealthy in the first place.
Then why don't you take a stab at explaining why exactly that would be better for everyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 1:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 4:50 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 350 (607068)
03-01-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Straggler
03-01-2011 4:50 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
It would be impossible to successfully implement either of those without an economic policy that is compatible wouldn't it? The economic system underpins practically everything else to the point if being fundamentally and instrinsically entwined.
Perhaps, but surely that is an argument in favor of holding compatible economic, social, and political views. Make sure your views are compatible, don't just pick one aspect and model everything around that.
Straggler writes:
What is classified as "earned" or "unearned" is essentially defined by the terms of economic system in place.
If that were the sense in which you used it, then your original statement is not intelligible. It would be impossible for an economic system to generate "unearned" income as it would only result by violating the rules of the system, such as by simple theft.
Either you meant something else such as using a different standard, or I'm just going to consider that whole bit retracted.
Straggler writes:
I have no problem with that in principle at all. But as your own example demonstrates you too can see a fundamental difference between the two roles as they relate to the concept of "earning".
I recognize the difference procedurally, yes, but not in terms of "earning". Both yields are equally earned. The difference lies in that while individual physical effort and material investment are interchangeable in value through a medium of exchange, they are not interchangeable in a given process.
(A shovel might make a digger 4 times more productive, but you can't replace 3 diggers using their hands with a single, unmanned shovel.)
Straggler writes:
I haven't used the terms "theft" or "stolen" at all. In fact I actually objected to the use of terms "dishonest" and "illegitimate" earlier in this thread.
Ok, true thats my bad. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Straggler writes:
But that system, as you have described it, all but inevitably results in a runaway concentration of wealth if no counter-balances are introduced.
Ok? Civilization, as a unit, results in a runaway collection of wealth. Its sort of the whole point. Look at human history; technological advancement isn't steady, it build upon itself in a multiplicative manner.
Its not a bad thing.
Straggler writes:
I think alleviating some of that would serve society better both now and in the longer term than further increasing the concentration of wealth...
Again, you haven't explained why an increase in the concentration of wealth is a bad thing. I could argue that you buying me a better graphics card is superior to further increasing the balance of your bank account. Or if you donated your next paycheck to a charity that it would benefit society as a whole more than putting it in your account.
Whats clear is that we are not really comparing the value of "concentration of wealth" with those other options, we are comparing the value of those other options vs. what those people would otherwise do with their money. Maybe that rich person's money that you want to take to pay for a sports facility or refuse disposal was going to be invested into a cure for children with bone cancer.
And its not just the question of what benefits society more, because there the additional issue of personal control over one's resources and their allocation. There is a reason we don't just throw everyone's money into a pot and pay for the best things for society overall. Its important to take that into account when you are proposing to take people's money by force for "the common good".
Straggler writes:
I guess you think that makes me some sort of bolshevik nutjob?
I don't think you have thought this through, if thats what you mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 4:50 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 7:44 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 350 (607070)
03-01-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Straggler
03-01-2011 7:44 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Straggler writes:
Is there any concentration of wealth that you think would be socially divisive or economically unsustainable enough to warrant intervention? 1% of the population owns 90% of the wealth? 95%? 99%?
I'm finding it difficult to draw a line due to not having any idea of what danger you are trying to prevent. I don't see how doubling Bill Gates's net worth is going to be any more divisive to the average worker than it is already, and I don't think its plausible that it would be economically unsustainable.
Again the "bad stuff" is just a bit too vague.
Straggler writes:
Do you think that in order to function capitalism requires the unfettered concentration of wealth?
No, but I understand that wealth aids in creating more wealth. This means that the creation of wealth is an accelerating process and the only way to avoid those sorts of concentration is to simply take it from those who own it, who made it, and give them nothing in return.
I'm having a hard time seeing why we would want to do that, or why the alternative is intolerable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Straggler, posted 03-01-2011 7:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Taz, posted 03-01-2011 9:48 PM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 325 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2011 10:37 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 350 (607083)
03-01-2011 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Taz
03-01-2011 9:48 PM


Re: inequality widens, gets worse for the workers
Taz writes:
Put a limit on how much wealth they could accumulate. ... That said, a person will never ever need $60 billion.
But how do you *do* that? Lets say I am a rich guy and I am pretty much at the $60 billion mark. I can easily go over that by investing my money but... I just can't. I'm not allowed. I assume I can't just start giving massive amounts to family or friends. Never mind what would happen to the proceeds if I invested it anyway (government seizure of course), WTF do I do with my money?
I can't buy stuff that can be resold because that would be a loophole around the entire limitation of wealth; I could just buy gold and still accumulate wealth. That goes for cars, or houses, or pretty much any good.
I would be limited to perishable goods such as food that spoils quickly, or services that don't create transferable value. I couldn't for instance hire a ton of gardeners because they would be improving my property, thus increasing its value and my wealth. I could hire masseuses, but I only have so much body. I could hire artists for personal performances, but they couldn't make any recordings or permanent fixtures; if it was a painter or sculptor they would need to destroy their work after I had witnessed it.
Now I *could* invest my money provided I am able to blow the proceeds from $60 billion on these transient, completely consumed novelties. More likely I would leave myself a small cushion and invest only as much as I needed to cover my personal costs.
The rest of the wealth will just sit there. Why should I give out interest-free loans for people to use it, and possibly lose it, if I can't possibly profit from it? (In fact I wouldn't be allowed to, as this would be a loophole allowing me to effectively gift money to my family.) The vast majority of the rich's wealth is invested, and that dramatically shifts to uninvested money sitting in a bank somewhere.
How does this help society as a whole? Now workers have a much harder time getting a loan to increase their productivity, and the rich go from being massive purveyors of investment capital to pure consumers that stimulate nothing but the market for transient goods and services.
I can't say that there isn't any rule that would work, but thats certainly not it. Such a rule would be enormously damaging to the productivity and progress of society as a whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Taz, posted 03-01-2011 9:48 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 10:36 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 313 of 350 (607089)
03-01-2011 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by RAZD
03-01-2011 10:36 PM


Re: simple
RAZD writes:
Retire, give to charity, fund hospitals, create scholarships to schools for disadvantaged kids that can make use of a good education, etc etc etc. I could fill a page.
So you are relying upon these people who already tend to give massively to charity to become much more altruistic based on being able to retire from being so filthy rich they didn't need to work anyway.
But again, gifting money would have to be off limits to avoid concentrating wealth. Suppose Grandpa Hilton only funds the hospitals owned by Father Hilton, Mother Hilton, Son Hilton, etc... Not quite what you were after was it?
Its always a treat when you stop by and pitch in RAZD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2011 10:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2011 10:52 PM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 319 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 12:38 AM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 321 by Taz, posted 03-02-2011 8:03 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 315 of 350 (607091)
03-01-2011 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Coyote
03-01-2011 10:52 PM


Re: simple
Coyote writes:
I got into archaeology so I could be filthy rich.
I'm half way there...
LOL, best stop now, no reason to be greedy.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2011 10:52 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2011 11:30 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 350 (607122)
03-02-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by RAZD
03-02-2011 12:38 AM


Re: still simple
RAZD writes:
Certainly those would not be the ONLY choices.
Its not the only choice *now*. You didn't provide a plausible explanation for why people should take risks with their money simply to be more charitable than they already were, and you specifically ignored my points about giving away wealth being problematic.
RAZD writes:
You asked, I answered: simple.
I haven't expected you to ever be more than simple RAZD, but I do wish you had added something to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 12:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 8:59 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 350 (607125)
03-02-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Taz
03-02-2011 8:03 AM


Re: simple
Taz writes:
First of all, you need to stop with this what-if bullshit. This is little better than creationist tactics of what-iffing something to death.
First of all, this is hardly a far-fetched "what if" scenario. Second, we are talking about "what if" we limited the total wealth an individual can accumulate; if you wan't to stop with the "what if" then this particular thread of discussion just dies.
Taz writes:
I'd have to agree with jesus on this one.
Its this sort of non sequitur which really puts spice into discussions. I thought that I was debating the benefits and costs of hard maximum wealth limits in a capitalistic free market as it applies to society overall, but apparently Jesus has an opinion and Taz can tell it to me!
Taz writes:
You're ignoring all the altruistic efforts by simple folks who give way way way more than rich folks. Perhaps they don't have the monetary values to show for it, but they certainly give a whole shitload more.
Ok... I haven't even approached any sort of moral judgment on the topic of charity, mainly because its irrelevant. Non-monetary altruism is completely off topic which is why its being ignored.
Taz writes:
You know that Obama's tax plan that would tax rich people more?
How about you make an effort to stay with the topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Taz, posted 03-02-2011 8:03 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Taz, posted 03-02-2011 10:22 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 324 of 350 (607132)
03-02-2011 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by RAZD
03-02-2011 8:59 AM


Re: still simple, still off topic
RAZD writes:
Curiously, it's not a risk to give money away.
But you do have to have risk involved in an investment to make money. And yeah, some of those objections are going to be post hoc unless you expect me to read your mind about what inane comments you are going to post next.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 8:59 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024