Trickle Down Economics

[tradeunionsupporter]

Right Wingers believe in trickle down economics that the Rich/Wealthy Capitalists create Jobs for the Working Class therefor higher taxes on the Rich hurts Job creation my view is that if the Working Class owned and ran the means of production there would be no need for trickle down economics does anyone agree ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics)

[Decolonize The Left]

Right Wingers believe in trickle down economics that the Rich/Wealthy Capitalists create Jobs for the Working Class therefor higher taxes on the Rich hurts Job creation my view is that if the Working Class owned and ran the means of production there would be no need for trickle down economics does anyone agree ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

In short,

trickle-down economics = biggest load of horse crap ever spewed as economic doctrine

A bit more in depth,
Trickle down economics is basically a ruling-class theory used to legitimize the established doctrine of heavy exploitation. It's an age-old idea transformed into capitalist lingo; think of serfdom and the king who 'protected and helped' the serfs for nothing more than most of what they produced. The value of his existence 'trickled-down' to the serfs in exchange for the value of their productive forces.
So yes, if the working class controlled the means of production there would be no trickle-down because we'd have everything already and wouldn't need to wait for bits of water from the capitalist class.

- August

[Zav]

Trickle Down = Piss On

[Revolution starts with U]

A mistaken assumption that poor people wouldn't want things had they the money.... that's trickle down economics.

[RichardAWilson]

So-called Supply-Side Economics doesn't make much sense when too little aggregate demand (caused by joblessness and low wages) is the problem confronting us.

[Rafiq]

Trickle Down economics and Neo Liberal doctrine were nothing more than the Bourgeois responding to excessive power of the working class that was building up. The 60's, 70's, those were the years.

[Lynx]

Today we have supply-siders pushing austerity.

[RichardAWilson]

Reaganism wasn't Supply-Sided: in the sense that the Reagan Revolution was more a deformed hybrid of Keynesianism (I.e. Large fiscal deficits, lowering of the long-term interest rate, etc.)

Federal expenditures soared under Reagan. Meanwhile, price stabilization was abandoned in favor of pro-growth Central Banking. The tax-cutting was the only supply-side policy embraced by the Administration.

Supply-siders often attribute the economic rebound to the tax-cutting. To a degree, I believe the tax-cutting did revive economic growth. However, the degree to which the tax-cutting contributed to the recovery was, IMHO, rather minimal. Consumer spending drove the economy forward. It wasn't business spending that revived growth.

The Reagan Rebound had more to do with the lowering of mortgage and loan rates, which unleashed a wave of borrowing and spending on housing and automobiles.

Effective Federal Funds Rate

1981-06-01 19.10
1981-07-01 19.04
1981-08-01 17.82
1981-09-01 15.87
1981-10-01 15.08
1981-11-01 13.31
1981-12-01 12.37
1982-01-01 13.22
1982-02-01 14.78
1982-03-01 14.68
1982-04-01 14.94
1982-05-01 14.45
1982-06-01 14.15
1982-07-01 12.59
1982-08-01 10.12
1982-09-01 10.31
1982-10-01 9.71
1982-11-01 9.20
1982-12-01 8.95
1983-01-01 8.68
1983-02-01 8.51

The Fed. Funds Rate was more than halved (from 19% to 8.5%) between 1981 and 1983. That's the reason the Reagan Rebound was so strong.

America's Personal Savings Rate: Reagan Spending Boom

1981-11-01 12.2
1981-12-01 11.4
1982-01-01 11.6
1982-02-01 11.1
1982-03-01 11.2
1982-04-01 11.9
1982-05-01 11.3
1982-06-01 11.2
1982-07-01 11.6
1982-08-01 11.4
1982-09-01 10.5
1982-10-01 10.1
1982-11-01 9.7
1982-12-01 9.7
1983-01-01 9.8
1983-02-01 9.8
1983-03-01 9.3
1983-04-01 8.9
1983-05-01 8.7
1983-06-01 7.8

[RichardAWilson]

The Clinton Administration adhered more to Supply-Side Economics than Reagan. For Clinton, Supply-Side Policies worked because there was enough demand in the private economy to absorb the increased production. The Capital Gains Tax Reduction of 1997 contributed to an underlying boom in IT, Biotech and Capital Spending.

After all, when there's demand, businesses and investors are spending and investing. As such, lower tax rates will allow them to spend and invest more than before. However, when consumer demand is low, those same lower tax rates will just lead them to hoard money and invest more in foreign markets and economies where returns are higher (Brazil, China, Korea).

Hence: The reason Bush's Tax Cutting didn't work. Without the housing bubble, a negative personal savings rate and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American economy would have registered zero growth and net job losses. This Recession is nothing more than a correction of the underlying fundamentals. We're facing a Japanese-Style Lost Decade.

[LegendZ]

http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/reaganomics.jpg
http://www.chrisweigant.com/cw/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Reaganomics.jpg
In conclusion.
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-ReaganomicsPonzi.gif

[Judicator]

Right Wingers believe in trickle down economics that the Rich/Wealthy Capitalists create Jobs for the Working Class therefor higher taxes on the Rich hurts Job creation my view is that if the Working Class owned and ran the means of production there would be no need for trickle down economics does anyone agree ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics)

Not really, unless there was something stopping the most clever/productive of the worker-owners from accumulating increasing share of the factory they worked in, until they themselves became economically equivalent to capitalists.



So-called Supply-Side Economics doesn't make much sense when too little aggregate demand (caused by joblessness and low wages) is the problem confronting us.

I don't know if you were trying to start a conversation about supply side, or conflating separate concepts, but trickle down econ and supply side econ are distinct theories. Trickle down people claim that favorable tax rates for the rich help the poor. Supply side people claim that favorable tax rates for anyone increases economic growth. You can have economic growth while the poor stagnate or get poorer in real terms.

[RGacky3]

Trickle down people claim that favorable tax rates for the rich help the poor. Supply side people claim that favorable tax rates for anyone increases economic growth. You can have economic growth while the poor stagnate or get poorer in real terms.

They are very related, supply side is opposed to the more keynsian demand side, supply side wants to reduce rates for capital, i.e. taking down barriers to trade or investment, thats very similar to trickle down, in that the rich are generally also capitalists and financeers.

[RGacky3]

I.e. "Job creators" in the new right wing lingo.

[Judicator]

They are very related, supply side is opposed to the more keynsian demand side, supply side wants to reduce rates for capital, i.e. taking down barriers to trade or investment, thats very similar to trickle down, in that the rich are generally also capitalists and financeers.

Trickle down makes specific claims about who benefits from lower tax rates. Supply side makes specific claims about GDP overall. Both policies benefit capital holders but thats about all they have in common.

[RichardAWilson]

Since they both focus on capital formation (businesses, savings, capital gains and stock dividends), they're almost one and the same. After all, Supply-Side means a reduction in Marginal Tax Rates on those that do the saving and investing (businesses and the rich).

There is no fundamental difference between Supply-Side Economics and Trickle-Down Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

[Drosophila]

"Trickle-down" is probably one of the greatest scams in modern history. It turned an entire population of blue collar workers into a legion of mindless "conservatives". Raygun may be dead but his "legacy" lives on.

[RichardAWilson]

"Supply Side Economics" can work when Marginal Income Tax Rates are too high.

JFK showed this to be true when he reduced the maximum rate from 91% to around 70%. People aren't going to work and save when 90 cents on the dollar goes to the IRS. (Not to mention tax avoidance and fraud).

There are certain cases (they're rare and it's a fine line) where lowering effective tax rates will translate into higher overall revenues and stronger broad based economic growth.

However: Like I said, those are rare cases and aren't applicable in today's world. The so-called "Curve" doesn't work when tax rates are this low for millionaires, billionaires and hedge funds.

[T-Paine]

People aren't going to work and save when 90 cents on the dollar goes to the IRS.

People that met the top income bracket back then typically were not "working" anyway :rolleyes: And they still lived vastly better lives than the middle class, which was stronger then than today.

Trickle down economics just doesn't work as well because at some point privileged people put a lot less into the economy than the masses that actually buy the stuff that is produced.

It's also a popular right-wing lie that lower taxes + less regulation = more employment + more U.S. production. That stuff is trivial to the global capitalist who has access to overseas cheap labor. You could eliminate all taxes and regulation in the United States today and it would still be more profitable to use overseas labor because of the difference in wage rates. Yet not even Republicans are brave enough to bring the minimum wage to the table...that would surely end them forever.

[Judicator]

"Supply Side Economics" can work when Marginal Income Tax Rates are too high.

JFK showed this to be true when he reduced the maximum rate from 91% to around 70%. People aren't going to work and save when 90 cents on the dollar goes to the IRS. (Not to mention tax avoidance and fraud).

There are certain cases (they're rare and it's a fine line) where lowering effective tax rates will translate into higher overall revenues and stronger broad based economic growth.

However: Like I said, those are rare cases and aren't applicable in today's world. The so-called "Curve" doesn't work when tax rates are this low for millionaires, billionaires and hedge funds.

Higher taxes can be damaging to growth at any rate. Any increase in the tax rate means people have to get a higher pretax return on the same project, which means fewer projects will occur.


People that met the top income bracket back then typically were not "working" anyway :rolleyes: And they still lived vastly better lives than the middle class, which was stronger then than today.

Trickle down economics just doesn't work as well because at some point privileged people put a lot less into the economy than the masses that actually buy the stuff that is produced.

It's also a popular right-wing lie that lower taxes + less regulation = more employment + more U.S. production. That stuff is trivial to the global capitalist who has access to overseas cheap labor. You could eliminate all taxes and regulation in the United States today and it would still be more profitable to use overseas labor because of the difference in wage rates. Yet not even Republicans are brave enough to bring the minimum wage to the table...that would surely end them forever.

People in the upper class have a much higher labor supply elasticity. They can easily exit the labor force in response to higher tax rates, in contrast to the middle class, who can't.

Wealthy people provide credit and high-skilled jobs. Raise taxes and they can just take their money elsewhere.

If capitalists are able to get workers for any job abroad, why is anyone employed in the US at all?

[T-Paine]

People in the upper class have a much higher labor supply elasticity. They can easily exit the labor force in response to higher tax rates, in contrast to the middle class, who can't.

Wealthy people provide credit and high-skilled jobs. Raise taxes and they can just take their money elsewhere.

If capitalists are able to get workers for any job abroad, why is anyone employed in the US at all?

I was mostly talking about production and manufacturing, which if you haven't noticed, is almost completely gone in the USA for major corporations unless production is manned by machines.

There are certain home-field advantages for some things, but I think at this point the US economy has shifted completely to necessary services, which cannot be outsourced. So that's why not everyone is unemployed. :rolleyes:

[Judicator]

I was mostly talking about production and manufacturing, which if you haven't noticed, is almost completely gone in the USA for major corporations unless production is manned by machines.

There are certain home-field advantages for some things, but I think at this point the US economy has shifted completely to necessary services, which cannot be outsourced. So that's why not everyone is unemployed. :rolleyes:

So then taxes aren't trivial to the global capitalist, since manufacturing jobs can't just be sent abroad.

[Klaatu]

David Stockman himself thinks trickle-down is a bad idea

Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman: 'The GOP Destroyed U.S. Economy'
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-reagan-budget-director-david-s

Stockman: Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt

"As director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan,
David Stockman knows a thing or two about trying to balance the national budget."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425

[Judicator]

David Stockman himself thinks trickle-down is a bad idea

Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman: 'The GOP Destroyed U.S. Economy'
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-reagan-budget-director-david-s

Stockman: Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425

I bet if I found an important Liberal or Marxist who changed their beliefs, that would make Liberalism/Marxism false as well!

[Klaatu]

I bet if I found an important Liberal or Marxist who changed their beliefs, that would make Liberalism/Marxism false as well!

I think he learned from his mistakes. After all, he was the one of the guys that invented "trickle-down" in the first place.

[Dimmu]

I.e. "Job creators" in the new right wing lingo.

X2..

Just debated with a right-winger yesterday.. And thats was one of hes first arguments.. "Why should rich pay a tax? They created job and made the money with their own effort".

Unfortunately for him that argument is quite easy to break and he ended up using the "socialism is against human nature" argument.

[Klaatu]

X2..

Just debated with a right-winger yesterday.. And thats was one of hes first arguments.. "Why should rich pay a tax? They created job and made the money with their own effort".

(a) why should the rich pay a heavy tax?
Because society enabled them. It is impossible to be rich, sans a society of workers to "contribute" their wealth to the sacred few

(b) If the rich man "created jobs," where are they?
The jobs are created in Asia, not the USA. The wealthy are investing heavily in offshore industry, much to the detriment of the U.S. worker

(c) made money with their own effort?
Not so. They extracted the surplus wealth of workers' labor and called it "capital"


X2..
Unfortunately for him that argument is quite easy to break and he ended up using the "socialism is against human nature" argument.

Actually, it is capitalim that is against human nature, and against human morals, one of which is theft and extortion.

[ponymaruni]

well that trickle down economics theory is all bullshit and it clearly failed with the reagan and bush jr. administration.

[MattShizzle]

Exactly. The wealthy did better under Reagan - and some of the middle class, but the poor got poorer and homelessness skyrocketed. Bush Sr almost as bad, and Bush Jr, everyone but the wealthy did much worse.

[Rooster]

Marx talks about this in Wage Labour and Capital:


Effect of growth of Productive Capital on Wages

We thus see that, even if we keep ourselves within the relation of capital and wage-labour, the interests of capitals and the interests of wage-labour are diametrically opposed to each other.

A rapid growth of capital is synonymous with a rapid growth of profits. Profits can grow rapidly only when the price of labour – the relative wages – decrease just as rapidly. Relative wages may fall, although real wages rise simultaneously with nominal wages, with the money value of labour, provided only that the real wage does not rise in the same proportion as the profit. If, for instance, in good business years wages rise 5 per cent, while profits rise 30 per cent, the proportional, the relative wage has not increased, but decreased.

If, therefore, the income of the worker increased with the rapid growth of capital, there is at the same time a widening of the social chasm that divides the worker from the capitalist, and increase in the power of capital over labour, a greater dependence of labour upon capital.

To say that "the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of capital", means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him, the greater will be the number of workers than can be called into existence, the more can the mass of slaves dependent upon capital be increased.If you haven't read it, then why not? It's not very long and it was written as an address to workers so it's not as hard to read as Capital:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

[RichardAWilson]

If high tax rates are that bad for the economy, why did the strongest recorded growth in our nation occur during the Post-War Era when tax rates were much higher? There are more important contributing factors to economic growth than tax rates.

One such factor is public infrastructure. Our economy wouldn't be where it is if it was not for taxpayer financed roads, highways and interstates. Radios, X Rays and even the World Wide Web wouldn't be around w/o defense research. The case that low tax rates create prosperity is a joke. You can move to Somalia to see such a Utopia.

[Judicator]

If high tax rates are that bad for the economy, why did the strongest recorded growth in our nation occur during the Post-War Era when tax rates were much higher? There are more important contributing factors to economic growth than tax rates.

One such factor is public infrastructure. Our economy wouldn't be where it is if it was not for taxpayer financed roads, highways and interstates. Radios, X Rays and even the World Wide Web wouldn't be around w/o defense research. The case that low tax rates create prosperity is a joke. You can move to Somalia to see such a Utopia.

Sure, the question is *all else equal* what's the difference if you tax a little more or a little less. A modest reduction in taxes isn't enough to end up like Somalia, and if you cut your low ROI programs first (wealth redistribution) you'll have the benefits of lower taxes and still manage to invent the Laser and so on.


(a) why should the rich pay a heavy tax?
Because society enabled them. It is impossible to be rich, sans a society of workers to "contribute" their wealth to the sacred few

(b) If the rich man "created jobs," where are they?
The jobs are created in Asia, not the USA. The wealthy are investing heavily in offshore industry, much to the detriment of the U.S. worker

(c) made money with their own effort?
Not so. They extracted the surplus wealth of workers' labor and called it "capital"

Actually, it is capitalim that is against human nature, and against human morals, one of which is theft and extortion.


a - it's also difficult to be a worker without people renting out capital

b - we still have 80-90% employment, so the rich are hiring in the US

c - If a factory owner were to borrow all of his capital and buy all of his labor, you wouldn't expect him to make anything. With vanilla manufacturing in a mature industry, there isn't much money to be made beyond return on capital plus labor costs.

Humans are all egoists to some extent - capitalism manages to channel this towards productive ends. Contracts made between two parties with large difference is bargaining power, as long as they arise legally, aren't extortion.

[RGacky3]

a - it's also difficult to be a worker without people renting out capital


Bullshit premis, If you did'nt have the people renting out capital, you'd have the capital, and not have to pay the overhead and just be a worker.


b - we still have 80-90% employment, so the rich are hiring in the US


Well unemployment has been going up, so overall ... no they are not.


c - If a factory owner were to borrow all of his capital and buy all of his labor, you wouldn't expect him to make anything. With vanilla manufacturing in a mature industry, there isn't much money to be made beyond return on capital plus labor costs.


Actually thats how a LOT of industries start, its your return on capital AND labor minus costs, the excess wealth created by the labor from the capital is your profit.


Humans are all egoists to some extent - capitalism manages to channel this towards productive ends. Contracts made between two parties with large difference is bargaining power, as long as they arise legally, aren't extortion.

Thats not what Capitalism does, Capitalism institutionalizes greed and basically criminalizes other natural instincts like solidarity, community and so on, what it does with egoism is make a system that at the present is much more destructive than productive and creates a plutocracy.

It is extortion, because the property laws are in place with the threat of violence, if I work picking strawberries for a guy who "owns" the farm but has never seen it, if I take those strawberries home I go to prison, thats extortion, and its the basis of Capitalism.

[RichardAWilson]

I created a thread for my response to the rich creating jobs (it's called America's Jobs Depression).

[Drosophila]

It's the workers who don't have money to spend, which is what hurts the economy overall. The rich are enjoying having millions of dollars, which they don't use to hire people.

[Judicator]

Bullshit premis, If you did'nt have the people renting out capital, you'd have the capital, and not have to pay the overhead and just be a worker.

Why wouldn't anyone rent out capital? Do you think the savings rate would be 0, or that nobody would invest their savings?



Well unemployment has been going up, so overall ... no they are not.


There are something like 162 million employed people in the US. Most of these people are going to be hired by "rich" individuals or corporations.




Thats not what Capitalism does, Capitalism institutionalizes greed and basically criminalizes other natural instincts like solidarity, community and so on, what it does with egoism is make a system that at the present is much more destructive than productive and creates a plutocracy

"Institutionalizing greed" just sounds like a pejorative term for getting people's egoist incentives to produce wealth.

How does capitalism make community criminal? Capitalism does nothing to prevent you from spending time with your friends and family, etc.



It is extortion, because the property laws are in place with the threat of violence, if I work picking strawberries for a guy who "owns" the farm but has never seen it, if I take those strawberries home I go to prison, thats extortion, and its the basis of Capitalism.


It's extortion that laws are enforced with threat of violence? Really? Aren't all laws enforced with some threat of punishment?

The part about who picks berries is irrelevant - extortion requires coercion and the only part in your example requiring coercion is enforcing law.

[RGacky3]

Why wouldn't anyone rent out capital? Do you think the savings rate would be 0, or that nobody would invest their savings?


Thats not the point, your saying that Capitalists GIVE people jobs, now they don't, if Capitalists dissapeared tommorow we'd all still be able to run the economy.


There are something like 162 million employed people in the US. Most of these people are going to be hired by "rich" individuals or corporations.


No shit, and in the middle ages in England almost all the peasents were hired by nobles who were hired by the king, so everyone was hired by the king, so I guess, the KING created all the jobs in England right?

Thats the exact same non-logic your employing.


"Institutionalizing greed" just sounds like a pejorative term for getting people's egoist incentives to produce wealth.

How does capitalism make community criminal? Capitalism does nothing to prevent you from spending time with your friends and family, etc.


People will produce wealth no matter what, Capitalism just puts it into a few peoples hands, and basically BANS solidarity by having a purpetual profit motive, meaing profit must go up, and rate of profit must go up all the time, which in essence bans altruism.

Thats what I mean by making community criminal, purpetual profit means even if you can run your factory and treat your owrkers well and still make a profit, you MUST treat them worse if you can make more of a profit, because if you don't your competitor will.


It's extortion that laws are enforced with threat of violence? Really? Aren't all laws enforced with some threat of punishment?


Yeah, but property LAWS, are not valid laws.


The part about who picks berries is irrelevant - extortion requires coercion and the only part in your example requiring coercion is enforcing law.

Exactly, which is why its legal extortion, one guy is doing the work, the other guy is extorting.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2173082]Thats not the point, your saying that Capitalists GIVE people jobs, now they don't, if Capitalists dissapeared tommorow we'd all still be able to run the economy.

No, capitalists do not give people jobs. But is not a claim by socialists that the socialists will "give people jobs?"




No shit, and in the middle ages in England almost all the peasents were hired by nobles who were hired by the king, so everyone was hired by the king, so I guess, the KING created all the jobs in England right?

Thats the exact same non-logic your employing.

But as quoted above, the socialist proposes to do the same, just democratically.




People will produce wealth no matter what, Capitalism just puts it into a few peoples hands, and basically BANS solidarity by having a purpetual profit motive, meaing profit must go up, and rate of profit must go up all the time, which in essence bans altruism.

Thats what I mean by making community criminal, purpetual profit means even if you can run your factory and treat your owrkers well and still make a profit, you MUST treat them worse if you can make more of a profit, because if you don't your competitor will.

Increasing profit CAN be also a sign of increasing wealth (it would depend upon what the profit was being accrued). So a prejudice against increasing profit by a particular business is not conducive to the claim that people will produce wealth "no matter what."

[RichardAWilson]

Socialists don’t claim to create jobs. Socialists claim that democratic policies and organization will encourage the formation of more jobs by increasing aggregate demand and stabilizing industrial and commercial production.

[RGacky3]

No, capitalists do not give people jobs. But is not a claim by socialists that the socialists will "give people jobs?"


No, it is not.


But as quoted above, the socialist proposes to do the same, just democratically.


This is not a question of what people will do or not, its about the nature of economics, what gives people work in ANY system is demand. Socialism or Capitalism is just how to organize work, resources and so on.


Increasing profit CAN be also a sign of increasing wealth (it would depend upon what the profit was being accrued). So a prejudice against increasing profit by a particular business is not conducive to the claim that people will produce wealth "no matter what."

What does that have to do with my post?

[tradeunionsupporter]

These are good answers thank you.

[Klaatu]

Let's get this straight right now: wealth is the product of human effort, no matter what your ideology.

Here's how this works:

(A) the worker works and thusly creates wealth
(B) that wealth is either:
• kept by the worker (socialism)
• or partially confiscated by the lazy rich man, and renamed as "capital." (capitalism)

That being said, who has the right to that created wealth, the worker or the capitalist profiteer?

[Judicator]

Thats not the point, your saying that Capitalists GIVE people jobs, now they don't, if Capitalists dissapeared tommorow we'd all still be able to run the economy.

Don't backpedal - you bring up an unlikely counterfactual about people not lending capital, when realistically this would never be the case.

Hiring someone is giving them a job. Capitalists hire people.



No shit, and in the middle ages in England almost all the peasents were hired by nobles who were hired by the king, so everyone was hired by the king, so I guess, the KING created all the jobs in England right?

Thats the exact same non-logic your employing.


It's illogical to say creating a job is simply hiring someone?



People will produce wealth no matter what, Capitalism just puts it into a few peoples hands, and basically BANS solidarity by having a purpetual profit motive, meaing profit must go up, and rate of profit must go up all the time, which in essence bans altruism.

Thats what I mean by making community criminal, purpetual profit means even if you can run your factory and treat your owrkers well and still make a profit, you MUST treat them worse if you can make more of a profit, because if you don't your competitor will.

Look at all of the wealth people were able to produce during the "Great Leap Forward"...there can be vast disparities between total wealth production under different economic systems. Labor income has historically represented something like 25-33% of GDP, it hasn't been going down since 1700 as you Marxists might expect.

You can treat your workers better up to the point that your return on capital becomes 0, at which point you're breaking even from an accounting perspective.



Yeah, but property LAWS, are not valid laws.


Why not?



Exactly, which is why its legal extortion, one guy is doing the work, the other guy is extorting.


What is legal extortion? The enforcement of property laws? If all laws are extortion than enjoy your anarchy...


Let's get this straight right now: wealth is the product of human effort, no matter what your ideology.

Here's how this works:

(A) the worker works and thusly creates wealth
(B) that wealth is either:
• kept by the worker (socialism)
• or partially confiscated by the lazy rich man, and renamed as "capital." (capitalism)

That being said, who has the right to that created wealth, the worker or the capitalist profiteer?

Wealth is the joint product of technology, planning, and human effort. Misdirected effort creates no wealth.

The "confiscation" is the premium earned for the use of assets. If I let you borrow a tool, I could justly ask for compensation. If I enhance your productivity with my factory, I justly get some return by doing so.

[RGacky3]

Don't backpedal - you bring up an unlikely counterfactual about people not lending capital, when realistically this would never be the case.

Hiring someone is giving them a job. Capitalists hire people.


Consumers give people jobs, Capitalists are just the middleman.

Iæm not backpeddling, I'm saying if all the Capitalists were raptured tommorow, and the Capital left behind, evey one would be FINE running it for themselves.


It's illogical to say creating a job is simply hiring someone?

Yeah, because your not "creating" a job, the job was already there (due to the demand), your just taking a cut.


Look at all of the wealth people were able to produce during the "Great Leap Forward"...there can be vast disparities between total wealth production under different economic systems. Labor income has historically represented something like 25-33% of GDP, it hasn't been going down since 1700 as you Marxists might expect.


Labor income (wages I assume your talking about), have, in the US been dropping for the last 40 years.


Why not?


Because they are tyrannical, discriminatory and have no basis in basic human rights.


What is legal extortion? The enforcement of property laws? If all laws are extortion than enjoy your anarchy...


Not all laws are extortion, for example, laws against rape are not extortion, property laws are extortion.

Because you are taking the fruits of someone elses labor, and they only agree to that because if they do not agree to it they are cur off from the means of living, which are ONLY in the hands of a few capitalists due to property laws enforced by violence.

[jake williams]

There actually is a real argument for supply-side policy that's worth looking at and understanding. I don't think the policies typically achieve their stated objectives at all, but they shouldn't, at least at first, be simply dismissed. (And there are other questions about whether or not their stated objectives should be the objectives of policy).


To begin. One can imagine a fairly simple model of the economy which has a surprising degree of accuracy. In this model, there are two uses of productive activity, two things one can do with one's time and resources:


Personal consumption, for oneself or others. eg. you bake a cake
Investment in productive capacity. eg. you build an oven, which will allow you to bake more cakes

Sarah has a fire pit in which she can bake a cake for dessert. It takes her about an hour of work, all things considered. If one evening, instead of baking a cake, she instead builds an oven, then in the future (until the oven breaks down, which will take a long time) it will only take half an hour to bake a cake. Instead of putting her resources (in this case, whatever materials she had on hand, and her labour) into consumption, she put her resources into investment. Because of this, it takes her less labour in the future to consume the same amount of cake. Sarah likes cake, so this is a clear advantage - for just a little bit of work one evening, she can have much more cake every evening until her oven breaks down.

There is another important model of the economy which is both more complex and more problematic theoretically, but it has the advantage of clear empirical evidence, and relative unanimity amongst economists. The basic idea is, the more money you have, the lower the proportion of it will be spent on personal consumption. It's not intended to be true in all cases, for all individuals. For example, many cases exist of thrifty individuals who win the lottery, start spending all their money, and end up losing all the savings they'd accumulated when they'd had a smaller income. But in general, it's assumed that one can break up everyone's income into two categories: spending and saving. And it's assumed that the more you have, the higher a portion of your income you will save and the less you will spend.

There is a third very important assumption, which most economists will also acknowledge is limited, and only applies in general, but which they do insist applies in general. Again, there is some empirical evidence. This is the idea that saving equals investment. Some people really do take a lot of their income, put the change in a little bag, roll up the bills, and put the lot in a shoebox. Generally though, people take any money they don't spend and put it in a bank. Banks, in turned, are assumed to invest it in some form of productive activity.

Taken altogether, these three assumptions underly supply-side economics: a bigger part of each dollar we give to a richer person will be spent on investment than on consumption. If, for example, a tax break of $1000 is given to a poor person, there's a good chance they'll spend it on just getting by: rent, food, drugs. If, however, we give that same $1000 to a wealthier person, their mortgage is already paid, their cupboards are full, and their drugs are well and bought already. $1000 might almost be a second thought, and simply deposited - in a bank, that will in turn lend it to a small businessperson, who will buy an oven, and start baking cakes for everyone. The small businessperson gets an income, we all get cake, and the wealthy beneficiary of clever tax policy makes a small profit from interest on the deposit. If the wealthy individual is feeling really entrepreneurial, it might not even go to the bank. Perhaps the wealthy individual already has a cake factory, albeit ones with some failing ovens. If $1000 buys an oven, and the wealthy individual would like to sell some cakes, they might just create a job for one lucky baker. The wealthy individual sells some cakes at a profit, one lucky baker gets a job, and we all get cake. Everyone wins.


So there is a theory, and for the most part, it's internally consistent. What are its limitations?

I think it's worth talking about two categories of limitations to this theory. One refers to what the policies are actually intended to accomplish, and the other how well it accomplishes it.

Regarding the first. The main claim of the theory, that which basically logically follows from the assumptions, is that supply-side policies - policies benefittings those supplying goods, rather than those consuming them - produce more goods in the long run for the same amount of resources. If we know that there are 10 workers in an economy, they might be doing well at first if they just bake cakes, but if they build some ovens they can eventually end up with even more cakes in the long run, for the same amount of work.

It's important to ask several things here though. First, should we be baking cakes? Are there better things we could or should be doing? Second, who actually gets to eat the cakes? The latter is typically referred to as a "distributional" concern - most economists, including right wing economists, acknowledge that theories like this don't address how the total goods produced are distributed among different people. But I think both are class issues. Workers - the majority of people, who actually produce goods - don't get to decide what gets made. Once it's made, they don't decide how it's consumed. The capitalist system produces, in the interests of capitalists, gives workers what it must, and then the workers can try to consume whatever part they can afford.

But even though, accepting the assumptions of the original theory, supply-side policies might produce a higher quantity of goods in total in the long run, this might not be our priority. Suppose we were given two choices, and this sounds abstract, but it really can be relevant to policy.


9 people produce 100 cakes. They each get one cake, and a tenth person gets the remaining 91.
9 people produce 50 cakes. They each get four, and a tenth person gets the remaining 14.

Which one is preferable? In both cases, the tenth person gets more than the other nine, and hasn't done any work, but they would prefer the first case. However, for the other 9 people, the ones doing the work, the second case is much better. But the second case involves producing a lot less. If the only goal is producing as much as possible, one person here does well but the other nine get shafted.

So it's important to ask what the actual goals of policy are.


Regarding the second. However, does this all actually work? Assuming we just want to produce as much as possible?

It's a valuable question. We made three important assumptions in the original theory, all three of which have some evidence in the real world, but all three of which have limitations. This applies, also, to the ability of supply-side policies to produce as much as possible.

Take the US economy right now. Even though Barack Obama is a Marxist socialist trying to destory capitalism and stew the innards of good white job creators in a wretched African stew, a lot of his actual economic policies, do, in fact, involve "supply-side" theories - giving a lot of money to wealthy people, expecting them to invest in the economy, allowing everyone to produce more and thus consume more.

They're getting the money, but what are they doing with it? Not a whole lot. Some of them are buying gold - in other words, putting it in a shoebox (or if you want to be really pedantic about how gold is useful as something other than a means of exchange, buying cakes, and putting the cakes in the shoebox). To a significant degree, they're just consuming it, building expansions on their homes, buying yachts, buying drugs. This creates some jobs, building yachts and selling drugs, but not that many. There are also lots of stranger things they do with it, gambling, making odd predictions, speculating on currencies and bonds. They spend it trying to come up with schemes to steal money from other rich people, or from poor people, but that's pretty circular - so, you've stolen a bunch of money, but what do you do with it?

Largely though, it goes in the bank. What does it do in the bank? At this point, mostly sit there. The banks really aren't sure where they can make any profits with the money they're sitting on. It's not small businesspeople buying ovens and selling cakes - no one can afford cakes, or trust the small businesspeople. They're trying to loan it to governments, but if the governments are just giving their loans out in tax cuts to rich people to put in the banks, that's not the brightest idea. And even if they do something different, and the governments don't just collapse and default, the bonds still won't make a lot of money. Which means if you don't get another tax cut, you don't get to buy as many yachts as you might like, which is a real bummer.

So, is giving a bunch of money to rich people the best way to increase overall production? Maybe not, for what that's worth.


But could we think of better ways, still assuming we want to increase overall production? Probably. There is relatively strong empirical evidence that giving money to people who almost certainly won't buy gold, burn it, leave it in a shoebox, and so on, will mean they actually spend it on products. They consume, but in consuming (so another theory goes) they give incentives to businesspeople to buy ovens, sell cakes, banks start lending, we all buy lots of ovens, bake lots of cakes, and things are great again. That's a limited theory too in a lot of ways, ways I can't be bothered to explain right now, but there's some evidence for it. It works a bit better than supply-side policies, in general, in capitalist societies, in producing a higher overall quantity of goods. For what that's worth.

[RichardAWilson]

Supply-Side worked during the Clinton Administration because aggregate demand was high enough to absorb the increased production. Businesses invested because consumers were consuming.

Businesses aren't going to spend unless there's demand for more production.

Supply-Sided Policies don't work during a recession. However, they do work during an expansion.

The Reagan Recovery had more to do with consumer spending than business spending. (I.e. Lower interest rates on loans and mortgages revived consumer spending on homes and automobiles and household goods and appliances).

Nonetheless, the tax-cutting did benefit the Reagan "Boom."

The same holds true for Clinton. The tax increases in 1993 didn't affect the economic recovery. However, the tax cutting in 1997 did strengthen the boom.

[RGacky3]

I would'nt even say that, I would say supply side works during an expansion, however all it does is speed it up and speed up the inevitable crash.

Sure buisiness will expand quicker, but its very unlikely demand will keep up, thus you have bubbles being created, no only that but the more leverage the rich have the more they will use it to take more and more surplus value from the workers, thus ultimately leading the the income inequality and wealth inequality that leads to a crash.

So it strengthens the boom in a way, the same way drinking a bunch of coffee can make you work faster.

[jake williams]

I would'nt even say that, I would say supply side works during an expansion, however all it does is speed it up and speed up the inevitable crash.

Sure buisiness will expand quicker, but its very unlikely demand will keep up, thus you have bubbles being created, no only that but the more leverage the rich have the more they will use it to take more and more surplus value from the workers, thus ultimately leading the the income inequality and wealth inequality that leads to a crash.

So it strengthens the boom in a way, the same way drinking a bunch of coffee can make you work faster.
I think you're both generally correct, which is why I think it's important to question the (usually unstated and uncontested) assumptions of what the goals of policy is. The argument for supply side economics is that it will, basically, increase growth in GDP (ie. the quantity of production), at least in some circumstances. This argument is broadly true, but what exactly does that mean for workers? What does it mean in the long run?

[RGacky3]

Well the argument is that it is better for everyone, that its good for the workers too, and thats wrong.

If the argument is that it increases growth in some circumstances, then yeah, of coarse.

[jake williams]

Well the argument is that it is better for everyone, that its good for the workers too, and thats wrong.
I think it's pretty easy to get a right-wing economist to acknowledge that the distributional effects of supply-side economics aren't necessarily neutral. I don't know anyone seriously making the argument that it's "good for everyone". Every politician who isn't a pretty committed leftist will usually say they're looking out for everyone, but the right wing is full of people honestly advocating a theory they know isn't good for everyone.

I guess what I'm sick of are the blasé dismissal of right wing policies as "stupid". Supply side economics aren't "bad" abstractly because they're "bad" intellectually. There's an argument with meaningful evidence that advances particular interests.

[RGacky3]

I don't know anyone seriously making the argument that it's "good for everyone". Every politician who isn't a pretty committed leftist will usually say they're looking out for everyone, but the right wing is full of people honestly advocating a theory they know isn't good for everyone.


Yeah ... But just watch them on TV and in interviews, but both of us know they are basically lying, but I wonder how many of them have internalized it?


I guess what I'm sick of are the blasé dismissal of right wing policies as "stupid". Supply side economics aren't "bad" abstractly because they're "bad" intellectually. There's an argument with meaningful evidence that advances particular interests.

They are not stupid if your an ultra rich Capitalist or Financeer, but they are stupid if you think its a workable system that benefits everyone moreso than other systems, or if you think its even sustainable to any degree.

[jake williams]

Yeah ... But just watch them on TV and in interviews, but both of us know they are basically lying, but I wonder how many of them have internalized it?

They are not stupid if your an ultra rich Capitalist or Financeer, but they are stupid if you think its a workable system that benefits everyone moreso than other systems, or if you think its even sustainable to any degree.
I'm an economics major. I read the business press a lot. I listen to a lot of right wing economists talk. They don't believe what they're advocating is actually good for everyone, and state it fairly explicitly, including to students. Their politicians might, but businesspeople and right wing academics don't.

[RGacky3]

Their politicians might, but businesspeople and right wing academics don't.

The buisiness people do not, as for right wing academics, many probably, but I've heard alot saying that it might not be good for everyone, but it is good for those that apply themselves, or are talented or whatever, making it seam like its a merit system.

But your right, you'd be suprised, I've mett pretty wealthy people, financial types, and many of them know very damn well that they are skimmers and that the system is totally unsustainable and expoitative, but hey, why not make a couple bucks if you have the chance.

[RichardAWilson]

I'm a Business Major :cool: Seems like we're on the same page.

[Judicator]

Consumers give people jobs, Capitalists are just the middleman.

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2178564]Iæm not backpeddling, I'm saying if all the Capitalists were raptured tommorow, and the Capital left behind, evey one would be FINE running it for themselves.

You said earlier "If you did'nt have the people renting out capital, you'd have the capital, and not have to pay the overhead and just be a worker." Why, in your new fantasy land, would nobody rent out any of their capital?


Yeah, because your not "creating" a job, the job was already there (due to the demand), your just taking a cut.

The job was already there? So in your world if there's demand but nobody's hiring, there are still jobs?


Labor income (wages I assume your talking about), have, in the US been dropping for the last 40 years.

This is factually false. Labor income is hourly wages, plus salaries. High skilled employee wages are included.


Because they are tyrannical, discriminatory and have no basis in basic human rights.

Property is a basic human right.


Because you are taking the fruits of someone elses labor, and they only agree to that because if they do not agree to it they are cur off from the means of living, which are ONLY in the hands of a few capitalists due to property laws enforced by violence.

That just isn't true anymore - if you look at consumption patterns of the poor, they spend only a fraction of their income on food/housing, meaning they are being paid an above subsistence wage.

Plus, it's your factory.



I think you're both generally correct, which is why I think it's important to question the (usually unstated and uncontested) assumptions of what the goals of policy is. The argument for supply side economics is that it will, basically, increase growth in GDP (ie. the quantity of production), at least in some circumstances. This argument is broadly true, but what exactly does that mean for workers? What does it mean in the long run?

What's the long run? 100 years? What kinds of differences in growth are we talking about? If we sacrifice growth now to make present workers better off, aren't we saying that workers now are more valuable than future workers?

[RGacky3]

You said earlier "If you did'nt have the people renting out capital, you'd have the capital, and not have to pay the overhead and just be a worker." Why, in your new fantasy land, would nobody rent out any of their capital?


Because its not THEIR Capital its OUR capital.


The job was already there? So in your world if there's demand but nobody's hiring, there are still jobs?


No one is hiring because demand is low, yeah there are still jobs, if everyone worked less, everyone could work, but it would'nt be profitable for the capitalists and they prefer unemployment.


This is factually false. Labor income is hourly wages, plus salaries. High skilled employee wages are included.


No its not, since the 1970s wages have been flat and even dropped a little, do you want me to find the statistics?


Property is a basic human right.


Not when it deprives others of their rights.


That just isn't true anymore - if you look at consumption patterns of the poor, they spend only a fraction of their income on food/housing, meaning they are being paid an above subsistence wage.

Plus, it's your factory.


Get me statistics on that because I'm saying your full of shit.

And no its not your factory, you have as much a right to it as a king does to the place he calls his "kingdom."


What's the long run? 100 years? What kinds of differences in growth are we talking about? If we sacrifice growth now to make present workers better off, aren't we saying that workers now are more valuable than future workers?

Well, historically its been less than 40 years. The growth we are talking about is 3% GDP growth neccessary to have a healthy economy.

What we are saying is instead of having purpetual growth, you only have growht when its needed, thats not what its like now, now under capitalism you NEED purpetual growth.

[Judicator]

Because its not THEIR Capital its OUR capital.


Okay so it's ours, why would nobody among us choose to rent some of it out, and in doing so become capitalists?



No one is hiring because demand is low, yeah there are still jobs, if everyone worked less, everyone could work, but it would'nt be profitable for the capitalists and they prefer unemployment.


Believe me as a capitalist I wish there was full employment, my stock portfolio would be doing a lot better.



No its not, since the 1970s wages have been flat and even dropped a little, do you want me to find the statistics?


You're confusing labor income and wages. Labor income is the total amount paid to anyone for work (as opposed to interest and dividends and so on). Feel free to look up statistics.



Not when it deprives others of their rights.


So then you agree that property is a human right, but should just be traded off against other basic human rights?



And no its not your factory, you have as much a right to it as a king does to the place he calls his "kingdom."


You own the factory. It's yours. Pretty simple.

[Libertador]

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the reason why the American unemployment rate is so high. It is the result of the removal of economic borders which enabled American manufacturing to move overseas and to manufacture products overseas at a much lower cost (after all, a company's highest moral obligation is to pay its shareholders!).

Brotip: If you want to troll right-wingers, remind them of the fact that this was heralded by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

[RGacky3]

Okay so it's ours, why would nobody among us choose to rent some of it out, and in doing so become capitalists?


Because who are you gonna rent it to? If it belongs to everyone there collecively, also because you'd need to pass it democratically, meaning you'd have to share the income with everyone anyway, point is, its impossible, try rent out a public park, you can't.


Believe me as a capitalist I wish there was full employment, my stock portfolio would be doing a lot better.


No it would'nt actually, because more of your stock portfolio would be going to peoples wages, and actually stock prices have gone WAY UP high since wages have stagnated.

Realy economists, and real capitalists know this already, which is why they make sure there is not full employment.


You're confusing labor income and wages. Labor income is the total amount paid to anyone for work (as opposed to interest and dividends and so on). Feel free to look up statistics.


If that includes CEO pay and Bonuses, then thats pointless, I'm looking at wages.


So then you agree that property is a human right, but should just be traded off against other basic human rights?


No i don't agree, because property (in the economic sense) is a concept that neccessarily deprives other people of things they need, meaning it neccessarily deprives other people of that right, meaning it is NOT a basic human right, anymore than being a monarch is a basic human right.


You own the factory. It's yours. Pretty simple.

You own England, your the king, pretty simple.

[Judicator]

Because who are you gonna rent it to? If it belongs to everyone there collecively, also because you'd need to pass it democratically, meaning you'd have to share the income with everyone anyway, point is, its impossible, try rent out a public park, you can't.

If people own assets or portions of assets that they want to get a return on them, they will devise a way to do so. If a factory has 10 workers and makes 100 widgets, and you split them equally, anyone who has excess widgets will sell them and loan out the money.


No it would'nt actually, because more of your stock portfolio would be going to peoples wages, and actually stock prices have gone WAY UP high since wages have stagnated.

Realy economists, and real capitalists know this already, which is why they make sure there is not full employment.

It's not zero sum. More labor means more corporate income, which eventually gets returned to shareholders, meaning my stock portfolio. Of course fluctuations in expectations can move stock prices all over the place.

Why do you think capitalists even control the unemployment rate? They hire whenever market conditions make hiring profitable.


If that includes CEO pay and Bonuses, then thats pointless, I'm looking at wages.

So we're just looking at two different things. By excluding salaries when talking about income since the 1970s, and claiming "wages are flat" you present a misleading picture to the extent all of the growth was in moderate wage salaried positions, like programmers, accountants, etc.



No i don't agree, because property (in the economic sense) is
[1]a concept that neccessarily deprives other people of things they need,
[2]meaning it neccessarily deprives other people of that right,
[3]meaning it is NOT a basic human right, anymore than being a monarch is a basic human right.


[1] Not necessarily - this depends completely on the empirical allocation of resources
[2] People don't have a right to coercively extract anything they need from others
[3] Why does one right's inevitable conflict with another right mean one can't be a right?




You own England, your the king, pretty simple.


A factory owner controls his factory justly and legally, while the king's legal ownership of England is unjust.

[RGacky3]

If people own assets or portions of assets that they want to get a return on them, they will devise a way to do so. If a factory has 10 workers and makes 100 widgets, and you split them equally, anyone who has excess widgets will sell them and loan out the money.


Why would the workers want these widgets? They arn't making it for themselves, they are making it for whoever needs widgets.


It's not zero sum. More labor means more corporate income, which eventually gets returned to shareholders, meaning my stock portfolio. Of course fluctuations in expectations can move stock prices all over the place.

Why do you think capitalists even control the unemployment rate? They hire whenever market conditions make hiring profitable.


More labor only means more corporate income if the output is continually higher, more money spent on labor means less income if the output is the same or does'nt race as much.

THey want to keep labor costs as low as possible in comparison to their income.

They lower labor cost when they can and only hire when then must, meaning that the market generally leads to more unemployment, which leads to a lakc in demand, leading to more unemployment.

Now your right its not a zero sum game, which is why you need around 3% growth to keep capitalism working, but 3% growth simply cannot happen for an extended period of time, afterwords you end up making bubbles.


So we're just looking at two different things. By excluding salaries when talking about income since the 1970s, and claiming "wages are flat" you present a misleading picture to the extent all of the growth was in moderate wage salaried positions, like programmers, accountants, etc.


Do you want me to find the statistics? and all that, are you really going to dispute me on this?

http://epi.3cdn.net/3b7a1c34747d141327_4dm6bx8ni.pdf

I don't know exactly waht their definition of worker is here (it seams they include saleries as well), but its pretty clear what the data says, and I'm also pretty sure they are not including executives.


[1] Not necessarily - this depends completely on the empirical allocation of resources


Yesh but in practice it does and always has.


[2] People don't have a right to coercively extract anything they need from others


thats a false argument because your assuming that the "others" have a legitimate right to "own" whatever those people need.


[3] Why does one right's inevitable conflict with another right mean one can't be a right?


Because property never was a right, because its not applied to everyone, and its not even possible for everyone, its like saying everyone has the right to own the moon.


A factory owner controls his factory justly and legally, while the king's legal ownership of England is unjust.

Both are unjust, land ownership and being a monarch is basically the same thing.

[Judicator]

Why would the workers want these widgets? They arn't making it for themselves, they are making it for whoever needs widgets.

So they sell the widgets and the one worker who sells his share of production but doesn't end up using all of the money will invest the extra.



More labor only means more corporate income if the output is continually higher, more money spent on labor means less income if the output is the same or does'nt race as much.

They lower labor cost when they can and only hire when then must, meaning that the market generally leads to more unemployment, which leads to a lakc in demand, leading to more unemployment.

Now your right its not a zero sum game, which is why you need around 3% growth to keep capitalism working, but 3% growth simply cannot happen for an extended period of time, afterwords you end up making bubbles.


If companies rationally hire labor, then more labor (at that company) always means more corporate income. If it didn't mean more corporate income, the labor wouldn't be hired.

The market generally leads to more unemployment? Are you just making stuff up now? Look at the unemployment rate over the last 100 years.

If it's not a zero sum game then both workers and capitalists can benefit when the economy grows.



Do you want me to find the statistics? and all that, are you really going to dispute me on this?



Yes, lol, your link said itself that worker pay has grown 10%.



Yesh but in practice it does and always has.



Right, so not by necessity. The whole argument breaks down if it relies on necessary results.



thats a false argument because your assuming that the "others" have a legitimate right to "own" whatever those people need.



Two wrongs make a right? If someone has stolen from you this doesn't give you the right to steal back from them...



Because property never was a right, because its not applied to everyone, and its not even possible for everyone, its like saying everyone has the right to own the moon.



It is applied to everyone...anyone can legally buy and own property, and everyone who does enjoys the same protections.



Both are unjust, land ownership and being a monarch is basically the same thing.


One is a system of government, the other is a law. This is like saying democracy and free speech are the same thing.

[RGacky3]

So they sell the widgets and the one worker who sells his share of production but doesn't end up using all of the money will invest the extra.


Are we talking about communism? Where you don't have money?

Or are we talking about socialism?


If companies rationally hire labor, then more labor (at that company) always means more corporate income. If it didn't mean more corporate income, the labor wouldn't be hired.


Yeah thats my point, they will only hire more labor if there is demand, when they can produce the same for less labor they will, meaning lay offs.


Yes, lol, your link said itself that worker pay has grown 10%.


"Since virtually all of this real wage growth occurred in the six years from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the wage

momentum of the strong economic recovery in the late-1990s, it is fair to say that there has been no real wage growth
for the typical worker for most of the last 30 years."

"

Why
did the richest 1% of Americans receive 56% of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession
began (compared with 16% going to the bottom 90% of households)? Why are corporate profits 22% above their
pre-recession level while total corporate sector employees’ compensation (reflecting lower employment and meager pay increases) is 3% below pre-recession levels? The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off
and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards."

BTW productivity grew 80%.

It could be argued that the growth from 96 to 02, was just due to the massive bubble growing.


Right, so not by necessity. The whole argument breaks down if it relies on necessary results.


Yes, because resources are limited you are neccessarily depriving others with capitalist property. The whole point of Capitalist property is owning something other people need/want, so you can have a market.


Two wrongs make a right? If someone has stolen from you this doesn't give you the right to steal back from them...


Actually it kind of does.

But the point is we are getting rid of capitalist property to begin with, so it won't be neccessary.

Look, how about we just get rid of capitalist property laws, whatever you hold on to, and you can convince other people you deserve is yours.


It is applied to everyone...anyone can legally buy and own property, and everyone who does enjoys the same protections.


Yes, and its illigal for both the king and the begger to sleep under the bridge. You know as well as I know, that in practice very few people have actual property and thus only they benefit from these laws, and the vast majority of the poor are exploited by them.


One is a system of government, the other is a law. This is like saying democracy and free speech are the same thing.

Its an analogy. But yeah, you need free speach to have democracy. and Monarchy and land ownership are basically the same concept.

[Jose Gracchus]

Can't this bourgeois pig get banned? "Its my factory" -- I'm sure its another loser projecting his wannabe power fantasies, at that.

[Judicator]

Are we talking about communism? Where you don't have money?

Or are we talking about socialism?


If you don't have money than the idea of selling something is meaningless, so socialism.



Yeah thats my point, they will only hire more labor if there is demand, when they can produce the same for less labor they will, meaning lay offs.


Which means when companies are hiring more labor that means more corporate income, contrary to your original response to my claim about the relationship between hiring and the value of companies I own.



"Since virtually all of this real wage growth occurred in the six years from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the wage
momentum of the strong economic recovery in the late-1990s, it is fair to say that there has been no real wage growth
for the typical worker for most of the last 30 years."

"
Why
did the richest 1% of Americans receive 56% of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession
began (compared with 16% going to the bottom 90% of households)? Why are corporate profits 22% above their
pre-recession level while total corporate sector employees’ compensation (reflecting lower employment and meager pay
increases) is 3% below pre-recession levels? The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off

and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards."


Of course there has been no real wage growth if you ignore all of the parts where there was real wage growth.

The economy is designed to move resources towards high return projects. Apparently for the past 30 years, employing poor high school graduates was not a high return endeavor.



Yes, because resources are limited you are neccessarily depriving others with capitalist property. The whole point of Capitalist property is owning something other people need/want, so you can have a market.


You're backpedaling again...at the end of page 3 you acknowledge "Yesh but in practice it does and always has." and now you go back.



Actually it kind of does.

But the point is we are getting rid of capitalist property to begin with, so it won't be neccessary.

Look, how about we just get rid of capitalist property laws, whatever you hold on to, and you can convince other people you deserve is yours.


You've basically described anarchy - your property is whatever you can defend, and people are free to dispense justice as they see fit.



You know as well as I know, that in practice very few people have actual property and thus only they benefit from these laws, and the vast majority of the poor are exploited by them.


Nearly everyone has property and benefits from protection from theft.



But yeah, you need free speach to have democracy. and Monarchy and land ownership are basically the same concept.


You need X to have Y, therefore X=Y...lol?

The US is not a monarchy and has land ownership.

[DinodudeEpic]

Trickle down economics....BS

It's pretty much an appeal to authority, so we can slave ourselves to the corporate/government masters.

The rich have gone richer and the poor have gotten poorer. It is that simple. The top 1% owns the more wealth then everyone else combined. The middle class is shrinking. These are facts. The banks and corporations were given millions, but the economy still is crap for the workers.

Something is really wrong with how our economy works.

[RGacky3]

Which means when companies are hiring more labor that means more corporate income, contrary to your original response to my claim about the relationship between hiring and the value of companies I own.


No it does'nt, your main consumers are not your workers, only if a whole bunch of other companies hire more labor and then THEY can be consumers too.

iring more labor only means more corporate income if they are spending more buying your product than you are paying them, which is stupid.


Of course there has been no real wage growth if you ignore all of the parts where there was real wage growth.

The economy is designed to move resources towards high return projects. Apparently for the past 30 years, employing poor high school graduates was not a high return endeavor.


Well apparently, for the past 30 years, wages have been stagnent while profits have gone sky high, even for college graduates, it has nothing to do with high return, its just the unions and regulations that gave worker some power were stripped away.


You're backpedaling again...at the end of page 3 you acknowledge "Yesh but in practice it does and always has." and now you go back.


In practice it always does and always has DEPRIVED OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED.


You've basically described anarchy - your property is whatever you can defend, and people are free to dispense justice as they see fit.


No, I've described communism, where, there are no property lwas, of coarse their may be others, like don't rape, murder and so on. If you can convince people something is rightfully yours, then by all means.


Nearly everyone has property and benefits from protection from theft.


Yeah, but as I said, that really mainly benefits people who have stuff, and does'nt benefit people who due to property laws must accept exploitation.


You need X to have Y, therefore X=Y...lol?

The US is not a monarchy and has land ownership.

Its an analogy dumbass, its not that difficult.

[Judicator]

No it does'nt, your main consumers are not your workers, only if a whole bunch of other companies hire more labor and then THEY can be consumers too.

iring more labor only means more corporate income if they are spending more buying your product than you are paying them, which is stupid.


Rationally hiring more workers means hiring workers is profitable, which means if companies hire their income goes up, all else equal.



Well apparently, for the past 30 years, wages have been stagnent while profits have gone sky high, even for college graduates, it has nothing to do with high return, its just the unions and regulations that gave worker some power were stripped away.


The non rich got 16% according to your quote. The more colleges get watered down with idiots the less returns to education will be. Anyway, like I said the more skilled workers (higher %ile income) have made gains:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg


In practice it always does and always has DEPRIVED OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED.


And there you are again going back and forth from necessity to empirical claims.



No, I've described communism, where, there are no property lwas, of coarse their may be others, like don't rape, murder and so on. If you can convince people something is rightfully yours, then by all means.


What if you can't convince them? You can take it anyway because they are rich and you arent?



Yeah, but as I said, that really mainly benefits people who have stuff, and does'nt benefit people who due to property laws must accept exploitation.


If there weren't property laws it would be difficult for them to be paid anything at all. Free speech benefits intelligent people more because dumb people have little of value to say, but it still benefits everyone.



Its an analogy dumbass, its not that difficult.


If so, it's a terrible analogy. Also, claims like "Monarchy and land ownership are basically the same concept" make you sound like you're trying to establish equivalence.

[RGacky3]

Rationally hiring more workers means hiring workers is profitable, which means if companies hire their income goes up, all else equal.


What does all else equal mean? Does all else equal mean there is so much demand you cannot handle it with your workers? Because thats my point.

All else being equal, meaning demand being the same, its more profitable to make your workers work more rather than hire another one. WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.


The non rich got 16% according to your quote. The more colleges get watered down with idiots the less returns to education will be. Anyway, like I said the more skilled workers (higher %ile income) have made gains:


More skilled workers does'nt mean more income, a banker is in no way more skilled than an electrician.

the non rich did'nt get 16%, read it again. Either way, my point stands, the rich have been getting a bigger and bigger piece of the pie.


And there you are again going back and forth from necessity to empirical claims.


And both are true, empirically and logically, capitalist property deprives people.


What if you can't convince them? You can take it anyway because they are rich and you arent?


If you can't convince them then its not yours is it. Go to a public park and try and convince people that the basketball coart is yours.

If they are unjustly rich, then by all means the community can take it.


If there weren't property laws it would be difficult for them to be paid anything at all. Free speech benefits intelligent people more because dumb people have little of value to say, but it still benefits everyone.


Free speach benefits anyone that has a mouth, what they say is something else.

If there werent any property laws, they would'nt get paid wages no, they'd get the full benefit of their labor.


If so, it's a terrible analogy. Also, claims like "Monarchy and land ownership are basically the same concept" make you sound like you're trying to establish equivalence.

I'm saying their validity is the same.

[Judicator]

What does all else equal mean? Does all else equal mean there is so much demand you cannot handle it with your workers? Because thats my point.

All else being equal, meaning demand being the same, its more profitable to make your workers work more rather than hire another one. WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.


All else equal meaning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus. I wouldn't fixate on that, but rather Rationally hiring more workers means hiring workers is profitable, which means if companies hire their income goes up. All the way back to my original point that companies hiring is good for me as a shareholder.

One cannot simply "make your workers more profitable" that is a process that occurs over time, not at will.



More skilled workers does'nt mean more income, a banker is in no way more skilled than an electrician.

the non rich did'nt get 16%, read it again. Either way, my point stands, the rich have been getting a bigger and bigger piece of the pie.


Then why don't all electricians become bankers?

I'm going off the part you quoted:"Why
did the richest 1% of Americans receive 56% of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession
began (compared with 16% going to the bottom 90% of households)?"



And both are true, empirically and logically, capitalist property deprives people.


There is nothing inherent in capitalism that says that low IQ people will exist. However as an empirical fact they do and are generally unemployable. Whether they are better off with or without property is a separate question, but I wonder what incentive anyone would have to increase their wealth if it could be taken from them anytime.



If you can't convince them then its not yours is it. Go to a public park and try and convince people that the basketball coart is yours.

If they are unjustly rich, then by all means the community can take it.


Rights aren't about convincing anyone. You don't have to convince your neighbor you have the right to life to prevent him from shooting you. You have that right regardless of how much you deserve it.



Free speach benefits anyone that has a mouth, what they say is something else.

If there werent any property laws, they would'nt get paid wages no, they'd get the full benefit of their labor.

Just like property benefits anyone who has a nickel. Their labor is worth the wage they get paid with or without property.

Property just makes price discovery easy.



I'm saying their validity is the same.


And yet you offer no reason why. Property is a natural right that comes out of most any social contract theory, monarchy doesn't.

[RGacky3]

All else equal meaning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus).

But that does'nt tell me what the demand is.


I wouldn't fixate on that, but rather Rationally hiring more workers means hiring workers is profitable, which means if companies hire their income goes up.

rationally hiring workers is ONLY RATIONAL IF THERE IS MORE DEMAND THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE WORKERS YOU HAVE. If there is'nt that demand then its not rational is it.

What part of that don't you get.


One cannot simply "make your workers more profitable" that is a process that occurs over time, not at will.


Its called job insecurity and raised hours and less pay.


Then why don't all electricians become bankers?


Because they don't have that opportunity, and there is'nt an unlimited market.



I'm going off the part you quoted:"Why
did the richest 1% of Americans receive 56% of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession
began (compared with 16% going to the bottom 90% of households)?"



Because they control the means of production ....


There is nothing inherent in capitalism that says that low IQ people will exist. However as an empirical fact they do and are generally unemployable. Whether they are better off with or without property is a separate question, but I wonder what incentive anyone would have to increase their wealth if it could be taken from them anytime.


IQ and class don't have corolation.

Anyway, the point stands, and it seams you've conceded, capitalist property necessarily deprives people. I'm glad you've seen the light.


Rights aren't about convincing anyone. You don't have to convince your neighbor you have the right to life to prevent him from shooting you. You have that right regardless of how much you deserve it.


Sure, But capitalist property is'nt a human right.


Just like property benefits anyone who has a nickel. Their labor is worth the wage they get paid with or without property.

Property just makes price discovery easy.


No its not, if you pick an apple on public land you get the whole apple, if you pick one as a worker on land owned by someone else you get a wage not nearly work what you picked.

If labor was paid what its worth there would never be any profit made from it.


And yet you offer no reason why. Property is a natural right that comes out of most any social contract theory, monarchy doesn't.

the social contract theory also was used to justify monarchies.

[Commissar Rykov]

Shit rolls down hills so shouldn't wealth?:closedeyes:

[Judicator]

But that does'nt tell me what the demand is.


How is that relevant? You asked what's meant by all else equal.



rationally hiring workers is ONLY RATIONAL IF THERE IS MORE DEMAND THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE WORKERS YOU HAVE. If there is'nt that demand then its not rational is it.

What part of that don't you get.



The part about how any of what you said is at all relevant to the original, fairly narrow, point that when corporations are hiring their earnings go up and I benefit as a shareholder.



Its called job insecurity and raised hours and less pay.



Do you mean for the market or for one specific firm?



Because they don't have that opportunity, and there is'nt an unlimited market.

What do you mean by "opportunity?" Why should banking require opportunity when it requires the same skill as being an electrician?



Because they control the means of production ....


How is that even relevant? You said the non-rich didn't get 16%, I just provided a quote (which you posted yourself, no less) saying they did. I accept your apology.



IQ and class don't have corolation.

Anyway, the point stands, and it seams you've conceded, capitalist property necessarily deprives people. I'm glad you've seen the light.



Take a quick look and see how many sub-100 IQ individuals have well paying white collar jobs. It's a lot less than 50%.

Deprives people of what? Ferraris?

You keep flipping back and forth between "necessarily" and "empirically" and I can't understand why since they are completely different concepts.



But capitalist property is'nt a human right.


Thanks for conceding the point that convincing people is irrelevant to rights.



No its not, if you pick an apple on public land you get the whole apple, if you pick one as a worker on land owned by someone else you get a wage not nearly work what you picked.

If labor was paid what its worth there would never be any profit made from it.



Your ability to pick apples from public land depends on the local laws, just like your abillity to hunt deer, or mine coal out of a national park.

If you pick an apple on someone else's land, you get the wage you both agreed on. If you think that's a bad deal plant your own apple tree on the vast expanse of cheap land in the US.



the social contract theory also was used to justify monarchies.


The social contract theory? Is there only one?

[RGacky3]

How is that relevant? You asked what's meant by all else equal.


The part about how any of what you said is at all relevant to the original, fairly narrow, point that when corporations are hiring their earnings go up and I benefit as a shareholder.


ITs relevant because its the deciding factor on whether hiring is wise or not.

And corporations only hire when demand is up, thats the point.


Do you mean for the market or for one specific firm?


The market.


What do you mean by "opportunity?" Why should banking require opportunity when it requires the same skill as being an electrician?


opportunity to go to school and become a banker.


How is that even relevant? You said the non-rich didn't get 16%, I just provided a quote (which you posted yourself, no less) saying they did. I accept your apology.


No, part of the non rich got 16% of income growth, compared to the rest going to the rich, meaning, that their income share continued to get smaller.


Take a quick look and see how many sub-100 IQ individuals have well paying white collar jobs. It's a lot less than 50%.

Deprives people of what? Ferraris?

You keep flipping back and forth between "necessarily" and "empirically" and I can't understand why since they are completely different concepts.


Right now there are poeple with masters degrees flipping burgers, and socio-paths running fortune 500 companies.

Property deprives people of everything really (mainly the neccessities of life), which is why they are forced to accept capitalist exploitation.

I talk about necessarily and empirically because both show my arguments.


Thanks for conceding the point that convincing people is irrelevant to rights.


It is for property because property is'nt a human right.


Your ability to pick apples from public land depends on the local laws, just like your abillity to hunt deer, or mine coal out of a national park.

If you pick an apple on someone else's land, you get the wage you both agreed on. If you think that's a bad deal plant your own apple tree on the vast expanse of cheap land in the US.


For your first statement, I'm saying yeah, we should have public land so everyone has a say over it.

As for your second statement, you hav'nt proved my point at all, the wage they "agree" on, is way under the worth of what the person actually does, and is only "agreed" apon because the owner is protected by property laws and the worker cannot afford land.

Thats the point, look understanding capitalism is'nt hard, it happens all around us.

[Judicator]

ITs relevant because its the deciding factor on whether hiring is wise or not.

And corporations only hire when demand is up, thats the point.

It is not relevant to how rational hiring impacts corporate earnings, the original issue.



The market.



Single firms don't have control over what the entire labor market does.



opportunity to go to school and become a banker.


Sounds like banking requires some extra skill.



No, part of the non rich got 16% of income growth, compared to the rest going to the rich, meaning, that their income share continued to get smaller.



I was only disputing your claim that "the non rich did'nt get 16%, read it again." Obviously they did, as you admit now.



Right now there are poeple with masters degrees flipping burgers, and socio-paths running fortune 500 companies.

Property deprives people of everything really (mainly the neccessities of life), which is why they are forced to accept capitalist exploitation.

I talk about necessarily and empirically because both show my arguments.


A degree is a measure of education, not intelligence. There are many well paying jobs you simply cannot do if you aren't intelligent. Almost anyone can flip burgers, many people just don't learn math as well as others, so won't be able to do certain jobs as well as others.

Property is the only thing that allows people to acquire the fruits of any labor of any kind. It's property that prevents others from stealing any food we have gathered, land we own, etc.


As for your second statement, you hav'nt proved my point at all, the wage they "agree" on, is way under the worth of what the person actually does, and is only "agreed" apon because the owner is protected by property laws and the worker cannot afford land.

Unskilled labor is exactly what it sounds like - lots of it can be done by teenagers with essentially no work experience or education. Not something you'd expect to be that valuable.

Land, in general, is quite cheap. Farmland is like $2000/acre. Plant some apple trees and hunt some deer.

[Revolution starts with U]

Acres aren't that big... since when is $2k/acre "cheap?"

[RichardAWilson]

Where the hell is land $2,000 an acre? In Southern California? In Florida? In NY? Hell, land is running more than $2,000 an acre in rural Ohio.

You'd have to go to Wyoming and Montana, where there's little industrialization and low populations to find land that affordable.

[RGacky3]

It is not relevant to how rational hiring impacts corporate earnings, the original issue.


Its relevant to what is and what is not rational hiring, which is absolutely relevant, unless your just trying to play semantics games.


Single firms don't have control over what the entire labor market does.


No but when many individual firms do similar things by following the market it impacts the entire market.


Sounds like banking requires some extra skill.


Thats all relative, but I'll tell you what, if all the bankers were raptured tommorow, we'd be ok, if all the plumbers were ... we'd have a problem.


I was only disputing your claim that "the non rich did'nt get 16%, read it again." Obviously they did, as you admit now.


Not overall, a portion did, anyway your playing semantics here again.


A degree is a measure of education, not intelligence. There are many well paying jobs you simply cannot do if you aren't intelligent. Almost anyone can flip burgers, many people just don't learn math as well as others, so won't be able to do certain jobs as well as others.


There is NO corrolation to income and intelligence btw, nor should there be, but it does take intelligence to get a degree, anyway whats your point?


Unskilled labor is exactly what it sounds like - lots of it can be done by teenagers with essentially no work experience or education. Not something you'd expect to be that valuable.


In California get rid of all the "unskilled" labor (farm workers) and see what happens, watch the economy collapse. Get rid of all the financeers (the people, not their capital) tomomrow see what happens, not much.

[Judicator]

Acres aren't that big... since when is $2k/acre "cheap?"

An acre is enough to make a ton(2000 lbs) of flour. $2000 is 1/23 of the US GDP per capita, and probably something like 1/15 of the median income...so about 1 months work. This is "cheap" in the sense that vegetarians can probably be sustained with a couple of acres given the massive crop yields we have in the US.



Its relevant to what is and what is not rational hiring, which is absolutely relevant, unless your just trying to play semantics games.


What do you think is the original question/point we are arguing about here?



No but when many individual firms do similar things by following the market it impacts the entire market.


Yes but they act independently, so nobody has control.



Thats all relative, but I'll tell you what, if all the bankers were raptured tommorow, we'd be ok, if all the plumbers were ... we'd have a problem.


Lol, bankers were "raptured" during the financial crisis...they stopped lending and look what happened.



Not overall, a portion did, anyway your playing semantics here again.


Saying your claims are factually false is now a semantics game?



There is NO corrolation to income and intelligence btw, nor should there be, but it does take intelligence to get a degree, anyway whats your point?


Do you have any evidence for this? You've just said yourself, it takes intelligence to get a degree. If degrees get you *ANY* extra income, then based on your own claim about intelligence and degrees, intelligence correlates with income.



In California get rid of all the "unskilled" labor (farm workers) and see what happens, watch the economy collapse. Get rid of all the financeers (the people, not their capital) tomomrow see what happens, not much.


How do counterfactual scenarios about "what would happen if X didn't exist" relate to value? Agricultural land isn't worth much, but if it suddenly disappeared, it would be a disaster. That doesn't mean agricultural land is somehow undervalued....

[CornetJoyce]

"There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below."
- William Jennings Bryan

[RGacky3]

An acre is enough to make a ton(2000 lbs) of flour. $2000 is 1/23 of the US GDP per capita, and probably something like 1/15 of the median income...so about 1 months work. This is "cheap" in the sense that vegetarians can probably be sustained with a couple of acres given the massive crop yields we have in the US.


So people in the US that are poor, are juts too stupid to figure out that genious plan of yours? Just buy a farm!!! Btw, farm equipment, you also need GOOD farmland, you also need fertilizer and seed.

I can't believe your making this argument.


What do you think is the original question/point we are arguing about here?


My point was hiring people is not profitable unless you have the demand, and if the demand stays the same, but productivity goes up its profitable to lay people off.


Yes but they act independently, so nobody has control.


A, thats not true, large players in the market have significant control
B, it does'nt matter, my point was markets still go towards collapse and inequality and ultimately plutocracy (until it collapses).


Lol, bankers were "raptured" during the financial crisis...they stopped lending and look what happened.


They wern't raptured, they held on to their assets, if they were raptured their assets would be left behind for the public to use it for their own actual needs.


Saying your claims are factually false is now a semantics game?


They were not false, overall they did not make 16%, just a portion of them did, equaled out it was 10%.


Do you have any evidence for this? You've just said yourself, it takes intelligence to get a degree. If degrees get you *ANY* extra income, then based on your own claim about intelligence and degrees, intelligence correlates with income.


Except there are tons of college graduates flipping burgers, and plenty more who cannot afford college, and then some who simply get it paid for my mommy and daddy and have private help, tudors and never have to work while in college.


How do counterfactual scenarios about "what would happen if X didn't exist" relate to value? Agricultural land isn't worth much, but if it suddenly disappeared, it would be a disaster. That doesn't mean agricultural land is somehow undervalued....

Point is that socially migrant farm workers are much more important than bankers, yet that does not reflect their pay.

[Nox]

So people in the US that are poor, are juts too stupid to figure out that genious plan of yours? Just buy a farm!!! Btw, farm equipment, you also need GOOD farmland, you also need fertilizer and seed.

Not to mention the fact that you need a good credit rating to be able to get a loan large enough to cover those costs, which many poor people don't have.

[RGacky3]

As for my rature analogy, you can't take your money to heaven, not even bankers, so it stays down here for the poeple to use.

In the financial crisis they just held on to their money, having assets does'nt make YOU usefull, your assets are usefull, not you.

[Judicator]

As for my rature analogy, you can't take your money to heaven, not even bankers, so it stays down here for the poeple to use.

In the financial crisis they just held on to their money, having assets does'nt make YOU usefull, your assets are usefull, not you.

If thats the case, why would the system be any more efficient if the assets were reallocated? After all, as you claimed, the assets are what's useful, not the owners (worker or otherwise). Workers will work whether or not they own the assets.




So people in the US that are poor, are juts too stupid to figure out that genious plan of yours? Just buy a farm!!! Btw, farm equipment, you also need GOOD farmland, you also need fertilizer and seed.

I can't believe your making this argument.


I'm saying given agricultural yields you should be able to feed yourself at relatively low cost, even if you don't own the land. This is a very narrow argument against your claim that all poor are faced with the choice of either A) working 80 hour weeks or B) starving.



My point was hiring people is not profitable unless you have the demand, and if the demand stays the same, but productivity goes up its profitable to lay people off.


Well that wasn't mine, so I guess we just spend a good chunk of the thread arguing about different points.



They wern't raptured, they held on to their assets, if they were raptured their assets would be left behind for the public to use it for their own actual needs.


Banking activity (which requires bankers) stopped. The amount of physical assets never changed. Why would redistributing assets get you any increase in productivity?



They were not false, overall they did not make 16%, just a portion of them did, equaled out it was 10%.


"They" the non rich had 16% of income growth. Where are you getting the "equaled out it was 10%" claim?..what does that even mean? To "equal out"?



Except there are tons of college graduates flipping burgers, and plenty more who cannot afford college, and then some who simply get it paid for my mommy and daddy and have private help, tudors and never have to work while in college.


Still no statistical evidence! Is it perhaps because there isn't any, just these anecdotes?



Point is that socially migrant farm workers are much more important than bankers, yet that does not reflect their pay.


Important in what sense?

Scarcity is a factor in value. People with the skills needed to offer banking services are scarce, migrant farm workers aren't. There's demand for both services so it's quite plausible that bankers end up having higher prices for their services.

[RGacky3]

If thats the case, why would the system be any more efficient if the assets were reallocated? After all, as you claimed, the assets are what's useful, not the owners (worker or otherwise). Workers will work whether or not they own the assets.


The workers are usefull because they are using the assets to create profits, under Capitalism bankers are not usefull, all they do is allocate assets to benefit themselves.

Your right, workers will work whether or not they own the assets, but if workers have control of hte asssets they'll use them for their own benefit as opposed to a monied Elite using it for their own benefit.


I'm saying given agricultural yields you should be able to feed yourself at relatively low cost, even if you don't own the land. This is a very narrow argument against your claim that all poor are faced with the choice of either A) working 80 hour weeks or B) starving.


Well then I guess the poor people now that starve are juts stupid right? Because they did'nt think of your genius idea of just poor people becoming farmers.


Well that wasn't mine, so I guess we just spend a good chunk of the thread arguing about different points.


Well then address my point.


Banking activity (which requires bankers) stopped. The amount of physical assets never changed. Why would redistributing assets get you any increase in productivity?


Banking activity stopped, the reason it was a disaster was because the physical assets were stopped from moving, which stops the economy, redistributing assets would change the situation because you would'nt have a small amount of elites stopping the economy moving because they are afraid of not making profits.


Still no statistical evidence! Is it perhaps because there isn't any, just these anecdotes?


Shall I find some? First I want you to make the argument that more college graduates are getting well paying jobs now.


Important in what sense?


In the sense of benefit to society.


Scarcity is a factor in value. People with the skills needed to offer banking services are scarce, migrant farm workers aren't. There's demand for both services so it's quite plausible that bankers end up having higher prices for their services.

Absolutely, but more of it is leverage, bankers are not getting their pay due to supply and demand, more of it comes from the fact that they control large amounts of assets.

[Judicator]

The workers are usefull because they are using the assets to create profits, under Capitalism bankers are not usefull, all they do is allocate assets to benefit themselves.

Your right, workers will work whether or not they own the assets, but if workers have control of hte asssets they'll use them for their own benefit as opposed to a monied Elite using it for their own benefit.


Bankers allocate resources to get the maximum rate of return, which ensures assets are consistently allocated towards high return endeavors.


Well then I guess the poor people now that starve are juts stupid right? Because they did'nt think of your genius idea of just poor people becoming farmers.

Remember we are talking about the US. The point isn't that the poor are stupid, but rather than by revealed preference they prefer city life plus creature comforts to a subsistence existence in the countryside.

People worried about hunger deliberately change the definition to make it seem like more of a problem than it is. In times past, actual starvation and undernourishment were the problems, now apparently it's a problem just to not be sure "where your next meal is coming from."



Well then address my point.


In that line of argument our points apparently weren't in conflict (we were arguing about separate things), so what's to address?



Shall I find some? First I want you to make the argument that more college graduates are getting well paying jobs now.


Please do! Again, recall the original question was about intelligence and wages, which you claimed was false without evidence. While you're at it evidence on this would be great as well.

Estimates on the returns to education vary, but they tend to be pretty good: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/yourmoney/11view.html . Also, you have to compare lifetime earnings of college grads vs. lower levels of education to get a good idea of returns.



In the sense of benefit to society.


"Society" to the extent you can speak of it as a single entity, pays bankers more. In other words, society is willing to give up more in exchange for bankers' services.



Absolutely, but more of it is leverage, bankers are not getting their pay due to supply and demand, more of it comes from the fact that they control large amounts of assets.


Perhaps the banker example is causing confusion. Bankers are just employees of a bank, they don't own the bank's capital. And yet the bank pays them more for what they do than a farmer is paid for what he does.

The original point was about the distinction between high skilled employees and low skilled workers, so say engineers vs. factory workers.

[RGacky3]

Bankers allocate resources to get the maximum rate of return, which ensures assets are consistently allocated towards high return endeavors.


yes ... As I said, they are not useful, high profits rarely mean good for society.

Anyway, take away profits and give the assets to the workers I guarantee you they'll allocate them more efficiently and in a way that benefits them rather than just the bankers and the rich.


Remember we are talking about the US. The point isn't that the poor are stupid, but rather than by revealed preference they prefer city life plus creature comforts to a subsistence existence in the countryside.


Or maybe because they are trying to get a job, or because they need to take care of their family, maybe your so out of touch its sad.


People worried about hunger deliberately change the definition to make it seem like more of a problem than it is. In times past, actual starvation and undernourishment were the problems, now apparently it's a problem just to not be sure "where your next meal is coming from."


Yes, its a problem when we produce so much food, yet people sitll have food insecurity, btw, no one says that capitalism is'nt an advancement from before, we're saying that we now have much better options.


In that line of argument our points apparently weren't in conflict (we were arguing about separate things), so what's to address?


The FACT, the economic FACT, that as capitalism develops, industries grow in efficiency, meaning of demand does not go up they will need less workers, meaning unemployment will go up, as unemployment goes up workers have less bargaining power, meaning they'll have to work more for less, both of these things make the problem of demand worse, and its a cycle, which is why in Capitalism you need continual growth and continual market expansion, making capitalism inherently prone to collapse.

Your response was "rational hiring is profitable" Which is a stupid nonsense response.


Please do! Again, recall the original question was about intelligence and wages, which you claimed was false without evidence. While you're at it evidence on this would be great as well.

Estimates on the returns to education vary, but they tend to be pretty good: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/bu...ey/11view.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/yourmoney/11view.html) . Also, you have to compare lifetime earnings of college grads vs. lower levels of education to get a good idea of returns.


No one is saying that getting a college education won't leavae you overall better off, what I am saying is that A: You can't make the connection to intelligence, and B: things are getting worse for even college graduates.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/another_day_one_less_dollar/
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/05/news/economy/degreed_workers/?postversion=2008120514


"Society" to the extent you can speak of it as a single entity, pays bankers more. In other words, society is willing to give up more in exchange for bankers' services.


No Society does not pay bankers more, the Capitalist system does, if you want to know what "society" would pay, you'd put compensation up for a popular vote, and I'm guessing the hedge fund managers and finance CEOs would see a drastic reduction in compensation if you did it that way.


The original point was about the distinction between high skilled employees and low skilled workers, so say engineers vs. factory workers.

What was that point about and how is it relevant?

[NGNM85]

The 'Trickle-Down' theory has consistently been such a grotesque failure, it's a testament to the political ignorance of the public, and the insanity of our political discourse that anyone can suggest it with a straight face.

[Judicator]

yes ... As I said, they are not useful, high profits rarely mean good for society.

Anyway, take away profits and give the assets to the workers I guarantee you they'll allocate them more efficiently and in a way that benefits them rather than just the bankers and the rich.


Can you clarify "good for society?" The drive to seek out profit encourages innovation, economic growth, and funding businesses that are best at giving consumers what they want.

Your personal guarantee, or really anyone's for that matter, is not a reliable source of evidence upon which social policy can be based. Capricious confiscation of assets, a prerequisite to "giving assets to workers," would destroy the incentive to invest, since everyone's accumulated wealth would be at risk.



Or maybe because they are trying to get a job, or because they need to take care of their family, maybe your so out of touch its sad.


Again preferences - why are they looking for a job in the first place? They want all of the stuff they can buy from their job. They prefer to have a family in a place that has jobs, rather than live alone somewhere else.



Yes, its a problem when we produce so much food, yet people sitll have food insecurity, btw, no one says that capitalism is'nt an advancement from before, we're saying that we now have much better options.


They're changing the definition to blow things out of proportion. Also, what are the other real options? Capitalism + moderate wealth reallocation is still capitalism.



The FACT, the economic FACT, that as capitalism develops, industries grow in efficiency, meaning of demand does not go up they will need less workers, meaning unemployment will go up, as unemployment goes up workers have less bargaining power, meaning they'll have to work more for less, both of these things make the problem of demand worse, and its a cycle, which is why in Capitalism you need continual growth and continual market expansion, making capitalism inherently prone to collapse.

Your response was "rational hiring is profitable" Which is a stupid nonsense response.


I was only defending my original point about the relationship between company profitability and corporate earnings. How are your claims about stability of capitalism relevant to the aforementioned relationship?



No one is saying that getting a college education won't leavae you overall better off, what I am saying is that A: You can't make the connection to intelligence, and B: things are getting worse for even college graduates.


So then why worry that some college graduates are flipping burgers? Some people are unlucky, and lots more weren't cut out for college in the first place. More people are going to college, so you get a worse entering student body, so even if the economy weren't in the toilet short term returns to education would be falling.

The connection between wages and intelligence can be broken down as follows:
1) connection between college success and intelligence
2) connection between college success and wages

Thus far you haven't denied point (2), so let's focus on (1). Having intelligence means that among other things, you learn faster than others. This is obviously an asset in a college setting, so one would expect it to help a lot in understanding lecture and passing exams.



No Society does not pay bankers more, the Capitalist system does, if you want to know what "society" would pay, you'd put compensation up for a popular vote, and I'm guessing the hedge fund managers and finance CEOs would see a drastic reduction in compensation if you did it that way.


The system doesn't pay anyone anything. A system does not have a bank account with which to pay out anyone. Society is a group of individuals, who collectively pay the salaries of everyone in the economy, directly (in the case of say a mechanic) or indirectly (by purchasing goods from a firm that employs someone).



What was that point about and how is it relevant?


It's relevant to our discussion of whether farmers or bankers are more valuable economically. Bankers, or any skilled worker, are valued because of their scarcity. Unskilled workers, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen. There is no reason to believe the value of their labor would be any different in any other productive arrangement with the same factor scarcity.

[RGacky3]

Can you clarify "good for society?" The drive to seek out profit encourages innovation, economic growth, and funding businesses that are best at giving consumers what they want.


Good for society meaning more good for more people, in other words whwat it would be if put to a popular vote.

The drive to seek out profit also encourages giving the least and taking the most and using power imbalances to get more out of people, and encouraging those power inbalances.


Your personal guarantee, or really anyone's for that matter, is not a reliable source of evidence upon which social policy can be based. Capricious confiscation of assets, a prerequisite to "giving assets to workers," would destroy the incentive to invest, since everyone's accumulated wealth would be at risk.


If your taking the assets of the capitalist you don't really need investors do you?

BTW, take a country with lots of socialistic policies, like Germany, with co-determination, industries subject to local governments (you can't move a factory without approval from both the workers and the local community), also strong unions and relatively high taxes and a strong public sector, yet .... People still invest there, I wonder why? Could it be that they have a strong economy dispite (infact because of) socialistic policies?


Again preferences - why are they looking for a job in the first place? They want all of the stuff they can buy from their job. They prefer to have a family in a place that has jobs, rather than live alone somewhere else.


Yes, such, they want all the stuff, like a roof, clothes and food perhaps, and yeah, they'd rather have a family.

BTW, having another terrible option does'nt justify anything.


They're changing the definition to blow things out of proportion. Also, what are the other real options? Capitalism + moderate wealth reallocation is still capitalism.


They are using definitions that everyone uses.

The other real options are socialism, a democratic economy and workers control of industry.


How are your claims about stability of capitalism relevant to the aforementioned relationship?


I odn't know what that point was, nor do I get why you bring it up, why not address my point about the inherent move toward collapse of capitalism.


Some people are unlucky, and lots more weren't cut out for college in the first place.

Lots more could'nt afford it, lots more had to work 2 jobs to pay for it, lots more had to pay student loans so they had to get jobs right away and not use their education, they could'nt wait for a job equal to their education, and so on.

Look if you want to say thta its just their fault and not systemic fine, but then I guess countries with more public financing and more public education are juts smarter huh?


The connection between wages and intelligence can be broken down as follows:
1) connection between college success and intelligence
2) connection between college success and wages


1. can't really be made, as education and intelligence have a strong corrlation (its nurture not nature), class has a much higher corolation.

2. yeah, no one disagrees with that.


The system doesn't pay anyone anything. A system does not have a bank account with which to pay out anyone. Society is a group of individuals, who collectively pay the salaries of everyone in the economy, directly (in the case of say a mechanic) or indirectly (by purchasing goods from a firm that employs someone).


The system meaning the capitalist market, and the end result, is that someone who contributes nothing and infact hurts the economy gets rich and those who work the hardest and contribute real value stay relatively poor.

Its a group of individuals, of which huge amounts of powre and wealth is concentrated in a small small section of those individuals who make the real economic decisions.


It's relevant to our discussion of whether farmers or bankers are more valuable economically. Bankers, or any skilled worker, are valued because of their scarcity. Unskilled workers, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen. There is no reason to believe the value of their labor would be any different in any other productive arrangement with the same factor scarcity.

Thats not why they are valued, they are valued because of their control over assets. It has much more to do with economic power, a poor person MUST take a lower wage because he is desperate, wealthy people don't need to do that, and infact they are the ones that control the wealth and thus control the economic decisions.

Labor is not just supply and demand, if doe'snt take a PHD in economics to get that.