= The 24 Types of Libertarians [Archive]

Judicator

24th August 2011, 03:17

To be honest I don't know why anyone needs to argue compellingly against libertarianism, the only kinds of people who believe it are those that have deluded themselves into believing that an uncivilised, sociopathic system of "fuck you, I got mine" is anything beyond a horrific hellhole.

So now it's "I insult the people I disagree with, therefore they are wrong?"

I wouldn't call it uncivilized: Libertarians favor rule of law, technological development, and other hallmarks of civilization.

What's sociopathic about wanting to give only 5% of your income to the government, rather than 55%, and preferring that individuals be left to do what they want without violating the rights of others?

Madslatter

24th August 2011, 06:41

Libertarians favor rule of law
Only rule of law that regards how poor people can spend their lives. Libertarians are well known for their inability to care for laws that apply to the wealthy like safety regulations in workplaces.

RGacky3

24th August 2011, 07:34

So now it's "I insult the people I disagree with, therefore they are wrong?"

Thats juts his style, he's an angry dude.

Libertarians favor rule of law, technological development, and other hallmarks of civilization.

That is not their definint feature, their defining feature is actually lack of law, infact lack of any democracy in the economy, and total private control, total market control.

What's sociopathic about wanting to give only 5% of your income to the government, rather than 55%, and preferring that individuals be left to do what they want without violating the rights of others?

Whats sociopathic is the disdain for poor people and admiration of power that libertarians tend to have, and the "screw you I got mine" attitude they have and just the utter disdain they have for lower classes and lack of empathy, it is kind of sociopathic.

BTW, if you just wnat to be left alone, we'll start by stopping to enforce land and capital property laws.

Judicator

25th August 2011, 01:28

That is not their definint feature, their defining feature is actually lack of law, infact lack of any democracy in the economy, and total private control, total market control.

How is preventing people from violating others' rights "lack of law?"

Whats sociopathic is the disdain for poor people and admiration of power that libertarians tend to have, and the "screw you I got mine" attitude they have and just the utter disdain they have for lower classes and lack of empathy, it is kind of sociopathic.

BTW, if you just wnat to be left alone, we'll start by stopping to enforce land and capital property laws.

So there's nothing sociopathic about the theory itself, you're just claiming that empirically libertarians are more "sociopathic?" Is this true, and even if it is, how is it relevant to the validity of libertarianism?

I don't want my rights to be violated. If you have some ingenious plan that does this without government, please share.

MagÃ³n

25th August 2011, 01:37

"Gunner Joe" and "Stoned" are my two favorite varieties.

Damn, beat me to it.

MarxSchmarx

25th August 2011, 03:58

the only kinds of people who believe it are those that have deluded themselves into believing that an uncivilised, sociopathic system of "fuck you, I got mine" is anything beyond a horrific hellhole.

To be honest, judging by the clowns that get elected I often wonder if a plurality of the electorate of developed countries fit that bill. how else does one explain the Berlusconis of this world.

RGacky3

25th August 2011, 07:27

How is preventing people from violating others' rights "lack of law?"

Thats not libertarianism, unless libertarianism is just a police state that only protects property.

So there's nothing sociopathic about the theory itself, you're just claiming that empirically libertarians are more "sociopathic?" Is this true, and even if it is, how is it relevant to the validity of libertarianism?

I'm claiming both, I'm claiming it leads to sociopathic results, a plutocracy and desperate class differenecs, and that many libertarians are attracted to it by an idea that they are the powerful and rich and the poor should be seen with disdain.

I don't want my rights to be violated. If you have some ingenious plan that does this without government, please share.

community self-governance.

Jazzratt

25th August 2011, 21:56

I wouldn't call it uncivilized: Libertarians favor rule of law, technological development, and other hallmarks of civilization. Rule of law enforced by private security firms (i.e immoral gangs of mercenaries) on behalf of the exceedingly wealthy is a system that knocks any previously seen or imagined barbarity into a cocked hat when considered for more than fifteen fucking seconds.

What's sociopathic about wanting to give only 5% of your income to the government, rather than 55%, and preferring that individuals be left to do what they want without violating the rights of others? You're deliberately missing the point. It's not those kind of claims that are indicative of sociopathy it's the idea that people owe jack shit to anyone else and people should be left to starve in their own filth because they haven't "picked themselves up by their bootstraps" or wehatever disgusting shit your friendly neighbourhood trollbertarian has come out with.

Revolution starts with U

26th August 2011, 03:19

tollbertarian HA!!! :D
:thumbsup:

Judicator

26th August 2011, 08:32

Thats not libertarianism, unless libertarianism is just a police state that only protects property.

I'm claiming both, I'm claiming it leads to sociopathic results, a plutocracy and desperate class differenecs, and that many libertarians are attracted to it by an idea that they are the powerful and rich and the poor should be seen with disdain.

community self-governance.

There are rights other than property which a libertarian government would defend.

"Sociopathic results" lol really stretching the term aren't we? If a bunch of people die in a hurricane that's "sociopathic?" There isn't anything inherent in libertarianism that requires you to hate the poor.

Is a country not a community? Is a well functioning republic not self-governed?

RGacky3

26th August 2011, 08:49

There are rights other than property which a libertarian government would defend.

Depends on the libertarian, Most of them I know say the ONLY role for democratic institutions is national defense, property laws, and rape and murder and the such.

"Sociopathic results" lol really stretching the term aren't we? If a bunch of people die in a hurricane that's "sociopathic?" There isn't anything inherent in libertarianism that requires you to hate the poor.

What libertarianism requires is the concept of efficiency of markets, and the idea that capitalism is a system of merit, which means that poor people in capitalism DESERVE TO BE POOR, that it is right and proper that they are destitute, which basically leads to a disdain of the poor, which you see ALL THE TIME from market-libertarians.

Sociopathic results? Somalia :).

Is a country not a community? Is a well functioning republic not self-governed?

A country is generally a collection of communities, a well functioning republic is no self-governmed unless it is totally democratically accountable.

eric922

27th August 2011, 03:39

Speaking of libertarians, I love how they all want a pure free market based on Adam Smith, yet simultaneously believe the ideas of Friedman and Rand. Both opposed traditional morals and Friedman thought that the only obligation a business had was to make money. That wasn't Smith's view. People should read Theory on Moral Sentiment and Wealth of Nations. As to the famous Invisible Hand, it came with several pages of warnings.

To quote from Theory of Moral Sentiment: (which he considered his most important work) "This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages."

RGacky3

27th August 2011, 08:26

I love how they all want a pure free market based on Adam Smith

Adam smith did'nt actually push forward a PURE free market.

Judicator

11th September 2011, 08:03

Depends on the libertarian, Most of them I know say the ONLY role for democratic institutions is national defense, property laws, and rape and murder and the such.

All of those are excellent example of rights other than property that libertarians agree on.

What libertarianism requires is the concept of efficiency of markets, and the idea that capitalism is a system of merit, which means that poor people in capitalism DESERVE TO BE POOR, that it is right and proper that they are destitute, which basically leads to a disdain of the poor, which you see ALL THE TIME from market-libertarians.

There's nothing in libertarianism that would forbid unions, worker co-ops, or any other voluntary social arrangement that would seem less than capitalist. Die hard libertarians wouldn't force people to hire based on merit.

Anyway, under a merit based system, poor people are poor because they lack the characteristics the market wants, but why does that mean they deserve to be lacking in these characteristics? I don't know any libertarians who claim those born with downs syndrome deserved it.

A country is generally a collection of communities, a well functioning republic is no self-governmed unless it is totally democratically accountable.

The accountability in a republic comes when elections occur. As long as politicians have enough foresight to care about their reelection prospects, they should do what the people want in a well functioning (mostly not corrupt) republic.

Kotze

11th September 2011, 09:23

I propose that when we spot a specific type of "libertarian" we use the following notation:

Horizontally, we use the letters a to d, with the leftmost squares being a.
Vertically, we use numbers and start counting at the bottom squares with the value 1.

Example:
bizarrely hypocritical = c2

eyedrop

11th September 2011, 10:49

What libertarianism requires is the concept of efficiency of markets, and the idea that capitalism is a system of merit, which means that poor people in capitalism DESERVE TO BE POOR, that it is right and proper that they are destitute, which basically leads to a disdain of the poor, which you see ALL THE TIME from market-libertarians.
There's nothing in libertarianism that would forbid unions, worker co-ops, or any other voluntary social arrangement that would seem less than capitalist. Die hard libertarians wouldn't force people to hire based on merit.

Anyway, under a merit based system, poor people are poor because they lack the characteristics the market wants, but why does that mean they deserve to be lacking in these characteristics? I don't know any libertarians who claim those born with downs syndrome deserved it.

Are you willfully avoiding commenting on the argument? Capitalism rewards according to worth, those who receive little receive little are worth little.

Tim Cornelis

11th September 2011, 11:54

All of those are excellent example of rights other than property that libertarians agree on.

There's nothing in libertarianism that would forbid unions, worker co-ops, or any other voluntary social arrangement that would seem less than capitalist. Die hard libertarians wouldn't force people to hire based on merit.

Anyway, under a merit based system, poor people are poor because they lack the characteristics the market wants, but why does that mean they deserve to be lacking in these characteristics? I don't know any libertarians who claim those born with downs syndrome deserved it.

The accountability in a republic comes when elections occur. As long as politicians have enough foresight to care about their reelection prospects, they should do what the people want in a well functioning (mostly not corrupt) republic.

There's nothing in libertarianism that would forbid unions, worker co-ops, or any other voluntary social arrangement that would seem less than capitalist.

Actually there is: it's called financial contraint. Firstly, most people do not have the money to start a worker co-op. Secondly, a capitalist does not want his employees to be members of unions and therefore will fire all employees that unionize. So yes, capitalism does limit mutually accepted, consensual, voluntary agreements.

Capitalism is economic "darwinism", survival of the fittest, strongest, etc. It's a plutocracy, the more wealth you have the more power you have. This goes for every form of capitalism.

Capitalism + government = the capitalists bribe the politicians = plutocracy
Capitalism + minimal government = the richest people can hire more employees and thus have more power over other people
Capitalism + no government = the rich pay the judges who make the laws, i.e. plutocratic law system. Laws made by the rich, for the rich.

Anyway, under a merit based system, poor people are poor because they lack the characteristics the market wants, but why does that mean they deserve to be lacking in these characteristics? I don't know any libertarians who claim those born with downs syndrome deserved it.

Starving people don't deserve life? Exactly, survival of the fittest = capitalism.

Only a disturbed mind can look at sweatshop labour and see freedom!

Judicator

13th September 2011, 06:14

Are you willfully avoiding commenting on the argument? Capitalism rewards according to worth, those who receive little receive little are worth little.

Capitalism rewards labor according to it's worth. However people have value beyond their human capital, thus the protections on free speech, life, property, etc.

Actually there is: it's called financial contraint. Firstly, most people do not have the money to start a worker co-op. Secondly, a capitalist does not want his employees to be members of unions and therefore will fire all employees that unionize. So yes, capitalism does limit mutually accepted, consensual, voluntary agreements.

Capitalism is economic "darwinism", survival of the fittest, strongest, etc. It's a plutocracy, the more wealth you have the more power you have. This goes for every form of capitalism.

Capitalism + government = the capitalists bribe the politicians = plutocracy
Capitalism + minimal government = the richest people can hire more employees and thus have more power over other people
Capitalism + no government = the rich pay the judges who make the laws, i.e. plutocratic law system. Laws made by the rich, for the rich.

Most people don't have the money to start Boeing as a worker co-op, but it would be fairly straightforward to have a small business as a worker co-op....yet this is rare.

A capitalist supplier also doesn't want Walmart to exist, but they do in spite of that. A capitalist is free to fire union employees, but this is not legally preventing them from unionizing.

Rich people hiring lots of workers....where's the rights violation? If you hire 2 workers that's okay, but if you hire 100 suddenly you're an evil capitalist?

RGacky3

13th September 2011, 08:55

There's nothing in libertarianism that would forbid unions, worker co-ops, or any other voluntary social arrangement that would seem less than capitalist. Die hard libertarians wouldn't force people to hire based on merit.

But would they forbit unions to takeover factories? Anyway, if libertarians actually had libertarianism it would'nt last 5 years.

My problem with libertarians is'nt their end goal, if it actually happened it would just collapse on itself quickly and return to keynsian capitalism or corporatism or if we're luck socialism.

My problem is what they fight for ends up strengthening corporatism, they fight againt government policies that benefit the poor and working class, and they never really touch policies that benefit the rich and corporations, they are against them in theory, but in reality they never touch them.

I've never seen a libertarian bring up corporate personhood, state corporatization, tax benefits to the wealthy and so on.

Anyway, under a merit based system, poor people are poor because they lack the characteristics the market wants, but why does that mean they deserve to be lacking in these characteristics? I don't know any libertarians who claim those born with downs syndrome deserved it.

Under a merit system people ar paid not based on the market, but based on their benefit to society, on their productivity. I'm not in favor of a merit system, but I'm in favor of a system geared more toward merit than just one where merit is decided by whoever has the most money and owns the means of production.

You seam to think that the market actually rewards merit, that what people get in the market is what the deserve ... Which is rediculous, considering market decisions are made by those with the most capital.

A company has a board of directors who chooes everyones pay, they pay their workers little and themselves a lot ... OBVIOUSLY, that does'nt mean they have merit, any more than a king paying himself more than his generals or knights in wartime, becuase he gets to choose who gets what.

The accountability in a republic comes when elections occur. As long as politicians have enough foresight to care about their reelection prospects, they should do what the people want in a well functioning (mostly not corrupt) republic.

Yes, but we do not have a well functioning republic.

Capitalism rewards labor according to it's worth. However people have value beyond their human capital, thus the protections on free speech, life, property, etc.

Err, no it does'nt, sitting on your ass in the pool because you own a company handed down by daddy, hwhile other people run it is worth a lot less than people that produce, but I'm guessing he'll pay himself more than the workers.

Capitalism never has rewarded labor according to its worth, if it did profits would be minimal if anything at all, and executives would be paid MUCH MUCH less.

Judicator

14th September 2011, 03:28

I've never seen a libertarian bring up corporate personhood, state corporatization, tax benefits to the wealthy and so on.

You probably just don't read anything said or written by libertarians. Google Ron Paul farm subsidies.

You seam to think that the market actually rewards merit, that what people get in the market is what the deserve ... Which is rediculous, considering market decisions are made by those with the most capital.

Investors put the capital wherever it earns the highest return. They do not choose which activities generate high return, that's a function of economic conditions. Regardless of who holds the capital, it will gravitate towards high return activities. People who actually run the company that produces high returns get the capital.

A company has a board of directors who chooes everyones pay, they pay their workers little and themselves a lot ... OBVIOUSLY, that does'nt mean they have merit, any more than a king paying himself more than his generals or knights in wartime, becuase he gets to choose who gets what.

The board is put in by investors...based on investor perception of merit.

Yes, but we do not have a well functioning republic.

So what? This is consistent with the view that well functioning republics are accountable to their citizens.

Err, no it does'nt, sitting on your ass in the pool because you own a company handed down by daddy, hwhile other people run it is worth a lot less than people that produce, but I'm guessing he'll pay himself more than the workers.

Capitalism never has rewarded labor according to its worth, if it did profits would be minimal if anything at all, and executives would be paid MUCH MUCH less.

You're effectively paying yourself a dividend, not a wage for labor...and situations like this are exceptions rather than rules...the US is 1-5% idle rich tops.

Private companies pay their executives well. They could hire cheaper executives, or just pick someone from a middle management position and have them run the company, but they don't, because it's worth paying the extra million to get a good executive.

RGacky3

14th September 2011, 08:26

You probably just don't read anything said or written by libertarians. Google Ron Paul farm subsidies.

I don't give a shit what they write, what I care about is what they actively push in politics.

Investors put the capital wherever it earns the highest return. They do not choose which activities generate high return, that's a function of economic conditions. Regardless of who holds the capital, it will gravitate towards high return activities. People who actually run the company that produces high returns get the capital.

Yes, which is why there is no market for low income housing, and why food prices go up (even though we have productoin capacity to make it almost free).

But the point is again, the executives in a corporation, who control the compensation, ALWAYS pay themselves much much more than everyone else.

years ago the CEO/worker average pay difference was 30/1, now its something rediculous like 10,000/1 (don't know the exact number I can look it up).

Do you really think that this is because CEOs are suddenly worth that much more to the economy???

Or maybe is it because they CAN pay themselves more so they do.

The board is put in by investors...based on investor perception of merit.

Nope, the CEO selects the board who are rubber stamped by the investors, and the board selects the CEO. If your calling corporate governance democracy then you can call North Korea democracy.

You know in practice, due to the nature of the stock market (people trade stocks for capital gains, not to get a cut of the profits, and vast amounts of stocks are in the hands institutional investors), that democracy in corporations is meaningless.

You're effectively paying yourself a dividend, not a wage for labor...and situations like this are exceptions rather than rules...the US is 1-5% idle rich tops.

Its probably much less than that, but your right, the idle rich probably are not all the rich, or hte majority, the majority are people that work, work hard, not to produce stuff, but to extract from the productive economy and exploit labor to make heaps of money.

Private companies pay their executives well. They could hire cheaper executives, or just pick someone from a middle management position and have them run the company, but they don't, because it's worth paying the extra million to get a good executive.

Most private companies board of directors are made up of the executives, so why would they not pay themselves well ... its not like private companies are some entity that pay their executives, executives pay themselves :).

For a Capitalist you have a very utopian view of how capitalism works.

Judicator

15th September 2011, 01:49

I don't give a shit what they write, what I care about is what they actively push in politics.

Well that would explain why you've never heard any opposing corporate handouts, because you've never head anything from them.

Yes, which is why there is no market for low income housing, and why food prices go up (even though we have productoin capacity to make it almost free).

But the point is again, the executives in a corporation, who control the compensation, ALWAYS pay themselves much much more than everyone else.

years ago the CEO/worker average pay difference was 30/1, now its something rediculous like 10,000/1 (don't know the exact number I can look it up).

Do you really think that this is because CEOs are suddenly worth that much more to the economy???

Or maybe is it because they CAN pay themselves more so they do.

What do you think trailer parks are? Low income housing! Who do you think builds trailers and owns trailer parks? Private industry!

The executive compensation problem you're bringing up is limited only to public companies. Private equity firms, who have an interest in getting as much money as possible out of public companies, still pay their executives far more than workers.

Today its something like 300:1. This can be explained by several things, one of which is the agency problem you bring up, but look at private company executive pay and it's still quite high, meaning that yes, CEOs really provide services of higher economic value than workers.

Nope, the CEO selects the board who are rubber stamped by the investors, and the board selects the CEO. If your calling corporate governance democracy then you can call North Korea democracy.

The investors needn't "rubber stamp" the board selections. They can vote however they choose in board elections.

Most private companies board of directors are made up of the executives, so why would they not pay themselves well ... its not like private companies are some entity that pay their executives, executives pay themselves

They pay the non-board members executives richly. Private companies have tons of professional management. Do you really think all of the executives in Cargill are also on the board?

As I've said before, if you own a company and pay yourself a lot, it's really no different than paying a high dividend.

RGacky3

15th September 2011, 08:49

Well that would explain why you've never heard any opposing corporate handouts, because you've never head anything from them.

I hear them all the time, libertarians are on TV and in politics.

What do you think trailer parks are? Low income housing! Who do you think builds trailers and owns trailer parks? Private industry!

One example, but there are many many people who cannot get a trailer.

The executive compensation problem you're bringing up is limited only to public companies. Private equity firms, who have an interest in getting as much money as possible out of public companies, still pay their executives far more than workers.

Most private equity firms are run by their private owners .... So again, they are paying themselves.

Today its something like 300:1. This can be explained by several things, one of which is the agency problem you bring up, but look at private company executive pay and it's still quite high, meaning that yes, CEOs really provide services of higher economic value than workers.

Really? They provite high economic value? Well according to themselves sure.

Whats funny is that for example in argentina, the factory excutives abandoned their factories because they failed, the workers took them over and make them profitable ... then guess who came back ;).

CEOs 30 years ago were not 10 times less worth than now, capitalistic companesation systems have nothing to do with merit and all to do with economic power.

The investors needn't "rubber stamp" the board selections. They can vote however they choose in board elections.

Basically the same as the USSR :laugh:, and we all know how democratic that was. Infact less democratic due to the nature of the stock market, people buy stock mostly for capital gains, and the stock is ONLY tied to profit from the company by either dividends or percieved value, also its not like stockholders all know each other and so on.

Both you and I know that IN PRACTICE (not in theory here, we are talking about the real world), the board runs the show and corporations are not democratic.

They pay the non-board members executives richly. Private companies have tons of professional management. Do you really think all of the executives in Cargill are also on the board?

Most executives are also on the board, and no I don't think all the executives in Cargill are also on the board, but they are probably on other boards and they are extremely tied to the board (also many boards give budgets to executives who then decide what to do with it).

As I've said before, if you own a company and pay yourself a lot, it's really no different than paying a high dividend.

Except if you own a company and pay yourself its your choice, dividends are the boards choice.

RGacky3

15th September 2011, 08:50

Also what would be wrong with making compensation subject to democratic control? If CEOs are really worht that much what would they have to fear?

Judicator

17th September 2011, 21:12

One example, but there are many many people who cannot get a trailer.

The fact is there's a market for low income housing, contrary to your ignorant claim that there isn't.

Most private equity firms are run by their private owners .... So again, they are paying themselves.

The portfolio companies aren't operated day to day by the partners at the PE firm...they are operated by highly compensated professional management brought in from outside.

If CEO pay were simply a roundabout way for board members to pay themselves, new CEOs brought in from elsewhere wouldn't get paid much...but they get vast sums.

Really? They provite high economic value?

Sure, a CEO who increases net income even a fraction of a percentage point is worth millions. Steve Jobs is an obvious example of someone who generated hundreds of times more economic value than some worker in China.

Both you and I know that IN PRACTICE (not in theory here, we are talking about the real world), the board runs the show and corporations are not democratic.

I'm sure this why large shareholders are so unsuccessful in their hostile takeover bids. The board "runs the show" on a day to day basis, just like any representative government governs.

Most executives are also on the board, and no I don't think all the executives in Cargill are also on the board, but they are probably on other boards and they are extremely tied to the board

Non-board members are still very well compensated.

Except if you own a company and pay yourself its your choice, dividends are the boards choice.

If the board refuses to pay a dividend I'll replace them, so it's my choice.

Also what would be wrong with making compensation subject to democratic control? If CEOs are really worht that much what would they have to fear?

What does this entail? Having shareholders vote on more stuff? At best, this would reduce executive compensation slightly.

RGacky3

19th September 2011, 09:01

The fact is there's a market for low income housing, contrary to your ignorant claim that there isn't.

your talking about government projects? I suppose you have some mobile homes, but you don't have nearly enough of a market for it, which is why you need the government to come in.

The portfolio companies aren't operated day to day by the partners at the PE firm...they are operated by highly compensated professional management brought in from outside.

No, not day to day, but who gets what is ultimately decided by the top.

If CEO pay were simply a roundabout way for board members to pay themselves, new CEOs brought in from elsewhere wouldn't get paid much...but they get vast sums.

Most CEOs are members of the board, if they arn't they are members of boards on other companies as well.

Are you honestly saying that their ACTUAL worth has skyrocketed these last couple of decades?

Sure, a CEO who increases net income even a fraction of a percentage point is worth millions. Steve Jobs is an obvious example of someone who generated hundreds of times more economic value than some worker in China.

CEOs don't increaes net income, technology does, workers do, technicians do, engineers do and so on.

If Steve Jobs generated more value than the worker in China, then if we had a workers democracy within Apple he'd get paid more then, otherwise we have no idea what his value is compared to what he is paid.

Non-board members are still very well compensated.

Its kind of the same thing as when union wages go up, so does non union wages. But again, most executives are on the board as well.

If the board refuses to pay a dividend I'll replace them, so it's my choice.

Will you? How?

We're talking about the real world here, not libertarian fantasy land.

What does this entail? Having shareholders vote on more stuff? At best, this would reduce executive compensation slightly.

No, having workers vote on stuff, having compensation and distribution be a democratic process of the workers.

Baseball

19th September 2011, 15:35

If Steve Jobs generated more value than the worker in China, then if we had a workers democracy within Apple he'd get paid more then, otherwise we have no idea what his value is compared to what he is paid.

But you cannot draw such a conclusion. All you can say is there would be Apple employees who would argue he has greater value to Apple than some other worker.

But in order to do that, there would need to be an agreed upon understanding as to what "value" means. And that understanding would have to apply to all companies and the workers making similar decisions; the understanding of "value" in the socialist community could not be decided company by company. And generally speaking, the capitalist understanding of "value" would be off the table for the socialist community.

RGacky3

19th September 2011, 16:03

But you cannot draw such a conclusion. All you can say is there would be Apple employees who would argue he has greater value to Apple than some other worker.

But in order to do that, there would need to be an agreed upon understanding as to what "value" means. And that understanding would have to apply to all companies and the workers making similar decisions; the understanding of "value" in the socialist community could not be decided company by company. And generally speaking, the capitalist understanding of "value" would be off the table for the socialist community.

WHy? If his understanding of value makes sense then people will go along with it and compensate him accordingly ...

RGacky3

19th September 2011, 16:05

BTW no one is talking about a socialist community, I'm talking about work place democracy.

Ocean Seal

19th September 2011, 16:10

They forgot the Great Depression denier. The US was only capitalist before the great depression. So what you're saying is that government intervention only happened after private enterprise fucked up, yeah? No, man the government was the reason for the great depression.

And of course the: Think's s/he will be the boss.
"I might be living through shit today, but someday I'll earn like my boss does, and if the government takes my money to give to lazy free-loaders, well then they just destroyed the American dream of owning three islands.

Baseball

19th September 2011, 17:48

BTW no one is talking about a socialist community, I'm talking about work place democracy.

It doesn't matter (though I thought the two were the same).

An informed choice is what is needed; which requires information; which requires a source of that information; ect ect

Baseball

19th September 2011, 17:56

WHy? If his understanding of value makes sense then people will go along with it and compensate him accordingly ...

One would think that "value" is understood differently in socialist and capitalist contexts.

So as I have asked before, what is that information which is used in a socialist community to determine "value." Does the socialist community allow the use of information which a capitalist might use, in its determination of "value," to determine what makes "sense?"

RGacky3

19th September 2011, 18:47

It doesn't matter (though I thought the two were the same).

An informed choice is what is needed; which requires information; which requires a source of that information; ect ect

Workers at a company have the same access to information that a CEO has .... Or they can have the same access to information.

It is an imformed choice, the workers work there, I'd say they are more informed than the CEO.

So as I have asked before, what is that information which is used in a socialist community to determine "value." Does the socialist community allow the use of information which a capitalist might use, in its determination of "value," to determine what makes "sense?"

IT does'nt matter how you define value, its totally irrelivant, its just what the workers at a company democratically think the distribution and compensation should be, as opposed to what a singular CEO or board of directors thinks it should be.

I see your still trying to beat up that dead horse, but in this situation the dead horse is'nt in the same damn stable of what we are talking about.

Judicator

20th September 2011, 01:39

your talking about government projects? I suppose you have some mobile homes, but you don't have nearly enough of a market for it, which is why you need the government to come in.

"Nearly enough of a market for it?" What does this mean? Trailers are cheap and plentiful and you can put one anywhere.

Often by "low income/affordable housing" what's really meant is "low cost housing in expensive neighborhoods," which is of course a contradiction in terms.

No, not day to day, but who gets what is ultimately decided by the top.

Your original thesis was that high executive pay is unwarranted, because really the bulk of their premium over workers is because of agent-principle problems where they pay themselves.

This is false, as you can plainly see from observing the salary of any professional manager who doesn't control his/her own pay being paid a lot.

Are you honestly saying that their ACTUAL worth has skyrocketed these last couple of decades?

What are the alternative explanations? That agent-principle problems have become significantly worse over time? Differences in taxes?

CEOs don't increaes net income, technology does, workers do, technicians do, engineers do and so on.

If Steve Jobs generated more value than the worker in China, then if we had a workers democracy within Apple he'd get paid more then, otherwise we have no idea what his value is compared to what he is paid.

CEOs are tasked with making all of the large decisions that are relevant to a company. This takes skill. People get paid a lot for things which require certain skills in short supply.

Consider Apple without Steve Jobs....large difference. Imagine Apple without that one worker...no difference. You don't need a workers democracy to figure that out.

Will you? How?

I own the company lol.

DinodudeEpic

20th September 2011, 02:01

CEOs are tasked with making all of the large decisions that are relevant to a company. This takes skill. People get paid a lot for things which require certain skills in short supply.

Consider Apple without Steve Jobs....large difference. Imagine Apple without that one worker...no difference. You don't need a workers democracy to figure that out.

So, how about we extend that to government. You know what we get?.....plutocratic oligarchy! The citizen is too stupid to make political decisions, so let's have some skilled people rule the country without their consent. For a libertarian(Are you one?), you seem to not value freedom at all.

Let's see democracy's track record.... all the developed countries have democracy, people are freer in democracies, democracies tend to be better off economically, there is more innovation in democracies...... Yep, it works, and very well that is. Why not apply it to economics?

Judicator

20th September 2011, 02:35

So, how about we extend that to government. You know what we get?.....plutocratic oligarchy! The citizen is too stupid to make political decisions, so let's have some skilled people rule the country without their consent. For a libertarian(Are you one?), you seem to not value freedom at all.

How do theories explaining why CEO pay is high have anything to do with how we should run our government?

Let's see democracy's track record.... all the developed countries have democracy, people are freer in democracies, democracies tend to be better off economically, there is more innovation in democracies...... Yep, it works, and very well that is. Why not apply it to economics?

It already has been. Developed countries have democracies, which they use to govern commerce.

DinodudeEpic

20th September 2011, 03:03

Except, that economic interventionism usually is administrated via bureaucracy. We need a democratic administration of government intervention in the economy, and we need the businesses to be democratic too.

But, the issue is that you say that the corporation is more efficient then the cooperative, and thus we must have corporations. The problem is that the only difference between a corporation and a cooperative is the structure. Cooperative is democratic, corporations are oligarchic or dictatorial. So, if you think a corporation is more efficient, then the same argument would be for dictatorship/oligarchy, since they have similar organizational structures to corporations.

Judicator

20th September 2011, 04:58

But, the issue is that you say that the corporation is more efficient then the cooperative, and thus we must have corporations. The problem is that the only difference between a corporation and a cooperative is the structure. Cooperative is democratic, corporations are oligarchic or dictatorial. So, if you think a corporation is more efficient, then the same argument would be for dictatorship/oligarchy, since they have similar organizational structures to corporations.

The original point was about the rarity and value CEO skill being a factor in their high wages. If you take a bunch of people in factory and convert it to a worker cooperative, they still don't know shit about how to run a company.

Except, that economic interventionism usually is administrated via bureaucracy. We need a democratic administration of government intervention in the economy, and we need the businesses to be democratic too.

Government acts of any kind are usually administered through bureaucracy.

Why should we require that corporations be run like a democracy, any more than we should require a country club, your local book club, or any other association of individuals, be run like a democracy? This is violation of free association, not democracy.

Revolution starts with U

20th September 2011, 06:34

The original point was about the rarity and value CEO skill being a factor in their high wages. If you take a bunch of people in factory and convert it to a worker cooperative, they still don't know shit about how to run a company.

Government acts of any kind are usually administered through bureaucracy.

Why should we require that corporations be run like a democracy, any more than we should require a country club, your local book club, or any other association of individuals, be run like a democracy? This is violation of free association, not democracy.

You're missing the point. What is being asked of you is why are you so against letting the value producers democratically decide who produces what value?
You do know that, for the most part, management is STILL paid higher than labor in most cooperatives, correct? It's not the gaudy difference you find in common private companies, and that is good imo. People are not so stupid as to disregard the importance of management and coordination.

RGacky3

20th September 2011, 07:52

"Nearly enough of a market for it?" What does this mean? Trailers are cheap and plentiful and you can put one anywhere.

Often by "low income/affordable housing" what's really meant is "low cost housing in expensive neighborhoods," which is of course a contradiction in terms.

What I mean is that there are more poor people than there are trailers.

Low income housing MEANS low income housing.

ANd there is'nt a market for it, which is why the state has to step in.

Your original thesis was that high executive pay is unwarranted, because really the bulk of their premium over workers is because of agent-principle problems where they pay themselves.

This is false, as you can plainly see from observing the salary of any professional manager who doesn't control his/her own pay being paid a lot.

I already addressed that, most of thse people are on other boards (who pay CEOs of other companies that much, many buisinesspeople are on many different boards), and that the bar is raised for everyone.

But either way the vast majority of CEOs and high level executives are on the board of directors.

What are the alternative explanations? That agent-principle problems have become significantly worse over time? Differences in taxes?

The explination is death of unions, flatlining wages and skyrocketing profits, so they pay themselves more.

Even if they are not on the board they get a budget and they'll give themselves a higher cut on that budget.

CEOs are tasked with making all of the large decisions that are relevant to a company. This takes skill. People get paid a lot for things which require certain skills in short supply.

Consider Apple without Steve Jobs....large difference. Imagine Apple without that one worker...no difference. You don't need a workers democracy to figure that out.

Well right now Apple does'nt have Steve Jobs, and I think its totally gonna be fine.

What Skills? Manegement skills? Sure, does that require more skill than programing? Or operating complex machinery? Well guess who gets to choose that, the CEO.

If their value was really worth what they are paid then they'd be paid the same in a workers democracy.

I own the company lol.

No ... You own some stock in the company, again, in the real world, how?

If you take a bunch of people in factory and convert it to a worker cooperative, they still don't know shit about how to run a company.

Says who? They ran it better in Argentina, and even if they need a manager to figure stuff out, they know who is worth what.

Why should we require that corporations be run like a democracy, any more than we should require a country club, your local book club, or any other association of individuals, be run like a democracy? This is violation of free association, not democracy.

Because corporations are state chartered entities.

CommunityBeliever

20th September 2011, 10:12

I wouldn't call it uncivilized: Libertarians favor rule of law, technological development, and other hallmarks of civilization.Libertarian socialists favor technological development by ending the suppression/neglect of important technologies like intelligent computing architectures (the Lisp machines) and nuclear fusion (see for example Philo Farnsworth, Dr. Robert Bussard, Dr. Eugene Mallove, etc). The same cannot be said of libertarian capitalists who continue to support the techno-deprecation, a process systemic to capitalist in which capitalists prevent the development of technology to maintain the financial value of their assets.

Sure, a CEO who increases net income even a fraction of a percentage point is worth millions. Steve Jobs is an obvious example of someone who generated hundreds of times more economic value than some worker in China.

Steve Jobs economic value currently expressed in terms of his relation to the system of production for profit (capitalism) rather the production for use (socialism). In a use-value based economy the Chinese workers will be more economically valuable then Steve Jobs, who hasn't really produced anything usable. I would like for you to show me even one line of code that Steve Jobs has written if you can.

Actually, Steve Jobs probably should be tried as a criminal for participating in the use of proprietary software, DRM, the monopolisation of closed-standards, supporting cloud computing, etc.

The original point was about the rarity and value CEO skill being a factor in their high wages. If you take a bunch of people in factory and convert it to a worker cooperative, they still don't know shit about how to run a company.Nobody receives high wages for skilled work (meritocracy) in capitalism. For example, the quaternary sector of the economy, which entails considerable mental skill is constantly being exported to cheaper, easier to exploit areas, like Bangalore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore). CEOs are not skill-based occupations which is why they aren't being exported.

RÃ©volutionnaire Acadien

20th September 2011, 16:13

I used to be a non leftist Libertarian, but then I got to looking more into how corporations conduct their business, and how they are already basically major players in government now. By taking out government and letting business run things, you would be trading one tyranny for another. Decentralized worker's co-ops ensures that nothing gets too big to control anyone. No government, and no big corporations to crush the common man.

OHumanista

20th September 2011, 20:34

I met one who was a mix of the Apostle, Terrified, Gunner Joe and Stoned types(mostly stoned:laugh:)
And while I have no problem with what people use it was just unberable to speak with him. No knowledge of history and yet had a deep knowledge of a pseudo-history where everything pointed out to libertarianism.

Then came in the question of logic, as he could barely make any sensible sentence. All public workers were beasts from hell (especially cops...weirdly the military were awesome and freedom loving...:blink:) Then corporations would all dissolve and magically disappear without "big government" to "back it up" (despite the fact it would be infinitely easier to take over all aspects of life)

Finally, all evil came from government who opressed you despite the fact that in a democracy it is elected. Property and guns were holy, and it was your right to shoot any poor person who "invaded" your property. Finally any person who couldn't take care of itself deserved their fate.

Baseball

24th September 2011, 15:57

I
t is an imformed choice, the workers work there, I'd say they are more informed than the CEO.

Knowledge on how to build a pipe is different from the knowledge needed to distribute said pipe.

IT does'nt matter how you define value, its totally irrelivant, its just what the workers at a company democratically think the distribution and compensation should be,

Based upon what? Capitalist methods of production? A dead horse, to be sure, but I would think an "informed" choice would at least mean the workers to be able explain why they vote the way they vote.

Are Revlefters indifferent as to whether the workers choose socialism?

Baseball

24th September 2011, 16:02

You're missing the point. What is being asked of you is why are you so against letting the value producers democratically decide who produces what value?

Because it is absurd that the producers decide what the value of their product is to YOU.

People are not so stupid as to disregard the importance of management and coordination.

True. But in a socialist system, the function, role and scope of management and coordination will be different than exists in a capitalist system. That would also need to be considered and examined.

Revolution starts with U

24th September 2011, 21:02

Because it is absurd that the producers decide what the value of their product is to YOU.

No, actually that is exactly what I am proposing; replacing the payers with the producers in the deciding of value.

True. But in a socialist system, the function, role and scope of management and coordination will be different than exists in a capitalist system. That would also need to be considered and examined

Yes it should. Just as capitalists had to consider it when replacing feudal lords, and feudal lords had to consider it when replacing the landed slaveholding aristocracy, socialists will have to consider the management process when replacing the capitalists.
I really see only two valid criticisms of socialism; the difficulty balance between the tyranny of the majority and minority (but of course it still stands above, imo, all systems in this), and the role of the entrepreneur (because, and I may be wrong, I have not found much socialist thought on the role of the idea man).

Baseball

25th September 2011, 01:05

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2241837]No, actually that is exactly what I am proposing; replacing the payers with the producers in the deciding of value.

Why should the producers of say, computers, decide how much how much I should value their computer?

I really see only two valid criticisms of socialism; the difficulty balance between the tyranny of the majority and minority (but of course it still stands above, imo, all systems in this)

How do you draw this conclusion...?

and the role of the entrepreneur (because, and I may be wrong, I have not found much socialist thought on the role of the idea man).

...In light of the above comment?

Revolution starts with U

25th September 2011, 01:15

Why should the producers of say, computers, decide how much how much I should value their computer?

Why should the payers of the producers? Consumers don't directly set prices, bro. The capitalist sets the price, and compete for consumers. Why should everyone involved in the production process (the idea man, the investor, the worker, the manager, the janitor, etc) NOT have a say?

How do you draw this conclusion...?

...In light of the above comment?

Come again? :lol:

Baseball

25th September 2011, 01:20

Why should the payers of the producers?

They are the ones for the items are being produced.

Consumers don't directly set prices, bro. The capitalist sets the price, and compete for consumers.

That capitalist is also a consumer of goods and services. Why, for example, should the "idea man" tell the capitalist how much the "idea" is to be valued?

Revolution starts with U

25th September 2011, 01:30

They are the ones for the items are being produced.

No, the consumer is the one for which the item is being produced. The capitalist merely pays for things. He has played his role in history, and good for him, but his archaic role is unnecessary to a modern society.

That capitalist is also a consumer of goods and services. Why, for example, should the "idea man" tell the capitalist how much the "idea" is to be valued?

Because oligarchy is morally unnacceptable, and on top of that, has been shown to be inefficient. The production process, like the political process, should be run democratically.

Baseball

25th September 2011, 01:37

No, the consumer is the one for which the item is being produced. The capitalist merely pays for things. He has played his role in history, and good for him, but his archaic role is unnecessary to a modern society.

Perhaps this explains the difficulty you have found looking in socialist literature regarding the role of the entrepreneur...

Because oligarchy is morally unnacceptable, and on top of that, has been shown to be inefficient. The production process, like the political process, should be run democratically.

It is not quite clear what this sound bite has to do with anything. It explains nothing. It doesn't explain why it is more "modern" when the producer of a product gets to dictate to a potential consumer how much the product is to be valued by that consumer

Revolution starts with U

25th September 2011, 02:12

Perhaps this explains the difficulty you have found looking in socialist literature regarding the role of the entrepreneur...

Far more often than not in capitalist societies through history the entrepreneur is not the capitalist. More often than not the capitalist funds the idea of the idea man.

It is not quite clear what this sound bite has to do with anything. It explains nothing. It doesn't explain why it is more "modern" when the producer of a product gets to dictate to a potential consumer how much the product is to be valued by that consumer

All producers, rather than just owner/investors, will be making the decision democratically. Already the owner/investor dictates the price of the commodity without the consent of the rest of the producers. He holds an oligarchical position over the creation of prices. Ultimately the goal is eliminate the price system all together, when material abundance provides for such measures.
I don't know why you are trying to suggest that consumers decide prices directly in the modern economy. They don't, short of ebay and farmers markets. The price is already set for them, and at best they choose between competing price setters.

Baseball

25th September 2011, 02:26

Far more often than not in capitalist societies through history the entrepreneur is not the capitalist. More often than not the capitalist funds the idea of the idea man.

Perhaps.

Ot also means the capitalist is the customer of the "idea man." The capitalist is determining whether the "idea" is valuable to others- and using his skills and knowledge in the process.

All producers, rather than just owner/investors, will be making the decision democratically.

Which means, in another time, the typewriter producers would have a say in determining the value of typewriters as opposed to the producers of those new personal computers.

Already the owner/investor dictates the price of the commodity without the consent of the rest of the producers.

But why should the computer folks have received the consent for their prices from the typewriter folks?

I don't know why you are trying to suggest that consumers decide prices directly in the modern economy.

The consumers have a far greater say in the modern economy than in the suggested socialist community replacement.

Revolution starts with U

25th September 2011, 04:10

Perhaps.

Ot also means the capitalist is the customer of the "idea man." The capitalist is determining whether the "idea" is valuable to others- and using his skills and knowledge in the process.

And in that role he should have a say. But there is no justification but force for him being the final arbiter on all aspects of the productive effort.

Which means, in another time, the typewriter producers would have a say in determining the value of typewriters as opposed to the producers of those new personal computers.

But why should the computer folks have received the consent for their prices from the typewriter folks?

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or is it an accident? I would hope deliberate, because that is a pretty wild stretching of what I said.
All the members of the productive efforts of a consumer want, from the idea to the money to the work, will have their right to representation in the productive effort.
This is as opposed to the current system where the property/capital holder is the final master of any and all capital of which he claims ownership.

The consumers have a far greater say in the modern economy than in the suggested socialist community replacement.

Why? How? On what basis do you say this?

Skooma Addict

25th September 2011, 04:21

Why should the payers of the producers? Consumers don't directly set prices, bro. The capitalist sets the price, and compete for consumers. Why should everyone involved in the production process (the idea man, the investor, the worker, the manager, the janitor, etc) NOT have a say? They already do for the most par. idk y the janitor would have a say unless he is a consumer, in which case he does.

Revolution starts with U

25th September 2011, 04:31

The janitor keeps the shop clean and orderly, a vital foundation of efficiency.
The simple fact is, if the disparity in power between the lowliest floor worker and the CEO were justified, they would put it to a vote. Simple as that. But it's not. So you're subject to their rules on the threat of force. Accept the property system, die, or rot in a jail.

Baseball

25th September 2011, 21:39

[
QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2242043]And in that role he should have a say. But there is no justification but force for him being the final arbiter on all aspects of the productive effort.

The capitalist isn't. He needs to tailor his production decision to what best satisfies the consumer; whether that consumer be the "idea man" or the person buying the finished product off the shelf.

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or is it an accident? I would hope deliberate, because that is a pretty wild stretching of what I said.
All the members of the productive efforts of a consumer want, from the idea to the money to the work, will have their right to representation in the productive effort.

They already are. The "idea man" presents his idea. Perhaps it is valid and worthwhile; perhaps not. The capitalist produces the item. Perhaps the product sells; perhaps not.

This is as opposed to the current system where the property/capital holder is the final master of any and all capital of which he claims ownership.

Which is false and untrue.

Baseball

25th September 2011, 21:44

The janitor keeps the shop clean and orderly, a vital foundation of efficiency.

Certainly. And...?

The simple fact is, if the disparity in power between the lowliest floor worker and the CEO were justified, they would put it to a vote.

They would place what to a vote? That the janitor should have a vote as to how to produce a particular item?

So you're subject to their rules on the threat of force.

Except that in your suggestion the workers would also be subject to the same threat. Surely the workers who LOSE a democratic election are not free to disregard that decision?

RGacky3

26th September 2011, 07:44

They would place what to a vote? That the janitor should have a vote as to how to produce a particular item?

compensation.

Except that in your suggestion the workers would also be subject to the same threat. Surely the workers who LOSE a democratic election are not free to disregard that decision?

No .... Your point?

kapitalyst

28th September 2011, 00:56

- If you are a right-wing libertarian troglodyte, I'd love to hear you defend yourself?

Lol... Wow, you guys put the hurt on those libertarian strawmen... :rolleyes:

What's really funny is seeing people who claim they support "freedom" and are against statism are sitting here advocating statism... singing songs of worship and praise to the state. And you're athiests? Ha! You definitely have gods and goddesses...

It's also funny to see the USSR nostalgically praised as "prole-paradise", when in fact it was one of the worst **** holes anyone could have ever lived in. If it was so great, why were East Germans escaping to the capitalist west and not vice-versa? Why did they need that big wall and machine gunners to keep everyone in? Why did they need those gulags for "character reform" and "thought criminals"? Why did so many people need to be shot in the nape of the neck with Makarovs, and kicked over into burial trenches? Hmmm... and what DID happen to those Polish officers in that forest? Oh yes, the USSR was a great country, and super successful... which is why it still exists to this day! :closedeyes:

If you want to debate libertarianism, fine by me... It's this sort of thing which makes it look better than anything! :laugh:

RGacky3

28th September 2011, 08:00

What's really funny is seeing people who claim they support "freedom" and are against statism are sitting here advocating statism... singing songs of worship and praise to the state. And you're athiests? Ha! You definitely have gods and goddesses...

I'm against both the capitalist state and capitalism, but if I had a choice of something being run by an institution that is accountable to the people, as opposed to something accountable only to profits (or the boss), I pick the former.

It's also funny to see the USSR nostalgically praised as "prole-paradise", when in fact it was one of the worst **** holes anyone could have ever lived in. If it was so great, why were East Germans escaping to the capitalist west and not vice-versa? Why did they need that big wall and machine gunners to keep everyone in? Why did they need those gulags for "character reform" and "thought criminals"? Why did so many people need to be shot in the nape of the neck with Makarovs, and kicked over into burial trenches? Hmmm... and what DID happen to those Polish officers in that forest? Oh yes, the USSR was a great country, and super successful... which is why it still exists to this day! :closedeyes:

Who was praising the USSR? Most here do not.

kapitalyst

28th September 2011, 10:29

I'm against both the capitalist state and capitalism, but if I had a choice of something being run by an institution that is accountable to the people, as opposed to something accountable only to profits (or the boss), I pick the former.

But you're not against communist or socialist statism? Authoritarianism is ok as long as its not capitalist?

Who was praising the USSR? Most here do not.

Gacky, just read these forums...

RGacky3

28th September 2011, 10:35

But you're not against communist or socialist statism? Authoritarianism is ok as long as its not capitalist?

What is socialist statism? I'm against all authoritarianism.

kapitalyst

28th September 2011, 10:41

@ everyone else:

You guys, no offense, really don't understand price mechanism, do you?

The "capitalist pigs" don't just pull a price out their asses and work together to control prices. Prices are set to what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay what something is worth to them. As a real world example, NYMEX crude hit $120/b earlier this year. You might be tempted to say oil is so important that people would just pay it out of desperation... and you just might be tempted to be wrong. We saw critical demand destruction at that price level, as the world cut back on consumption. Traders, like myself, in turn liquidated any oil contracts we held and then shorted oil. The price was quickly pared back.

Other things work this way too. I bought a rack of pork ribs tonight, which I just made a late dinner of. I payed $10 for it. Is it worth $10 to me? Yes. Otherwise I would have eaten something else. The price of those ribs is being decided by a few things... The price of grain (to feed hogs), the price of live, lean hogs, the cost of butchering the hogs, the cost of packaging, shipping and handling and paying all the worker's wages along the way. And what's more, it could potentially cost more, say $25 bucks, to get a rack of ribs to market, but then people wouldn't buy it. The business would stop buying hogs. Hog prices would fall, and less hogs would be raised. Grain prices, in turn, would take a hit. My point is that this is not some conspiracy being perpetrated against you. This is basic economics in action. :cool:

RGacky3

28th September 2011, 11:05

The "capitalist pigs" don't just pull a price out their asses and work together to control prices. Prices are set to what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay what something is worth to them. As a real world example, NYMEX crude hit $120/b earlier this year. You might be tempted to say oil is so important that people would just pay it out of desperation... and you just might be tempted to be wrong. We saw critical demand destruction at that price level, as the world cut back on consumption.

Well yeah you have competition and you have different things controlling prices.

A lot of the price hikes in oil however was due to speculation, the same was food prices in 2007.

Other things work this way too. I bought a rack of pork ribs tonight, which I just made a late dinner of. I payed $10 for it. Is it worth $10 to me? Yes. Otherwise I would have eaten something else. The price of those ribs is being decided by a few things... The price of grain (to feed hogs), the price of live, lean hogs, the cost of butchering the hogs, the cost of packaging, shipping and handling and paying all the worker's wages along the way. And what's more, it could potentially cost more, say $25 bucks, to get a rack of ribs to market, but then people wouldn't buy it. The business would stop buying hogs. Hog prices would fall, and less hogs would be raised. Grain prices, in turn, would take a hit. My point is that this is not some conspiracy being perpetrated against you. This is basic economics in action. :cool:

I don't see how this has anything to do with what we are talking about, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Capitalists are comming together to fix prices ... prices are not the major issue, most people here accept the classical analysis of prices (as did Marx).

Revolution starts with U

28th September 2011, 19:10

But you're not against communist or socialist statism? Authoritarianism is ok as long as its not capitalist?

Gacky, just read these forums...
I actually see the vast majority of people on this site demonizing the USSR. And the one's that do defend it are usually like "it wasn't good but you have to understand the situation they were in.
So.. I'm going to have to say you will have to cite this overabundance of people praising the USSR.. or I'm going to assume you, in the fashion of true right wingers, made that up. :cool:

@ everyone else:

You guys, no offense, really don't understand price mechanism, do you?

The "capitalist pigs" don't just pull a price out their asses and work together to control prices. Prices are set to what people are willing to pay. People are willing to pay what something is worth to them. As a real world example, NYMEX crude hit $120/b earlier this year. You might be tempted to say oil is so important that people would just pay it out of desperation... and you just might be tempted to be wrong. We saw critical demand destruction at that price level, as the world cut back on consumption. Traders, like myself, in turn liquidated any oil contracts we held and then shorted oil. The price was quickly pared back.

Other things work this way too. I bought a rack of pork ribs tonight, which I just made a late dinner of. I payed $10 for it. Is it worth $10 to me? Yes. Otherwise I would have eaten something else. The price of those ribs is being decided by a few things... The price of grain (to feed hogs), the price of live, lean hogs, the cost of butchering the hogs, the cost of packaging, shipping and handling and paying all the worker's wages along the way. And what's more, it could potentially cost more, say $25 bucks, to get a rack of ribs to market, but then people wouldn't buy it. The business would stop buying hogs. Hog prices would fall, and less hogs would be raised. Grain prices, in turn, would take a hit. My point is that this is not some conspiracy being perpetrated against you. This is basic economics in action. :cool:
Again, you're just making up our positions for us. I see many detailed discussions on the price mechanism on this site. And many of those discussions focus on how the system itself forces the capitalist to F the people. I don't see many people accusing capitalists of engaging in a formal conspiracy to set prices... maybe OPEC, but that's about it.
"You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests collide" ~George Carlin