Money

[England Expects]

I'm curious about what all of the "comrades" think about money.

What do you think money is?

What do you think money does?

What do you think money is useful for?

What problems does money cause?

Do you have an alternative to money?

[LSD]

What do you think money is?

What do you think money does?

This can be a rather complex subject, but in simplest terms, money, in capitalist "market" economies, is a medium of exchange and a unit of value.

It can also act as a store of value depending on the currency system in place.

Basically, money orgiginated to simplify basic barter economies and was originally mark valued to specific material resources (typically precious stones or distinct natural resources).

Over time, however, and with the development of more complex accounting methods, money has generally become a fluid currency which is, effectively, traded on a "market" of its own.


What problems does money cause?

Money doesn't directly "cause" any problem in and of itself, but any economic system based on currency transaction is implicitly flawed.

Whether due to luck, chance, intelligence, or cunning, any trade-based economy cannot help but to become imbalanced. "Perfect markets" notwithstanding, human beings will never interact according to macroeconomics 101 and value exchange will always be uneven.

That means that, eventually, money-based economics must lead to substantial wealth disparity; and when a socioeconomic system is based upon private value exchange, wealth disparity translates to power disparity.

More money equals more "votes" in the "market" and the "market" is ultimately far more important than the ballot box.

In a perfect libertarian society, money would lead inexorably to economic hegemony; and even in statist "mixed economies", the rich rule.

Remember, if money can buy anything then it can buy anything. The inherent flaw of "liberal" capitalist-republican-"democracy" is that everything's for sale ...even government.


Do you have an alternative to money?

Absolutely.

Volunteer production and gift distribution.

For more information see communism.

[YSR]

Originally posted by LSD
For more information see communism.

That tickled my funny bone for some reason.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Absolutely.

Volunteer production and gift distribution.

Do you have any examples of where this has been in practice and successful?

I just don't understand what the incentive is for a worker under a "volunteer production" and "gift distribution" economic model.

Some type of coercion is necessary in this type of scenario. Could you explain what it would be? How is "everyone" going to share in the necessary work that a society needs?



In a perfect libertarian society, money would lead inexorably to economic hegemony; and even in statist "mixed economies", the rich rule.

Remember, if money can buy anything then it can buy anything. The inherent flaw of "liberal" capitalist-republican-"democracy" is that everything's for sale ...even government.

And yet net wealth has increased along with "nearly all of it going to the upper quintile." Therefore, all boats have been raised by the rising tide... and THAT has all been proven to you before, only to have you ignore it as well.

And yes, the rich may rule in certain instances but we all benefit from it.

Well...except those that are lazy.

[LSD]

Do you have any examples of where this has been in practice and successful?

No.

But then did the French bourgeoisie in 1789 have any "examples" of a capitalist republic "in practice"?

Revolutionary paradigms have not been historically "tested", otherwise they wouldn't be revolutionary!


I just don't understand what the incentive is for a worker under a "volunteer production" and "gift distribution" economic model.

Who would work in the factories? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48269)


Therefore, all boats have been raised by the rising tide

Except that real wages have been consistantly falling over the past few decades and are now somewhere around the level they were in the 1940s. Also, the average working day has been lengthened, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has dropped, and real real-estate costs have shot through the roof.

The rising tide is only good for the people with boats. The rest of us just drown.


And yes, the rich may rule in certain instances but we all benefit from it.

Ah, the "enlightened despot" excuse.

Good to know that modern capitalists are looking back to the feudal "divine right of kings" for their inspiration. Nothing illustrates the decadence of a system quite so much as when its adherents betray their own principles to defend practice.

I guess "democracy" and "freedom" don't actually matter to y'all. I wonder, could it be that "libertarians" don't value "liberty"? :o

Mussonlini's fascism, after all, was predicated on the notion that "he would rule" and "we would benefit".

I take if you are not a fan of fascism, so I must ask, what is it exactly that morally seperates Mussolini's political hegemony from modern capitalism's economic one?

Why was his "elightened despotism" "wrong", and the bourgeosie's "good"? Because the capitalists are "better" dictators? Because they "really do" "make the trains run on time"? :lol:

I suppose that if Mussolini had only lived fifty years later he could have just gone into business and dispensed with all the unnescessary marching. I'm sure he would be able to count on your support.

After all, "the rich may rule in certain instances but we all benefit from it". :rolleyes:


That tickled my funny bone for some reason.

It was meant to. ;)

[red team]

Volunteer production and gift distribution.


Is a gift economy quantifiable? Furthermore, what's the difference between a gift and a bribe?


I guess "democracy" and "freedom" don't actually matter to y'all. I wonder, could it be that "libertarians" don't value "liberty"?


Mussonlini's fascism, after all, was predicated on the notion that "he would rule" and "we would benefit".

I don't doubt that fascism is unaccountable and a magnet for those seeking power and wealth for their own gain, but would elected officials be any different? Why would an election system be any less attractive for wealth and power careerists than a dictatorial one? The terms of office could be shorter, but that doesn't mean it is any less corruptable.

[LSD]

Is a gift economy quantifiable?

Sure.

The absense of money doesn't mean that absense of accounting. A functional communist society would keep meticulous records and would be far more organizationaly efficient than a capitalist one.

Under communism, you see, there is no motivation to "fudge the numbers" or to "skim off the top".

The record keepers would merely be the workers themselves and there would be no externalistic bureaucratic caste to manipulate production, nor any economic oligarchy to coerce inexactitude.

In short, it will be a deeply quanifiable system; but not by current "economic" standards. Modern mainstream economics doesn't even do a good job describing capitalism, let alone communism. Accordingly, an entire new system of analysis will undoubtably have to be developed to handle the problem of calculating production/distribution.

Incidently, bourgeois economists today consider the above problem insoluble. That is, their economic charts tell them that it's "impossible" for production to not be based around "free markets".

Hmmm... isn't it somewhat interesting that these "men of science" have found "proof" that the system that pays their bills is the "only one possible"? :lol:


Furthermore, what's the difference between a gift and a bribe?

A "bribe" nescessitates the existance of some form of distributive market as well as effected productive scarcity, otherwise what good is the "bribe"?

A gift economy by its definition eliminates value exchange as the economic primary and so removes the possibility of financial or material corruption.

That's not to say that capitalism will be "perfect" and all people will be "angels". Obviously there will be problems, and undoubtably a couple of them will be resouce-related. But whatever problems we do encounter, bribery is one relic of capitalism that we won't have to deal with.


I don't doubt that fascism is unaccountable and a magnet for those seeking power and wealth for their own gain, but would elected officials be any different?

No, and that was exactly my point.

I was using Italian fascism as an obvious example of a kakistocratic regime so as to point out how even the "worst" dictatorial system is functionaly analagous to CL's "enlightened despotism" model of capitalism.

[Cult of Reason]

Red team, Energy Accounting is effectively a gift economy where energy is accounted. ;)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Ok, so what happens when there is someone who, due to pure apathy, doesn't want to take part in the volunteerism of your society? Is he still welcome to feed from the government's teet? Or should he expect a late night call from the Jack Booted Thugs Division?

[LSD]

Ok, so what happens when there is someone who, due to pure apathy, doesn't want to take part in the volunteerism of your society? Is he still welcome to feed from the government's teet?

Firstly, there's no "government" in communist society, and yes, he will still be able to utilize public resouces.

It's rather unlikely, however, that a significant number of people will choose to do "nothing" with their times. Human beings are simply not that dull! :lol:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Firstly, there's no "government" in communist society, and yes, he will still be able to utilize public resouces.

It's rather unlikely, however, that a significant number of people will choose to do "nothing" with their times. Human beings are simply not that dull!

If there is no government, who or what provides these public resourses?

there is always a governmnent. Somebody or thing in charge. Some committee making some rules. Some body of decision makers choosing whether or not the new People's Highway goes through Farmer John's Hemp field or through Farmer Jose's Shade Grown herbicide-free coffee stand.

Until you deal with that reality, you've got nothing.

And if you think there is not a long waiting line of people who will do nothing for a guaranteed minimal existance, then you are entitled to at least one more think.

[amanondeathrow]

Until you deal with that reality, you've got nothing.

Until you deal with the reality that your concept of government is only in exsistence to protect the intrests of the ruling class, then you have nothing.

[theraven]

No.

But then did the French bourgeoisie in 1789 have any "examples" of a capitalist republic "in practice"?

Revolutionary paradigms have not been historically "tested", otherwise they wouldn't be revolutionary!

well yes they did, at least paritally. england was fairly capilististc and had at least shown the idea of resprenative demcoracy to be workable. not to mentin the americans..



Who would work in the factories?

the responsse and ideas in this link are hilarious..the reason hobbise are hobbise and not jobs is that peole are not suffiencetly intereasted in them to make them jobs. for example i may like cars, but that doesnt extetn to me wanting to be a mechanic. many peoles interast do extent that far and that is why they take that job


Except that real wages have been consistantly falling over the past few decades and are now somewhere around the level they were in the 1940s.

in america that is..and thats because after WWII we were only major indusltiraozed power not in ruins from WWII, wages and manufacating started leaving as the other countires rebuilt.


Also, the average working day has been lengthened,

I'm pretty sure 40 hours is still there, though peole may be working over time..


the purchasing power of the minimum wage has dropped,

ok

and real real-estate costs have shot through the roof.

because of high demand.






Sure.

The absense of money doesn't mean that absense of accounting. A functional communist society would keep meticulous records and would be far more organizationaly efficient than a capitalist one.

Under communism, you see, there is no motivation to "fudge the numbers" or to "skim off the top".

The record keepers would merely be the workers themselves and there would be no externalistic bureaucratic caste to manipulate production, nor any economic oligarchy to coerce inexactitude.

In short, it will be a deeply quanifiable system; but not by current "economic" standards. Modern mainstream economics doesn't even do a good job describing capitalism, let alone communism. Accordingly, an entire new system of analysis will undoubtably have to be developed to handle the problem of calculating production/distribution.

Incidently, bourgeois economists today consider the above problem insoluble. That is, their economic charts tell them that it's "impossible" for production to not be based around "free markets".

Hmmm... isn't it somewhat interesting that these "men of science" have found "proof" that the system that pays their bills is the "only one possible"? laugh.gif

just read the bold

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Except that real wages have been consistantly falling over the past few decades and are now somewhere around the level they were in the 1940s.


Like I've said before... thanks for illustrating your continued ignorance of the term "net worth."



The rising tide is only good for the people with boats. The rest of us just drown.

Except for the tiny little fact that the rest of us are doing quite well and rising with the yachts.

[Comrade J]

That's basically the point he was making, some people have the 'boats' and the majority do not.
I get the feeling that were you not a lawyer, but an ordinary working class fellow on minimum wage, your stance on this issue would be somewhat different. Perhaps you should attempt some degree of empathy and think how it is for other people, those who are metaphorically 'drowning.'

[Oh-Dae-Su]

did you know that america has 10 times more Billionares than the next country that follows in the list....267 billionares in america, thats about 1 billionare per 1 million people... then count the Millionares per 1 million people, then the rich, then the middle than the poor, take that into account and do the math, the poor population in america per 1 million people is relatively small....sometimes i find it so funny, i see bumbs in the street smoking cigars and the other day i saw one with a beer can just loving that Bud, others iv seen just drug addicts....the basic arguemnt i hear all the time that it's because your weren't given any opportunities thats bullshit, i see it as an effect you bring on yourself, if fucking immigrants come here and are not bumbs in the street, than you surely are in that situation because either your lazy or your a drug addict who lost everything......Money has made everyone in this country rise with the tide....

[overlord]

......Money has made everyone in this country rise with the tide....

Ah! This is the trickle down effect communists say doesn't exist. Perhaps a Marxist would like to explain why the poor 'exploited' people of America are the fattest on earth and communist countries starve?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 02:48 AM
That's basically the point he was making, some people have the 'boats' and the majority do not.
I get the feeling that were you not a lawyer, but an ordinary working class fellow on minimum wage, your stance on this issue would be somewhat different. Perhaps you should attempt some degree of empathy and think how it is for other people, those who are metaphorically 'drowning.'
Then get off your ass and get a "boat"!

Now, speaking strictly philosophically, communism is a great system! Everyone is equal! Everyone works together, for the good of the community over the individual! Selflessness, not selfishness!

In reality, however, communism didn't work.

Millons of people supported communist revolutions throughout various and differing nations during the 20th century not because they had a great desire to support brutal tyrants like Stalin and Mao. They (communist supporters) weren't inherently evil people. They wanted a system that was fairer the ones they had.

They got one (communism) that was worse.

[red team]

In reality, however, communism didn't work.

Millons of people supported communist revolutions throughout various and differing nations during the 20th century not because they had a great desire to support brutal tyrants like Stalin and Mao. They (communist supporters) weren't inherently evil people. They wanted a system that was fairer the ones they had.

They got one (communism) that was worse.

Socialism didn't work in relation to what?

What regimes were ruling those countries before?

The Czarist Monarchy in Russia? The notoriously corrupt KMT in China? The warlords before the KMT came along? How, well did those work (for the general population not just the wealthy)?

Instead of a pseudo-tyrant who was actually constrained in his power because of the nature of the revolution in which he was a participant in and which his base of support rested upon, we have real tyrants who were accountable to no one and was limited in power only by the size of his army.

Furthermore, the reason why the Western Powers are relatively richer has more to do with the fact that they've historically implemented industrialization first and was thus able to secure a huge advantage over those who lagged behind in this process in terms of both manufacturing capacity and military power projection. But at what cost was this process of industrialization carried out? From being honest about this and historically accurate we can see that it was just as brutal if not more so than the "tyrannies" which resulted from Socialist revolutions.

[red team]

36. In general justice is the same for all, for it is something found mutually beneficial in men's dealings, but in its application to particular places or other circumstances the same thing is not necessarily just for everyone.

37. Among the things held to be just by law, whatever is proved to be of advantage in men's dealings has the stamp of justice, whether or not it be the same for all; but if a man makes a law and it does not prove to be mutually advantageous, then this is no longer just. And if what is mutually advantageous varies and only for a time corresponds to our concept of justice, nevertheless for that time it is just for those who do not trouble themselves about empty words, but look simply at the facts.

38. Where without any change in circumstances the things held to be just by law are seen not to correspond with the concept of justice in actual practice, such laws are not really just; but wherever the laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case the laws were for that time just when they were advantageous for the mutual dealings of the citizens, and subsequently ceased to be just when they were no longer advantageous.

Epicurus - Principal Doctrines (http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html)

HAPPINESS (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HAPPINES.html)

[Leo]

What do you think money is?

What do you think money does?

What do you think money is useful for?

What problems does money cause?

Do you have an alternative to money?

I will try to answer those questions in my own way so here's my humble opinion.


I will try to answer those questions in my own way so here's my humble opinion.


Money is the most horrible creation of humanity. Money is the god which is worshipped far more than any other deity. We live in a capitalist society, we, all work for money to be able to survive, without an apparent choice. Therefore, we are slaves of money. Some of us live for money; this love for the most vicious tyrant in human history is called greed. Greed is the most efficient way of worshipping money, and usually it pays off. And some of us rebel against money, and we are punished by soldiers and policemen and tanks etc. or if nothing by hunger.

Money is not useful, it in fact is not real, it is, like other forms of organized religion, something we created in our minds and it takes its power from our worship. Without us, it is just a piece of paper, completely useless, irrelevant to life. It is a spectacle, maybe the greatest spectacle, and it is useful to control people, to intimidate them, to make them obedient to the system. Money, like organized religion, is a tool of the owners. It is their goal, they are doing everything they do to increase their profit, the amount of capital they have. Nevertheless, it is also a tool they use to control, it gives them power.

Money, by itself, is not relevant. The usage of money is a problem. It is the people with money that are the problem, the owners. Money economy or capitalist economy is the problem. The results are obvious, hunger, pollution, suppression etc. Every problem seen in our world is connected to money, someway or another.

Money economy appears as it provides the world with a balance of production and consuming. This balance is artificial however, money is unnecessary. Money economy can be thought as spectacle economy, because as the greatest spectacle, it is money that creates all the other spectacles. The alternative for money, for Spectacle economy is obvious: natural economy. The artificial balance can only be replaced with a real one, the Money economy can only be replaced by a fully communal economy. The simplest relationship between an individual and the community: individual produces whatever he or she wants, gives it to the community, community gives the individual access to everything produced. So in a way, by owning nothing, we will own everything, but really, owning really won't be a matter of discussion, because it is an absurd thought. Who are we, as a form of matter, to own another form of matter? No, all we actually own is ourselves, this is what freedom is (and as long as money owns us, and therefore as long as money exists, we will never be free. Never.) and we have to share our labor with the society in order to live.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It has been estimated that as many as 100 million people have been killed worldwide under communist regimes. But you claim that:




it was just as brutal if not more so than the "tyrannies" which resulted from Socialist revolutions.



Please elaborate on what has made capitalist Western powers 'more brutal'? None of them have ever made it policy to slowly exterminate millions of their own citizens.

[red team]

Please elaborate on what has made capitalist Western powers 'more brutal'? None of them have ever made it policy to slowly exterminate millions of their own citizens.

Check out the history of imperialism, pay particular attention to the imperialism inflicted on the African and American continents by the European conquerors. If you are honest about this, this is truer to the claim of extermination (by working to death and military genocide) than the alleged claims made by the embittered deposed property owners after the fact. If it really was extermination as claimed then every single family in the country would know of at least one member killed by the government. This is basic arithmetic. From a average family size of four, and we know that families are bigger than that because of the agrarian societies first involved in revolution, at least one member would be know to be killed if the total population size is 400 million. 100 million divided by 400 million is 1/4 or 1 member out of a family of four. No country in the world had a population size of 400 million at that time. Or you can ask around. Extended family ties would mean someone's uncle, aunt or grand parents were known to be killed by the government. Most people would simply give you a look like this :blink:

Furthermore, if that many people were actually killed then extermination would have been a major industry for the country. Most people would have been employed in the concentration camp business to organize, manage, implement, design, and clean up afterwards. Clearly that was not the case. Just take one example. Nazi Germany had a highly efficient concentration and death camp system. Train loads of people were processed and killed which ironically IBM contributed computers to manage all that information. How many did Germany killed in those camps using efficient industrialized methods of extermination, in other words a complete industry on genocide? The conservative figure is 6 million. Efficient extermination using industrial methods produced 6 million dead. Now we know for sure this type of organized killing never took place in "Communist" countries then how did someone come up with the ludicrous figure of 100 million dead? That person must have made it all up because he had an interest or personal grudge against what happened.

[Tungsten]

red team

Check out the history of imperialism, pay particular attention to the imperialism inflicted on the African and American continents by the European conquerors.
We're not interested in the history of imperialism. The perpetrators of this were initiating the use of force and can hardly be called advocates of laissez fair capitalism. It would be like a Marxist advocating inequality- if they did that, they would no longer be a Marxist.

If you are honest about this,
You? Honest? Don't make me laugh.

If it really was extermination as claimed then every single family in the country would know of at least one member killed by the government. This is basic arithmetic. From a average family size of four, and we know that families are bigger than that because of the agrarian societies first involved in revolution, at least one member would be know to be killed if the total population size is 400 million. 100 million divided by 400 million is 1/4 or 1 member out of a family of four. No country in the world had a population size of 400 million at that time.
Erm, even if you had a point, no they wouldn't. Apparently, one in five people on earth is Chinese. Does that mean if I went to China, only one in five of them would be Chinese? It's a ridiculous misuse of statistics and it's evident from your previous posts that you're a Soviet apologist, just like the CPUSA.

I didn't think there was any of your sort left; I thought the general consensus was that the Soviets weren't practicing "real" communism.

[theraven]

Check out the history of imperialism, pay particular attention to the imperialism inflicted on the African and American continents by the European conquerors. If you are honest about this, this is truer to the claim of extermination (by working to death and military genocide)

actually msot of the indigenos people of the americas were killed by disease mroe then any miltiary action, msot o the diesase was untienteally spread (nto that some tiems ti wasn't srpead, but that wasnt' te main cause of it.


than the alleged claims made by the embittered deposed property owners after the fact. If it really was extermination as claimed then every single family in the country would know of at least one member killed by the government. This is basic arithmetic. From a average family size of four, and we know that families are bigger than that because of the agrarian societies first involved in revolution, at least one member would be know to be killed if the total population size is 400 million. 100 million divided by 400 million is 1/4 or 1 member out of a family of four. No country in the world had a population size of 400 million at that time. Or you can ask around. Extended family ties would mean someone's uncle, aunt or grand parents were known to be killed by the government. Most people would simply give you a look like this blink.gif

your assuming the deaths were equally metted out, when they probabkly wernet.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

if it wasn't for the Spanish, English, French , Portuguese, and Dutch colonies in the America's we wouldn't be here. Thanks to them we have our culture. Sure many things that were done would "NOW" be considered genocide, but that was 500 years ago, we are in the new millenia now, none of that is going to happen now, at least how it did back then. Your talking about imperialism in the colonial term, right now the imperialsim is in the "economic" sense, and yes i admit America is the #1 at it, but i don't see that bad of a thing with this new imperialism( which in other words is called the american globalization).. what are your arguments? " OHH AMERICAN COMPANIES IN HONDURAS ARE PAYING THE WORKERS 2 DOLLARS A DAY AND THEY HAVE TO WORK 12 HOURS", ummm well imagine this, take those American "exploitatious" companies out of Honduras and what will this people do? tell me how will they earn 2 dollars a day? shit they would probably have to work 18 hours in the freaking sun cultivating bananas to get 50 cents. These people welcome these American companies, and the reason why you can't expect them to earn the minimum wage Americans do is because DUHHHHHH IT"S NOT AMERICA!! ITS FREAKING HONDURAS!!! do the dollar convertion, and plus these people have not even gotten a high school diploma, we are pretty much employing illiterate unskilled mountain farmers in a Nike shoe factory, how greatful CAN THEY BE!!! psss :rolleyes: you people don't understand anything i tell ya

[Capitalist Lawyer]

What happened to this discussion? I thought we had a "hot one" going here, where did the resident communists run off to?

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:06 PM


What problems does money cause?

Money doesn't directly "cause" any problem in and of itself, but any economic system based on currency transaction is implicitly flawed.

Whether due to luck, chance, intelligence, or cunning, any trade-based economy cannot help but to become imbalanced. "Perfect markets" notwithstanding, human beings will never interact according to macroeconomics 101 and value exchange will always be uneven.

That means that, eventually, money-based economics must lead to substantial wealth disparity; and when a socioeconomic system is based upon private value exchange, wealth disparity translates to power disparity.

More money equals more "votes" in the "market" and the "market" is ultimately far more important than the ballot box.

In a perfect libertarian society, money would lead inexorably to economic hegemony; and even in statist "mixed economies", the rich rule.






Do you have an alternative to money?

Absolutely.

Volunteer production and gift distribution.
The problem that you see is not with money but with wealth.


Your alternative is an alternative to free exchanges between consenting adults, not really what I wanted to know about here.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:24 PM
Except that real wages have been consistantly falling over the past few decades and are now somewhere around the level they were in the 1940s. Also, the average working day has been lengthened, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has dropped, and real real-estate costs have shot through the roof.

The rising tide is only good for the people with boats. The rest of us just drown.

Real wages at their 1940's level!

I don't think so, the wages of your average slob in the 1940's would not have enough real value to purchase an item of comparable worth to the computer that I am typing this on.

Where do you get these silly ideas from?

[YKTMX]

To be honest, I'm not sure if LSD is right that they're at 1940 levels, certainly it's true that real wages (wages relative to inflation) have actually been decreasing for some American workers, and rising very slowly for others:


Measuring changes in purchasing power is complicated and contentious, but the best historical measure is probably what the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis calls the chain price index for personal consumption expenditure. Using this measure, the nation's output of consumer goods per worker rose 58 percent between 1973 and 2001. Yet if we use the same price index to measure the mean weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, we find that they rose only 3 percent. Wage stagnation was not confined to the worst-paid fifth of the labor force, many of whom are now immigrants. According to The State of Working America, published by the Economic Policy Institute, the median American worker's real hourly wages rose only 7 percent between 1973 and 2001.



click (http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/1/jencks-c.html)


At the same time, the average real wage in the United States (that is, the average wage adjusted for inflation) has grown only slowly since the early 1970s and the real wage for unskilled workers has actually fallen. It has been estimated that male high school dropouts have suffered a 20 percent decline in real wages since the early 1970s.


click (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005404.shtml)

As the quote says, wages have risen much slower than either profits or the "earnings" (and I use the term advisedly) of the bosses. That is, exploitation, the expropriation of surplus value from the labouring masses, has been greatly accelerating over the last decades.

As EE suggests, though, the effects of this have been ameliorated slightly by the fact that "inflation" itself is a difficult concept. Inflation may "rise", but the price of certain important goods, like computers, to use "EE's" example, may actually decline in absolute or relative terms because of technological change or modernized production techniques. Which has the effect that people "feel wealthier" by dint of their new consumer durables, but are actually being screwed harder than ever by their boss, and are "relatively worse off".

For instance, adjusted for today's prices, a 20in b&w TV would have cost about £2000 in 1950. You could buy a new TV for, what, £100 now? This is obviously not a product of deflation or massive increase in wages, but because TV's are now far cheaper to mass produce and so can be sold at a cheaper price.

Importantly, it has nothing to do with the "money".

:)

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:01 PM
As the quote says, wages have risen much slower than either profits or the "earnings" (and I use the term advisedly) of the bosses. That is the justified earnings of people with things to trade other than labour, has been greatly accelerating over the last decades.

As EE suggests, though, the effects of this have been ameliorated slightly by the fact that "inflation" itself is a difficult concept. Inflation may "rise", but the price of certain important goods, like computers, to use "EE's" example, may actually decline in absolute or relative terms because of technological change or modernized production techniques. Which has the effect that people "feel wealthier" by dint of their new consumer durables, but are actually being screwed harder than ever by their boss, and are "relatively worse off".

For instance, adjusted for today's prices, a 20in b&w TV would have cost about £2000 in 1950. You could buy a new TV for, what, £100 now? This is obviously not a product of deflation or massive increase in wages, but because TV's are now far cheaper to mass produce and so can be sold at a cheaper price.

Importantly, it has nothing to do with the "money".

:)
Relatively worse off?

Relative to what? Other people? (outside of Cuba, chortle chortle)

They are certainly not worse off in comparison to their intertemporal equivalents


I'm still not sure what to think about certain indexes.

[YKTMX]

I was thinking about relative to the people at the top i.e inequality.


Other people? (outside of Cuba, chortle chortle)


Most people in Latin America are far poorer compared to most Cubans :)

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:02 PM
I was thinking about relative to the people at the top i.e inequality.

Oh right, that jealousy lark again

"I'm doing as well as I can be expected to do being a binman but someone else has it better than me . . . How dare they!"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2006, 06:07 PM
What happened to this discussion? I thought we had a "hot one" going here, where did the resident communists run off to?
You fail to recognise the difference between state-capitalism (The USSR china etc) a Communism. You also attribute the failings of leninism to all of communism. In other words, your largely irrational, and peopel, can't be botehred to talk to a brick wall.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by England Expects+May 9 2006, 04:07 PM--> (England Expects @ May 9 2006, 04:07 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 04:02 PM
I was thinking about relative to the people at the top i.e inequality.

Oh right, that jealousy lark again

"I'm doing as well as I can be expected to do being a binman but someone else has it better than me . . . How dare they!" [/b]
Nah, it's more about empirical evidence, such as the Gini coefficient, than "jealousy".

http://www.duncanwil.co.uk/jpg%20files/ginicoeffica.jpg



"I'm doing as well as I can be expected to do being a binman but someone else has it better than me . . . How dare they!"


Actually, that's not the point. The point I was making is that the wages of the binmen are held down while the "someone else" has had his wages increase a thousand percent.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE=YKTMX]


Actually, that's not the point. The point I was making is that the wages of the binmen are held down while the "someone else" has had his wages increase a thousand percent.
I wouldn't argue about that empirical evidence . . . although I am definetely saddened by the fact that Blair beat my bird.

Inequality is good, funny how increasesin inequality coincide with a continuing rise in material wealth under restrained capitalism.

Got any fancy graphs for that?

[YKTMX]

I wouldn't argue about that empirical evidence . . . although I am definetely saddened by the fact that Blair beat my bird

Me too. :D


Inequality is good, funny how increasesin inequality coincide with a continuing rise in material wealth under restrained capitalism.


Possibly.


Got any fancy graphs for that?

Nah, d'you?

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:24 PM

Got any fancy graphs for that?

Nah, d'you?
No, I'm principaly involved in the task of avoiding effort at the moment

[Tungsten]

YKTMX

Actually, that's not the point. The point I was making is that the wages of the binmen are held down while the "someone else" has had his wages increase a thousand percent.
That someone else being Tony Blair and the method of "holding down" being stealth taxes.