Income distribution visual.

[RGacky3]

[RichardAWilson]

[Black_Rose]

At least the working class owns America's wang (it is a The Simpsons reference).

[Judicator]

Someone makes more money than me?!?!

[Veovis]

Someone makes more money than me?!?!

Workers make money. Capitalists extract it.

[Judicator]

Workers make money. Capitalists extract it.

Workers are just extracting value from their human capital.

[RichardAWilson]

You're such a moron.

[Judicator]

You're such a moron.

Along with all of the other people with an IQ higher than yours who recognize human capital.

[RGacky3]

Someone makes more money than me?!?! :c rying::cry ing:

Sooo ... you think this is a good way to run an economy?

Workers are just extracting value from their human capital.

What the hell? So they are extracting value from themselves? ...

[RGacky3]

BTW if Capitalism rewards justly, i.e. its a system of merit, did the top .001 precent actually create that much wealth? and did the bottom 90% create that little amount of wealth? Is that really justifiable?

Dispite the fact that there is no justifiable reason for the disparity, and the obvious conclusion that Capitalism does not reward according to merit, this sort of inequality is economically unstable.

And here are the growth numbers



Damn that 1 percent are AMAZING, they produce all that wealth with just their brains and muscles.

[#FF0000]

Someone makes more money than me?!?!

They've been making exponentially more while working class wages have stayed stagnant of went down.

They also made loads from golden parachutes after destroying the economy.

[RichardAWilson]

Along with all of the other people with an IQ higher than yours who recognize human capital.

You can't even agree with the facts.

[Judicator]

Sooo ... you think this is a good way to run an economy?

What is a good way to run an economy?

What the hell? So they are extracting value from themselves? ...

No, from their human capital.

BTW if Capitalism rewards justly, i.e. its a system of merit, did the top .001 precent actually create that much wealth? and did the bottom 90% create that little amount of wealth? Is that really justifiable?

Labor income is generally based on consent, which is just. Ditto for capital income.

You can't even agree with the facts.

I can't agree with which facts?

[RGacky3]

What is a good way to run an economy?

A way with not as much inequality, but do you think this extreme inequality is the right way to run an economy?

No, from their human capital.

Your confusing terms here, if you go outside in your backyard and trim the grass, is that "exploiting your human capital"? Anyway, it does'nt matter your just playing bullshit semantics that does'nt mean anything.

Labor income is generally based on consent, which is just. Ditto for capital income.

Thats not what I asked.

[Judicator]

A way with not as much inequality, but do you think this extreme inequality is the right way to run an economy?

"Extreme inequality" is an outcome, not a way to run an economy.

Your confusing terms here, if you go outside in your backyard and trim the grass, is that "exploiting your human capital"? Anyway, it does'nt matter your just playing bullshit semantics that does'nt mean anything.

You're deriving value from things you have: machines, skills, knowledge, whatever. How is that semantics?

Thats not what I asked.

You asked if it was justifiable and I explained how it was.

[RGacky3]

"Extreme inequality" is an outcome, not a way to run an economy.

Exactly, is it a desirable outcome?

You're deriving value from things you have: machines, skills, knowledge, whatever. How is that semantics?

Your point is basically that Capitalists extracting value from labor, is the same as working for yourself ... Because your somehow extracting value from youself, which is meaningless apriori bullshit.

You asked if it was justifiable and I explained how it was.

I asked if the bottom 90% created THAT little amount of wealth and if the top .1% actually created that much wealth?

[Dean]

Along with all of the other people with an IQ higher than yours who recognize human capital.

Human labor creates value. The fact that this is variable capital does not in any way change that power and wealth are accumulated in the hands of those who possess constant capital (the 1% and 9% above, for instance).

You've said nothing unique, argued nothing, proven nothing. You'll have to try harder if you want your contradiction to be taken seriously.

[Judicator]

Exactly, is it a desirable outcome?

Desirable or not, it's not a "way to run an economy" so it can't be a good or bad "way to run an economy."

Your point is basically that Capitalists extracting value from labor, is the same as working for yourself ... Because your somehow extracting value from youself, which is meaningless apriori bullshit.

Capitalists get value from capital. Workers get value from skills. The process of "getting value" could be called extraction. It's not complicated.

Do you even know what a priori means?

I asked if the bottom 90% created THAT little amount of wealth and if the top .1% actually created that much wealth?

That was one of the other questions you asked.

Human labor creates value. The fact that this is variable capital does not in any way change that power and wealth are accumulated in the hands of those who possess constant capital (the 1% and 9% above, for instance).

Wealth accrues to anyone who saves more than he spends.

You've said nothing unique, argued nothing, proven nothing. You'll have to try harder if you want your contradiction to be taken seriously.

Human capital isn't a concept unique to this thread, so no, not unique.

Argued nothing? I argued workers get value from their human capital.

Proven nothing? I suppose one would have to go out and find out if workers have any skills and if these skills allow them to do anything valuable. This shouldn't be too difficult now should it?

[Dean]

Wealth accrues to anyone who saves more than he spends.

This doesn't change that control over production tools allows the accumulation of wealth without the input of any value from those who control it.

Human capital isn't a concept unique to this thread, so no, not unique.

Argued nothing? I argued workers get value from their human capital.

Proven nothing? I suppose one would have to go out and find out if workers have any skills and if these skills allow them to do anything valuable. This shouldn't be too difficult now should it?

Indeed, this has absolutely no bearing on the effect of constant capital. My point is that Marx described human labor as capital - variable capital - and that this doesn't change that those who own constant capital are capitalists because they accrue value not from labor, but from their mere ownership of the means of production.

What you are talking about is artisans. We no longer live in an artisan economy; quit whining about your anachronistic models.

Tell me, how does your human capital account for the value of derivatives and securitizations? What bearing does it have on the value of the pharmaceuticals production industry?

In fact, it is human labor that produces value all along. But you see, it is control over one kind of capital that actually takes control over the exchange of the service to its consumer base, and resolves itself into a power structure that saps value from the labor of others.

Ignoring this doesn't even make you effective at contradicting us.

[Judicator]

This doesn't change that control over production tools allows the accumulation of wealth without the input of any value from those who control it.

I think here it's ultimately a semantics debate. Workers possess skills/knowledge/motivation which they use to get wages. Capitalists possess capital which they use to get interest.

Indeed, this has absolutely no bearing on the effect of constant capital. My point is that Marx described human labor as capital - variable capital - and that this doesn't change that those who own constant capital are capitalists because they accrue value not from labor, but from their mere ownership of the means of production.

They both accrue value from something they possess.

What you are talking about is artisans. We no longer live in an artisan economy; quit whining about your anachronistic models.

It's you who has an anachronistic concept of skill.

Tell me, how does your human capital account for the value of derivatives and securitizations? What bearing does it have on the value of the pharmaceuticals production industry?

Built into the price of any pharmaceutical product is all of that expensive R&D, which requires scientists, who have human capital.

In fact, it is human labor that produces value all along. But you see, it is control over one kind of capital that actually takes control over the exchange of the service to its consumer base, and resolves itself into a power structure that saps value from the labor of others.

Ignoring this doesn't even make you effective at contradicting us.

Factors of production produce value. The value created by each factor corresponds to the marginal increase in production resulting from the addition of some more of that factor.