GENIUS FORUMS

Shahrazad wrote:The point was that a minority does produce most of the GNP. That has already been established.

I can't believe your even saying this with a straight face, it hasn't been established anywhere except in your own delusional mind! Show me a minority, ANY MINORITY, out there busting their ass farming, building, and servicing the things the entire population uses. I don't care if it's 5-10-20%, just show me how this minority puts all of it's society on it's back or stfu! And again, I don't care how much god damn money someone makes, it doesn't prove shit!

Victor,

I bothered because you do not seem to understand that in a free market, a person’s income equals their production and contribution to society.

Whoa... you actually believe this?

So, for example, a starving artist who will later be recognized as a genius is being paid appropriately for his contribution to society? Was Van Gogh properly compensated during his lifetime? More mundanely, the people who do the fundamental tasks of daily life, such as the garbage collector, are contributing only $8.00 per hour in value to society - while some failed, incompetent Wall Street CEO is delivering many millions in value?

Seriously, do you really believe this free-market fundie stuff? Besides the fact that "contribution to society" is completely subjective, it ignores the reality that a person's income equals whatever someone will agree to pay them. There are plenty of contributions to society which are "not economically viable" - which is why we have things like the NEA to subsidize these contributions.

Whoops, mis-addressed that post. Apparently it was Sher who said the quoted part. Nevermind.

Nat, if there are people who are making great contributions to society and they are being paid too little, why don't they go on "strike" and refuse to provide their service until society decides to pay them more? Could it be that society doesn't value or want their product? Why not do something else, then?

How else do you suggest we recognize a person's contribution to society if not by the income we pay them? Would you rather we give them a recognition certificate?

As it is, the market establishes what a product is worth. Do you think it would be more fair if the government did it instead?

Unidian wrote:Seriously, do you really believe this free-market fundie stuff? Besides the fact that "contribution to society" is completely subjective, it ignores the reality that a person's income equals whatever someone will agree to pay them. There are plenty of contributions to society which are "not economically viable" - which is why we have things like the NEA to subsidize these contributions.

The flaw in that line of thought might be more visible from the other side.

Instead of starving artists, look at the robber barons of past centuries (who made millions through the exploitation of workers in railroading or coal mining), or the bankers and other financiers of the last few years that walked away with billions, leaving the economy in a shambles behind them. Were they getting compensated for some contribution?

Good point, Dhodges. There are also the drug cartels, which do a lot of damage and make lots of money. But aren't all these things illegal?

Can you think of a better way to measure the GNP of an economy? I bet any method you find is going to have big flaws also.

jupta wrote:However, I think that modern capitalism(a pathetic blunder) can be fixed, if some of its root problems are corrected. Corporation, the stock market and the credit system would all have to be discarded, if any global capitalistic framework is to function.

Wrong. Capitalism can’t be “fixed”! Read Marx’s Capital. I know it’s rough going, but plenty of insights to be gleaned. For example, one of the irredeemable “root problems” of capital is its need for unemployment.

There’s a demand for quality bread, let’s say. Investors invest and unemployment decreases with the increase of production (supply). Suddenly, there’s too much (overproduction) bread. What happens then? The capitalist invests in technology, bread loses its value, the labourers lose their jobs (again) and the investor profits to, among other things, invest another day.

In capital, “quality,” standard of living and unemployment go hand-in-hand.

That’s class . . .

Suddenly, there’s too much (overproduction) bread. What happens then? The capitalist invests in technology, bread loses its value, the labourers lose their jobs (again) and the investor profits to, among other things, invest another day.

Something I didn't quite get, Leyla. After there's too much bread the owner gets better technology. Why would he need it?

Long as we're talking about -isms, what about fascism? I hear it was coined by Mussolini to describe a system of nationalized industries (national corporatism) and a single-party state. I'm hearing more and more that this is basically what we now have in the U.S. And the trend is for it to become even moreso. Yikes.

Carl G wrote:Long as we're talking about -isms, what about fascism? I hear it was coined by Mussolini to describe a system of nationalized industries (national corporatism) and a single-party state. I'm hearing more and more that this is basically what we now have in the U.S. And the trend is for it to become even moreso. Yikes.

The trend is for government and industry to become more intertwined. You may have heard of people who held some office, then go get a job in industry or vice versa. Government and industry aren't all that separate.

Socialists tend to think of it as a one way street, with the government controlling industry, and reining in its excesses. But really what you have is concentration of power in the hands of a few; these aren't separate groups that never talk to each other. There's a lot of overlap.

Businesses promote (fund) politicians and policies that work towards their interests, as they see them. It that happens to benefit the common man, the proletariat, it's because the interests of the common man happen to align with the interests of business. For instance, businesses are happy to have publicly schools freely available to everyone, because they need educated workers.

Unidian wrote:Whoops, mis-addressed that post. Apparently it was Sher who said the quoted part. Nevermind.

Interesting and telling bit of misattribution, don't you think?

No, I don't think that one's income equals their contribution to society. This is the case, with a relatively small error, only for a certain subset of people -- those who sell their labor on the free and efficient market.

Leyla Shen wrote:Wrong. Capitalism can’t be “fixed”! Read Marx’s Capital. I know it’s rough going, but plenty of insights to be gleaned. For example, one of the irredeemable “root problems” of capital is its need for unemployment.

Why is it an irredeemable root problem?

There’s a demand for quality bread, let’s say. Investors invest and unemployment decreases with the increase of production (supply). Suddenly, there’s too much (overproduction) bread. What happens then? The capitalist invests in technology, bread loses its value, the labourers lose their jobs (again) and the investor profits to, among other things, invest another day.

yeah. And the makers get other jobs -- say, making shoes. now the society has more bread and more shoes. This is called "progress"; and yes, it does often hurt some people in the short term -- but its long-term benefits are incalculable.

And there is no such thing as "overproduction" of bread, silly. if there's more bread produced, it gets cheaper, and people buy more bread compared to other products (say, pasta). Demand is a function, not a constant, and its relationship with supply is dynamic.

There are much weightier reasons for unemployment BTW. Excessively high employment would lead to inflation, which in turn hurts the economy. There are always new jobs to be filled, so there must be the corresponding people in need of a job to fill. There is also the structural unemployment -- people who quit voluntarily and then look for another job, remaining unemployed in between. However, as long as (1) we didn't have the same people remaining forever unemployed, and (2) we help the unemployed get through unemployment quickly and painlessly, it's not a serious problem, and certainly not an "irredeemable root problem".

Didn't you learned anything from that ass-whipping on Marx I administered to you?

Victor,

those who sell their labor on the free and efficient market.

Just to make sure we all understand you, where else do the other folks sell their labor or products?

Shahrazad wrote:Victor,

those who sell their labor on the free and efficient market.

Just to make sure we all understand you, where else do the other folks sell their labor or products?

Some don't sell it at all, but labor nonetheless. Others deliberately underprice their labor for various reasons, such as for socially valuable causes. Still others sell it at a distorted market (say, under condition of monopsony or oligopsony).

In turn there are people with income who don't do any actual labor whatsoever, such as trust fund babies or 'no-show' corruption jobs; and then there are people who sell their labor under conditions of monopoly, thus having their labor be artificially overpriced (this can concern both trade unions and professional organizations with ability to affect qualification process, such as medical and legal professions). Lastly, there are people who sell their labor to buyers who deliberately overprice it, e.g. the "fair trade" movement.

Finally, there are price controls. People who work for minimum wage, for example, are likely paid more than their labor is worth.

Finally, there are price controls. People who work for minimum wage, for example, are likely paid more than their labor is worth.

That would depend on who is setting its value. In a totally un-regulated free-market system, yes, that's probably correct (otherwise minimum wage wouldn't need to exist).

However, it is possible to set standards *as a society* through which we collectively decide the value of labor. Socialist central planning is an extreme and largely unworkable example of this. The minimum wage is less controversial example.

In other words, in our US system, minimum wage labor is worth precisely the minimum wage - because that is what we as a society have decided it is worth and we have passed a law to enforce that valuation.

Unidian wrote:That would depend on who is setting its value. In a totally un-regulated free-market system, yes, that's probably correct (otherwise minimum wage wouldn't need to exist).

However, it is possible to set standards *as a society* through which we collectively decide the value of labor. Socialist central planning is an extreme and largely unworkable example of this. The minimum wage is less controversial example.

Minimum wage exists not because someone decided that any labor is worth no less than $6.55/hr (what about the minimum wage changes, for example? is labor worth $6.15/hr yesterday, worth 6.55/hr today? how about two towns across a state border with different state minimum wages?), but simply because we decided that any labor, no matter its worth, should be paid no less than that (and it varies by state too).

Nobody in their right mind is claiming that minimum wage accurately reflects the minimum worth of labor. Instead, it's simply a subsidy, given precisely because the labor is worth less than we think people ought to make, this normative determination being made for moral rather than market reasons.

In other words, in our US system, minimum wage labor is worth precisely the minimum wage - because that is what we as a society have decided it is worth and we have passed a law to enforce that valuation.

Erm, no. See above. Minimum wage is a subsidy, not a reflection of labor's worth.

Typical.

.


The Ayn Rand Renaissance

What "Atlas" shows is how our culture's ideas-particularly its ideas about morality-are moving us step by step away from the Founding Father's ideal.

But "Atlas Shrugged" provides a way out: it provides a defense of the individual's moral right to pursue his own happiness, which is the precondition for upholding the individual's political right to pursue his own happiness.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/ayn_rand

.


Obama's Chicks in Bondage

Winston Churchill famously observed that, "socialism is the equal sharing of misery." In the same spirit, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama believes that we should all be equally subject to servitude. He recently indicated that because men are forced by the government to sign up for the selective service, women should be forced to do so as well.

Obama's collectivist and anti-individualist views suggest what we can expect from his administration. They also highlight the crucial need to defend freedom based on the moral right of individuals to live for themselves and their own values, rejecting the requirement that they justify their lives by serving the state, society, or others.

Obama wants to echo John F. kennedy's declaration, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Ayn Rand was right at that time to identify this as a new fascism.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums ... topic=6180

Tomas wrote:Obama wants to echo John F. kennedy's declaration, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Ayn Rand was right at that time to identify this as a new fascism

Got your marching orders now, did you? you people abused the word 'socialism' to the point where it lost its detrimental connotations, so now you have decided to slap on Dems another, still-terrible, label.

By calling Dems, France, and Sweden socialist, you people had hoped to make them look bad. Instead, you managed to make the word 'socialism' look good, and now a surprisingly high number of americans support socialism. Your heedless, myopic, manipulative abuse of language backfired, and in addition to having shot yourself in the foot, you have also deprived us all of the ability to coherently and accurately address a certain kind of genuine evil out there.

So now, having not learned any lessons, but acutely aware of the newly discovered useless of the term 'socialism' as a generic invective, you are hopping to deploy 'fascism' in the same way. keep it up, assholes, and people will start wondering if Hitler was really so bad.

Morons. Myopic morons.

Victor,

Just to clarify, the segment you quoted was not written by our dear Tomas, but by an Ayn-Rand objectivist forum blogger named Ed Huggins. You made an honest mistake, caused by Tomas' poor habit of quoting other websites without making it awfully clear who he's quoting.

As a rule of thumb, you should assume Tomas is always quoting someone else. He never expresses his own political views here.

.


-Shah-
Victor, - Just to clarify, the segment you quoted was not written by our dear Tomas, but by an Ayn-Rand objectivist forum blogger named Ed Huggins.

-tomas-
Victor has a way of getting to the gist of the matter, he's a breath of fresh air here.

-Shah-
You made an honest mistake, caused by Tomas' poor habit of quoting other websites without making it awfully clear who he's quoting.

-tomas-
I've been forgetting to add -snips- to the beginnings and -Click URL for complete article- before the URL.

-Shah-
As a rule of thumb, you should assume Tomas is always quoting someone else. He never expresses his own political views here.

-tomas-
Maybe, but with Victor, he may be drawing me out with a crumble of cheese, for baiting purposes :-)

I like to see where somebody is going before I join up with them :-)

He's pretty cut-and-dried with his responses. I'll mull over his response and prolly respond tomorrow (Friday).

PS - I do express political views, it's just not in the mainstream like most everybody elses here :-/

Tomas,

He's pretty cut-and-dried with his responses. I'll mull over his response and prolly respond tomorrow (Friday).

I'll be here to read it.

Suddenly, there’s too much (overproduction) bread. What happens then? The capitalist invests in technology, bread loses its value, the labourers lose their jobs (again) and the investor profits to, among other things, invest another day.

Something I didn't quite get, Leyla. After there's too much bread the owner gets better technology. Why would he need it?

Profit.

To remain a capitalist (remember, bread doesn’t have a very long shelf life, so its not much of an investment in itself). Of course, as a smart capitalist, he would invest in a form of technology that results in increased profit and, in order to do that, he naturally would need to understand the finer details of the bread market and industry (better technology run by less labour force who are now, out of desperation, not inclined to ask for more money to effectively compete and service the existing demand). Having put off his labour force, he needs better machinery to capture what remains of it. Sink or swim.

His other alternative, of course, is to instead ask his labour force to take a considerable drop in pay…

jupta wrote:Added to that, focus should always be on equality of opportunity, as opposed to equal outcome.

Equality of opportunity is just as absurd as equality of outcome. An opportunity is not something independent of those who take advantage of it. It is not a "thing" that can be equably distributed. It only becomes real when there is a creature clever enough to seize it. Since humans are inherently unequal, opportunities can never be standardised. Take an extreme case: a 50-IQ imbecile cannot have an equal opportunity with a 180-IQ genius of obtaining a degree in astrophysics.