Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War - Page 9

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 19:27

Way to watch the plate Sir Ralph. I screwed that up didn't I.

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
ARGH! No, No, No!

IF you want equality of outcomes, then you DOOM the society you are trying to build!

You doom it because I can do NOTHING....zip, zero, zilch, nada, and get the SAME outcome as a person who works hard for twenty hours a day.

THAT is a far more insidious form of "exploitation" than anything you will ever see in a capitalist society, and it *exactly* what your plan will bring about!

-=Vel=-

Extremely elitist. You know the thing about elitism is that its impossible to determine who is better than everyone else. In fact, people aren't so diferent. Everyone has their faults, but they deserve equal treatment regardless.

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Who said anything about being a business leader? I'm self-employed but I'm just another schmuck who's trying to pay his bills every month, and have a little left over for some fun.

Oh, sorry Willem. I thought you had employees.

Ned · February 11, 2003, 21:14

DuncanK, Since you agree that a capitalist society is fair if there truly is equality of opportunity, then America is a moral society because equality of opportunity is its ideal. We seek to level the playing field by providing head start to kids, etc. But we still have problems caused in large measure by liberal do-good thinking. Our public schools are bad, our parents are increasingly lax, our divorce rate is high, crime is rampant in poor neighborhoods, etc.

But, we recognize these faults and are attempting to rectify them. America by any measure truly is a good and moral country.

Harovan · February 11, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Way to watch the plate Sir Ralph. I screwed that up didn't I.

Not entirely, as he was ruthless indeed on his way up.

Velociryx · February 11, 2003, 21:22

We're talking about two different things now, Duncan.

Equal TREATMENT....I can certainly agree with.

But not equal outcomes, regardless of the individual effort.

If I build a house, it's my house. Sorry, I'm not gonna give it to you. Rather, I'll move into it myself and live there.

If that makes me elitest or petty, for not simply giving you the fruits of my labor, so be it, but my advice would be....rather than complaining about how unfair it is that I don't just be a good comrade and give you my house....why not use that energy to build your own?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
We're talking about two different things now, Duncan.

Equal TREATMENT....I can certainly agree with.

But not equal outcomes, regardless of the individual effort.

If I build a house, it's my house. Sorry, I'm not gonna give it to you. Rather, I'll move into it myself and live there.

If that makes me elitest or petty, for not simply giving you the fruits of my labor, so be it, but my advice would be....rather than complaining about how unfair it is that I don't just be a good comrade and give you my house....why not use that energy to build your own?

-=Vel=-

Equal treatment should means just about equal outcome. You are probably a real good worker and I'm probably so so. You income should be slightly higher than mine, not 500 times larger.

Velociryx · February 11, 2003, 23:23

That, I contend, is incorrect. If I am assuming five hundred times the risk you are (say, I'm the one with the twenty million dollar loan hanging over my head to pay for the factory we're working together in), then my pay should reflect that.

Equal opportunity in this instance means that if you want the big bucks, take the big risks. If and when you do, you'll see an equal payoff.

If you are unwilling to assume those risks, then you cannot expect the same level of payoff.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
That, I contend, is incorrect. If I am assuming five hundred times the risk you are (say, I'm the one with the twenty million dollar loan hanging over my head to pay for the factory we're working together in), then my pay should reflect that.

Equal opportunity in this instance means that if you want the big bucks, take the big risks. If and when you do, you'll see an equal payoff.

If you are unwilling to assume those risks, then you cannot expect the same level of payoff.

-=Vel=-

Vel,

A person without savings is at serious risk everyday. Sure you're taking a risk, but if you lose you just end up like the rest of us. Actually, you're still better off as I'm sure that you have made some nice connections during your venture.

Velociryx · February 11, 2003, 23:37

The thing is, Duncan, a person who's taking greater financial risks is not evil for demanding greater financial returns. The equal opportunity lies in the fact that if you want those kinds of greater returns, you can cultivate that list of contacts too, and make it happen! The equal opportunity is not, and should not be that although you're not risking as much, you reap the same benefits as the person who is.

That points *directly* back to my hypothetical 10k investment with you. I'm putting in 6k, you're putting in 4k. The investment doubles. You're saying that it wouldn't be "fair" unless we split the investment 10k each. I'm saying you get compensated based on the amount you put in (ie - the greater the financial risk assumed, the greater your share in the reward).

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
The thing is, Duncan, a person who's taking greater financial risks is not evil for demanding greater financial returns. The equal opportunity lies in the fact that if you want those kinds of greater returns, you can cultivate that list of contacts too, and make it happen! The equal opportunity is not, and should not be that although you're not risking as much, you reap the same benefits as the person who is.

That points *directly* back to my hypothetical 10k investment with you. I'm putting in 6k, you're putting in 4k. The investment doubles. You're saying that it wouldn't be "fair" unless we split the investment 10k each. I'm saying you get compensated based on the amount you put in (ie - the greater the financial risk assumed, the greater your share in the reward).

-=Vel=-

You know, I don't believe that. The risks taken in society should be carefully analyzed. Society should then make them. The way it is is wrong both ways. If you win you get to expoit people. If you lose you suffer. I think its barbaric.

Velociryx · February 11, 2003, 23:44

So in my hypothetical 10k investment example, you would feel "exploited" if I got 12k and you got 8k, even though I assumed more risk by putting more in....is that what you're telling me? That the only way it'd be "fair" is if we both got 10k, no matter which of us put how much in?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 11, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
So in my hypothetical 10k investment example, you would feel "exploited" if I got 12k and you got 8k, even though I assumed more risk by putting more in....is that what you're telling me? That the only way it'd be "fair" is if we both got 10k, no matter which of us put how much in?

-=Vel=-

I didn't answer this because I didn't think it was relevant. If the system were fair I see no reason that you should not get the larger investment. Both of our investments represent our work and each ones share of thre return should be proportional. Of course it doesn't work that way. One of us could have inherited it or something.

Velociryx · February 11, 2003, 23:51

Again.....you're looking to see what I'm doing...how did *I* get my 6k to invest?

What does that matter to you? How does that even factor into the equation? I have 6k to invest, you have 4k to invest. We pool our resources, and both come out ahead.

Doesn't matter where my 6k came from, and it doesn't matter where your 4k came from. It simply does not enter into the equation.

Why should it?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 00:03

Vel,

You're talking about a personal business deal. Of course I wouldn't care where you got the money. I wouldn't ask. That would be rude. You are losing me as to how the pertains to the whole economy.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 00:27

Because the macro economy of which we speak is reflected in its component parts. As the small scale stuff goes, so goes the bigger picture. It all works using the same mechanisms. There's not a separate economic system in place to handle smaller, or personal transactions....those transactions are made the same way larger business deals are made. Same line of reasoning.

So if it's okay that I get 60% of the investment on our personal venture together....if that's not exploitive, then it's also not exploitive if the owner of the machine in the factory downtown gets HIS proportional share of the profits.

Same *exact* mechanism.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 00:32

Well I only said I wouldn't care about a personal business between the two of us. I didn't agree that the system is fair.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 00:40

What's the difference? If it's fair between you and I, and the same reasoning is applied to the factory owner.....where is the difference?

Either I'm exploiting you by getting a greater benefit from our joint venture (and by extension, the factory owner is exploiting you by taking his greater share of the profits), or I'm not exploiting you by getting more money out because I put more money in (in which case, the factory owner is *also* justified).

Can't have it both ways, bud...which is it?

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
What's the difference? If it's fair between you and I, and the same reasoning is applied to the factory owner.....where is the difference?

Either I'm exploiting you by getting a greater benefit from our joint venture (and by extension, the factory owner is exploiting you by taking his greater share of the profits), or I'm not exploiting you by getting more money out because I put more money in (in which case, the factory owner is *also* justified).

Can't have it both ways, bud...which is it?

-=Vel=-

I never said you would be exploiting me. I wouldn't be working for you. No, I don't thnk you have made a connection here. Sorry Vel. I think we are talking about two diferent things, but I'm not sure how.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 02:25

It is absolutely no different, and your reasoning that it is simply does not fly.

If you and I make an investment together (per the example above), and I contribute more, and thus, get a larger percentage of the return back, that is the *exact same principle* at work in the case of the factory owner.

He made an investment (his money) into the big, expensive machine. You likewise make an investment (your time) into coming there to work. The factory owner's investment is the larger of the two, and he gets the bigger share of the reward.

Same principle applied to both situations.

So if I'm not exploiting you, then neither is the factory owner.

Unless you disagree that time = money, in which case, study economics....

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 02:55

I think I figured out what it is. You have a lot of trouble with the idea that with Communism people will be paid similar amounts for different amounts of work. That is why you came up with the hypothetical business deal.

Ok, the deal first. Since you invested more money you should get more return. I'm not arguing with you about that. That isn't exploitation.

Now you are comparing this to the situation where both of us do work for the same pay, but you do more work. Ok you are right here. It's not fair, and that is a valid complaint. If you want to call this exploitation fine.

This can't be compared to the situation where I work for you and you get to keep some of my earnings in the form of profit. That is clearly exploitation. Why should you get that if I'm the one who did the work.

The diferences between the situation in the Communist system and the capitalist system is that

1) The work to compensation ratio is much closer to 1 with communism how ever you look at it. The work to compensation ration in the capitalist system is significantly higher than one for the worker. The capitalist of course didn't do any work, but let's say he saved some money to buy the equipment. In that case the capitalists work to compensation ration is significantly lower than 1.

2) This is important in a democracy. In the capitalist system the the capitalist has a greater ability to affect government do to his resources. In the communist system this doesn't happen.

Ned · February 12, 2003, 03:03

DuncanK, the work problem can be solved simply by paying people for their output - piecework. The more output, the more money.

As to people making money off of other's labor, this is nonsense. You make it seem that management are pimps and workers are prostitutes.

A worker makes a shoe and sells it to X for $5. X then resells it to Y for $7.

Is X exploiting the worker?

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
DuncanK, the work problem can be solved simply by paying people for their output - piecework. The more output, the more money.

No, the owner still gets profit.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
As to people making money off of other's labor, this is nonsense. You make it seem that management are pimps and workers are prostitutes.

A worker makes a shoe and sells it to X for $5. X then resells it to Y for $7.

Is X exploiting the worker?

Why didn't the worker sell it for $7?

KrazyHorse · February 12, 2003, 03:19

Because the worker didn't ever own the shoe. He's a wage slave.

Saras · February 12, 2003, 08:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Because the worker didn't ever own the shoe. He's a wage slave.

No, it's because if the worker knew how to sell shoes for 7 bucks he wouldn't be a worker

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 09:58

Duncan - I contend you are incorrect. There is no difference between the investment example and the shoe factory example. None whatsoever. The exact same mechanmism that makes our splitting of the hypothetical investment proceeds non-exploitive, *also* makes the shoe factory owner's "profiting froml your labor" non-exploitive.

Before you were even in the picture, the shoe factory owner put his neck on the proverbial chopping block, and invested his money + money in his name (bank loans and such) to BUILD the shoe factory.

Once built, you agree to come to work in the factory to make shoes (note that you did not help build the factory, nor pay for the machine, nor anything else in the building) - Your contribution to this investment then, is your time spent making shoes.

This investment contribution is less than the factory owner's, so, when it comes time to divvy up the profits, guess who gets the larger share?

If it makes you "feel better" about it, then just think of it as yep....you own the shoes you make, but because you don't own the machine you made them on, you have to sell them immediately to the guy who owns the machine. This process is automated in the form of your paycheck.

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 12, 2003, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
The capitalist of course didn't do any work, but let's say he saved some money to buy the equipment.

Why do you have this attitude that the capitalist doesn't work? Have you ever known someone who's trying to establish their own business Duncan? Some of those people are absolutely driven, working 12-18 hours a day trying to get their idea off the ground. They typically work much harder than their employess, who go home after eight hours and forget about their job. A successful entrepeneur eats, sleeps and breathes his work, it's a 24/7 thing with them. You can't have a successful business sitting on your butt and letting everyone else do things for you. If you do, you're guarenteed to fail.

Velociryx · February 12, 2003, 12:59

::nodding:: Good catch Willem....not sure how I missed that one....that's....juicy....

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Why do you have this attitude that the capitalist doesn't work? Have you ever known someone who's trying to establish their own business Duncan? Some of those people are absolutely driven, working 12-18 hours a day trying to get their idea off the ground. They typically work much harder than their employess, who go home after eight hours and forget about their job. A successful entrepeneur eats, sleeps and breathes his work, it's a 24/7 thing with them. You can't have a successful business sitting on your butt and letting everyone else do things for you. If you do, you're guarenteed to fail.

You took this out of context and twisted it again. You do this so often I'm not even going to respond to it this time.

Ned · February 12, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

No, the owner still gets profit.

OK, so the worker rents the machine and the floorspace in the factory and sells the shoes to the highest bidder or alternatively to broker X for $5.

Is he now exploited?

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK Why didn't the worker sell it for $7?

As Saras said, there are multiple reason why X may not have been able to sell the shoes for $7. The person who does is himself a worker who has that skill.

This is called division of labor.