Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Velociryx]

Okay, I'll break it down for you and go reeeeeaaaaaallly slow.

1) Say that you use a tool individually, and it enhances your production. Fine and dandy.

2) Say someone else comes along and invents a tool that can double the productivity of everyone who uses that tool.

3) For the sake of putting numbers to it, let us say that before this tool came about, there were 100 people total in your line of work, and that each of you could make 10 whatevers a day, non-tooled. That means, the total productive value per day of all of you guys, is 1000 whatevers per day.

4) WITH this tool, you guys can now make 20 per day. The total productive value per day, if everybody is using the new tool is 2000.

5) As the inventor of the tool, my contribution to your labor is 1000 per day, or what the rest of you do, combined.

6) I enter into a contractual arrangement with each of you, such that you keep 19 of what you produce each day, and I get one. I get 100 per day as compensation for allowing you to double your productivity.

7) yes, I am paid more (as measured in terms of raw, keepable output), because my invention redefined the industry, your efforts are limited to your own self, and are not macro in their view.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
But if you look back on arguments of Kidicious and others defending Marxism, you'll see the same pattern of argument as Hitler describes.

Hitler had no real argument anyway. Just a bunch of sensational hate speech. Actually that's what the argument from the right on this thread is turning into.

Do you have an argument Ned?

[Velociryx]

Choice has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of collecting benefits that you didn't earn and someone else losing the benefits of thier work.

My stake in your labor stems from the fact that you are using my tool to increase your productivity. If you don't like the arrangement, there's nothing stopping you from making your own version of the tool, but if you use mine, those are the terms. If you accept them, then you're paying me for the value of MY labor, in the form of the tool you are now using.

Non-exploitative.

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What is autarky?

Autarky is an economic policy consisting in the refusal of any exchange with the environment. Mostly applied by nations before you invented an individual variety.

[Japher]

Kid is smart, so I wouldn't insult his intelligence.

However

Kid trusts that everyone will do what they are able, but this is not the case. People do not do what they're able. Some do nothing and expect everything. Ability has nothing to do with willingness when choice is involved. Trying to convince the world to carry the weight of those who wish to carry nothing is dead end argument. In a world in which people are given choice/freedom desire must be the driving factor not merely potential.

Should ppl who build tools be paid more than those who use them?

Generally, yes.

Why?

To invent, create, or build a tool generally requires more skill, intelligence, and education to perform than to use the tools. One's effort should be rewarded thusly.

Why should some one who pushes a button that makes a product get paid the same as the person who made the button = product? Less skill, intelligence, education, and in most sense Labor is required in pushing a button than in making that button do something.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx

7) yes, I am paid more (as measured in terms of raw, keepable output), because my invention redefined the industry, your efforts are limited to your own self, and are not macro in their view.

-=Vel=-

My efforts are not limited to myself. See you don't understand Adam Smith too well . Who produced the goods and services that you consumed while you sat around on your ass thinking up ways to exploit me? Did we both not work and contribute to society. Why should you be paid more?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Autarky is an economic policy consisting in the refusal of any exchange with the environment. Mostly applied by nations before you invented an individual variety.

No I don't support such a policy

[Velociryx]

What I do in my spare time is invent. I do that AFTER I go out and earn my keep. What you do in your spare time is your business, but it's not exploitive of me to make more financially productive use of MY time than you do of yours.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Japher
To invent, create, or build a tool generally requires more skill, intelligence, and education to perform than to use the tools. One's effort should be rewarded thusly.

Why should some one who pushes a button that makes a product get paid the same as the person who made the button = product? Less skill, intelligence, education, and in most sense Labor is required in pushing a button than in making that button do something.

You should be paid more for training yourself to do a job that requires skill. How does that relate.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What I do in my spare time is invent. I do that AFTER I go out and earn my keep. What you do in your spare time is your business, but it's not exploitive of me to make more financially productive use of MY time than you do of yours.

-=Vel=-

Then you should be compensated for that. You shouldn't become rich though just for putting in a few hours after work.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What I do in my spare time is invent. I do that AFTER I go out and earn my keep. What you do in your spare time is your business, but it's not exploitive of me to make more financially productive use of MY time than you do of yours.

-=Vel=-

What !!! It is your hobby and you want to be paid when you are playing the Edison !

Then I want to be paid as well when I am playing a Civ game.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The difference is that they have to pay rent for it. Rent is exploitive. The ability to pay should not be a factor. The system allows those with the ability to pay to exploit those who do not. Get it?

This is the one I NEVER understand. WHY is rent exploitive?


Imagine I am a ditchdigger and I dig more ditches and save more money than anyone else. I could spend my increased earnings but instead decide to use the proceeds of my labours to buy a tractor after my years of labour. I can now dig ditches faster and therefore make more money with less effort but I am old and it seems inefficient to have my tractor sit idle when I am tired or sick.

1. Kid is it ok for me to hire someone to drive my tractor and pay them a "fair wage" for doing so? Obviously I could not pay them all of the price I get for the ditch he digs since I will have tractor expenses and my own efforts in obtaining the contract. Second, why would I let anyone else use my tractor if I didn't get something in return?

2 rent out my tractor-- After all, my tractor represents the value of years of my accumulated labor. My labor was converted to cash and then to this physical asset. Wouldn't it be " exploitive" for anyone else to use the tractor ( my accumulated labor) without compensating me? Would not rent be a fair way to do it? the worker then is free to work as hard as he wants and earn as wuch extra compensation in excess of my rent payment as he wants

I don't force anyone to use my tractor-- its there if you want but you are free to refuse and continue to use a shovel.

I KNOW I KNOW . . . in your utopia the state would provide a tractor but lets get real, the state will never provide a tractor for every use that individuals may want and there would always be a willingness to barter for use of a tractor if one was available.


Or lets go to an agrarian economy. the owner of a cart and horse often charged fees to cart produce to market. Even if you had a community cart and horse, it would be innefficient for all the farmers to take it to market so one person had to be the carter and be compensated. I guess the farmers could take turns but farmers often could not afford a day not in the fields during the busy harvest time. The compensation had to be more than a wage since carts break and horses require food and care and will die-- so the carter needed a profit so that, at minimum, he could acquire another horse or cart when the time required. etc etc-- I guess your utopia would provide a cart and a carter but how to pay for them?? Taxes?? So you have substituted an involuntary forced payment for your completely voluntary one . . . What if one farmer thinks its better to have his son cart their own goods-- do they get to opt out of taxes-- probably not?? But they were always free as to whether or not to hire the free enterprise carter-- which system is the exploitive one again ??



Kid --communism has failed everywhere except on some smaller scale communal farms. Central planning seems fundamentally unable to keep up with complex economies as well as the free market does and the lack of incentive to invent or to acquire productive assets or to work hard leads to a less productive and failing economy. mention one place where your theories have worked even a little on a national scale . .. . just one . . . we're waiting


You seem to believe that magical philospher kings will descend and make correct decisions on all matters of economic planning, that production can remain at least constant with most incentives removed and that an elite won't emerge and appropriate a great deal of the centralized production for their own benefit.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Hitler had no real argument anyway. Just a bunch of sensational hate speech. Actually that's what the argument from the right on this thread is turning into.

Do you have an argument Ned?

I agree with Vel.

However, I also agree with Hitler to the extent that arguing with a Marxist is essentially pointless.

[Japher]

You should be paid more for training yourself to do a job that requires skill. How does that relate.

Then you should be compensated for that. You shouldn't become rich though just for putting in a few hours after work.

You should be compensated for training yourself, but not for doing any work on your own after you are done with your job?.. I'm lost.

People with more skills should get paid more, but people who make something that eliminate the need for people with no skills should not get paid at all?..

You should be compenstated for trying to invent something, but you should make money if you happen to actually invent anything?.. Where am I?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Then you should be compensated for that. You shouldn't become rich though just for putting in a few hours after work.

Is it the amount of time alone that gives value or that peeves you off. If I am brilliant and come up with a miraculous invention after 2 hours, is this any less valuable than if I spent 6 months of gut wrenching effort to achieve the same thing . . . its the same invention.

You just seem peeved that sopme peole get rich on what you see as less effort.

[Arrian]

Who produced the goods and services that you consumed while you sat around on your ass thinking up ways to exploit me?

End of ****ing story, folks. Look at this sentence. Consider the worldview that generated it.

There are 2 very obvious holes in this particular line of thought:

1) Inventing something that doubles the productivity of an industry IS NOT "sitting on your ass."

2) Any goods/services consumed while not sitting on your ass, you of course must pay for. Society doesn't just give them to you. So that part makes no sense whatsoever.

Not that this matters. In Kid's world, anyone who is more capable than him (smarter, handier, more insightful, willing to accept more risk, etc.) is an exploiter. They don't *deserve* to be wealthier than he is. Doesn't matter than you or I (or society at large) may value their contributions more than Kid's. Nope, doesn't matter at all. It's not fair, and Kid should get a piece of the pie because he works hard. Yep. Yessiree.

Must... stop... looking... at... the... trainwreck. Must... stop... reading... thread.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did he build the tool? If so then he should use it himself. I don't see anything wrong with that. If he builds it to take advantage of the system and profit from my work then that's another story.

Why does he have to use it himself?! Why can't he pay people to use the tool for him. He's got the tool because of HIS hard work so why can't he ask people to use his tool to create stuff and everyone makes money? Of course Vel gets more money. It's his tool and without that, they would be making squat.

As far as me not getting any benefit from my own work without Vel's work. That's just silly. Vel is just one person. The world would continue without his work.

No, it isn't silly. If you say that you can live without Vel's work, then what about EVERYONE similarly situated? Without those with capital and willing to risk that capital then the world would be stuck in an agrarian mess. Without his work, your work is worth very little.

--

Basically, I agree with Arrian's last post .

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ned
However, I also agree with Hitler to the extent that arguing with a Marxist is essentially pointless.

That's because Marxism is based on reasonable assumptions and the argument is consistant, unlike it's opposing argument.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Is it the amount of time alone that gives value or that peeves you off. If I am brilliant and come up with a miraculous invention after 2 hours, is this any less valuable than if I spent 6 months of gut wrenching effort to achieve the same thing . . . its the same invention.

You just seem peeved that sopme peole get rich on what you see as less effort.

You have described it as less effort in the first paragraph and then in the second you claim that it is only my perception.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not that this matters. In Kid's world, anyone who is more capable than him (smarter, handier, more insightful, willing to accept more risk, etc.) is an exploiter. They don't *deserve* to be wealthier than he is. Doesn't matter than you or I (or society at large) may value their contributions more than Kid's. Nope, doesn't matter at all. It's not fair, and Kid should get a piece of the pie because he works hard. Yep. Yessiree.

Interestingly, Adam Smith discusses innovation in the Wealth of Nations. There he shows how workers 'save' their labor. That is they find ways to become more productive. Curiously the incentive is to work less. However, I say he's naive there. It's probably just a matter of wanting to do a better job. The fact is that workers do constantly find ways to do their work more efficiently. Usually, this doesn't benefit them directly. It does benefit society as well as the owner.

And about sitting on your ass. No, invention sometimes requires standing and moving around. The point is that people do benefit from sitting on their ass and doing nothing. We call them capitalist pigdogs.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, it isn't silly. If you say that you can live without Vel's work, then what about EVERYONE similarly situated? Without those with capital and willing to risk that capital then the world would be stuck in an agrarian mess. Without his work, your work is worth very little.

You missed my point. The tool can be built by someone else. It can be owned by someone else.

[Japher]

The tool can be built by someone else. It can be owned by someone else.

That is the dumbest argument I ever heard, because it doesn't change the situation!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The tool can be built by someone else. It can be owned by someone else.

Then they should build it and/or own it. I'm not preventing a bunch of workers from building their own tool .

[Kuciwalker]

Why should compensation be based on effort? That is utterly moronic. If a really unskilled person spends an entire day of labor and makes 10 toy boats, should he be paid as much as someone who spends an entire day of labor and makes 100 toy boats? Should he be paid TWICE AS MUCH as someone who spends half a day and makes 50 toy boats? That is a self-destructing system. I would just decide to leisurely make 10 toy boats, not expending much effort, though of course I would be at it all day. Heck, maybe I should just make 5! What a wonderful system!

Here's another example, which you ignored when I posted it 2 pages back. What if Vel, instead of licensing you his tool, decides to USE IT HIMSELF and make 20 items a day for the same effort. He then, out of the goodness of his heart, charges 3/4ths the price. This is a good thing, isn't it? Now more people can buy it, because some of those who couldn't afford it before can now! They are even paying BELOW THE FAIR WAGE for it! (I know this is below the fair wage, or price, because you are charging full price, and as a good communist you would NEVER exploit your fellow workers.) But wait! Now all of the people who bought YOUR items are buying them from him, instead. In fact, while he is selling all 20 of his items, you are lucky to sell 2 or 3. In fact, he is making a little more than you were before; he is making what you would have gotten for 15 items, even though he sells 20. So he is really giving away 5 items for free. Now, you are out of business, making no money, whereas Vel is getting wealthy. Now, explain this: where did Vel exploit you? By not GIVING you his invention? He exploited you by not GIVING something that he made? Even if it didn't take that much effort to invent and build it, it still took some, so shouldn't you have to pay for it? But you know what, rather than bother with all of that hassle about exploitation, he decided to use it himself, like you suggested a while ago. And see what happens?

[DinoDoc]

Are we still talking about people working with their tools?

[JohnT]

Rent is exploitive.

Let me ask you: Do you understand that the above is an opinion and not a demonstrable fact?

... reflective mode...

Back in my twenties I got all interested in Astronomy, physics, etc... not enough to actually bother with the math, but enough to read about 15,000 pages of "popular" literature on the subject - Timothy Ferris, Hawking, Kip Thorne, etc. And one thing that I noticed is that it seems that the universe is based, even grows upon, disequalibrium. The differences between hot and cold. Light and dark. Solid and vacuum. Such a basic fact about our universe has even made it in the fabric of our society - look at our wedding vows, for example.

And one thing these books all made clear is this: when the Universe finally makes complete equilibrium, when there is no difference between one point of space and another, the Universe dies.

The day humanity "attains" Kids goals of equality of inputs and outputs, worth and value, knowledge and experience, is the day that humanity dies. And as the universe can, maybe will, die a heat death, so shall humanity when it achieves Kid's vision of perfect communism. Or socialism. Or whatever it is that he wants.

"Communism: The heat death of mankind." Too obscure for a bumper sticker?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The tool can be built by someone else. It can be owned by someone else.

Then they should build it and/or own it. I'm not preventing a bunch of workers from building their own tool .

But you are

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly. Kid wants EVERYONE TO BE THE SAME, and for humanity to reach a point of COMPLETE EQUILIBRIUM. The ONLY system that is unchanging is one in which nothing happens at all - a dead one. Of course, this doesn't release him from answering my other post

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No I don't support such a policy

Well, you need to go back and reread what you're saying.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by skywalker
Why should compensation be based on effort? That is utterly moronic. If a really unskilled person spends an entire day of labor and makes 10 toy boats, should he be paid as much as someone who spends an entire day of labor and makes 100 toy boats? Should he be paid TWICE AS MUCH as someone who spends half a day and makes 50 toy boats? That is a self-destructing system. I would just decide to leisurely make 10 toy boats, not expending much effort, though of course I would be at it all day. Heck, maybe I should just make 5! What a wonderful system!

Seems moronic to me not to get compensation for effort, but it's subjective I guess.

Originally posted by skywalker
Here's another example, which you ignored when I posted it 2 pages back. What if Vel, instead of licensing you his tool, decides to USE IT HIMSELF and make 20 items a day for the same effort. He then, out of the goodness of his heart, charges 3/4ths the price.

Hardly out of the goodness of his heart. If you wants to sell more he has to lower his price. You are forgeting the law demand.

Originally posted by skywalker
This is a good thing, isn't it? Now more people can buy it, because some of those who couldn't afford it before can now! They are even paying BELOW THE FAIR WAGE for it! (I know this is below the fair wage, or price, because you are charging full price, and as a good communist you would NEVER exploit your fellow workers.)

Vel is paid more for his labor, not less. Only the price per item is less.

Originally posted by skywalker
But wait! Now all of the people who bought YOUR items are buying them from him, instead. In fact, while he is selling all 20 of his items, you are lucky to sell 2 or 3. In fact, he is making a little more than you were before; he is making what you would have gotten for 15 items, even though he sells 20. So he is really giving away 5 items for free. Now, you are out of business, making no money, whereas Vel is getting wealthy. Now, explain this: where did Vel exploit you? By not GIVING you his invention? He exploited you by not GIVING something that he made? Even if it didn't take that much effort to invent and build it, it still took some, so shouldn't you have to pay for it? But you know what, rather than bother with all of that hassle about exploitation, he decided to use it himself, like you suggested a while ago. And see what happens?

This all depends on whether Vel has the capacity to supply the whole market. Working by himself this would require that his new tool be extremely productive. If it is this productive then you have no point. The result would be unemployment anyway. No exploitation, but people need jobs. I prefer that there new jobs are not exploitive.