Is profit different from unfair tax?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I'm not saying that a centrally planned system can't be exploitive. I'm just as much against one that is exploitvie as I'm against a capitalist system that is. Central planning has the potential to be less exploitive than capitalism. Capitalism has no such potential. It doesn't function well with out it's exploitative nature. Exploitation is fundamental to capitalism.

You're still doing more than John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever.

The more capital you have to invest the better your chances are. If you are rich and lose all your money, you are just a dumb ass. If you are poor and lose money its because of your initial disadvantage.

No, it's because you have to pick a different strategy when you have less you can afford to lose.

Think of poker. If I'm playing with more money than you and we have equal ability. I will win 9 out of 10 times.

That's because your poker table is a closed market with zero-sum opportunity. What if I say: "screw you, I'm going over to Juan's and Chuy's because I know I can take those chumps, then I'll come back here when I have more money than you." Among the choices you have are where to play and what table stakes are acceptable, or too low or too high for your situation and goals.

You get to choose the best deal. Not choosing the best deal is no choice at all. That's not rational, and no one expects people to behave that way. Even if they did what would the point be. Considering options which rational people would not make does nothing for your argument.

What constitutes the best deal? There are a lot of lawyers, surgeons, etc. who make more money than me. So what? I didn't want to spend years in school to become a social parasite like a lawyer, or spend years in school to spend my working hours taking guts apart and putting them back together. When I go past NASSCO on the way to work, I'm sure some of those shipyard crane operators (especially the ones who work on the big boys) make as much as I do, if not more, but then again, I didn't want to spend the years of apprenticeship and training to get that job, and have to move around as the shipyard business moves around. There are certainly suboptimal deals, and downright crappy ones (I won't be dressing up as a cell phone anytime soon ), but there are a wide range of tradeoffs in determining what the "best" choice might be.

Why wouldn't it be fair? As long as everyone did the same amount of work for the same pay.

How do you quantify "same amount of work?" How do you compare the cell phone costume wearing sign holder to the guy who works a heavy shipyard mobile crane with me doing software architecture on prototype technologies?

One guy can be replaced by a plastic sign and some sandbags to keep it from blowing over, the other guy is part of a large group of people who build and repair ships, and can kill a lot of those people if he ****s up on the job, and I can design something that's useable all over the world and saves a ton of money for everyone who uses it. How do you assign value, let alone quantify "the same amount of work" to jobs with radically different skills, level of those skills needed to do the job, and totally unrelated output? Unless you do it by means of a market where parties can determine by their own needs how much they want each type of output?

No. The reason there was a shortage is because capitalism sucks.

That's the entire crux of your argument.

It could not allocate resources efficiently.

Au contraire, mon fraire. First of all, capitalism doesn't allocate resources. It is simply a mechanism by which interested parties (if any) can choose whether or not to allocate resources, and what type and amount.

In the long run, it was very efficient - there was a boom for workers as everyone tried the hot new toys, the different toys got to compete with each other and the hype about what great things they'd do for everyone, and then when the lack of productivity and excessive cost became clear, the market adjusted, and the useful technologies adapted and progressed, while the useful ones got discarded.

We have been told since at least the early eighties that all of the jobs were going to be in computers. Did that matter? No. How was the system to train the correct number of people for that job? What if all of us would have been trained to do that job? Then there would be an over supply. The price mechanism works for ****, and therefore so does capitalism.

Not at all - we've been told by a few morons with no grasp of reality that "all of the jobs" would be in computers, but reality is that only a few million are. Did it matter? No, because it was hyperbole. The "system" doesn't train the correct number of people, it lets forces of supply and demand motivate people to train until there's an equilibrium. The most talented and most interested stay in the field and learn the new stuff as it comes along, the mediocre, the abysmal and the disinterested play with it peripherally for a while, then move on to something else or back to what they were doing before.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


No, you want to be given **** for free.

-Arrian

That's not true bud. You don't know me. I'm a hard working guy. I have no problem with work.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The "system" doesn't train the correct number of people, it lets forces of supply and demand motivate people to train until there's an equilibrium. The most talented and most interested stay in the field and learn the new stuff as it comes along, the mediocre, the abysmal and the disinterested play with it peripherally for a while, then move on to something else or back to what they were doing before.

You are losing your grip. Fact: there was a shortage.

[Arrian]

Maybe you are (I actually doubt it, and part of that comes down to the issues I have with your apparently definition of "work"), but lots of people aren't. Furthermore, MtG is correct to ask you about how you quantify "amount of work." Different people work at different paces, in different fields, producing different things. How can you possibly expect everyone to "do the same amount of work?" The mere concept is ludicrous.

-Arrian

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Maybe you are (I actually doubt it, and part of that comes down to the issues I have with your apparently definition of "work"),

My definition? Because I don't think of owning something as working? That's why you think I'm a free loader? Strange.

Originally posted by Arrian
but lots of people aren't. Furthermore, MtG is correct to ask you about how you quantify "amount of work." Different people work at different paces, in different fields, producing different things. How can you possibly expect everyone to "do the same amount of work?" The mere concept is ludicrous.

-Arrian

You call fairness ludicrous? Everyone doesn't do the same amount of work, and some people like to try and let other people do the work while they get paid. I call those people capitalists. I don't know what you call them. The objective is not to allow those people to do that. You simply give them no other choice but to work, and you give the people who are willing to do their share incentives for doing so. That is much different from the system that we have now where people are given incentives for getting paid while others work.

[JohnT]

"How can you possibly expect everyone to "do the same amount of work?" The mere concept is ludicrous."

Correct, and it's even more ludicrous when one considers that totally differing opposing skill sets can be brought to the same job, meaning that the nature of the position changes with the nature of the person holding it. One person might have success with his analytical personality and financial acumen, while his successor also has success at the same position because of his leadership qualities and smarts in hiring quality subordinates to do the detail work that the first boss reveled in. How do you pay them for "equal" work when their very approach makes such comparisons irrelevant.

Of course, all that organizing described above happens naturally, with no valuable human input. How stupid of me to forget that.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


My definition? Because I don't think of owning something as working? That's why you think I'm a free loader? Strange.

Free loader was my phrase, not Arrians. Please don't put words into your opponents mouths. Thanks.

[Arrian]

You call fairness ludicrous?

"Fairness" is subjective. I find your definition of "fair" to be ludicrous, in two ways:

1) I don't think it is possible to implement.
2) I don't think it's fair.

-Arrian

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
"How can you possibly expect everyone to "do the same amount of work?" The mere concept is ludicrous."

Correct, and it's even more ludicrous when one considers that totally differing opposing skill sets can be brought to the same job, meaning that the nature of the position changes with the nature of the person holding it. One person might have success with his analytical personality and financial acumen, while his successor also has success at the same position because of his leadership qualities and smarts in hiring quality subordinates to do the detail work that the first boss reveled in. How do you pay them for "equal" work when their very approach makes such comparisons irrelevant.

Of course, all that organizing described above happens naturally, with no valuable human input. How stupid of me to forget that.

I don't understand why you think they should be paid differently. Some people aren't smart enough or talented for certain jobs. I'm aware of that. I'm not saying to have stupid people doing brain surgery or anything. That being said though, things can be made much fairer than they are now. It's something that is worked on. There isn't anyway to make things absolutely fair, but things can be much fairer than they are.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT


Free loader was my phrase, not Arrians. Please don't put words into your opponents mouths. Thanks.

He's a big boy. If I put words in his mouth he will tell me about it.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


"Fairness" is subjective. I find your definition of "fair" to be ludicrous, in two ways:

1) I don't think it is possible to implement.
2) I don't think it's fair.

-Arrian

My definition of fair is to be paid a days wage for a days work. How the hell do you have such a problem with that?

[Arrian]

Of course things could be fairer than they presently are. There I agree with you (assuredly due to the vague nature of the statement). However, given the difference between our concepts of fairness (I happen to be big on fairness too, by the way), how do we proceed? We're both Americans. We both can vote. So can millions of others. And at the end of the day, if you can convince millions of other Americans that you're right and I'm wrong, you can have your communist system.

And I will move the **** out.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Yes it is a matter of perspective. I can understand why you would want to rent. Now maybe you can understand why I have to rent. Because I have no means to own.

Capitalism organizes labor is such a manner that no house has been built for me. There is no surplus of housing available for those who can't afford it right now. That is a huge part of the exploitive nature of capitalism. Things are produced for the priviledged and not for the people who work at least as hard if not harder.

Ok, now we're at least getting somewhere. FYI, for a very good portion of my working life, I've had no means to own. For some time, that was due to low wages/skills. For some of that time, it was due to housing prices and the combination of where I worked and where I wanted to live or was willing to settle for living.

There is no surplus of housing available here, or where you are, because there are limits to infrastructure, land use limits, and a large number of people migrating in. There is housing available in other places, and there's also alternative means to own a house, if that's really a priority. Repos are one, but depending exactly where you are, another alternative is to out a ways into the boonies and buy a small chunk of bare land, and build yourself. Yeah, it means a lot of lost weekends, and working extra hours and having less fun, and it competes for other things you might want to do, and you'd have to learn a lot of construction and design skills, or rely on advice for others, but people can (and do) do it. You most likely won't get the optimum house of your dreams, but then again, you might be able to sell it at a profit, put that money into a better version, and repeat the cycle. Who knows, maybe there's really a capitalist land raper yearning to breathe free under that commie exterior.

The point is that there are a lot of alternatives in time, location, and manner if owning a house is what you really want to do.

Blaming "the system" and waiting for somone to subsidize labor and material costs to give you what you want ain't gonna get you there, though - you can bet on that.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


My definition of fair is to be paid a days wage for a days work. How the hell do you have such a problem with that?

You oversimplify your response such that it has almost no meaning.


First, the definition of "work" -

Based on our discussions in this and other threads, you do not seem to consider invention and/or thinking of great ideas to be "work." Only actual manual labor seems to count. That is something I find silly.

Second, the quanitification (is that really a word? ) of "work" -

As has been pointed out, different people have different skills, strengths/weaknesses, etc. Two people might be equally valueable in your eyes but not in mine and vice-versa, because you might value certain things more than I do, and vice-versa.

Is a guy who sits at the info desk in a library for 8 hours working as hard as a guy who spends 8 hours working at a construction site? I honestly don't know - because I don't know enough about each job, and I don't care to take the time to find out just how much each person had to do and how "hard" it was. So who worked harder? I don't friggin' know. Apparently, you think you can determine the "answer."

So "a day's wage for a day's work" may sound good, it's ultimately useless.

-Arrian

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Of course things could be fairer than they presently are. There I agree with you (assuredly due to the vague nature of the statement). However, given the difference between our concepts of fairness (I happen to be big on fairness too, by the way), how do we proceed? We're both Americans. We both can vote. So can millions of others. And at the end of the day, if you can convince millions of other Americans that you're right and I'm wrong, you can have your communist system.

And I will move the **** out.

-Arrian

You proceed like this. You put a general clause in the Constitution which requires that people are paid a fair wage instead of a market wage. You let the voters determine how that is to be done. You have one class of people. Everyone makes about the same amount of income. So no one has an interest in a minority getting an unfair advantage.

You make the govt responsible for making sure there is a job for everyone. Right now the govt is not bound to create jobs for everyone. This is ridiculous. How can individuals be responsible for themselves when they have no means to do so. Right now the govt only creates enough jobs for people when it can afford to do so. If it can't create the jobs it needs to move a side and a new govt needs to be put in place that can do that. Capitalism can not be justified when there aren't enough jobs for every worker and the majority of the jobs that there are don't pay a living wage.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You are losing your grip. Fact: there was a shortage.

So? There was a shortage, then a surplus, then an equilibrium.

It will always be that way. You know what the big job was in the west around the turn of the century? Mechanics and electricians to work on all that new-fangled mining equipment. You could make in a day what a regular miner made in a week. Why? Because before that equipment was invented and first used, there were no trained electricians and mechanics to work on stuff that didn't yet exist. Go figure.

How many jet engine mechanics do you think there were in the 1930's?

You can't "create qualified workers" in advance of a new technology.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Ok, now we're at least getting somewhere. FYI, for a very good portion of my working life, I've had no means to own. For some time, that was due to low wages/skills. For some of that time, it was due to housing prices and the combination of where I worked and where I wanted to live or was willing to settle for living.

There is no surplus of housing available here, or where you are, because there are limits to infrastructure, land use limits, and a large number of people migrating in. There is housing available in other places, and there's also alternative means to own a house, if that's really a priority. Repos are one, but depending exactly where you are, another alternative is to out a ways into the boonies and buy a small chunk of bare land, and build yourself. Yeah, it means a lot of lost weekends, and working extra hours and having less fun, and it competes for other things you might want to do, and you'd have to learn a lot of construction and design skills, or rely on advice for others, but people can (and do) do it. You most likely won't get the optimum house of your dreams, but then again, you might be able to sell it at a profit, put that money into a better version, and repeat the cycle. Who knows, maybe there's really a capitalist land raper yearning to breathe free under that commie exterior.

The point is that there are a lot of alternatives in time, location, and manner if owning a house is what you really want to do.

Blaming "the system" and waiting for somone to subsidize labor and material costs to give you what you want ain't gonna get you there, though - you can bet on that.

Don't blame the individuals. The system is responsible for providing the goods and services for the individuals. If it can't do that it's not worth a ****. The fact is that capitalism doesn't provide enough housing. Blame it, not the individuals.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


You oversimplify your response such that it has almost no meaning.


First, the definition of "work" -

Based on our discussions in this and other threads, you do not seem to consider invention and/or thinking of great ideas to be "work." Only actual manual labor seems to count. That is something I find silly.

And you think that paying someone to invent something is work too. So yes we disagree.

Originally posted by Arrian
Second, the quanitification (is that really a word? ) of "work" -

As has been pointed out, different people have different skills, strengths/weaknesses, etc. Two people might be equally valueable in your eyes but not in mine and vice-versa, because you might value certain things more than I do, and vice-versa.

Is a guy who sits at the info desk in a library for 8 hours working as hard as a guy who spends 8 hours working at a construction site? I honestly don't know - because I don't know enough about each job, and I don't care to take the time to find out just how much each person had to do and how "hard" it was. So who worked harder? I don't friggin' know. Apparently, you think you can determine the "answer."

So "a day's wage for a day's work" may sound good, it's ultimately useless.

-Arrian

Why can't the construction worker and the service worker trade off sometimes. Maybe young people can to the harder jobs. Then when they get older they can do easier work?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So? There was a shortage, then a surplus, then an equilibrium.

There is never an equilibrium. That is a farse. If there were such a thing as an equilibrium there would never be a shortage or a surplus. There is no force in nature which creates an equilibrium. It's the biggest load of crap ever. Maybe in the financial markets, but not in the real world. Certainly not the labor market, which is by far the only significant market in the economy.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It will always be that way. You know what the big job was in the west around the turn of the century? Mechanics and electricians to work on all that new-fangled mining equipment. You could make in a day what a regular miner made in a week. Why? Because before that equipment was invented and first used, there were no trained electricians and mechanics to work on stuff that didn't yet exist. Go figure.

How many jet engine mechanics do you think there were in the 1930's?

You can't "create qualified workers" in advance of a new technology.

You can never create the optimum number of workers when everyone is free to get the training for the job they desire. I chose to get training in accounting. I'm not aware at all of how many people have made that same choice. Therefore there is no price mechanism at work at all. There is never an equilibrium.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You have one class of people. Everyone makes about the same amount of income. So no one has an interest in a minority getting an unfair advantage.

And you immediately progress towards being a third world country, because everyone with financial or intellectual capital will either say "**** you" and leave, a la Arrian, or else grab their guns and head for the hills.

If you take people with superior skills and work ethics, and tell them "no matter what you do, you will be essentially paid and treated the same as the slow wobble shufflin' water cooler leanin' slacker, then people have no incentive. I get treated the same, **** it, I work the same.

You make the govt responsible for making sure there is a job for everyone. Right now the govt is not bound to create jobs for everyone. This is ridiculous.

Ok, you carry this load of rocks over there. And you, take each rock when it arrives over there, and carry it back here. Or else, "you - **** up who ve can't place anyvere else. You are now 335th Deputy Junior Senior Associate Assistant 13th Comrade Minister for Planning. Ve should have desk and chair for you next year, but new office space isn't planned until 2133, so you vill vork on ze roof."

You can't "create jobs" on a sustainable basis unless the product of those jobs has "value" as determined by people who want to use whatever is created.

How can individuals be responsible for themselves when they have no means to do so.

Hundreds of millions have the means to do so. You're just making excuses out of thin air. I guess nobody's responsible for anything in their lives unless everything's handed to them on a platter.

Right now the govt only creates enough jobs for people when it can afford to do so. If it can't create the jobs it needs to move a side and a new govt needs to be put in place that can do that.

It's not the government's busines to provide jobs.

Capitalism can not be justified when there aren't enough jobs for every worker and the majority of the jobs that there are don't pay a living wage.

Well then, people need to control their birth rates and make an effort to acquire real skills.

[JohnT]

"Therefore there is no price mechanism at work at all."

It's called salaries.

You see, it's because of real-world disconnects like this that I find it near impossible to sustain any sort of dialogue here. Hell, not only are we talking about different viewpoints, I think that your definitions and my definitions are so far out of whack that we would literally be talking past each other.

I mean, how do you argue with a guy who thinks that rent is exploitative, and then argues against the most successful means of individual homeownership devised by mankind - the use of long-term mortgages? You can't tell him to buy a house, cause he thinks he's being exploited by doing so, but you can't tell him to rent because he thinks he's being equally exploited by doing so.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Don't blame the individuals. The system is responsible for providing the goods and services for the individuals. If it can't do that it's not worth a ****. The fact is that capitalism doesn't provide enough housing. Blame it, not the individuals.

There is no "system." That's a bunch of free love hippie horseshit from the 60's. SDS is gone, dude, time to move on.

Since this is your answer to my post, apparently what you're saying is that if it isn't handed to you in the way you want, you're not willing to make extraordinary and alternative efforts to achieve what you want. That's not a failure of capitalism, my friend. It ain't Miller time, it's mirror time.

[rah]

Yeah, great incentive to spend many hard years learning to be a doctor just to be paid like a garbage man. Oppppss, in chicago these days, that's true.

Point to any country that has tried Communism that there wasn't a privleged class. Point to any country that has tried Communism where the state/government actually "withered away".

The only circumstances were communism was even remotely succesful was in tiny comune type settings where motivation was gotten from being respected by your peers. This will only work when you know everyone. Not practical for any large sized community.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

And you think that paying someone to invent something is work too. So yes we disagree.

If Thomas Edison, Gutenberg, et al (and all their potential contemporary and future competitors) had never been support financially by one means or another in their efforts, we'd still be working in pen and ink, on paper, and courieriing information by foot and horseback.

Maybe if you had the creativity and determination to try to invent something, you'd understand that all those hours committed and material committed in trying to get to the desired result were in fact, work.

Why can't the construction worker and the service worker trade off sometimes. Maybe young people can to the harder jobs. Then when they get older they can do easier work?

Assuming people have the requisite skills, they can. I've known people who've held different types of jobs, haven't you?

I started out in construction labor, and a bunch of other menial, physical, **** jobs.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And you immediately progress towards being a third world country, because everyone with financial or intellectual capital will either say "**** you" and leave, a la Arrian, or else grab their guns and head for the hills.

If you take people with superior skills and work ethics, and tell them "no matter what you do, you will be essentially paid and treated the same as the slow wobble shufflin' water cooler leanin' slacker, then people have no incentive. I get treated the same, **** it, I work the same.

Only world communism works.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Ok, you carry this load of rocks over there. And you, take each rock when it arrives over there, and carry it back here. Or else, "you - **** up who ve can't place anyvere else. You are now 335th Deputy Junior Senior Associate Assistant 13th Comrade Minister for Planning. Ve should have desk and chair for you next year, but new office space isn't planned until 2133, so you vill vork on ze roof."

You can't "create jobs" on a sustainable basis unless the product of those jobs has "value" as determined by people who want to use whatever is created.

Sure you can. You just reduce the work week. Then you determine were the shortages are and proceed accordingly. Capitalism seems incapable of doing this. Probably because of the class system.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Hundreds of millions have the means to do so. You're just making excuses out of thin air. I guess nobody's responsible for anything in their lives unless everything's handed to them on a platter.

What good is it to blame the individuals as a whole. The system must benefit the individuals. If it fails a new system is needed. You like to blame the individuals but not change the system. If the system fails it needs to be replaced. It's simple.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's not the government's busines to provide jobs.

How can a govt justify it's existance when it is based on individual initiative but there aren't enough opportunities for individuals. This doesn't seem strange to you?

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Well then, people need to control their birth rates and make an effort to acquire real skills.

You're missing the point. I could acquire a 'real' skill, but that skill may not be worth **** after I get my training. I have no control over that.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There is no "system."

Nonsense. This maybe your problem.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
"Therefore there is no price mechanism at work at all."

It's called salaries.

Yes higher salaries attract workers, but how many workers. My point is that the 'price mechanism' does not create a equilibrium, and there is no way that it can.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

There is never an equilibrium. That is a farse. If there were such a thing as an equilibrium there would never be a shortage or a surplus. There is no force in nature which creates an equilibrium. It's the biggest load of crap ever. Maybe in the financial markets, but not in the real world. Certainly not the labor market, which is by far the only significant market in the economy.

Equilibrium is not necessarily static across all times.

You can never create the optimum number of workers when everyone is free to get the training for the job they desire. I chose to get training in accounting. I'm not aware at all of how many people have made that same choice. Therefore there is no price mechanism at work at all. There is never an equilibrium.

And why did you choose to get that training, instead of working at the front desk of a movie theater or flipping fries for Mickey D's or going to med school?

Did you make that choice in an absolute vacuum about how much different professions got paid, or about what you had to do to become a CPA, or do whatever it is you've chosen to do in accounting?

I don't know how many people there are trying to do either of the things I'm doing, either. I know in the one case how much my clients are willing to pay for my time, and in the other, that there is nothing in industry literature, conferences, etc. at all about any actual or planned product that is competitive with my software product. It doesn't matter whether I know that or not. In the one case, it matters if my clients are willing to pay what I want. In the other, it matters if I'm first to market, at a price that delivers visible net benefits to my potential customers, or if I'm not first to market, but deliver superior price/benefit compared with whatever competitor would theoretically emerge.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by rah
Yeah, great incentive to spend many hard years learning to be a doctor just to be paid like a garbage man. Oppppss, in chicago these days, that's true.

You guys really don't think things through well. Of course people will not train to be doctors unless they are compensated for doing so. It's really not the problem that you guys are making it out to be.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And why did you choose to get that training, instead of working at the front desk of a movie theater or flipping fries for Mickey D's or going to med school?

Did you make that choice in an absolute vacuum about how much different professions got paid, or about what you had to do to become a CPA, or do whatever it is you've chosen to do in accounting?

I don't know how many people there are trying to do either of the things I'm doing, either. I know in the one case how much my clients are willing to pay for my time, and in the other, that there is nothing in industry literature, conferences, etc. at all about any actual or planned product that is competitive with my software product. It doesn't matter whether I know that or not. In the one case, it matters if my clients are willing to pay what I want. In the other, it matters if I'm first to market, at a price that delivers visible net benefits to my potential customers, or if I'm not first to market, but deliver superior price/benefit compared with whatever competitor would theoretically emerge.

You're an evil super genious

I have to study for a damn test.