|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
21st June 2018, 03:31 AM | #161 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
21st June 2018, 03:38 AM | #162 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
|
21st June 2018, 03:47 AM | #163 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
|
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
21st June 2018, 04:09 AM | #165 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
21st June 2018, 04:25 AM | #166 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
|
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
21st June 2018, 05:19 AM | #167 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Production increases wealth. Without the means of production, how does production occur?
Often the "means of production" is really just a coordination problem. Say a bunch of workers are each doing some simple job that they can do on their own, like the guys here who ride around on a scooter advertising their repair skills "A/C, computer, washing machine!". But they might be more productive in some industry. Someone with capital notices this untapped market, and the availability of workers, and can pay a bunch of them to do a job, but as with most new businesses it won't be profitable for, say, a year. Under those assumptions if those workers just chose to do the job on their own, they'd go hungry before the profits arrived. They need some outside investment to make the whole thing viable. By inputing that capital, those workers can then become productive. Even without any costs beyond the salaries of the workers themselves, the investor has created value by creating the circumstances in which those workers can come together and the business can be built. That certainly seems like the creation of wealth to me and is anything but nonproductive. But that's what any business does. It allows people an opportunity to do work that's more productive than what they could do on their own. If they were more productive on their own, then they could make more money on their own by working for themselves*. *Of course there are practices that prevent this, and those sorts of actions require a government to step in to prevent them. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
21st June 2018, 06:32 AM | #168 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
Originally Posted by Roboramma
Originally Posted by Roboramma
We know, for sure, that no product—end product or means of production—has been produced without labor. What we don't know for sure is the exact role of the non-producer (as defined previously). But even if we were to accept your claim that the non-producer's role is to fix the coordination problem, or is necessary for any production to begin at all, we're still describing a power relationship as well as claiming that exploitation is necessary for upholding that particular mode of production. |
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
21st June 2018, 08:41 AM | #169 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Well, in my view there are two important questions: how can we efficiently produce wealth? And, how can that wealth be efficiently distributed?
If the "non-producer" improves the efficiency of the process of the production of wealth, then that seems like a good thing. The second question is actually inextricably linked to the first as different means of distribution will affect the efficiency of the production process, though to varying degrees. We can certainly find ways to attempt to improve our efficiency in both of those questions. But I do think they are empirical questions, though there is also a question what factors we consider important in how want wealth distributed, for instance to what degree do we value fairness and how is fairness defined. And of course there are other issues that we may consider to supercede either question. For instance if we could more efficiently produce wealth by killing 1 in every 10 people, we could still decide that that sacrifice wasn't worth it. But those caveats aside I do think they are both empirical questions, at least when precisely defined, which I haven't done here. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
21st June 2018, 09:44 AM | #170 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Not sure if this point has been made yet, but it needs to be.
Safety Concerns Grow as Inmates Are Guarded by Teachers and Secretaries
Quote:
|
21st June 2018, 10:30 AM | #171 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
21st June 2018, 10:39 AM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
I think you're arguing against something that no one is claiming. I think you're getting hung up on the colloquial use of "exploitation", in this case it can be more like "we exploited the potential energy of the mountain stream to produce environmentally friendly power" rather than "we exploited the senior citizens who didn't realise that no amount of administration fees would allow them to win a foreign lottery they hadn't entered". Depending of course on the conditions of employment. Workers are obviously better off in successful companies than failing ones if they share in the rewards of that success.
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
21st June 2018, 11:33 AM | #173 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
Hadn't heard of the "Old Lady Job Justification Hearing" so I had a quick peek. Yes, very appropriate.
Graeber also has some absurd examples/reports, like a guy whos' sole practical purpose was to apologize for the carpenter (or building maintenance guy) being overworked. |
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
21st June 2018, 06:30 PM | #174 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
21st June 2018, 10:58 PM | #175 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
That could simply be because of the encyclopedic striving for generality. I suppose one might substitute "non-producer" for "non-laborer", or something else without losing the basic point which is that it's someone else than the agent laboring. We could also use the term "capitalist" or "owner of the means of production" but the shortcoming is that it necessarily restricts the context into a particular mode of production, like capitalism. The more general point being that exploitation and the same kind of logic occurs in many other modes as well. So, in feudalism the dichotomy would be the serf (producer) vs. the landlord (non-producer).
|
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
22nd June 2018, 08:06 AM | #176 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
22nd June 2018, 09:14 AM | #177 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
In corporate speak, far from calling all labour "production" it's fairly common for most employees to be a cost centre. In financial services it's usually the sales people who are producers or revenue generators, management isn't. Portfolio managers (me) quite often are not classed as revenue generating.
This has always had a ring of "winning a client / deal / account is everything, after that it's all unfortunate expense" to me. |
22nd June 2018, 09:16 AM | #178 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
22nd June 2018, 09:23 AM | #179 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,625
|
I support taxation because it is good for capitalism, innovation, and modernity. Some of that takes the form of redistribution, placing funds into the hands of new decision makers. Good. Distributed knowledge generation and decision-making is key to healthy capitalism, which if not to be permanently class-based, and therefore compatible with democracy, must have mechanisms for creating new opportunity at as many levels as possible. The reason that is not easily acknowledged has to do with personal and parochial interest, not understanding of economics.
Democracy is acknowledgment of equality in political decision-making, not economic. The importance of distributed decision-making in economics has to do with optimization of resources and production in light of local conditions, and the non-linear nature of creativity. Wide distribution of as much knowledge at all levels is preferable because it acts to enhance both political and economic decision-making. This requires taxation to fund public education, essential for both systems. Because we speak of humans, the need for basic food, clothing and shelter for all is a constant logical concern, barring, again, purely parochial interests. This is what makes public investment in human assets justifiable economically, no need for any bleeding heart; political argument in democracy already is in line with the dignity, as well, of the individual: we recognize the heart in each. It is neither starry-eyed nor threatening to freedom -- itself a goal and product of democracy, not its rival -- to support operative redistribution of wealth. Those paying more by definition receive more, and may contribute more, but rely on the fabric of know-how, ability, and uncanny savoir-faire of all their fellows across all domains for this to be a fruitful society, fully capable of rewarding, but without needlessly punishing to do so. |
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
23rd June 2018, 02:00 AM | #180 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
|
That's right. First you sell the product or service, then you try to produce it as cheaply as possible.
My current employer regularly practices this principle, only this time it's not working out so well. Problems in production, cannot achieve quoted performance specs, delivery date's long past and the client is getting upset - it's a nightmare! But that's how you beat out the competition. Lie about a product you don't actually have, and hope the production staff can make it a reality. Then moan about how much you have to pay them, stupid government regulations, taxes going to welfare queens etc. - anything but admit the real reason for your problems. Yet according to some Free Market proponents this behavior should be rewarded. You see, the capitalist is taking a big risk (with investors' money and workers' jobs) to produce a better product faster and cheaper! This is why private enterprise will always be more efficient and innovative than any 'centrally planned' (or planned at all) government program could ever be! |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
23rd June 2018, 03:48 AM | #181 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
|
It depends on who you are calling 'the boss' and what role he plays in producing the product or service. Factory floors need to be kept clean and you don't want production line workers stopping to do it, and someone has to manage the top-level operation of any business. Janitors, office staff, managers etc. are all being paid to do these jobs because what they do is necessary to produce the product.
The capitalist however, having supplied the 'means of production' can just put his feet up and relax while the money rolls in. Some may argue that what the capitalist did was also necessary, and therefore he should be rewarded for his input. I agree, But the question is, how much? Should he receive 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times the income of a worker, or simply take whatever he can? If the income he gets is similar to that of his workers then it could hardly be called exploitation. But successful capitalists tend to get far more while doing less, which indicates that they are exploiting their workers. But even if exploitation is occurring, why is it a problem? The problem is that when workers are receiving less income than the money earned from their output, they cannot afford to purchase the products they produce. When this occurs in the economy globally the effect is catastrophic. Over a period of time the capitalists amass more wealth than they can put into production - while workers get poorer so demand reduces. Factories close, unemployment rises, markets crash, and everyone suffers. But the capitalists don't see it as a problem until too late because they have plenty of money. |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
23rd June 2018, 04:17 AM | #182 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Yes, sadly sometimes that works.
Sometimes producing a better product reliably is the better way to beat competition. I work in a very competitive market but my business is at least moderately successful, and what success I've had has been exactly through consistency and quality, as well as some degree of innovation.
Quote:
Quote:
Will liars be outcompeted by honest businesses? Hopefully, though it's certainly not a given. That's why I'd support regulations that punish fraudulent business practices. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
23rd June 2018, 04:23 AM | #183 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Even if you don't get to the extreme where the total of the GDP goes down, you can still have a situation where GDP increases but worker's income stagnates. That seems to me to be a negative outcome and one we should actively try to find ways to improve.
Total wealth increasing is a good thing because it's generally good for everyone. If the pie gets bigger but that extra size goes exclusively (not just proportionally more) to a small group, I think that's not much better than the pie not getting bigger at all. Usually when the pie gets bigger everyone's slice gets a little bigger, even if some people's slice increases by more than others. But if most people's slice stays at a constant size I think there's a society wide problem and while I don't know what the solution is (it probably varies by situation) I think we do need to look at ways of sharing that wealth more equally, though not necessarily completely equally. |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
23rd June 2018, 04:37 AM | #184 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
23rd June 2018, 05:07 AM | #185 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
25th June 2018, 04:32 AM | #186 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
You're missing the point, this is just about definition of terms, your post is a screed against something that no-one is arguing. In this context producer/non-producer is a distinction like direct and indirect costs, exploitation is utilising the profit on the product (whether to pay a dividend or for a floor sweeper's wages). You're insisting on arguing against a moral judgement that isn't inherent in the terms.
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
26th June 2018, 12:42 AM | #187 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
|
Not inherent perhaps, but it is implied. Perhaps it's time some of these implied 'moral judgements' were dragged out into the light so everyone can see what we are actually arguing against.
The OP considers a minimum wage and student debt relief to be "the Robin Hood approach" and suggests that poor people are poor because they have "an inability to manage money" so "dumping a heap of cash on them" won't work. That's a heap of moralizing right there, and it doesn't stop. The OP then says that "there's no reason you can't do good for yourself with some hard work" and "While I was working a 2nd jobs, others were out drinking and partying". Now we have the Protestant work ethic added to the heap, with the judgement that people who enjoy their time off don't deserve to get as much as those who work themselves to death. Brainster says that "redistributing wealth" is "all about Marx" and "if you ran a poll around here, equalizing wealth as a proper goal of society would get a lot of votes". What is being implied here? We all know the answer. 'Wealth redistribution' is a trigger phrase favored by conservatives and libertarians, who think any suggestion that unbridled Capitalism might have problems is proof you are a communist who wants to steal our money and take away our freedoms. ServiceSoon has noticed 'an increase in communications, advertisements, articles pertaining to inequality and wealth' and wonders 'who is financing these communications?'. Just Asking Questions? Or implying that those thieving communists are trying to sway public opinion over to their side (George Soros is behind it for sure!). We all know the answer to this one too... And on it goes. Someone objects to the term 'non-producer'. Why? You can bet the answer isn't that they looked up its meaning in the dictionary. Finally, you say:-
Quote:
Roboramma said:- "if we could more efficiently produce wealth by killing 1 in every 10 people, we could still decide that that sacrifice wasn't worth it".Well it turns out that killing off a large percentage of the population has historically proven to be an excellent (if temporary) way to 're-distribute' wealth. But of course most of us would object to such a suggestion on moral grounds. Whether or not you think 'hard work' should be rewarded proportionally, or everyone should share in the wealth, or the amount of money someone makes should be the only criteria, these are moral judgements which will color your arguments even when you try to hide it. So don't hide it. Get it out in the open for everyone to see. Then you won't have to try tricks like questioning the meanings of words or nitpicking arguments for bogus reasons. Let's face it - you wouldn't be posting here if you didn't have an emotional need. So let it all out, and tell us what you really think! |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
26th June 2018, 01:10 AM | #188 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
I can't be bothered to keep repeating that you are using the colloquial usage of the words and ignoring the definitions that apply in this context which is the only point I have been making. At least you're wasting far more of your own time than mine. Project whatever you want on to me, I'm no longer interested.
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
28th June 2018, 12:55 AM | #189 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes
We probably need to rid ourselves from the view that taxes are necessary for funding public investments or guaranteeing some basic living standard. This doesn't mean taxes are irrelevant for the functioning of the system; they still perform to limit and regulate monetary stock-flow developments. Depending on the institutional framework, redistribution can also be perceived as retrieving an inherently public resource (legal tender money) that was previously spent and guaranteed into existence. |
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
28th June 2018, 10:01 AM | #190 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,625
|
The optimization I refer to, as it involves normal business people, is of business resources for profit, so capitalism is the assumption. This is purely localized or organization-specific decision-making subject to physical, financial, and regulatory constraints.
I do not subscribe to the notion of full system optimization as a goal, only a regulated system with boundaries. So yes, compared to any formal model, inefficient. I also do not subscribe to the notion of perfect markets, only markets. That is, the base challenge is not "what is optimal" or "how to achieve theoretical bests," but simply "what is the case, and given goals, how to go from here to there under local constraints." Regulating markets should be done at government level, again, more in the form of an iterative fashion with changing goals, given changing outcomes and new information. Aka: Stumbling and bumbling forward, one step at a time, fast enough to advance, slow enough to decide another direction is better. This is the best fit for a world in which information is partial and changing, as is understanding of it. When the horizon of events does happen to be both certain and long, then and only then, major central policy-driven fixes setting new boundaries or changing the field of play are warranted; e.g., managing global warming. I see no need to rid ourselves of public goods and services or the taxes for them. Personally, not a big fan of private armies and their history (see feudalism). All money is fiat, one should not be alarmed by that. It is an accounting ledger, not an intrinsic good. All value assigned it is via its proper or improper management as a store of value. (For the record, when I refer to capitalism, I do not refer to the unregulated shell corporation network called "big business" today.) |
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
28th June 2018, 10:06 AM | #191 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,571
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
28th June 2018, 10:35 AM | #192 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
|
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
28th June 2018, 11:16 AM | #193 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Those two sentences contradict each other.
The bigger the government spending bill, the more taxes it has to collect to keep the money supply under control. The alternative is to print money until you have hyperinflation or to borrow so much that government bonds acquire "junk" status. Historically, both scenarios have occurred. |
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
28th June 2018, 11:46 AM | #194 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
Originally Posted by psionl0
Originally Posted by psionl0
|
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
28th June 2018, 11:59 AM | #195 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
28th June 2018, 12:19 PM | #196 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
|
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|