Socialism, understanding what it is..
Mark Patrick Witte
In article <334EC9...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Jim Mork <jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>> But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
>> lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
I'm still trying to digest that "if Hitler had been rational,
he would have studied harder and become an architect" and now you
give us this. How do you figure that this is a definition of
capitalism?
>Capitalism is about making money off other people's money (when
>stockholders invest, they do not lose ownership of their money...but
>they DO lose control of its use till they sell the stock). And the
>money that is made is "free lunch". Yet, it is the capitalists who tell
>the socialists "stop asking for free lunch". Yet, socialists stand for
>a government run by and for those who never use anything but their own
>muscles and minds.
So socialist leaders aren't big on using tools?
> But asking for that is called "free lunch". As
>Orwell predicted, black is white and white is black.
I didn't recall Orwell writing on the subject of Michael Jackson
and trends in suburban chic.
>--
>
>"I think that if advanced beings WERE visiting earth,
>we'd know it by their laughter."
> ---Paige Fox
Jim Mork
> I'm still trying to digest that "if Hitler had been rational,
> he would have studied harder and become an architect" and now you
> give us this. How do you figure that this is a definition of
> capitalism?
The Hitler thing was that hard for you? Never heard of a person who had
to retake a GRE? Or a driving test? Had Hitler not harbored a deep
sense of inadequacy, he'd have just worked harder. Instead, he looked
for some enemy to explain the experience of failure. This is that hard?
As for capitalism, is there any chance whatever that Warren Buffett or
Bill Gates could have gotten where they are on their own funds? None
whatever. Capitalism as we know it today has no chance of existence
without the special protections that corporation laws have provided
(limited liability). What that encourages is people to give their money
to other people to manage. Again, fortunes do not come from the growth
of people's thousands into billions. They come from the use of OTHER
people's money. Most of all, they come from exploiting tax money handed
out by the government to business.
In short......"free lunch". And it only becomes a scandal when somebody
buys actual nourishment with it. When it is used to export tobacco to
China, its "free market capitalism".
W. Hearst
Mike Wooding wrote:
> Socialism like the cockroach will be with us in one form or
> another as long as there are some people who are willing to
> live at the expense of others and free-lunch economics.
Stupid, stupid, STOOPID! You hang on to your "no free lunch"
faith like a religious nut hanging on to a god or gods. You
are blind, BLIND! See here. How many people do we REALLY need
to make food for everyone? The more technology we have, the
LESS people we need to make food. This concept must be WAY
too simple for "complex" minds like yours to handle.
But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that
wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that
the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth.
They never have time to step back and see the bigger picture.
Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing
and growing. It is created by teaching and by learning.
-------
If you hit a man over the head with a fish,
he'll have a headache for a day.
But if you teach a man to hit himself over the head with a fish,
he'll have headaches for the rest of his life.
Jim Mork
> But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
> lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
Capitalism is about making money off other people's money (when
stockholders invest, they do not lose ownership of their money...but
they DO lose control of its use till they sell the stock). And the
money that is made is "free lunch". Yet, it is the capitalists who tell
the socialists "stop asking for free lunch". Yet, socialists stand for
a government run by and for those who never use anything but their own
muscles and minds. But asking for that is called "free lunch". As
Orwell predicted, black is white and white is black.
Bruce Salem
In article <334F1B...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Jim Mork <jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>As for capitalism, is there any chance whatever that Warren Buffett or
>Bill Gates could have gotten where they are on their own funds? None
>whatever. Capitalism as we know it today has no chance of existence
>without the special protections that corporation laws have provided
>(limited liability). What that encourages is people to give their money
>to other people to manage. Again, fortunes do not come from the growth
>of people's thousands into billions. They come from the use of OTHER
>people's money. Most of all, they come from exploiting tax money handed
>out by the government to business.
I wonder if you think that Bill Gates is a wonderful developer as
much as a ruthless empire builder and megalomaniac who will dominate the
market because he can sell his crapy over-bloated systems to corporate
MIS departments? Quality doesn't win the market, marketing and incompetance
does. So, how do we reconcile the story that Communism failed in Russia
because the market is so much better at communicating need and people's
desires than a centrally controlled economy? And what is wrong with either
a Capitalist or a Socialist system, and why can't we have the best of each
and try to mitigate the worst in each?
A new industry is the place for people to become self-made, to
take ideas, try them out, and get rich. There are lots of players and many
ways to solve problems. This is a classically competative environment where
many of the choices are made by people who understand the industry. This is
how the computer and software industry has been until recently.
But then what happens? This new industry takes the main market
by storm. The biggest companies in the economy take notice and begin
making choices for the standard, and the competance of the users drops.
The technology becomes an appliance and the players vie for number of
units at diminishing margins. The old innovators are put out of business
or are absorbed by fewer and fewer players and the companies that win
are not necessarily those who offer the best technology but are those
that play the game of convincing the market that they offer a "simple"
way to use the technology. This reduces competition, monopolies and
cartels appear as a few large players agree and sometimes conspire to
dominate the market. This mature market is the opposite of the early
market where all the virtures of market economics are extolled. Prices
may have dropped and quality and reliability may have improved, as in
TV sets, but there may not be very much choice, and some reallly superior
technology, such as Beta-VHS, may have lost. In the world of software,
UNIX could be eliminated by Wintel simply by market dominance dispite of
its superior performance and tools, even without Microsoft's inflated
pricing.
So one the one hand we have a dictitorial state-run economy and
on the other we have oligopolies and cartels that autocraticly and
secretly run market economies, place their power to keep costs of doing
business abroad down before human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and turn
around and buy off "elected" officials at home. Did these guys really
earn their estates any more than Comisars and Apratihk their dachas?
The commonality is centralization and abuse of power, not the
political economy. The problem we face is corruption that has come from
the way we charter corporations, and it is no less worse than the
abuse and corruption found in our former enemies, only much more
hidden and obsured. The government has become the wipping boy for waste
and corruption, but we demand access to it that we rarely get to
corporations. If we had the same knowledge of what goes on in Corporate
board rooms and shareholder meetings, we would be bashing business
as corrupt and wasteful, and yet it has become fashionable to give
business a carte blanche that we would never give government. We are
used to abuse or potential abuse of power by government, but we turn
a blind eye to the same in busines, some of which are organizations larger
than the governments we are otherwise so wery of.
Reconside these questions as problems dealing with abuses of
power rather than the theoretical virtues of systems that don't esit in
the simple and pure form in which people like to discuss them.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
John Parker
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:11:56 -0700, "W. Hearst" <c...@geocities.com>
wrote:
>But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
>lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
>wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
>and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that
>the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth.
That's interesting, I can show you about a two dozen posting from at
least five or six different pro-socialism posters where they are the
ones arguing that wealth is limited and we pro-capitalists are
laughing our heads off at 'em. Fact is that I've never heard a
capitalist claim that wealth was limited. In fact most of us
capitalist have concluded that Marx himself must have said somewhere
that wealth was limited to have caused so many socialists to believe
it.
To respond in a logical manner to your illogical posting is
not logical, but it is great fun to add to your obvious
confusion. Remove the $ from my email address.
-John Parker
Mark Patrick Witte
>> he would have studied harder and become an architect" and now you
>> give us this. How do you figure that this is a definition of
>> capitalism?
>
>The Hitler thing was that hard for you? Never heard of a person who had
>to retake a GRE? Or a driving test? Had Hitler not harbored a deep
>sense of inadequacy, he'd have just worked harder. Instead, he looked
>for some enemy to explain the experience of failure. This is that hard?
It's hard to imagine that someone would present this as a
counter argument to the usefulness of the modeling assumption of
rationality.
>
>As for capitalism, is there any chance whatever that Warren Buffett or
>Bill Gates could have gotten where they are on their own funds? None
>whatever. Capitalism as we know it today has no chance of existence
>without the special protections that corporation laws have provided
>(limited liability).
One, the limited liability clause can be covanented against and
is frequently done so for start-ups by their bondholders.
Two, there was no capitalism before limited liability?
Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership and
direction of the means of production. No, there are no pure capitalist
systems.
> What that encourages is people to give their money
>to other people to manage.
"Give" is not the word you want here.
> Again, fortunes do not come from the growth
>of people's thousands into billions. They come from the use of OTHER
>people's money. Most of all, they come from exploiting tax money handed
>out by the government to business.
You've got an empirical estimate on that "most?"
>In short......"free lunch". And it only becomes a scandal when somebody
>buys actual nourishment with it. When it is used to export tobacco to
>China, its "free market capitalism".
T. Castle
I'm somewhat stunned by reading this pinhead's rantings about how
capitalists think wealth is limited. How truly bizarre. Capitalism's
greatest (but not only) strength is that it creates wealth. Mike, you
really, truly do not understand what you are talking about.
> But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
> lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
> This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that
> wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
> and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that
> the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth.
Dave
Capitalism creates wealth. Socialists destroy it. If I'm confident
my efforts will be rewarded with confiscation, I do nothing. If I'm
confident my efforts are rewarded with prosperity, I work day and
night.
You need to read a book.
Dave
http://FundChristianCharities.com/
Derek Nalecki
In article <334EA...@geocities.com>, "W. Hearst" <c...@geocities.com> says:
>
>Mike Wooding wrote:
>> Socialism like the cockroach will be with us in one form or
>> another as long as there are some people who are willing to
>> live at the expense of others and free-lunch economics.
>
And talking about court jesters and fools....
>Stupid, stupid, STOOPID! You hang on to your "no free lunch"
>faith like a religious nut hanging on to a god or gods. You
>are blind, BLIND! See here. How many people do we REALLY need
>to make food for everyone? The more technology we have, the
And shelter, and provide health care and give'em jobs and all the other
things they want...
>LESS people we need to make food. This concept must be WAY
>too simple for "complex" minds like yours to handle.
Wouldn't you need to "handle" it yourslef. Clue: watching "The Brave New
World" is not "handling it".
>
>But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
>lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
Funny that the only people who do pay for every single thing they have,
as well as many things others get, are accused of having a "free lunch".
Must an example of left wing "logic" this.
>This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that
>wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
The only people who think wealth is limited are leftists. That's why they
talk of redistributing it, rather than creating more, which is a sole
preserve of capitalists and capitalism.
>and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that
>the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth.
>They never have time to step back and see the bigger picture.
>Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing
It is. By capitalists. Every day.
>and growing. It is created by teaching and by learning.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************
Donovan Mitchell
dmzR...@ix.netcom.com (Dave) wrote:
>On 12 Apr 1997 18:25:27 GMT, "T. Castle" <t...@dreamcar.com> wrote:
>>I'm somewhat stunned by reading this pinhead's rantings about how
>>capitalists think wealth is limited. How truly bizarre. Capitalism's
>>greatest (but not only) strength is that it creates wealth. Mike, you
>>really, truly do not understand what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>>> But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
>>> lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
>>> This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that
>>> wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
>>> and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that
>>> the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth.
>>> They never have time to step back and see the bigger picture.
>>> Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing
>>> and growing. It is created by teaching and by learning.
>>
>Capitalism creates wealth. Socialists destroy it. If I'm confident
>my efforts will be rewarded with confiscation, I do nothing. If I'm
>confident my efforts are rewarded with prosperity, I work day and
>night.
>You need to read a book.
>Dave
>http://FundChristianCharities.com/
But it is far easier to take wealth that already exists than to create it.
Hence, that tends to be the road most capitalists take.
Those last two sentences both explain why neither "pure" capitalism or
socialism will work.
Shannon
Mike Lepore
> That's interesting, I can show you about a two dozen posting from at
> least five or six different pro-socialism posters where they are the
> ones arguing that wealth is limited and we pro-capitalists are
> laughing our heads off at 'em. Fact is that I've never heard a
> capitalist claim that wealth was limited. In fact most of us
> capitalist have concluded that Marx himself must have said somewhere
> that wealth was limited to have caused so many socialists to believe
> it.
If wealth were infinite, then only the insane would
complain about being required to pay taxes. In fact,
the concept of taxes itself would be impossible.
Certainly wealth is limited [at a particular point in time --
of course it changes as a function of time]. When comparing
any plan A versus plan B, e.g., capitalism versus socialism,
in reference to a particular point in the history of
technology, we're talking about comparing two different
methods of distributing something that is finite.
Donald J. Dale
In article <334EC9...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net writes:
>> But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
>> lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
>
>stockholders invest, they do not lose ownership of their money...but
>they DO lose control of its use till they sell the stock). And the
>money that is made is "free lunch". Yet, it is the capitalists who tell
>the socialists "stop asking for free lunch". Yet, socialists stand for
>a government run by and for those who never use anything but their own
>muscles and minds. But asking for that is called "free lunch". As
>Orwell predicted, black is white and white is black.
Let me get this straight. You wish to make the case for socialism and
against capitalism. And to do this, you cite Orwell!
Speaking of "doublethink"...
Don
James Doemer
T. Castle wrote:
>
> I'm somewhat stunned by reading this pinhead's rantings about how
> capitalists think wealth is limited. How truly bizarre. Capitalism's
> greatest (but not only) strength is that it creates wealth. Mike, you
> really, truly do not understand what you are talking about.
>
> > lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
> > wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
> > and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that
> > the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth.
> > They never have time to step back and see the bigger picture.
> > Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing
> > and growing. It is created by teaching and by learning.
I have to agree, I've never heard a capitalist claim that wealth was
limited by any means... Yet, every socialist I've talked to, or read,
has always claimed a limit on wealth.. Interesting..
John Parker
Nice try, Mike, but your post doesn't really say anything. Wealth is
a function of human inter-activity, so, of course, there was never
more than what was produced, but there was, is, and always will be the
capacity to produce more if the motivation exists to do so. We're not
just talking about the distribution of wealth, we're talking about the
production of it. Socialism assumes that the same amount of wealth
will be produced without the economic system providing personal
motivation to produce, and capitalism knows that isn't possible.
Iv'e noticed something about human nature that explains much about
our economic systems. Most humans will more readily share their last
morsel of food than they will their BMW with leather seats. That's
why collectivist economic systems work in third world countries, but
fall apart whenever the economy becomes productive enough to produce
anything beyond the bare necessities of life. That's why unionism
works when the members are hungry and why it falls apart about the
same time as the average membership buys the two car garage and the
$20K fishing boat. That's why you don't see much collective
bargaining among the people that have much more than that last morsel
of food, and that's why none of the collectivist economies are going
to have any popularity in a successful economy like the U. S.
You may not like it, Mike, but it's the way things are, and when you
think about it, it really makes a lot of sense. In an economy where
everybody is struggling, the opportunity to acquire wealth is not as
readily available, but when that wealth becomes mainstream, it becomes
obvious that a primary limiting factor in who has the most wealth is
the personal motivation.
Collectivist systems cannot produce more wealth than an individualist
one, they can only reduce everyone to the common denominator. They
cannot provide anyone with more wealth, they can only keep others from
rising above it. They cannot take the wealth that one man produces
and give it to someone else, because if you do that, that man will not
have any reason to produce that wealth.
Jay Hanson
James Doemer wrote:
> I have to agree, I've never heard a capitalist claim that wealth was
> limited by any means... Yet, every socialist I've talked to, or read,
> has always claimed a limit on wealth.. Interesting..
"Wealth" is another one of those words that people like to
argue about without ever defining what it means.
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
-------------------------------------------
Pluto (pluoo-toe) noun
1. Roman Mythology. The god of the dead
and the ruler of the underworld.
2. American politics. The family of
corporations that bought America's
political system.
T. Castle
Donovan Mitchell <Shannon_...@mindlink.net> wrote in article
<5ip21r$6...@fountain.mindlink.net>...
> dmzR...@ix.netcom.com (Dave) wrote:
>
> >On 12 Apr 1997 18:25:27 GMT, "T. Castle" <t...@dreamcar.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm somewhat stunned by reading this pinhead's rantings about how
> >>capitalists think wealth is limited. How truly bizarre. Capitalism's
> >>greatest (but not only) strength is that it creates wealth. Mike, you
> >>really, truly do not understand what you are talking about.
> >>
> >>
> >>> But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
> >>> lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
> >>> This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that
> >>> wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
> >>> and day out, capitalists are Pavlov'ed into thinking that
> >>> the limit on circulating currency means a limit on wealth.
> >>> They never have time to step back and see the bigger picture.
> >>> Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing
> >>> and growing. It is created by teaching and by learning.
> >>
>
> >Capitalism creates wealth. Socialists destroy it. If I'm confident
> >my efforts will be rewarded with confiscation, I do nothing. If I'm
> >confident my efforts are rewarded with prosperity, I work day and
> >night.
>
> >You need to read a book.
>
> >Dave
> >http://FundChristianCharities.com/
>
> But it is far easier to take wealth that already exists than to create
it.
> Hence, that tends to be the road most capitalists take.
>
> Those last two sentences both explain why neither "pure" capitalism or
> socialism will work.
>
> Shannon
Why do you think most capitalists "take" wealth rather than create it?
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, John Parker wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:08:20 -0400, Mike Lepore
> <notmya...@zxzxz.net> wrote:
>
> >> That's interesting, I can show you about a two dozen posting from at
> >> least five or six different pro-socialism posters where they are the
> >> ones arguing that wealth is limited and we pro-capitalists are
> >> laughing our heads off at 'em. Fact is that I've never heard a
> >> capitalist claim that wealth was limited. In fact most of us
> >> capitalist have concluded that Marx himself must have said somewhere
> >> that wealth was limited to have caused so many socialists to believe
> >> it.
> >
> >If wealth were infinite, then only the insane would
> >complain about being required to pay taxes. In fact,
> >the concept of taxes itself would be impossible.
> >
> >Certainly wealth is limited [at a particular point in time --
> >of course it changes as a function of time]. When comparing
> >any plan A versus plan B, e.g., capitalism versus socialism,
> >in reference to a particular point in the history of
> >technology, we're talking about comparing two different
> >methods of distributing something that is finite.
> >
>
> Nice try, Mike, but your post doesn't really say anything. Wealth is
> a function of human inter-activity, so, of course, there was never
> more than what was produced, but there was, is, and always will be the
> capacity to produce more if the motivation exists to do so.
John is quite ignorant of history. Motivation to produce more than what
is necessary to consume is a condition for the expansion of material
wealth but there are many other conditions besides that subjective
condition. In ancient Greece, the motivation existed to produce more
than what was necessary--among the ruling class, for example. What of
the slaves? Did they obtain the output that they produced? John
abstracts entirely from the social context in order to blurt out
trivialities.
BTW, what if human beings at a certain level of development cannot
produce more than their immediate means of consumption? There are such
things as objective conditions which the subjectivist John Parker
neglects. He is an idealist at heart--he relies on subjective
determinations for his assertions.
>We're not
> just talking about the distribution of wealth, we're talking about the
> production of it.
Which wealth? Material wealth is not the same as social wealth--in a
capitalist society. For example, assume productivity doubles. Output
will double. In terms of material wealth, output will have doubled.
However, will there be a doubling in the price? Of course not. In fact,
as productivity of labour increases, the price generally falls. Social
wealth in a capitalist society and material wealth in a capitalist
society can move in opposite directions.
There are TWO forms of wealth: material and social. In a capitalist
society, they constitute a contradiction.
>Socialism assumes that the same amount of wealth
> will be produced without the economic system providing personal
> motivation to produce, and capitalism knows that isn't possible.
What crackerjack view of socialism does John espouse? John should read
Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program (which contradicts his silly assertion).
John has no foundation for his assertion. He huffs and he puffs but he
is so incompetent that he must create fantasies in order to justify his
trite views.
> Iv'e noticed something about human nature that explains much about
> our economic systems.
Which human nature is this? The one based on hunting and gathering (when
human beings have not yet produced their means of subsistence or the one
based on agriculture, where the supply of output depends on the internal
activities of human beings (it is a function of their activities and not
that of external nature)?
John should really study human nature rather than spouting out this
jibberish.
>Most humans will more readily share their last
> morsel of food than they will their BMW with leather seats.
Let us see. How does John test the veracity of this proposition? How
many people own a BMW?
BTW, to possess a BMW requires the development of human productive power
to a great extent (the development of the internal combustion engine,
etc.). How could anyone be motivated in not sharing something before it
has ever been produced?
>That's
> why collectivist economic systems work in third world countries, but
> fall apart whenever the economy becomes productive enough to produce
> anything beyond the bare necessities of life.
John fails to understand that capitalism itself is a collectivist
society. How does he communicate if not by means of the labour of
millions of workers throughout the world producing electricity, computer
chips, screens, etc.?
>That's why unionism
> works when the members are hungry and why it falls apart about the
> same time as the average membership buys the two car garage and the
> $20K fishing boat.
Empirically, John's assertion is trite. For example, teachers in
Manitoba have just been hit with a roll-back in collective-bargaining
rights by the provincial conservative government. Are the teachers doing
nothing (some certainly have a two-car garage and a $20K fishing boat)?
The Manitoba Teachers' Society is proposing that it control teacher
certification--self-governance!
So much for John's trite belief.
BTW, in 1983, when I worked at a brewery, we were receiving $14.15
(Canadian) an hour--some of us could afford those things, and yet the
union was certainly stronger than some unions I have seen.
>That's why you don't see much collective
> bargaining among the people that have much more than that last morsel
> of food,
Yeah, yeah, John's stupidities become tiresome. The professors at the
University of Manitoba--hardly a low-income group--went on strike a year ago.
>and that's why none of the collectivist economies are going
> to have any popularity in a successful economy like the U. S.
Since the U.S. economy is collectivist, John is claiming that its
collective economy (capitalism) is not "going to have any popularity."
With that I certainly agree--but then, John does not understand what he
writes.
> You may not like it, Mike, but it's the way things are, and when you
> think about it, it really makes a lot of sense.
No evidence that John has thought about it. It makes a lot of sense to
those who do not think.
>In an economy where
> everybody is struggling,
Like the corporate executives of Exxon, Unilever, GM, Ford, British
Petroleum, etc.?
BTW, in ancient Greece there was a set of individuals who "struggled":
they "struggled" to live off the labour of others--they were slave owners.
John uses such trite and general phrases as "everybody is struggling"
without giving them any social content. No wonder that he cannot
understand the social world in which we live. He spouts out phrases that
have little content.
>the opportunity to acquire wealth is not as
> readily available,
For most workers, no, but for the rich employers, yes.
How much do corporate executives receive, John?
>but when that wealth becomes mainstream, it becomes
> obvious that a primary limiting factor in who has the most wealth is
> the personal motivation.
What nonsense. What does John mean by "when that wealth becomes
mainstream?" Does he mean accessible to all?
Is John really concerned with society providing the context within which
individuals can develop themselves to their fullest extent possible, or
is he concerned with the abstract production of wealth for its own sake?
As for personal motivation, I speak three languages and yet did not learn
them for "personal gain." It is a question of personal development.
John cannot imagine anyone doing anything for its own sake rather than
for money. He has a bourgeois view of human beings.
> Collectivist systems cannot produce more wealth than an individualist
> one,
Since capitalist society is collectivist, John's statement means:
Capitalist systems cannot produce more wealth than an individualist
one--nonsense.
However, what John means perhaps is that individual monopoly by certain
individuals results in the absolute increase in production compared to
a society based on the collective control over production.
I do not mind affirming the following: a socialist society may produce
less than a capitalist society--if the majority want that. The purpose
of a socialist society is to have the economy and other social relations
exist for human beings and not the other way around. Increased output
for its own sake trods human beings under foot; the capitalist economy is
more important than the human beings who constitute its foundations. In
a socialist society, output is a function of human beings; human beings
are not a function of output.
>they can only reduce everyone to the common denominator.
In a capitalist economy, human beings are reduced to a common denominator
called money. Without money, huma beings are nothing in a capitalist
economy. In a socialist economy, human beings will develop their
abilities to their fullest within the constraints of the forces of
production existing at the time, not by the social constrains which
dominate capitalism.
>They
> cannot provide anyone with more wealth,
John makes a fetish of increases in wealth (without, however,
understanding that there are two forms of wealth in a capitalist
society). He has little concern with wealth providing the foundation for
human development. He is more concerned with increases in output rather
than improvements in the quality of life--including the improvement in
the control over one's social life.
>they can only keep others from
> rising above it.
Rising above what? Material wealth or social wealth in the form of
money? That human beings should aspire to go beyond social wealth in the
form of money goes without saying.
>They cannot take the wealth that one man produces
Let John name one commodity which is not the result of MANY individuals.
John lives in the fantasy world of small-scale producers. The bulk of
output is produced by corporations which employ thousands if not millions
of employees.
> and give it to someone else, because if you do that, that man will not
> have any reason to produce that wealth.
Motivation: Improvement in the quality of life.
According to the John Parker's of the world, people never have children.
After all, children are a burden on parent's pocketbook. They do not
immediately create "wealth." What is the motivation to have children?
The bottom line for the John Parker's is abstract greed--the greed for
money, for more money, and for still more money. No other motivation
exists for them.
I wonder how John Parker came into existence? Were his parents motivated
by the profit motive? Perhaps John worked when he was three? Five?
Let John provide an analysis of his personal history to illustrate the
problem with relying on motivations other than abstract greed in order
for people to do things.
He cannot; he is a windbag.
Fred
Donald J. Dale
In article <33510A...@ilhawaii.net> j...@qmail.com writes:
(Another content-free post by Mr. Hanson)
This guy must be a distant relative of my future mother-in-law. He keeps
saying goodbye, but he never leaves!
Don
Bruce Salem
In article <3350cf62....@news.binc.net>,
John Parker <jhparker$@mailbag.com> wrote:
> Iv'e noticed something about human nature that explains much about
>morsel of food than they will their BMW with leather seats. That's
>why collectivist economic systems work in third world countries, but
>fall apart whenever the economy becomes productive enough to produce
>works when the members are hungry and why it falls apart about the
>same time as the average membership buys the two car garage and the
>bargaining among the people that have much more than that last morsel
>to have any popularity in a successful economy like the U. S.
I don't think this is quite correct. I think that the reason
unions are not popular now has to do with people having short memories,
especially when times are relatively good, and when things go south, as
they will do inevitably, they will suddenly recall all that thinking
about getting together to fight for their interests as workers. But there
is another reason why unions have declined. It is because many of the
new jobs that have been created in the past few years are in services
and not in manufacturing where the idea of a factory allows for the
traditional union to work as an organizing factor. Most new workers
work in relative isolation which is good for employers who are trying
to control costs very much on the labor side of the equation. What you
cannot say is that these workers will not find a way to organize when
the crunch is on big time in these new industries. It think this is
but a few years off. One can imagine barganing groups forming around
groups of skill sets, as in a guild. It may be easier to organize people
along these lines, especially if their work site is not controlled by
their employers.
The Voice of One
And what is this, some sort of contest on who can write the longest list
of newsgroups?
The Voice of One
I'll offer another hypothesis about unions. It has a lot in common with
politics, corporate management, and even entertainment media. In the
early history of the union movement, there wasnt much to be had by being
a union leader. In fact, it was probably a dangerous thing to be with
little possibility of getting ahead of the rest of the working class.
That is a set of working conditions that rules out all but the very
passionate and idealistic.
But once union organizing was legalized in the Roosevelt years, not only
did unions come to control more and more money, but now it was a
mainstream job to be a leader or functionary of the union. And my
thought is that the quality of people seeking the jobs began to slide.
There might be the occasional John L. Lewis, but there were also the
self-seekers who merely knew how to TALK the lingo. As those people
filtered into the union administration, workers were quite likely to
sense what was going on and become cycnical. And as that happened, the
ability to convince new members that this union stood for what unions
stood for in the early days became harder and harder. And you really
NEED that fire if you're to hope to convert new occupations to
unionism. I recently witnessed the failure of a certification election
with professors at the local university. They have every reason to know
what unions stood for, but I think they don't believe that is true
anymore. That, of course, overlooks the possibility that a new union can
stand for whatever its members want it to stand for, but professionals
wouldnt know that, lacking any experience with this type of
organization.
Anyway, as I say, you also find this phenomenon in other institutions of
society, like business and government. Top executives will use
management jobs as stepping stones and not really care what happens to
any other stakeholder. A local mayor here came in from another state,
got elected as a candidate of one major party, violated all the historic
principles of that party, planned his elevation to the governorship, and
when he discerned that he had too many enemies in his present party,
jumped to the other party.
Many of us think he really has zero principles except "I want", and
we're hoping the integrity of all local politics will be saved by
retiring him.
The fact is that the low opinion many have of unions is mirrored in a
low opinion of most other major institutions. And the reason I offer for
that is that for decades, it has been clear how the supply of people
with ideals has dwindled dangerously.
The Voice of One
You, on the other hand, won't even say goodbye. Who's the pot and who's
the kettle here?
The Voice of One
> I disagree, I think the main reason that unions are unpopular is
> because of their immoral actions.
As are many of the other institutions of society. If you pay attention,
people are not that fond of any of the institutions now exercizing
power.
Jack Plant
sa...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) wrote:
> I think that the reason
>unions are not popular now has to do with people having short memories,
>especially when times are relatively good, and when things go south, as
>they will do inevitably, they will suddenly recall all that thinking
>about getting together to fight for their interests as workers.
I disagree, I think the main reason that unions are unpopular is
Shannon Mitchell
"T. Castle" <tom-c...@earthling.net> wrote:
Because it's easier. To create wealth requires taking raw materials and
manufacturing a useful product. This is difficult, as compared to say,
promoting an existing product, manufacturing an instrinically useles
product, like say, Coca-Cola, or acquiring an existing institution through
economic manipulation i.e. corporate raiding.
You could probably add servicing industries to that category, as they serve
to redistribute wealth rather than create it.
And, of course, "easier" translates into "greater profit for same amount of
effort", so wealth relocating activities industries tend to be more
attractive to venture capitalists than wealth-producing ones.
Shannon
SSSSSSSSS
SSS SS
SSS
SSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSS
SSS
S SSS
SSS SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
"The two greatest fools in life are the one who
believes in everything and the one who believes
in nothing."
Shannon_...@mindlink.bc.ca
The Voice of One
> And, of course, "easier" translates into "greater profit for same amount of
> effort", so wealth relocating activities industries tend to be more
> attractive to venture capitalists than wealth-producing ones
As Michael Milken demonstrated the year he made $500 million with junk
bond underwriting activities.
Some societies hold such activity in contempt because social values
REQUIRE productive activity to justify rewards. But in our society,
victory is its own reward, justifies EVERY reward. And that's because
we grew up, as a society, by trashing and moving on. Our values were
formed at a time when throwing away was tenable. Like guys who remain
teenagers into their 30's, we're having great difficulty growing up and
acquiring mature social values (nostalgia trippers REALLY want to go
back to the time when there was still a frontier and moving away from
garbage was an option...back when American values seemed to always
work).
Bruce Salem
In article <5itnla$8...@van1s03.cyberion.com>,
But, I made a prediction that changing times will cause a
change in people's attitudes. In the rest of my post I was careful
to state the opinion that new labor organizing would not take the form
of the older trade unions developed around the factory system.
Bruce Salem
In article <335287...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
The Voice of One <jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>> I disagree, I think the main reason that unions are unpopular is
>> because of their immoral actions.
>
>people are not that fond of any of the institutions now exercizing
>power.
And the reason for this is that institutions of all sorts have
become corrupt. The problem with that is that people still argue about
it in ideological terms: Capitalist vs. Socialist, Labor vs. Management,
without acknowledging how power no matter how it is obtained leads to
corruption. It doesn't matter if it is a liberal or a businessman who
acts because he thinks he knows what is best for all the rest of us, it
is his abuse of power in acting without allowing for a discussion and
a vote. We get so upset when we don't have a say on decisions made by
government, why don't we kick as hard when the same kind of decisions
are made behind closed doors in some union or corporation?
The Voice of One
> At what point will you resort to theft
This pretty much illustrates the bias in your problem. What is "theft"
in this scenario? How can there BE "theft"? You pretend that you have
a "socialist homeland", yet you use words as though the significance of
language is totally unchanged.
The Voice of One
> What Freddy is trying to say, is that under socialism, where it won't
> do anybody any good to be an overachiever, underachievers like himself
> will not have to be so ashamed of themselves
Any "good". Well, working in a capitalist economy, I've pursued "good"
in the old fashioned sense. For example, when I worked in a government
agency, I defined "good" as more service for a tax dollar, rendered to
the citizens of the city. Now, I can tell you that I could do that good
regardless what the basis of the society.
So, when you hear an apologist for capitalism...you always know what
"good" means. It means money and nothing more. People who have some
higher good than that lose their ardor to the degree they have some
other value.
The Voice of One
> Capitalist vs. Socialist, Labor vs. Management,
> without acknowledging how power no matter how it is obtained leads to
> corruption.
That's a conventional way of looking at it. But it is one-sided. It is
another example of the "external threat" bias. You see it when you hear
people say that "drugs make people go crazy". How often do you hear
someone say "You have to be crazy in the first place to want your life
to revolve around drugs". This wouldnt be popular, of course, for the
guys who can't go home without a drink or two under the belt, and that
may explain why so many can place their hopes in prohibition to end
crime problems. Trouble is, then why don't they go crazy when they get
that drink at happy hour? Well, this shows once again how irrational
common thinking is. Once you've selected a scapegoat, who cares if it
makes sense? Anyway, I'm suggesting looking at the power-corruption
nexus from the opposite end. Maybe people corrupt power (after all,
only certain types of people want very much of it in the first place,
I'm thinking maybe those are the corrupt people, so we see corruption
around power all the time and think "Power must be evil"). Or,
alternatively, maybe it isnt power OR people but dependency. God has
the most power of all and doesnt get corrupted. George Washington
wasn't corrupted by power, even though he was totally free to define his
office. With that temptation laid before him, he thought of the
long-life of the republic and set an example.
Compare that with the fascist midgets you find in so many departments
throughout the work world who get the TINIEST speck of power and just
lose it. Many of us have seen them and have had intuitions beforehand
that any power in their hands would be big, big trouble. So, why is
that so? Because a lot of people are simply incapable of a peer
relationship. They only know themselves as a subordinate or a boss. And
when the latter, they only know about commanding cooperation, nothing
about finding motivation within people and using it. The light fires
UNDER people, never in them.
Given the antisocial behavior of practically every category of person
with a pathological dependency, I'm going to say that, from a behavioral
perspective, power itself cannot hurt. But DEPENDENCY upon it, the need
to use it as a defense against painful emotions, cannot but be
pathological. Failures, short guys, abused women, the world is full of
people with a reason to look for an effective defense. And in a society
in which we exalt power and kowtow to anyone with it, power is bound to
be the defense of choice for anyone who can get it. Lord Acton simply
lacked either the analytical tools or the behavioral knowledge to avoid
falling into the trap in this regard.
And people who disregard all the irrational things that go on in people
and society are in denial that any of this stuff exists.
J. Hancock
James Doemer wrote:
> I have to agree, I've never heard a capitalist claim that wealth was
> limited by any means... Yet, every socialist I've talked to, or read,
> has always claimed a limit on wealth.. Interesting..
And yet capitalists fight welfare, fight health care,
fight education. Fight a healthy and educated workforce.
The very things that produce wealth in the first place.
Who buys gold? Who buys stock? Who buys bonds and futures?
WORTHLESS! A medium of exchange is only as good as the
two people doing the exchanging. Either both agree that
one person's labor is worth more than the other's, or
you bring in a capitalist to enforce it at the point of
a gun.
Gary Lloyd
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
<ad hominen remarks snipped>
>Fred
Being a simple libertarian trying to understand the complexities of
socialism, I must say that I have found your posts to be less than
enlightening. Hmmmm, what's the word I am looking for? Obfuscation.
Yes, that's it. Obfuscation.
In the interest of clearing up some of my confusion, I have
constructed a rather simple scenario, followed by some rather simple
questions. Should be a piece of cake for a man with your obvious
abilities.
But first, let me make a few suggestions. In the interest of promoting
your philosophy, you might try to:
1. Refrain from ad hominen attacks.
2. Stay on subject.
The subject, BTW, is socialism, not capitalism, libertarianism, etc.
3. Refrain from passing out reading assignments.
I want to know what you think.
OK, here's the scenario:
You have managed to establish a socialist homeland. Everyone has been
assigned an equal plot of land, equal tools, etc.
One of your citizens invents a machine by which he doubles his
production. Will you or will you not:
1. Steal the fruits of his labor and divide it up amongst the others?
2. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
3. Shoot him if he resists?
Let's take it a step further. He enters into a voluntary agreement
with his neighbor, wherein he will share his machine, thus doubling
the neighbor's production, in exchange for 10% of his neighbor's
output. Will you or will you not:
1. Declare the agreement "null and void"?
2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
4. Shoot him if he resists?
Let's go one more step. He makes the same offer to many neighbors, and
becomes very wealthy in the process. Will you or will you not:
1. Declare the agreements "null and void"?
2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
4. Shoot him if he resists?
At what point will you resort to theft? And by what convoluted
reasoning will you convince yourself that up is down, wrong is right,
and theft is not theft?
Gary
======================================
When the boot of government is on your neck,
it doesn't matter if it's left or right.
John Parker
On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:23:00 -0500, umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>In a capitalist economy, human beings are reduced to a common denominator
>called money. Without money, huma beings are nothing in a capitalist
>economy. In a socialist economy, human beings will develop their
>abilities to their fullest within the constraints of the forces of
>production existing at the time, not by the social constrains which
>dominate capitalism.
What Freddy is trying to say, is that under socialism, where it won't
do anybody any good to be an overachiever, underachievers like himself
will not have to be so ashamed of themselves.
>John makes a fetish of increases in wealth (without, however,
>understanding that there are two forms of wealth in a capitalist
>society). He has little concern with wealth providing the foundation for
>human development. He is more concerned with increases in output rather
>than improvements in the quality of life--including the improvement in
>the control over one's social life.
What Freddy says here is that under socialism, there is economic
wealth which no one will have, and social wealth which is apparently
the maximizing of drinkin' buddies, which seems to appeal to people
like Fred.
>Rising above what? Material wealth or social wealth in the form of
>money? That human beings should aspire to go beyond social wealth in the
>form of money goes without saying.
How many drinkin' buddies do you need?
>Let John name one commodity which is not the result of MANY individuals.
>John lives in the fantasy world of small-scale producers. The bulk of
>output is produced by corporations which employ thousands if not millions
>of employees.
I thought everybody knew that small 20 man or under companies far
outweigh the big guys.
>According to the John Parker's of the world, people never have children.
>After all, children are a burden on parent's pocketbook. They do not
>immediately create "wealth." What is the motivation to have children?
Excuse Freddy's wild imagination...
>I wonder how John Parker came into existence? Were his parents motivated
>by the profit motive? Perhaps John worked when he was three? Five?
Actually I think it was just before my ninth birthday that I began to
hire myself out.
>Let John provide an analysis of his personal history to illustrate the
>problem with relying on motivations other than abstract greed in order
>for people to do things.
John's personal history is none of Freddy's business, except to say
that he'd be ashamed if he had to admit to only making $30k in '83,
especially if he'd had to rely on a union to get it for him, but then
socialists have no shame, do they or they wouldn't be socialists.
Curt Howland
J. Hancock wrote:
> And yet capitalists fight welfare,
Money, taken by force. I don't object to charity,
I object to force.
> fight health care,
Forced health care.
> fight education.
Forced education. Please point out one "capitalist"
that wants their available work force ignorant and
uneducated?
> Fight a healthy and educated workforce.
Where? When? Please cite one.
> The very things that produce wealth in the first place.
Individual effort create wealth. Coal in the ground
has some theoretical value, but wealth only comes
into play when someone does something with it.
> Who buys gold? Who buys stock? Who buys bonds and futures?
People who want gold, or stock, or bonds and futures.
And many of them loose money.
> WORTHLESS!
To you, perhapps. How would you like it if I forced
you to partisipate? Not bloody much, I can fathom.
> A medium of exchange is only as good as the
> two people doing the exchanging. Either both agree that
> one person's labor is worth more than the other's,
Correct. That is the essense of capitalism. The free
exchange of ideas, property, or whatever.
Someone who has nothing but oranges, and someone else
who has nothing but apples, decide to trade some of
what they have for some of what the other has. Suddenly,
BOTH BELIEVE THEY ARE BETTER OFF THAN BEFORE THE TRADE!
The phalisy of attacking "capitalism" as "someone
always looses" is easy to debunk.
> or
> you bring in a capitalist to enforce it at the point of
> a gun.
Interesting. All I ever see is socialists making such
demands of peoples time, efforts, or money (which is
the same thing) at gun point. Where do you see
"capitalists" doing that?
Curt-
--
---
Curt Howland How...@Priss.com http://www.Priss.com
"The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith
ISBN:0-812-53875-7 Available from Laissez Faire Books
http://www.lfb.org/ 1.800.326.0996
James Doemer
The Voice of One wrote:
>
> > I disagree, I think the main reason that unions are unpopular is
> > because of their immoral actions.
>
> As are many of the other institutions of society. If you pay attention,
> people are not that fond of any of the institutions now exercizing
> power.
Very true, people's trust levels has declined significantly in the last 30
or so years.
Derek Nalecki
In article <335007...@zxzxz.net>, Mike Lepore <notmya...@zxzxz.net> says:
>
>> That's interesting, I can show you about a two dozen posting from at
>> least five or six different pro-socialism posters where they are the
>> ones arguing that wealth is limited and we pro-capitalists are
>> laughing our heads off at 'em. Fact is that I've never heard a
>> capitalist claim that wealth was limited. In fact most of us
>> capitalist have concluded that Marx himself must have said somewhere
>> that wealth was limited to have caused so many socialists to believe
>> it.
>
>If wealth were infinite, then only the insane would
>complain about being required to pay taxes. In fact,
>the concept of taxes itself would be impossible.
The objection to paying taxes does not stem from relative scarcity or
abundance of wealth, but from amoral principle - which is why it is so
difficult to understand by those on the left of the political spectrum.
Second there is a big, conceptual (oy-vey _another_ big word for you to
understand), difference between welath being "limited/unlimited" and
"finite/infinite".
Wealth is certainly infinite because it is being created by the productive
effort of Man, but by this very nature it is limited at any single point
of time.
>
>Certainly wealth is limited [at a particular point in time --
But not finite. Do not answer your correspondents, correct, claim that
it is infinite, with how it is limited.
>of course it changes as a function of time]. When comparing
>any plan A versus plan B, e.g., capitalism versus socialism,
>in reference to a particular point in the history of
>technology, we're talking about comparing two different
>methods of distributing something that is finite.
>
Not quite. Certainly wealth is limited at any point of time, but because
it is infinite and thus can be created, the distribution under capitalism
- which does create it - is different, that the distribution under
socialism - which does not.
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************
Derek Nalecki
In article <33510A...@ilhawaii.net>, Jay Hanson <jha...@ilhawaii.net> says:
>
>James Doemer wrote:
>
>> I have to agree, I've never heard a capitalist claim that wealth was
>> limited by any means... Yet, every socialist I've talked to, or read,
>> has always claimed a limit on wealth.. Interesting..
>
>argue about without ever defining what it means.
>
Read George Reisman's "CAPITALISM - A complete and integrated understanding
of the nature and value of human economic life" pages 39 through 62 for
a comprehensive definition of the term "wealth".
Scott D. Erb
In article <5iuohk$3a...@elmo.cadvision.com>, nale...@cadvision.com says...
>
>The objection to paying taxes does not stem from relative scarcity or
>abundance of wealth, but from amoral principle - which is why it is so
>difficult to understand by those on the left of the political spectrum.
The objectoin to paying taxes comes from amoral principle? I agree. It
certainly doesn't seem much like a moral principle to me ;)
Seriously, when it comes to morality, there are different views. I think
refusal to pay taxes is immoral, and representative constitutional
governments have the moral responsibility to coerce payment.
When people disagree with my moral position, they usually just call names.
Somehow, I find that unpersuasive.
cheers, scott
Mike Lepore
The Voice of One wrote:
> "good" means. It means money and nothing more. People who have some
> higher good than that lose their ardor to the degree they have some
> other value.
What you point out is particularly true of the Loonietarian
Party. They're so extreme that, when they want to pay
someone a compliment, they say, "That's real selfish of you!",
and, when they want to insult someone, they say, "You
altruist!" A writer for MAD magazine couldn't have created
a more ridiculous political sect.
Shannon Mitchell
Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
>"T. Castle" <tom-c...@earthling.net> wrote:
>And, of course, "easier" translates into "greater profit for same amount of
>effort", so wealth relocating activities industries tend to be more
>attractive to venture capitalists than wealth-producing ones.
>Shannon
> SSSSSSSSS
> SSS SS
> SSS
> SSSSSS
> SSSSSSSSSSS
> SSSS
> SSS
> S SSS
> SSS SSSS
> SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
>"The two greatest fools in life are the one who
>believes in everything and the one who believes
>in nothing."
>Shannon_...@mindlink.bc.ca
I wanted to add the following correction: there are service industries
that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping outfit,
which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if you
winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has been
created.
I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource industries.
Shannon Mitchell
SSSSSSSSS
SSS SS
SSS
SSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSS
SSS
S SSS
SSS SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
"The two greatest fools in life are the one who
believes in everything and the one who believes
in nothing."
Shannon_...@mindlink.bc.ca
Markku Stenborg
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:00:41 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
Mitchell) wrote:
[snip]
> I wanted to add the following correction: there are service industries
> that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping outfit,
Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
> which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if you
> winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has
been
> created.
>
> I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
> industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource industries.
Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
banking and insurance, ...
_________
Markku Stenborg
OFC & Turku Business School
ROT13ed for the hell of it:
znexxh....@svabsp.sv
zne...@hgh.sv
James Doemer
Sure, Alfred E. Nueman certainly did! The Democrats & Republicans...
James Doemer
Markku Stenborg wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:00:41 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
> Mitchell) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I wanted to add the following correction: there are service industries
> > that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping outfit,
>
> Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
>
> > which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if you
> > winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has
> been
> > created.
> >
> > I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
> > industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource industries.
>
> Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
> banking and insurance, ...
>
>
Microsoft is a service industry?? Last I heard, they manufactured
software...
Curt Howland
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Seriously, when it comes to morality, there are different views.
Absolute agreement. One of the most important tollerances
is the recognition that one set of morality does not apply
to everyone.
> I think
> refusal to pay taxes is immoral,
And I believe that forcing me to pay for a [gov thing you
like but I don't] is immoral. Now you get to force me,
under threat, to pay for your [gov thing you like but I
don't], and you call ME immoral for objecting to taxation?
> and representative constitutional
> governments have the moral responsibility to coerce payment.
If all that were being done by these governments were
what they had contracted to do in their constitutions,
you might have some ground to stand on.
However, they have far overwhelmed the limitations they
were invested with. A constitution is no gurantee of
limitted government, as we have discovered.
> When people disagree with my moral position, they usually just call names.
> Somehow, I find that unpersuasive.
Then tell me this: Why is it just fine for one group
to extort money from me, and not for some other group?
> cheers, scott
Jim Mork
> A constitution is no gurantee of
> limitted government, as we have discovered.
No, we havent discovered that. Our government is limited. If it were
unlimited, you'd never see any income. If it were unlimited, state and
local governments would have no functions.
One thing to remember, though. The constitution never had any INTENT to
limit state government. The whole purpose was to prevent the federal
government from becoming the equivalent of George III. Until the Drug
War, it had done its job pretty well in peacetime. But now the drug
bogeyman is putting us back to where we were before Valley Forge, with
little or no right to tell cops they cannot come in.
If you want an enemy, the Drug War is the enemy. I've yet to hear of
anyone having their door battered in and being shot by an IRS man. In
fact, people take the IRS to court all the time and win. With the DEA
man, he's copy, judge, jury, and executioner, and the whole "due
process"
takes seconds. And in SPITE of that the cost keeps going up and up.
Shannon Mitchell
real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:00:41 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
>Mitchell) wrote:
>[snip]
>> I wanted to add the following correction: there are service industries
>> that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping outfit,
>Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
Like say, a singing telegram service?
>> which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if you
>> winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has
>been
>> created.
>>
>> I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
>> industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource industries.
>Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
>banking and insurance, ...
Microsoft manufactures software. Banks don't manufacture a cent of wealth.
They simply transfer funds from one party to another and keep a commission.
Same with insurance. You take your difference between premiums and claims,
and there's your profit. No wealth created, only transferred.
>_________
>Markku Stenborg
>OFC & Turku Business School
>ROT13ed for the hell of it:
>znexxh....@svabsp.sv
>zne...@hgh.sv
SSSSSSSSS
W. Wonka
Curt Howland wrote:
> > And yet capitalists fight welfare,
> Money, taken by force. I don't object to charity,
> I object to force.
If I go into a grocery store and start eating apples,
there are 3 ways the "owner" can stop me:
1. Call security and drag me out.
2. Convince me to stop. Give me job. Offer to help me
get MORE apples if I help clean the store.
3. Install locks and gates. Of course, that doesn't
stop me from following somebody in.
Where is the force?
The difference between agreement and coercion is the
difference between democracy and autocracy.
-------
So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse
it.
Victor Levis
Mike Lepore <notmya...@zxzxz.net> wrote in article
<33542C...@zxzxz.net>...
> The Voice of One wrote:
> > So, when you hear an apologist for capitalism...you always know what
> > "good" means. It means money and nothing more. People who have some
> > higher good than that lose their ardor to the degree they have some
> > other value.
>
> What you point out is particularly true of the Loonietarian
> Party. They're so extreme that, when they want to pay
> someone a compliment, they say, "That's real selfish of you!",
> and, when they want to insult someone, they say, "You
> altruist!" A writer for MAD magazine couldn't have created
> a more ridiculous political sect.
Oh sure they could. What about a sect that wishes to get government off
your backs, and into your bed -- like the Republicans (most of them).
Or a sect that pretends to support free thought and liberal policies, but
refuses to break up the educational monopoly -- like the Democrats (most
of them).
BTW, can you find me any literature where the 'Loonietarian' Party talks
about insults, compliments, altruists and selfish people? Or did you
just make this party up?
Victor Levis
Libertarian:
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Derek Nalecki
In article <33542C...@zxzxz.net>, Mike Lepore <notmya...@zxzxz.net> says:
>
>The Voice of One wrote:
>> So, when you hear an apologist for capitalism...you always know what
>> "good" means. It means money and nothing more. People who have some
>> higher good than that lose their ardor to the degree they have some
>> other value.
>
>What you point out is particularly true of the Loonietarian
>Party. They're so extreme that, when they want to pay
>someone a compliment, they say, "That's real selfish of you!",
>and, when they want to insult someone, they say, "You
>altruist!" A writer for MAD magazine couldn't have created
>a more ridiculous political sect.
You altruist!
;-)
Bruce Salem
In article <33529E...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
The Voice of One <jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Given the antisocial behavior of practically every category of person
>with a pathological dependency, I'm going to say that, from a behavioral
>perspective, power itself cannot hurt. But DEPENDENCY upon it, the need
>to use it as a defense against painful emotions, cannot but be
>pathological. Failures, short guys, abused women, the world is full of
>people with a reason to look for an effective defense. And in a society
>in which we exalt power and kowtow to anyone with it, power is bound to
>be the defense of choice for anyone who can get it.
A well-reasoned response to my "power corrupts" post. I know that
people might throw up their hands and say "Of course it does!". Maybe
you have hit on something in the above, actually in the paragraph just
before, in which you talked about lighting a fire UNDER people. Maybe
the milase I feel is not so much about there being more corruption as
much as there being less leadership. Everyone starts to look all the
more self-serving if the only inspiration is them doing the usual
things they do in their own interest and having nothing to add to
the sense of where society, the nation, the community, the work is
going. The political history of the past 35 years has sapped the
leadership away; leaders have been assiinnated, disgraced, and otherwise
discouraged from public life, and we are left with what goes on all
the time. I would not go so far as to say that the current situation
is not a deep threat to our future or that the solution lies in the
emergance of a truely inspiring and strong leader, but a vision for
the future would help.
Markku Stenborg
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:13:29 -0700, James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
> Markku Stenborg wrote:
[snip]
> > Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
> > banking and insurance, ...
> >
> Microsoft is a service industry?? Last I heard, they manufactured
> software...
My guess is, the manufacturing costs of software are minuscale compared to
the service part of the costs.
Victor Levis
Shannon Mitchell <Shannon_...@mindlink.net> wrote in article
<5j4199$1...@fountain.mindlink.net>...
> real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:00:41 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net
(Shannon
> >Mitchell) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> I wanted to add the following correction: there are service
industries
> >> that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping
outfit,
>
> >Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
>
> >> which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if
you
> >> winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth
has
> >> been created.
> >>
> >> I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
> >> industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource
industries.
>
> >Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
> >banking and insurance, ...
>
> Microsoft manufactures software. Banks don't manufacture a cent of
wealth.
> They simply transfer funds from one party to another and keep a
commission.
>
> Same with insurance. You take your difference between premiums and
claims,
> and there's your profit. No wealth created, only transferred.
When I look one step further, I see Mr. Stenborg's point. If insurance
didn't exist, many people might be afraid to engage in productive
activities. The service of insurance is an wealth-ENABLING service.
Same with business financing from banks. They enable businesses to work
and create wealth. Mortgages enable buyers to afford homes, which enable
construction workers and contractors to build houses.
Not all services are wealth-enabling, but many are when you think about
it.
Markku Stenborg
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:43:42 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
Mitchell) wrote:
>
> real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:00:41 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
> >Mitchell) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> I wanted to add the following correction: there are service industries
> >> that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping
outfit,
>
> >Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
>
> Like say, a singing telegram service?
Why not? Somebody is paying for the service, so he/she/it must value it more
than the cost of the service. This service at least increases the wealth of
the providers of the service w/o making anybody worse off (excluding any
third parties who might prefer not to be within hearing distance of the
delivery of the service).
> >> which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if you
> >> winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has
> >been
> >> created.
> >>
> >> I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
> >> industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource
industries.
>
> >Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
> >banking and insurance, ...
>
> Microsoft manufactures software. Banks don't manufacture a cent of
wealth.
Software allows you to do all kinds of thing cheaper than w/o, possibly
making you directly wealthier, and in any event, indirectly better off.
> They simply transfer funds from one party to another and keep a
commission.
Banks are involved with two lines of business, lets call them (i) payment
transfers and (ii) indirect financing (if we leave investment banking,
trading, etc, out of discussion). Both create wealth indirectly.
Banks have comparative advantage in transfering funds from one party to
another due, if nothing else, the fixed costs and the resulting economies of
scale and scope w/ the electronics etc involved. Then you're better off
having banking system take care of the payments instead of you personally
driving around the city or country paying personally by cash each
transaction. Then, more wealth is left to pursue other things.
Indirect financing means you take a mortage, car loan, etc, from a bank, not
directly from the capital markets, ie, you take a mortage instead of
issueing a bond or some other financial instrument and selling it directly
to savers. You do this b/c the former is cheaper than the latter, meaning
you have more funds to do other things than pay the house. Again, the
economies of scale and scope in banking are the driving forces of this. I
could expand on this, should you be interested?
> Same with insurance. You take your difference between premiums and
claims,
> and there's your profit. No wealth created, only transferred.
Well, at least the buyers of insurance have higher wealth after the accident
than the ones w/o insurance.
Mike Wooding
W. Wonka wrote:
> If I go into a grocery store and start eating apples,
> there are 3 ways the "owner" can stop me:
> 1. Call security and drag me out.
> 2. Convince me to stop. Give me job. Offer to help me
> get MORE apples if I help clean the store.
> 3. Install locks and gates. Of course, that doesn't
> stop me from following somebody in.
> Where is the force?
> The difference between agreement and coercion is the
> difference between democracy and autocracy.
The theft is the initiation of force. Don't forget alternative
4) the Saudis would cut off your hand.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Shannon Mitchell
real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:43:42 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
>Mitchell) wrote:
>>
>> real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:00:41 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
>> >Mitchell) wrote:
>>
>> >[snip]
>>
>> >> I wanted to add the following correction: there are service industries
>> >> that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping
>outfit,
>>
>> >Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
>>
>> Like say, a singing telegram service?
>Why not? Somebody is paying for the service, so he/she/it must value it more
>than the cost of the service. This service at least increases the wealth of
>the providers of the service w/o making anybody worse off (excluding any
>third parties who might prefer not to be within hearing distance of the
>delivery of the service).
Maybe. But on the whole, no wealth is being produced. The money the
company makes comes directly from the pocket of the customer, who gets
nothing measurable for it, either now or in the future. Wealth has been
only transferred, not created.
>> >> which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if you
>> >> winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has
>> >been
>> >> created.
>> >>
>> >> I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
>> >> industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource
>industries.
>>
>> >Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
>> >banking and insurance, ...
>>
>> Microsoft manufactures software. Banks don't manufacture a cent of
>wealth.
>Software allows you to do all kinds of thing cheaper than w/o, possibly
>making you directly wealthier, and in any event, indirectly better off.
I agree. That's why I classed it as a wealth producing business. Although
it is more of a services industry than a manufacturer.
>> They simply transfer funds from one party to another and keep a
>commission.
>Banks are involved with two lines of business, lets call them (i) payment
>transfers and (ii) indirect financing (if we leave investment banking,
>trading, etc, out of discussion). Both create wealth indirectly.
Here I disagree. The banks merely take someone else and pay it back out
again; wealth transference in action. And if they didn't provide the funds
for investment, someone else would.
In any case, I am only considering the cases in which wealth is created
directly.
>Banks have comparative advantage in transfering funds from one party to
>another due, if nothing else, the fixed costs and the resulting economies of
>scale and scope w/ the electronics etc involved. Then you're better off
>having banking system take care of the payments instead of you personally
>driving around the city or country paying personally by cash each
>transaction. Then, more wealth is left to pursue other things.
THe electronics technology is there anyway, but I will concede that banks
may produce a small amount of wealth, considering how much money they
generally take in in profits.
>Indirect financing means you take a mortage, car loan, etc, from a bank, not
>directly from the capital markets, ie, you take a mortage instead of
>issueing a bond or some other financial instrument and selling it directly
>to savers. You do this b/c the former is cheaper than the latter, meaning
>you have more funds to do other things than pay the house. Again, the
>economies of scale and scope in banking are the driving forces of this. I
>could expand on this, should you be interested?
>
>> Same with insurance. You take your difference between premiums and
>claims,
>> and there's your profit. No wealth created, only transferred.
>Well, at least the buyers of insurance have higher wealth after the accident
>than the ones w/o insurance.
But the company becomes poorer in return. Again, wealth is transferred,
not created.
How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
living by DESTROYING wealth?
>_________
>Markku Stenborg
>OFC & Turku Business School
>ROT13ed for the hell of it:
>znexxh....@svabsp.sv
>zne...@hgh.sv
Shannon Mitchell
Markku Stenborg
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:36:49 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
Mitchell) wrote:
> real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:43:42 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
> >Mitchell) wrote:
[snip]
> Maybe. But on the whole, no wealth is being produced. The money the
> company makes comes directly from the pocket of the customer, who gets
> nothing measurable for it, either now or in the future. Wealth has been
Since buyer of the singing telegraph purchased the service quite
voluntarily, he/she/it must prefer this arrangement to the one where
he/she/it has few more $s and no such service. So, the fact that nothing
concrete changed hands is immaterial.
> only transferred, not created.
Surely, the seller of the service receives more wealth w/ rather than w/o
this service. As per above, both parties must be better off, so the fact
that the money the company makes comes directly from the pocket of the
customer -- as is usually the case w/ most companies, service or
manufacturing -- is irrelevant.
[snip]
> >Banks are involved with two lines of business, lets call them (i) payment
> >transfers and (ii) indirect financing (if we leave investment banking,
> >trading, etc, out of discussion). Both create wealth indirectly.
>
> Here I disagree. The banks merely take someone else and pay it back out
> again; wealth transference in action. And if they didn't provide the
funds
> for investment, someone else would.
But w/ terms less favourable, since these somebodies could be doing it right
now but aren't.
> In any case, I am only considering the cases in which wealth is created
> directly.
Why? And why constraint yourself only to narrowly defined wealth? Wouldn't
the satisfaction of needs and wants be more relevant objective than the
direct creation of wealth?
[snip]
> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
Advertising can, among other things, improve the consumers' info on goods
and prices available, thereby improving their decision making process.
Although irritating, etc, the buyers of ads -- the firms advertising -- must
be better off, ie, make more profits w/ the ads than w/o; why else would
they advertise?
> living by DESTROYING wealth?
How do corporate raiders destroy wealth? They buy a valuable company,
destroy it, and lose wealth? Sounds quite irrational?
Corporate raiders must be thinking that the firm is more valuable to them
than to current owners, eg, b/c they have more competent management or
whatever. Why else would they raid the firm? Why else would they be paying
for it?
OK, there are cases where the holes in tax laws allow you to destroy a
valuable company and leave the net financial gains to destroyer.
Tom Whittaker
In article <5j6of4$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>
Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
>
> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
> living by DESTROYING wealth?
>
How does a corporate raider destroy wealth? A coprate raider operates
on the principle that either the underlying assets of a corporation or it earning
potential is greater than the value of it's stock.
Tom
Gary Lloyd
tme...@gatecom.com (Gary Lloyd) wrote:
>umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
><ad hominen remarks snipped>
>>Fred
>Being a simple libertarian trying to understand the complexities of
>socialism, I must say that I have found your posts to be less than
>enlightening. Hmmmm, what's the word I am looking for? Obfuscation.
>Yes, that's it. Obfuscation.
>In the interest of clearing up some of my confusion, I have
>constructed a rather simple scenario, followed by some rather simple
>questions. Should be a piece of cake for a man with your obvious
>abilities.
>But first, let me make a few suggestions. In the interest of promoting
>your philosophy, you might try to:
> 1. Refrain from ad hominen attacks.
> 2. Stay on subject.
> The subject, BTW, is socialism, not capitalism, libertarianism, etc.
> 3. Refrain from passing out reading assignments.
> I want to know what you think.
>OK, here's the scenario:
>You have managed to establish a socialist homeland. Everyone has been
>assigned an equal plot of land, equal tools, etc.
>One of your citizens invents a machine by which he doubles his
>production. Will you or will you not:
> 1. Steal the fruits of his labor and divide it up amongst the others?
> 2. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
> 3. Shoot him if he resists?
>Let's take it a step further. He enters into a voluntary agreement
>with his neighbor, wherein he will share his machine, thus doubling
>the neighbor's production, in exchange for 10% of his neighbor's
>output. Will you or will you not:
> 1. Declare the agreement "null and void"?
> 2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
> 3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
> 4. Shoot him if he resists?
>Let's go one more step. He makes the same offer to many neighbors, and
>becomes very wealthy in the process. Will you or will you not:
> 1. Declare the agreements "null and void"?
> 2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
> 3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
> 4. Shoot him if he resists?
>At what point will you resort to theft? And by what convoluted
>reasoning will you convince yourself that up is down, wrong is right,
>and theft is not theft?
>Gary
>======================================
>When the boot of government is on your neck,
>it doesn't matter if it's left or right.
What's the matter, Fred? Not up to the challenge? Afraid to
acknowledge that socialism is based upon theft? Unwilling to admit,
even to yourself, that all of your voluminous arguments amount to
nothing more than an attempt to rationalize theft?
How about the rest of you thieves? Will no one attempt to defend the
morally indefensible and reprehensible philosophy that is socialism?
Gary
======================================
When the boot of government is on your neck,
it doesn't matter if it's left or right.
Giovanni 8
> jimmork1 wrote:
> ...Anyway, I'm suggesting looking at the power-corruption
> nexus from the opposite end. Maybe people corrupt power (after all,
> only certain types of people want very much of it in the first place,
> I'm thinking maybe those are the corrupt people, so we see corruption
> around power all the time and think "Power must be evil").
Power, i.e. the use of force (and fraud) over others who have not
initiated use of force themselves, is the very essence of corruption.
> Or, alternatively, maybe it isnt power OR people but dependency.
Please, expand on this.
> God has the most power of all and doesnt get corrupted.
I disagree. There's nothing more corrupt than gods.
> George Washington wasn't corrupted by power, even though he was
> totally free to define his office. With that temptation laid
> before him, he thought of the long-life of the republic and set
> an example.
He didn't accept all of the power offered to him. But he did take, &
exercise, some power, and was, to that extent, corrupt. For instance,
he had a bad habit of stealing other people's farms. In some cases,
the people had recorded their claims, built homes and other buildings,
and he managed to use his connections to take their land from them.
(See, e.g. Thomas Slaughter _Whiskey Rebellion_.)
> Compare that with the fascist midgets you find in so many departments
> throughout the work world who get the TINIEST speck of power and just
> lose it. Many of us have seen them and have had intuitions beforehand
> that any power in their hands would be big, big trouble. So, why is
> that so? Because a lot of people are simply incapable of a peer
> relationship. They only know themselves as a subordinate or a boss.
> And when the latter, they only know about commanding cooperation,
> nothing about finding motivation within people and using it. The
> light fires UNDER people, never in them.
Well, you've got a nugget of insight in there. The problem is
that "commanded cooperation" is not cooperation at all. If it's
"commanded" then it isn't cooperation but coercion.
If it's cooperation, then it IS a peer relationship, it is inspiring
people, it is breathing life into them.
"Cooperation is the free association of men who work together by
voluntary agreement, each deriving from it his own personal benefit."
--- Ayn Rand 1947 November "Screen Guide for Americans" _Plain Talk_
"I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters.
And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love &
respect, but neither command nor obey." --- Ayn Rand 1937
(1995 paper edition) _Anthem_ pg 96
"Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker
is a slave & that he holds his job by his employer's permission.
He does not hold it by permission -- but by contract, that is, by
a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave
cannot." --- Ayn Rand _TextBook of Americanism_
"In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to
anyone... Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to
mutual advantage when their personal interests agree & they both
desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not
forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the
only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else
is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner."
--- Ayn Rand 1943 _The Fountainhead_ pg 714
"Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in
a human society is his proper way of life -- but only on certain
conditions. Man is not a lone wolf & he is not a social animal.
He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range,
make his own choices, & deal with other men by voluntary agreement
(& he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements
they entered)." --- Ayn Rand 1966 "What is Capitalism?"
_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_
--
copyright 1997 jgo all rights reserved
Permission to down-load solely for purposes of reading
once and responding via usenet news is hereby granted.
Motorola inside -- I've got the power.
Ainsley Tai
Shannon Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> Same with insurance. You take your difference between premiums and
> >claims,
> >> and there's your profit. No wealth created, only transferred.
>
> >Well, at least the buyers of insurance have higher wealth after the accident
> >than the ones w/o insurance.
>
> But the company becomes poorer in return. Again, wealth is transferred,
> not created.
>
What you forget in this argument is what the insurance company does with
the money. they invest it in capital markets, thus indirectly financing
firms that create wealth. So insurance companies indirectly create
wealth.
> How about advertisers?
A company that can't sell its product does not create wealth.
Shannon Mitchell
real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:36:49 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
>Mitchell) wrote:
>> real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:43:42 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
>> >Mitchell) wrote:
>[snip]
>> Maybe. But on the whole, no wealth is being produced. The money the
>> company makes comes directly from the pocket of the customer, who gets
>> nothing measurable for it, either now or in the future. Wealth has been
>Since buyer of the singing telegraph purchased the service quite
>voluntarily, he/she/it must prefer this arrangement to the one where
>he/she/it has few more $s and no such service. So, the fact that nothing
>concrete changed hands is immaterial.
>> only transferred, not created.
>Surely, the seller of the service receives more wealth w/ rather than w/o
>this service. As per above, both parties must be better off, so the fact
>that the money the company makes comes directly from the pocket of the
>customer -- as is usually the case w/ most companies, service or
>manufacturing -- is irrelevant.
But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
and seller remains exactly the same.
>
>[snip]
>> >Banks are involved with two lines of business, lets call them (i) payment
>> >transfers and (ii) indirect financing (if we leave investment banking,
>> >trading, etc, out of discussion). Both create wealth indirectly.
>>
>> Here I disagree. The banks merely take someone else and pay it back out
>> again; wealth transference in action. And if they didn't provide the
>funds
>> for investment, someone else would.
>But w/ terms less favourable, since these somebodies could be doing it right
>now but aren't.
>
>> In any case, I am only considering the cases in which wealth is created
>> directly.
>Why? And why constraint yourself only to narrowly defined wealth? Wouldn't
>the satisfaction of needs and wants be more relevant objective than the
>direct creation of wealth?
Because the amount of wealth which can be created indirectly is constrained
by the amount of wealth created directly. If no wealth is created
directly, none will be created indirectly. The bank can't fund a factory
if no one wants to build it.
>
>[snip]
>> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
>Advertising can, among other things, improve the consumers' info on goods
>and prices available, thereby improving their decision making process.
99% of ads are garbage. Surely you cannot say the Energizer Bunny creates
wealth? All ads really do (even the successful ones) are to transfer
wealth from one competitor to another, sapping it along the way.
>Although irritating, etc, the buyers of ads -- the firms advertising -- must
>be better off, ie, make more profits w/ the ads than w/o; why else would
>they advertise?
>> living by DESTROYING wealth?
>How do corporate raiders destroy wealth? They buy a valuable company,
>destroy it, and lose wealth? Sounds quite irrational?
>Corporate raiders must be thinking that the firm is more valuable to them
>than to current owners, eg, b/c they have more competent management or
>whatever. Why else would they raid the firm? Why else would they be paying
>for it?
A typical raid goes like this: raider sees a business, i.e. a factory,
which has run into hard times. This business, through its activities,
creates wealth. (although perhaps not now, but it may continue to do so in
the future).
Raider seizes control of assets, and sells them off to separate parties, so
they are no longer able to function as a business. As a result, a source
of wealth is destroyed, while the net worth of wealth received by the sale
is decreased since the sum of the assets sold off are less than it would
have been were it sold as a single unit. Therefore, wealth, both potential
and actual, has been destroyed.
>OK, there are cases where the holes in tax laws allow you to destroy a
>valuable company and leave the net financial gains to destroyer.
How?
>_________
>Markku Stenborg
>OFC & Turku Business School
>ROT13ed for the hell of it:
>znexxh....@svabsp.sv
>zne...@hgh.sv
SSSSSSSSS
SSS SS
SSS
SSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSS
SSS
S SSS
SSS SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
"The two greatest fools in life are the one who
believes in everything and the one who believes
in nothing."
Shannon_...@mindlink.bc.ca
Shannon Mitchell
tb...@pop.amdahl.com (Tom Whittaker) wrote:
>In article <5j6of4$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>
>Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
>>
>> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
>> living by DESTROYING wealth?
>>
> How does a corporate raider destroy wealth? A coprate raider operates
>on the principle that either the underlying assets of a corporation or it earning
>potential is greater than the value of it's stock.
>Tom
By selling off the firm's assets, the firm is no longer able to produce
wealth. Furthermore, the net sum of the sale of the assets is usually less
than the firm as a whole. In both instances, wealth has been effectively
destroyed.
Shannon
^JUNK SPAM^
Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>
> real.a...@bottom.of.msg (Markku Stenborg) wrote:
>
> >Mitchell) wrote:
>
> >[snip]
>
> >> that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping outfit,
>
> >Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
>
> Like say, a singing telegram service?
>
> >> winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has
> >been
> >> created.
> >>
> >> I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
> >> industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource industries.
>
> >Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
> >banking and insurance, ...
>
> Microsoft manufactures software. Banks don't manufacture a cent of wealth.
>
> and there's your profit. No wealth created, only transferred.
>
>
Are you saying that all the junk mail manufactured by printing
presses and delivered to mailboxes to be placed in landfills unopened
is true wealth?
JMH
Shannon Mitchell wrote:
> But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
> the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
> term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
> On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
> and seller remains exactly the same.
There's some confusion in terminology here. Are value and wealth
eqivilent terms as used in this discussion? I don't think so,
regardless of how closely they are intertwined.
Regardless of the of gains from trade obtained in any specific
voluntary exchange--a proposition I whole-heartedly agree with--
the aggregate amount of purchasing power or means of satisfying
one's wants, i.e. wealth, remains constant.
That said, Shannon(?)'s argument still fails. Wealth as money
changes with the amount of goods or services which are available
in exchange for that money. Money itself is generally not a very
usefull item in its own rights. If one were to eliminate the ability
of those with money to exchange their money for these "trivial"
services the agggregate amount of wealth in terms of money declines
for all money balances not just those interested in buying such
services.
JMH
JMH
Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>
> tb...@pop.amdahl.com (Tom Whittaker) wrote:
>
> >In article <5j6of4$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>
> >Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
> >> living by DESTROYING wealth?
> >>
> > How does a corporate raider destroy wealth? A coprate raider operates
> >on the principle that either the underlying assets of a corporation or it earning
> >potential is greater than the value of it's stock.
> By selling off the firm's assets, the firm is no longer able to produce
> wealth. Furthermore, the net sum of the sale of the assets is usually less
> than the firm as a whole. In both instances, wealth has been effectively
> destroyed.
And of course those who buy the sold assets have no intentions
whatsoever of using them in a productive manner?!
The issue isn't about any one person or firms ability to
do what they want but getting resources used by those
who can actually use them to the greatest benefit of
all. This is a basic claim made by both capitalist and
socialist--though each side differs as to the best means
of accomplishing this goal.
Or, perhaps, you claim is that it doesn't matter form a
social standpoint who does the producing. This would be a
new addition to the debates.
JMH
Tom Whittaker
In article <5ja6e8$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>
Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
> tb...@pop.amdahl.com (Tom Whittaker) wrote:
>
>>In article <5j6of4$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>
>>Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
>>> living by DESTROYING wealth?
>>>
>> How does a corporate raider destroy wealth? A coprate raider operates
>>on the principle that either the underlying assets of a corporation or it earning
>>potential is greater than the value of it's stock.
>
>>Tom
>
> By selling off the firm's assets, the firm is no longer able to produce
> wealth.
The ability to produce wealth should be relavant to the value of the assests
involved. If the market demand for the product remains the same then some
other company will produce wealth and may do so more efficently.
> Furthermore, the net sum of the sale of the assets is usually less
> than the firm as a whole.
The exact reverse of this is true. The raider buys the firm as a whole with
the intent of selling the assest for more than was paid. If the firm as a whole was
woth more, as you say, the why was it selling for less?
> In both instances, wealth has been effectively
> destroyed.
Let's say you sell 10,000 shares of stock at $10 a share, spend $50,000 on
widget making equipment and use the rest for startup costs.
After 10 years of running your widget company you have treated your
employees fairly, returned good dividends to your stock holders, kept your
equiptment up, moderinized and expanded your plant, and are on top of
the widget market. You company assests are now worth $1Million and your
company's 10,000 shares of stock are now selling for $200 a share.
Should I raid your company? Your assests have gone up 10 fold and your
stock has gone up 20 fold. The answer depends on what I am looking for.
If it your assest then I would not. If it's future value of the stock or I think I
could do better, then I may.
Let's say I don't raid, and you start running in to production problems with
the new widget models. Two years later your sales have dropped, you lost
a good share of your old customes, quit paying stock holder dividends, cut
back on employess, cut the remaining ones salaries and your stock plumments
to $20 a share. Your company still has $1 million in assets. I know look at
your company and see that for $200,000 I can buy the company's stock,
liquadate the assest and walk away with $800,000. I do so. I sell the
widget machines to your competitor who doesn't have production problems and
also doesn't have you for a competitor any more. Your competitor then hires
some of your old employess an steps up prpduction to fill the market gap and
create wealth for that company.
I made $800,000, Your competitor is creating the same amount of wealth.
Who destroyed wealth, where and how much?
Tom
>
> Shannon
>
Tom Whittaker
In article <3358DB...@erols.com>
JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>
>> But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
>> the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
>> term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
>> On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
>> and seller remains exactly the same.
>
> There's some confusion in terminology here. Are value and wealth
> eqivilent terms as used in this discussion? I don't think so,
> regardless of how closely they are intertwined.
>
Wealth and value are not synomous terms, but wealth is dependant
on the value and number of resources. Value is always a relative term
used to express an assets worth in relationshp to another asset.
(usually money). In order to create or destroy wealth requires a change in the
value and number of assets. If I own 2 rare automobiles that will sell for
$100,000 a piece and I wreck one of them and the destruction of that make
the other ever rarer so that I can sell it for $250,000, then has wealth been
created or destroyed?
Tom
W. Wonka
Derek Nalecki wrote:
> >This is caused by that other great capitalist fallacy: that
> >wealth is "limited". Having to deal with currency day in
> The only people who think wealth is limited are leftists. That's why they
> talk of redistributing it, rather than creating more, which is a sole
> preserve of capitalists and capitalism.
Redistributing what? Paper? "Precious" metals? Rather
than creating more what? More paper money? Digging up more
"precious" metals? Redistributing currency has nothing
to do with real wealth. It neither harms or helps society.
Real wealth is in production and research. Is the purpose
of civilization to support as many people as possible, all
the while researching access to new resources, or is the
purpose of civilization to force people to manufacture
chia pets and nose hair trimmers, or else to make up lies
and half-truths in the name of marketing?
> >Wealth CAN be created. It is created by manufacturing
> It is. By capitalists. Every day.
So if you want to define "capitalist" as the person digging
up ore, at the assembly line, or at the engineering table,
then fine. Capitalists are creating wealth. But if you
want to define "capitalist" as the person who does nothing
but tell his accountant to push numbers around, then you
might as well say the King is responsible for everything
his kingdom produces.
----------
Victor Levis
> tb...@pop.amdahl.com (Tom Whittaker) wrote:
>
> >In article <5j6of4$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>
> >Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make
their
> >> living by DESTROYING wealth?
> >>
> > How does a corporate raider destroy wealth? A coprate raider
operates
> >on the principle that either the underlying assets of a corporation or
it earning
> >potential is greater than the value of it's stock.
>
> >Tom
>
> By selling off the firm's assets, the firm is no longer able to produce
> wealth. Furthermore, the net sum of the sale of the assets is usually
less
> than the firm as a whole. In both instances, wealth has been
effectively
> destroyed.
What, pray tell, do you think the buyers who paid good money for the
assets are going to do with them? Throw them in the toilet?
In fact, if it is the case that selling the assets separately yields more
money than selling the company is worth on a going-concern basis, then it
is probably true that the company is underproducing wealth. More total
wealth will result from separating the assets and having them used
elsewhere by people who paid a lot of money for them.
^JUNK SPAM^
Tom Whittaker wrote:
>
> In article <3358DB...@erols.com>
> JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Shannon Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
> >> the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
> >> term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
> >> On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
> >> and seller remains exactly the same.
An exchange neither creates nor diminishes wealth. If I have a stock
'worth' one thousand dollars and sell them to you for a thousand
dollars, only who has which has changed. Which is why the capital
gains tax exemption will free up nothing for investment. It will
actually have a small reverse effect because of transaction costs.
Victor Levis
Ms. Mitchell, I believe we have a misunderstanding about how value is
perceived and what it means. If a pig farmer trades a pork chop for a
litre of a dairy farmer's milk, the total amount of wealth (pounds of
pork plus litres of milk) is the same just after the trade than it was
just before, and yet..........BOTH parties are better off, having
received psychic benefit. The pig farmer values the new milk more than
the last pork chop he sold, while the milk producer values the pork chop
received more than the last litre of milk he sold.
In the case of the singing telegram, the buyer is NOT worse off than
before. He wanted the singing telegram and got it! In fact, to the
extent that he paid any less for the service than the maximum he might
have been willing to pay, he received what economists called "buyer's
surplus". Similarly, if the seller of the telegram received more money
than the minimum he would have done the job for, he got some "producer's
surplus". It is very possible for BOTH parties to have gotten a surplus
while of course the total $ in circulation hasn't changed one iota.
That is how an exchange economy normally benefits everyone participating.
Victor Levis
Libertarian:
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
,
,
,
Gav. McNett
>
> Libertarian:
> Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
"Assets" during the big corporate-raiding boom, quite often meant the
raided company's pension fund. It didn't mean the copy machine or the
water cooler, or whatever else you're probably imagining. We're by no
means talking just about hard-commodity companies, by the way--although
your usage of the expression 'underproducing wealth' indicates that you
see wealth (in terms of production) and stock value as the same thing.
Gav. McNett
Red Menace:
Freedom Of Choice......Responsibility For Others......Respect For
Actions
Dennis Alwine
Jim Mork <jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote
in article
<33557E...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>...
> > A constitution is no gurantee of
> > limitted government, as we have discovered.
>
> No, we havent discovered that. Our government
is limited. If it were
> unlimited, you'd never see any income. If it
were unlimited, state and
> local governments would have no functions.
>
I think the sentiment Kurt was expressing is that
the 'limits' on today's federal government are
nothing like what the framers of the Constitution
intended.
Some examples:
The Constitution obligates Congress to 'regulate
interstate commerce.' Now, that's a far cry from
regulating any and every aspect of any business
capable of conducting interstate commerce.
The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to
the states. Now, not only does it apply (largely
by judicial fiat), but judges seek 'penumbras of
utterances' in the Bill to justify their agenda.
The authority of Congress was considered to be
limited to those enumerated and designated in the
Constitution. Now, most people think Congress
can do anything it wants, unless there's
something in the Bill stopping them. Our
forgotten Constitution has been stood on its
head.
Yes, there are still, gladly some limits on
federal authority. Those must be guarded
jealously, while we strive to replace
Constitutional limits.
Donald J. Dale
In article <5ja5l6$k...@fountain.mindlink.net> Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) writes:
>
>>Surely, the seller of the service receives more wealth w/ rather than w/o
>>this service. As per above, both parties must be better off, so the fact
>>that the money the company makes comes directly from the pocket of the
>>customer -- as is usually the case w/ most companies, service or
>>manufacturing -- is irrelevant.
>
>
>But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
>the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
>term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
>On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
>and seller remains exactly the same.
People attach different values to different things. For instance, a
hungry person might greatly value a morsel of food. A wet person might
greatly value a towel. A tense person might greatly value a massage. And
so on.
It is these different valuations for goods and services that enable trade
to create wealth, as goods and services are transferred from those who
value them less to those who value them more.
When you go to the grocery store and purchase an orange, you do so because
the orange is worth more to you than the $0.25 you must pay to acquire it.
Meanwhile, the grocer must value the quarter more than the orange, else he
would not offer it for sale.
Therefore, although nothing "real" has been created -- there still exists
a quarter and an orange -- wealth has been created on both sides of the
transaction.
>A typical raid goes like this: raider sees a business, i.e. a factory,
>which has run into hard times. This business, through its activities,
>creates wealth. (although perhaps not now, but it may continue to do so in
>the future).
>
>Raider seizes control of assets, and sells them off to separate parties, so
>they are no longer able to function as a business. As a result, a source
>of wealth is destroyed, while the net worth of wealth received by the sale
>is decreased since the sum of the assets sold off are less than it would
>have been were it sold as a single unit. Therefore, wealth, both potential
>and actual, has been destroyed.
If the value of the assets sold off is less than that of the business as a
whole, how did the raider make money doing this? He bought the business
as a whole and sold it as parts.
Don
Donald J. Dale
In article <5ja6e8$k...@fountain.mindlink.net> Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) writes:
>
>By selling off the firm's assets, the firm is no longer able to produce
>wealth. Furthermore, the net sum of the sale of the assets is usually less
>than the firm as a whole. In both instances, wealth has been effectively
>destroyed.
Let's put your claim to the common sense test. A raider buys a firm whole
and sells it in pieces. If the pieces are worth less than the whole, then
the raider must have lost on the deal. Why would he do this?
Don
Doug Bolton
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:13:29 -0700, James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>Markku Stenborg wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:00:41 GMT, Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon
>> Mitchell) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I wanted to add the following correction: there are service industries
>> > that do create wealth. One example would be a weather-stripping outfit,
>>
>> Yeah, a good example would be *all* service industries.
>>
>> > which enables your furnace to function more efficiently. Thus, if you
>> > winding up saving more in fuel than you paid the strippers, wealth has
>> been
>> > created.
>> >
>> > I should point out, that there is a lmiit to how much wealth service
>> > industries can produce compared to manufacturing and resource industries.
>>
>> Umm, no. Think about firms like Micro$oft, McKinsey (consulting), all
>> banking and insurance, ...
>>
>>
>
>Microsoft is a service industry?? Last I heard, they manufactured
>software...
Welcome to BillWorld.
JMH
Tom Whittaker wrote:
>
> In article <3358DB...@erols.com>
> JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Shannon Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
> >> the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
> >> term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
> >> On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
> >> and seller remains exactly the same.
> >
> > There's some confusion in terminology here. Are value and wealth
> > eqivilent terms as used in this discussion? I don't think so,
> > regardless of how closely they are intertwined.
> >
>
> Wealth and value are not synomous terms, but wealth is dependant
> on the value and number of resources. Value is always a relative term
Right, value and wealth "are interwined."
> used to express an assets worth in relationshp to another asset.
> (usually money). In order to create or destroy wealth requires a change in the
> value and number of assets. If I own 2 rare automobiles that will sell for
> $100,000 a piece and I wreck one of them and the destruction of that make
> the other ever rarer so that I can sell it for $250,000, then has wealth been
> created or destroyed?
I think it is prbably pretty safe to say that wealth has been
destroyed by your wrecking one. I don't really see why a change in
the relative price of the remaining car adds anything to aggregate
wealth.
JMH
Steve Kangas
The important part you are forgetting is "worth less to WHOM?" Say a
complete factory turns out $100 billion of goods in its entire 20-year
life. Suppose that while it is in operation, the owner can get a $1
million annual income. However, if he breaks it up and sells it, he
might get $90 million from the parts. Clearly, it's in his INDIVIDUAL
interest to sell it, although not in the COMMUNITY'S.
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
James Doemer
Thank you.. When's the next flight out?? :>
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, JMH wrote:
>
> Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>
> > But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
> > the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
> > term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
> > On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
> > and seller remains exactly the same.
>
> There's some confusion in terminology here. Are value and wealth
> eqivilent terms as used in this discussion? I don't think so,
> regardless of how closely they are intertwined.
WARNING: TO DEBATE WITH JMH YOU MUST HAVE A PROPER TONE--DEFINED BY
HIM. Otherwise, he will not debate with you.
Although I agree with Shannon that no wealth has been increased by the
exchange, the time devoted to exchange IS a drain on wealth (and value in
the capitalist sense.) Labour time must be devoted (directly or
indirectly) to exchange, but this time does not enhance the use-value of
the output. JMH will undoubtedly dispute that, but then again, he spouts
out useless neoclassical nonsense.
By enhancing a use-value is meant an alteration in its properties in some
fashion. Exchange does not alter the useful properties of commodities.
> Regardless of the of gains from trade obtained in any specific
> voluntary exchange--a proposition I whole-heartedly agree with--
> the aggregate amount of purchasing power or means of satisfying
> one's wants, i.e. wealth, remains constant.
The point being?
> That said, Shannon(?)'s argument still fails. Wealth as money
> changes with the amount of goods or services which are available
> in exchange for that money.
Trivial. If everything else is constant, and the exchanges occur, if
there is more output on the market, then more money will be required to
circulate the output.
JMH has assumed that "the amount of goods or services which are available
in exchange for that money" has changed. Of course the amount of money
required will then change--unless the velocity of circulation increases,
for example.
>Money itself is generally not a very
> usefull item in its own rights.
What a load of neoclassical nonsense. It is like saying that writing "is
generally not a very useful item in its own rights." Writing and money
have provided a basis for generalizing human experience over space and
time. I can write now, and communicate with you later. Immediate
relations in space and time are overcome. Money, in a similar (but by no
means identical) manner overcomes immediate relations of barter. If A
wants B's commodity, but B does not want all of A's commodity, exchange
will become more difficult. What happens if A wants B's commodity, B
does not want A's commodity but does want C's commodity, and C wants A's
commodity? Money solves the problem (while creating other problems of
its own).
Money splits the exchange relation in time and space.
>If one were to eliminate the ability
> of those with money to exchange their money for these "trivial"
> services the agggregate amount of wealth in terms of money declines
> for all money balances not just those interested in buying such
> services.
No. An alternative would be for those who produce the output to
collectively determine their needs and to reduce the need for money. For
money to exist, output must have an exchange-value (not the other way
around). If the output already fulfills a need in its natural form (such
as tomatoes fulfilling the need for food) without possessing an exchange
value, then output would INCREASE (or labour time performed would
DECREASE) because labour time devoted to unproductive expenditures on the
transference of already produced commodities would diminish.
Fred
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Gary Lloyd wrote:
> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>
> <ad hominen remarks snipped>
>
> >Fred
>
> Being a simple libertarian trying to understand the complexities of
> socialism, I must say that I have found your posts to be less than
> enlightening.
As Gary has already admitted, he is a simple libertarian. Libertarians
are notorious for their simple dogmas of the "free market."
>Hmmmm, what's the word I am looking for? Obfuscation.
> Yes, that's it. Obfuscation.
Did it take the libertarian ten minutes to look up the word in the
dictionary?
> In the interest of clearing up some of my confusion, I have
> constructed a rather simple scenario, followed by some rather simple
> questions.
Gary has now used the word "simple" three times. Presumably he thinks
that he is the opposite of that term.
Cory Koss--a right-winger (who at least tried to understand Marxism)
tried to create "simple scenarios". He no longer posts. So much for
"simple scenarios."
>Should be a piece of cake for a man with your obvious
> abilities.
As for my abilities, it is a question of "attitude." Critical attitude,
not the trite attitude of libertarians who cannot even analyse the kind
of society in which we live. They try to create fantasy worlds out of
their heads, and then impose that fantasy on the real world.
> But first, let me make a few suggestions. In the interest of promoting
> your philosophy, you might try to:
>
> 1. Refrain from ad hominen attacks.
Pure assertion. Let Gary specify what he means.
Or did he borrow this assertion from Jack Plant--who accused me of the
same thing without backing up the assertion with argument.
> 2. Stay on subject.
> The subject, BTW, is socialism, not capitalism, libertarianism, etc.
Sorry, Gary does not understand that Marxian economics contends that it
is "scientic socialism." That means that socialism is linked with the
capitalism. I guess Gary has never read Marx's Capital. In most of
Marxian economics, the issue is the nature of capital. After all,
socialism is the solution to the problems created by capitalism.
What Gary wants is to convert Marxian socialism, which is linked to a
critique of capitalism, to UTOPIAN SOCIALISM. Utopian socialism creates
fantasies out of its head without taking into account the nature of the
society in which we live.
> 3. Refrain from passing out reading assignments.
Libertarians need to read; they have such a limited range of knowledge
that they keep on repeating the same dogma.
> I want to know what you think.
Then read some postings. References to other works are meant to provide
enlightment. How can libertarians expect to criticize Marxian economics
without further reading? I, for example, read the trite works by
bourgeois authors--in order to be able to criticize more effectively the
"libertarians."
> OK, here's the scenario:
>
> You have managed to establish a socialist homeland. Everyone has been
> assigned an equal plot of land, equal tools, etc.
Here we go with an absurd scenario.
Question: Who is we? HOW did they establish it? (The manner in which a
"socialist homeland" is established has a bearing on the nature of a
socialist homeland.)
BTW, what is a socialist "homeland"?
No, there would not be "equal plots of land, equal tools, etc." What
nonsense. Given the integrated nature of MATERIAL PRODUCTION (created
under the social relations called capitlaism), that collective process
would be collectively controlled by those who produce.
The means of production (including land) would not be vendible to
particular individuals since all human beings require access to the means
of production (directly or indirectly) in order to live. The means of
production are our inorganic organs; they permit the human species to
relate to nature and to continue to reproduce itself.
BTW, Gary does not even understand that there is difference between
"tools" and "machines" in Marxian economics which is essential for the
creation of a socialist society. A tool is an extension of human labour
and is limited by the properties of the human using that tool (a hammer,
for example). A machine, on the other hand, can develop materially
without being limited by the properties of the human being (a steam
hammer can be improved independently of the human indiviudals who use it).
When human beings used tools rather than machines, socialism could not
arise because output was dependent on human labour to a great extent.
With machine production, however, direct human labour becomes less
relevant and scientific labour (the understanding of general processes of
nature) become more relevant.
> One of your citizens invents a machine by which he doubles his
> production.
Quaint scenario. Who invents machines? Gary, like many "libertarians,"
posit the process of invention as an individual affair. Let him provide
concrete examples of inventions of machines by individuals. The process
of "machine invention" is much more complicated and much more a
COLLECTIVE affair than Gary imagines. I would refer to a book that I
have read on the subject, but I will let Gary remain in ignorance. After
all, he cannot even provide a concrete basis for his fairy tale.
BTW, why is it "his" invention? In order for someone to "invent"
anything at all, he or she must have the TIME to do so. To be able to
have the time to do so pressuposes that OTHERS are working to produce his
means of consumption (as well as the means of production which enter the
production of the means of production and the means of consumption). The
process of "invention" is a social act; to invent something requires that
others are engaged in producing the means of production and consumption
in order that certain individuals can have the time to "invent" at all.
So, those who invent OWE their capacity to invent to those who produce
their means of production and consumption.
>Will you or will you not:
>
> 1. Steal the fruits of his labor and divide it up amongst the others?
What a stupid question. The "fruits of HIS labour" occurs in the context
of society, not outside it. He can only invent anything because others
are engaged in producing his means to live.
One can turn Gary's trite example around: do not the fruits of other
people's labour form the basis for "his fruits?" Gary lives in fantasy
land, where everybody produces independently of everybody else.
In this, he is like JMH. Indeed, JMH and him are cousins; they both
share the presupposition of independent production.
> 2. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
See above.
It would certainly be community property (got it Gary), because "machine
invention," of which Gary is blissfully unaware, is a social process and
not a result of one indiviudal inventing. We live in a socially
integrated material system of production, where the outputs of one
industry consitute the inputs of other industries.
> 3. Shoot him if he resists?
Quaint. As if the invention of machines occurs on an individual basis!
What would happen would be that any machine which was invented would be
recognized and treated for what it is: the collective result of MANY
individuals, all of whom formed an essential basis for the creation of
machines.
Since Gary is so ignorant of machine inventions, let him show the history
of the first machine which revoltionized England and the world: the
spinning industry. Let him provide concrete details about how invention
occurred in that industry.
For example, Arkwright's spinning machine was supplemented by draconian
measures against workers: a list of rules to force workers to comply
with the constant motion of the machine.
But then again, Gary is quite unconcerned with the MANY workers who
produced the machine nor with the MANY workers who used it. His concern
is with the ONE inventor who lives on a mountain and suddenly, as if by
magic, invents something useful to others.
Gary defends his trite libertarian views on the basis of a fantasy.
There is little wonder that Gary finds my arguments confusing. He lives
in a fantasy world. His view of socialism corresponds to the trite
libertarian view of
> Let's take it a step further. He enters into a voluntary agreement
> with his neighbor, wherein he will share his machine, thus doubling
> the neighbor's production, in exchange for 10% of his neighbor's
> output.
This fantasy is really quite boring. No, Gary does not understand the
nature of the real world of production. People do not just "invent"
things, exchange them. Gary has not heard of multinationals, with their
R&D sections (especially D sections).
People in a socialist society would understand that, if they improve
output, it is because of their COLLECTIVE productive power. Gary cannot
even understand that invention is a SOCIAL process.
How does this inventor "enter into a voluntary agreement with his
neighbour?" What does that mean? When I worked at a brewery, the
machines were not "invented" by any single individual. Gary does not
understand that in a socialist society, where the scale of production is
quite high (in that, similar to a capitalist society), invention of
machines is a highly complex and SOCIAL process.
Moreover, what Gary means by invention is simply trite libertarian ideology.
What does it mean to "invent a machine?" The idea? Probably. But the
idea must be translated into reality. Who does that? The inventor? In
the real world? Who produces the machines? Who uses them? The
inventor? Not at the brewery where I worked, and certainly not in any
major industry.
Gary discounts the producers and consumers of the machine. For him, it
is the MENTAL LABOURER (the one who produces the "idea") who really
produces the machine.
What a bourgeois outlook. But, of course, libertarianism=bourgeois outlook.
Will you or will you not:
>
> 1. Declare the agreement "null and void"?
Since the process of the invention, the production and the consumption of
machines is a SOCIAL process, the "agreement" would not arise--in a
socialist society. In a capitalist society, by contrast, the ILLUSION
exists that machines are the product of particular individuals.
BTW, in a capitalist society, who owns the patents? Those in the R&D
team, or the corporation? Gary's libertarian hypocricy begins to show
here. He fails to criticize the REAL negation of property relations by
not criticizing the appropriation of patents by corporations.
> 2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
See above. Gary's "alternatives" are based on fantasy.
> 3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
Let Gary provide a detailed history of the invention, production and
consumption of machines in accordance with his trite libertarian philosophy.
Gary does not even address the issue about machines in a capitalist
society. Let us see. Who produces the means of production (machines,
auxiliary materials, etc.)? Workers. Who possesses the machines, etc.?
Capitalist corporations.
> 4. Shoot him if he resists?
>
> Let's go one more step. He makes the same offer to many neighbors, and
> becomes very wealthy
in the process.
Why would he become very wealthy in the process? Increases in the
productive power of labour through machinery is a social process. Gary
denies it. Consequently, he needs to show that it is not. He needs to
show that the contribution of the "idea" is somehow more important than
the contribution of those who produce the machine and use it.
BTW, we live in a SYSTEM OF MACHINES, and not just "a machine." Gary
cannot even get his facts straight in his fantasy world.
Will you or will you not:
>
> 1. Declare the agreements "null and void"?
>
> 2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
>
> 3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
>
> 4. Shoot him if he resists?
>
> At what point will you resort to theft?
Theft of what? Gary's fantasy world of independent individuals
inventing? Really, Gary is a fine example of libertarian rhetoric. Pure
gas, no substance.
It is the capitalists who "steal" legally in accordance with patents.
Quaint of Gary not to mention that.
It is the capitalists who treat those who produce the machines with utter
contempt. Quaint of Gary the libertarian not to mention that.
>And by what convoluted
> reasoning will you convince yourself that up is down, wrong is right,
> and theft is not theft?
By looking at the real world in which we live rather than in the fantasy
world of libertarians such as Gary.
In other words, to understand the nature of socialism, it is necessary to
understand the nature of capitalism.
Gary certainly does NOT understand capitalism; he therefore does not
understand socialism.
But then what can you expect from a LIBERTARIAN.
Fred
umha...@cc.umanitoba.ca
Don Dale
In article <335A4A...@scruznet.com>, Steve Kangas
<kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
What community might you be talking about? Please be specific.
Don
Jim Mork
>I don't think this is quite correct. I think that the reason
>unions are not popular now has to do with people having short memories,
>especially when times are relatively good, and when things go south, as
>they will do inevitably, they will suddenly recall all that thinking
>about getting together to fight for their interests as workers. But there
>is another reason why unions have declined. It is because many of the
>new jobs that have been created in the past few years are in services
>and not in manufacturing where the idea of a factory allows for the
>traditional union to work as an organizing factor. Most new workers
>work in relative isolation which is good for employers who are trying
>to control costs very much on the labor side of the equation. What you
>cannot say is that these workers will not find a way to organize when
>the crunch is on big time in these new industries. It think this is
>but a few years off. One can imagine barganing groups forming around
>groups of skill sets, as in a guild. It may be easier to organize people
>along these lines, especially if their work site is not controlled by
>their employers.
The "explanation" is that as soon as people THINK they are smart, they
get pigheaded. Ruling elites are composed of people who are
opportunistic, and nothing presents a greater opportunity than a
pigheaded member of the middle class. That pigheaded person will make
massive mistakes when he thinks he is "a little bit better" than other
working people (just give a worker a little promotion and pat him on
the head....nine out of ten will become reliable little fascists).
The one thing people have the hardest thing with in the world is the
notion of "peerhood", of merely being "equal". Despite all the great
lip service we give to this, in their hearts, it is not what people
are craving. Like Coco Chanel said of feminism "Equality, mere
equality?"
Great injustice is done due to this...and the rightwing makes a lot of
hay out of the THREAT of equality of black workers with white ones
("Why? When you're better?")
Jim Mork
>I disagree, I think the main reason that unions are unpopular is
>because of their immoral actions.
But that would be an excellent reason for the unpopularity of
practically anyone you can name. So, are we saying unpopularity is no
big thing because popularity is so scarce?
Or have you a particular favorite for a class of people who are
reliably "moral"?
Jim Mork
>The political history of the past 35 years has sapped the
>leadership away; leaders have been assiinnated, disgraced, and otherwise
>discouraged from public life, and we are left with what goes on all
>the time. I would not go so far as to say that the current situation
>is not a deep threat to our future or that the solution lies in the
>emergance of a truely inspiring and strong leader, but a vision for
>the future would help.
Some of those assassinated people were playing a game of deceit that
was ultimately harmful to society. Not that assassins are somehow
justified by that, but to give leaders victimhood seems simplistic to
me.
But even the notion that leaders carry the answers to questions begs
some questions, in my mind. If the very shape and form of society is
dysfunctional, you cannot fix that with leadership. The leader would
have to meet a society ready to change its values. The reductionist
values that say less government and more wealth will fix any problem
we have is not something amenable to improved leadership. I got by
what the Bible says a lot of the time, and Sodom and Gomorrah was said
to have perished, not due to a leadership vacuum, but due to a vacuum
of worthy people. I think there's some basic wisdom in that. When
Moses came down from the mountain, he found people frolicing around a
god made of gold. He smashed the tablets, symbolically asking, "What
good are a few commandments for people so corrupt?"
I hold that this is the most ironic time in our history to be posting
the 10 commandments because from pro sports to politics to foreign
relations to business, we are worshippers of the golden calf. And it
is longer just in America. It is in every part of the world that
looks to America for moral leadership. We are incapable of giving that
leadership. There isnt a religious tradition in the world that we
haven't transgressed, so whoever follows us is following a Pied Piper
into the deep woods.
Tom Whittaker
In article <335A4A...@scruznet.com>
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> Steve Kangas
> http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Who own's it? Him or the Community? If I stand on my porch and sing
beautiful song everyday and everyone in th ecommunity love to hear me
sing, do I have a right to stop?
Tom
Tom Whittaker
In article <335A33...@erols.com>
JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> Tom Whittaker wrote:
>>
>> In article <3358DB...@erols.com>
>> JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>> >
>> >> But the point is, the wealth the seller receives comes out of the pocket of
>> >> the buyer, and no where else. The buyer is worse off (financially, short
>> >> term and long term)), and the seller is better of by the exact same amount.
>> >> On the whole, no wealth has been created. The sum of the wealth of buyer
>> >> and seller remains exactly the same.
>> >
>> > There's some confusion in terminology here. Are value and wealth
>> > eqivilent terms as used in this discussion? I don't think so,
>> > regardless of how closely they are intertwined.
>> >
>>
>> Wealth and value are not synomous terms, but wealth is dependant
>> on the value and number of resources. Value is always a relative term
>
> Right, value and wealth "are interwined."
>
>> used to express an assets worth in relationshp to another asset.
>> (usually money). In order to create or destroy wealth requires a change in the
>> value and number of assets. If I own 2 rare automobiles that will sell for
>> $100,000 a piece and I wreck one of them and the destruction of that make
>> the other ever rarer so that I can sell it for $250,000, then has wealth been
>> created or destroyed?
>
> I think it is prbably pretty safe to say that wealth has been
> destroyed by your wrecking one. I don't really see why a change in
> the relative price of the remaining car adds anything to aggregate
> wealth.
>
> JMH
No doubt, an assest has been destroyed. The remaining assest has
increased it value due to an increase in rarity. If wealth is an aggregation of
the value of assests, then wealth has been created.
If wealth has not been created then we need a different definition of wealth
then the one given by Webster and the boys.
Tom
Robert Vienneau
I have not been following this thread closely. Nevertheless, let
me retell a story from the New School economist Ed Nell for
your amusement.
Suppose we begin on 1 January 1997 and survey the entire stock of
goods held by all firms in a country that engages in no foreign
trade. We will find in our inventory half-finished goods, machinery
of various sorts that will last many years, raw materials, and
land of various qualities.
Now we imagine the workers work for an entire year. On 1 January 1998
we take another survey. Suppose we find that the resulting inventory
can replace all the goods in our first inventory, with some left
over. The land of various qualities is still there, and it was maintained
to be as good as previously. A machine that was new on 1 January 1997
is now a year old, but we imagine a new machine was produced in that
year. The machince that is new in 1 January 1998 is not part of the
net product, but the one-year-old machine is. The workers have used
the half-finished goods and raw materials to make other goods, but
some workers have reproduced another set of half-finished goods and
harvested additional raw materials to replace those used up.
After reproducing the stock that existed on 1 January 1997, this country
is left with a vector of all sorts of goods produced in the year.
When combined with the goods consumed during the course of the
year, we end up with the net product for 1997. This net product
is a heterogeneous collection of goods.
So many workers have produced the net product with a collection of
natural resources and capital goods that have been reproduced. Notice
that the capital goods with which we started were the result of
workers' production in previous years.
That's what goes on in the firms. How about the households?
We can imagine in this model that some households consist solely
of workers, and others consist solely of owners who hold pieces
of paper, each piece of paper claiming ownership of a fraction of
the value of the capital stock. (By "value," I merely mean a sum
of prices. I don't use Marx or Ricardo's labor-embodied Values
for this story.)
The workers, who have produced all the net product, receive in
wages only part of the value of the net product. As a simplifying
assumption, assume the workers spend their entire income.
The owners receive the remainder of the value of the net product.
Roughly, each receives an amount in proportion to the value of the
stock of the capital goods that they hold. (There's some complications
for differential rent of land which I am ignoring.)
Assume the owners save some fraction of the value of the part
of the net product which they receive.
A diagram is useful for visualizing the money and real flows in
this story:
+--- Consumption goods ----- -- $ Total receipts -+
| +- $ Workers consumption -> RETAIL |
| | +- Consumption goods -- & <-- Net product -+ |
| | | +-- $ Capitalist WHOLESALE | |
| | | | consumption -> MARKETS - New capital | |
| | | | +- $ investment -> goods -----+ | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | \|/ | | \|/ | \|/
| | Owners <------------ $ Profits ------------ INDUSTRY
| | (inter-
| +- Workers <------------ $ Wages -------------- industry
+--> ------------- Labor ----------------> flows)
HOUSEHOLDS
This is clearly a story about capitalism. And it seems to provide some
insight into what is going on in a capitalist society. For example, some
accounting identities can be obtained from the diagram. Also notice how this
diagram stands up to dimensional analysis.
This story is perfectly consistent with all trades being entered into
freely, especially the hiring of workers:
This sphere...within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of
labour-power goes on is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man.
There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property, and Bentham. Freedom,
because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are
constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free
agents...Equality, because each enters into relation with the other as a
simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent.
Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham,
because each looks only to himself.
- Karl Marx, _Capital_, Vol. 1.
(Consider the claim that nobody participates in a trade under capitalism
if they don't expect to be better off afterwards. The above quote
suggests this is no answer to the Marxist charge that the worker is
exploited under capitalism. That is, Marx's analysis was not based
on a denial of this elementary claim.)
You will find the above diagram in few, if any, introductory economics
textbooks. Instead, most textbooks have a "circular flow" diagram that
reflects a thorough mystification about capital and leads the student
to the confused belief that capitalism is somehow "natural."
The above story does not seem to rely on notions of "equilibrium," "natural
prices," or "labor values." Nevertheless, it can be used to explicate
some aspects of Marx's notion of exploitation. Consider the Locke quote:
Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men,
yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody had any
right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his
hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out
of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed
his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and
thereby makes it his property.
One might accept this as an account of what property should be, but it
is no defense of capitalism. Note the owners provide no direct inputs
into production in the above diagram. They are paid profits for no
material inputs at all. Profits are not the result of some sort of
exchange of goods or services for profit income. This suggests that
wages are not exchanged for labor, or at least the trade
is not fair. It is exploitative.
Is a society possible with an advanced division of labor in which social
relationships are transparent, in which they don't present themselves
to consciousness as relationships between things? Can there be an advanced
industrial society in which the producers are not exploitated and
do not experience their labor as alienating? Perhaps. Certainly working
towards such a society seems a honorable task.
--
Robert Vienneau Try my Mac econ simulation game,
rv...@future.dreamscape.com Bukharin, at
ftp://csf.colorado.edu/econ/authors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.sea
Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue, are always
found...in proportion to the power or wealth of a man [is] a question
fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their
masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search
of the truth. -- Rousseau
Jim Mork
>This is clearly a story about capitalism. And it seems to provide some
>insight into what is going on in a capitalist society. For example, some
>accounting identities can be obtained from the diagram. Also notice how this
>diagram stands up to dimensional analysis.
It is an ideal model. But it doesnt fit the real world. When a
speculator buys a portion of shares of a company then demands
greenmail, the ideal model doesnt expalin the phenomenon. Nor does it
explain the millions of shares that go to senior executives merely for
having connections. Nor does it explain the value created by
contributing to a successful politician who then turns over one of
society's assets at bargain-basement prices.
In short, this model says as much about economics as an engineering
model of a concept car says about driving down the road.
D. Ellis
Jim Mork <jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>> But it really comes down to capitalist fear. Not of a free
>> lunch, but fear that they will lose their OWN free lunch.
>Capitalism is about making money off other people's money (when
>stockholders invest, they do not lose ownership of their money...but
>they DO lose control of its use till they sell the stock). And the
>money that is made is "free lunch".
Lunch ain't free when the stock price goes down. (Little detail.)
>Yet, it is the capitalists who tell
>the socialists "stop asking for free lunch". Yet, socialists stand for
>a government run by and for those who never use anything but their own
>muscles and minds.
Off the top of my head, can't think of any of the many self-described
"socialist" governments of this century that have run this way in
actual practiice. Care to specify one?
>But asking for that is called "free lunch". As
>Orwell predicted, black is white and white is black.
A peculiar reference in defense of socialism. ;-)
>--
>"I think that if advanced beings WERE visiting earth,
>we'd know it by their laughter."
> ---Paige Fox
Jim Mork
>Lunch ain't free when the stock price goes down
Uh-huh. But the "little detail" you're overlooking is that the money
that IS made is free lunch (if all the money invested were provided by
those collecting the rewards, if they truly took all the risk, we
couldnt call it "free"...but the fact is that the significant money is
provided by one set of parties, the rewards principally collected by
another. Michael Millken's money wasnt made by risking his money..
>Off the top of my head, can't think of any of the many self-described
>"socialist" governments of this century that have run this way in
>actual practiice. Care to specify one?
Most of them. But you only think of the Soviet Bloc. When Stalin
pre-empted the name "socialism" and said that any model that did not
meet his approval was not "socialist", all the capitalists took him at
his word. Why not? Stalin and capitalists were after the same
things.
>A peculiar reference in defense of socialism. ;-)
Only if you have assumed all along that Orwell purely was inspired by
Stalin. But remember, it was a "looking glass war".
Jim Mork
Remember: Hitler called his system "national socialism". I think
you'd be hard put to find a sober human being who thought that
"socialism" in the name meant you could evaluate the concept of
socialism by examining Nazism. Some countries we know like to think
they are "Christian". But it would be misleading to infer what
Christianity taught from their actions. And then we have "free
market" countries full of monopoly, pleas for government bailouts and
such. To infer what a "free market" is from the study of such
countries isn't too enlightening, either.
Gary Lloyd
umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Gary Lloyd wrote:
>> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>>
>> <ad hominen remarks snipped>
>>
>> >Fred
>>
>> Being a simple libertarian trying to understand the complexities of
>> socialism, I must say that I have found your posts to be less than
>> enlightening.
>As Gary has already admitted, he is a simple libertarian. Libertarians
>are notorious for their simple dogmas of the "free market."
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
--Albert Einstein--
>>Hmmmm, what's the word I am looking for? Obfuscation.
>> Yes, that's it. Obfuscation.
>Did it take the libertarian ten minutes to look up the word in the
>dictionary?
Is that how long it took you to find it?
>
>> In the interest of clearing up some of my confusion, I have
>> constructed a rather simple scenario, followed by some rather simple
>> questions.
>Gary has now used the word "simple" three times. Presumably he thinks
>that he is the opposite of that term.
>Cory Koss--a right-winger (who at least tried to understand Marxism)
>tried to create "simple scenarios". He no longer posts. So much for
>"simple scenarios."
>>Should be a piece of cake for a man with your obvious
>> abilities.
>As for my abilities, it is a question of "attitude." Critical attitude,
>not the trite attitude of libertarians who cannot even analyse the kind
>of society in which we live. They try to create fantasy worlds out of
>their heads, and then impose that fantasy on the real world.
As opposed to socialist fantasy imposed on the real world?
>
>> But first, let me make a few suggestions. In the interest of promoting
>> your philosophy, you might try to:
>>
>> 1. Refrain from ad hominen attacks.
>Pure assertion. Let Gary specify what he means.
>Or did he borrow this assertion from Jack Plant--who accused me of the
>same thing without backing up the assertion with argument.
See the above. All of the above.
>> 2. Stay on subject.
>> The subject, BTW, is socialism, not capitalism, libertarianism, etc.
>Sorry, Gary does not understand that Marxian economics contends that it
>is "scientic socialism." That means that socialism is linked with the
>capitalism. I guess Gary has never read Marx's Capital. In most of
>Marxian economics, the issue is the nature of capital. After all,
>socialism is the solution to the problems created by capitalism.
Non-initiation of force is the solution to the problems associated
with capitalism.
>What Gary wants is to convert Marxian socialism, which is linked to a
>critique of capitalism, to UTOPIAN SOCIALISM. Utopian socialism creates
>fantasies out of its head without taking into account the nature of the
>society in which we live.
Obfuscation is definitely the word.
>> 3. Refrain from passing out reading assignments.
>Libertarians need to read; they have such a limited range of knowledge
>that they keep on repeating the same dogma.
Whereas socialists keep on repeating different dogma.
>> I want to know what you think.
Or even if.
>Then read some postings. References to other works are meant to provide
>enlightment. How can libertarians expect to criticize Marxian economics
>without further reading? I, for example, read the trite works by
>bourgeois authors--in order to be able to criticize more effectively the
>"libertarians."
References to other works are meant to avoid and evade.
>> OK, here's the scenario:
>>
>> You have managed to establish a socialist homeland. Everyone has been
>> assigned an equal plot of land, equal tools, etc.
>Here we go with an absurd scenario.
>Question: Who is we? HOW did they establish it? (The manner in which a
>"socialist homeland" is established has a bearing on the nature of a
>socialist homeland.)
>BTW, what is a socialist "homeland"?
Call it what you like. I am starting the scenario on a level playing
field.
>No, there would not be "equal plots of land, equal tools, etc." What
>nonsense. Given the integrated nature of MATERIAL PRODUCTION (created
>under the social relations called capitlaism), that collective process
>would be collectively controlled by those who produce.
>The means of production (including land) would not be vendible to
>particular individuals since all human beings require access to the means
>of production (directly or indirectly) in order to live. The means of
>production are our inorganic organs; they permit the human species to
>relate to nature and to continue to reproduce itself.
If "means of production" didn't exist, could socialists create it, or
is socialism entirely parasitic in nature? Must you wait for
capitalists to create it, so that you can steal it?
>BTW, Gary does not even understand that there is difference between
>"tools" and "machines" in Marxian economics which is essential for the
>creation of a socialist society. A tool is an extension of human labour
>and is limited by the properties of the human using that tool (a hammer,
>for example). A machine, on the other hand, can develop materially
>without being limited by the properties of the human being (a steam
>hammer can be improved independently of the human indiviudals who use it).
Where, in any of the above, do I indicate that I can't tell a tool
from a machine? Ad hominen?
>When human beings used tools rather than machines, socialism could not
>arise because output was dependent on human labour to a great extent.
>With machine production, however, direct human labour becomes less
>relevant and scientific labour (the understanding of general processes of
>nature) become more relevant.
>> One of your citizens invents a machine by which he doubles his
>> production.
>Quaint scenario. Who invents machines? Gary, like many "libertarians,"
>posit the process of invention as an individual affair. Let him provide
>concrete examples of inventions of machines by individuals. The process
>of "machine invention" is much more complicated and much more a
>COLLECTIVE affair than Gary imagines. I would refer to a book that I
>have read on the subject, but I will let Gary remain in ignorance. After
>all, he cannot even provide a concrete basis for his fairy tale.
Not all inventions are collective, but be that as it may, in our
scenario it is an individual invention. More obfuscation.
>BTW, why is it "his" invention? In order for someone to "invent"
>anything at all, he or she must have the TIME to do so. To be able to
>have the time to do so pressuposes that OTHERS are working to produce his
>means of consumption (as well as the means of production which enter the
>production of the means of production and the means of consumption). The
>process of "invention" is a social act; to invent something requires that
>others are engaged in producing the means of production and consumption
>in order that certain individuals can have the time to "invent" at all.
>So, those who invent OWE their capacity to invent to those who produce
>their means of production and consumption.
He skipped a few hours of sleep. More obfuscation.
>>Will you or will you not:
>>
>> 1. Steal the fruits of his labor and divide it up amongst the others?
>What a stupid question. The "fruits of HIS labour" occurs in the context
>of society, not outside it. He can only invent anything because others
>are engaged in producing his means to live.
Not in this scenario.
>One can turn Gary's trite example around: do not the fruits of other
>people's labour form the basis for "his fruits?" Gary lives in fantasy
>land, where everybody produces independently of everybody else.
Not at all.
>In this, he is like JMH. Indeed, JMH and him are cousins; they both
>share the presupposition of independent production.
I'm not familiar with JMH, but he sounds like a fine fellow :~)
>
>> 2. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
>See above.
>It would certainly be community property (got it Gary), because "machine
>invention," of which Gary is blissfully unaware, is a social process and
>not a result of one indiviudal inventing. We live in a socially
>integrated material system of production, where the outputs of one
>industry consitute the inputs of other industries.
>> 3. Shoot him if he resists?
>Quaint. As if the invention of machines occurs on an individual basis!
>What would happen would be that any machine which was invented would be
>recognized and treated for what it is: the collective result of MANY
>individuals, all of whom formed an essential basis for the creation of
>machines.
>Since Gary is so ignorant of machine inventions, let him show the history
>of the first machine which revoltionized England and the world: the
>spinning industry. Let him provide concrete details about how invention
>occurred in that industry.
>For example, Arkwright's spinning machine was supplemented by draconian
>measures against workers: a list of rules to force workers to comply
>with the constant motion of the machine.
>But then again, Gary is quite unconcerned with the MANY workers who
>produced the machine nor with the MANY workers who used it. His concern
>is with the ONE inventor who lives on a mountain and suddenly, as if by
>magic, invents something useful to others.
Thus benefitting all.
>Gary defends his trite libertarian views on the basis of a fantasy.
>There is little wonder that Gary finds my arguments confusing. He lives
>in a fantasy world. His view of socialism corresponds to the trite
>libertarian view of
Let me finish that sentence for you, "socialism as theft." Is that
what you were going to say? :~)
>> Let's take it a step further. He enters into a voluntary agreement
>> with his neighbor, wherein he will share his machine, thus doubling
>> the neighbor's production, in exchange for 10% of his neighbor's
>> output.
>This fantasy is really quite boring. No, Gary does not understand the
>nature of the real world of production. People do not just "invent"
>things, exchange them. Gary has not heard of multinationals, with their
>R&D sections (especially D sections).
>People in a socialist society would understand that, if they improve
>output, it is because of their COLLECTIVE productive power. Gary cannot
>even understand that invention is a SOCIAL process.
In a socialist society, people would understand that inefficiency
equates to job security.
You really don't want to answer these questions, do you?
>How does this inventor "enter into a voluntary agreement with his
>neighbour?" What does that mean? When I worked at a brewery, the
>machines were not "invented" by any single individual. Gary does not
>understand that in a socialist society, where the scale of production is
>quite high (in that, similar to a capitalist society), invention of
>machines is a highly complex and SOCIAL process.
So you keep saying.
>Moreover, what Gary means by invention is simply trite libertarian ideology.
>What does it mean to "invent a machine?" The idea? Probably. But the
>idea must be translated into reality. Who does that? The inventor? In
>the real world? Who produces the machines? Who uses them? The
>inventor? Not at the brewery where I worked, and certainly not in any
>major industry.
Fred has now used the word "trite" six times. Presumably he thinks
that he is the opposite of that term.
>Gary discounts the producers and consumers of the machine. For him, it
>is the MENTAL LABOURER (the one who produces the "idea") who really
>produces the machine.
Not at all. But in this scenario, he both had the idea and produced
the machine. In his spare time. While supporting himself.
>What a bourgeois outlook. But, of course, libertarianism=bourgeois outlook.
And socialism = theft.
> Will you or will you not:
>>
>> 1. Declare the agreement "null and void"?
>Since the process of the invention, the production and the consumption of
>machines is a SOCIAL process, the "agreement" would not arise--in a
>socialist society. In a capitalist society, by contrast, the ILLUSION
>exists that machines are the product of particular individuals.
>BTW, in a capitalist society, who owns the patents? Those in the R&D
>team, or the corporation? Gary's libertarian hypocricy begins to show
>here. He fails to criticize the REAL negation of property relations by
>not criticizing the appropriation of patents by corporations.
The R & D team have voluntarily assigned their rights to the patent in
exchange for previously agreed upon benefits.
>> 2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
>See above. Gary's "alternatives" are based on fantasy.
You're not going to answer any of these questions, are you?
>> 3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
>Let Gary provide a detailed history of the invention, production and
>consumption of machines in accordance with his trite libertarian philosophy.
>Gary does not even address the issue about machines in a capitalist
>society. Let us see. Who produces the means of production (machines,
>auxiliary materials, etc.)? Workers. Who possesses the machines, etc.?
>Capitalist corporations.
Perhaps if I simplified the questions, you could handle them.
>> 4. Shoot him if he resists?
>>
>> Let's go one more step. He makes the same offer to many neighbors, and
>> becomes very wealthy
> in the process.
>Why would he become very wealthy in the process? Increases in the
>productive power of labour through machinery is a social process. Gary
>denies it. Consequently, he needs to show that it is not. He needs to
>show that the contribution of the "idea" is somehow more important than
>the contribution of those who produce the machine and use it.
>BTW, we live in a SYSTEM OF MACHINES, and not just "a machine." Gary
>cannot even get his facts straight in his fantasy world.
> Will you or will you not:
>>
>> 1. Declare the agreements "null and void"?
>>
>> 2. Steal the fruits of their labor, dividing it amongst the others?
>>
>> 3. Steal his machine, and declare it to be "community property"?
>>
>> 4. Shoot him if he resists?
>>
>> At what point will you resort to theft?
>Theft of what? Gary's fantasy world of independent individuals
>inventing? Really, Gary is a fine example of libertarian rhetoric. Pure
>gas, no substance.
All I see here from you is gas, and lots of it. You squirm a lot, but
you don't aswer the questions.
>It is the capitalists who "steal" legally in accordance with patents.
>Quaint of Gary not to mention that.
>It is the capitalists who treat those who produce the machines with utter
>contempt. Quaint of Gary the libertarian not to mention that.
These are all voluntary arrangements, in exchange for agreed upon
benefits. Quaint of Fred the thief not to mention that. But then,
we're getting off the subject, aren't we? Answer the questions, Fred.
>>And by what convoluted
>> reasoning will you convince yourself that up is down, wrong is right,
>> and theft is not theft?
>By looking at the real world in which we live rather than in the fantasy
>world of libertarians such as Gary.
Or the fantasy world of longwinded socialists such as Fred.
>In other words, to understand the nature of socialism, it is necessary to
>understand the nature of capitalism.
>Gary certainly does NOT understand capitalism; he therefore does not
>understand socialism.
>But then what can you expect from a LIBERTARIAN.
Simple questions that socialists are unwilling to answer because they
reveal socialism for what it is: THEFT.
>Fred
Gary
======================================
When the boot of government is on your neck,
it doesn't matter if it's left or right.
Markku Stenborg
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:36:51 GMT, jimm...@PioneerPlanet.infi.net (Jim Mork)
wrote:
> >Lunch ain't free when the stock price goes down
It aint free launch even when the stock price goes up.
> Uh-huh. But the "little detail" you're overlooking is that the money
> that IS made is free lunch (if all the money invested were provided by
Uh-huh yourself. It aint no free lunch or even free launch.
[snip]
_________
Markku Stenborg
OFC & Turku Business School
ROT13ed for the hell of it:
znexxh....@svabsp.sv
zne...@hgh.sv
Victor Levis
Gary Lloyd <tme...@gatecom.com> wrote in article
<5je63g$2...@news.gatecom.com>...
> umha...@CC.UManitoba.CA wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Gary Lloyd wrote:
>
> >> One of your citizens invents a machine by which he doubles his
> >> production.
> >
> >BTW, why is it "his" invention? In order for someone to "invent"
> >anything at all, he or she must have the TIME to do so. To be able to
> >have the time to do so pressuposes that OTHERS are working to produce
his
> >means of consumption (as well as the means of production which enter
the
> >production of the means of production and the means of consumption).
The
> >process of "invention" is a social act; to invent something requires
that
> >others are engaged in producing the means of production and
consumption
> >in order that certain individuals can have the time to "invent" at
all.
>
> >So, those who invent OWE their capacity to invent to those who produce
> >their means of production and consumption.
> He skipped a few hours of sleep. More obfuscation.
Actually, we must thank Fred for showing us so clearly and eloquently how
under Marxism the individual owes everything to the collective, including
his time.
Victor Levis
Libertarian:
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
,
,
,
,
Paul A Sand
sk: Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com>
dd: Donald J. Dale
sm: Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell)
sm: By selling off the firm's assets, the firm is no longer able to
produce wealth. Furthermore, the net sum of the sale of the assets
is usually less than the firm as a whole. In both instances, wealth
has been effectively destroyed.
dd: Let's put your claim to the common sense test. A raider buys a firm
whole and sells it in pieces. If the pieces are worth less than the
whole, then the raider must have lost on the deal. Why would he do
this?
sk: The important part you are forgetting is "worth less to WHOM?" Say a
complete factory turns out $100 billion of goods in its entire
20-year life. Suppose that while it is in operation, the owner can
get a $1 million annual income. However, if he breaks it up and
sells it, he might get $90 million from the parts. Clearly, it's in
his INDIVIDUAL interest to sell it, although not in the COMMUNITY'S.
Clearly? Not at all. Certainly it depends on what the ``raiders'' do
with what they bought and what the ex-owner does with his cash. If the
cash goes under the ex-owner's mattress and the raiders blow up the
factory for kicks, then there's probably a loss. But why assume they do
things that make so little economic sense?
(Possible answer: because postulating irrational behavior by
capitalists is the only way socialists can get their own policies to
seem to make sense.)
--
-- Paul A. Sand | Disclaimer:
-- University of New Hampshire | This article was probably generated
-- p...@unh.edu | by a buggy news reader.
-- http://pubpages.unh.edu/~pas |
James Doemer
Shannon Mitchell wrote:
>
> tb...@pop.amdahl.com (Tom Whittaker) wrote:
>
> >In article <5j6of4$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>
> >Shannon_...@mindlink.net (Shannon Mitchell) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> How about advertisers? Or how about corporate raiders, who make their
> >> living by DESTROYING wealth?
> >>
> > How does a corporate raider destroy wealth? A coprate raider operates
> >on the principle that either the underlying assets of a corporation or it earning
> >potential is greater than the value of it's stock.
>
> >Tom
>
> By selling off the firm's assets, the firm is no longer able to produce
> wealth. Furthermore, the net sum of the sale of the assets is usually less
> than the firm as a whole. In both instances, wealth has been effectively
> destroyed.
>
>
> SSSSSSSSS
> SSS SS
> SSS
> SSSSSS
> SSSSSSSSSSS
> SSSS
> SSS
> S SSS
> SSS SSSS
> SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
>
> "The two greatest fools in life are the one who
> believes in everything and the one who believes
> in nothing."
> Shannon_...@mindlink.bc.ca
But those sold assets will continue to create wealth, eventhough they
don't belong to the same people or companies. And why would anyone sell
off, piecemeal, assets that they know is worth less than the sum of the
assets??