 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:21
|
|
Aye, if something was valued in how many hours it took to make it means somebody would get paid more for making a sh*tty product that took twice as long as someone who made a better product taking half that time. Isn't there something counter-initiative about this?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flip McWho
Thats why I feel the communist economic system would not work. People have no reward for inventing new things or working harder. Basically there is no incentive to set yourself apart from the crowd. Communist economics could only work in a stagnate society. Hmmm Possibly that is what the end of history means. Isn't the communist paradise supposed to come about when history ends? |
Again this is old territory. vel went at kid for something like 200 posts on this point. The end result was kid continued to assert that vel would be "exploiting" a worker if he made an invention that increased productivity 10 fold and then required rent of the worker to use the invention. According to kid this would be true even if the worker made 2 or 3 times the income of a worker who did not use the invention.
Go take a look at the rent is unfair tax thread and sequels for a lot on this theme
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye, if something was valued in how many hours it took to make it means somebody would get paid more for making a sh*tty product that took twice as long as someone who made a better product taking half that time. Isn't there something counter-initiative about this? |
yup---
But were you expecting reality and sense from kid?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flip McWho
. Where does the labourer end and the capitalist begin? |
According to kid-- people who provide money are capitalists and people that provide labour are the labourers. In theory a person can fulfill both roles at the same time.
Kid just places ZERO value on the provision of capital-- even apparently if it was capital accrued through things he accepts as "working"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:21
|
|
Yeah thats the thing. Certain aspects you can predict from. For example the war in Iraq was bound to affect oil production and price in some way or another, as well as the russian grip. However things like a hurricane and other random factors can keep things unpredictable. Of course that doesn't mean there is no worth in trying to predict outcomes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:21
|
|
quote:
According to kid-- people who provide money are capitalists and people that provide labour are the labourers. In theory a person can fulfill both roles at the same time. |
Well that means that everyone is both a capitalist and a labourer as everyone provides labour at some point and also provide money as well, sometimes in less than overt ways (e.g. if you save money at a bank technically your are investing money, even if you are not aware of it). So basically there is no division between capitalist and labourer effectively rendering the communist argument null and void. At least in first world countries. Is this logical?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
Look, guys, Kid doesn't understand a very simple concept regarding value in the realm of economics.
Simply put, a good or service is only as valuable as is agreed on by the people who are giving/receiving the good/service. Period. No other definition of value makes any sense - or at least, no other definition of value is in any way useful. An item's value is simply the "price" (be it in dollars or whatever medium of exchange) that those who want the item (or service) agree to pay, and what the seller chooses to accept.
In your world, Kid, an hour of labor (say, digging ditches), may be worth $40. But that's irrelevant if the person who employs ditch diggers disagrees, and only thinks it's worth $15/hour. If those who want a job disagree that the worth of this particular job is $15/hour, then they don't have to - and won't - take it. Now, you might argue that in a time of low unemployment, or in a situation where the person who needs a job is poor, they have no choice. But you're wrong - that person has decided that the job of digging ditches is worth $15, because of the benefits of getting that money (ie, not starving). They might want more money, but make no mistake, they are also agreeing that $15 is the value of the labor.
Take another example. Actually, let's not, because you see the point. The definition of value is ultimately governed by a)people's perceptions and other relative factors, and b)the law of supply and demand. The concept of value is NOT absolute - any other viewpoint does not make sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
David Floyd has highlighted the key concept that Kid will not accept
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Go back in time and tell that to the real Adam Smith. In the Wealth of Nations he made the true claim that wealth (value) is only created by the production of goods, not by simply trading goods. |
What's your point, Kid? Why are you equating "wealth" and "value", as if the two have the same definition? An item's economic value simply refers to how much "wealth" is required to obtain the item. You're (well, Adam Smith) quite right, new wealth can only be created by new production (but then again, wealth can be transfered around by trade, and this transfer of wealth can lead to a more efficient use of wealth, leading to more production and thus more wealth), but the amount of "wealth" a country or individual possesses has little to do with the value of goods and services.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
Kid, do you seriously think that a wheelbarrow that takes 12 hours to produce is worth more than a wheelbarrow that takes 6 hours to produce?
While value is certainly relative, no one who wants to make money would take your viewpoint - that person would understand that producing wheelbarrows in half the time leads to greater profit, and most people would consider that a greater value.
You might not, and that's fine, because like I said, value is relative - you might feel that morally, it is more valuable to compensate working harder to a greater degree than working smarter, and that's fine. You'll just lose money in the long run doing that. But that may not be important to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:21
|
|
meritocracy GOOD-- The problem in most organizations is favoritism when assessments of merit are done. My job has a base salary plus a discretionary bonus component-- When there are not measurable performance indicators on all performance criteria, you are left with the judgement of the managers
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-10-2004 03:17
stuff then. That's cool, I need to hone some skills in economic debating. I just don't see how commies can ignore this. I don't see how your exploiting the worker either. Some other guy invented the machine and not employing the machine would be an exploitation of the person who invented the machine. But then I suppose they are the capitalist oppressors and they deserve to be exploited. Its a very fine line today between who the capitalist is and who the proletariat is. You could argue that the manager of a blah store is a labourer as he is working for the people who own his company higher up. Where does the labourer end and the capitalist begin?
You just justified my post 
) and well still get the same wage as those that work less hard. Of course some would say that means I should cut my work efforts down, but my work ethic doesn't allow me to do that, so I choose to work harder and still get paid the same. What do others think of meritocracy by the way? Just to go on a bit of a related tangent.
|