 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
It will not be necessary to save money as in a capitalist system. Man-hours will have to be coordinated to produce the 'tangible' capital, and extract the necessary resources.
Anyway. I can't afford to spend this much time in this discussion today. I have too much to do. Maybe I'll be back latter today. |
What is used for compensation for those man hours? Where does it come from?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
But it's the work that generates the wealth, not the wealth. No it's not a zero sum game, but that don't make it fair.
|
The work itself would not generate the additional wealth without the factory.
Take oil workers-- The Hibernia offshore platform pumps 180,000 barrels of oil a day and lets call it 40 bucks a barrell. Thats 7.2 million bucks. Lets make it 4 million a day after taxes and royalties. Counting shift changes there are probably a thousand people working on that project overall. That works out to $4000 per worker each and every day all year long or 1.46 million per year.
Do you plan to pay each of these workers 1.46 million OR don't you think just a teensy bit of the value had to do with the $300 million spent on exploration wells or the 2.5 billion dollar platform the oil is pumped through??
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
No I'm not saying that. That would be stupid. Are you saying that rent isn't a barrier to them helping themselves? |
Rent is no more a barrier than if the cost of food or clothing was too high. Obviously food and shelter should be available to all. But if you abolish rent, shouldn't you make food free as well ? Its even more of a necessity.
Conceptually rent is no different to me than the cost of any good and service . . . and many landlords make very little or no profit for years ( and arguably that profit could be attributed to their labor in advertising and repairing the property)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
I feel like I am understanding kid a little better.
It seems to be all about nobody getting too rich. If I understand him right, you can work hard and get richer than others but you then aren't allowed to do ANYTHING with this wealth that could ever make you richer. Its irrelevant if that "something" would also make a million other people better off, don't do it since it would be offensive to give anything less than 100% of the value of their work to the workers.
So as a worker in kids society, My only choice is consumption. I'm not sure how housing would work since if there is no rent, using resources to buy a home to live in makes no sense and investment properties wouuld be unknown. So I guess it would be government housing all around. I'm not sure how it would work if you want to move but I'm sure the bureacracy can allocate housing right?
With a practical inability to use increased wealth for a better home and no way to use it to produce an income, that only really leaves consumption. Oh and are there loans, I know there is no interest but can you borrow for that car you wanted?? if you can I'll borrow 1 million dollars!!
I just see a society with absolutely no incentives, no reason to innovate, no reason to work hard. If I bust my butt and save or if I laze around and spend frivolously, I will be in the same state housing regardless and nothing I can do can bring an additional income stream
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Nahhh, in such a society, Master Flubber, the black market would be alive and crackling with energy.
There WILL BE a market. Kid would just drive it underground. Criminalize the act of commerce.
So be it.
-=Vel=- |
But in housing the only market will be in bribing the housing officials to get the nicer house.
I can see quite a black market though in tool rental, particularly if you can invent some new handy gizmo. Kid is dreaming in technicolor if he doesn't think the workers would be willing to pay something to get a time-saving device that allows them either more leisure or a greater income
And I guess if the regime does not offer loans at all, the loan sharks will do quite well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Zounds a return to the dark ages where only nonbelievers errr.... non-communists could lend money with usery fees. |
well with "interest" being illegal, the regime can only do one of two things
1. Not have loans or credit at all OR
2. Offer interest free loans-- if they do this there is no incentive to pay them back quickly and I am unsure what remedies the regime would use if they were not paid back (probably an automatic garnishment of wages). But if they don't believe in interest its hard to even see a moral justification for quick repayment
In either case I fear that black market lending would become even more popular than it is today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
I feel like I am understanding kid a little better.
It seems to be all about nobody getting too rich. If I understand him right, you can work hard and get richer than others but you then aren't allowed to do ANYTHING with this wealth that could ever make you richer. Its irrelevant if that "something" would also make a million other people better off, don't do it since it would be offensive to give anything less than 100% of the value of their work to the workers.
So as a worker in kids society, My only choice is consumption. I'm not sure how housing would work since if there is no rent, using resources to buy a home to live in makes no sense and investment properties wouuld be unknown. So I guess it would be government housing all around. I'm not sure how it would work if you want to move but I'm sure the bureacracy can allocate housing right?
With a practical inability to use increased wealth for a better home and no way to use it to produce an income, that only really leaves consumption. Oh and are there loans, I know there is no interest but can you borrow for that car you wanted?? if you can I'll borrow 1 million dollars!!
I just see a society with absolutely no incentives, no reason to innovate, no reason to work hard. If I bust my butt and save or if I laze around and spend frivolously, I will be in the same state housing regardless and nothing I can do can bring an additional income stream |
I think there's a few flaws in your summary. First, Kid admits that he doesn't want workers to get 100% of the fruits of their labors because you need to pay taxes. And you can't buy a house because you're not allowed to own land, IIRC. I'm not too clear on how consumption works either. I suppose you can buy something, but it would have to be from the government and purchased for cost. Not sure how the government decides what to produce - it must be put to a vote, because otherwise someone would have more power than someone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Yeah, we'll all have to live in government housing, but the pent up demand for goods and services will be a GOLDMINE!
-=Vel=- |
yup-- my first service would be a travel service/emigration assistance service to all the people that wanted to leave this paradise. Assuming it is not worldwide I think you would see a brain drain of epic proportions as people flee to places that reward talent and effort. . . Oh adn if people see this coming, the flight of capital would be HUGE . .. could even create a mini-economic boom in other countries all by itself
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
I think there's a few flaws in your summary. |
I would think there would be since his beliefs are so alien to my own but I do try to be fair in my summary
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
First, Kid admits that he doesn't want workers to get 100% of the fruits of their labors because you need to pay taxes. |
And don't forget that a usage fee (rent) for a tool is not objectionable if paid to the state. Its only offensive if another PERSON appropriates some of the value of the labor.
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
And you can't buy a house because you're not allowed to own land, IIRC. |
well it wouldn't make economic sense anyway if the state was providing housing rent free.
quote:
Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm not too clear on how consumption works either. I suppose you can buy something, but it would have to be from the government and purchased for cost. Not sure how the government decides what to produce - it must be put to a vote, because otherwise someone would have more power than someone else. |
I would also be curious as to the pricing model. If wages are equalized somehow you end up paying the clerks at the state equivalent of the 7-11 say 4 times what they make now. So does the price at the convenience store go up up up even more to bring the store to a break even point OR do you ignore individual sales areas and just raise prices across the board ( but a lot less) so that grocery sales as a general category breaks even. I assume a carton of milk would be the same price everywhere but that could be wrong because the 'crats might decide to reflect cost and charge more in remote areas with bigger transport costs.
etc etc what results is a huge bureacracy just to determine the price of milk in Alaska versus Butte, Montana.
Oh and on employment-- thats a whole 'notehr story since with the equalized wages, there is no incentive to do the harder jobs. I think I might even enjoy an outdoor job
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
I was never paradoxical since I never agreed with Kid's base idea that work ( amd by work KId means the current work) creates all the value.
If I build a machine a give it to someone else to use, it creates value because of the value of the work of the operator AND because of the value of my work as the builder. It seems only fair that we share the value of the wealth created by BOTH of our work.
Once you accept that the machine has value (because I worked to build it, it only seems fair that I can exchange it for other things of value and that the purchaser can stand in my stead with respect to the value I created.
Edited for clarity
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, seeya later. When you return, I have another question:
How will the man hours be coordinated? I mean, since you seem to be very big on fairness, surely workers will be free to choose where they work? So if the government (the people, whatever) decides to build a factory to make spaceships to go to Mars, how to you "coordinate" man hours to make that happen, without ordering people to go there and work? Incentives? If so, what? Better working conditions? Less hours?
Oh, another question: you say there will be no need to save money. Will there be money at all? How will compensation be handled?
-Arrian |
Ohhh that's too much for me to answer right now. You will have to order people where to work though, and for how long. That is of course good and bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The revenue won't have anything to do with worker compensation although total spending is going to obviously equal total costs just like in a capitalist system.
|
hmmm so some of the value isn't due to their work and is not paid to the workers????? I thought that was the base premise of your system...
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I think you should have a price for everything with value. It just wont work without prices.
|
So if I want shelter I should pay a price for it-- If that price is a price for a period of time, we have a rent. I assume the only difference is you would have all rents paid to the state. So again something is fine if the state collects it but objectionable if collected by an individual. . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
.
It appears that way, but consider rising real estate prices and what that does to rent. The owners get a nice profit, but ultimately renters are the ones who pay for that, because the new owners raise the rents. |
Well in a rising market, the owners could get a nice profit if they sold out and new owners would then have to collect a rent to recover that purchase price. Why should a landlord that has chosen to retain a property be any different
Kid where we differ is that you see no value to capital wheras I (using your framework) see capital as accumulated work. If someone has a million dollars you could view it as a representation of 50,000 person hours of work. It is indisputable that assets purchased with this capital can increase the value of work beyond that which is possible without the use of those assets. So IMHO bother the worker and the past work should be compensated for their use
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
hmmm so some of the value isn't due to their work and is not paid to the workers????? I thought that was the base premise of your system...
|
They do receive an equal share of the total produce. The price of the good they produce might change, but their pay wouldn't necessarily.
edit: the price of the good they produced isn't necessarily the value of the good. The price would change for distribution purposes. If there's a shortage then the price would be increased, and consideration would be given to increasing capacity to increase supply of the good. If the supply was increased then the price would be lowered.
quote:
Well in a rising market, the owners could get a nice profit if they sold out and new owners would then have to collect a rent to recover that purchase price. Why should a landlord that has chosen to retain a property be any different
|
It's not different if the landlord keeps the property but raises the rent. I was just trying to make my point clear. Even though a new owner may only get a small return its the system that is harmfull to those without property.
quote:
Kid where we differ is that you see no value to capital wheras I (using your framework) see capital as accumulated work. If someone has a million dollars you could view it as a representation of 50,000 person hours of work. It is indisputable that assets purchased with this capital can increase the value of work beyond that which is possible without the use of those assets. So IMHO bother the worker and the past work should be compensated for their use |
I see a value to money saved only equal to money spent. The same amount of work was done for it. Savings should not be compensated more at someone else's expense. It's much less painfull to save if you have a high income. In fact, if your income is high enough, it might even be tougher to spend than to save.
Last edited by Kidicious on 02-12-2004 at 06:21
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2004 22:06
|
|