A summary of trickle down economic theory:

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Kidicious, unless you consider the entrepreneur as a worker, I desagree on your statement that all wealth come from the work.

Huh? He's not a worker by definition. He organizes the labor. He may do some work, but that isn't what makes him an entrepreneur.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Huh? He's not a worker by definition. He organizes the labor. He may do some work, but that isn't what makes him an entrepreneur.

Do you agree that he is different from the capitalist and that he participates in the production ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Do you agree that he is different from the capitalist and that he participates in the production ?

Technically? Sometimes. Usually in this case he is paid a salary. I'm not sure how this fits in to trickle down policy though.

[Kidlicious]

You could also call the capitalist the entrepreneur because he decides how the capital will be allocated. The managers work out the details.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You could also call the capitalist the entrepreneur because he decides how the capital will be allocated. The managers work out the details.

The capitalist decides which project he accepts/wants to finance. The entrepreneur undertakes the project. The manager is nothing more than a qualified worker.

If the entrepreneur is not a worker, does that mean for you that he does not participate in the creation of wealth ?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Not at all. Capital was produced by labor.

Hmm, true to an extent say some, but it is dead labour. It's a stock not a process that is going on, as labour is.

You might want to read this http://eserver.org/clogic/2-2/gulli.html

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless The current tax cut reduces the 39% to 36% and 36% to 34%(?).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The capitalist decides which project he accepts/wants to finance. The entrepreneur undertakes the project.

'Decides' on the project, 'undertakes' the project, what is the diference that you are trying to clear up. How does this make the person who 'undertakes' the project a worker.


No, organizing labor is not producing something. Its' just what it is. Of course, we need organization, but it's not work.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boddington's


Hmm, true to an extent say some, but it is dead labour. It's a stock not a process that is going on, as labour is.

You might want to read this http://eserver.org/clogic/2-2/gulli.html

It's the saved labor of other workers. Where are we going with this?

[Kidlicious]

I'm heading off to go camping for a couple days. Some reasonal person take up the side against trckle down please .

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious

'Decides' on the project, 'undertakes' the project, what is the diference that you are trying to clear up. How does this make the person who 'undertakes' the project a worker.


No, organizing labor is not producing something. Its' just what it is. Of course, we need organization, but it's not work.

Analytically, the capitalist has money waiting. The entrepreneur, for whatever reasons, wants to build, to grow, to produce, to manufacture something. Because his project is expected to produce a fair return, the entrepreneur convinces the capitalist to invest his money. They are different persons, differently motivated.
If the capitalist has no chance to get a return, he will not invest, and the project will not live. Sometimes, but not often, the capitalist and the entrepreneur are the same person, but not often because both jobs require different qualities.

The end is that the wealth created by the project must be shared between the capitalist, the entrepreneur, and the workers, because all of them are indispensable to the creation of wealth.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's the saved labor of other workers. Where are we going with this?

There's been 150 years of economics since Marx. You might want to read Marshall, who said that price was determined by both the cost of production and the value in use, and that trying to attribute price determination to one factor or the other was like trying to say which half of the scissors cuts a piece of paper.

Even if you accept that capital is embodied labor, there are plenty of other factors involved.

Consider two automobiles, a Volvo and a Yugo. More labor is probably used in assembling a Yugo, but the Volvo sells for much more because it lasts much longer.

It takes as much labor to mine coal with a low heat content as it does to mine coal with a high heat content. But both types of coal sell for the same amount per BTU (British Thermal Unit).

It probably takes about as much labor to make a refrigerator as it does to make an artificial heart. But artificial hearts sell for a lot more. Why do you suppose that is?

(edit: typos)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You mean the price of production. Value can be determined many ways, but price can only mean one thing. The price of production has nothing to do with peoples compensation. The worker only recieves a portion of that price. The portion that he recieves has nothing to do with the price of the thing or service produced.

I'm not talking "value" as an esoteric econobabble concept. I'm talking agreed value in the marketplace.

No they didn't. That's what I'm talking about, compensating those who are doing the work. A regressive compenstion system taxes these people. I want people who work to be compensated.

OK, so if I stand with an orange vest around holding a "Slow" sign where there's some road construction, I'm "doing the work" and contributing to the economy, but if I'm inventing software technologies and managing a bunch of engineers, I'm not. Whatever, comrade.

Well here's your attitude in a nutshell. You aren't talking about policy which benefits everyone. You're talking about policy that will benefit an elite class.

There is no such thing as a policy that benefits everyone. That's a fallacy. Especially forced wealth transfers. Like the old joke about FDR and Moses. Nobody is "entitled" to a certain standard of living just because they feel like it. I'm not referring to taking care of people with disabilities, those already retired (elderly poor) etc., who can't do anything about their situation. I'm talking about (theoretically) capable people who can make hard choices.

As for a policy that benefits an elite class, that's a joke. If you want that, then lets abolish income taxes entirely, and fund the government strictly on VAT. In a good income year, I pay more in taxes of all kinds than a couple of statistically average families of four make in gross income. I don't consume more in government services, in fact, I consume less. (especially living outside the US). So I'm already subsidizing government services for other people. So much for "benefitting an elite class"

The thing is that you do have to care, because these are the people who buy things. They are the ones who make the profits. Without profits the whole system breaks.

If I make consumer products, I have to care to some extent, however, if some wise, benevolent socialist type decides to raise minimum wage to $30.00 an hour, and the price of a McDonald's hamburger goes up to $10.00, so much for extra profit and spending power.

The system breaks if you have an oversupply of labor and laissez faire economic policies that let employers pay however little they want and essentially get away with it.

The system does not break as it is in the US currently.

They need to 'better' themselves? Yuck! You really do think you're superior don't you?

You're so easy to troll. Let me put it this way. You (generic "you" not "you" personally) work on that road construction site, holding that little sign that says "slow" on one side and "stop" on the other for minimum wage. Your job options are to maybe see if you can get on with a union contractor, since laborer's union scale is a couple of bucks above minimum wage. Maybe, if you hang with the job, your big break will come and you can fill the dirt back in ditches with a shovel. Maybe one day they'll let you clean the tracks on the backhoe.

Or, you can decide that's a dead-end, and you really want to do something else with your life. Ever think of that? There's nothing glorious and noble about doing half-assed, dead-end, low paid jobs. If somebody decides that's all they want to do with their life, fine for them, but don't go whining to me about how you don't get paid well. If somebody decides they don't want to do that the rest of their life, but they don't want to bother training or educating themselves to do something better, then don't go whining to me either. They earn their money, I earn mine.

I've done my time doing minimum wage **** jobs. I decided that wasn't my goal in life, but I sure as hell didn't look to the government to throw some extra money at me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm heading off to go camping for a couple days. Some reasonal person take up the side against trckle down please .

Off towards Yosemite / Tioga / Mono Lake?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Before you dance and party, better check what games they play with deductions. Most tax bills are a matter of give with one hand, reach into your wallet with the other.

Now a flat tax, OTOH.