Is profit different from unfair tax?

[JohnT]

Michael, Michael...

Do you not realize that you are talking to somebody who is certain that people are unaware that they are writing rent checks, apparently even while they are writing the check.

Debating Kid and Sava, and being Catholic, one must assume that you have a particular affinity for Saint Jude, the Patron Saint of Lost Causes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, I have an affinity for cats - it's like playing with my own virtual mousie - bap it around until I get bored, then walk off and stuff my face in a bowl of food, then spend the day sleeping with my belly in the sun.

Sounds good, doesn't it? I just realized our cats are the beneficiary of a welfare state.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There's so many huge differences it's almost impossible to believe you're not trolling.

1) The "welfare state" will determine for you what it deems adequate care. If you're someplace like Norway, with a tiny population and a ****load of an easily extractible resource with huge global demand, that's one thing. In the rest of the world, it's another.

2) If you collect profit, rent or interest, (assuming these are in addition to regular earnings), you have considerable flexibility in how those are invested, and whether and how you adapt to changing economic conditions.

3) A welfare state has to have continuous revenue growth to increase standards of living over time. No welfare state has ever achieved this.

4) There is no evidence whatever that a planned economy is or will be responsive enough to create, let alone implement, emerging technologies in an efficient way.

5) The incentives are entirely different. I would have no incentive under a welfare state system to spend time since 1994 designing the software technologies I'm now completing. The first commercial installation of that system will come almost exactly a decade since the original design concept. With the welfare state, my rewards would be the same whether I put in the effort or not, and whether I succeeded marginally, spectacularly, or if I failed entirely. So why go the effort, when I could have spent more time playing at stuff that was more fun?

You missed my meaning. I meant what is different morally by cheating welfare and sitting on your ass collecting profit while others work for you?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You have an ideological bug up your ass about owners/investors, but they are an essential part of production and all economic activity as well.

No they aren't. Labor organization is necessary. It is not necessary to have capitalists, or private ownership of capital.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No they aren't. Labor organization is necessary. It is not necessary to have capitalists, or private ownership of capital.

Its a shame, then, that labour can't organize itself isn't it

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And the faults of centrally planned systems are even more extensive. No system is perfect. Just less imperfect.

We are talking about exploitation. I propose a syatem which is not exploitive. You can argue that a certain centrally planned system is exploitive, but the purpose of a communist system is to correct the exploitive nature of capitalism. So don't avoid the argument.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Just the design, the means of production, the organization of people, materials, products and money that efficiiently delivers the laborer's work product to the marketplace in a marketable form. Do you really want to buy a car by hiring each individual designer and laborer, then going out and finding them the necessary machine tools, and renting them the necessary shop space? Or maybe each one is expected to provide his own machine tools and work in his back yard? And do the laborers and parts and machine suppliers (or all laborers in your self-limited world view, since nothing else counts) want to wait until you get a complete product before they get paid? Ahhh, but comrade, great Stateski Carski pays them. And in five years, you vill get your Trabant.

How is buying stock in a company doing any of this? There are people who do all of this and they are compensated for doing so. You don't have to do any of it to collect profit, rent or interest. Hell, all you have to do is rent your house out, put money in the bank or buy stock in a company.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So does organizing labor, capital, workspace, marketing, and procurement of source materials.

MtG, we are talking about an isolated deal between two agents. One has an advantage and the other is at a disadvantage. It's very simple.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's fair because all participants have the opportunity to plan for changes in the labor markets, to anticipate them, and to decide how they want to deal with those changes.

Opportunity to plan isn't ****. You are still at a disadvantage. The other party also has tiime to plan and will always have more resources, connections etc. Chances are you will plan wrong and you will be in debt which will put you at a greater disadvantage.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
People don't have to accept deals. If someone offers to hire me for either my software development or energy consulting work, but they'll only pay me $15.00 an hour, I'll laugh in their face. 25 years ago, when I was a teenage scab construction laborer, I would have jumped at $15.00 an hour, even if you adjust back for inflation. The difference? I worked at changing my market value and bargaining power.

If people refuse to change their job market value and decide to remain unskilled, don't expect me to sympathize with them, any more than I'd sympathize with a business who claims to want an IT staff, or TIG welders, or high voltage journeyman electricians, but will only pay $10.00 an hour, and goes out of business rather than pay market costs for skilled labor.

People do have to accept the best deal available to them. Just because you accept the best deal doesn't make that deal fair. Take the system overall. It's unfair because the majority of deals (jobs) are unfair. Sure some smart individuals can become the exploiters instead of the exploited, but the system is still unfair.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's only one example of a fairly common case. Labor shortages in skilled or specialty labor have created imbalances in the market in favor of those employees until the market adjusted - generally by more and more people pursuing the skills necessary to get those jobs. Obviously, the further down you are in the skills/value level you bring to the marketplace, the less likely that a shortage of labor is going to appear to benefit you, but the demand side of the labor market is a big part of why you train in some skills, and don't bother with others.

So ask yourself why there was the shortage in the first place. The only way an employee can get a break is when capitalism is functioning at its worse. Evenentually they don't really benefit because the system breaks down completely.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man



Its a shame, then, that labour can't organize itself isn't it

Labor organization is work. It is performed by labor. Buying stock is not organizing labor.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Labor organization is work. It is performed by labor. Buying stock is not organizing labor.

I suppose it isn't work, but that guy had to get the money from somehwere.

[Arrian]

According to Kid, that money was ill-gotten. He stole it, or he inherited it. He certainly couldn't have earned it.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Michael, Michael...

Do you not realize that you are talking to somebody who is certain that people are unaware that they are writing rent checks, apparently even while they are writing the check.

I'm very aware that I'm paying rent. I've also realized how exploitive it is for a long time. And don't tell me to save my money either. Even if I could save the money for a down payment, I would be exploited until then, and afterwords I would be exploited by paying the interest on the home loan.

[The Andy-Man]

yeah, i know, that the problem with thr reds.

I mean, for them, the fact the guy had to do alot of hard thought process to decide which stocks would be wise investments, and even more, to stake his savings on them, means nothing to your average red.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man


I suppose it isn't work, but that guy had to get the money from somehwere.

It's dripping with blood.

[Arrian]

And don't tell me to save my money either. Even if I could save the money for a down payment, I would be exploited until then, and afterwords I would be exploited by paying the interest on the home loan.

That's right then - give up. Do nothing. You're being exploited! It's all so unfair! If things were fair you would be able to go take that bloody wealth away from the fat, lazy, rich, criminal capitalist! Yeah!

You're incredible. Your ideology is constructed to justify your desire to take things from other people.

-Arrian

[JohnT]

I'm very aware that I'm paying rent. I've also realized how exploitive it is for a long time. And don't tell me to save my money either. Even if I could save the money for a down payment, I would be exploited until then, and afterwords I would be exploited by paying the interest on the home loan.

Has anybody bothered to explain to you the time-value of money? I.e. if I'm going to loan your sorry ass $150,000 to buy a house and you want to take his own sweet time (like 20, 30 years) to pay me back, well I'm going to charge you extra for the time that my money is being spent on your house.

And Kid? Since time is the one resource we can never get back, you can be sure I'm going to charge you for the percentage of my life that is inconvenienced by not having my $150,000 at my disposal.

I mean, I'm sure you knows this. This can't be a completely original thought... why do you discount it so heavily? Do you consider my time and my money's time to be a limitless resource, to be disposed according to your needs?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You missed my meaning. I meant what is different morally by cheating welfare and sitting on your ass collecting profit while others work for you?

Assuming I can "sit on my ass and collect profit" (as opposed to "sitting on my ass and losing my ass") it doesn't matter whether I have others work for me or not.

I've seen plenty of screwoff employees who essentially milked their employer's bureaucracy, and figured every way they could to get out of doing any work, while their coworkers ended up picking up the slack.

I've also seen chicken**** managers in large companies, who were useless and non-productive, but they weren't "owners" and were just like junior officers in the corporate chain of command.

I've seen inept managers, who would have done everyone a favor if they had sat on their ass, but that's a different situation entirely.

In order to collect profit, you have to either (a) do something, (b) have done something in the past and are now getting deferred rewards, or (c) have invested something.

My not quite three year old son is an exception of sorts, because he hasn't really "done anything" to "earn" the percentage of my business I've given him, unless you count playing with trains and legos on the floor of my office. (that's his job ).

There are overpaid executives, (Lay and Fastow will be the first that pop to mind), and various sorts of unscupulous owners (and managers and employees), but it's immoral actions they've taken, not "sitting on their ass and collecting profit" that are the issue.

Perhaps you could describe for me a scenario in which someone manages to "sit on their ass and collect a profit" while other people work for them? I've known peope who've sat on their asses (or just had the reverse Midas touch) and lost their asses, but they didn't make a profit. I've known business owners who've put their life savings at risk and worked their asses off, putting in more hours than any of their employees, and made or not made "profits" depending on their overall business results, while the employees got paid regardless and got to go home at 5:30 every day with none of their savings at risk.

I've known investors who've made money and lost money, but they didn't directly have people working for them.

I have yet to encounter anyone who sat on their ass and made a profit while other people worked for them, who didn't also put a sizeable amount of capital or labor at risk.

So maybe you could describe a realistic scenario for me?