Is profit different from unfair tax?

[Velociryx]

Okay, I'll break it down for you and go reeeeeaaaaaallly slow.

1) Say that you use a tool individually, and it enhances your production. Fine and dandy.

2) Say someone else comes along and invents a tool that can double the productivity of everyone who uses that tool.

3) For the sake of putting numbers to it, let us say that before this tool came about, there were 100 people total in your line of work, and that each of you could make 10 whatevers a day, non-tooled. That means, the total productive value per day of all of you guys, is 1000 whatevers per day.

4) WITH this tool, you guys can now make 20 per day. The total productive value per day, if everybody is using the new tool is 2000.

5) As the inventor of the tool, my contribution to your labor is 1000 per day, or what the rest of you do, combined.

6) I enter into a contractual arrangement with each of you, such that you keep 19 of what you produce each day, and I get one. I get 100 per day as compensation for allowing you to double your productivity.

7) yes, I am paid more (as measured in terms of raw, keepable output), because my invention redefined the industry, your efforts are limited to your own self, and are not macro in their view.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
But if you look back on arguments of Kidicious and others defending Marxism, you'll see the same pattern of argument as Hitler describes.

Hitler had no real argument anyway. Just a bunch of sensational hate speech. Actually that's what the argument from the right on this thread is turning into.

Do you have an argument Ned?

[Velociryx]

Choice has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of collecting benefits that you didn't earn and someone else losing the benefits of thier work.

My stake in your labor stems from the fact that you are using my tool to increase your productivity. If you don't like the arrangement, there's nothing stopping you from making your own version of the tool, but if you use mine, those are the terms. If you accept them, then you're paying me for the value of MY labor, in the form of the tool you are now using.

Non-exploitative.

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


What is autarky?

Autarky is an economic policy consisting in the refusal of any exchange with the environment. Mostly applied by nations before you invented an individual variety.

[Japher]

Kid is smart, so I wouldn't insult his intelligence.

However

Kid trusts that everyone will do what they are able, but this is not the case. People do not do what they're able. Some do nothing and expect everything. Ability has nothing to do with willingness when choice is involved. Trying to convince the world to carry the weight of those who wish to carry nothing is dead end argument. In a world in which people are given choice/freedom desire must be the driving factor not merely potential.

Should ppl who build tools be paid more than those who use them?

Generally, yes.

Why?

To invent, create, or build a tool generally requires more skill, intelligence, and education to perform than to use the tools. One's effort should be rewarded thusly.

Why should some one who pushes a button that makes a product get paid the same as the person who made the button = product? Less skill, intelligence, education, and in most sense Labor is required in pushing a button than in making that button do something.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx

7) yes, I am paid more (as measured in terms of raw, keepable output), because my invention redefined the industry, your efforts are limited to your own self, and are not macro in their view.

-=Vel=-

My efforts are not limited to myself. See you don't understand Adam Smith too well . Who produced the goods and services that you consumed while you sat around on your ass thinking up ways to exploit me? Did we both not work and contribute to society. Why should you be paid more?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Autarky is an economic policy consisting in the refusal of any exchange with the environment. Mostly applied by nations before you invented an individual variety.

No I don't support such a policy

[Velociryx]

What I do in my spare time is invent. I do that AFTER I go out and earn my keep. What you do in your spare time is your business, but it's not exploitive of me to make more financially productive use of MY time than you do of yours.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
To invent, create, or build a tool generally requires more skill, intelligence, and education to perform than to use the tools. One's effort should be rewarded thusly.

Why should some one who pushes a button that makes a product get paid the same as the person who made the button = product? Less skill, intelligence, education, and in most sense Labor is required in pushing a button than in making that button do something.

You should be paid more for training yourself to do a job that requires skill. How does that relate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What I do in my spare time is invent. I do that AFTER I go out and earn my keep. What you do in your spare time is your business, but it's not exploitive of me to make more financially productive use of MY time than you do of yours.

-=Vel=-

Then you should be compensated for that. You shouldn't become rich though just for putting in a few hours after work.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What I do in my spare time is invent. I do that AFTER I go out and earn my keep. What you do in your spare time is your business, but it's not exploitive of me to make more financially productive use of MY time than you do of yours.

-=Vel=-

What !!! It is your hobby and you want to be paid when you are playing the Edison !

Then I want to be paid as well when I am playing a Civ game.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The difference is that they have to pay rent for it. Rent is exploitive. The ability to pay should not be a factor. The system allows those with the ability to pay to exploit those who do not. Get it?

This is the one I NEVER understand. WHY is rent exploitive?


Imagine I am a ditchdigger and I dig more ditches and save more money than anyone else. I could spend my increased earnings but instead decide to use the proceeds of my labours to buy a tractor after my years of labour. I can now dig ditches faster and therefore make more money with less effort but I am old and it seems inefficient to have my tractor sit idle when I am tired or sick.

1. Kid is it ok for me to hire someone to drive my tractor and pay them a "fair wage" for doing so? Obviously I could not pay them all of the price I get for the ditch he digs since I will have tractor expenses and my own efforts in obtaining the contract. Second, why would I let anyone else use my tractor if I didn't get something in return?

2 rent out my tractor-- After all, my tractor represents the value of years of my accumulated labor. My labor was converted to cash and then to this physical asset. Wouldn't it be " exploitive" for anyone else to use the tractor ( my accumulated labor) without compensating me? Would not rent be a fair way to do it? the worker then is free to work as hard as he wants and earn as wuch extra compensation in excess of my rent payment as he wants

I don't force anyone to use my tractor-- its there if you want but you are free to refuse and continue to use a shovel.

I KNOW I KNOW . . . in your utopia the state would provide a tractor but lets get real, the state will never provide a tractor for every use that individuals may want and there would always be a willingness to barter for use of a tractor if one was available.


Or lets go to an agrarian economy. the owner of a cart and horse often charged fees to cart produce to market. Even if you had a community cart and horse, it would be innefficient for all the farmers to take it to market so one person had to be the carter and be compensated. I guess the farmers could take turns but farmers often could not afford a day not in the fields during the busy harvest time. The compensation had to be more than a wage since carts break and horses require food and care and will die-- so the carter needed a profit so that, at minimum, he could acquire another horse or cart when the time required. etc etc-- I guess your utopia would provide a cart and a carter but how to pay for them?? Taxes?? So you have substituted an involuntary forced payment for your completely voluntary one . . . What if one farmer thinks its better to have his son cart their own goods-- do they get to opt out of taxes-- probably not?? But they were always free as to whether or not to hire the free enterprise carter-- which system is the exploitive one again ??



Kid --communism has failed everywhere except on some smaller scale communal farms. Central planning seems fundamentally unable to keep up with complex economies as well as the free market does and the lack of incentive to invent or to acquire productive assets or to work hard leads to a less productive and failing economy. mention one place where your theories have worked even a little on a national scale . .. . just one . . . we're waiting


You seem to believe that magical philospher kings will descend and make correct decisions on all matters of economic planning, that production can remain at least constant with most incentives removed and that an elite won't emerge and appropriate a great deal of the centralized production for their own benefit.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Hitler had no real argument anyway. Just a bunch of sensational hate speech. Actually that's what the argument from the right on this thread is turning into.

Do you have an argument Ned?

I agree with Vel.

However, I also agree with Hitler to the extent that arguing with a Marxist is essentially pointless.

[Japher]

You should be paid more for training yourself to do a job that requires skill. How does that relate.

Then you should be compensated for that. You shouldn't become rich though just for putting in a few hours after work.

You should be compensated for training yourself, but not for doing any work on your own after you are done with your job?.. I'm lost.

People with more skills should get paid more, but people who make something that eliminate the need for people with no skills should not get paid at all?..

You should be compenstated for trying to invent something, but you should make money if you happen to actually invent anything?.. Where am I?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Then you should be compensated for that. You shouldn't become rich though just for putting in a few hours after work.

Is it the amount of time alone that gives value or that peeves you off. If I am brilliant and come up with a miraculous invention after 2 hours, is this any less valuable than if I spent 6 months of gut wrenching effort to achieve the same thing . . . its the same invention.

You just seem peeved that sopme peole get rich on what you see as less effort.