Are labor supply and freedom related?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Seriously kid

In your society, if you and I started out exactly equal in education and starting wealth, would one of us be permitted to freely accrue more wealth than the other. Oh and by freely accrue, I include the right to pass on that wealth to whomever I choose including my children on my death.

First of all your wealth and education would have nothing to do with your ability to earn more wealth, so they don't have to be equal. Secondly, do you mean save your earnings, and pass it on, sure. What you won't be able to do is save your earnings, buy a tool, and rent it out to become rich.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Because gaining wealth by work (call it pure work if that helps you understand the difference) and investment, are too different things. The latter how you become super wealthy at other's expense.

I think we are hitting a key point here. You object to people becoming wealthy!!

The at "other people's expense" part -- I call bullcrap. You would object to a capitalist paying double the going wage if the capitalist took any profit. There is no harm to other people in making DOUBLE the wages they would make without the investment. You just object to PROFIT-- strip away everything else and it comes down to you cannot accept any individual profiting from pretty much anything to do with investment-- regardless of how much the workers also profit

[Arrian]

Bingo. Because investment isn't "work" and thus should have no value.

I knew that threads ago.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I think we are hitting a key point here. You object to people becoming wealthy!!

The at "other people's expense" part -- I call bullcrap. You would object to a capitalist paying double the going wage if the capitalist took any profit. There is no harm to other people in making DOUBLE the wages they would make without the investment. You just object to PROFIT-- strip away everything else and it comes down to you cannot accept any individual profiting from pretty much anything to do with investment-- regardless of how much the workers also profit

Of course I object to profit, rent and interest. Those are how you maintain your status. They make you rich and they make other people poor. Imagine a poor person who works for wages, pays rent, and because they are poor has gone in debt so they have to pay interest. Now imagine that they don't pay rent, their wages are higher, and they pay off their debt? Now imagine that they get wealthy, so they recieve rent, and interest, maybe even profit. It makes all the difference in the world. But you are mentally conditioned to place all the resonsibility on individuals for their condition. That's just ridiculous. You just ignore reality.

[Velociryx]

The tool owner does not deserve the rent for owning the tool, but for spreading the use of the tool. For purchasing the tool and making it available to others who may only have an occassional need for a tractor (and thus, who do not wish to part with their money to actually buy one), or, for people who are currently saving to buy one, but need one in the meantime.

These people could do their work without the tractor, but they recognize that the use of the tractor will make them more productive, and they jump at the chance.

End result: I get compensation for the time you are using my tractor (and another reason I deserve this compensation is because while you are using my tractor, I obviously, cannot), and you get compensation in the form of a level of productivity formerly unavailable to you.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Bingo. Because investment isn't "work" and thus should have no value.

I knew that threads ago.

-Arrian

Shouldn't that be blantently obvious?

[Arrian]

No. We clearly disagree about that, Kid. And we've done so several times in several threads, so I don't feel the need to go over that again. Let's agree to disagree on that.

Furthermore, even if I grant you that point (which I do only for the sake of the discussion), there remains a problem.

Without investment, not much will happen economically (at least that's my take on it).

Would you have the government fill the void?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The tool owner does not deserve the rent for owning the tool, but for spreading the use of the tool. For purchasing the tool and making it available to others who may only have an occassional need for a tractor (and thus, who do not wish to part with their money to actually buy one), or, for people who are currently saving to buy one, but need one in the meantime.

These people could do their work without the tractor, but they recognize that the use of the tractor will make them more productive, and they jump at the chance.

End result: I get compensation for the time you are using my tractor (and another reason I deserve this compensation is because while you are using my tractor, I obviously, cannot), and you get compensation in the form of a level of productivity formerly unavailable to you.

-=Vel=-

Yeah whatever. That's not compensating people for thier labor. Just the opposite. You want people to pay out of their work for you to facilitate their work, when in a morally just society they can facilitate their own labor and not have to pay for it.

[Arrian]

a morally just society they can facilitate their own labor and not have to pay for it.

HOW!?!?!

That's the key, right there. HOW?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
No. We clearly disagree about that, Kid. And we've done so several times in several threads, so I don't feel the need to go over that again. Let's agree to disagree on that.

Furthermore, even if I grant you that point (which I do only for the sake of the discussion), there remains a problem.

Without investment, not much will happen economically (at least that's my take on it).

Would you have the government fill the void?

-Arrian

Let me ask you this. If work is work, and investment is work, then why isn't a thing worth more when I use your tool. Why is it worth the same whether I own the tool or you do.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


HOW!?!?!

That's the key, right there. HOW?

-Arrian

Simple. There is no ruling class receiving payment for someone elses work, but simply for owning things.

[Arrian]

It might be. It depends on the "thing" in question. Some tools might help you make an equally good "thing" but allow you to make MORE of them in the same time/effort. Other tools might improve quality of the item. Sometimes its both.

So it's the product of your labor that increases in value, whether it's because you can now produce 10 widgets instead of 5, or because you can produce 5 of superior quality (or 10 of superior quality - that'd be really kickass ).

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

wrong, wrong wrong!

One thing I love about arguing with Kid is that he always manages to miss even the most blatantly obvious points, and yet, magically concludes that the rest of the world just "has it wrong."



I love it!

Step at a time:

1) My labor bought the tractor.
2) If you use the tractor, I can't.
3) Since the tractor is mine, paid for by my labor, if you use it without permission, it's called theft.
4) You must compensate me both for the use of my tool (paying for the increase in your own productivity) and for the use of my time (time you spend using the tool is time I can't use it).

Anything less is morally unjust....to use your own words.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Simple. There is no ruling class receiving payment for someone elses work, but simply for owning things.

No, not simple. The removing might be simple. It's the "what then" that I'm after.

Ok, let's say all of the rich people are removed (and for the sake of argument we will leave aside all the middle class folks who own bits of stock, even though I imagine those bits add up to quite a bit of capital).

How do you come up with capital to create new endeavors? Who controls that process? And how do you avoid a new "ruling class?"

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
It might be. It depends on the "thing" in question. Some tools might help you make an equally good "thing" but allow you to make MORE of them in the same time/effort. Other tools might improve quality of the item. Sometimes its both.

So it's the product of your labor that increases in value, whether it's because you can now produce 10 widgets instead of 5, or because you can produce 5 of superior quality (or 10 of superior quality - that'd be really kickass ).

-Arrian

You're not answering my question. Why is a good not more expensive, because the producer borrowed money to produce the good instead of using his own capital?