Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[Velociryx]

Because the macro economy of which we speak is reflected in its component parts. As the small scale stuff goes, so goes the bigger picture. It all works using the same mechanisms. There's not a separate economic system in place to handle smaller, or personal transactions....those transactions are made the same way larger business deals are made. Same line of reasoning.

So if it's okay that I get 60% of the investment on our personal venture together....if that's not exploitive, then it's also not exploitive if the owner of the machine in the factory downtown gets HIS proportional share of the profits.

Same *exact* mechanism.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Well I only said I wouldn't care about a personal business between the two of us. I didn't agree that the system is fair.

[Velociryx]

What's the difference? If it's fair between you and I, and the same reasoning is applied to the factory owner.....where is the difference?

Either I'm exploiting you by getting a greater benefit from our joint venture (and by extension, the factory owner is exploiting you by taking his greater share of the profits), or I'm not exploiting you by getting more money out because I put more money in (in which case, the factory owner is *also* justified).

Can't have it both ways, bud...which is it?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
What's the difference? If it's fair between you and I, and the same reasoning is applied to the factory owner.....where is the difference?

Either I'm exploiting you by getting a greater benefit from our joint venture (and by extension, the factory owner is exploiting you by taking his greater share of the profits), or I'm not exploiting you by getting more money out because I put more money in (in which case, the factory owner is *also* justified).

Can't have it both ways, bud...which is it?

-=Vel=-

I never said you would be exploiting me. I wouldn't be working for you. No, I don't thnk you have made a connection here. Sorry Vel. I think we are talking about two diferent things, but I'm not sure how.

[Velociryx]

It is absolutely no different, and your reasoning that it is simply does not fly.

If you and I make an investment together (per the example above), and I contribute more, and thus, get a larger percentage of the return back, that is the *exact same principle* at work in the case of the factory owner.

He made an investment (his money) into the big, expensive machine. You likewise make an investment (your time) into coming there to work. The factory owner's investment is the larger of the two, and he gets the bigger share of the reward.

Same principle applied to both situations.

So if I'm not exploiting you, then neither is the factory owner.

Unless you disagree that time = money, in which case, study economics....

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

I think I figured out what it is. You have a lot of trouble with the idea that with Communism people will be paid similar amounts for different amounts of work. That is why you came up with the hypothetical business deal.

Ok, the deal first. Since you invested more money you should get more return. I'm not arguing with you about that. That isn't exploitation.

Now you are comparing this to the situation where both of us do work for the same pay, but you do more work. Ok you are right here. It's not fair, and that is a valid complaint. If you want to call this exploitation fine.

This can't be compared to the situation where I work for you and you get to keep some of my earnings in the form of profit. That is clearly exploitation. Why should you get that if I'm the one who did the work.

The diferences between the situation in the Communist system and the capitalist system is that

1) The work to compensation ratio is much closer to 1 with communism how ever you look at it. The work to compensation ration in the capitalist system is significantly higher than one for the worker. The capitalist of course didn't do any work, but let's say he saved some money to buy the equipment. In that case the capitalists work to compensation ration is significantly lower than 1.

2) This is important in a democracy. In the capitalist system the the capitalist has a greater ability to affect government do to his resources. In the communist system this doesn't happen.

[Ned]

DuncanK, the work problem can be solved simply by paying people for their output - piecework. The more output, the more money.

As to people making money off of other's labor, this is nonsense. You make it seem that management are pimps and workers are prostitutes.

A worker makes a shoe and sells it to X for $5. X then resells it to Y for $7.

Is X exploiting the worker?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
DuncanK, the work problem can be solved simply by paying people for their output - piecework. The more output, the more money.

No, the owner still gets profit.

Originally posted by Ned
As to people making money off of other's labor, this is nonsense. You make it seem that management are pimps and workers are prostitutes.

A worker makes a shoe and sells it to X for $5. X then resells it to Y for $7.

Is X exploiting the worker?

Why didn't the worker sell it for $7?

[KrazyHorse]

Because the worker didn't ever own the shoe. He's a wage slave.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Frogger
Because the worker didn't ever own the shoe. He's a wage slave.

No, it's because if the worker knew how to sell shoes for 7 bucks he wouldn't be a worker

[Velociryx]

Duncan - I contend you are incorrect. There is no difference between the investment example and the shoe factory example. None whatsoever. The exact same mechanmism that makes our splitting of the hypothetical investment proceeds non-exploitive, *also* makes the shoe factory owner's "profiting froml your labor" non-exploitive.

Before you were even in the picture, the shoe factory owner put his neck on the proverbial chopping block, and invested his money + money in his name (bank loans and such) to BUILD the shoe factory.

Once built, you agree to come to work in the factory to make shoes (note that you did not help build the factory, nor pay for the machine, nor anything else in the building) - Your contribution to this investment then, is your time spent making shoes.

This investment contribution is less than the factory owner's, so, when it comes time to divvy up the profits, guess who gets the larger share?

If it makes you "feel better" about it, then just think of it as yep....you own the shoes you make, but because you don't own the machine you made them on, you have to sell them immediately to the guy who owns the machine. This process is automated in the form of your paycheck.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK
The capitalist of course didn't do any work, but let's say he saved some money to buy the equipment.

Why do you have this attitude that the capitalist doesn't work? Have you ever known someone who's trying to establish their own business Duncan? Some of those people are absolutely driven, working 12-18 hours a day trying to get their idea off the ground. They typically work much harder than their employess, who go home after eight hours and forget about their job. A successful entrepeneur eats, sleeps and breathes his work, it's a 24/7 thing with them. You can't have a successful business sitting on your butt and letting everyone else do things for you. If you do, you're guarenteed to fail.

[Velociryx]

::nodding:: Good catch Willem....not sure how I missed that one....that's....juicy....

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Willem


Why do you have this attitude that the capitalist doesn't work? Have you ever known someone who's trying to establish their own business Duncan? Some of those people are absolutely driven, working 12-18 hours a day trying to get their idea off the ground. They typically work much harder than their employess, who go home after eight hours and forget about their job. A successful entrepeneur eats, sleeps and breathes his work, it's a 24/7 thing with them. You can't have a successful business sitting on your butt and letting everyone else do things for you. If you do, you're guarenteed to fail.

You took this out of context and twisted it again. You do this so often I'm not even going to respond to it this time.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK

No, the owner still gets profit.

OK, so the worker rents the machine and the floorspace in the factory and sells the shoes to the highest bidder or alternatively to broker X for $5.

Is he now exploited?

Originally posted by DuncanK Why didn't the worker sell it for $7?

As Saras said, there are multiple reason why X may not have been able to sell the shoes for $7. The person who does is himself a worker who has that skill.

This is called division of labor.