Elvish Pillager wrote:I propose not solving this "problem". I also reject our cultural obsession with trying to give people what they "deserve" (which seems to be what you're getting at with that basket-weaver example.)
Actually, it was a direct attack on "X was trained more, so gets paid more".
The "value" problem goes far far beyond salaries.
As a trivial, toy example: do you feed Pigs with Wheat or Soy? Without something resembling prices and the "cost" of producing each, this is an insanely hard problem. You have to understand the entire transportation infrastructure, ecological impact, impact of changing which one, etc etc.
Price ends up being a measure
of the marginal trade-off that you should make between consuming X and consuming Y.
A classic example of Prices done wrong is when, in Russia, the price of Bread ended up being lower than the price of the Wheat needed to make the bread, so pig-farmers where buying Bread to feed their pigs -- which effectively wasted
all of the economic effort put into turning the wheat into bread, as pigs didn't mind eating wheat at all.
Jahoclave wrote:And how valuable is your labor if the product of the labor is something nobody needs? You can build as many widgets as you want but if nobody needs a widget you're not going to make a dime. Think of it as the market value of labor.
Except, of course, that you ignore the value of every other input. If person A can make cool toys, but requires 100 square km of land to do it, while person B can do it in his back yard -- both have the same "price"?
Or do you invent a value for the 100 square km of land out of thin air, and then subtract that off of what person A's labor produces, to work out how much it is "worth"?
I see amazingly complex, tricky problems that are being utterly ignored.
So you're saying that engineers and rocket scientists get paid a lot simply because of what now? It couldn't be because there aren't as many of them because it's more difficult to learn and thus we have a smaller supply? Yes, in market theory the difficulty of learning is a factor.
But it doesn't determine the value. It is really hard to become a semi-pro baseball player, yet you get payed shit-all. It is really hard to become the 10th fastest swimmer in the world, but you get paid shit-all.
Additional bolding mine. Separate "free market" and "capitalism" and you see how easy it is to do the above in Marxism. You don't have to completely negate the free market. Most economic systems had a free market. It isn't just a property of capitalism.
So you want it to be illegal to ... what?
Defer consumption of resources or rewards allocated to you?
Trade your goods for other goods, and sell what you trade for for yet more goods?
Defer your consumption of resources in order to attempt to generate more productivity in someone else, and make a deal for a cut of the increased production?
Well, part of the problem in determining that is determining how the company is set up. Is it based on sharing the profits equally or on a scale value. Or do you have base salaries and share the profits afterwards. In a sense it comes down to how much people are willing to pay for a quality level of management.
In market capitalism, the company is set up to maximize the profits for the owners, which means maximizing the worth of the inputs while minimizing the costs of the inputs. How one goes about doing this is, well, random and up to the people who want to attract investment from individuals who want to not-consume resources allocated to them and instead invest it in increasing the production of other people, and getting a share of the resulting increased production.
Under what set of goals would the success of the marxist company be measured? To whom would it justify it's use of resources that could otherwise be consumed on their projects? What happens if the decisions are wrong or wasteful? What happens if they succeed beyond the expected amount? How is it determined which individuals work at on which projects?
Are people allowed to decide "I can live on less, and I have an interesting project I want to work on with some of the resources society wanted to give me"? Are people allowed to bargain and trade the resources they have allocated to them, if they decide "I prefer chocolate cake, and I was assigned strawberry cake"? (Or, I was assigned X consumption per year, when I want to consume less, and have more later on)?
Can I swap a beer for a friend's help building a tree house? Can I offer to give someone 10 loaves of bread in exchange for the other person building me a rocking horse? Can I sell rocking horses that I own to other people, in exchange for goods and services?
Yes. I do have a problem with your assigning of resources though. Think of it this way. Instead of EXXON owns said land. The employees of EXXON own said land collectively and have decided upon how to have said land developed. Be that by a direct vote or the hiring of mangers accountable to the rest of the group.
Did I mention EXXON? I could have sworn I didn't mention EXXON.
I mentioned bottles of beer. I asked explicit, concrete questions, which you responded with by naming a particular company that I wasn't asking about.
I'll repeat my questions:
Are people allowed to decide "I can live on less, and I have an interesting project I want to work on with some of the resources society wanted to give me"?
Are people allowed to bargain and trade the resources they have allocated to them, if they decide "I prefer chocolate cake, and I was assigned strawberry cake"?
(Or, I was assigned X consumption per year, when I want to consume less, and have more later on)?
Can I swap a beer for a friend's help building a tree house?
Can I offer to give someone 10 loaves of bread in exchange for the other person building me a rocking horse?
Can I sell rocking horses that I own to other people, in exchange for goods and services?Which
of the above should be illegal? None of them? Naively, you seem to want to make investment in other people's productivity that generates a return on said investment illegal. I'm asking you, explicitly, which of the above steps should be illegal.
Sedition1917 wrote:Not really what I said but…. Not a fan of democracy then? What system would you implement?
I want my democracy to be as abstract, hand-off, and far away from me and mine as it can reasonably be. I don't want it to be fiddling around with the details of my life.
Small scale democracy ends up dealing with small scale problems. I'd rather democracy have large, abstract problems to deal with, so it can never identify me as a particular individual.
You can do that if you want. But who is supposed to be paying you here? If you are working by yourself then you can have whatever you can make from it. But if you are working in an under-water behind-the-back basket-weaving factory (assuming one exists…) then you get whatever value you add. Simple.
So you disagree with the person I was disagreeing with, who said a computer programmer should get paid more because the computer programmers training was harder
, and mentioned no other reasons.
Glad we agree.
You end up with Marx’s labour theory of value. The exploitation by the capitalist class has just been removed and workers gain the full fruits of their labour.
That requires a perfect pricing of all non-labor inputs. How do you do this perfect pricing again? I missed that chapter.
No… the owner has a huge incentive to solve the problem profitably. There might be a demand for cheap council housing but that wouldn’t turn as big a profit as luxury apartments. So the luxury apartments get built. Which is why there is a massive shortage - in Britain at least, not sure about US what with more cheap land etc – of affordable housing and a massive excess of luxury apartments.
Then the government can simply make an offer for cheap council housing? Once the price of that is high enough, it will be cheaper than luxury apartments.
You do know what luxury apartments do, right? They provide incentives for people to make decisions that generate surplus value. If you remove all luxuries as being "unworthy", you end up with people who are generating "enough" surplus value deciding "naw, I won't work any harder -- I have enough".
In socialism, probably the people who lived in the area, whose lives it had a direct affect on would decide, or their local representative. And if he or she started making decisions people didn’t like, recall them and hold them accountable!
Once again, generating a popularity contest that impacts my life at a high-detail level. Instead of being able to make deals with individuals, I'm forced to play politics.
Is it eliminated!? Or is it these people now have slightly better paid jobs?
The absolute poverty of < 2$ per day living (the traditional cut-off is, btw, about 1$ to 1.50$), is eliminated. And yes, these people have better paying jobs.http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf ... ng_ri.html
This study ignores the difference between inflation on low and high end goods -- aka, the wal-mart effect -- in which over the period studied the rate of inflation on low end goods was lower than on high end goods. Ignoring this market split results in ... a miscalculation of the amount of change in wealth that the poorest 20% of households actually experienced.
As such, the conclusion of the study has a fundamental flaw. As I requested you to generate studies that you had so much confidence in that if I managed to find a single fundamental flaw, that you'd be convinved that your position was wrong, if I manage to substantiate the above claim, will you indeed decide your position is wrong?
Just curious. I want to see if you agree with the stakes before I go find some citations.
Mental. So you are advocating starving parts of the world’s population because otherwise they’ll produce more kids and want more food? Greedy fucking Africans eh?
No. I'm advocating spending effort increasing their infrastructure and economy so they can stand on their own two feet, rather than just shipping in huge amounts of food aid. I quite strongly suspect that generating a healthy economy will be a far far far far far far far more efficient way to prevent starvation and hardship than simply shipping food in.
Then again, I'm not presuming I have infinite resources to solve this kind of problem.