NationStates Jolt Archive

So then, it would follow by that logic that a CEO who is paid 30 million dollars is worth 1000 times more than a teacher making 30 thousand dollars a year.
Absolutely. Teachers quite numerous, and they're relatively cheap to train. Plus the job comes with considerable perks (it makes most people feel good to do it, it has extensive vacation time, etc.). The ready supply keeps their price down.

Impose limits on my earning potential and forcefully redistribute my earnings, and you will be treated accordingly - from the barrel of a gun. A country that dares to violate its free market in this manner deserves the slow death by stagnation it will suffer. A "free" market at gunpoint should be placed in the dictionary under the more general label "contradiction"...

What a great way to rationalize inequality. Just say that they deserve to be poor and you can rationalize away the fact the 90% of people are being screwed. :headbang:
Give me one damn good reason to care about inequality or the poor. Answer: There isn't. You'll attempt a recourse to some altruist-collectivist rationale, and fail, given that I reject to begin with.

Not true; in fact, it is estimated by some economists that the amount of black market activity (as in, money not reported to the government) is roughly equal to the US's GDP.

In other words, THAT'S A LOT.

Which is why more onerous regulation and such is not an appropriate way to handle the market. Drastically reducing the burden on the market and opening it up to much of what is currently in the grey and black economies would massively boost the economy as a whole, thus providing huge increases in tax revenue and economic growth.

If the government were to focus on reducing the cost of doing business in the regulated economy, they would see a massive benefit for everyone. Much like post war Germany, eliminate price ceilings and the empty shelves in the shops suddenly have a preponderance of goods. Though the value of brandy (I think it was, not sure) crashed as it was the currency of the black market.

The black (and to a larger extent, the quasi-legal grey market) market exists simply because it is easier to operate outside of government interference. Compliance costs for heaps of regulations gets exceedingly expensive. There is a lot of business activity that people want to participate in but these regulations are prohibitive, so they move it to the black market. The costs of getting caught are much less than the cost of compliance.

Day laborers are a great example – being able to just go pick up a bunch of guys to help you out on a construction site is a lot easier than having to go through the employment process. Filling out all the paperwork, keeping copious records, the added accounting costs, etc. is so much that many employers would rather hire illegals and pay them (a little while ago it was around $12/hr near DC) a pretty good wage. It isn't because they want to pay sweatshop wages that people hire illegals, it’s because it is just easier.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

Minimum and maximum wages are regulations that treat the symptoms while fueling the disease.

Big business can have all the government privilege they want as long as they assure the people that they won't let their workers starve (which wouldn't happen in the first place without the guarantee).

No, "realism" is what keeps people down.

I despise determinism of all kinds. I find the idea abhorrent that my life has been pre-planned by the fact that I wasn't born into a rich family. I've got big plans in life, and just because I have to give away most of my wages to my parents so my family can pay the rent does not mean that I have to limit myself to anything.

You cannot and should not give people an excuse not to do the best they can. The fact that even one single poor person can become rich means that everybody can do it, if they only make the right decisions at the right time.



True but look at it this way.. is it better that one poor person reaches their dream, and then gets a whole heap more than they ever dreamed of.. or needed...
Or that 10 poor people reach their dream...

Cause thats what we are talking about here.

making 10million a year or 11 million a year makes almost no difference to your life whatsoever

Making 50k or making 150K makes a massive difference

and to 10 peoples lives!!

I find nothing wrong with wanting to drag yourself up from the bottom.. but why once you are up from the bottom to the top do you have to keep on going???

It doesn't improve your life.. but it does deprive others of the same opportunity.

Just seems so odd to me.

You are already at the top..

It doesn't improve your life.. but it does deprive others of the same opportunity.
See, I don't believe that's the case. The economy, and life in general, is not a zero-sum game. If I win, that doesn't mean someone else has to lose.

I actually agree with you on the 11 million vs 10 million question. But I do so personally, on an individual level. Just because you and I agree on this doesn't mean that everyone does. And even if a majority does, I don't see how you could justify using government force to impose this view of ours on people.

I've always said that once I have $10 million I'll give away anything beyond that. It's plenty enough for a nice house, and even nicer car and not to have to worry about money anymore, and still be able to do whatever I want.

But obviously not everyone thinks the same way, otherwise they'd all do a Warren Buffet and just give their money away (and not leave a huge inheritance to their kids). Which we can call regrettable, but nothing more than that.

See, I don't believe that's the case. The economy, and life in general, is not a zero-sum game. If I win, that doesn't mean someone else has to lose.


That's only true to an extent. Not everyone can be rich.

I don't really buy the argument that a cap of this sort would hinder motivation. I just...don't. 30 grand a DAY buys a WHOLE lot of motivation.

This is way too simplistic a view.

It is not a matter of motivation to work specifically, but a matter of motivation to invest, which is the source of production.

Investment decisions (whether or not to expend more labor, money, capital, etc.) are made through a calculation of possible risk versus possible reward. By capping the possible rewards for potential investors, the valuation is skewed heavily away from any form of investment, as people will be unwilling to accept the risk.

Give me one damn good reason to care about inequality or the poor. Answer: There isn't. You'll attempt a recourse to some altruist-collectivist rationale, and fail, given that I reject to begin with.

The traditional right wing response. Tell others to take responsibility and then completely avoid it yourself. You make me want to puke.

The traditional right wing response. Tell others to take responsibility and then completely avoid it yourself. You make me want to puke.

How has he avoided any responsibility that he has called on others to take?

That's only true to an extent. Not everyone can be rich.
If you want it to take to the extreme, yeah. But then, if everyone was awesome enough and took the good decisions, and provided the value to his or her fellow humans to become rich, I don't think it would matter that no one would be relatively richer. It'd be as close to utopia as we'll ever get.

The traditional right wing response. Tell others to take responsibility and then completely avoid it yourself. You make me want to puke.
Your response, or lack thereof, is a call, nay, a demand for some to take upon themselves the responsibility (to survive) of others. It is a euphemism for coercion and slavery. You make me sick.

My "traditional" response was but a reply to your traditional left-wing moral predilections, which I hasten to say I do not share.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

If I earn $20 million (after tax, I'm assuming) in a years time, what right does the government or you have to take away half of it to give to other people? And what right does the government or you have to tell me how I can spend my money? I am not responsible for the welfare of anyone but myself (I'm single, with no children), and the government shouldn't have the authority to force me to support someone that's not related to me.

If I earn $20 million (after tax, I'm assuming) in a years time, what right does the government or you have to take away half of it to give to other people? And what right does the government or you have to tell me how I can spend my money? I am not responsible for the welfare of anyone but myself (I'm single, with no children), and the government shouldn't have the authority to force me to support someone that's not related to me.

Before you make that $20million you get hit by a car. Aside from some physical ramifications You lose all self-confidence, suffer migraines and, alongside crippling bouts of depression, lose the ability to interact effectively with people. You're unable to work. This is all out of your control.

But as the government doesn't have the authority to force someone to hand over the money they were going to spend on their eleventh car, you can't recieve any help from them. What do you do?

Before you make that $20million you get hit by a car. Aside from some physical ramifications You lose all self-confidence, suffer migraines and, alongside crippling bouts of depression, lose the ability to interact effectively with people. You're unable to work. This is all out of your control.
An utterly exceptional, unlikely circumstance. Why do such questions always revolve around the most unlikely scenarios?

But as the government doesn't have the authority to force someone to hand over the money they were going to spend on their eleventh car, you can't recieve any help from them. What do you do?
a) You rely on your insurance policy or savings.
b) Failing (b), you rely on privately donated charity or family members/ friends wealthy enough to aid you.
c) Failing (c), you beg or die.

What would I say were it me facing this situation? That I fully accept any one of the possibilities. In fact I'd probably simply take my own life.

If I earn $20 million (after tax, I'm assuming) in a years time, what right does the government or you have to take away half of it to give to other people?
Assumption highlighted. The whole means of implementing an income cap would, realistically, be through the tax code. It's simply a matter of setting up tax curve correctly, and income develops a horizontal asymptote.

And what, really, is the philosophical difference between an income cap and a rigorously applied graduated tax? The way people get super-rich is through untaxed and lightly taxed forms of income.

See, I don't believe that's the case. The economy, and life in general, is not a zero-sum game. If I win, that doesn't mean someone else has to lose.
The universe is a zero-sum game. Realistically speaking, if you're winning, someone else is losing, 99+% of the time. For example, the money supply is finite, regulated, and shuffles around in particular determined fashions. You're not just drawing that extra money out of thin air; it came out of someone's pocket eventually.

Assumption highlighted. The whole means of implementing an income cap would, realistically, be through the tax code. It's simply a matter of setting up tax curve correctly, and income develops a horizontal asymptote.
Didn't they do that before Reagan came along?

The universe is a zero-sum game.
But the universe is so big that we are nowhere near this fact coming to matter.

You're not just drawing that extra money out of thin air; it came out of someone's pocket eventually.
In return for something else. And given that transactions are made voluntarily (at least in the majority of cases), that something must have provided a bigger benefit to that person.

Didn't they do that before Reagan came along?
No, not really. It was still possible for you to make a crapload of money, it just wasn't quite as easy. After Reagan came along, the tax code was loosened to make it easier on the rich. Bush Jr. had the goal of removing the pain of dynastic fortunes similarly.

For the most part, our tax code in the US doesn't apply to the main forms of income of the super wealthy. The giant loopholes over certain types of income as opposed to others, you understand. Earned income is taxed much more heavily than unearned income. In effective terms, it's mainly the tax code that determines how much the richest will take home.

In effective terms, it's mainly the tax code that determines how much the richest will take home.
Fair enough.

Still, the idea of tax rates above 50% on anything is appalling. If there is anyone who deserves that money even less than the guy who's earned it, it's the government. Anti-wealth people need to stop thinking that the government is somehow on their side.

As it is, government is on government's side, and that's it. Give them money, and you'll never see 90% of it again.

But the universe is so big that we are nowhere near this fact coming to matter.
Every system is non-zero sum only so much as it isn't closed. Economic systems have a limited degree of non-closedness, relating to the total quantity of labor and material resources, i.e., base level production. Everything past that - i.e., all forms of service and distribution - are effectively closed.
In return for something else. And given that transactions are made voluntarily (at least in the majority of cases), that something must have provided a bigger benefit to that person.
Oh no, not necessarily and particularly not in the case of executive compensations and Enron-like fiascos.

And there's certainly such a thing as overpaying. I certainly am not getting the value of what I've paid for a cell phone back on it, not yet, in any case; I made some initial mistakes, and it's cost me some money. I've paid plenty more than I should have, but I didn't know that I would get cheated out of a few hundred dollars when I decided to buy a service.

My money certainly still provides more benefit for Verizon than Verizon provides to me, but it's worth my while in relative terms to keep paying for it. And that sort of thing is very common at the foundation, and particularly common in terms of distribution.

Fair enough.

Still, the idea of tax rates above 50% on anything is appalling. If there is anyone who deserves that money even less than the guy who's earned it, it's the government. Anti-wealth people need to stop thinking that the government is somehow on their side.

As it is, government is on government's side, and that's it. Give them money, and you'll never see 90% of it again.


Agreed.. if it ends up in government hands then its lost.. but if its a wage cap then it isn't going into government hands. It ends up in corporate hands. Hopefully to be spent on expansion/wages/dividends.. any of those benefit the little man.. so its all good.

Fair enough.

Still, the idea of tax rates above 50% on anything is appalling. If there is anyone who deserves that money even less than the guy who's earned it, it's the government. Anti-wealth people need to stop thinking that the government is somehow on their side.

As it is, government is on government's side, and that's it. Give them money, and you'll never see 90% of it again.
Government being "undeserving" is a function of how poorly it is operated.

As far as anti-wealth and government...

... governments often focus and channel wealth. Particularly when we get into corruption issues. However, large-scale regulation is the only effective non-violent means of preventing exploitation, and governments are the easiest tools to provide that.

Of course, if you set up the tax code in the right fashion, a corporation will simply pay its overpriced executive $16M or whatever leads close to the final net "cap" income, because there's no real point in paying them more. Which means they'll have to pay someone else the money instead, or simply report it as profit and distribute it to their shareholders, and the government doesn't get that slice of pie.

Every system is non-zero sum only so much as it isn't closed. Economic systems have a limited degree of non-closedness, relating to the total quantity of labor and material resources, i.e., base level production. Everything past that - i.e., all forms of service and distribution - are effectively closed.
Unless of course we account for creative energy and technology, ie new ways of using the restricted resources. Which is not to say that there may not be an eventual final best way of doing everything (hard to imagine though!), but in the medium term more output can be created out of the same inputs.

And in the realistic short term, I am not taking from anyone by becoming rich. Because I'm rich doesn't mean that anyone is poor who wouldn't have been otherwise. The causal relationship is just impossible to establish, unless I actively cheat someone.

Oh no, not necessarily and particularly not in the case of executive compensations and Enron-like fiascos.
The latter is illegal and fraud. Of course there's going to be victims.

The former has not been established.

And there's certainly such a thing as overpaying...
You mean you made a mistake by agreeing to a contract you now believe you shouldn't have agreed upon. How does this invalidate the contract, or change the fact that you obviously believed you got value for money when you signed (which is the time of the transaction)?

If you can establish that Verizon cheated you, you can go to court. But you just happened to make a mistake. Shit happens, but it's not part of Verizon's business plan (and if it is, again you could go to court).

Government being "undeserving" is a function of how poorly it is operated.
Wanna bet you won't find a government that isn't poorly operated?

It's in the nature of a behemoth of an organisation that is not accountable to anyone (and don't start with voters, we just vote on politicians, not on the organisation as a whole) and doesn't face any pressures whatsoever to use its resources wisely.

Of course, if you set up the tax code in the right fashion, a corporation will simply pay its overpriced executive $16M or whatever leads close to the final net "cap" income, because there's no real point in paying them more. Which means they'll have to pay someone else the money instead, or simply report it as profit and distribute it to their shareholders, and the government doesn't get that slice of pie.
Agreed.. if it ends up in government hands then its lost.. but if its a wage cap then it isn't going into government hands. It ends up in corporate hands. Hopefully to be spent on expansion/wages/dividends.. any of those benefit the little man.. so its all good.
Most likely they'll just go where the talent is. And the talent will flee a regime that is hostile to it.

If you can establish that Verizon cheated you, you can go to court. But you just happened to make a mistake. Shit happens, but it's not part of Verizon's business plan (and if it is, again you could go to court).
(Not to disagree - just to add something) Usually you to invalidate a contract before a court of law you must prove that you were somehow misinformed, or that the other party failed to perform their end of the bargain etc. Courts are not so inclined to break contracts which you entered due to your poor judgement alone, and with good reason. Contracts exist to ensure the fulfillment of a future obligation, and therefore provide a necessary element of certainty.

As such, there is always recourse for the consumer who feels cheated.

Unless of course we account for creative energy and technology, ie new ways of using the restricted resources. Which is not to say that there may not be an eventual final best way of doing everything (hard to imagine though!), but in the medium term more output can be created out of the same inputs.

And in the realistic short term, I am not taking from anyone by becoming rich. Because I'm rich doesn't mean that anyone is poor who wouldn't have been otherwise. The causal relationship is just impossible to establish, unless I actively cheat someone.
The causal relationship isn't very direct, that's why. It's almost impossible to see without going way back to look at the big picture on the global scale - you have to see it all to see where its going.
The latter is illegal and fraud. Of course there's going to be victims.

The former has not been established.
Actually, the former has been established directly in many cases. Enron was the worst example of golden parachuting away with investors' money, but it's hardly unique...

... and very rarely does a CEO approach the sort of measurable effect that would justify their income.
You mean you made a mistake by agreeing to a contract you now believe you shouldn't have agreed upon. How does this invalidate the contract, or change the fact that you obviously believed you got value for money when you signed (which is the time of the transaction)?

If you can establish that Verizon cheated you, you can go to court. But you just happened to make a mistake. Shit happens, but it's not part of Verizon's business plan (and if it is, again you could go to court).
Actually, it's not just the contract. The contract I have every option to drop down $150 and change. I knew there was some risk I wasn't going to get my money's worth out of it when I signed, but there were also some other things going on.

Basically speaking, I got suckered by deceptive advertising, and if I'd known now what I knew then, I would've signed onto a different deal and managed things differently. I was aware that there were risks, but I decided to guess that Verizon wasn't going to be nasty. Whoops. Oh well.

In terms of the current situation, though, the losses involved in changing carriers and hardware make it [barely] not worth doing so in terms of self interest; that represents a loss bigger than what I'd save by changing services, and plenty of what I feel "cheated" about involves what I've already paid rather than what I'll pay in the future. The time and effort I'd have to invest in order to even try to build a case to get that back out of their hides simply isn't worth the money that I'd get back. That's not talking about court costs or lawyers; that's simply talking about my time.

That is part of their business model, incidentally, and although it's underhanded, it's all perfectly legal.

However, am I getting my money's worth out of it? Heck no. What I've paid to them isn't worth what I've gotten out of them. And that's hardly unusual with goods and services. Many people don't get the full value of their money out of what they buy.

...and thus was born marketing, the science of parting people with their money legally. ;)

Wanna bet you won't find a government that isn't poorly operated?

It's in the nature of a behemoth of an organisation that is not accountable to anyone (and don't start with voters, we just vote on politicians, not on the organisation as a whole) and doesn't face any pressures whatsoever to use its resources wisely.
Actually, I can find governments that are reasonably well operated.

It does, however, take a lot of work to fix a government, and very little for it to slide into corruption.
Most likely they'll just go where the talent is. And the talent will flee a regime that is hostile to it.
The "talent" for increasing one's personal wealth isn't a productive one. They're quite welcome to flee if they think they'll do better at accumulating wealth in another country at the expense of its residents; that doesn't bother me.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein;12116760]Fair enough.

Still, the idea of tax rates above 50% on anything is appalling. If there is anyone who deserves that money even less than the guy who's earned it, it's the government.

I think so too and i'd stand up for the right to be rich, of course if someone wants to work 72 hours a week for minimum wage then thats up to him or her. Me I'd rather work a couple of hours a day pick up a million dollar salary and cry if the government says i don't deserve the money. Of course i would deserve the money cause you only get paid what you deserve.;)

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.


This is bullshit. Forcing people to give to charity defeats the purpose of charity now doesn't it. And the rich pay more taxes than we do based on the system we have. I am sick and tired of liberals bitching and moaning about the rich. "Everyone needs to be equal, think of the poor people, It's not fair, blah blah blah." You know what that is? Communism. And we saw how that turned out in Soviet Russia now didn't we comrade! But you know what the damndest and the most ironic thing is.

THE POLITICIANS SAYING THIS SHIT ARE RICHER THAN ALL OF YOU!

You won't see Fat Ass Kennedy in a hybrid, but he will sure as hell will preach the good news.

The system is fine. STFU!

My, how... eloquent. :confused:

Your response, or lack thereof, is a call, nay, a demand for some to take upon themselves the responsibility (to survive) of others. It is a euphemism for coercion and slavery. You make me sick.

My "traditional" response was but a reply to your traditional left-wing moral predilections, which I hasten to say I do not share.

This has nothing to do with collectivism vs. individualism, or coercion and slavery. This has everything to do with the fact that you are a member of the human race. As such, you have a responsibility to not do certain things. Chief among these is a responsiblity to exploit or oppress you fellow human beings. You can rationalize inequality all you want. I don't care.

It still doesn't change the fact that you are the one who is telling others to take personal responsibility, yet you defend a system founded on forcibly taking the means of survival from so many people.

This is bullshit. Forcing people to give to charity defeats the purpose of charity now doesn't it. And the rich pay more taxes than we do based on the system we have. I am sick and tired of liberals bitching and moaning about the rich. "Everyone needs to be equal, think of the poor people, It's not fair, blah blah blah." You know what that is? Communism. And we saw how that turned out in Soviet Russia now didn't we comrade! But you know what the damndest and the most ironic thing is.

THE POLITICIANS SAYING THIS SHIT ARE RICHER THAN ALL OF YOU!

You won't see Fat Ass Kennedy in a hybrid, but he will sure as hell will preach the good news.

The system is fine. STFU!

The system is not fine. Why do you think most of us don't trust the political system. Your so-called "forced" charity has nothing to do with socialism or communism. Any relaiton between the two is the most vile lie of the past two centuries. The only thing welfare does is preserve the existing capitalist system. Get rid of it, and you might be happy for a while, but then you'll have to deal with a nice revolution. So my question to you is would you rather have welfare, or would you rather have socialism?

Forcing people to give to charity defeats the purpose of charity now doesn't it.

No, it doesn't.

The purpose of charity is not feeling good, or having people who are charitable.

The purpose of charity is HELPING PEOPLE.

Sorry, I know this has probably been posted before, but I do not understand what the problem is with having a maximum wage, something like 10 million dollars a year, to prevent corprate greed and CEOs taking away their employees pension funds to give route to their own bonuses. I think this should be put in. I also think that the government should set mininums for how much people must give to charity based on wealth. Maybe something like 10% to 15% of the money of poeple who make over 1 million dollars should be forced to go to charity, to prevent them for using their money for meaningless gluttney and stupid, meaningless symbols of wealth.

Because there is something wrong with a minumum wage.:rolleyes: It is nothing more than a stupid populist law.Anyone who looks at it pragmatically can see that,like most ideas developed by Democrats,doesnt actually work.Because things do not happen in a vacuum.The end result is a bunch of unemployed teenagers.The law is based upon the notion that government can essentially mandate a free lunch.Hey why not just make it a law to pay people more?Everyone likes more money,right?:headbang: The same goes for limiting the pay of executives.You fail to understand the principal of wealth creation.More money for person A does not mean less money for person B.Person A is paid more because he generates more wealth than person B.:rolleyes:

Because there is something wrong with a minumum wage.:rolleyes: It is nothing more than a stupid populist law.Anyone who looks at it pragmatically can see that,like most ideas developed by Democrats,doesnt actually work.Because things do not happen in a vacuum.The end result is a bunch of unemployed teenagers.The law is based upon the notion that government can essentially mandate a free lunch.Hey why not just make it a law to pay people more?Everyone likes more money,right?:headbang: The same goes for limiting the pay of executives.You fail to understand the principal of wealth creation.More money for person A does not mean less money for person B.Person A is paid more because he generates more wealth than person B.:rolleyes:

It's not that simple. Minimum wage is neither stupid nor a "populist" law. Funny how you consider "populism" to be a bad thing. What this that I hear about "We the People of the United States?"

Minimum wages spread out costs more evenly. Though costs are increased, those increased costs are distributed on all in society. So upper and middle income people pay more, the lowest income people get a pay increase more the increase in prices. They do not cause unemployment. Unemployment is caused by the capitalist economic system.

Unemployment is caused by the capitalist economic system.

No offense, but how much have you actually studied economics?

No offense, but how much have you actually studied economics?

Get rid of the minimum wage, and guess what, there will still be unemployment. It doesn't cause unemployment, it is a reformist means of preventing the outrageous abuses of fortune from driving people to rise up. Any unemployment it "causes" is marginal.

Yes I have studied economics quite a bit for a high school student. There is no class available in my school, but I've done my own digging. The complete scientific bankruptcy of traditional theory is the subject of another thread. If you want to debate that, start a thread, and I'll debate it.

This has nothing to do with collectivism vs. individualism, or coercion and slavery. This has everything to do with the fact that you are a member of the human race. As such, you have a responsibility to not do certain things. Chief among these is a responsiblity to exploit or oppress you fellow human beings. You can rationalize inequality all you want. I don't care.

It still doesn't change the fact that you are the one who is telling others to take personal responsibility, yet you defend a system founded on forcibly taking the means of survival from so many people.

And here we have it folks – any economic activity is exploitation or oppression.

In my experience, people calling everything exploitation and oppression simply want ‘everyone to be equal’ because they are well below average and see it as the easier way to improve their lives. Bring everyone else down rather than trying to improve themselves.

Simply by being wealthier than someone else does not mean I am exploiting and oppressing them. The kind of ‘equality’ you envision will never exist. Humans are not identical robots; some are more productive than others. As such, equality in the way you think of it will never exist, and if it did, it would be completely immoral. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is enslavement of those with ability to those with the need.

I started a company a little while ago –
I provide a product people want; they voluntarily purchase my product so no exploitation or oppression there.
Since I cannot do all the work myself, I pay people to help me out. They voluntarily agreed to do certain tasks in exchange for money, they choose to work for me rather than for themselves or someone else, so that is not exploitation or oppression.
So now I have more money than a lot of other people. How exactly have I oppressed and exploited everyone?

Is it that I require my employees to actually do something instead of just giving them money for free? Am I ‘exploiting’ everyone else because I do not spend every waking moment enslaved to what they want?

Or is it that I am oppressing them by being more productive? Should I not try to better my life because they feel oppressed because their lives have not been improving as well as mine has? Is my being more productive some form of psychic oppression?

Should we then all work at the pace of the slowest person? Should we not try to improve our lives because others are not as willing or able to improve themselves? Such beliefs are a recipe for stagnation and starvation.

I have not done anything illegal – I have been completely honest and forthright about everything – so why is my making money evil?

Get rid of the minimum wage, and guess what, there will still be unemployment.
Of course.
It doesn't cause unemployment,
Sure it does. But, much to your chagrin, no one is saying minimum wage is the *sole* cause of employment. It's *a* cause, but by no means the only one.

Yes I have studied economics quite a bit for a high school student. There is no class available in my school, but I've done my own digging. The complete scientific bankruptcy of traditional theory is the subject of another thread. If you want to debate that, start a thread, and I'll debate it.

Only familiarizing yourself with one particular lineage of thought in a field that happened to catch your fancy first, without bothering to know jack shit about any of the others except what the people you DO read say about it, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I'm an Objectivist, but I'm also intimately familiar with the works of Kant, Derrida, Spinoza, Hume, Camus, Dewey, Russell, and all the other major philosophers (and many minor ones) throughout history. Why? Because I'm not going to take Ayn Rand's word for it that Kant was an evil idiot (which, in fact, he was); I'm going to see for myself. I choose to be honest rather than lazy.

I'm a free-market fundamentalist, but I'm also intimately familiar with the works of Marx, Trotsky, Keynes, Galbraith, Ricardo, and many other major economists throughout history. Why? Because I'm not going to take Friedrich von Hayek's word for it that Trotsky was an evil idiot (which, in fact, he was); I'm going to see for myself. I choose to be honest rather than lazy.

Anyway, the real reason to oppose a minimum (as well as maximum) wage is this: it is immoral. It is not for government to intervene in an agreement made between two or more individuals without the use or threat of coercive force, no matter how much of a disadvantage one party may be at. It is a violation of the individual rights of free association and private property, and therefore is never justified.

Because I'm not going to take Ayn Rand's word for it that Kant was an evil idiot (which, in fact, he was).

Go ahead, justify that.

If I remember your previous incarnation correctly, this will get nowhere, but there's always a first time.

The "talent" for increasing one's personal wealth isn't a productive one. They're quite welcome to flee if they think they'll do better at accumulating wealth in another country at the expense of its residents; that doesn't bother me.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12104735&postcount=45

Whatever you want. Though you'll regret it when all the engineers and doctors and bank managers and automobile manufacturers and all the others leave. You'll be left with the "working class", but no brains.

Brain drain has destroyed countries before. Most recently Eastern Germany, a large part of its economic woes are due to the capable people leaving for the West both before and after the fall of the wall.

In my experience, people calling everything exploitation and oppression simply want ‘everyone to be equal’ because they are well below average and see it as the easier way to improve their lives. Bring everyone else down rather than trying to improve themselves.



What an ill informed view. Many of the hardest working, intelligent, talented people I've ever known have been the ones most passionate about equality.

Forgive me for name dropping but a little while ago I had a pitch meeting with Marcus Brigstocke, it became apparant very quickly that nothing was doing so we ended up just chatting. The man is very genuine with his left wing beliefs and this is a man who is wittier, more intelligent and more succesful than you will ever be. This man isn't bringing anyone down but he recognises his success is not all down to 'hard work' or whatever rubbish the libertarians are spouting and he recognises his responsibility to those who were - and are - less fortunate than him. So there we have it, a man doing brilliantly for himself and wanting greater equality not out of idleness but empathy.

So there we have it, a man doing brilliantly for himself and wanting greater equality not out of idleness but empathy.
Which is great.

Except for the fact that he thinks he has the right to impose his views on other people who disagree with him.

Which is great.

Except for the fact that he thinks he has the right to impose his views on other people who disagree with him.

You wish to do the same.

I wish to murder somebody. You impose your anti-killing views on me.

I wish to murder somebody. You impose your anti-killing views on me.
Ah, but ommitting to do a good thing is not the same as doing a bad thing.

Forgive me for name dropping but a little while ago I had a pitch meeting with Marcus Brigstocke, it became apparant very quickly that nothing was doing so we ended up just chatting. The man is very genuine with his left wing beliefs
Then he's also very evil.

and this is a man who is wittier, more intelligent and more succesful than you will ever be.
Doubtful.

This man isn't bringing anyone down but he recognises his success is not all down to 'hard work'
Then he's either wrong or a thief.

or whatever rubbish the libertarians are spouting and he recognises his responsibility to those who were - and are - less fortunate than him.
Except he has no such responsibility--he's a lunatic if he thinks he does.

So there we have it, a man doing brilliantly for himself and wanting greater equality not out of idleness but empathy.
Yes, the pinnacle of evil.

Doubtful.


Whilst I could comment on the somewhat unproductive nature of dismissing a person as "wrong" and possibly the over-the-top label of "evil" (and in fact I just did!) I like this comment as it adds weight to my suspiscion that libertarians are just a touch delusional.

Before you make that $20million you get hit by a car. Aside from some physical ramifications You lose all self-confidence, suffer migraines and, alongside crippling bouts of depression, lose the ability to interact effectively with people. You're unable to work. This is all out of your control.

But as the government doesn't have the authority to force someone to hand over the money they were going to spend on their eleventh car, you can't recieve any help from them. What do you do?

Well, in that case, I fill my days with doctors appointments, physical therapy, visits to my lawyer's office, and eventually court, all while my medical and (short and long term) disability insurance pays my bills (I'm assuming in your example, that I was hit by the vehicle while I was on foot, and since pedestrians have the right of way in CT, the driver would be completely liable).

Well, in that case, I fill my days with doctors appointments, physical therapy, visits to my lawyer's office, and eventually court, all while my medical and (short and long term) disability insurance pays my bills (I'm assuming in your example, that I was hit by the vehicle while I was on foot, and since pedestrians have the right of way in CT, the driver would be completely liable).

Assuming you know who hit you.

Or that they had insurance.

Or you can afford such comprehensive cover.

Assumption highlighted. The whole means of implementing an income cap would, realistically, be through the tax code. It's simply a matter of setting up tax curve correctly, and income develops a horizontal asymptote.

And what, really, is the philosophical difference between an income cap and a rigorously applied graduated tax? The way people get super-rich is through untaxed and lightly taxed forms of income.

I only said "after tax" because my example ($20 million) is double the proposed maximum wage.

Assuming you know who hit you.

Or that they had insurance.

Or you can afford such comprehensive cover.

You're assuming that everyone who hits a pedestrian flees the scene. Besides, with where I live and work, IF I were to get hit by a vehicle while I was on foot, there's an excellent chance that there'd be at least one witness.

Even if they don't have insurance, I can still sue them if they are at fault (and as I said before, pedestrians have the right of way in CT, so the driver would be liable).

Medical insurance and disability insurance (short and long term) are offered by many employers.

Whilst I could comment on the somewhat unproductive nature of dismissing a person as "wrong" and possibly the over-the-top label of "evil" (and in fact I just did!) I like this comment as it adds weight to my suspiscion that libertarians are just a touch delusional.
Objectivists are a certain type of radical libertarians and don't stand for the group as a whole.

In my sig you'll find a link to the Becker-Posner Blog (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/). They're libertarians, and while you can sometimes call Posner a tad delusional (:p) they're normal enough to be Nobel Prize Winners or US Appeals Court Judges respectively.

Sure it does. But, much to your chagrin, no one is saying minimum wage is the *sole* cause of employment. It's *a* cause, but by no means the only one.

The evidence backing up your case is based solely on neo-liberal theory, a theory system that is elitist, dogmatic, unscientific and more of a religion than a scientific theory. This theory has never been empirically substantiated, and any empirical attempt to back up the case for minimum wage causing unemployment has failed. There is simply no evidence to back that claim.

Only familiarizing yourself with one particular lineage of thought in a field that happened to catch your fancy first, without bothering to know jack shit about any of the others except what the people you DO read say about it, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I am many things. One of the things that I am most certainly not is dishonest or ignorant. I have read the right wing works of economics. Time after time, all I came across was a rationalization for existing power structures and an elitist deference to hierarchy. I didn't come to socialism as a blind leap of faith. It came after a long study of economic and political theory.

I'm an Objectivist, but I'm also intimately familiar with the works of Kant, Derrida, Spinoza, Hume, Camus, Dewey, Russell, and all the other major philosophers (and many minor ones) throughout history. Why? Because I'm not going to take Ayn Rand's word for it that Kant was an evil idiot (which, in fact, he was); I'm going to see for myself. I choose to be honest rather than lazy.

Once again, you go with the ad hominem attacks. I am glad that you have decided, as an "Objectivist", to actually study other philosophies and not just be a mindless Randroid, as many Objectivists do.

I'm a free-market fundamentalist, but I'm also intimately familiar with the works of Marx, Trotsky, Keynes, Galbraith, Ricardo, and many other major economists throughout history. Why? Because I'm not going to take Friedrich von Hayek's word for it that Trotsky was an evil idiot (which, in fact, he was); I'm going to see for myself. I choose to be honest rather than lazy.

Ad Hominem again. Trotsky was an evil idiot, I could have told you that. Fredrich von Hayek has been completely refuted in his assertion that all "middle of the road" systems lead to what he calls "socialism." This socialism is totalitarian, yet it has never occurred because a country pursued policies to restrict the power of private property in order to help its people. All it has done is prevent genuine social change.

Anyway, the real reason to oppose a minimum (as well as maximum) wage is this: it is immoral. It is not for government to intervene in an agreement made between two or more individuals without the use or threat of coercive force, no matter how much of a disadvantage one party may be at. It is a violation of the individual rights of free association and private property, and therefore is never justified.

There is no right to private property. Private property is completely illegitimate. Nothing can justify the taking of a resource for completely individual use. Even more so, if private property is acquired by force, it is doubly illegitimate. Private property violates human rights of free association and freedom of choice. It forces the property-less into waged bondage simply because they were born into a family of low status. Property is coercion, it is violence. Nothing can justify it.

I propose rather than squabling for a better minimum wage, that instead people focus their efforts towards abolishing wage slavery and abolishing insitutions of private power and coercion, and replace them with real associations of free association and collective enterprise.

This has nothing to do with collectivism vs. individualism, or coercion and slavery. This has everything to do with the fact that you are a member of the human race.
So what?

(it's a species, by the way)

As such, you have a responsibility to not do certain things.
Yes.

Chief among these is a responsiblity to exploit or oppress you fellow human beings. You can rationalize inequality all you want. I don't care.
Your notion of exploitation is directly linked to the Labour Theory of Value, which has been refuted. By whom? The Austrian School of Economics. Why? Precisely because a wage is a price for a service, and is governed by the same laws. You will call it elitist and neoliberal. It doesn't change the fact that it is the correct theory. Deny reality all you want. I don't care.

It still doesn't change the fact that you are the one who is telling others to take personal responsibility, yet you defend a system founded on forcibly taking the means of survival from so many people.
My own survival is my only responsibility. Any one else's is theirs and theirs alone. If they fail, they die. Tough luck. I have no reason to take up the responsibility of their survival, no more than a lion does in ensuring the survival of a cripple member of the pride.

Get rid of the minimum wage, and guess what, there will still be unemployment. It doesn't cause unemployment, it is a reformist means of preventing the outrageous abuses of fortune from driving people to rise up. Any unemployment it "causes" is marginal.
Prove it.

Yes I have studied economics quite a bit for a high school student. There is no class available in my school, but I've done my own digging. The complete scientific bankruptcy of traditional theory is the subject of another thread. If you want to debate that, start a thread, and I'll debate it.
What is bankrupt about it? And according to whom is it bankrupt?


Fredrich von Hayek has been completely refuted in his assertion that all "middle of the road" systems lead to what he calls "socialism."
By whom?


There is no right to private property.
According to whom? I own the product of my labour. That may include land.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12104735&postcount=45

Whatever you want. Though you'll regret it when all the engineers and doctors and bank managers and automobile manufacturers and all the others leave. You'll be left with the "working class", but no brains.

Brain drain has destroyed countries before. Most recently Eastern Germany, a large part of its economic woes are due to the capable people leaving for the West both before and after the fall of the wall.
Neither engineers, doctors, nor those who actually make automobiles are leaving France. What's fleeing - and fleeing, mind you, before a tax of an entirely difference stripe, a "wealth tax," which could not be more different from an income cap - are the millionaires.

Not engineers, not doctors, not professionals; the capitalists. Get your facts straight; at best your chatter about the wealth tax is a red herring. Wealth and income are separate beasts, and taxing them works very differently.

Your notion of exploitation is directly linked to the Labour Theory of Value, which has been refuted. By whom? The Austrian School of Economics. Why? Precisely because a wage is a price for a service, and is governed by the same laws. You will call it elitist and neoliberal. It doesn't change the fact that it is the correct theory. Deny reality all you want. I don't care.

No, it does not. LTV has nothing to do with surplus value. You cannot change the fact that all value is created by labor. What LTV states is that price of commodity is proportional to labor. The Surplus Theory of value states that profits in capitalism is the result of exploitation of labor value.

My own survival is my only responsibility. Any one else's is theirs and theirs alone. If they fail, they die. Tough luck. I have no reason to take up the responsibility of their survival, no more than a lion does in ensuring the survival of a cripple member of the pride.

You have no right to cling to a usurpation.

Prove it.

There have been dozens of empircal studies into that claim, and none have substantiated.

What is bankrupt about it? And according to whom is it bankrupt?

It is bankrupt because it is misanthropic, un-scientific, and more akin to a dogmatic faith then a viable theory. Read Steven Keen's Debunking Economics on that.

By whom?

History.

According to whom? I own the product of my labour. That may include land.

Your labor did not create the land. You cannot own it. You may have developed some of its value, but you still cannot claim absolute control of it. Too many external positive factors exist to justify that claim.

I don't know what certain actors/sport stars would think of that. :rolleyes: But in theory it's not a bad idea. But would there be exceptions, like monarchs? And what about inheritance? Could you inherit more than 10 million?

No, it does not. LTV has nothing to do with surplus value. You cannot change the fact that all value is created by labor. What LTV states is that price of commodity is proportional to labor. The Surplus Theory of value states that profits in capitalism is the result of exploitation of labor value.


Any theory of Surplus Value requires a basis for the objective valuation of a good or service. If there is no way to determine an objective value for a good, it is impossible that the ownership of capital itself provides the capitalist with unearned income.

The LTV is the most commonly used method for creating an objective value for a good, as well as most useful for those looking to show all of the unpaid labor workers are forced to bear.

The only thing that provides value is the future benefit provided by use of the good or service (for prices, the perception of future benefit). It is absurd to assume that the driver of a car will value the car according to how much labor was involved in its manufacturing. He will certainly value the car as much as he values getting to where he needs to go.

Two final points:

1: Any calculations of surplus value determine labor value by assuming that profits are exploitation. I am admittedly not up-to-date on modern socialist economics, but has there been a good attempt at calculating labor value and then showing that exploitation does exist?

2: That market prices actually do approximate the costs of production (i.e. Labor) in nearly all situations actually supports subjective valuation and the disincentive of market forces against any attempts at exploitation.

What's fleeing - and fleeing, mind you, before a tax of an entirely difference stripe, a "wealth tax," which could not be more different from an income cap - are the millionaires.
It's no different. You're trying to prevent people from earning the money they and their employers want to exchange. Which is for all intents and purposes a part of course of an anti-wealth campaign.

The first example in the article is a guy who built a high-tech company. Of course, once he had more than a million euros, that made him useless. A "millionaire" (which of course means that he doesn't do anything worthwhile), or how am I to understand this distinction you're trying to make?

Fact of the matter is that there is a, shall we say, certain correlation between people who are vital for the services and products we need to live our lives the way we currently want to, and people who earn a lot of money.

You're trying to hurt the people who are earning a lot of money. There's plenty of evidence that people who are mistreated by the government will try to get away from it (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399537,00.html), and in this modern world that's easier than ever.

The method you use doesn't matter, as long as you hurt them enough.

Any theory of Surplus Value requires a basis for the objective valuation of a good or service. If there is no way to determine an objective value for a good, it is impossible that the ownership of capital itself provides the capitalist with unearned income.

Not really. It is just a simple observation, not really a proper economic theory, though it is labeled so. We don't need an objective determination of a value of a commodity to understand that whatever value it has was created by labor. Whose labor did what is a much trickier issue to determine, but by any reckoning it is exploitive to give the property owner the lionshare of that value.

The LTV is the most commonly used method for creating an objective value for a good, as well as most useful for those looking to show all of the unpaid labor workers are forced to bear.

The only thing that provides value is the future benefit provided by use of the good or service (for prices, the perception of future benefit). It is absurd to assume that the driver of a car will value the car according to how much labor was involved in its manufacturing. He will certainly value the car as much as he values getting to where he needs to go.

Two final points:

1: Any calculations of surplus value determine labor value by assuming that profits are exploitation. I am admittedly not up-to-date on modern socialist economics, but has there been a good attempt at calculating labor value and then showing that exploitation does exist?

2: That market prices actually do approximate the costs of production (i.e. Labor) in nearly all situations actually supports subjective valuation and the disincentive of market forces against any attempts at exploitation.

1: Unorthodox Marxism by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel delves into this issue. In it, the authors explicitly reject LTV and go through an alternative look at exploitation. I haven't read the book myself, but I've read works that the very same authors referred back to on the subject. Since I live in Montana, it's rather hard to come accross a copy. I you could find it, it might prove interesting.

2: This point assumes that there is a free and fair market in labor, and that laborers are at equal bargaining terms with their employers. I don't think that such a case can be made. Furthermore, markets completely leave out the human costs of production, and pervasively ignore the effect and source of externalities.

It's no different. You're trying to prevent people from earning the money they and their employers want to exchange. Which is for all intents and purposes a part of course of an anti-wealth campaign.
The very critical difference between taking existing wealth away and preventing the accumulation of wealth strikes directly towards the motivations claimed by the interviewee in the article, who says he's moving because his assets can't be just liquidated with that speed - can't legally at all, in fact, leaving him in a legal catch-22.

That's an entirely different case than an income cap or income tax. Notice something? A progressive income tax is an "anti-wealth campaign." Everybody has them, big deal.
The first example in the article is a guy who built a high-tech company. Of course, once he had more than a million euros, that made him useless. A "millionaire" (which of course means that he doesn't do anything worthwhile), or how am I to understand this distinction you're trying to make?

Fact of the matter is that there is a, shall we say, certain correlation between people who are vital for the services and products we need to live our lives the way we currently want to, and people who earn a lot of money.
Since you want to pursue this red herring further, look at the numbers in the article. It doesn't add up.

The article claims several things. First, that a millionaire leaves France every day since they enacted the law, and that $125 billion of capital has fled for $2.6 billion in tax revenues... over eight years.

Something doesn't add up. The tax was implemented in 1998, and if a "millionaire has fled every day," then the average tax evader is pulling over $40 million in wealth. Logically, that puts them almost certainly in the same bracket as the $110 million jetsetter interviewed, who was presented with a tax bill for the year of 2.5% of his wealth.

Multiply that back across with the $2.6 billion figure, and you find that only ~$100 billion of wealth has ever been successfully taxed in this process - over eight years. In other words, the numbers don't add up...

... and France still has the fifth largest economy in the world.

You're trying to hurt the people who are earning a lot of money. There's plenty of evidence that people who are mistreated by the government will try to get away from it (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399537,00.html), and in this modern world that's easier than ever.

The method you use doesn't matter, as long as you hurt them enough.
Another red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make. In fact, it argues against an income cap. You notice something about that article? Doctors are leaving Germany because - among other things - their bosses are taking too large a share of revenues. These are precisely the sort of skilled professionals who benefit from an income cap on excessive takes.

Granted, the example where an auditor found $10 million missing was an illegal skim in any case and wouldn't have been reported to the government, but the basic problem in German health care is that the actual workers - i.e., the doctors - are being paid and treated poorly while their higher-ups take an ever-increasing share of the cash.
While most medical staff work like dogs, the profits are pocketed by the few.
More and more colleagues from Germany are ringing him up to ask him about jobs in Britain because they are sick of mounting bureaucracy and the growing power of hospital managers.
Doctors are unlikely to be affected by an income cap of the sort we're discussing. Your typical prospering doctor grosses six figures rather than netting seven or eight...

... this is something particularly withering, since the skills and training required to be a good doctor are in more rarified territory than those of executives who earn ten times their salary, and a doctor works about twice as many hours. And you're trying to use this as a reason not to have an income cap?

Objectivists are a certain type of radical libertarians and don't stand for the group as a whole.

In my sig you'll find a link to the Becker-Posner Blog (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/). They're libertarians, and while you can sometimes call Posner a tad delusional (:p) they're normal enough to be Nobel Prize Winners or US Appeals Court Judges respectively.

You mean like Yassir Arrafat or torture apologist Judge Jay Bybee? They're that normal?

My own survival is my only responsibility. Any one else's is theirs and theirs alone. If they fail, they die. Tough luck. I have no reason to take up the responsibility of their survival, no more than a lion does in ensuring the survival of a cripple member of the pride.

I would argue that it's generally a good thing if people act with a standard higher than wild animals.

That's just me though.

-snip-
The point of me posting the articles wasn't the specifics of the respective situations though. It was the fact that people leave when the government is after them.

No one's introduced an income cap, so I can't produce real-world evidence that they in fact do leave, but this is probably fairly close.

Put yourself in their position: You've worked for a while, you're in a good position. You earn a million dollars, which also happens to be the income cap.

Would you not agree that a job offer across the border offering, say, three million dollars would be relatively more attractive then if the income cap was not in place and the market price of your labour at home would more accurately reflect what you could get for it somewhere else?

So far the economics of it. And in the real world, there's plenty of evidence of government policies driving people out of the country, and in the case of France that's specifically anti-rich people policies.

Together I think it builds about as strong a case as is possible without an experiment that the demographic who are around the income cap will see a greater proportion move out of the reach of the government. And to combat that, you can only end up lowering the income cap a bit more, and a bit more, and a bit more, if you're indeed after taking the extra money from the rich guy and handing it to slightly less rich people, since the proportions are changing.

Not to forget the non-monetary implications. It's a pretty obvious "we don't like rich people" policy, no one can deny that. You even implied that by "income" you meant things like profit from non-work related share holdings, real estate and so on.

I don't see why these people would want to stick around when they're being singled out for abuse by the government, which then, I would guess, also has a two-way relationship with the mob's opinions.

You mean like Yassir Arrafat or torture apologist Judge Jay Bybee? They're that normal?
Well, it was a Nobel Prize in Economics, not Peace, so even a tad normaller. ;)

Though as I said, Posner goes a bit too far sometimes. He wrote a book called 'Sex and Reason' or something, in which he basically applies utility functions, rational choice and all sorts of other microeconomics to people's sex lifes.

Though as I said, Posner goes a bit too far sometimes. He wrote a book called 'Sex and Reason' or something, in which he basically applies utility functions, rational choice and all sorts of other microeconomics to people's sex lifes.

Was he the guy who claimed that homosexuality was a more rational choice than heterosexuality? The reasoning being with the same gender you get more output for all the inputs.

Was he the guy who claimed that homosexuality was a more rational choice than heterosexuality? The reasoning being with the same gender you get more output for all the inputs.

really now....gonna have to try that one....

Was he the guy who claimed that homosexuality was a more rational choice than heterosexuality? The reasoning being with the same gender you get more output for all the inputs.
I haven't heard about that one, so I can't say. But he's got all sorts of...quirky views.

If there's nothing wrong with a minimum wage, why not a maximum wage? Reply to Thread To institute a maximum wage would be a pointless waste of time. Truly rich people (those affected by such a wage cap) do not make their money from their wages. Almost nobody gets rich of their wage, rather it is how they use the wage that they have.

In contrast, poor people main sourse of income is their wage, as they rarely have profit-generating assetts. Thus, whilst a minimum wage makes sense, a maximum wage does not.

I haven't heard about that one, so I can't say. But he's got all sorts of...quirky views.

I did some research. It wasn't Posner. It was Gary Becker, another Nobel Prize winner of Economics.

Economist have some quirky views.

No, it does not. LTV has nothing to do with surplus value. You cannot change the fact that all value is created by labor. What LTV states is that price of commodity is proportional to labor. The Surplus Theory of value states that profits in capitalism is the result of exploitation of labor value.
Vittos already answered this, but I will add something - if a service is not receiving an adequate renumeration, it is up to the provider to negotiate better terms for it. Sony always operates at a loss when selling Playstations. Should it now be compensated for this "unfair" exploitation? No. Sorry Sony. The same goes for the small village grocer. Employees have the right to (non-coercive) unionisation with which they could make their shareholding in the corporation they will work for a precondition of their employment. They may organise and together refuse to work until their demands are met (government has no right to intervene unless either party uses force). Labour is not the only thing that creates value - but it is imporant to it. It will be in the interest of corporations to resolve this as soon as possible. Alternatively, they may attempt cooperative corporate models.

If they do not even try this and still cry "exploitation", too bad. A man not willing to fight for a cause does not deserve the fruits thereof.

You have no right to cling to a usurpation.
You're the one clinging to a usurpation - not me. You are the one arguing it is my duty to care for the survival of others. I reject that.

There have been dozens of empircal studies into that claim, and none have substantiated.
Point me to them.

It is bankrupt because it is misanthropic, un-scientific, and more akin to a dogmatic faith then a viable theory. Read Steven Keen's Debunking Economics on that.
Have you actually read the book? Naturally, I realise neoclassical economics has its flaws, and could take a good, hard look at its epistemology and theoretical groundings. That it is misanthropic is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore carries no bearing on the validity of the critique of a science.

History.
Erm... we are still moving onwards; it's not as if time has stopped. History, therefore, has done nothing of the sort.

Your labor did not create the land. You cannot own it. You may have developed some of its value, but you still cannot claim absolute control of it. Too many external positive factors exist to justify that claim.
Actually, there aren't. The land was unowned before (I do not justify landownership when taken by force from others) - you, by mixing with it your labour (or the fruits thereof), turned it into usable property. You can protect it through force, or in civilised societies, through law. Animals defend their territories in exactly the same fashion. If you find disagreement with this, that is not my problem.

I would argue that it's generally a good thing if people act with a standard higher than wild animals.
So long as it remains voluntary. I could argue a society like Brave New World would be the best way to go, if to ignore man's nature as animal, and refuse to acknowledge his right to voluntary action.

That's just me though.
I wish it were.

Actually, there aren't. The land was unowned before (I do not justify landownership when taken by force from others) - you, by mixing with it your labour (or the fruits thereof), turned it into usable property. You can protect it through force, or in civilised societies, through law. Animals defend their territories in exactly the same fashion. If you find disagreement with this, that is not my problem.

There is always Nozick's critique of the mixing labor theory of property aquisition. If I pour radioactive soup in the ocean do I now own the ocean?

There is also Thomas Paine's assertion," Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

Animals often take their territories through force. Few would argue that is an injustice.

If you disagree with any of the above that is not my problem.

Another red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make. In fact, it argues against an income cap. You notice something about that article? Doctors are leaving Germany because - among other things - their bosses are taking too large a share of revenues. These are precisely the sort of skilled professionals who benefit from an income cap on excessive takes.
One minute - most private doctors I know are self-employed, or work together in joint-ownership corporations. Germany's system is heavily socialised. Who are these "bosses" exactly? Government bureaucrats?

Another thing - if doctors flee the country, they will be in higher demand; their wages will go up, as they will be more valued than before. Corporations which cannot force you to stay in their employment will suffer as a result.

There is always Nozick's critique of the mixing labor theory of property aquisition. If I pour radioactive soup in the ocean do I now own the ocean?
Unless you can actually create something of value in the ocean, you do not own it. And much like land, you only own as much as you can mix with your labour.

(Out of curiosity, what is Nozick's theory of property acquisition?)

There is also Thomas Paine's assertion," Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property."
So far so good. But I find it hard to even draw such a distinction, since you might argue the land gains value because of these improvements and can't be distinguished from them.

Another problem - men are not self-made. Do they therefore not own themselves?

Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

No. Land is unowned to begin with. The "community" (which is nothing more than a collection of individuals), therefore, owns nothing - individuals do.

Animals often take their territories through force. Few would argue that is an injustice.
More likely they defend them by the use of force (although yes they do use force to drive out competitors) - humans prefer using the legal system to resolve such disputes to avoid the consequent bloodshed, as well as establish proof of tortfeasance before taking action.

That is the same as throwing a hammer onto someone's property and saying you now own it. Unless you can actually create something of value in the ocean, you do not own it. And much like land, you only own as much as you can mix with your labour.

Who says I haven't created anything of value with the ocean? Value is subjective. I filled it with funky radiation. Its mine.

So far so good. But I find it hard to even draw such a distinction, since you might argue the land gains value because of these improvements.

Another problem - men are not self-made. Do they therefore not own themselves?

You might be able to argue that it took value from the land. Value being subjective and all.

Paine might have agreed with Locke that we are God's property and therefore do not own ourselves per se.

No. Land is unowned to begin with. The "community" (which is nothing more than a collection of individuals), therefore, owns nothing.

No, land is owned in common. Individuals can't own the land because that would be theft.

Who says I haven't created anything of value with the ocean? Value is subjective. I filled it with funky radiation. Its mine.
I know this is more a matter of principle than technicality, but the notion of destroying land to own it is somewhat idiotic. What is Nozick's theory of appropriation, then?

You might be able to argue that it took value from the land. Value being subjective and all.
How? Without your efforts the land would simply be valueless. You do not value it enough to do anything to it.

Paine might have agreed with Locke that we are God's property and therefore do not own ourselves per se.
Unless they can prove positively that God exists it and is of the nature they ascribe to him, it becomes irrelevant.

No, land is owned in common. Individuals can't own the land because that would be theft.
Theft, from whom? That presumes an owner. Such is not in existence (that we know of). That it is owned in common is a mere assertion. No creator can be identified, and it is therefore open to be claimed. A collection of individuals can only own it together if they jointly claim it - in which case they must compete with vying interests.

More likely they defend them by the use of force (although yes they do use force to drive out competitors) - humans prefer using the legal system to resolve such disputes to avoid the consequent bloodshed, as well as establish proof of tortfeasance before taking action.

Humans prefer different methods. We use a variety of them. Can any be any more just than any other?

Humans prefer different methods. We use a variety of them. Can any be any more just than any other?
That would depend on the ethical basis one uses. If one argues that by initiating force that they endager their own being (in other words, if it's alright for me to murder you, the opposite applies to), appropriating land by physical force becomes out of the question, because it endangers one's other rights.

I know this is more a matter of principle than technicality, but the notion of destroying land to own it is somewhat idiotic. What is Nozick's theory of appropriation, then?

I destroyed land? How?

Nozick calls it the Lockean Proviso. Its basically homesteading.

How? Without your efforts the land would simply be valueless. You do not value it enough to do anything to it.

I liked it better the way before. Or someone else did. Why would it be valueless? Value is subjective.

Unless they can prove positively that God exists it and is of the nature they ascribe to him, it becomes irrelevant.

That is true with morality as well. How can you prove it?


Theft, from whom? That presumes an owner. Such is not in existence (that we know of).

Its owned by everyone. An individual stole it from anyone else.

That would depend on the ethical basis one uses. If one argues that by initiating force that they endager their own being (in other words, if it's alright for me to murder you, the opposite applies to), appropriating land by physical force becomes out of the question, because it endangers one's other rights.

Who said they have rights? Animals don't aknowledge rights.

I destroyed land? How?
By making it unusable. What can a toxic ocean be used for, exactly?

Nozick calls it the Lockean Proviso. Its basically homesteading.

I know what Locke argued - what does Nozick argue though?

That is true with morality as well. How can you prove it?
Morality refers to how one ought to live their life, usually inferred from a given worldview (e.g. the notion that God exists dictates Christian ethics, whereas others would argue we are as animals in nature eking out a survival, and base their ethics on this). Which is more correct? Going by Occam's razor, the one that doesn't include unnecessary elements in it, such as the existence of God.

Its owned by everyone. An individual stole it from anyone else.
To which, I say:

Theft, from whom? That presumes an owner. Such is not in existence (that we know of). That it is owned in common is a mere assertion. No creator can be identified, and it is therefore open to be claimed. A collection of individuals can only own it together if they jointly claim it - in which case they must compete with vying interests to establish said claim. They didn't. Instead, individuals competed with one another. Later they transferred their authority to individuals claiming to represent their interest (e.g. a Monarch); said authority is theirs to reclaim.

Who said they have rights? Animals don't aknowledge rights.
We do, as a matter of convenience. An animalistic free-for-all is perfectly possible too though. The only problem is then that any usurper will be viewed as a tyrant, and be overthrown. To be able to organise in societies without such fear, any governmental authority (to avoid being tyrannical) must draw the support of its citizenry (and by this I mean real consent). Other social animals seem to acknowledge a leader, unless they desire said leader's position; which in their world must be gained by crushing their competitor - but leadership is pretty much a earned by winning a conflict. Were we to be like the tiger, rights would be irrelevant altogether simply because social organisation is out of the question.

By making it unusable. What can a toxic ocean be used for, exactly?

Actually this radiation is widely dispersed. Its like when a doctor will put some mildly radiated fluid in you so they can see it in some scan. Its harmless but lets me know the boundaries of what I own in the ocean. Even if was a toxic ocean it could still have value to me if I'm weird.


I know what Locke argued - what does Nozick argue though?

Nozick said you can claim any unowned property as long as it would make any body worse off.


Morality refers to how one ought to live their life, usually inferred from a given worldview (e.g. the notion that God exists dictates Christian ethics, whereas others would argue we are as animals in nature eking out a survival, and base their ethics on this). Which is more correct? Going by Occam's razor, the one that doesn't include unnecessary elements in it, such as the existence of God.

A divine being might be easier with Occam's razor rather than chance and mere coincidence.

To which, I say:

Theft, from whom? That presumes an owner. Such is not in existence (that we know of). That it is owned in common is a mere assertion. No creator can be identified, and it is therefore open to be claimed. A collection of individuals can only own it together if they jointly claim it - in which case they must compete with vying interests to establish said claim. They didn't. Instead, individuals competed with one another.

That the land is unowned is mere assertion. An absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.

If individuals compete for land then why should force be an illegitamate way of gaining property?

We do, as a matter of convenience. An animalistic free-for-all is perfectly possible too though. The only problem is then that any usurper will be viewed as a tyrant, and be overthrown. To be able to organise in societies without such fear, any governmental authority (to avoid being tyrannical) must draw the support of its citizenry (and by this I mean real consent). Other social animals seem to acknowledge a leader, unless they desire said leader's position; which in their world must be gained by crushing their competitor - but leadership is pretty much a earned by winning a conflict. Were we to be like the tiger, rights would be irrelevant altogether simply because social organisation is out of the question.

So rights then are socially created and only exist contextually. No absolute wrong or right.

Later they transferred their authority to individuals claiming to represent their interest (e.g. a Monarch); said authority is theirs to reclaim.

It is if they can reclaim. If not then it isn't their's anymore.

Nozick said you can claim any unowned property as long as it would make any body worse off.
Which is logical.

A divine being might be easier with Occam's razor rather than chance and mere coincidence.
Then one would have to ask, with what purpose did this being create the world? Did it create it with the purpose of owning it? If so, why doesn't it prove it when asked? If not, what is its exact nature? These are all presumptions we are making that we have no way of answering. To put it another way, unless we know of the nature of this supposed creator, it is no more easier to assert that it owns anything.

That the land is unowned is mere assertion. An absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.
See above.

If individuals compete for land then why should force be an illegitamate way of gaining property?
As I said, it isn't. So long as individuals organise in societies though the way in which they compete changes (usually by mutual agreement).

So rights then are socially created and only exist contextually. No absolute wrong or right.
If there were an absolute right or wrong, it'd make sense that we knew it, wouldn't it - otherwise how else are we meant to go by it? Without such a guide, the only logical justification for rights is that they are socially agreed upon. How this occurs will depend on one's moral code.

It is if they can reclaim. If not then it isn't their's anymore.
Which again will leave the leadership faced with the threat of rebellion, wouldn't it? Only an absolute tyranny would be able to quell all opposition (absolute Monarchies are not an example of this - dictatorships are; both failed), or a world such as Brave New World. If we allow such a situation to arise, we pretty much deserve what we get, I won't argue that.

Which is logical.

Not really. I claim all property in the universe as of now that is unowned and wont make anybody else. Will anybody aknowledge this claim?


Then one would have to ask, with what purpose did this being create the world? Did it create it with the purpose of owning it? If so, why doesn't it prove it when asked? If not, what is its exact nature? These are all presumptions we are making that we have no way of answering. To put it another way, unless we know of the nature of this supposed creator, it is no more easier to assert that it owns anything.

Nor is it harder.

As I said, it isn't. So long as individuals organise in societies though the way in which they compete changes (usually by mutual agreement).

Why not? What does the way society is organized have to do with anything?

If there were an absolute right or wrong, it'd make sense that we knew it, wouldn't it - otherwise how else are we meant to go by it? Without such a guide, the only logical justification for rights is that they are socially agreed upon. How this occurs will depend on one's moral code.

We're pretty much fucked, eh?

Which again will leave the leadership faced with the threat of rebellion, wouldn't it? Only an absolute tyranny would be able to quell all opposition (absolute Monarchies are not an example of this - dictatorships are; both failed), or a world such as Brave New World. If we allow such a situation to arise, we pretty much deserve what we get, I won't argue that.

Even after a successful rebellion a new state or states would return in time. Back to square one.

Not really. I claim all property in the universe as of now that is unowned and wont make anybody else. Will anybody aknowledge this claim?
Which, again, would be countered by competing claims (the method of resolution of which depends on the mode of social organisation, which in turn depends on the morality adopted). If you were the only person in the universe and no one contested your claim, it could well be true.

Nor is it harder.
I would say that it is - this is a positive rather than negative proof. You have to show that something exists, though you cannot. You may argue that it is logical for it to exist, but that does not prove that it really and truly does exist.

Why not? What does the way society is organized have to do with anything?
It defines the rules of engagement. We may not agree with these, which leads back to the morality they are based on. But it most definitely influences how we behave in a society.

We're pretty much fucked, eh?
The only recourse we have is trying to assert one form of morality is superior to another, and perhaps attempt to prove it (or, on the other hand, use the "as long as you don't force me to participate in it, I do not care" line of reasoning). Other than that I can see no means of establishing an absolute right or wrong. Although Schopenhauer would probably have agreed with your conclusion. :)

Even after a successful rebellion a new state or states would return in time. Back to square one.
Nothing in nature assures us of stability - the only constant is change, after all. We have to be willing to work with that, or perish. Which is why freedom is so hard to maintain - because it requires an active vigilance at all times.

Which, again, would be countered by competing claims. If you were the only person in the universe and no one contested your claim, it could well be true.

If someone steals your property or kills you for your land thats a way to contest and settle a competing

I would say that it is - this is a positive rather than negative proof. You have to show that something exists, though you cannot. You may argue that it is logical for it to exist, but that does not prove that it really and truly does exist./QUOTE]

True. I was being contrary.

[QUOTE]It defines the rules of engagement.

So break the rules when your cost/benefit ratio and probablility are on your side?


The only recourse we have is trying to assert one form of morality is superior to another, and perhaps attempt to prove it (or, on the other hand, use the "as long as you don't force me to participate in it, I do not care" line of reasoning). Other than that I can see no means of establishing an absolute right or wrong.

Yep. We're fucked.

Can't prove it. What's the ends of morality? Pleasing some deity, greatest aggregate happiness, maximize survival and personal happiness?

Nothing in nature assures us of stability - the only constant is change, after all. We have to be willing to work with that, or perish. Which is why freedom is so hard to maintain - because it requires an active vigilance at all times.

Yep

If someone steals your property or kills you for your land thats a way to contest and settle a competing
It is, but as I said, the mode of social organisation will determine whether or not this claim is valid. In a pure animalistic anarchy, might would make right. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, humans confer upon governments the power to resolve such disputes (on the basis of proof), and establish their legitimacy.

So break the rules when your cost/benefit ratio and probablility are on your side?
The only thing stopping you from doing so is your inclination to, I suppose. A purely amoral person would do so, and with nothing to stop them, would definitely not hesitate - especially if they saw little risk in the same being done to them. This is very reminiscent of Nietzsche, and Satanism at large. The biggest problem with morality (as it is) is that it is prescriptive, and in no way can truly bind anyone into agreement. It always refers to "should's", but can never refer to a "must" - they only transform into a "must" via coercion or mutual agreement.

Yep. We're fucked.

Can't prove it. What's the ends of morality? Pleasing some deity, greatest aggregate happiness, maximize survival and personal happiness?
I remember Soheran mentioned this - true, it is difficult to prove it. The best you can hope to do is convince others.

One minute - most private doctors I know are self-employed, or work together in joint-ownership corporations. Germany's system is heavily socialised. Who are these "bosses" exactly? Government bureaucrats?

Another thing - if doctors flee the country, they will be in higher demand; their wages will go up, as they will be more valued than before. Corporations which cannot force you to stay in their employment will suffer as a result.
From what I understand of the article, the hospitals and clinics are private, but regulated - and often in quiet long-standing violation of regulations. Some sort of bad situation all around.

The point of me posting the articles wasn't the specifics of the respective situations though. It was the fact that people leave when the government is after them.

No one's introduced an income cap, so I can't produce real-world evidence that they in fact do leave, but this is probably fairly close.

Put yourself in their position: You've worked for a while, you're in a good position. You earn a million dollars, which also happens to be the income cap.

Would you not agree that a job offer across the border offering, say, three million dollars would be relatively more attractive then if the income cap was not in place and the market price of your labour at home would more accurately reflect what you could get for it somewhere else?
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Perhaps the cost of living is greater there too, so I would pay three times as much for everything. If I earn a million dollars in Estonia, I have an effective spending power of $1.7 million; if I earned three million dollars in Norway, where money is in great supply, that would only give me $2 million in effective spending power.

Perhaps I prefer the benefits, the support, the security, living near my family... all these things are very valuable.

What you don't seem to understand is that through tax and regulatory policies, most countries sharply curb excessive incomes to a far greater degree than we see in the US.
So far the economics of it. And in the real world, there's plenty of evidence of government policies driving people out of the country, and in the case of France that's specifically anti-rich people policies.
All the rich are not fleeing France. In fact, according to Forbes' list, there are more non-French billionaires living in France than French billionaires living outside of France. And why should we care if a few hundred jetsetters here and there decide to move to Belgium to evade taxes once the government catches up with the fact that they haven't? France is not suffering as a result of "anti-rich people" policies, and as I pointed out, the numbers in that article clearly don't add up, making the whole thing very suspect.

See here (http://www.insee.fr/en/ffc/accueil_ffc.asp?theme=8) for figures on the French economy. As a matter of fact, after the implementation of the "solidarity tax" in 1998, France's deficit dropped and their economic growth kicked up.
Together I think it builds about as strong a case as is possible without an experiment that the demographic who are around the income cap will see a greater proportion move out of the reach of the government. And to combat that, you can only end up lowering the income cap a bit more, and a bit more, and a bit more, if you're indeed after taking the extra money from the rich guy and handing it to slightly less rich people, since the proportions are changing.
For most of them, if they moved somewhere else, they wouldn't be able to earn anywhere near the income cap. Incidentally.

And nowhere did I say that the income cap would provide a majority of governmental income. There's no sensible motivation to keep incrementally dropping the income cap; indeed, as standards of living rise and inflation paces upwards, it makes sense to incrementally increase an income cap over time. Slowly, granted, but only had it turned out that the income cap implemented was far too high for the desired degree of suppression of exploitation.
Not to forget the non-monetary implications. It's a pretty obvious "we don't like rich people" policy, no one can deny that. You even implied that by "income" you meant things like profit from non-work related share holdings, real estate and so on.
These are, in other countries, such as the UK, taxed as income, in some cases at higher rates than earned income. Of course, in a tax structure such as the US, when these things are taxed usually is up to the holder; taxes may be paid either incrementally over time, or upon liquidation.

Oh, did you want to leave a lot of loopholes open by exempting large classes of income? Sorry.

Although I'll grant that grandfathering, manipulation of current US tax codes, etc., will effectively produce a certain small class of apparently permanently endowed income-cap earners. A rigorously applied income cap would make things very funny.
I don't see why these people would want to stick around when they're being singled out for abuse by the government, which then, I would guess, also has a two-way relationship with the mob's opinions.

And if they don't want to stick around, that's perfectly fine. So what? Nobody is going to suffer for it.

The only way you could suffer from it is by setting the income cap too low and scaring away skilled professionals - and the figures we're throwing around here (generally $10 million) aren't in that range.

The only way you could suffer from it is by setting the income cap too low and scaring away skilled professionals - and the figures we're throwing around here (generally $10 million) aren't in that range.
Which leaves us with two things.

1. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not is desirable to scare "jetsetters" away for no other reason than them having done well for themselves.
I maintain that many if not most rich people are rich for a reason, and you don't want to be hurting the most capable and most worthy people in your country.
And besides, I dislike the equalisation of what is not equal, regardless of which income group we're talking about. Someone who earns 100 million is judged more worthy than someone who earns 50 million, and that too is for a reason.

2. I'm still not entirely sure what your motivation is. You're not going to be eliviating poverty, nor really changing the finances available to government, nor changing any other economic variables by concentrating on the few capable enough to earn that much money. It must be all about the principle.

Which leaves us with two things.

1. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not is desirable to scare "jetsetters" away for no other reason than them having done well for themselves.
I maintain that many if not most rich people are rich for a reason, and you don't want to be hurting the most capable and most worthy people in your country.
And besides, I dislike the equalisation of what is not equal, regardless of which income group we're talking about. Someone who earns 100 million is judged more worthy than someone who earns 50 million, and that too is for a reason.
Not any good reason I'm aware of. At that point, it's pretty much just "keeping score."

Wealth does not imply deservedness. I don't buy that claim, and I probably never will; the main reason that people are wealthy, for that matter, is because their parents were wealthy.

They are not more capable at anything but making money and cleverly dodging taxes, generally speaking. They aren't really, for the most part, creating wealth from nothing so much as obtaining wealth from others.

And as far as "hurting" them and "scaring" them? We're talking about limiting net income, not stripping them of all their possessions and throwing them out in the street. Nobody would be "hurt" by limiting their net income to $10 million - not even to the degree that it "hurts" someone who earns $50,000 a year to pay taxes.
2. I'm still not entirely sure what your motivation is. You're not going to be eliviating poverty, nor really changing the finances available to government, nor changing any other economic variables by concentrating on the few capable enough to earn that much money. It must be all about the principle.
Actually, by conservation effects, poverty will probably be alleviated if you decrease the distribution of wealth. Cut the top in half, and the money will trickle down, particularly since income in the US is not distributed on a bell curve. The distribution of gross income resembles nothing so much as a pyramid with a stretched tip. The 0-$5,000 bracket is larger than the $5,000-$10,000 bracket and so on - meaning that the extraordinary amount of income concentrated in the miniscule fraction of a percent that would be affected by an income cap. This also, incidentally, would increase tax revenues somewhat.

The median household has a gross income of $46,242. This is almost exactly equal to the mean take-home of one American out of the entire national product... distributed between 2.6 people. This is a remarkably top-heavy distribution.

Now, I didn't suggest an income cap myself... but I think it's not a bad idea as far as they come, provided the implementation is worked out appropriately.

What I would have nominated personally is a continuously increasing income tax gradient with no or few loopholes, with neither horizontal nor diagonal asymptotes, but a continuously decreasing slope of net income. I can outline the curve for you mathematically if you like.

Vittos already answered this, but I will add something - if a service is not receiving an adequate renumeration, it is up to the provider to negotiate better terms for it. Sony always operates at a loss when selling Playstations. Should it now be compensated for this "unfair" exploitation? No. Sorry Sony. The same goes for the small village grocer. Employees have the right to (non-coercive) unionisation with which they could make their shareholding in the corporation they will work for a precondition of their employment. They may organise and together refuse to work until their demands are met (government has no right to intervene unless either party uses force). Labour is not the only thing that creates value - but it is imporant to it. It will be in the interest of corporations to resolve this as soon as possible. Alternatively, they may attempt cooperative corporate models.

If they do not even try this and still cry "exploitation", too bad. A man not willing to fight for a cause does not deserve the fruits thereof.

What other human controllable factor besides labor can create value? Oh, wait there is nothing else that humans can control to create value except labor. So, you explicitly defeind a coercive model and then say employees have no right to use coercion in response? Adam Smith called that "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind--all for ourselves and none for anyone else."

You're the one clinging to a usurpation - not me. You are the one arguing it is my duty to care for the survival of others. I reject that.

Make sure you remember that when you are gasping out your last breathes.

Point me to them.

It would be your burden of proof to provide a study that conclusively proved that point.

Have you actually read the book? Naturally, I realise neoclassical economics has its flaws, and could take a good, hard look at its epistemology and theoretical groundings. That it is misanthropic is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore carries no bearing on the validity of the critique of a science.

Considering that economics is a social scienc e, I view misanthropy to be a serious flaw. I have not read it in its entirety, but I have seen it quoted extensively in the Anarchist FAQ.

Erm... we are still moving onwards; it's not as if time has stopped. History, therefore, has done nothing of the sort.

I think that 80 years of social democracy in Europe (which, by the way, is slowly eroding away) would be enough to disprove the ridicolous claim that all middle of the roads lead to bureaucratic collectivism.

Actually, there aren't. The land was unowned before (I do not justify landownership when taken by force from others) - you, by mixing with it your labour (or the fruits thereof), turned it into usable property. You can protect it through force, or in civilised societies, through law. Animals defend their territories in exactly the same fashion. If you find disagreement with this, that is not my problem.

No one has the right to take control of resources that he did not create. No one has the right to have an excess of luxuries while others die from want of common nescessities. Funny, I though humans were suppossed be held to a higher standard of conduct then animals. Respect for the individual 'n all. :rolleyes:

Not really. It is just a simple observation, not really a proper economic theory, though it is labeled so. We don't need an objective determination of a value of a commodity to understand that whatever value it has was created by labor. Whose labor did what is a much trickier issue to determine, but by any reckoning it is exploitive to give the property owner the lionshare of that value.

While labor is what makes the resource consumable, it cannot be considered the sole creator of value. The 40-year-old bottle of wine has had labor added to it but once, 40 years ago, but it has continued to increase in value ever since. Could an artist's death be considered labor when it causes his artwork to become more valuable?

I actually agree with you that income levels are skewed way out of any natural balance. I believe that the free market will cause all participants to the market we call society to recieve their fair compensation for whatever participation they provide, namely how much they benefit the other market participants. I cannot fathom a race of humans whose utility were so skewed as to create such a vast division of wealth, and in that I agree with your "simple observation".

Any attepmt, however, of approximating how deserves what percentage of an end product, or how much an hours worth of labor is worth, and then instituting them through government onto a market, will only further alienate the individual from his true economic return.

1: Unorthodox Marxism by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel delves into this issue. In it, the authors explicitly reject LTV and go through an alternative look at exploitation. I haven't read the book myself, but I've read works that the very same authors referred back to on the subject. Since I live in Montana, it's rather hard to come accross a copy. I you could find it, it might prove interesting.

I will certainly look into this.

2: This point assumes that there is a free and fair market in labor, and that laborers are at equal bargaining terms with their employers. I don't think that such a case can be made. Furthermore, markets completely leave out the human costs of production, and pervasively ignore the effect and source of externalities.

Actually it only assumes that our empirical market data is accurate, I don't have a source right now (I will find one when I am not strapped for time), but it is actually true that the market price has a strong tendency to approximate cost of production.

While labor is what makes the resource consumable, it cannot be considered the sole creator of value. The 40-year-old bottle of wine has had labor added to it but once, 40 years ago, but it has continued to increase in value ever since. Could an artist's death be considered labor when it causes his artwork to become more valuable?

I actually agree with you that income levels are skewed way out of any natural balance. I believe that the free market will cause all participants to the market we call society to recieve their fair compensation for whatever participation they provide, namely how much they benefit the other market participants. I cannot fathom a race of humans whose utility were so skewed as to create such a vast division of wealth, and in that I agree with your "simple observation".

Any attepmt, however, of approximating how deserves what percentage of an end product, or how much an hours worth of labor is worth, and then instituting them through government onto a market, will only further alienate the individual from his true economic return.

I don't doubt that certain objects have a subjective value above the labor created value. For the wine example, even an wine aging in a cellar needs someone to tend to it. The temperatures must be regulated, and the bottles must be periodically rotated, etc. There is some labor involved.

The Art example is trickier. However, art is not technically a commodity, since it cannot be "reproduced" and still be a work of art. Any copies are a commodity, but the original is not. Thus, it can be said that the value of art is only determined subjectively. I personally never had much taste for the art of others, but many other people do.

Actually it only assumes that our empirical market data is accurate, I don't have a source right now (I will find one when I am not strapped for time), but it is actually true that the market price has a strong tendency to approximate cost of production.

I think the way that a truly free market can be acheived is to remove private property. I think that a collective enterprise could fairly distribute among its participants the surplus value that it creates, and we wouldn't have to de facto give property owners that right.

What other human controllable factor besides labor can create value? Oh, wait there is nothing else that humans can control to create value except labor. So, you explicitly defeind a coercive model and then say employees have no right to use coercion in response? Adam Smith called that "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind--all for ourselves and none for anyone else."
Unless force/threat of force is involved (usually in the form of government action), it isn't coercion. You may call it exploitation, based on your viewpoint, but that is not the same. The model of labour renumeration has everything to do with the type of business model agreed upon between employer and employees. If the employer is banned from using coercion, and the employees do indeed contribute to creating value, they may withhold their services until greater renumeration is given.

As for Mr Smith, Economics has moved on since the dear old man's death...

It would be your burden of proof to provide a study that conclusively proved that point.
Erm, no, it wouldn't. You're questioning orthodox economic views, not me. You made mention of these studies, not me. Now show them to me.


Considering that economics is a social scienc e, I view misanthropy to be a serious flaw. I have not read it in its entirety, but I have seen it quoted extensively in the Anarchist FAQ.
I'd recommend you actually read this stuff in their entirety as opposed to taking these FAQs seriously.

I think that 80 years of social democracy in Europe (which, by the way, is slowly eroding away) would be enough to disprove the ridicolous claim that all middle of the roads lead to bureaucratic collectivism.
As I said, history is not static. Europe has not had 80 continuous years of stable democracy anyway ; 1939-45 is a good reminder of this.

No one has the right to take control of resources that he did not create.
Why not? Animals do not create territory, yet they claim it nonetheless - and humans are animals. If you can defend your claim it is as good as yours. Societies based on the exchange of goods alter how this claim is established by delegating the right to self-defence to an agent, usually the legal system, for reasons of stability. Now if you believe humans should behave differently that is your entitlement, and inevitably based on your moral views - just do not expect me to sympathise with them, nor inhabit a society based on them.

I think we're pretty much done here really - we're not going to agree, ever.

Cuz they're greedy!

Greed is good. It is what drove the men who heralded in the Information Age. Get rid of greed and you kill our economy and the progression of technology.

... For example, Bill Gates would cut Microsoft massively, lay off well over half the employees, and work the minimum he has to to make $10 million. He can make no more, so why try? ... .

And yet you're arguing this would be a bad thing?

And yet you're arguing this would be a bad thing?

It would mean no innovations or upgrades to Windows. Intel wouldn't even bother coming up with new chips.

I'm just shocked by how little Socialists understand economics and how they don't realize greed is a motivator for advancement.

The democrats are winning because the last six years have been an absolute catastrophy.

Where can you find any example of this catastrophe?The economy is doing fantastic.Growth is way up.Crime is down.Population increasing faster.Wages increasing quicker.Lowest unemployment in years.Less people on welfare.People retiring later.Better healthcare.The death toll in Iraq equivalent to a small skirmish in the Civil War.There is NOTHING WRONG,and the Democrats are about to fuck it all up,just like they did back in the day.

It would mean no innovations or upgrades to Windows. Intel wouldn't even bother coming up with new chips.

I'm just shocked by how little Socialists understand economics and how they don't realize greed is a motivator for advancement.

It is a motivator, but it isnt the only one is there? Sweden, with a tax rate of over 50% (!!!) and a population of 9 million are considered highly developed in various areas. A selection of proof that free market is not all there is to it... as Nation Master's list by technological achievement: Sweden is the 4th of 68 countries, World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report: Sweden is the 3rd of 125 countries... Source: wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#International_rankings)

It's not that simple. Minimum wage is neither stupid nor a "populist" law. Funny how you consider "populism" to be a bad thing. What this that I hear about "We the People of the United States?"

Minimum wages spread out costs more evenly. Though costs are increased, those increased costs are distributed on all in society. So upper and middle income people pay more, the lowest income people get a pay increase more the increase in prices. They do not cause unemployment. Unemployment is caused by the capitalist economic system.

There are more reasons.The dirty little secret about minumum wage increases is that they are also hidden ways to increase taxes.Think about it.Income taxes and some others,along with taxes on the business themselves,are increased when the income brought in is greater.With taxes up,it hurts businesses,driving costs up.(Which are then passed on to you in the form of higher prices,hurting businesses even more by getting them less sales.And how do you compute the effect on consumer sales througout the economy when you lose more money at said store paying for higher prices?It goes on and on!)And,ironically,this makes it harder to increase wages.Also,it makes workers dependent on government for wage increases instead of there employer,which eliminates incentive to work harder,thus getting rid of incentive to get REAL pay upgrades or move up the ladder,thus harming there chances to move up to better jobs.It also is harmful to our republic,with people now effectively voting themselves a pay increase.I could go on and on.Here is useful link:

http://http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10785

It would mean no innovations or upgrades to Windows. Intel wouldn't even bother coming up with new chips.

I'm just shocked by how little Socialists understand economics and how they don't realize greed is a motivator for advancement.

It is a motivator, but it isnt the only one is there? Sweden, with a tax rate of over 50% (!!!) and a population of 9 million are considered highly developed in various areas. A selection of proof that free market is not all there is to it... as Nation Master's list by technological achievement: Sweden is the 4th of 68 countries, World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report: Sweden is the 3rd of 125 countries... Source: wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#International_rankings)

I don't doubt that certain objects have a subjective value above the labor created value. For the wine example, even an wine aging in a cellar needs someone to tend to it. The temperatures must be regulated, and the bottles must be periodically rotated, etc. There is some labor involved.

And yet the bottle of soda that recieves the same labor recieves no increase in value.

I think the way that a truly free market can be acheived is to remove private property. I think that a collective enterprise could fairly distribute among its participants the surplus value that it creates, and we wouldn't have to de facto give property owners that right.

If there is no private property, there is no market.

And what surplus value?

It is a motivator, but it isnt the only one is there? Sweden, with a tax rate of over 50% (!!!) and a population of 9 million are considered highly developed in various areas. A selection of proof that free market is not all there is to it... as Nation Master's list by technological achievement: Sweden is the 4th of 68 countries, World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report: Sweden is the 3rd of 125 countries... Source: wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#International_rankings)
This (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Fjordman60527.htm) and this (http://www.mises.org/story/2259) is a rather good explanation of why Sweden could (up to now) sustain such a system. Sweden once (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-160.html) enjoyed massive entrepreneurship and a trade advantage (think iron and post-WW II Europe). It therefore had accumulated the wealth. Modern Sweden is hardly a paradise. Unemployment wavers between 7 to 25% (http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/08/swedish-welfare-state-cracking.html), depending whom you believe.

Modern Sweden is hardly a paradise.
Well, what country are?

Unemployment wavers between 7 to 25% (http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/08/swedish-welfare-state-cracking.html), depending whom you believe.
If you do count broad-unemployment-rates as you mention (counting cancer sick, conscripts, retired and so on) which in Sweden amount to 20-25% you can look at other countries using this method: France (35%), Italy, Ireland, Spain, Greece (30%). Sweden has lower unemployment rate than UK, and quite equally along with the US. In fact the only country (in this study) lower unemployment rates were... a low tax-country? ... no.. Denmark, second on the highest tax rate league... (Source: prof. Bo Malmberg)

Well, what country are?
What country is, you mean (or what countries are). With the grammar check done, my brief answer is: none.

If you do count broad-unemployment-rates as you mention (counting cancer sick, conscripts, retired and so on) which in Sweden amount to 20-25% you can look at other countries using this method: France (35%), Italy, Ireland, Spain, Greece (30%). Sweden has lower unemployment rate than UK, and quite equally along with the US. In fact the only country (in this study) lower unemployment rates were... a low tax-country? ... no.. Denmark, second on the highest tax rate league... (Source: prof. Bo Malmberg)
Provide a link to the source. However, even if this is so, I am not surprised. The tax burden and interventionism in the countries you mentioned is scarcely below that in Sweden. All these countries subscribe to one or the other form of Keynesianism (including the USA).