I don't need to do that. Someone with greater expertise can do that. And I don't need to rely on gut feeling and prejudice. Anyone with common sense can, from observation, rightly conclude that a building has collapsed. But you'd need an expert to assess with due precision what exactly caused the building to collapse. Are you suggesting that you do not possess this common sense? — Sapientia

No, I am simply suggesting that deciding how much value someone has provided isn't a matter of common sense, it's something that has to be carefully analysed to determine.

Then you must think that he has earned that amount. How is that possible? It's only possible within a selfish and greedy framework. — Sapientia

Why is it only possible in a selfish and greedy framework? There are millions of people who want to watch him play and who love him.

And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.

Right, well I am against private banking pretty much anyway. Providing money at super high-interest rates isn't providing value to anyone.

And yes, obviously the house of God shouldn't be a place where commerce takes place.

I have thought about that. Here are my thoughts: a footballer is considered valuable insofar as you enjoy watching, or making money out of, men or women playing a game which involves kicking around a ball on a field whilst lots of people stare at this on a screen or in the stands and moronically cheer, jeer, chant, and gesticulate. This is nowhere near as valuable as protecting the public and saving lives. — Sapientia

It's not as simple as that. If you don't give those idiots you mention something to watch - games - circus as the Romans said, then they will cause problems through society. Romans invented the notion of bread and circus to control the masses, and they were right. If those people don't have that outlet, they will cause other, much more serious damage to society. Indeed, if we close such outlets, we will lose a lot more lives than we save by increasing pay to paramedics.

I am fine if you take high % of the money made through financial speculation, gambling, etc. and other such activities which aren't productive and don't add value in the economy.

Yes, fingers crossed on that one. I suspect we are going to see more and more outrage. Did you see Jeremy Corbyn's response to the budget on Wednesday? Gripping stuff. I refrained from linking to it here, but you can watch it by googling, Corbyns response to the budget YouTube, (it is about 23mins long).

Why is Phillip Green so despised? — Sapientia

Because he's rich. People who are rich and successful are often despised by those who are jealous of them and their success.

Maybe while those who despised him spent their time drinking in a pub, he was working. I listened to an interview with him once where they described his work schedule, and it was quite tough - most people don't allocate that much time to business.

Fact: The GDP of the world is $16,100. This means that if all the resources of the world were divided equally for every citizen of the world, they'd only get $16,100, and most of that isn't even cold hard cash, but is tied up in property and commodities.

So, if it is Worset's intent to have everyone get paid equally, then he is arguing for the paramedic to make less than half of what he is making now in order for the rich to be just as poor as the paramedic.

If Worset is arguing for the paramedic to get paid more than he already is, which is already more than twice the amount they should get if everything were divided equally, which means that the paramedic's salary is already making someone else poorer as it stands right now, then raising the salary of the paramedic will just make the poorer more poor, as that raise has to come from somewhere, which Worset will probably argue that it should come out of the rich man's pockets, then what about those jobs that the rich man has created in his business, which will be eliminated, thereby hurting the poor even more?

As usual, the "good" intentions of liberals end up being not so good when you actually think about the consequences of their ideas.

And making a whip of cords, he stood back and did nothing. They all remained in the temple, with the sheep and oxen. The coins remained in the money-changers and the tables stayed exactly where they were. Business carried on as usual,
with no disturbances. — Trump 2:15

>:O

Let me fix it:

And making a whip of cords, he stood back and whipped them screaming "Faster, work faster you scoundrels!" They all remained in the temple, with the sheep and oxen. The coins started flowing like tremendous rivers of gold and the money-changers and their tables stayed exactly where they were. Business was tremendous that day. — Trump 2:15

Well right, no - of course not, because, to begin with, not every worker adds as much value as the next. — Agustino

Workers on an assembly line generally get paid without respect to the value of the part they are adding. They are all doing essentially the same task.

What about costs with marketing and advertising, probably the single most important aspect of business? — Agustino

I left out the post-production expenses to keep it simple. In a socialist economy, marketing and advertising are less important. but certainly, there are costs -- no matter what -- between the car leaving the factory and the car being driven away by a new owner. If nothing else, transportation and warehousing, and finally, displaying.

Where production for need, rather than production for profit prevails, whipping up enthusiasm for new cars, new can openers, new whatever, would not be practiced. Advertising is critical to consumer capitalism, because it takes effort to keep people on the consumption treadmill.

So the cars sell by themselves right? :s — Agustino

Products for which there is a clear need do not require a lot of sales efforts. Medicine doesn't need advertising. Information about efficacy and deficiencies are the main thing. Similarly, where cars are manufactured for need, (limited because was transit should replace individual autos in dense population areas) sales don't need to be whipped up.

How much should this person get paid?

I would imagine distribution would be handled by a work group much like the one that made the cars in the first place. Distribution and sale completion are important, but in a socialist economy, maximizing sales isn't the point, so the rewards for this work group would be determined by the work group themselves.

There would not be people much more highly paid than anyone else.

Because he's rich. — Agustino

It's not as simple as that. — Agustino

Wosret?? >:O

Workers on an assembly line generally get paid without respect to the value of the part they are adding. They are all doing essentially the same task. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but assembly line workers are not all that is required to run the factory.

In a socialist economy, marketing and advertising are less important. — Bitter Crank

Why?

Where production for need, rather than production for profit prevails, whipping up enthusiasm for new cars, new can openers, new whatever, would not be practiced. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but you still have to let people know "Yo, we have a new car here guys". You still need to secure big contracts with other businesses, etc.

Products for which there is a clear need do not require a lot of sales efforts. — Bitter Crank

:s - I think this is a huge mistake. From my experience, no product, no matter how good it is and how needed it is can do without sales effort. Sales effort is the ABSOLUTE key ingredient in business, without this even the greatest product will fail. Most businesses fail for precisely this reason in fact. Neglect of the importance of sales. Sales don't come to you - you have to go out there and get them.

Many people have great ideas and start a business but have no clue how to get sales. Many other old folks I've worked with scratch their heads why their business is no longer going well... well, how can it go well when you spend so little effort on getting sales? :s

I would imagine distribution would be handled by a work group much like the one that made the cars in the first place. Distribution and sale completion are important, but in a socialist economy, maximizing sales isn't the point, so the rewards for this work group would be determined by the work group themselves. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I would agree with some of the other principles, but not here. Usually, companies find out that a large share of their revenue comes from relatively few customers (unless they are something like retail supermarkets). In my case last year, 80% of my revenue came from like 15% of clients. In the case of big factories it's the same. A single big contract will account for a large share of the revenue. The key person who secures that contract is absolutely important to the functioning of the business. So yeah, there may be a sales team, but those salesmen are all going out to try to secure contracts. They work relatively independently apart from the overall product strategy.

The other issue is that we cannot produce just for need. If we do that, then those people who don't produce just for need will outgrow everyone else, and then they will enforce their own standards on them. It's like the arms race - the US, Russia, China, etc. must all invest in a big army to prevent the others from becoming stronger than them.

I say why make people go through the economic "realities" in the first place?

A worker-run socialist economy would not be a "command" economy like the USSR, or a "demand" economy like the typical capitalist economy. It would be a "coordinate" economy. Decisions about production and consumption would be coordinated by elected bodies. Workers on the need side, and workers on the production side, would--through councils or congresses, decide how much was needed, and by whom (more wool fabric for people living in cold climates, more linen fabric for people living in hot climates).

This really isn't a very radical idea. Information technology allows much better coordination between supply and need. Regular polling, data on\, agricultural production, mining output, production capacity, consumption, unsold goods, shortages, etc. can put together a fairly good idea of needs and production capacity.

Those worker councils dealing with transportation would decide what the need for automobiles was, who (not individuals so much as groups, places) needed them, and where they were needed. Production councils would determine how to get them made. Raw material supply, transportation, production, distribution, etc. would be again coordinated.

Advertising is a feature of for-profit demand economies, which depend on at least high overall demand and preferably growing demand. Advertising is the primary tool by which demand is whipped up.

... then those people who don't produce just for need will outgrow everyone else...

No, they won't grow at all because outside of Council Coordination, you will find no supplies, space, energy, markets, or anything else. Those who persist in trying to subvert council coordination will not be looked upon kindly.

I say why make people go through the economic "realities" in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Relax. It's merely an exercise to annoy Agustino who still believes in natalism.

Relax. It's merely an exercise to annoy Agustino who still believes in natalism. — Bitter Crank

Ah, carry on then. But, in a more specific context, what is it with the need to see people develop and have to interact with institutions, failing and achieving, setting goals etc, that needs to take place? Ah yes, little Johnny needs to interact with the schooling, then little Johnny needs to interact with the workplace. Little Johnny needs to navigate the world. Did more people like Johnny need to experience all this institutional interactions? Why? What does this prove? Having the kid is a statement to the world that someone needs to go through life's institutional interactions for some reason. There needs to be more humans that need to spend energy on maintaining their survival and boredom. That need problems to overcome for some odd reason.

They are sick?

Well, it is definitely perplexing. Birth is very unusual as it is a preference that affects a whole other life, for a lifetime. Birth is actually a strong political statement. People don't think of it like that, but it is. It is a very politically conservative statement. In a way, it is being beholden to the institutions of one's social setting. It is assenting to the idea that a person needs to go through life's social and institutional settings. This is something that needs to take place. They want little Johnny to be in the world. However, why the need for little Johnny to be in the world in the first place begs the question. They are making a political statement that a state of affairs needs to take place where a person needs to navigate life's historically-developed society with all its institutions and and expend energy for their own survival needs, comfort-seeking needs, and entertainment-seeking needs. They are literally forcing this political statement to take place "in the flesh". Somehow it is a good thing for new people to be born so that they can develop and interact with institutions. Why this needs to take place, I have no idea. Absurdity in the flesh is what is going on.

Maybe so that one day they can sit in their old age in their stone villa in the countryside and drink their morning coffee/tea, garden, and say cheerio to their significant other knowing that they put someone else through the inanities of life and they too can get this oh so delightful feeling.

not deleted, never written. — Bitter Crank

My computer knows what you wrote, but I cannot mention it because Baden will whip me if I do. Suffice to say that "fair" trials of the "ruthless" entrepreneur in the heart of Siberia are something long-gone :D .

No, they won't grow at all because outside of Council Coordination, you will find no supplies, space, energy, markets, or anything else. Those who persist in trying to subvert council coordination will not be looked upon kindly. — Bitter Crank

Sometimes phrases shapeshift too... Well, suffice to say that I wouldn't much like living in such a regimented economy. I much prefer as much economic freedom as possible, much like Tolkien's Shire. Which is why I prefer distributism. Everyone should be free to produce as they wish, and then seek to sell their produce. Why? Because, at least for me, a significant portion of my enjoyment of life comes from the useful work I freely choose to do for other people in the economy. I can't much imagine life without this, it would be quite grim.

I dislike the domination of large corporations precisely because they regiment many people to work for them, instead of allowing them to freely develop on their own.

And we probably agree on financial speculation (highly taxed profits) and banking (only public). But we obviously don't agree on economic liberalism in a general sense.

And I don't think I'm personally ruthless, quite the contrary. Yesterday I found a way to trick some people out of money from a service of theirs I use online. And guess what, I thought, I'm getting dough out of using this service, if I found a loophole, I will still pay them, cause I'm an honest man. If I really was ruthless in my work I would have been like "To hell with them, I don't give a damn about them. Let me just appropriate this for myself" - in fact, that's what communists used to do >:) - as Marcus Aurelius said, the best revenge is to be unlike the person who has done you the injury.

I don't expect that my design for a utopian economy in a utopian society will ever exist, not even remotely, because the conditions required to establish a de novo utopian economy will never exist.

I don't like regimentation either, whether it is within a large corporation or small group. Utopian systems have hidden regimentation built in -- everyone would have to conform, whatever the shape of the utopia. Universal peace and contentment has the same problem: the only way to keep it going is for everyone to be in a strait-jacket of peace and contentment regimentation.

So why bother talking about utopian schemes in the first place? It's a way of highlighting the dystopian features of reality.

I'm not very familiar with distributism; I don't know whether Tolkien was familiar with Chesterton and Belloc -- two of the English Catholic promoters of distributivism. I suppose you could call the Shire economy distributist. Oddly, it's about the only place in the Middle Earth where any economic activity exists. Like, from whom did the Dwarves in Moria import food -- they are in the middle of a mountain range. We know Dwarves eat, because their first appearance finds them emptying Bilbo's larder.

I doubt that you are ruthless. If you were, you wouldn't take time off from your cottage computer consulting firm to discuss philosophy and theology. Plus, you are a young man and young people tend to be militant-whatever-they-are.

There is a lot about advanced capitalism to dislike though, especially as it has been manifested in its post World War II form--huge, regimented, military-industrial multinational complexity, and managed by a plutocracy. Its form in the gilded age -- post-Civil War until the Progressive Era when its wings were clipped was quite similar. The robber barons of the Gilded Age, the saints of present day capitalists, like Frick, Mellon, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, et al were about as ruthless as the current crop. What they lacked was the modern Public Relations industry to perfume their deeds.

I have been reading a biography of Lenin: The Man, The Dictator, and the Master of Terror by Victor Sebestyen, and at least under the Tzars, Siberian exile wasn't always that bad. Lenin lived modestly with his wife in a small but adequate cabin, was free to go hiking and hunting (he never succeeding in bagging any game), could correspond -- as long as what he had to say got past the Okhrana censors, and so on. Lenin happened to land in one of the pleasant circles of hell. Jews, for instance, were sent to places far to the north, near the Arctic Circle, where exile tended to start at wretched and go downhill to fatal.

You lived in England... don't know whether you ever availed yourself of the National Health Service... I just read This Is Going To Hurt, an account of young doctor Kay's experience there. He praises the quality of care delivered, but working in the service was something of a nightmare. He's very sarcastic about the stupidity of both patients and institution, so it's quite enjoyable.

I don't expect that my design for a utopian economy in a utopian society will ever exist, not even remotely, because the conditions required to establish a de novo utopian economy will never exist.

I don't like regimentation either, whether it is within a large corporation or small group. Utopian systems have hidden regimentation built in -- everyone would have to conform, whatever the shape of the utopia. Universal peace and contentment has the same problem: the only way to keep it going is for everyone to be in a strait-jacket of peace and contentment regimentation.

So why bother talking about utopian schemes in the first place? It's a way of highlighting the dystopian features of reality. — Bitter Crank

Right, but then such utopian critiques certainly incorporate some dystopian features themselves.

I don't know whether Tolkien was familiar with Chesterton and Belloc -- two of the English Catholic promoters of distributivism. — Bitter Crank

Tolkien would definitely have been familiar with Chesterton - he was part of the Inklings, including C.S. Lewis and Owen Barfield, all who were influenced by these Christian thinkers. In fact, for C.S. Lewis, Chesterton's book The Everlasting Man played a central role in his own conversion. He also called it the best book of popular apologetics. Ironic that his own book Mere Christianity is now better known.

huge, regimented, military-industrial multinational complexity, — Bitter Crank

I agree with that. That's largely due to the existence of an octopus formed largely of the financial industry. Hedge fund managers, board of directors of multinationals, CEOs, etc. They form part of a class of people I detest, which is the hierarchy climbing "politician" who cannot actually do anything practical, but has a nice smile and is willing to get into bed with whoever it takes to rise to the top. These people don't actually do anything productive, they merely appropriate what others do, while being servile to those higher than them. That's what the whole field of managers, etc. are doing.

So really it's entire "fields" of people - managers, judges, politicians, etc. which are included here.

I have been reading a biography of Lenin: The Man, The Dictator, and the Master of Terror by Victor Sebestyen, and at least under the Tzars, Siberian exile wasn't always that bad. Lenin lived modestly with his wife in a small but adequate cabin, was free to go hiking and hunting (he never succeeding in bagging any game), could correspond -- as long as what he had to say got past the Okhrana censors, and so on. Lenin happened to land in one of the pleasant circles of hell. Jews, for instance, were sent to places far to the north, near the Arctic Circle, where exile tended to start at wretched and go downhill to fatal. — Bitter Crank

Sounds interesting. Lenin had an interesting life.

You lived in England... don't know whether you ever availed yourself of the National Health Service... I just read This Is Going To Hurt, an account of young doctor Kay's experience there. He praises the quality of care delivered, but working in the service was something of a nightmare. He's very sarcastic about the stupidity of both patients and institution, so it's quite enjoyable. — Bitter Crank

Oh yes, I had quite a few encounters with the NHS. When I first got there it was still okay, it was quite good, excellent, and entirely free. But over the years it degraded a lot...

When I first got there, there were still a lot of walk-in centres, and it was really easy to get an appointment if you had a problem. You were treated relatively well too, and doctors were patient with you and addressed your concerns.

However, by the time I had left it was really terrible. Even if you had problems you had to wait WEEKS for an emergency appointment (if you couldn't, you were told to call the ambulance). The walk-in centres started to get closed (no more financing), and doctors started to become worse. Impatient, treated the patient like a statistic, etc.

For example, I had to wait 1 year to do a test in a hospital... And they kept saying "oh we will schedule you don't worry" when I called them, and then nothing would get done for months. I had to call like 4-5 times, and each person reassured me without doing anything. And they also moved me from doctor to doctor - a doctor I never actually got to meet :s . I just got their writings, which weren't too enlightening.

I'm not sure how it is now, but from what I've heard, it's still very bad.

Many hospitals in the US have walk-in urgent care clinics. "Urgent care" is a couple of steps below emergency room care; however, since it is in the hospital a patient can be diverted from urgent to ER care easily. Urgent care can diagnose and treat infections, x-ray and cast simple fractures, stitch up moderate cuts, that sort of thing. Some drug stores also have sort of urgent care, which is good for finding out if one has strep throat or merely a sore throat -- a chest cold or possibly pneumonia, and that sort of thing. Nurse practitioners are on duty. Pharmacists can now administer vaccinations. All that helps avoid the higher charge and maybe longer wait to see a doctor in clinic. But the U of Minnesota medical service offers same day clinic appointments with a doctor -- probably not the doctor you want to see, but... can't have everything.

ER rooms are prepared to do everything from cancer diagnosis to bone surgery, but their real function is handling emergencies like auto accident, gun shot wounds (big in the inner city), and heart attacks -- assuming the patient isn't DOA. The public interprets "emergency" to mean everything from accidental amputation of right hand to a bad cold or itchy scalp. (One of Adam Kay's ER stories was "patient presented with lumps on her tongue. Diagnosis: taste buds." Some patients are diverted to specialist wards like mental health and obstetric gynecology clinics.

Many hospitals in the US have walk-in urgent care clinics. "Urgent care" is a couple of steps below emergency room care; however, since it is in the hospital a patient can be diverted from urgent to ER care easily. — Bitter Crank

I see, yeah, at the time I left there was basically no "urgent care", except running to the pharmacy and figuring it out yourself with the pharmacist, or calling the ambulance, or waiting like 2 weeks for an appointment.

All that helps avoid the higher charge and maybe longer wait to see a doctor in clinic. — Bitter Crank

In the UK it was all free, and the private ones were just exorbitantly expensive, and really not affordable, nor worth it.

But the U of Minnesota medical service offers same day clinic appointments with a doctor -- probably not the doctor you want to see, but... can't have everything. — Bitter Crank

Generally, I do go for just any doctor anyways, I'm personally not very fussy about doctors :P

Fact: The GDP of the world is $16,100. This means that if all the resources of the world were divided equally for every citizen of the world, they'd only get $16,100, and most of that isn't even cold hard cash, but is tied up in property and commodities. — Harry Hindu

Wrong.

Gross Domestic Product measures very crudely production, not existing resources. It's basically a very flawed measure (invented By Keynes, if I remember correctly). The flaws of the GDP as a measure of prosperity are evident from the fact that World GDP rose quite spectacularly during WW2, during the greatest slaughter and destruction seen ever during the history of mankind.

And btw you are talking about GDP per capita.

And what you are otherwise saying could be said in another way: if income would be divided equally, not only would be the incentives for studying/learning for a more demanding job be squashed, but also the process would simply wreck totally the price mechanism for the supply and demand of the workforce. Not only would this be a huge hindrance to the functioning of the economy, but would likely create a black market and rampant corruption (for those jobs and services in high demand where people are willing to pay far more for the services than the average pay).

Gross Domestic Product measures very crudely production, not existing resources. It's basically a very flawed measure (invented By Keynes, if I remember correctly). The flaws of the GDP as a measure of prosperity are evident from the fact that World GDP rose quite spectacularly during WW2, during the greatest slaughter and destruction seen ever during the history of mankind.

And btw you are talking about GDP per capita. — ssu

Mmmmkay, I wonder how production isn't related to resources as you can't produce anything without resources.

Why don't you do a Google search for, "If all the resources of the world were divided equally how much would everyone get?" I just did and the answer that popped up was $9000. So I guess I stand corrected, but this correction actually makes my point even more. When Googling the GDP of the world, you get $16,000 which is more because it includes resources (property and commodities), not just cash, which the prior search yields.

And what you are otherwise saying could be said in another way: if income would be divided equally, not only would be the incentives for studying/learning for a more demanding job be squashed, but also the process would simply wreck totally the price mechanism for the supply and demand of the workforce. Not only would this be a huge hindrance to the functioning of the economy, but would likely create a black market and rampant corruption (for those jobs and services in high demand where people are willing to pay far more for the services than the average pay). — ssu

Uh, you seem to be making my argument AGAINST making everyone get paid equally for different work, the only problem with this example is how can anyone pay more for goods and services on a black market when they make the same as everyone else?