I don't think it's a foundation cause it's not a basic idea, we can go beyond that and ask why it is wrong? And we have to reach some notion of harm, or to show how each doesn't get what they deserve (so first we'd need to determine what each SHOULD get, and then see if they do or don't). That would be the basic idea.It's not dogma. It's just that at some point you hit upon a foundation. We each have our foundations. You're no different to me in that regard. The problem is that I recognise a foundation when I see it, and act accordingly, wheras you keep pressing. — Sapientia
Yes, obviously poverty and inequality can be temptations for immoral behaviour. That's what statistics show. But that kind of inequality has nothing to do with 1% owning 99% and the others owning just 1%. It has to do with whether the 99% have their basic needs met.
What stops your average person from starting a business and being successful? — Agustino
Yah, but you keep talking as if you were in the stone ages of business when you put the whip on workers and forced them to work while starving in your factory... Today it's not the same, at least not in the West. That may happen though, unfortunately, in places like China. Business has evolved and changed. — Agustino
Yeah, because the paramedic's employer certainly deserves the benefits of Mike's brownie business, he did a lot of work for it. >:) — Agustino
How could one criticize these inexpensive universally loved products which people individually choose to buy and drink? Who wouldn't like to buy the world a coke? It's the real thing! So buy it, asshole. — Bitter Crank
. What would Jesus do? — Sapientia
I don't care whether you think it ridiculous. It's called justice. — Sapientia
l thought you were just facing facts.Haven't you noticed the boilerplate Marxism I've been peddling?
I don't think it's a foundation cause it's not a basic idea, we can go beyond that and ask why it is wrong? And we have to reach some notion of harm, or to show how each doesn't get what they deserve (so first we'd need to determine what each SHOULD get, and then see if they do or don't). That would be the basic idea.
So what should the entrepreneur get? What should his wage, if he is responsible for starting massive industrial production, be? And what should the paramedic's wage be? If the entrepreneur, through his efforts, earns 1,000,000x the paramedic's earnings, is that a problem so long as the paramedic can meet all his basic needs with what he gets?
We don't disagree about what fairness is - fairness is each getting what they deserve. We disagree what each deserves, but fortunately, that's something that can be calculated mathematically and determined scientifically. — Agustino
Well, I'm saying that so far you haven't used mathematics and science to determine what fairness is in this economic context. The reason for that is that you have not even explained what, economically speaking, constitutes value, and how fairness is to be calculated or arrived at. So you're effectively engaged, at the moment, in a non-scientific polemic. You haven't shown a mathematical way to determine how much X should get paid, and how this should relate to his activity.(And I hope that you're not trying to contrast your position from mine by suggesting that I would not likewise utilise mathematics to determine fair pay - although I'm not sure what role you imagine that science could play here). — Sapientia
My productive question is that I'd like you to clarify for yourself and for the rest of us how fairness can be mathematically assessed by laying down a framework for determining what each person should get paid based on the value they provide.Now, given that I've already addressed - although perhaps not answered to your satisfaction - the issues that you raise here, do you have any productive questions to ask or points to raise? — Sapientia
Right, an outline is what I'm looking for. It would also be useful if you analyse a particular case to show how it would work.I told you that I'm not an expert, that I'm not best equipped to give you the finer details which you seek, that I can only give you a rough outline, and that I don't think that it's necessary to go into every little detail or present a fully formed plan in order to discuss and debate the essentials. — Sapientia
How have you determined this? That's the science and mathematics I'm interested in. Otherwise, it's just a polemic.indicate excess or undervaluation — Sapientia
Well, I'm saying that so far you haven't used mathematics and science to determine what fairness is in this economic context. The reason for that is that you have not even explained what, economically speaking, constitutes value, and how fairness is to be calculated or arrived at. So you're effectively engaged, at the moment, in a non-scientific polemic. You haven't shown a mathematical way to determine how much X should get paid, and how this should relate to his activity. — Agustino
My productive question is that I'd like you to clarify for yourself and for the rest of us how fairness can be mathematically assessed by laying down a framework for determining what each person should get paid based on the value they provide. — Agustino
How have you determined this? That's the science and mathematics I'm interested in. Otherwise, it's just a polemic. — Agustino
Please remember through this discussion that money is nothing but a way to quantify the value of certain goods/services for society. — Agustino
As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.
[...]
The exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. — Marx, Das Kapital
To generalise. It seems that economic fairness consists in person X producing or distributing value to society, and being paid a small portion of that value, the rest going to the well-being of society. Correct? So unfairness would come from person X appropriating too great of a percentage from the portion of value he provides to the economy. — Agustino
To increase fairness it seems we have two problems.
1) We have to be able to quantify this value more accurately in financial terms, even for things that are non-financial in nature (saving lives). There's also things like the preservation of life, such as in the case of old people, who are not DIRECTLY productive anymore (maybe they can be productive through their wisdom though). How much of our society's resources should be devoted to preserving or saving the lives of those people? By increasing resources, we can save more and more lives, but there obviously will be a break-even point - at some point, allocating more resources to this will have negative effects, since we won't have anymore resources for other things we do need.
2) How many resources should be allocated to people who simply cannot be productive (to each according to his need part)? And how should we incorporate this together with (1)? This refers to people with illnesses, etc.
There are a lot more details, but basically, do you agree or follow the ideas above so far? — Agustino
Yah, but you keep talking as if you were in the stone ages of business when you put the whip on workers and forced them to work while starving in your factory... Today it's not the same, at least not in the West. That may happen though, unfortunately, in places like China. Business has evolved and changed. — Agustino
Yah, but you keep talking as if you were in the stone ages of business when you put the whip on workers and forced them to work while starving in your factory... T — Agustino
Have you noticed that throughout our history there is a cycle in which groups of people sieze power in some way and use this to accumulate and hoard wealth from the population. Then when it becomes out of hand the mob arrives at their door with pitch forks. The mob seizes back the power and wealth and the cycle then gradually repeats itself.
Now that we are in a global capitalist system, the cycle seems to be happening again. Can we somehow defuse the situation, or are we going to have to grab the pitch forks? — Punshhh
Buy it now! Don't save up for some decent furniture; the replacement car; the replacement or new whatever -- buy it on credit. — Bitter Crank
Hopefully we aren't looking to Jesus to provide economic models. — Marchesk
The concern is that redistributing the wealth of successful businesses is going to screw up the market's valuation. We can say that Lebron James (famous basketball player) shouldn't make more than X amount that a school teacher does. Alright, but then what happens to the market as a result of setting that proportional value which has nothing to do with what value the market would set? You're going to be sending weird pricing signals to consumers and producers.
I don't think justice applies here. It's a balancing act of wanting a fair society where a small number can't dominate politics and marketing, while still wanting the economy to work well enough. — Marchesk
Because you need to show that you have a framework that can scientifically and mathematically determine how X needs to be rewarded, otherwise how will you determine it? By your gut feeling & prejudice?I don't understand why you think that that's necessary. — Sapientia
I don't see why that's too much for the professional footballer. You've done no analysis of the value he provides in the economy, so...What I can tell you is that, for example, £615,000-per-week for being a professional footballer is too much, and part of that amount should be redistributed. Why do you need a number? £300,000-per-week, 60%-per-week, it doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. It's just for arguments sake. Can't you use your imagination? — Sapientia
So I want you to think about the value that footballer produces - for his employers, for the spectators, etc. I want you to consider the number of people affected by his work too.Another example. Suppose I am an engineer and independent contractor working on ship engines. I specialise in a particularly new class of ships that many world transportation companies are acquiring. There are very few people who specialise in this ship. Something goes wrong in one of those ships, and it no longer functions to transport the goods. My client moves $6,000,000 worth of goods each day using that ship (maybe those are much needed medicines, which save lives). So if he doesn't get me to fix it, then he (and all of society which depends on those goods) will lose $6,000,000/day. Is it fair that I am paid $600,000 for 10 hours of work? — Agustino
I haven't played it down, I've assessed how much value they provide individually.You've played down the role of paramedics. — Sapientia
Who said he's not as valuable? Have you done any analysis of his impact to determine that? :sIf professional football is not as valuable as the emergency services, as I would maintain, then why doesn't the pay reflect that? — Sapientia
Right - money is only valuable qua commodity because of the value we agree to accord to it in governing our economic transactions.It is, according to Marx's analysis in Das Kapital, the universal mirror or equivalent that keeps company with all other ordinary commodities. It is in fact no more than a commodity itself, because it is a representation of the exchange value of the ordinary commodity. It is both the means of exchange and the measure of value. But it is not the same as an ordinary commodity, because it is primarily considered in light of its exchange value rather than its use value, or, put differently, in light of its quantitative dimension rather than its qualitative dimension. — Sapientia
Ok, so if you agree, then I presume that you're fine with doing this analysis for a footballer, or for any particular case you think is unfair, to determine their value right? Then from that we can see if they are earning a fair amount or not.Yes, the gist of it at least. These are the finer details that can be worked on and a resolution found. — Sapientia
Marx may have been right, but in a different way than you think."Marxism is finished. It might conceivably have had some relevance to a world of factories and food riots, coal miners and chimney sweeps, widespread misery and massed working classes. But it certainly has no bearing on the increasingly classless, socially mobile, postindustrial Western societies of the present. It is the creed of those who are too stubborn, fearful or deluded to accept that the world has changed for good, in both senses of the term".
Right? Wrong. (That's covered in the first chapter). — Sapientia
Well right, no - of course not, because, to begin with, not every worker adds as much value as the next.How much would workers get if they owned the factory and profit wasn't an issue. It might work out something like this:
A factory employing 500 workers turns out 100 cars a day. The cars market value is $8,000 each, or $800,000. How much should each factory worker be paid, per day? $1,600? No. — Bitter Crank
What about costs with marketing and advertising, probably the single most important aspect of business?- the cost of obtaining the daily supply of raw materials and parts (steel, aluminum, rubber, plastic, copper, upholstery, engines, glass, motors, fans, pumps, fasteners, etc. or 20% of retail) approximately $160,000
- the cost of daily operating the factory (electricity, water, gas, etc.) approximately $5,000 (a guess)
- preparing for the cost of replacing worn out tools and plant (approximately 1%) $8,000
- contributions to the cost of operating society (roads, railroads, schools, hospitals, services, etc. 20% of expected income) $160,000
- cash reserve to pay for supplies, unexpected or unbudgeted costs (accidents, supply price spikes, income shortfalls, cash purchases; 5%) $40,000 — Bitter Crank
So the cars sell by themselves right? :sWithout having to earn a profit for stockholders or highly paid executives, workers in this factory would earn $106.76 per hour. $427,000 after expenses / (500 workers x 8 hours) = $106.75 per hour. — Bitter Crank
Well, too few of their cars will certainly be sold if all they bother to do is produce them :s ...Maybe too few of their cars are sold, or aluminum and rubber become much more expensive. — Bitter Crank
Because you need to show that you have a framework that can scientifically and mathematically determine how X needs to be rewarded, otherwise how will you determine it? By your gut feeling & prejudice? — Agustino
I don't see why that's too much for the professional footballer. You've done no analysis of the value he provides in the economy, so... — Agustino
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. — John 2:15
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
So I want you to think about the value that footballer produces - for his employers, for the spectators, etc. I want you to consider the number of people affected by his work too. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.