Why not? I just greatly helped an important economic player to spread his goods and services and value through society. And it's $5 billion worth of goods. Maybe those are much needed medicines, etc.

Did you forget that money is simply an estimation of value added? — Agustino

I've told you why not countless times now. I think that that's excessive, and I don't agree with excessive pay.

I haven't forgotten that you think that money is simply an estimation of value added. Even if I think that too, it doesn't follow that our estimation will be the same.

Right, it's really adding very little value, hence why the low pay. You may value conversations, but how much value does it add to you? Probably not much. You could do without. — Agustino

The company I work for, and many other companies, would strongly disagree. They dominated the Australian home improvement market, and they are now looking to dominate the UK home improvement market, and I think that they have a good chance of succeeding. One of the "three pillars" they have for success is best service, and they recognise the importance of staff on the front line. After all, it will be down to them - or to us, since I am one of them - to deliver it.

We could do without almost all of what capitalism has afforded us. In fact, it's not hard to make a case that the quality of goods and services has suffered horribly at the hands of those looking to 'add value'... — creativesoul

Yes, I think that Agustino paints quite a misleading picture. Most popular or best selling or highly in demand doesn't necessarily correlate to best - or even good -
value. Coke and Pepsi have already been mentioned. So take pet food. I found that out when I worked at a pet shop. The nutritional value of the pet food of the leading brands, such as Pedigree Chum, Bakers, and Whiskers, was and remains to be very poor in comparison to, for example, their own branded pet food, which sells considerably less, because of factors like it being less widely advertised and only sold in their own stores.

Huge numbers of consumers fall for things like brand names, adverts, sales techniques, and price tags, instead of actually looking at quality or value.

So, going by value added, shouldn't those businesses who produce high sales for poor quality products or services receive some sort of forfeit, rather than a bonus? Shouldn't they be regulated more, rather than regulated as per the status quo, or even regulated less, as some economic liberals would argue?

Luck certainly plays a part, yes. The problem is that Agustino neglects to consider the average person, or the below average person, and wants to distract us with starry eyed notions of being the best. In other words, he cares more about fantasy, then harsh reality. The harsh reality is that 9 out of 10 startups fail. The fantasy is that anyone can make a success of it if they just try hard enough. Agustino is an ideologue pushing capitalist myths.

Your choice is caused by your impulses and since you can't choose your impulses, your choice is caused by something you have not chosen. In this sense it is not free, see? — litewave

Nope, my choice isn't caused by my impulses at all. That's exactly why impulses can be resisted once they are perceived in the first place.

The individual is destined by his impulses, which he has not chosen. — litewave

:s - that's not true. Impulses may give a natural predisposition towards something, but not a destiny. We can resist impulses, fight against them, etc.

Value, when rendered in monetary terms, is profit based. What's valuable is not. — creativesoul

How is value profit based? :s Profit is the difference between revenues and costs. If anything your profit margin is an indication of the percentage of value you keep, compared to what you pass through the economy.

Economic jargon is far too often used as a means to justify knowingly causing quantifiable harm to millions upon millions of people. — creativesoul

What do you mean?

Nope, my choice isn't caused by my impulses at all. That's exactly why impulses can be resisted once they are perceived in the first place. — Agustino

You need an impulse in order to resist an impulse. Don't forget that intentions are impulses too. If you want to do an intentional action, you need an intention, which is an impulse that drives an intentional action.

I think that that's excessive, and I don't agree with excessive pay. — Sapientia

Why is it excessive if I am an absolutely essential piece in the distribution of those $5 billion worth of goods? Would you rather have excessive prices due to supply shortages and the like?

Small things or few people can lead to huge results - it seems fair that they deserve their share of that success. For example, it's not unusual for a 1 word change in a Google ad to lead to x2 improvement in clickthrough rates. There exist a series of things in nature which when done right, and being done right involves just subtle differences, leads to hugely different results.

I haven't forgotten that you think that money is simply an estimation of value added. — Sapientia

Not exactly, just that money is an attempt at quantifying value (which is qualitative in many regards).

They dominated the Australian home improvement market, and they are now looking to dominate the UK home improvement market, and I think that they have a good chance of succeeding. One of the "three pillars" they have for success is best service, and they recognise the importance of staff on the front line. — Sapientia

Yes, but they are valuable quantitatively - many small amounts of value added together from all those employees. Not individually. And what adds a chunk of the value isn't their work, but the system they're all organised in. That's why retailers typically tend to have many employees. There are online businesses out there with very few employees (less than 10) running revenues of upward of $10 million. That's impossible to do in most brick and mortar retailing unless you have hundreds or thousands of employees. Retail is inherently inefficient in that way, difficult to scale.

Also, I imagine the company you work for is quite large. Large companies employ massive amounts of PR and managerial resources mainly to keep their employees happy and in check. So internal company policies are obviously structured around this goal, as well as whatever financial goals the company has. No doubt that "best service" - or marketing yourself as the best service - is highly important. It allows you to charge higher prices, and makes it easier to compete against others. It's part of your unique selling proposition.

Most popular or best selling or highly in demand doesn't necessarily correlate to best - or even good -
value — Sapientia

Sure, I said it's an approximation. Every time you try to convert something qualitative into a numerical representation, the conversion is imperfect. In some cases, it will be widely imperfect.

So take pet food. I found that out when I worked at a pet shop. The nutritional value of the pet food of the leading brands, such as Pedigree Chum, Bakers, and Whiskers, was and remains to be very poor in comparison to, for example, their own branded pet food, which sells considerably less, because of factors like it being less widely advertised and only sold in their own stores. — Sapientia

Yes, but I presume Pedigree runs a low-profit margin business based on high volume, while the local brand is a high-profit margin (high efficiency) operation, which, if marketed well, can easily scale.

Value is most important in business. And then comes marketing. But value without marketing doesn't really take you anywhere. Value is the gas, and marketing is the engine which makes the car work. And value can be a simple thing - take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock

Even a rock is valuable. The guy made many millions selling... rocks.

Huge numbers of consumers fall for things like brand names, adverts, sales techniques, and price tags, instead of actually looking at quality or value. — Sapientia

Everyone uses sales techniques - especially the super-efficient high-value brands, which are many times smaller in size, but have significantly higher profit margins usually. Apple used to be a primary example. They were small relative to Google, Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc. - but they were super efficient because they were employing very effective marketing. While others in IT had ~25% profit margins, they had close to 40%, which is huge. A high profit margin means you can make a lot of mistakes - in the long run, you're more likely to survive than someone with low profit margins. A low profit margin means that mistakes are very costly (not that 25% is low, but you get the idea... 25% is actually very high, you usually only get that in software companies which have fewer employees than other companies :P ) .

So, going by value added, shouldn't those businesses who produce high sales for poor quality products or services receive some sort of forfeit, rather than a bonus? — Sapientia

Well, they are penalised in decreased profit margin and competition on price. That's what commodification is, when a good becomes a standard level commodity, and then the only point of competition is price.

The harsh reality is that 9 out of 10 startups fail. — Sapientia

Yes, but those startups don't fail due to bad luck. They fail for specific reasons, which have to do with the decisions the founders have taken along the way. Also, the difference between success and failure isn't all that large. Tiny differences in practice, which lead to huge differences in results.

The fantasy is that anyone can make a success of it if they just try hard enough. — Sapientia

It's not about working hard (though that is certainly part of it), it's about having the knowledge of what you need to work on.

But you wouldn't be absolutely essential, so that's not a realistic scenario to consider. There'd be someone else who could get similar results for less. — Sapientia

Sure, but they would also deserve a fair share of the value they add. If they get 5-10% of it, that seems fair. It's not just that someone can do it for less. Sure, they might do that. But would that be just to themselves and others?

Why is it excessive if I am an absolutely essential piece in the distribution of those $5 billion worth of goods? Would you rather have excessive prices due to supply shortages and the like?

Small things or few people can lead to huge results - it seems fair that they deserve their share of that success. For example, it's not unusual for a 1 word change in a Google ad to lead to x2 improvement in clickthrough rates. There exist a series of things in nature which when done right, and being done right involves just subtle differences, leads to hugely different results. — Agustino

But you wouldn't be absolutely essential, so that's not a realistic scenario to consider. There'd be someone else who could get similar results for less.

And obviously I'm not arguing against people getting their fair share. That's exactly what I'm arguing for. They should get their fair share - no more, no less.

Sure, but they would also deserve a fair share of the value they add. If they get 5-10% of it, that seems fair. It's not just that someone can do it for less. Sure, they might do that. But would that be just to themselves and others? — Agustino

Yes, because a $20 million bonus is too much. You don't see it that way because you aren't factoring in the right things, so you get a different result. I factor in what else that money could go towards, and I factor in priorities for society. You factor in what you think a single individual has done to earn that amount, and for you, that's the top priority.

You need an impulse in order to resist an impulse. Don't forget that intentions are impulses too. If you want to do an intentional action, you need an intention, which is an impulse that drives an intentional action. — litewave

This analysis is naive because it leaves out of the question your own self. There's nothing in the picture that you can identify with your self at this point, except a homunculus who just sits there and watches as experience flows by. That's now how it works since your self is embedded within reality, within the causal chain. When you choose you process and organise impulses according to your own nature - this process alters those impulses, whatever they happen to be.

So it's impulse -> You -> action. That processing that goes on in the "you" box is your freedom. It's not determined by external impulses, it's internally determined. In your model there is no "you" box - the you is just a homonculus, who isn't part of the causal chain at all - he's just watching the causal chain. Your model is impulse -> action. On that model, of course there is no free will. But that's a naive model, which doesn't represent reality - it's based on the Cartesian illusion.

Yes, because a $20 million bonus is too much. — Sapientia

Not compared to the value I added.

I factor in what else that money could go towards, and I factor in priorities for society. — Sapientia

So why should the government invest that money, instead of me the individual? :s Why can't the responsibility for the well-being of society rest on the individual, why must it rest on (often corrupt) government bureaucrats, who actually have very little idea of what is going on, economically, in society?

This analysis is naive because it leaves out of the question your own self. There's nothing in the picture that you can identify with your self at this point, except a homunculus who just sits there and watches as experience flows by. — Agustino

You said it yourself - the impulse is you. I don't claim there is any "homunculus". You are the impulses, including the intentions, that cause your actions. And you can't choose your impulses - you can't choose your self.

Not compared to the value I added. — Agustino

In your view, not mine. In my view, even compared to the value you added, that's still too much.

So why should the government invest that money, instead of me the individual? — Agustino

It's a matter of what's more important. I say society, you say the individual. Your view is selfish, my view is fair.

Why can't the responsibility for the well-being of society rest on the individual, why must it rest on (often corrupt) government bureaucrats, who actually have very little idea of what is going on, economically, in society? — Agustino

Because that's the way it is and should be - setting aside your exception of corrupt governments, which, like I said before, is a different kettle of fish. The government here is democratically elected. The government where you are is democratically elected, yes? If business men and women want to govern, then they should put themselves up for election, and see how they fare.

You said it yourself - the impulse is you. I don't claim there is any "homunculus". You are the impulses, including the intentions, that cause your actions. And you can't choose your impulses - you can't choose your self. — litewave

Of course I can't choose my self, because that would imply to be other than my self when choosing. That would be contrary to the whole notion of being a self in the first place, and therefore contrary to even the notion of choosing. You have an incoherent model based on mechanistic assumptions.

Of course I can't choose my self, because that would imply to be other than my self when choosing. That would be contrary to the whole notion of being a self in the first place, and therefore contrary to even the notion of choosing. You have an incoherent model based on mechanistic assumptions. — Agustino

What is incoherent about my model? It is you who assumes some kind of homunculus self who can resist his own impulses, his own intentions - intentionally!

In your view, not mine. In my view, even compared to the value you added, that's still too much. — Sapientia

It's 0.4% of the value I added. That's too much? :s Really?!

Your view is selfish, my view is fair. — Sapientia

It is only selfish if "the individual" = Agustino. Otherwise if I value the individual (any individual) over society, that is not at all selfish, since it means that every individual has worth and should be respected. Society shouldn't get to oppress the individual and subjugate him to whatever 'its' aims are. Society should rather be aimed towards the aims of the individual.

If business men and women want to govern, then they should put themselves up for election, and see how they fare. — Sapientia

Well, Trump did quite well >:)

The government here is democratically elected. — Sapientia

Yes and no. Depends what role the state apparatus plays in the election. The voting can be democratic, but the counting may not be. Also, the stupid mob can be swayed one way or another by the right intelligence agencies which can pull the right strings.

resist his own impulses, his own intentions - intentionally! — litewave

There is no question of resisting your own self if that's what you mean. There is no self outside your self to resist your self, so the very question is absurd. It literarily makes no sense.

And impulses are external. So yes, the self can absolutely resist those external impulses, whatever they are.

There is no question of resisting your own self if that's what you mean. There is no self outside your self to resist your self, so the very question is absurd. It literarily makes no sense. — Agustino

That's what I'm saying.

And impulses are external. So yes, the self can absolutely resist those external impulses, whatever they are. — Agustino

Even your own intentions are external impulses? :s

So why should the government invest that money, instead of me the individual? :s Why can't the responsibility for the well-being of society rest on the individual, why must it rest on (often corrupt) government bureaucrats, who actually have very little idea of what is going on, economically, in society? — Agustino

There are several assumptions that can be challenged.

a. That individual's decisions will be honest, the government bureaucrat is often corrupt.

Individuals who have no connection to government are as likely to be dishonest and corrupt as the government official. They may even be more corrupt because, as individuals, they have more opportunity to shield their activities from the prying public eye than government officials do. (Except in countries where corruption is institutionalized in public and private, where the question becomes, "Is this corruption, or is it just the way business and government operate?").

b. Individuals are more likely than government bureaucrats to understand what society at large needs.

In even a moderately well run state, the government has a broader overview of society than the individual, and has the remit to serve common interests of the many, rather than the narrow interests of the individual. Individuals naturally tend to serve their own interests.

c. Government bureaucrats have very little knowledge about what is going on in society.

In even a moderately competent state, there are likely to be officials who not only have a good overview of the society, but also have a good overview of the nation's economy, and a good knowledge of who the major players in the private economy are. Granted, incompetent states will not have a good grasp of economic activity. But then, incompetent states generally don't do very much well.

Many countries have active philanthropic, non-profit, public service NGOs which privately meet many of society's needs. This is so even in countries that have very competent honest states. Government officials are generally directly involved in focussing the efforts of NGOs.

It's 0.4% of the value I added. That's too much? :s Really?! — Agustino

You alone could have added that much value? I don't think so. Again, an unrealistic, or very unrepresentative, hypothetical scenario.

And yes, $20 million for one person is clearly way too much. What would one person need all of that money for? And what does society need that kind of money for?

It is only selfish if "the individual" = Agustino. Otherwise if I value the individual (any individual) over society, that is not at all selfish, since it means that every individual has worth and should be respected. Society shouldn't get to oppress the individual and subjugate him to whatever 'its' aims are. Society should rather be aimed towards the aims of the individual. — Agustino

No, in practice, it means that the selfish desires of a privileged few get indulged at the expense of the many. That is immoral, and that is not Christlike. Are you sure that Christianity is for you?

Well, Trump did quite well. — Agustino

Yes, and that's a symptom of the sorry state of affairs in the US.

Yes and no. Depends what role the state apparatus plays in the election. The voting can be democratic, but the counting may not be. Also, the stupid mob can be swayed one way or another by the right intelligence agencies which can pull the right strings. — Agustino

I don't have serious doubts about things like that going on here in the UK, which is what I was referring to in that comment of mine which you quoted. The only bit I agree with, to some extent, is that the stupid mob can be swayed one way or the other. That is true virtually everywhere, but especially in the US in recent years, to its detriment, given Trump, and before him, given George W. Bush.

I forget where you're from. Somewhere in Eastern Europe?

It's like he has never watched Question Time, The Andrew Marr Show, Prime Minister's Questions, Hard Talk, This Week, or whatever the rough equivalents are where he's from. Compare this to your average Joe Bloggs. I know who I'd rather have in government!

Hard Talk — Sapientia

"Hard Talk" is one of my favorite BBC [radio] World Service features. It comes on about 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. in the central time zone, but thanks to insomnia I am often enough awake for it. Yes, Agu should listen to or watch it.

The government where you are is democratically elected, yes? — Sapientia

I got the impression that Agustino lived in the US, in which case the answer to that question is 'Not really' (ref state governments disenfranchising the poor with 'voter fraud prevention' measures, elections being held on work days with no time off to vote, minimising voting places in poor neighbourhoods, gerrymandering, enormous financial domination of campaigns by the rich, collusion with foreign governments by candidates).

Economic jargon is far too often used as a means to justify knowingly causing quantifiable harm to millions upon millions of people.
— creativesoul
What do you mean? — Agustino

The cashier. All of those folk who you neglect to consider when eliminating their jobs by virtue of 'adding value'. Folk with limited cognitive ability. Folk who find great value in working with their hands. Craftsman/woman. The list goes on and on. Anyone and everyone who makes things. The manufacturing sector, in particular.

Economic jargon doesn't have to be, but it most certainly has been, used by governments and/or those in power to justify putting their own citizens out of work in the guise of the greater good. Workforce Development was created in lage part to offset that harm by virtue of retraining those who lose their jobs to trade agreements made by the government. It is grossly underfunded, and it's very existence is under attack. Threats are constant to completely defund it.

It was the tool to usurp consent. It was the promise made. That is a moral state of affairs. There ought be programs to train these people in new jobs in new technologies which are comparable in pay and benefits to those which the government legitimately outsourced and promised those workers new jobs in new technology in exchange for their consent.

That's part of what I mean.

...if I value the individual (any individual) over society, that is not at all selfish, since it means that every individual has worth and should be respected. Society shouldn't get to oppress the individual and subjugate him to whatever 'its' aims are. Society should rather be aimed towards the aims of the individual. — Agustino

Unfortunately that is precisely the sort of thinking that underpins inevitable disfunction.

Without a society there is no accumulation of wealth possible. Period.

Value the individual over and above society for long enough and the society collapses. That's not a pretty place for the selfish.

Those who wield great power over people bear great responsibility to those people. A wise government doesn't consist of agents who knowingly and unnecessarily neglect the governed.

I got the impression that Agustino lived in the US — andrewk

Ask Agustino, but I am also pretty sure he lives in Eastern Europe--whether an EU country, don't know. He really should live in the US, since so many of his values would stand him in good stead here.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?referer

I thought this was an interesting short article. Seems like Mitt Romney's father was part of an older generation of conservatives who were able to balance personal monetary ambition with the harmful social and economic consequences that drive could lead to if left unchecked, or even worse, encouraged. In any case, I admire those who freely choose to make a little less money than they could in order to spread the wealth around a bit more fairly. That's the sort of high-minded and farsighted approach that's lacking in today's mercenary world IMO. But then again there could be a more cynical explanation for Romney's actions - other than the high tax rate on the super rich - that wasn't revealed in this piece.

No time to reply to everything now, but I may get back to some responses in more detail.

That's what I'm saying. — litewave

No, that's not what you're saying because you think it's reasonable to talk about resisting your own impulses, an incoherent statement. You tell me you cannot resist your own impulses. False. That's nonsense.

Even your own intentions are external impulses? :s — litewave

My choices are not impulses. They are processing of impulses, which is done by complex feedback loops with respect to my nature.

a. That individual's decisions will be honest, the government bureaucrat is often corrupt. — Bitter Crank

It's not that they will necessarily be honest, but the individual has skin in the game. If something goes wrong, the individual is held accountable by reality, whereas the government official never bears responsibility. If he bankrupts the country, what happens to him? Nothing, just loses office.

Individuals who have no connection to government are as likely to be dishonest and corrupt as the government official. — Bitter Crank

No they're not - because they actually have skin in the game. If things don't go well, they don't profit. But government bureaucrats can profit even when things go badly, since they control the powers of the state.

they have more opportunity to shield their activities from the prying public eye than government officials do — Bitter Crank

Government officials who control the judiciary system and the laws of the country clearly have far more opportunity to be corrupt than mere individuals who simply have to obey a law that is not of their own making.

c. Government bureaucrats have very little knowledge about what is going on in society. — Bitter Crank

I did not say this. I said that individuals - because they work in the economy - have more knowledge than government officials about how the economy of their society works. A simple example - someone who works in business knows more about business than someone who works in an NGO. Someone who works in an NGO cannot understand what makes a business work, what the essential social structures there are, etc.

And someone who works for the government is even worse.

You alone could have added that much value? I don't think so. Again, an unrealistic, or very unrepresentative, hypothetical scenario. — Sapientia

Yes, I alone added that value, since without me that movement of goods would not have occurred. You don't seem to be willing to recognise that few people can be responsible for disproportionately large results. But this is just a fact of nature. You see this everywhere in nature, where small changes lead to vast differences in outcomes, since the underlying phenomena are non-linear. You assume that the distribution of wealth should be linear to be fair.

And yes, $20 million for one person is clearly way too much. What would one person need all of that money for? — Sapientia

Let's see, maybe I want to start a factory producing medicine. Maybe I want to invest that money in bettering - say - 3D printing technology. Maybe I will spend that money building affordable housing. Etc. I have a feeling you're thinking I or anyone else needs that money for ourselves - well obviously not. But that money is mighty useful in trying to do a lot of thing for society at a larger scale.

Do you reckon that people who want to do something for the world should go and humiliate themselves before government bureaucrats who don't do anything, begging for a few votes here and there, give a few bribes here and there (bribes aren't just monetary, they can also be in the form of promises of what you'll do once you have power), so that they can grab the governments power to make changes in society? :s I reckon not, so therefore individuals should be allowed to accumulate large sums of money. What can I do with $100K in society? Almost nothing. I can probably do a lot of things for myself, but pretty much nothing for society at large.

And government bureaucrats are incapable to do anything, why do you think they need private entrepreneurs to do things for them? :s Elon Musk's company, for example, did what NASA couldn't do for years already.

No, in practice, it means that the selfish desires of a privileged few get indulged at the expense of the many. — Sapientia

Starting a factory and the like are not selfish desires.

That is immoral, and that is not Christlike. Are you sure that Christianity is for you? — Sapientia

So developing the productive capacities of my society is immoral? :s

The only bit I agree with, to some extent, is that the stupid mob can be swayed one way or the other. — Sapientia

Right, so then you can understand that no man of character would stoop so low to beg for those people's votes. Can you imagine Marcus Aurelius begging such people for their votes? :s

'Not really' — andrewk

Democracy doesn't really exist anywhere anyway. Some people though have the illusion it does.