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
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
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
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.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
: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.The individual is destined by his impulses, which he has not chosen. — litewave
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.Value, when rendered in monetary terms, is profit based. What's valuable is not. — creativesoul
What do you mean?Economic jargon is far too often used as a means to justify knowingly causing quantifiable harm to millions upon millions of people. — creativesoul
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
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?I think that that's excessive, and I don't agree with excessive pay. — Sapientia
Not exactly, just that money is an attempt at quantifying value (which is qualitative in many regards).I haven't forgotten that you think that money is simply an estimation of value added. — 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.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
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.Most popular or best selling or highly in demand doesn't necessarily correlate to best - or even good -
value — 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.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
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 ) .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
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.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
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 harsh reality is that 9 out of 10 startups fail. — 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.The fantasy is that anyone can make a success of it if they just try hard enough. — 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?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
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
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
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.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
Not compared to the value I added.Yes, because a $20 million bonus is too much. — 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?I factor in what else that money could go towards, and I factor in priorities for society. — Sapientia
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
Not compared to the value I added. — Agustino
So why should the government invest that money, instead of me the individual? — Agustino
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
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.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. — Agustino
It's 0.4% of the value I added. That's too much? :s Really?!In your view, not mine. In my view, even compared to the value you added, that's still too much. — 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.Your view is selfish, my view is fair. — Sapientia
Well, Trump did quite well >:)If business men and women want to govern, then they should put themselves up for election, and see how they fare. — 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.The government here is democratically elected. — Sapientia
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.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. — Agustino
And impulses are external. So yes, the self can absolutely resist those external impulses, whatever they are. — Agustino
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
It's 0.4% of the value I added. That's too much? :s Really?! — Agustino
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
Well, Trump did quite well. — Agustino
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 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).The government where you are is democratically elected, yes? — Sapientia
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
...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, 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.That's what I'm saying. — litewave
My choices are not impulses. They are processing of impulses, which is done by complex feedback loops with respect to my nature.Even your own intentions are external impulses? :s — litewave
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.a. That individual's decisions will be honest, the government bureaucrat is often corrupt. — 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.Individuals who have no connection to government are as likely to be dishonest and corrupt as the government official. — 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.they have more opportunity to shield their activities from the prying public eye than government officials do — 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.c. Government bureaucrats have very little knowledge about what is going on in society. — Bitter Crank
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.You alone could have added that much value? I don't think so. Again, an unrealistic, or very unrepresentative, hypothetical scenario. — 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.And yes, $20 million for one person is clearly way too much. What would one person need all of that money for? — Sapientia
Starting a factory and the like are not selfish desires.No, in practice, it means that the selfish desires of a privileged few get indulged at the expense of the many. — Sapientia
So developing the productive capacities of my society is immoral? :sThat is immoral, and that is not Christlike. Are you sure that Christianity is for you? — 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? :sThe only bit I agree with, to some extent, is that the stupid mob can be swayed one way or the other. — Sapientia
Democracy doesn't really exist anywhere anyway. Some people though have the illusion it does.'Not really' — andrewk
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.