Cuomo's Brownshirts put squeeze on AIG

[ravdin]

Actually, it means "That class of people who derive their livelihood by the use of money to obtain, trade and otherwise manage the means of production and distribution of wealth within an ecconomic system."

Our investror class has adopted the "all growth is good" mantra and gone pillaging down the road, thinking that the road has no end, and that new plunder is always waiting over the horizon.

Since I have bought, sold, and owned shares in corporations before, I suppose I qualify as a member of the "investor" class that you seem to hold responsible for all of society's ills.

Growth is good. I'm probably wasting my breath by explaining this, but here goes anyway: wealth can be created. People often think that wealth is limited, like a pie- and if I take more than my fair share, you're left with the crumbs. But it doesn't have to be like that, if we allow individuals the freedom to create their own capital and trade freely with each other.

I think of capitalism much like Winston Churchill described democracy- it's the worst economic system, except for all of the others.

 

[leftysergeant]

Growth is good. I'm probably wasting my breath by explaining this, but here goes anyway: wealth can be created. People often think that wealth is limited, like a pie- and if I take more than my fair share, you're left with the crumbs.

Now you are arguing that the world's resources are infinite.

But it doesn't have to be like that, if we allow individuals the freedom to create their own capital and trade freely with each other.

Create it out of what?

 

[FlamingMoe]

I can't wait to find out whan the new term for "Dictatorship Of The Proletariat" is.

"The Obama Administration"?

 

[BPSCG]

But it doesn't have to be like that, if we allow individuals the freedom to create their own capital and trade freely with each other.

Create it out of what?

All wealth stems from human ingenuity - the ability of men to take the measure of the Earth, to mold its raw resources to the greater good of humanity. Labor, undirected, creates no wealth. I can dig at a mountain without purpose, direction, or intelligence, from now until the second coming, and create no wealth. But a man who knows how to extract iron ore from that mountain, and smelt it into steel, and mold that steel into girders to build a bridge, does create wealth. My ignorant, brute labor can pile sand in my backyard and create nothing more valuable than a big litter box for my cats. But the man who know how to turn that sand into glass creates something far more valuable from it. And the man who can turn that sand into silicon chips to power computers turns it into something more valuable still.

It is the intelligent direction and application of labor that creates wealth.

I will go further: Only the intelligent direction and application of labor creates wealth.

Nothing is infinite - not the resources of the Earth, nor men's ingenuity. But there is no evidence that we have reached the limit of the latter. And until we reach that limit, there is no end to the wealth we can create.

I don't expect you to understand that, because communists don't understand that wealth is only created by free minds and free markets. Look around the world - not just today, but throughout history - and you will see that there is always great, widespread poverty where minds are held captive and markets are crippled. Great, widespread wealth exists only where human ingenuity is unleashed and there are free markets where people can sell the fruits of the creativity borne of their free minds.

I'm not writing this for your benefit, LS, because you are clearly a hopeless case, but rather for the lurkers here, looking for that "E" in JREF, who might otherwise think you have logic, reason, and evidence behind your rants.

Only the intelligent direction and application of labor creates wealth.

 

[ZirconBlue]

All wealth stems from human ingenuity - the ability of men to take the measure of the Earth, to mold its raw resources to the greater good of humanity. Labor, undirected, creates no wealth. I can dig at a mountain without purpose, direction, or intelligence, from now until the second coming, and create no wealth. But a man who knows how to extract iron ore from that mountain, and smelt it into steel, and mold that steel into girders to build a bridge, does create wealth. My ignorant, brute labor can pile sand in my backyard and create nothing more valuable than a big litter box for my cats. But the man who know how to turn that sand into glass creates something far more valuable from it. And the man who can turn that sand into silicon chips to power computers turns it into something more valuable still.
[snip]
Only the intelligent direction and application of labor creates wealth.

Nominated.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't expect you to understand that, because communists don't understand that wealth is only created by free minds and free markets.

I completely agree, except to nitpick this bit. I believe central planning is extremely inefficient in creating wealth, not that it doesn't make any.

 

[ravdin]

Thank you, BPSCG. Well said!

 

[DC]

Only the intelligent direction and application of labor creates wealth.

and how on earth is that fitting the Capitalism we have experianced in the last few decades?

 

[leftysergeant]

All wealth stems from human ingenuity - the ability of men to take the measure of the Earth, to mold its raw resources to the greater good of humanity.

Have all the good ideas you want, you still need labor and the value of a day's work is a day's decent provisions. Pay me enough to eat, put a roof over my head, pay my doctor bills, or shovel; your own sand. If you expect to profit from my labor there is no reason I should operate at a loss.

Further, your capital did not create itself out of thin air. Somebody had to work to make something, or pull something from the ground.

Labor had been doing that for centuries before there was even a concept of capital. Capital was invented to make the products of labor portable. It is not a magic potion that instills intelligence into the brains of those who posess it.

Fact of the matter is, it appears to drain the intelligence out of the brains of some who came to posess it without having to work for it, or who were not infused in their youth with a human conscience.

I will go further: Only the intelligent direction and application of labor creates wealth.

And that can be done by cooperatives and credit unions and people who just have some good ideas. I have seen squat to indicate to me that the investor class in this country has a freaking CLUE how to manage an ecconomy. Don't tell me that the class of persons who came up with the fancy new financial products since 1980 are fit to run a lemonade stand.

Nothing is infinite - not the resources of the Earth, nor men's ingenuity. But there is no evidence that we have reached the limit of the latter. And until we reach that limit, there is no end to the wealth we can create.

We are reaching the end of the easily exploitable natural resources, though. That's the part of the equation thjat the investor class keeps forgetting.

Like when the Californicators first hit Washington State and got their panties all in a knot because they were told that they could not build in certain areas because there was not enough water. They shrieked like spanked babies and pointed to how much water there is in our rivers.

They didn't care that the salmon needed it too.

The Higher Pie capitalists are terminally narrow-minded.

I don't expect you to understand that, because communists don't understand that wealth is only created by free minds and free markets.

I understand that you think that capital and capitalists are the well spring of all things good and beneficial to mankind.

What elitist twaddle.

 

[mhaze]

I completely agree, except to nitpick this bit. I believe central planning is extremely inefficient in creating wealth, not that it doesn't make any.

Let us presume that in a chain of command in central planning there are six decision makers. Say from Beijing out to the farm. Suppose each in this system is 80% as effective as his counterpart in a capitalist society.

The system efficiency would be

Capitalism = 1.0

Communism = 0.26

Wealth is the accumulated excess of profit, thus the sum of all (price - cost) over time. This number can be positive, negative or effectively zero. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason that an inefficient system would necessarily produce profits at all.

 

[BPSCG]

Have all the good ideas you want, you still need labor and the value of a day's work is a day's decent provisions.

You really have to stop parroting this silliness. The value of a day's work is what two free people agree its value is - not one cent more, not one cent less.

Allow me to ask you a question: You claim that "the value of a day's work is a day's decent provisions." That is to say, they are, by your definition, equal in value.

I think you mean to say that the value of a day's work is at least a day's provisions, but let us not quibble. Let us suppose that your claim is in fact correct.

Then reversing the order of the statement must perforce also be true: "The value of a decent day's provisions is a day's work." In exactly the same way that if 3+2=5, then 5=3+2.

My question: Are you staking out the ground that an employer must give an employee a decent day's provisions for any work done over a period of eight hours?

If I employ you in my construction business to build a brick wall, and you spend the day hard at work power-washing my sun deck, do I owe you "a day's decent provisions"?

If you take all of today to build a brick wall for me, should I pay you "a day's decent provisions" for another brick wall tomorrow if I can find someone else to do it in half a day?

Or do I decide that I didn't get a full day's work out of you on the first day?

Pay me enough to eat, put a roof over my head, pay my doctor bills, or shovel; your own sand. If you expect to profit from my labor there is no reason I should operate at a loss.

You have no reason to work for a penny less than you want to work for.

And I, OTOH, have no reason to pay you a penny more than I want to pay you.

If we can't agree on a price for your labor, I won't get the benefit of your work, and you won't get the benefit of my money. It's a system that generally works very well, as is evidenced by the fact that all the countries that have widespread wealth use it.

Further, your capital did not create itself out of thin air. Somebody had to work to make something, or pull something from the ground.

Which is why I said "the intelligent direction and application of labor" is what produces wealth. Great ideas without the work to implement them produces no wealth. Ignorant, undirected work produces no wealth.

The Marxists - e.g., you - minimize or dismiss altogether the value of the idea, when in fact, without the idea, any work done is as ignorant as a wheat reaper running amok in a field without a driver at the wheel.

The idea is the more valuable part of the wealth-creating machine, because men with brains are rare, and therefore valuable, while dull, ignorant men who can do no more than follow simple directions are everywhere, and cost ten cents an acre.

Only the intelligent direction and application of labor creates wealth.

And that can be done by cooperatives and credit unions and people who just have some good ideas.

I love that last phrase - "people who just have some good ideas." It's classic Marxism - dismissing the value of intellect, when in fact, work without intelligence behind it is just as likely to be destructive as it is to be otherwise. Watch out for that driverless reaper careening across your wheat fields - looks like it might be headed towards your house...

As for the value of cooperatives and credit unions, please indicate to me which, if any, of the following were the result of cooperatives and credit unions:

• The Ford Model T
• The Sony Walkman
• The IBM PC
• Levittown, New York
• The telephone
• The phonograph
• The telegraph

That's what I was able to come up with about as fast as I could type it. I'm eager to see your list of wealth that was created by cooperatives and credit unions.

I have seen squat to indicate to me that the investor class in this country has a freaking CLUE how to manage an ecconomy.

I wasn't aware that it was "the investor class's" job to manage anything other than their own business.

We are reaching the end of the easily exploitable natural resources, though. That's the part of the equation thjat the investor class keeps forgetting.

No, the investor class recognizes that the scarcer resources are (and you should really read Julian Simon before you jump to that conclusion), the greater the value of intellect to put those resources to good use.

I understand that you think that capital and capitalists are the well spring of all things good and beneficial to mankind.

What elitist twaddle.

Actually, what you understand is infinitesimally small.

 

[ravdin]

I understand that you think that capital and capitalists are the well spring of all things good and beneficial to mankind.

What elitist twaddle.

"Elitist twaddle"? You're using the word "elitist" like it's a bad thing.

Let's say everything you hope for comes to pass one day. The downtrodden workers of the world shake off their chains and exploitative business owners such as myself are sent to reeducation camps. Who exactly will manage the finite resources of your workers' paradise after the glorious revolution, comrade?

Like it or not, a select few will have a disproportionate amount of power, privilege, and influence. But not to worry- at least the other 99% of us will get our equal share of what the elites will allow us to have.

 

[Dr Adequate]

and how on earth is that fitting the Capitalism we have experianced in the last few decades?

Apparently they weren't all that intelligent.

 

[mhaze]

.... you should really read Julian Simon before you jump to that conclusion), the greater the value of intellect to put those resources to good use....

Intellect, the scarce resource. Not natural materials.

A society, to prosper, must seek the best use of what is actually it's scarce resource. This dynamic should be designed into the fabric of society, and interwoven into all levels of<snip>

Wait....that's already been invented...it's called capitalism.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Our investror class has adopted the "all growth is good" mantra and gone pillaging down the road, thinking that the road has no end, and that new plunder is always waiting over the horizon.

You severely underestimate the importance of investors. Say you have a product you're selling, we'll call them widjits. You sell $100,000 dollars of widjits, what happens with that $100,000 dollars? Most of it is going to spent aquiring new materials to create more widjits and workers paychecks for them to put the widjits together. If an investor approaches you and offers you $100,000 dollars as an investment that leaves you with $100,000 to put towards highering more workers and expanding your production, thereby aiding in the creation of more wealth. If you eliminate investors in a capitalist country then your capitalism will fail without question.

 

[leftysergeant]

You really have to stop parroting this silliness. The value of a day's work is what two free people agree its value is - not one cent more, not one cent less.

A contract between two equals is valid. A contract between a victim and a bully isn't.

I think you mean to say that the value of a day's work is at least a day's provisions, but let us not quibble. Let us suppose that your claim is in fact correct.

Then reversing the order of the statement must perforce also be true: "The value of a decent day's provisions is a day's work." In exactly the same way that if 3+2=5, then 5=3+2.

No. A day's provisions is the bare minimum value of a day's work. If thjere are not a lot of people around with your skill set, it wouldl make sense for your employer to pay you a little more to encourage you not to go to work for the competition, so there is not always a 1`/1 relationship. None the less, any insistance that a day's work is not worth a day's provisions is a demand that labor subsidize the investors.

My question: Are you staking out the ground that an employer must give an employee a decent day's provisions for any work done over a period of eight hours?

As long as someone is acting on your behalf, yes.

If I employ you in my construction business to build a brick wall, and you spend the day hard at work power-washing my sun deck, do I owe you "a day's decent provisions"?

That such a scenario could occur would indicate that you are lacking the skill sets to be an employer of any sort, and you do not get out of owing for value recieved just because you are a dimbulb. Your remedy is to terminate the contract between you and such employees as misunderstand or disopbey your orders.

If you take all of today to build a brick wall for me, should I pay you "a day's decent provisions" for another brick wall tomorrow if I can find someone else to do it in half a day?

Or do I decide that I didn't get a full day's work out of you on the first day?
You have no reason to work for a penny less than you want to work for.

And I, OTOH, have no reason to pay you a penny more than I want to pay you.

Well, there is the law against involuntary servitude. If you are not paying what labor is worth, you probably aren't going to have any. The man who builds walls quicker than I do is probably not going to want to work for, nor need he work for, such a delfish twit, so you're stuck with me, and I am worth the bare minimum provisions, unless you want to start laying your own bloody bricks.

If we can't agree on a price for your labor, I won't get the benefit of your work, and you won't get the benefit of my money. It's a system that generally works very well, as is evidenced by the fact that all the countries that have widespread wealth use it.

All the countries that have widespread wealth also have minimum wage laws or taxes and public services that compensate for the unwillingness of capitalists to bear their share of the burden. Money is power, and when money is used to secure the available resources to the hands of the few, you cease to have a level playing field. A contract is only valid between equals. Minimum wage laws are just an equalizer to prevent the powerful from reducing the working class to peonage.

 

[BPSCG]

If you take all of today to build a brick wall for me, should I pay you "a day's decent provisions" for another brick wall tomorrow if I can find someone else to do it in half a day?

Or do I decide that I didn't get a full day's work out of you on the first day?
You have no reason to work for a penny less than you want to work for.

And I, OTOH, have no reason to pay you a penny more than I want to pay you.

Well, there is the law against involuntary servitude. If you are not paying what labor is worth, you probably aren't going to have any.

That is absolutely correct. Reason for highlighting will be revealed below.

The man who builds walls quicker than I do is probably not going to want to work for, nor need he work for, such a delfish twit, so you're stuck with me, and I am worth the bare minimum provisions, unless you want to start laying your own bloody bricks.

You are also correct in saying that the better bricklayer will command a higher wage.

But where in Hades do you get the idea that any work is worth "bare minimum provisions," whatever that means? Do you really mean that if I engage you to build a brick wall, return to the job site at the end of the day, and discover that you completely fouled up the job, that the wall you built will have to be torn down and rebuilt, at my expense, that my project will incur late delivery penalties because of the delay you caused, do you really mean to say that I still owe you wages "worth bare minimum provisions"?

Do you really think a day's work is automatically worth "bare minimum provisions"?

Really?

What is the logic that compels that conclusion?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

A contract between two equals is valid. A contract between a victim and a bully isn't.

Alot of dominatrixes are gonna be out of work...

 

[leftysergeant]

But where in Hades do you get the idea that any work is worth "bare minimum provisions," whatever that means? Do you really mean that if I engage you to build a brick wall, return to the job site at the end of the day, and discover that you completely fouled up the job, that the wall you built will have to be torn down and rebuilt, at my expense, that my project will incur late delivery penalties because of the delay you caused, do you really mean to say that I still owe you wages "worth bare minimum provisions"?

If you can't manage a project any better than to hire a boob, if you don't have the sense to check his work, you shouldn't be in business because you suck at it. By your logic, you should be able to tell a supplier that his paint was no good, so you are cancelling your check and not fear any repercussions.

Do you really think a day's work is automatically worth "bare minimum provisions"?

Anything less would be a subsidy to you. You have no right to expect it.

Really?

What is the logic that compels that conclusion?

See sentence above.

 

[FlamingMoe]

No. A day's provisions is the bare minimum value of a day's work.

What the hell does this even mean? What, exactly, are "a day's provisions"? And whose "day" are we measuring as the standard for "provisions"? I only have to support myself. My "day's provisions" are quite a lot less than, say, Octomom's. If she and I are both burger-flippers at McDonald's, should she make more than I simply because she's got more to fund? And if "a day's provisions" are all that's required for "a day's work" then a seven-day work week shouldn't be out of the question.

That such a scenario could occur would indicate that you are lacking the skill sets to be an employer of any sort, and you do not get out of owing for value recieved just because you are a dimbulb. Your remedy is to terminate the contract between you and such employees as misunderstand or disopbey your orders.

But you powerwashed my deck yesterday and the deck is only supposed to be powerwashed once every summer. In fact, you damaged the deck with your incompetent over-powerwashing. Why should I pay you for your stupidity, especially when it caused me a loss? Furthermore, I fail to see why I should be compelled to fulfill my end of the contract when you spectacularly failed to fulfill yours.

Well, there is the law against involuntary servitude.

Yes. That's why no employer may compel labor from an employee. What's your point?