Big Orange Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Millions of people without the need for back breaking, life shotening toil and you think that's a bad thing? But in the short term the social and political effects could be catastrophic. The devil makes work of idle hands and the robot slaves could be turn on and smashed out of protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJAR Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 (edited) Corporatism and Monopolies can seldom survive vigorous competition since they are inherently inefficient and generated in conditions insulated from competition. We have a large dose of this at the moment and it is being perpetuated by the companies themselves since it is definitely to their advantage to have a monopoly or an import tariff protecting their inefficiency. The beauty of a really free market is that exchanges do not take place unless BOTH parties feel that they benefit. Hence both parties are better off after the exchange than they were before. In response to the above post, people would protest and it would be easiest to allow the change to take place slowly. However, overall we would all be much better off. Many goods that are expensive now would become cheaper if the labour required to make them was essentially free. The Luddidtes took the same view in the industrial revolution, and thank goodness they did not succeed since our present high standard of living is built on the achievements of that time. Edited March 16, 2010 by LJAR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Very true. Most economic agents are motivated by selfishness. We have had a few "golden ages" where people acted for the "greater good". Unfortunately, we live in an era where the survival of businesses is threatened. Increased levels of selfishness by the providers of labour will only serve to accelerate the demise of our few remaining wealth generating enterprises. Social democracies are a luxury enjoyed by rich nations. We are no longer a rich nation and we need to revert to rational measures of contribution to wealth generation and move beyond the interia built into our labour market. There is a basic hypocrisy buiilt into the current system and I think it's the thing that keeps throwing up these threads and here it is. Wealth can only be gotten by voluntary means and a free market but the elite spend the wealth they have created using those methods on violence to keep everyone else dumb and out of the loop. So everyone (more or less) is supposed to live by two distinct and contradictory principles, the first being that they should live a good, moral rational life and not hurt anybody else and the second that it's perfectly okay for the elite class to stove someones head in and put them in a box for years if they act contrary to the elies immediate desires, for the elite class to steal but oneself not to steal, for the elite class to lie but for onself to be honest and so on. Because it's so very, very dangerous to reject the second idea - to accept that the "elite" are basically viscious scumbags who we are slaves to - people keep trying to reject the first instead and make the elites actions moral. But they live in accordance with the first idea all day and would struggle to live any other way, so the inability to reject the second idea is a nice recipe for schizophrenia. There is a world of what is done and a world that is talked about and they simply don't match for most of us, certainly not in the politicla sphere. Sadly, we are rejecting the lived one in favour of the talked about one over and over and over but it doesn't work and you can see it in more or less everyone if you look close. This is the back end of the coercion denial bubble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Millions of people without the need for back breaking, life shotening toil and you think that's a bad thing? I didn't say it would be bad- I said catastrophic, as in a sudden mass disruption of society. The point being that the market model is not able to incorporate this disruption at all- it doesn't register in any way. All of the participants would be compelled by market dynamics to sack their workers and bring in the robots or be driven out of business- result = social disintegration and chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 But in the short term the social and political effects could be catastrophic. The devil makes work of idle hands and the robot slaves could be turn on and smashed out of protest. Sure. Is that because people don't understand the market process and how it leads to a better tomorrow for all, or is it because they are completely in the dark about how markets work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I didn't say it would be bad- I said catastrophic, as in a sudden mass disruption of society. The point being that the market model is not able to incorporate this disruption at all- it doesn't register in any way. All of the participants would be compelled by market dynamics to sack their workers and bring in the robots or be driven out of business- result = social disintegration and chaos. Really? You can't see the massive profit in sorting that problem out for the roboteers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Suffice to say, people will work for low wages. Provided they are not forced to do so, I have no problem with it. Why would people choose to work for low wages if they were not forced to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Why would people choose to work for low wages if they were not forced to? Because by default everyone has NO wages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Really?You can't see the massive profit in sorting that problem out for the roboteers? True I suppose- what's few corpses if there's money to be made- what was I thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 True I suppose- what's few corpses if there's money to be made- what was I thinking? Why on earth would there be any corpses? You have WAY to narrow view on what profit is. You give to charity, you make a profit. Yoe feed the hungry, you profit. If it's voluntary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 (edited) Because by default everyone has NO wages? So they are forced to? What happened to free choice, refuse any offer offer ect ect- ? Oh, hang on- it's all becoming clear- they freely choose not to starve to death- ergo, they freely choose low wages. And if I point a gun a a man's head and demand his wallet- he freely chooses to give it to me? No? What about- I walk past a drowning man and demand his wallet to save his life- he freely chooses to give it to me? Maybe? So passive coercion is fine, that's free choice in action- but active coercion is BAD. I need some angels and a pin. Edited March 16, 2010 by wonderpup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Why on earth would there be any corpses? You have WAY to narrow view on what profit is. You give to charity, you make a profit. Yoe feed the hungry, you profit. If it's voluntary. Sorry- I should have been clearer.I meant the corpses left over from the societal collapse brought about by rational free market activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 (edited) So they are forced to? What happened to free choice, refuse any offer offer ect ect- ? Oh, hang on- it's all becoming clear- they freely choose not to starve to death- ergo, they freely choose low wages. And if I point a gun a a man's head and demand his wallet- he freely chooses to give it to me? No? What about- I walk past a drowning man and demand his wallet to save his life- he freely chooses to give it to me? Maybe? So passive coercion is fine, that's free choice in action- but active coercion is BAD. I need some angels and a pin. You are measuring against an impossible standard and finding reality deficient. There is not now, never has been and never will be a time and place where you get something for nothing - possibly bar when you are a small kid and your parents look after you. Even then they had you for their own reasons and have their own motivations powering their decisions and actions. The rest of humanity do not know you, do not care for you, are indifferent to your existence. They don't hate you, fear you, love you, notice you they are neutral as regards you, save some prejusdice either way. You have to work to get them to notice you other than that and provide them with value so you receive value in return. This is the way it is. The alternative to providing them value is to threaten them, to coerce them, to steal from them. The first is moral, the second is not. This is the way it is. What you resist persists for you, what you accept you gain power to use. This is the way it is. Edited March 17, 2010 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I get the idea here. But there's a problem- how is profit created if the wealth an employee creates is equal to what he is paid? Say a factory employs a hundred men, who create wealth exactly to the amount they are paid- how do the factory owners make a profit? Must it not be true that the hundred men create more wealth than they get paid, so the owner gets a profit? Where do all the profits come from? No, their wealth is measured by what they are paid. The remainder - the profit - is the pay for the owner. That is the wealth he created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Orange Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 But would low wages (or unemployment) make the workers unable to buy many of the products and services from the companies they work for?! And sexy rubber maid avatar or not, the type of indifferent anarchy that Injin dreams about, where everybody is out for themselves makes me worried. Inijin is enslaved too much to instinctive constraints of the "Monkey Sphere" (which can be counter acted by a central government authority and public services, in addition to a bit more concentrated abstract thought and empathy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 There is a basic hypocrisy buiilt into the current system and I think it's the thing that keeps throwing up these threads and here it is. Wealth can only be gotten by voluntary means and a free market but the elite spend the wealth they have created using those methods on violence to keep everyone else dumb and out of the loop. So everyone (more or less) is supposed to live by two distinct and contradictory principles, the first being that they should live a good, moral rational life and not hurt anybody else and the second that it's perfectly okay for the elite class to stove someones head in and put them in a box for years if they act contrary to the elies immediate desires, for the elite class to steal but oneself not to steal, for the elite class to lie but for onself to be honest and so on. Because it's so very, very dangerous to reject the second idea - to accept that the "elite" are basically viscious scumbags who we are slaves to - people keep trying to reject the first instead and make the elites actions moral. But they live in accordance with the first idea all day and would struggle to live any other way, so the inability to reject the second idea is a nice recipe for schizophrenia. There is a world of what is done and a world that is talked about and they simply don't match for most of us, certainly not in the politicla sphere. Sadly, we are rejecting the lived one in favour of the talked about one over and over and over but it doesn't work and you can see it in more or less everyone if you look close. This is the back end of the coercion denial bubble. I really think this is perhaps the best way you've expressed this fact yet. The answer to the crap pay problem is for there to be millions of good capitalists, and for kids to grow up feeling that making their own way is perfectly normal, but for all sorts of reasons this is forbidden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 You are measuring against an impossible standard and finding reality deficient. There is not now, never has been and never will be a time and place where you get something for nothing - possibly bar when you are a small kid and your parents look after you. Even then they had you for their own reasons and have their own motivations powering their decisions and actions. The rest of humanity do not know you, do not care for you, are indifferent to your existence. They don't hate you, fear you, love you, notice you they are neutral as regards you, save some prejusdice either way. You have to work to get them to notice you other than that and provide them with value so you receive value in return. This is the way it is. The alternative to providing them value is to threaten them, to coerce them, to steal from them. The first is moral, the second is not. This is the way it is. What you resist persists for you, what you accept you gain power to use. This is the way it is. On form tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 You are measuring against an impossible standard and finding reality deficient. There is not now, never has been and never will be a time and place where you get something for nothing - possibly bar when you are a small kid and your parents look after you. Even then they had you for their own reasons and have their own motivations powering their decisions and actions. The rest of humanity do not know you, do not care for you, are indifferent to your existence. They don't hate you, fear you, love you, notice you they are neutral as regards you, save some prejusdice either way. You have to work to get them to notice you other than that and provide them with value so you receive value in return. This is the way it is. The alternative to providing them value is to threaten them, to coerce them, to steal from them. The first is moral, the second is not. This is the way it is. What you resist persists for you, what you accept you gain power to use. This is the way it is. We could at least stop pretending that people who are driven to work for peanuts are exercising some kind free choice, when the simple human reality is that if they had any choice they would not do it. It's all fine to say that people are free to reject any offer- but for that to be true they would have to be able to reject every offer- all of them. And that for many people is just not possible. So it's spurious and kind of cheap to pretend that people in sweatshops are there by choice- it's intellectually shallow to claim it and demeans the people involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Orange Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If low wages are so grand, why do many people try to educate themselves and get better paid jobs elsewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Boom Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 On form tonight. No surprise to find you bewitched by banal sophistry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Boom Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 We could at least stop pretending that people who are driven to work for peanuts are exercising some kind free choice, when the simple human reality is that if they had any choice they would not do it. It's all fine to say that people are free to reject any offer- but for that to be true they would have to be able to reject every offer- all of them. And that for many people is just not possible. So it's spurious and kind of cheap to pretend that people in sweatshops are there by choice- it's intellectually shallow to claim it and demeans the people involved. It has the effect of making just about any abuse permissible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer Baby Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 No surprise to find you bewitched by banal sophistry. Oh, I don't know, maybe it's like someone said the other night ...... As far as I can see no reasoned objection to the principle has been made, instead we quickly got bogged down in the minutia of implementation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boom Boom Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 Oh, I don't know, maybe it's like someone said the other night ...... As far as I can see no reasoned objection to the principle has been made, instead we quickly got bogged down in the minutia of implementation. They are similar only in that both are composed of words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 We could at least stop pretending that people who are driven to work for peanuts are exercising some kind free choice, when the simple human reality is that if they had any choice they would not do it. But they do have a choice - invention, creation, replication of others actions. Again, I think you are measuring against an impossible standard, a world where people are fed, clothed and watered with no effort and those terrible employers are somehow in the way of that. It's all fine to say that people are free to reject any offer- but for that to be true they would have to be able to reject every offer- all of them. And that for many people is just not possible. No one said you are free to refuse any offer with no consequence - a free market is just one where you can refuse an offer without the added consequence of being attacked by others. So it's spurious and kind of cheap to pretend that people in sweatshops are there by choice- it's intellectually shallow to claim it and demeans the people involved. It's spurious to claim a lack based on something impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If low wages are so grand, why do many people try to educate themselves and get better paid jobs elsewhere? If low wages are so awful, why do so many people not bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.