With all due respect, this is quite a long rant, but these are my frustrations with living in a Capitalistic society. Oh, and I have been on here for a little more then a year now, so I know pretty well of the ideas that is passed around Mises readings.
Now, I understand that CEO's are responsible for a company's profits, and that the entrepreneur is someone who sacrifices a stable job lifestyle for risking his personal savings. However, while this is true with small business', I have no problem with CEO's of small business. Though, if someone needs to find a job, they have no choice but to employ themselves at a crappy job where they will be exploited. My definition of exploited meaning no pay for overtime, keeping you overtime, no vacation, and taking money off of your paycheck for breaks. You can't control when an employer decides to keep you overtime to get more work done, but its ****ing bullshit when you have school and a life to maintain as well. People at low-income jobs barely make enough to even be worth all this stress, where someone with a BA in even Communication gets to work for an above average salary and sit in the comfort of his cubicle on a computer. Jobs shouldn't be a privilege, and if someone has to work for low income, they shouldn't be slaving a lot more then someone with an education earning a median-above average salary. This is exploitation. You know, the only reason someone working at McDonalds is getting ****ed in the ass is because CEO's don't want to cut their erroneous salary so that they can continue golfing on their private island, while hiring less people so that they themselves, who don't even do much with the Corporation they are the head of, can get higher salaries.
Do I think the honest ones, i.e. small businessmen, do so? No. In fact those types of CEO's live it like its a lifestyle, not just a job, they DO work their asses off.
Novus Zarathustra:Because I was never able to live my life the way I wanted do, I end up at the age of 40, with kids and having to spend his entire life working at a place Wal-Mart or Target if I get lucky enough to even get the job there and be paid decently. ALl the money I'm earning will go toward paying for my bills and feeding my kids because I was never able to go to school, never able to try to make it as an artist since I couldn't afford my tools so I could be making a better salary. Instead I work my ass of, am miserable, and will never be an artist. gg.
Only in a rich, formerly free country could one, in the midst of a horrific depression, think that working in a large store, earning just enough to pay bills and feed kids, is a bad thing. Try explaining to a resident of Tanzania that you are upset that you will stand in a building full of things and earn enough to eat for pressing buttons on a computer.
The Tanzanian works harder than you do, much harder. He spends all day carrying heavy things, and he just watched two of his children starve. So he won't stand for your whining. If you want to be consistent, at least complain on his behalf, not your own.
But it's not about work, it's about what you produce. You might think it is harder to press buttons than to do what a CEO does. But anyone can do your job, and you produce very little. You're only necessary at all because we have division of labor and such massive production that we can have stores. The CEO is an organizer. Without him, your labor would produce even less, because you would not have in front of you a computer to press buttons on. What you're doing is only valuable because of a huge supply chain and the related actions of thousands of people - and the people who bring it all together.
The Tanzanian doesn't have this kind of organization. He has no capital structure, and so has to produce directly from the earth. That is hard.
Now, I agree with a lot of your points, believe it or not. I would like to see more equity, I'd be happy with a lower standard of living with less organization, smaller organizations - and in addition, I think, with Kevin Carson, that in a free society organizations would be smaller with higher production anyway, so its a moot point. But those are my preferences, and I have no right to inflict them on you - to decide for you that production should be smaller and lower so that I can have more free time, or shop at smaller stores, or whatever. I have to find a like-minded group of people and build what I want. If you want a commune, build one. That's a task as hard as what a CEO does, for less pay - but it's building the world you'd like. Just don't demand that people who don't want what you want build it for you.
Jon Irenicus:If Einstein did not come up with them he was just parotting nonsense anyway.
How exactly is evolutionary economics nonsense? It takes into account human behavior, evolution and anthropology.. something no other economic schools have done.
Novus Zarathustra: Economics is a science. Einstein was an authority on science. He may not have the knowledge that Carl Menger or Marx had, but he is an authority on science.
Economics is a science. Einstein was an authority on science. He may not have the knowledge that Carl Menger or Marx had, but he is an authority on science.
Sure, when humans stop making conscious decisions and scarcity is no longer an issue, Einstein may be right. In the meantime, we have scarcity and we make conscious decisions.
I notice you make no effort to outline the arguments. So you too are parotting nonsense now. Good to know. BTW, give Mike Schermer a read if you're so big on the "evolutionary" tag. He's an Austrian, FYI.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Novus Zarathustra: Jon Irenicus:If Einstein did not come up with them he was just parotting nonsense anyway. How exactly is evolutionary economics nonsense? It takes into account human behavior, evolution and anthropology.. something no other economic schools have done.
That is because the purpose of economics is to overcome behavior and psychology and persuade humans to act rationally.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Novus Zarathustra: Jon Irenicus:All lovely to muse about, but what's it got to do with socialism when it is economically infeasible? Why should others be coerced to shoulder your burdens? Because I would be willing to do the same for my neighbor. Oh, and here is that very point put beautifully. Socialism is progress to TRANSCEND the term "economic". It would be evolution beyond the human predatory. "The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end." - Albert Einstein.
Jon Irenicus:All lovely to muse about, but what's it got to do with socialism when it is economically infeasible? Why should others be coerced to shoulder your burdens?
Because I would be willing to do the same for my neighbor. Oh, and here is that very point put beautifully. Socialism is progress to TRANSCEND the term "economic". It would be evolution beyond the human predatory.
"The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end." - Albert Einstein.
Just wondering...you know, in case you were interested in whatever it is you're trying to say... You understand what that quote means, right? I mean, I'll be nice here and skip over the whole "Quoting Einstein does not make your argument correct, especially if you have made no argument" part. What that quote is saying is the the economics we use can't really shed light on the socialist society of the future, because we assume the socialist society of the future would take place AFTER the predatory phase of human development, which we are currently in. Now, even ignoring that people like Ludwig von Mises pointed out quite well exactly what would happen if we evolved into a non-self-interest species, how does this help whatever backing you are trying to give socialism? The quote you have given still points out explicitly that we are not in a phase of evolution in which socialism is viable. You can hurl rhetoric all you like. You can write all the letters to Santa your heart desires. In the end, all that will happen is your auntie will pinch your cheek and say "That's ADORABLE." Logical argument does kinda have to be based on actually foundations, you know. For instance...There is not a shred of evidence, anywhere, in any study of evolution, that points a finger and says "There. That's where we are headed. We're evolving into creatures who do not put ourselves and our own interests above society." Evolutionary economics is really more of a hypothesis than a theory, not because the idea itself is absurd, but because there is not really much of a way to set up an experiment. Now it's like I'm talking to high-schoolers...
Who will do the dirty work in Socialism? Since as you said, if a person wants to be a teacher, in socialism they get to be a teacher. I'm pretty sure that not everyone dreams of being a Garbage man.
Valject:For instance...There is not a shred of evidence, anywhere, in any study of evolution, that points a finger and says "There. That's where we are headed. We're evolving into creatures who do not put ourselves and our own interests above
If they were to see that, it would be because they are looking in the wrong direction. Individuals being subordinate to the needs of the collective is a feature of our past, found in primitive human cultures. Respecting the worth of the individual is the great attribute of the modern age.
Peace
Novus Zarathustra:Though, if someone needs to find a job, they have no choice but to employ themselves at a crappy job where they will be exploited. My definition of exploited meaning no pay for overtime, keeping you overtime, no vacation, and taking money off of your paycheck for breaks.
Novus Zarathustra:You know, the only reason someone working at McDonalds is getting ****ed in the ass is because CEO's don't want to cut their erroneous salary so that they can continue golfing on their private island, while hiring less people so that they themselves, who don't even do much with the Corporation they are the head of, can get higher salaries.
I think that overall, you're barking up the wrong tree. Essentially you argument boils down to this: Capitalists are exploiting workers because their earnings are too high and the workers wages are too low.
sidenote: wages are not the takehome pay of a worker, but the cost to the firm of employing that worker. This includes things like overtime pay, payed breaks, vacation, ect.
Their employers are giving them a higher wage than they would receive elsewhere, ceteris parabus. If workers are being exploited (according to your definition) by their employers, it is less so than by everyone else, for nobody other than the employer is paying them anything (including you).
Also, since the computer you are using is has components which were produced by corporations which have rich CEO's (I'm assuming, however it is a very reasonable assumption), your actions demonstrate that you prefer that these CEO's get their private jets, golf, and tropical getaways to them not getting any perks. Otherwise you wouldn't patronize companies which pay CEO's large saleries, or at least you don't put your money where your mouth is.I am sure you probably eat at fast food joints every now and then, use an internet service provided by a large corp, purchase things @ discount stores like Walmart, ect.
Labour is a factor of production who's price is determined, ultimately, by consumer demand. Whether they are too high or too low is an entirely arbitrary value judgment. Also, if you support the current arrangement, through your current consumer spending, it seems rather hypocritical to turn around and condemn the results.
Smiling Dave:What should they be? A right? So someone should have the right to march into your house and say "I'm your new housekeeper. You have to pay me a decent wage."
Actually, I do think that. Its ridiculous that someone should have to fill out 20-30 applications and get no luck. How is everyone going to be able to survive and pull through if there are 100 jobs available, 70 which are taken, and 60 people who need jobs. This is the distortion in the market I am referring to.
Smiling Dave:You know that wages are determined by how USEFUL and IRREPLACABLE you are to the employer, right? So are you saying you "should" be more useful and irreplacable? To whom is your complaint directed?
What did the CEO ever do to build the machine, which he sold for a lot more then what the workers did to produce it? The CEO then gets the net profit of that, while the workers who built it get only 1/500 portion. A machine can't be built by a single man, it needs to be built by a group, labor workers. A machine built by labor workers is better then one built by an individual anyway.
Smiling Dave: 3. Capitalism is responsible for the above two problems. That part is wrong. Sorry. Capitalism is the solution to 2, as this site proves over and over to those who are interested. As for 1, I don't know the answer. Maybe another poster can help out
Its shitty human nature. I described earlier, part of how human nature works if I had cancer, it would be better that I die and suffer. I know someone who has a life threatening illness, and nobody is doing anything about it. Health Care probably wont get the correct solution in his lifetime.
Smiling Dave: 1. The rich deserve to be pillaged because they aren't risking anything. What are YOU risking? If the answer is "Nothing", do you therefore deserve to be thrown into the streets, homeless? 2. The rich deserve to be pillaged because the average salary isn't enough to live the "American Way." Does this require a serious response? 3. The rich deserve to be pillaged because they are asswipes. LOL 4. The rich deserve to be pillaged because they started life rich. So a man who has money has no right to give it to his son when the man dies? Why? 5. The rich deserve to be pillaged because they don't deserve pity. Huh? 6. All of the above five points are totally rational. Oh. OK. 7. If you think the rich deserve pity you are monopolistic. I think a dictionary might help here.
>Assuming that the rich didn't pillage to get THEIR money.
Amadeus:Who will do the dirty work in Socialism? Since as you said, if a person wants to be a teacher, in socialism they get to be a teacher. I'm pretty sure that not everyone dreams of being a Garbage man.
Our current society oppresses people who have different interests and destinies. People have an attitude that people who don't want to be part of the Education system deserve to fail. I was in a discussion on education on my English class, and I mentioned a situation where a student drops out of school because he was involuntarily drugged, dealt with authority he disliked, and hated being forced to learn what he was learning. The others I was discussing this with said "Too bad for him then! he deserves to fail, we need to raise our countries standards".
This is what our society is built on, its not inhumane, quit frankly it is FUCKED. Our destinies are chosen for us for the benefit of other people. I don't have a future, there's nothing in this world for me, most of it was taken from me. A society based on rational self interest is neo-fascism. If society, and communities got together to address the concerns of everyone within the community, they would then create a framework to serve the best interests of the community.
Someone may not have the motivation to go to school or to learn, so if someone is better at laboring, then they can take out the Garbage. If they are disabled, partially insane, severely learning disabled, ect they can take out the garbage and have a role for the community, as opposed to just rotting as they would now because they don't want to/can't live up to the destinies that were decided for them. Society has been conditioned to this way, as I mentioned from my interraction with people in my English class discussion on Education, to think anyone that doesn't meet what is rationalized by the state to be in "everyone's best interest" or "whats best for us all" is to be sent to the guillotine. Most people support this absolutely fucked society, and because of their ignorance I have to suffer for it, even if I know the truth. Democracy is EVIL. This majority rule bullshit, isn't free of tyranny at all, its just as Nietczhe put it in his quote about groups with the same opinions, epochs, or something of the like being more insane then the individual(I can't find the quote).
May I ask that you rewrite your rant to remove it of the ad hominems, appeals to envy, non sequiturs, hasty generalizations, labor theory of values, and all the other fallacies?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
This all seems quite emotive.
Anyway, Novus, you are correct to say that in a free and open society a freer market would not fix some of the things you seem to see as problematic, like too many millionaires. Yes in a free society there would probably be more millionaires and CEOs may earn disproportionatly more.
However, if you allow people to trade anything freely, smarter, more productive people will be better off. However, that doesn't mean that everyone will be worse off since most trades will be mutually benificial. That is not to say that all profit making is good. That is why capitalism need rules to enforce contract to prevent fraud, theft and deceit. Rather than look only at inequality and envy.
Profits, like all pricesin the free-price system, are vital to the efficent allocation of scarce resources. Mess with profits and you mess with economic calculation.
The point is that the market is more productive which essentially means more stuff. If I get more pieces of paper to trade with under a freer capitalistic system than you, it may seem unfair, but it does not neccesarilly mean that you get less stuff, if there is more to begin with. I think you need to look at the plight of the average man under a system of free market capitalism vs. a socialist one.
Novus Zarathustra:How is everyone going to be able to survive and pull through if there are 100 jobs available, 70 which are taken, and 60 people who need jobs. This is the distortion in the market I am referring to.
How will everyone survive and pull through? Capital formation. Eliminate barriors to entry. Eliminate the income tax. For starters. But our overseers in D.C. are doing the exact opposite. And things are going to get much worse as a result (there is no recovery going on, by the way, unless a temporary bounce in the stock market is considered "recovery").
Novus Zarathustra:What did the CEO ever do to build the machine,
He organizes the capital. (Actually, the entrepreneur and capitalists do this, but you are fixated on CEO's)
Novus Zarathustra:which he sold for a lot more then what the workers did to produce it?
Exactly. And if the machine did not sell for more than what the workers did to produce it, would the capital ever have been directed into that line of production to begin with? It would not have been. There would have been no jobs at all for the workers. Profit is a price signal. It directs capital.
Novus Zarathustra:The CEO then gets the net profit of that, while the workers who built it get only 1/500 portion.
And how much should the workers get? How much would they get if there was no capital from which to start the business?
Novus Zarathustra:A machine can't be built by a single man, it needs to be built by a group, labor workers.
So, let's jetison the CEO. Make an edict: "No more CEO's". You refer to "CEO's" but what about the entrepreneur? What about the capitalist? Are they one in the same? Would it be best to just have laborers overseen by a central planner? Is this the solution? If you say "yes", then please see the links below.
Profit is a price signal. It directs capital into lines production where is it needed. The consumers (in a free market) determine "where" the capital is needed (market prices provide the signals).
Novus, please watch this video. It explains the reality of the socialist world you envision: The Road to Serfdom.
Here's two novels for you: Pictures of Our Socialist Future (1893) Time Will Run Back
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
chloe732:How will everyone survive and pull through? Capital formation. Eliminate barriors to entry. Eliminate the income tax. For starters. But our overseers in D.C. are doing the exact opposite. And things are going to get much worse as a result (there is no recovery going on, by the way, unless a temporary bounce in the stock market is considered "recovery").
Democracy, majority rules. If the majority supports what D.C is doing, then it will be so.
Oh, and my polisci professor always argued against me that the income tax pays for services that help people, and it wouldn't be enough money otherwise. So if don't want to pay taxes, then we don't care about helping people, but whatever.
chloe732: So, let's jetison the CEO. Make an edict: "No more CEO's". You refer to "CEO's" but what about the entrepreneur? What about the capitalist? Are they one in the same? Would it be best to just have laborers overseen by a central planner? Is this the solution? If you say "yes", then please see the links below. Profit is a price signal. It directs capital into lines production where is it needed. The consumers (in a free market) determine "where" the capital is needed (market prices provide the signals). Novus, please watch this video. It explains the reality of the socialist world you envision: The Road to Serfdom. Here's two novels for you: Pictures of Our Socialist Future (1893) Time Will Run Back
Bookmarked for later.
The "fact" that CEO's make more than they could ever spend simply means that they are not competing for the limited supply of consumer goods. Perhaps they use it as stuffing for pillows and mattresses. Perhaps they invest it to increase the supply of consumer goods.