Re: OT - Family Values

In article <gb9jf1$oov$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) WHO? wrote:
In article <gb77ol$pl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) WHO? wrote:
In article <gb6vca$dht$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) WHO? wrote:
In article <gb3f0n$tjm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) WHO? wrote:
In article <gav3h9$4iu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Espressopithecus (Java Man) who? wrote:
In article <gan5du$svr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sunsetss0003
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
How is this true? Again, to support this assertion you must
demonstrate that the only way to obtain wealth is take from society.
This is not self evident.

Wealth comes from added value. Added value is created by labor.
A portion of added value is created by labour. But ideas, innovation,
machinery, organization, leadership, capital and other factors also
create added value and wealth.
butbutbut [1], ideas, innovation and leadership are part of labor.
Oh, really? Are you saying that labour includes work that is cerebral
rather than physical? GOOD! That would include vision, which is simply
a collection of good ideas.
And I thought vision had to do with photons entering the eyes, etcetera?
I suspect you're not too thick to understand "vision" in context, but
maybe you're just proving why you're only a lowly paid worker and not a
wealthy entrepreneur or manager. ;)
And maybe I do not spew out buzz words?
Nice try, but wrong, Groucho . . . er, Karl.
Vision in use other that sight is jargon.

And here I thought you'd previously said
all leaders do is tell others what to do! Hey, maybe that's labour too!
After all, it takes time to figure out what everyone should do, and to
tell them. And it's the product of ideas. Now we're really getting
somewhere! ;-)
Yes, but doing so is not such a unique talent or ability to deserve
rewards hundreds or thousand of times more than what other workers make.
And in more than 99% of the cases, leaders DON'T make hundreds or even
thousands of times more than other workers. But don't let the vast
majority fool you -- there's always that < 1% for you to rail at. ;)

Setting up a straw man to argue with?
I'm simply pointing out that your argument applies to only a tiny
fraction of leaders.
And those are the important ones to discuss.

Only for those interested in marginal positions.

The people that run the world are marginal? Wow!

You have a unique talent for morphing issues into nonsense.

For example, the workers have taken over production effectively
abandoned by the multi-nationals in Argentina, and are doing just fine
despite NOT paying exorbitant sums to upper management.
You really do like to use rare anomalies as evidence to support your
case, don't you? ;)
Only rare due to the rich subverting the marketplace.
Although I don't agree, let's assume for argument's sake that you're
right -- that the rich subvert the marketplace to keep the non-rich out.
That would affect non-rich entrepreneur-controlled and employee-
controlled enterprises equally. But there's no shortage of non-rich
entrepreneur-controlled enterprises that start up, gain a foothold, and
thrive. So something else is preventing worker-controlled enterprises
from being a larger portion of the market -- the lack of ambition and
talent.
Or that the people who would form cooperatives are not ruthless and
brutal enough to win at a vicious game?

Awwww, the poor cooperatives! Eaten by the wolves!

So Java Man approves of a society that rewards sociopathic behavior?

I approve of a society that rewards enterprise, innovation and hard
work. There are so few cooperatives because most people who have the
drive and skill to start an enterprise would rather do it themselves.
It's damned difficult getting a group of "owners" to agree on a
direction. Cooperatives tend to be started for a specific purpose which
seldom includes significant growth aspirations. Your inane blaming it
on "the rich subverting the marketplace" is laughably ridiculous. It's
like a bad parody of the ideas of an addled communist.

Machinery is created by labor. Capital is merely used to purchase labor
and/or machinery that is used to create added value, and does not do
anything by itself.
Capital is also created by labour. I'm surprised you missed that. Along
with machinery and ideas, it's like "distilled labour" because it can
add value over and over again. I guess that's why it's so highly paid
-- an hour of "labour" that can be distilled and re-used to add value
over and over again adds a whole lot more to the bottom line than an
hour labour that adds value just once.
No, management is so highly paid because they get to set the rules of
the game, rather than competing in a truly free market.
Again with the < 1%! The vast majority of managers don't "set the rules
of the game". They don't control compensation policies, either.
More arguing with the straw man.
I'm pointing out the fallacy of your argument.

If Java Man does not understand the importance of the executives at the
largest corporations, he can not understand who really runs the US (and
many other countries).

I see you've given up your original claim above. Good.

Nonsense.

Then defend it.

Take any one of them out of the equation
and added value is reduced, as is the wealth created by enterprise.
Your attempt to reduce this to labour is simplistic in the extreme.

Without labor, none of the other factors can do anything.
Without capital, ideas, vision and leadership, labour can do little more
than hunt, gather and eke out a living in subsistence farming.
Labor can organize into collective leadership and provide all those
things on a more equitable basis of compensation. However, those who are
already at the top will (and have) take steps to prevent that from
happening. After all, the goal is to perpetuate current inequalities.
Yes, labour "can" and "does", but only in a small minority of cases
because most workers lack entrepreneurial drive and talent. Similarly,
most managers lack entrepreneurial drive. All enterprises face tough
challenges. That is why so many fail.
And most are established in an environment where the rules are set by
the haves to perpetuate their wealth.
There's no difference in the opportunities available to non-rich
entrepreneur-controlled enterprise and worker-controlled enterprise.
The rules are the same for both. There are so few worker-controlled
enterprises because only a small minority of workers have
entrepreneurial drive and talent. It's that simple.
Entrepreneurial drive and talent, or the willingness to step on others
to succeed?

Your willingness to classify losers as victims is acknowledged.

Java Man's willingness to approve of rewarding anti-social behavior is
acknowledged.

Losing is now anti-social behaviour?? What are you -- a Republican???

And of course, at the root of the issue is that the playing field is not
level, and most of the holders of real capital did not earn it. If we
were starting from scratch, one could make a better case for a system
that so greatly values capital, since the holders of capital would have
earned it by the fruits of their own efforts. In the real world,
rewarding capital much more than labor is just a way to preserve and
enhance class stratification.

Now, if you'll just get around to telling us more specifically how you
would assign an appropriate value to all these factors -- say, based on
how much they add to the value of the products or services produced --
perhaps you'd have something.

Stop being deliberately obtuse. I know you want a simplistic formula,
but some since can not be so simply reduced. DUH!

Your failure to explain your ideas in clear, simple English does not
make me obtuse.

Your failure to acknowledge that all ideas can not be properly expressed
in simple "sound bites" is indeed obtuse.

I've never asked you for a sound bite or a short answer. I've asked for
a logical answer. So try a paragraph or two. Surely you can write
paragraphs?

[yawn]

I accept that you're tired of being called on your introduction of
strawmen.

I see that Java Man still can not understand concepts commonly used in
economics, and needs a more simplistic answer.

I understand economics quite well, thanks. Just not your poorly
explained, half-baked and paranoid musings.

Java
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Family Values
    ... Wealth comes from added value. ... A portion of added value is created by labour. ... but doing so is not such a unique talent or ability to deserve rewards hundreds or thousand of times more than what other workers make. ... But there's no shortage of non-rich entrepreneur-controlled enterprises that start up, gain a foothold, and thrive. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: OT - Family Values
    ... Wealth comes from added value. ... A portion of added value is created by labour. ... but doing so is not such a unique talent or ability to deserve rewards hundreds or thousand of times more than what other workers make. ... But there's no shortage of non-rich entrepreneur-controlled enterprises that start up, gain a foothold, and thrive. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: OT - Family Values
    ... Wealth comes from added value. ... A portion of added value is created by labour. ... rewards hundreds or thousand of times more than what other workers make. ... controlled enterprises equally. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: OT - Family Values
    ... Wealth comes from added value. ... A portion of added value is created by labour. ... rewards hundreds or thousand of times more than what other workers make. ... controlled enterprises equally. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: OT - Family Values
    ... Wealth comes from added value. ... A portion of added value is created by labour. ... But there's no shortage of non-rich entrepreneur-controlled enterprises that start up, gain a foothold, and thrive. ... So Java Man approves of a society that rewards sociopathic behavior? ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
Loading