Let's Revisit Money/Capitalism, Shall We?

[Prozerran]

A while back I posted a very long, drawn out position on Capitalism as being "fundamentally flawed." Criticism of that position was extensive for some, and others just thought it an interesting notion with no real solution. Well, I want to revisit this now with some new information. You might be inclined to object that money =/= capitalism, and while you will technically be right on the accepted definitions of each, one is not, in any way, absent of the other. They function in conjunction with one another, which is why I'd like to direct your attention to the following 35 minute video:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hfXavRTM4Fg
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvRZoM-2r8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=f0p8LepIuVM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PzXZ_Hs1g6U

The fundamental flaw I speak of is the absence of value in Capitalism - specifically in "capital" or all that an individual possesses in wealth (i.e. assets, income, investments, possessions, etc). Value is not only replaced by debt, it is replaced by an endless need for more capital, more resources, more money - and make no mistake, this is entirely by design. In essence, the pursuit, as I've previously pointed out, is to accumulate wealth in an endeavor to remain ahead of the change to the value of money over time - in this case, inflation. Financial planners and those seeking to secure retirement depend on the capability of our economy to adequately show how inflation will affect one's financial future. This should enlighten each of you to the issue that most are facing across America regarding financial uncertainty.

Now, feel free to discuss how this system (while imperfect) is the best system available to us. The notion that the system needs improvement will not suffice as a reason why its potential warrants its continued practice. I will share my thoughts on this later.

[Icarus]

Now, feel free to discuss how this system (while imperfect) is the best system available to us.

That depends. What are the properties and goals a "best" system is supposed to fulfill? What is desired?

[Prozerran]

That depends. What are the properties and goals a "best" system is supposed to fulfill? What is desired?

What is desired is a system that truly does what our constitution sets out to do, create equality among all people. This equality should extend to our societal system of capitalism, but as the video explains, the money system does no such thing at all.

Essentially, what is desired here is a system that promotes and supports value. The best system will coincide with the tenets our nation was established to create for our society. The money system does the absolute opposite for us.

[Icarus]

Of course. It's no secret that capitalism just keeps those with selfish morals packed together in an elitist class, the mechanics of which work to keep that class in perpetual power until the system inevitably attacks itself.

Communism seeks to wipe out these distinctions, and assimilate everyone into one economic class: citizens. That is among many reasons why I favor it.

[Prozerran]

One problem. Communism is not Representative Government. Socialism would work, but one of the main problems in this system has to do with ownership. The state claims ownership of the means of production, instead of the Citizens. The system can be established so that the means of production are largely owned by citizens, paid for by the government, and distributed as wealth among the population that works for the privately owned industries. Therein lies the problem of who gets to do the work and who decides how much people are paid to do the work.

I don't advocate doing away with every tenet of Capitalism. I support competition as a means of growth, and I believe a free market is fundamentally workable as long as it doesn't supercede the overall accumulation of wealth. The more diversified individual states are (and such a requirement should be met by law) in the distribution of money for services that improve communities, the better the system will be. Education would see VAST improvements, which only helps to improve the advance of civilized society.

But regardless, something must be done to circumvent the direction special interests are taking us in. Corporate America, the Banking World at large, does not want to see this system collapse for a number of reasons, most of which are for personal gain. I'm largely for ending Capitalism as we know it and moving forward towards Socialist Representative Government that is regulated by law to diversify its distribution of wealth to businesses that are privately owned to perform services that improve our quality of life. Everyone wins except the people that want to profit from the loop holes created by the monetary system.

[Icarus]

Sure, it's not representative, of the bourgeoisie, but they would not and haven't worked for the benefit of the commonwealth, something that the proletariat would surely do.

I thought what you wanted was equality of all citizens. You seem to be contradicting yourself by advocating property and competition. This system naturally drifts towards giving those with advantages a growing monopoly. To insure such measures, bourgeois executives lobby the government, thus giving distinctions of class, both social and economic, among the workers and the capitalist as well as consumers.

And if you're advocating static public funding, there's a hailstorm of problems with that. It gives public institutions no incentive to raise standards or production. It would ignore exterior circumstances such as the regional economic conditions, or social issues such as racism. Something like that is just inherently flawed, if what you're looking for is social unity and productivity in public institutions.

Your position is still vague. You imply that you advocate a free market, yet later in your post you say you'd look forward to a socialist state. The two are near opposites, so which is it?

[Prozerran]

Sure, it's not representative, of the bourgeoisie, but they would not and haven't worked for the benefit of the commonwealth, something that the proletariat would surely do.

I thought what you wanted was equality of all citizens. You seem to be contradicting yourself by advocating property and competition. This system naturally drifts towards giving those with advantages a growing monopoly. To insure such measures, bourgeois executives lobby the government, thus giving distinctions of class, both social and economic, among the workers and the capitalist as well as consumers.

Have you watched the video I posted? I'm advocating equality insofar as there is equal opportunity for everyone, in almost any trade, which is just not the case here. Civilization benefits from a decent-sized number of industries/trades that aren't rewarded in our society. Let's face it, if it doesn't make money, then it's not on the agenda. Look at how much NASA has had to struggle with funding, especially after the recent tragedies it's faced.

In regards to your concerns of growing monopolies, this is just a matter of legislation and judicial regulation at the state level to guard against monopolization. The same concerns could be applied to companies that are domiciled in multiple states that could potentially collect much more money because of their expansiveness. This kind of contingency can be met with legislation and regulation. At least regulation occurs at the government level and not the private level, which increases civil legal action that drives up costs for privately owned companies. A lot of the laws that apply to corporations already would be even more enforceable with the state governments answering to the supreme court. I don't see the numerous problems you mention as being as significant.

And if you're advocating static public funding, there's a hailstorm of problems with that. It gives public institutions no incentive to raise standards or production. It would ignore exterior circumstances such as the regional economic conditions, or social issues such as racism. Something like that is just inherently flawed, if what you're looking for is social unity and productivity in public institutions.

Your position is still vague. You imply that you advocate a free market, yet later in your post you say you'd look forward to a socialist state. The two are near opposites, so which is it?

I advocate a mix of the two, where the weaknesses of one form are supplemented by the strengths of the other and vice versa. The weakness of the free market system (capitalism) is the loss of value and the unequal distribution of wealth among individuals. The weakness of a socialist state is the individual's inability to accumulate any wealth at all, or work harder than the average guy to be innovative and actually be rewarded.

I mean, if everyone had an equal opportunity to be successful, not everyone will reach the same level of success. Someone's going to do it better than the rest. But that person should not be in a position to use their wealth to buy their way into office, buy off someone in office, or, in the case of oil companies, have enough stake in our economy to literally call all the shots. We could also make some significant improvements to our economy by issuing new currency and eliminate special interests in countries like Saudi Arabia from having more stake in our market than we do.

[hammocksleeper]

The fundamental flaw I speak of is the absence of value in Capitalism - specifically in "capital" or all that an individual possesses in wealth (i.e. assets, income, investments, possessions, etc). Value is not only replaced by debt, it is replaced by an endless need for more capital, more resources, more money - and make no mistake, this is entirely by design. In essence, the pursuit, as I've previously pointed out, is to accumulate wealth in an endeavor to remain ahead of the change to the value of money over time - in this case, inflation. Financial planners and those seeking to secure retirement depend on the capability of our economy to adequately show how inflation will affect one's financial future. This should enlighten each of you to the issue that most are facing across America regarding financial uncertainty.

Now, feel free to discuss how this system (while imperfect) is the best system available to us. The notion that the system needs improvement will not suffice as a reason why its potential warrants its continued practice. I will share my thoughts on this later.

I only watched the first thirty seconds of the first video but I've seen enough of those to know what it was going to tell me. And I am in disbelief that you took that to be an argument against capitalism. When in fact it's an argument for laissez faire capitalism and against central banking and the fractional reserve system.

Honestly I don't care enough about the WB IR forum to spend too much time here so I really wish someone from BF would show up like Kaizen to set the record straight. Inflation does not naturally occur with capitalism. It a phenomenon artificially created by central banks and their monetary policy.

To bring this outside the realm of theory and more into real life examples, look for the dollar to decline in value even more in the next few weeks, as on Dec 10 I believe the Fed announced they would lower the target fed funds rate and the discount rate by only 25 basis points instead of a needed 50 or more bp. The stock market responded by dropping 300 points in a day, and the Fed's policy now puts banks in a position of draining their reserves (read: inflation) since the target rate is so out of line with real interest rates, when treasury bills are trading below 3 percent now (an indicator of how little faith people have in our government's value).

In a couple months the Fed will lower their rates even more, I guess they don't want to lower everything all at once but that's really the only thing that will assuage the current credit market crisis.

Another thing you should get straight in your head is what is "value." Value is not the amount of shit you hold, the amount of wealth you have accumulated. It goes much deeper than that. What really is value? An asset can be defined as anything that generates a stream of cash flows. And the value of any asset is simply the value of those cash flows (their discounted future values).

[singo]

What is wrong with inequality?


Now, a statement like that requires some qualification if I dont want to be lynched so here goes. Equality is not something that happens, nor is inequality a bad thing...so long as the inequality does not result in such things as povery/starvation etc, which I think we can all agree are bad things.

The solution as I see it is (and has been for fifty years) the welfare state (if anyone ever implements it properly....I'm still waiting) under this model, theoretically anyway, the government provides a minimum standard of living or at least the means to do so, to those incapable, through bad luck or disability, who cannot.

As long as people are not then starving to death or being rendered homeless on a grand scale then the inequality can go as far as it likes....upwards but will never move downwards. It also means, in the great game that is life, there is no starting position too far back to have a go at the ladder.

After all, laissez faire has been an obsolete theory since the mid thirties and has not actually been in existance for even longer, regulated capitalism curently works reasonably well, add a Health Service and some social security and leave it well alone.

[Icarus]

Have you watched the video I posted? I'm advocating equality insofar as there is equal opportunity for everyone, in almost any trade, which is just not the case here. Civilization benefits from a decent-sized number of industries/trades that aren't rewarded in our society. Let's face it, if it doesn't make money, then it's not on the agenda. Look at how much NASA has had to struggle with funding, especially after the recent tragedies it's faced.


I mean, if everyone had an equal opportunity to be successful, not everyone will reach the same level of success.

I just watched the video. I was surprised because the video has relatively little to do with what we are talking about.

You should have been more specific in what you define as "better" for society. That is why I asked it.

Equal implies many things, and not just the ability to make money.

Also, you have to define "opportunity", because if you mean as in the ability to engage in whatever occupation you wish, then that already exists.

And I'm going to assume you mean success as in the gaining of money, which in itself is a tragedy. Before such a word would mostly describe the finishing of a bridge, or a productive conclusion drawn from an experiment, as it's meaning was to "fulfill" or "complete".

In regards to your concerns of growing monopolies, this is just a matter of legislation and judicial regulation at the state level to guard against monopolization.

You can set limits, put that's just like pouring a cup of hot water onto a fire in hopes of putting it out. Companies will simply rise to that limit, then continue to lobby to get the laws changed, which they have, successfully, for a while now. Money is power, and people are irresponsible. The responsible people, who in a just society would naturally become politicians, would use money for productive purposes, under no guises, where as most people would use it for individual gain (usually monetary or superficial), and contribute to productive industries only under the promise that they will be allowed to exploit it.

That is why since we are in an unjust society, the greedy people will have control over legislation, at least monetary legislation.

I advocate a mix of the two, where the weaknesses of one form are supplemented by the strengths of the other and vice versa. The weakness of the free market system (capitalism) is the loss of value and the unequal distribution of wealth among individuals. The weakness of a socialist state is the individual's inability to accumulate any wealth at all, or work harder than the average guy to be innovative and actually be rewarded.

It is not only those problems which you point out. As I alluded to before in this same post, capitalism allows those who take advantage of the system, and accumulate as much money as possible, naturally work to keep themselves protected, so they can accumulate even more, through manipulation of legislation. The government cannot protect itself, because it is simply a contract. The money (power) has to be redistributed and reformed entirely to protect productive interests.

capitalistic innovation is directed towards lucrative fields, and what is lucrative for a capitalist is almost always destructive.

Let's say, as you imply, that innovators will create "great" things for the money, and someone formulates the cure for cancer. Who is going to give this man his money? That is why he discovered it, right? The companies who will buy the rights and own the means to produce it will. Such means are expensive, so naturally this company would have to be well established.

After this company invests greatly into this cure, it will have to compensate, right? And ultimately, will put a hefty price on whether someone may live or die.

That is why such a system is detrimental to society, not beneficial (however you seem to place benefit upon "success" among individuals, so this may not matter to you)

That is why a society where money is not something to strive for is more productive.

so long as the inequality does not result in such things as povery/starvation

Why do you think throughout the entirety of human, civilized history, the poor and starving are always the workers? The farmers, the railroad men, the carpenters, the blacksmiths, the bakers,the sewers and weavers, the metal workers, the teachers, garbage disposal men, while the richest people in our society tend to be those who make their money signing papers, traveling the world, and persuading people to be cheated, who devotes any physical labor only to swimming in his indoor pool, and wearing heavy jewelery?

Any happy society requires an industry, and any industry requires regulation. Industry is how people make profit. As people make profit, they want to expand their industry, to make more money of course. They do this by purchasing the means of production, both vertically and horizontally. This involves buying factories, machinery, workers, etc.

In order for the capitalist to make money and buy that ferrari and become "successful" because that's what his parents and society has fed him all his life, he has to make profit, and to make profit, he has to do some exploiting. One of the most popular methods, is to lower wages, and keep them static, or nearly static. That means even while his industry is booming, he gets tons more money, while his workers get the same, or nearly the same, amount. They are only paid at the level at which they keep the motivation to work.

And that, in a not so short nutshell, is why there are always people who will economically suffer in any capitalistic system, no matter how much sugar you want to coat it with legislation, there will always be an exploited class. There will always be starving people, and poor people, who are entirely capable of working (well not so much from the malnutrition), within such a system. Unless you do away with the system, it will inevitably become this way.

I totally understand if you live in the U.S. and do not recognize this at all, because most of our workers don't even live in the country, or remotely near it.

What is wrong with inequality?


Now, a statement like that requires some qualification

Where is the qualification? I didn't find it in your post.

[Prozerran]

I just watched the video. I was surprised because the video has relatively little to do with what we are talking about.

The system of money grows from the perpetual indebtedness of the public. The very structure of this monetary system of ours is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out in the first post. If you don't connect the issues of commerce with the capitalist system, then you don't even understand this topic. How does that have "relatively little to do with what we are talking about?" It has EVERYTHING to do with what we're talking about.

You should have been more specific in what you define as "better" for society. That is why I asked it.

Wow. Just wow. I'm not even going to comment.

Equal implies many things, and not just the ability to make money.

You make this way, way, way too complicated. It's very simple. There is no value in money, something that money should, most of all, represent. Value. The very notion that we must have money, a valueless object, to afford to own a home, a car, clothes, or to buy food should be significant enough that you don't need further explanation.

Also, you have to define "opportunity", because if you mean as in the ability to engage in whatever occupation you wish, then that already exists.

Define opportunity? How complex do you intend to make this discussion? It's not so difficult to comprehend. Opportunity means that there is enough value (money) to provide for any industry, which there is not. I can give you a good number of industries that don't provide enough to live on. And please, before you sit and think about some clever answer to this, there's a problem when the richest people in the country are the one's that are using money to make money. That doesn't create growth, it doesn't build value, and it doesn't help the vast majority of people working in industries barely making ends meet from paycheck to paycheck.

And I'm going to assume you mean success as in the gaining of money, which in itself is a tragedy. Before such a word would mostly describe the finishing of a bridge, or a productive conclusion drawn from an experiment, as it's meaning was to "fulfill" or "complete".

You are so, very, very naive. I don't mean this as an attack. I truly believe that your arguments are those of a high school student in his first economics class. I've been working in sales for quite a long time. I meet the people who make the money ALL the time, and while I learn their secrets, I don't really care for how they make money. It's interesting that when I actually ask them, "So, you make $240k per year, what do you do?"
These people tell me they find it ridiculous how much money they make for the amount of work they do. Now, I'm not a dumb guy. If there's money out there, I'm going to get my share by working smarter, not harder. It's not worth being a productive part of society to suffer the wrath of our monetary system barely living paycheck to paycheck being unable to provide for my family. There's nothing right about this, but what else would someone have me do? Starve myself and my family? Fuck no.

You can set limits, put that's just like pouring a cup of hot water onto a fire in hopes of putting it out. Companies will simply rise to that limit, then continue to lobby to get the laws changed, which they have, successfully, for a while now. Money is power, and people are irresponsible. The responsible people, who in a just society would naturally become politicians, would use money for productive purposes, under no guises, where as most people would use it for individual gain (usually monetary or superficial), and contribute to productive industries only under the promise that they will be allowed to exploit it.

You keep assuming that it's the government that is allowing this exploitation when they consistently try to fight it with legislation and regulation. It's the Fed and the Banks that are really causing the problem to begin with, lending money they don't have, taking the money back into the bank, then on top of that charging interest. The only value exchanged is the collateral that's collected on a defaulted loan in foreclosure and repossessions.

It is not only those problems which you point out. As I alluded to before in this same post, capitalism allows those who take advantage of the system, and accumulate as much money as possible, naturally work to keep themselves protected, so they can accumulate even more, through manipulation of legislation. The government cannot protect itself, because it is simply a contract. The money (power) has to be redistributed and reformed entirely to protect productive interests.

capitalistic innovation is directed towards lucrative fields, and what is lucrative for a capitalist is almost always destructive.

Let's say, as you imply, that innovators will create "great" things for the money, and someone formulates the cure for cancer. Who is going to give this man his money? That is why he discovered it, right? The companies who will buy the rights and own the means to produce it will. Such means are expensive, so naturally this company would have to be well established.

After this company invests greatly into this cure, it will have to compensate, right? And ultimately, will put a hefty price on whether someone may live or die.

That is why such a system is detrimental to society, not beneficial (however you seem to place benefit upon "success" among individuals, so this may not matter to you)

That is why a society where money is not something to strive for is more productive.

A Communist system thoroughly shifts the balance of power, and no matter what examples you bring up, you're not going to change that problem. The Capitalist system, like you say, shifts the power to whoever controls money. So, neither system is really any better than the other, they are both very flawed.

And a society where money is not something to strive for is not necessarily more productive. The industrial era in American history is notable as being the most progressive in history, and this was because of the tremendous earning potential, especially coming out of the Great Depression. But it doesn't last, and that's evident now.

I'm tired and I have to work all day tomorrow. I work 6 days a week and go to school on my one day off. At least I have a job that pays, which is more than I can say for a good number of people in America barely able to afford to feed their kids.

[singo]

That is why a society where money is not something to strive for is more productive.

A bit like the USSR? Productive yes I suppose, at gunpoint, but it didnt produce anything useful.


Why do you think throughout the entirety of human, civilized history, the poor and starving are always the workers? The farmers, the railroad men, the carpenters, the blacksmiths, the bakers,the sewers and weavers, the metal workers, the teachers, garbage disposal men, while the richest people in our society tend to be those who make their money signing papers, traveling the world, and persuading people to be cheated, who devotes any physical labor only to swimming in his indoor pool, and wearing heavy jewelery?

Because you need a thousand men with shovels to do something and only one bit of paper to get it organised, so that bit of paper is technically worth a thousand men with shovels.

Oh and as for the poor and starving, how much starvation happenes in the worlds developed nations? Not all that much.


Any happy society requires an industry, and any industry requires regulation. Industry is how people make profit. As people make profit, they want to expand their industry, to make more money of course. They do this by purchasing the means of production, both vertically and horizontally. This involves buying factories, machinery, workers, etc.

And? How is making more money, in itself, a bad thing? It isnt.

Oh, and workers are not bought, they are hired, slavery went out of the window some years ago.


In order for the capitalist to make money and buy that ferrari and become "successful" because that's what his parents and society has fed him all his life, he has to make profit

Yes, lets blame society for people wanting a better quality of life.


and to make profit, he has to do some exploiting. One of the most popular methods, is to lower wages, and keep them static, or nearly static. That means even while his industry is booming, he gets tons more money, while his workers get the same, or nearly the same, amount. They are only paid at the level at which they keep the motivation to work.

And if that level gets lower then people are willing to tolerate there is a little thing called industrial action, or walking away and getting another job. So there is only so much "exploitation" that can go on before people decide bugger it and go and do something else. Making money out of running a business is not "exploitation". Paying people as little as you can get away with is not really exploitation either, it's not nice but it is also not exactly exploitation. Exploitation is victorina era unregulated capitalism, rather than what we have now, which is provision for anyone that does not earn enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living. So even if people are "exploited" there are not any of the negative parts associated with that, because the government makes up the shortfall.



And that, in a not so short nutshell, is why there are always people who will economically suffer in any capitalistic system, no matter how much sugar you want to coat it with legislation, there will always be an exploited class.

Well, disregarding that you seem to be under the impression that getting paid constitutes "exploitation", there is a difference between not being as rich as someone else and "economically suffering".


I totally understand if you live in the U.S. and do not recognize this at all, because most of our workers don't even live in the country, or remotely near it.

I dont live in the US.

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that most American workers live outside the United States? That would make them workers of whichever country they were in.



Where is the qualification? I didn't find it in your post.
Explanation then.



Oh, one last thing, America does need to get its welfare system working for my arguments to be valid with regards to the US, but it seems to work fine over here (Great Britain).

And any economy needs regulation, just thought I would say that before someone accuses me of advocating laissez faire, which doesnt work once a nation is fully industrialised.

[Icarus]

The system of money grows from the perpetual indebtedness of the public. The very structure of this monetary system of ours is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out in the first post. If you don't connect the issues of commerce with the capitalist system, then you don't even understand this topic. How does that have "relatively little to do with what we are talking about?" It has EVERYTHING to do with what we're talking about.

The video had to do with the banking industry, which is only a facet of "The System" (which I may have mistakenly assumed to be capitalism, and not the banking industry)

You make this way, way, way too complicated. It's very simple. There is no value in money, something that money should, most of all, represent. Value. The very notion that we must have money, a valueless object, to afford to own a home, a car, clothes, or to buy food should be significant enough that you don't need further explanation.


Well, are you implying that money in itself is flawed? I'm not 100% sure if it would be necessary in a utopian society, but in a flawed one as ours, it's absolutely necessary. Without the medium, we would be reduced to barter and economic "opportunities" lost.


Define opportunity? How complex do you intend to make this discussion? It's not so difficult to comprehend. Opportunity means that there is enough value (money) to provide for any industry, which there is not. I can give you a good number of industries that don't provide enough to live on.

Then there already is opportunity, by your definition (which I was surprised at), at least here in america, with the exception of the recently declining real estate industry. If all you wanted was for industries to be sustained by a steady flow of money, then where is the problem?

You are so, very, very naive. I don't mean this as an attack. I truly believe that your arguments are those of a high school student in his first economics class.

I'm not old enough to take an economics class. What I do know, i've read in various places.

I've been working in sales for quite a long time. I meet the people who make the money ALL the time, and while I learn their secrets, I don't really care for how they make money. It's interesting that when I actually ask them, "So, you make $240k per year, what do you do?"
These people tell me they find it ridiculous how much money they make for the amount of work they do. Now, I'm not a dumb guy. If there's money out there, I'm going to get my share by working smarter, not harder.

Your "share" is only constituted by your work, right? That is the basis of what money is supposed to be, value, which is derived from labor. If you aren't laboring, you shouldn't be making money. That's basic economic theory that you don't even have to take a high school economics class to get.

The whole idea of working for money, is that the more you work, the more money you should make. "Being smart" is not the same as working. Drawing floor plans to a middle class home is not the same, and is less valuable than actually lifting the damn stuff and putting the actual house together.

It's not worth being a productive part of society to suffer the wrath of our monetary system barely living paycheck to paycheck being unable to provide for my family. There's nothing right about this, but what else would someone have me do? Starve myself and my family? Fuck no.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Because the system cheats you through sleight of hand out of money even though you work hard, doesn't make it right to then take money unfairly by using the same techniques, and the same sleight of hand, which is why I favor an entire overhaul and abandonment from capitalism.

That is unless, of course, your morals are directed only at your immediate surroundings, and not , say, to your community, or the people who are severely exploited by the long term effects of this system, or other people in general.

You keep assuming that it's the government that is allowing this exploitation when they consistently try to fight it with legislation and regulation. It's the Fed and the Banks that are really causing the problem to begin with, lending money they don't have, taking the money back into the bank, then on top of that charging interest. The only value exchanged is the collateral that's collected on a defaulted loan in foreclosure and repossessions.

I'm not saying it is the government allowing exploitation. They themselves are being exploited by the capitalists, if you would re-read my post. I agree with the rest of this post. Banking is by far the dirtiest capitalism.

A Communist system thoroughly shifts the balance of power, and no matter what examples you bring up, you're not going to change that problem. The Capitalist system, like you say, shifts the power to whoever controls money. So, neither system is really any better than the other, they are both very flawed.

I don't follow your logic... I'll only answer to this post only with your permission, because it wasn't the original intent to argue about communism.

And a society where money is not something to strive for is not necessarily more productive. The industrial era in American history is notable as being the most progressive in history, and this was because of the tremendous earning potential, especially coming out of the Great Depression. But it doesn't last, and that's evident now.

You're using words without giving proper context again... "progressive" has to be defined within a specific context.

It'd be like saying "Jacob is the best"

You don't answer the question "best at what?"

So what are you implying the industrial era was progressive in? Political thought? Economic shift towards the U.S.A.? Technological advancement? there are a number of things that could fit.

---------------------------------------------

@singo:

bit like the USSR? Productive yes I suppose, at gunpoint, but it didnt produce anything useful.

gunpoint?

I suggest you know what you talk about before you talk about it. Most of our next-gen technology has been founded upon principles and theories of physics which soviet scientists developed. Regrettably, I don't remember everyone's name and what their developments were called specifically, but wikipedia has a page on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_in_the_Soviet_Union

scientists in that country were paid less than the workers, and justly so.

That does not mean I support what was the soviet union, so please don't pretend I am an active representative of stalin and accuse me of supporting genocide, as so many people tend to do.


And how do you arrive at the conclusion that most American workers live outside the United States? That would make them workers of whichever country they were in.


Oh and as for the poor and starving, how much starvation happenes in the worlds developed nations? Not all that much.

our workers, as in those who work for us, not american workers. The more basic of the industries aren't very expansive in the U.S. itself, and it is similar in other developed countries. The real hard-labor jobs are outsourced to countries where there aren't regulations on such things, which is why the majority of starving workers who work for americans don't starve in america, or any other developed country.

And? How is making more money, in itself, a bad thing? It isnt.


It isn't. but when it is synonymous with having a "fulfilled" life, and therefore becomes your only goal, bypassing basic morality, it is a huge problem, which is the state capitalism is in now.

Yes, lets blame society for people wanting a better quality of life.


A ferrari and indoor pool hardly constitute a quality life.

A life is hardly productive if all it does is suck on all others like a parasite because it wants to fulfill base, selfish, and vain desires, such as is exhibited by the wealthy capitalists.

So there is only so much "exploitation" that can go on before people decide bugger it and go and do something else.

Tell that to the sweatshop workers in china and other eastern asian countries. I'm sure they'll take your advice, quit their job, and starve to death.

Even the most pathetic animals do not do such things to one another, especially when compared to the scale and manner we do it in.

Paying people as little as you can get away with is not really exploitation either, it's not nice but it is also not exactly exploitation.

You aren't paying the workers their due amount for their work. They are the ones who toiled and suffered for civilization's sake, yet you pocket more than you deserve (thereby stealing from the workers) for simply "owning" their work-time. Maybe I'm absolutely retarded, but everyone I know agrees that that is exploitation.

there is a difference between not being as rich as someone else and "economically suffering".

I'd imagine that most people who are economically suffering, whether it be the peasants of north korea, prostitutes of africa, or the weavers of china, are not as rich as someone else, most notably those who own them.

Oh, and workers are not bought, they are hired, slavery went out of the window some years ago.

Are you serious? You don't think that slavery could still exist? Even in developed countries, under different forms? What of those who are born poor, who may never rise in economic rank except by marriage or crime?

slav·er·y /ˈsleɪvəri, ˈsleɪvri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sley-vuh-ree, sleyv-ree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the condition of a slave; bondage.
2. the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3. a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4. severe toil; drudgery.

When you are officially employed, you are signing specific amounts of time of YOUR life, to your employer. If you refuse to give your time to your employer, you are restricted the means to purchase anything (money), which in countries still developing, could be personally dangerous.

That's very reminiscent in concept of blatant slavery. Someone pays you to use all the time in your life, or however much they feel, to work for their profit, and if you refuse to do so, you are punished, and sometimes died.

These two are essentially the same thing, only one is more mild than the other, and assumes a different name.

[Prozerran]

The video had to do with the banking industry, which is only a facet of "The System" (which I may have mistakenly assumed to be capitalism, and not the banking industry)

It's really a case that without the banks, capitalism would not function the way it does now. I will concede that it functions "better" than it did before, but that doesn't mean we're any better off now. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's the best explanation I can give you for why the Banking Industry is so directly tied to the issue of Capitalism.

Well, are you implying that money in itself is flawed? I'm not 100% sure if it would be necessary in a utopian society, but in a flawed one as ours, it's absolutely necessary. Without the medium, we would be reduced to barter and economic "opportunities" lost.

The video not only implies, but it directly states that money is flawed. When you take a resource and use some portable, symbolic representation of value, you are using money. The problem comes when all the resources are taken and all the money that would be issued for those resources is exhausted. But now with our debt system in place, it makes us no better off to have money out in the market that doesn't exist because there is no resource available that represents its value. In short, a great portion of money has no value tied to it at all. The problem isn't necessity. It's value, and the U.S. dollar has almost no value now so either way we might as well be reduced to barter.

Then there already is opportunity, by your definition (which I was surprised at), at least here in America, with the exception of the recently declining real estate industry. If all you wanted was for industries to be sustained by a steady flow of money, then where is the problem?

No, my boy. There is no equal opportunity for all industries. The vast majority of opportunities to acquire wealth necessary to make a comfortable life for yourself are vested in the ability to manipulate money to generate more money.

I'm not old enough to take an economics class. What I do know, i've read in various places.

Well, I have to admit that I'm impressed with your interest in the topic.

Your "share" is only constituted by your work, right? That is the basis of what money is supposed to be, value, which is derived from labor. If you aren't laboring, you shouldn't be making money. That's basic economic theory that you don't even have to take a high school economics class to get.

No, actually your share is constituted by what someone is willing to pay you to perform the labor, not the actual labor you perform. Essentially, it falls on the employer to offer the opportunity. And again, not all industries can afford to pay for the labor being performed, or the value that labor should represent. It isn't even greed in most cases. Shipping jobs overseas and allowing companies to get away with saving a buck by giving a job to someone in India instead of here in America is what generally causes this problem.

The whole idea of working for money, is that the more you work, the more money you should make. "Being smart" is not the same as working. Drawing floor plans to a middle class home is not the same, and is less valuable than actually lifting the damn stuff and putting the actual house together.

And yet, the person who draws the floor plans generally makes more money for less work than the person that builds the home. My uncle is a residential developer. He has built a business over many years by being able to buy materials and labor at lower costs than the actual amount someone will be paying for the home he builds, generally keeping a comfortable 20% gap between the amount he spends on materials and labor and the sales price of the home. And it's not that I hold contempt for him. This is how he earns his living, and he is extraordinarily talented at what he does. But the work he does pales in comparison to the work the laborers do, yet he makes more profit.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Because the system cheats you through sleight of hand out of money even though you work hard, doesn't make it right to then take money unfairly by using the same techniques, and the same sleight of hand, which is why I favor an entire overhaul and abandonment from capitalism.

Read above. This isn't "sleight of hand." This is reality. Release your concept of harder work earns you more money. The truth is that you must understand the system and learn the best way to enter it. In this case, learn how capitalism works, where the money can be made, and once made, how to make that money build interest to accrue even more money.
That is unless, of course, your morals are directed only at your immediate surroundings, and not, say, to your community, or the people who are severely exploited by the long term effects of this system, or other people in general.

This isn't a moral question, at least not for me. If I'm a bad person because I do what is necessary to survive in the world, then so be it. As I see it, I'm looking at my best course of action in a perpetual selection of relatively few options available to live a comfortable life that provides for my family.

I'm not saying it is the government allowing exploitation. They themselves are being exploited by the capitalists, if you would re-read my post. I agree with the rest of this post. Banking is by far the dirtiest capitalism.

Oh, I see what you are saying. We agree on this point, then. I must have misread your post.

I don't follow your logic... I'll only answer to this post only with your permission, because it wasn't the original intent to argue about communism.

My knowledge of Communism is that one person is elected to make every economic and social decision for the society. The power rests squarely with this single person. Now, you enlighten me as to how this power is not entirely directed by the government, and more specifically, the man in power.

You're using words without giving proper context again... "progressive" has to be defined within a specific context.

It'd be like saying "Jacob is the best"

You don't answer the question "best at what?"

So what are you implying the industrial era was progressive in? Political thought? Economic shift towards the U.S.A.? Technological advancement? there are a number of things that could fit.

I think my statement is in response to this:

That is why a society where money is not something to strive for is more productive.

I was pointing out that in American history when we were striving for money, we were historically productive. Now, why don't you qualify "productive" for me so I know we're on the same page. I look at productivity in regard to industrialization and the advance of technology.

[hammocksleeper]

Prozerran, do you have anything to say in response to my comments that your entire argument here is confused and misdirected? (first paragraph here (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=558002&postcount=8))

A Communist system thoroughly shifts the balance of power, and no matter what examples you bring up, you're not going to change that problem. The Capitalist system, like you say, shifts the power to whoever controls money. So, neither system is really any better than the other, they are both very flawed.

All politics is about control of power. That's its definition, and you ought to realize this. Every political system is going to have an abundance of power in one place and a drought in another. But the fact that anyone in particular has considerable, useful power is not the problem dealt with by politics. The central issue is determining what is the best place to put that power. For reasons that should be obvious, a world with no power anywhere is pointless. If this is your goal, however (being seemingly against any form of government where power is concentrated in any usable amount), the only way I can think of to distribute power in such a way is for a community to remain always in a transitional state, with no clear power lines, no clear governmental regime, and certainly a lot of war.

[IrishDutchman]

Why do you think throughout the entirety of human, civilized history, the poor and starving are always the workers? The farmers, the railroad men, the carpenters, the blacksmiths, the bakers,the sewers and weavers, the metal workers, the teachers, garbage disposal men, while the richest people in our society tend to be those who make their money signing papers, traveling the world, and persuading people to be cheated, who devotes any physical labor only to swimming in his indoor pool, and wearing heavy jewelery?


And that, in a not so short nutshell, is why there are always people who will economically suffer in any capitalistic system, no matter how much sugar you want to coat it with legislation, there will always be an exploited class. There will always be starving people, and poor people, who are entirely capable of working (well not so much from the malnutrition), within such a system. Unless you do away with the system, it will inevitably become this way.

I agree. IMO the only way out of this in a capitalist world would be more automisation. (almost) the entire lower class work must be replaced by machines. Though that would lead to a lot of unemployement in the short term, in a generation or two that will be gone, along with the working class. The people that used to work in factories will have moved on to jobs in services or administration.
Though they still wouldn't be earning as much as the CEO's, it opens up new opportunities and improves their quality of life by a great deal.

[Prozerran]

I only watched the first thirty seconds of the first video but I've seen enough of those to know what it was going to tell me. And I am in disbelief that you took that to be an argument against capitalism. When in fact it's an argument for laissez faire capitalism and against central banking and the fractional reserve system.

This is the first reason why I did not reply to your post. If you can't figure out why, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

Honestly I don't care enough about the WB IR forum to spend too much time here so I really wish someone from BF would show up like Kaizen to set the record straight. Inflation does not naturally occur with capitalism. It's a phenomenon artificially created by central banks and their monetary policy.

This is the second reason why I did not reply to your post. If you don't care enough about the forum, then I wouldn't expect you to really engage in conversation. So, I did not respond.

To bring this outside the realm of theory and more into real life examples, look for the dollar to decline in value even more in the next few weeks, as on Dec 10 I believe the Fed announced they would lower the target fed funds rate and the discount rate by only 25 basis points instead of a needed 50 or more bp. The stock market responded by dropping 300 points in a day, and the Fed's policy now puts banks in a position of draining their reserves (read: inflation) since the target rate is so out of line with real interest rates, when treasury bills are trading below 3 percent now (an indicator of how little faith people have in our government's value).

In a couple months the Fed will lower their rates even more, I guess they don't want to lower everything all at once but that's really the only thing that will assuage the current credit market crisis.

Had you watched the video, you would understand why this doesn't assuage anything. This only prolongs the problem rather than dealing with it.

Another thing you should get straight in your head is what is "value." Value is not the amount of shit you hold, the amount of wealth you have accumulated. It goes much deeper than that. What really is value? An asset can be defined as anything that generates a stream of cash flows. And the value of any asset is simply the value of those cash flows (their discounted future values).

And this would be the third reason why I didn't respond. We can debate the veracity of the economic definition and delve into economic theory all day. It doesn't really change anything. Money is created through debt, that is charged interest on the basis that the credit "risk" to the banker exists when it doesn't. There is, in essence, no value, that is, no "thing" generating cash flows because banks are lending money they don't have.

All politics is about control of power. That's its definition, and you ought to realize this. Every political system is going to have an abundance of power in one place and a drought in another. But the fact that anyone in particular has considerable, useful power is not the problem dealt with by politics. The central issue is determining what is the best place to put that power. For reasons that should be obvious, a world with no power anywhere is pointless. If this is your goal, however (being seemingly against any form of government where power is concentrated in any usable amount), the only way I can think of to distribute power in such a way is for a community to remain always in a transitional state, with no clear power lines, no clear governmental regime, and certainly a lot of war.

This is conjecture. You assume that, all things being equal, if we removed all power from the government, without that focused power there would be "a lot of war." So, I'll just say that if we lessen the power of the government, there will be almost NO WAR. There. You assume that I'm even advocating THIS POSITION when I'm NOT.

All politics NOW is about controlling the power, but what is the biggest factor in politics? Wait. Don't tell me. Let me guess. Could it be... money?

So, if politicians don't have the money to independently run (hence, the party system and fundraising), where does this money come from? The Party? Nope, not most of it anyway. A large part of it comes from before candidates even enter the primaries. And who is there to back them? Corporations. Special Interests. Lobbyists. And these groups are only going to fund campaigns when their interests are met, regardless of if those interests harm the public (Big Tobacco anyone?).

You ought to take a step back for a reality check, because politics =/= power. In Capitalism, money = power. If you don't think this is true, go run for President without money and let me know how far you get.

[hammocksleeper]

Now I remember why I seldom come in here. It's not because of the violent reactions to my smug posts. I willingly bring that on myself. It's because of the overwhelming simplemindedness that pervades the IR. It's laughable to think that you're arguing the definition of politics as the dynamics of power is mere conjecture. On top of the ridiculous question of fact, what does that even have to do with anything?

Unfortunately the amount of effort you would require of me to show you the absurdity of the way you approach every issue you have brought up in this thread is too much. Call me weak. Don't criticize me for not watching your little video when I've seen ten others just like it, and I even buy into most of the Austrian school ideas in them. Likewise I know it's wrong to come down so hard on you when you just lack the experience I have in these topics. The knowledge gap seems to cause so many problems, and I'm still learning how to deal with it. Would have been wiser to never get involved in this, I suppose.

[Prozerran]

Now I remember why I seldom come in here. It's not because of the violent reactions to my smug posts. I willingly bring that on myself. It's because of the overwhelming simplemindedness that pervades the IR. It's laughable to think that you're arguing the definition of politics as the dynamics of power is mere conjecture. On top of the ridiculous question of fact, what does that even have to do with anything?

That entire blurb that without central government power, there would be lots of war is what I'm arguing as being conjecture. My last sentence is in response to the bold portion of that part of your post. I apologize for letting my simplemindedness mislead you. The fact is, power is bought with money. So, if you want to be president and you don't have the money, you're either someone else's bitch or you're not President. The person with the money has the power.

Unfortunately the amount of effort you would require of me to show you the absurdity of the way you approach every issue you have brought up in this thread is too much. Call me weak. Don't criticize me for not watching your little video when I've seen ten others just like it, and I even buy into most of the Austrian school ideas in them. Likewise I know it's wrong to come down so hard on you when you just lack the experience I have in these topics. The knowledge gap seems to cause so many problems, and I'm still learning how to deal with it. Would have been wiser to never get involved in this, I suppose.

To each their own. The "knowledge gap" need not apply here. Instead of watching it, just explain where the money to pay interest on debt comes from and how it is possible for every person that is in debt to pay off their debt and the interest.

[hammocksleeper]

It seems we've misunderstood each other, as I suspected. I think I can turn myself down a notch. :)

That entire blurb that without central government power, there would be lots of war is what I'm arguing as being conjecture.
I'm not saying that without centralized government power there will be lots of war. I am saying that without stability in where the power lies, be it widely distributed or centralized, there may be lots of war. I say this on the grounds that transition periods between political systems and regimes throughout history have almost always been accompanied by some type of militarized violence.

Instead of watching it, just explain where the money to pay interest on debt comes from and how it is possible for every person that is in debt to pay off their debt and the interest.Are you speaking generally or referring to the massive amount of debt that the U.S. government continues to pile on each year? Because if you are speaking generally, it is definitely possible to create wealth, permitting the repayment of debt in real terms with interest, sans inflation. Unfortunately, for various reasons I won't bother to explain, the fractional reserve system has a tendency to generate too much investment, inducing a misallocation of resources. The consequences of this include the familiar business cycle and inflation.

[Oblongato]

hammocksleeper, how is it that you were overlooked when the chairman of the Federal Reserve was appointed?

But seriously, I feel obliged to point out that your comments come across as empty bluster when you won't even stoop to offer more than the briefest of explanations to back up your jaw-dropping arrogance.

This is, of course, no reflection on whether you know your stuff or not. But the rule still applies here: put your money where your mouth is.

[Prozerran]

Are you speaking generally or referring to the massive amount of debt that the U.S. government continues to pile on each year? Because if you are speaking generally, it is definitely possible to create wealth, permitting the repayment of debt in real terms with interest, sans inflation. Unfortunately, for various reasons I won't bother to explain, the fractional reserve system has a tendency to generate too much investment, inducing a misallocation of resources. The consequences of this include the familiar business cycle and inflation.

I'm speaking more generally than anything else. That's why I ask if you know details that I don't that would refute the claim that Banks lend money that they don't have and doesn't exist.

It appears, from your response at least, that the Fractional Reserve System that's designed to cap bank lending is equally problematic in how it affects investments. Are you saying that inflation exists because of the fractional reserve system or because of a lack of proper regulation of that system? I'm a little confused as to your position.

But this still doesn't answer my question. Do Banks lend money that they don't have because it doesn't exist? Do they then charge interest on this non-existent money to collect even more money that... doesn't exist? Please, answer the question. Thanks.

[hammocksleeper]

Hey obologato, go troll someone else. If you are genuinely interested, check out http://www.mises.org. I'm sorry I don't have any great articles at my immediate avail, but search for your favorite keywords and you'll find a whole wealth of information related to what I'm talking about.

I'm speaking more generally than anything else. That's why I ask if you know details that I don't that would refute the claim that Banks lend money that they don't have and doesn't exist.
I'm not refuting that claim...I agree with it. My claim is that the Evil Banking System is not a product of capitalism as you seem to be heralding it, but rather an artificial tyrannical institution created by corrupt politicians and an impediment to a true laissez faire system and free markets.

[Oblongato]

Who's the troll here? Surely you must recognize that to come on with an attitude like yours (the word arrogant is not trollish, but descriptive), announcing yourself as an authority but at the same time boasting that no one on the board is worth the valuable time it would take you to explain your points, it makes you indistinguishable from some guy who just grabs a few terms from Wikipedia and disses some people in order to pump up his ego.

Of course, if you don't mind us thinking that, please proceed.

[Icarus]

The video not only implies, but it directly states that money is flawed. When you take a resource and use some portable, symbolic representation of value, you are using money. The problem comes when all the resources are taken and all the money that would be issued for those resources is exhausted. But now with our debt system in place, it makes us no better off to have money out in the market that doesn't exist because there is no resource available that represents its value. In short, a great portion of money has no value tied to it at all. The problem isn't necessity. It's value, and the U.S. dollar has almost no value now so either way we might as well be reduced to barter.

But then the economy becomes so elite. Whoever doesn't have the right goods at the right time will be forced to wait to feed their children. The wine-maker has wine and grapes to barter, but what if the baker doesn't need wine or grapes? That is why we need a medium, which is money. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think it even matters if the money represents something, or can be traded for something of value. As long as the amount is static and controlled, and people trust it (as they do in the modern age), paper money will work.


No, my boy. There is no equal opportunity for all industries. The vast majority of opportunities to acquire wealth necessary to make a comfortable life for yourself are vested in the ability to manipulate money to generate more money.

But you were speaking of industries, not individuals... I'm confused.

No, actually your share is constituted by what someone is willing to pay you to perform the labor, not the actual labor you perform. Essentially, it falls on the employer to offer the opportunity. And again, not all industries can afford to pay for the labor being performed, or the value that labor should represent. It isn't even greed in most cases. Shipping jobs overseas and allowing companies to get away with saving a buck by giving a job to someone in India instead of here in America is what generally causes this problem.

Is this desirable for you? Do you think that pays and wages SHOULDN'T be given according to work? That that is not what they represent, and they entirely represent the mercy of the employer, as you imply?

If so, then we have a fundamental disagreement which we should discuss in a separate thread.

For me, the most respectable action a citizen can do is work for society. Hard work is the toil, and the reward, of a quality life. A society is designed and created only to benefit those who participate in society, and those who do this should be given means(money), and such means should directly represent work.

And yet, the person who draws the floor plans generally makes more money for less work than the person that builds the home. My uncle is a residential developer. He has built a business over many years by being able to buy materials and labor at lower costs than the actual amount someone will be paying for the home he builds, generally keeping a comfortable 20% gap between the amount he spends on materials and labor and the sales price of the home. And it's not that I hold contempt for him. This is how he earns his living, and he is extraordinarily talented at what he does. But the work he does pales in comparison to the work the laborers do, yet he makes more profit.

Does he live "better" (from a capitalist's point of view) than his workers? Does he drive a more expensive car? Have a larger and more elaborate house? A fatter wallet?

Is it really necessary to do that? To take more than you need?

Read above. This isn't "sleight of hand." This is reality. Release your concept of harder work earns you more money. The truth is that you must understand the system and learn the best way to enter it. In this case, learn how capitalism works, where the money can be made, and once made, how to make that money build interest to accrue even more money.

I'm not suggesting that hard works earns money, on the contrary. What I am stating, is that that is how it should be. It is also the guise which capitalism has given itself.

This isn't a moral question, at least not for me. If I'm a bad person because I do what is necessary to survive in the world, then so be it. As I see it, I'm looking at my best course of action in a perpetual selection of relatively few options available to live a comfortable life that provides for my family.

You said so yourself, and I think so as well, money is power. But wherever there is power there must be morals, for that is what power is made to do: fulfill morals, whether they be right or wrong.

I'm not implying this about you, I have no idea what state of life you live in, but most people i've heard say that, live in this country (the U.S.), and their economic lifestyle is far above "surviving". To really NEED to survive is different from what well-off people believe is NEEDING to survive. These people think "Oh i NEED that car" "I NEED this watch" "I NEED this house". Really NEEDING to survive is to say "I NEED that bread" "I NEED that roof" "I NEED clothes". Whenever you take more money than you need, you are taking it from those who actually need it. To claim thereafter that you need it to "survive" is just horrible beyond words.

My knowledge of Communism is that one person is elected to make every economic and social decision for the society. The power rests squarely with this single person. Now, you enlighten me as to how this power is not entirely directed by the government, and more specifically, the man in power.

Perhaps you heard it from a poet.

Politically, the transition to communism requires that the Workers become the ruling class, and therefore the only class with political power. Marx has often called it "The Dictatorship of the proletariat", but this is said with the knowledge that all forms of government is the act of a ruling class oppressing the lower ones.

You may have heard a poet describe it as "The dictatorship of one man", that is, the working man.

But in context of this discussion, what is important to know is that communism places all the means of production with the government. The government owns and operates all industries. Therefore, there are no capitalists besides the government, and at this stage the ruling class should be the proletariat, therefore, "employer" and "employee" are one and the same. The one pocketing profit is the one who earned it through work.

but ultimately the goal is that there are no such things as classes in a relative sense. There is only class, that being citizens.

I was pointing out that in American history when we were striving for money, we were historically productive. Now, why don't you qualify "productive" for me so I know we're on the same page. I look at productivity in regard to industrialization and the advance of technology.

The definition I use for "productive" is contributing directly to your society, whether it be through technological discovery, the cooking of a fish, or the building of a house.

[Prozerran]

@ 123167: I just don't have time to reply to everything in your last post. Here's what I can reply to now.

Is this desirable for you? Do you think that pays and wages SHOULDN'T be given according to work? That that is not what they represent, and they entirely represent the mercy of the employer, as you imply?

If so, then we have a fundamental disagreement which we should discuss in a separate thread.

For me, the most respectable action a citizen can do is work for society. Hard work is the toil, and the reward, of a quality life. A society is designed and created only to benefit those who participate in society, and those who do this should be given means(money), and such means should directly represent work...

...I'm not suggesting that hard work earns money, on the contrary. What I am stating, is that that is how it should be. It is also the guise which capitalism has given itself.

The whole basis for my argument is that this SHOULD NOT be the case, BUT IT IS. Working harder and longer should benefit one worker over another. Unfortunately, this is not the case in our society. This is why people like myself are left to set this aside and find a way to work smarter to earn more money rather than working harder for longer hours. This is why a job like retail, restaurant management, or factory labor just doesn't appeal to me at all. I'd rather stick with something in BtoB or BtoC sales where I can work 30 to 40 hours a week and make a 6-figure annual income. It goes directly against what I am all about, but you know, this is the situation as it is now, and I don't have the means to change that.

And this is going way off point now, #'s. We're talking about how money is devalued in our economy, and thus, I am asking where the value is in our Capitalist society. If it's the social system of choice for Americans and we'd rather have it than explore something else, I want to know how we justify that choice in light of the information presented in the video.

[Toucan]

Unfortunately, this is not the case in our society. This is why people like myself are left to set this aside and find a way to work smarter to earn more money rather than working harder for longer hours.
Don't know about you but I get paid by the hour, and if I work harder and make sure I am indeed an asset to have around then asking for a pay rise often goes my way.
If I work an extra 40 hours (4 hours per day) in a fortnight I more than double my wages because of penalty rates. All though the tax man likes a much greater share of the overtime you will get a good portion of it back after the end of the financial year. In Australia anyways, my tax returns the last few years have been pretty awesome.

Hard work pays off.
Self made millionaires, college graduates off on there way to conquer the world.
Hard work pays off.

[Icarus]

Hard work pays off.
Where do you work and what do you do? Because I doubt it is hard labor.

[Toucan]

I make hand made chemicals at the moment, mainly industrial x-ray flux's. There made from lithium tetraborate, witch is made from boric acid and lithium bi-carbonate. We fuse it in platinum crucibles (pots) at about 1050c, after about 45 mins cooking it turns into lithium tetraborate. We then pour it out by hand tong into watercooled stainless steel molds. (Have to put on a nice big fire suit while doing it, grrreat in summer.)
When it cools I put it through a small jaw crusher by hand, then put it through a small pulverizer to powderise it.
It takes about 8 hours to produce 90Kg of lithium tetraborate. Can sell it for about $50 a kilo.

Before that I worked as a lab technician and did primarily fire assay for about 18 years witch is actually in the Guinness book of records as the worlds hardest job and is also the source of the phrase "going hammer and tongs". Why don't you look it up.

Anyway, what do you think? Do I work hard?

[Prozerran]

Don't know about you but I get paid by the hour, and if I work harder and make sure I am indeed an asset to have around then asking for a pay rise often goes my way.
If I work an extra 40 hours (4 hours per day) in a fortnight I more than double my wages because of penalty rates. All though the tax man likes a much greater share of the overtime you will get a good portion of it back after the end of the financial year. In Australia anyways, my tax returns the last few years have been pretty awesome.

Hard work pays off.
Self made millionaires, college graduates off on there way to conquer the world.
Hard work pays off.

Well, I don't know what you make at your job as far as income, Toucan, but I'm willing to bet it pales in comparison to the income of someone like a banker or investor who works about half the amount of time that you do and probably makes twice what you make.

And that's not something I'm o.k. with, it's just a fact of life. Just because you work hard doesn't mean you earn what you deserve to earn. The video also specifically addresses a point I made in a previous thread on the topic. With a small number of people in control of the commerce of a society, they are the ones who decide between industries A & B which should and will be more profitable and which will fall by the wayside. Obviously, you chose industry A in this instance, which is why you can afford to live off of your work. But if you chose industry B like I did, I'm willing to bet you'd change your tune.

But if not, then so be it. I'd love to hear an explanation for why we should let this kind of system continue to exist and let the few prosper over the majority who merely survive... some "dream" if you ask me.

[hammocksleeper]

Proz do you even know what a "banker" does? Why would you assume that he works half the amount of time of Toucan?

[Prozerran]

I know what a bank owner does, and I know how much time it involves. Even if you calculate equal hours between Toucan's hourly rate and the Banker's, you're looking at more than a marginal difference of income. So, we can look at the amount of time as a factor, or we can consider equivalent time. It makes no difference. The Banker makes more money for equal work. Similarly, I'm willing to bet that the amount of time Toucan works, he doesn't break 6 figures annually. My boss works 30 hours a week and easily clears $200k. The point is abundantly clear. Harder work isn't the way to make more money. Working smarter and actually choosing the right industries where you can make more money for the amount of time and effort you put in is the best way to earn financial freedom.

And I say this with experience behind me. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I've worked salary positions, hourly, as well as commission. I can make more money working for myself than I can in what several consider a more "stable" kind of position that pays annual salary or hourly wage. You can also find yourself working less hours and having more freedom in your schedule if you commit yourself while you're young to learning the sales craft and building your presentation skills. It's better because as industries change (and you can count on them doing so), you can take those skills with you into other industries and still survive. A personal example is with the mortgage industry, which I was a part of in Florida for about a year before I switched to a moving company where I made salary plus commission bonus. I would have stayed there, but with salary sales, you have metrics you must meet or you lose your job. If the industry isn't doing so hot (and the moving industry was suffering from the lower sales of the housing market), you're still out all the same. So, now that I'm in the insurance industry where nothing is likely to change for more than a year, I'm sitting pretty working my way up to management and on to Branch or even beyond that depending on what I encounter. And when I reach that point, I won't need to really work more than 30-40 hours a week to make a significant amount of money.

But even beyond that, this is pennies compared to what people in investments and banking make. I'm not making tremendous money compared to what I could make if I had money I could use to invest and earn more money on without breaking a sweat.

[hammocksleeper]

You still haven't told me what a banker does. Unless your boss is a banker. Which he's not, since you are in insurance. By the way, bank owners don't do anything - they are stockholders. When we say banker we aren't talking about owners, we're talking about the M&A guys, the traders, etc. The guys who put in 70-80 hours a week, usually precluding any kind of a social life, family, etc. for up to four years or more until they either wash out or make director, at which point they are still working 40-50 hours a week, making bucks all the time but still working.

By the way the real money isn't in I-banks anymore it's in private equity.

[Toucan]

Well think about it for a minute.
Do I really deserve to earn as much as someone that studied on in fields like economics, medicine or law? I didn't even finish high school.
I stopped studying at 15 and entered the work force. I never spent the time preparing for a career I just went out and started working my way through one, right from the bottom. But at least from there the only was up.
I have since done several short courses in laboratory techniques, Fire Assay, Metalurgy and a host of ridiculous mines and lab safety courses. Not that I think mine and lab safety is a stupid thing, just the way they go about it is silly, with the amount of crap they want you to do its almost as if there philosophy is to get you off the mine and into a classroom in order to keep you safe.
Sorry for the ramble.

And the fact is, you might get some thing of a shock if you knew what I got paid. :)

[Prozerran]

You still haven't told me what a banker does. Unless your boss is a banker. Which he's not, since you are in insurance. By the way, bank owners don't do anything - they are stockholders. When we say banker we aren't talking about owners, we're talking about the M&A guys, the traders, etc. The guys who put in 70-80 hours a week, usually precluding any kind of a social life, family, etc. for up to four years or more until they either wash out or make director, at which point they are still working 40-50 hours a week, making bucks all the time but still working.

By the way the real money isn't in I-banks anymore it's in private equity.

I'm actually talking about the directors, the presidents and vps, who are still in banking, even if they don't do the same kind of work. And they work the same amount of hours, if not, just a few more, and make completely disproportionate amounts of money than someone who works equal or more hours. The people who are adding real value to our society, the construction workers, factory workers, road and bridge builders, or the truck drivers work just as many long and hard hours (70-80 in a week), have little to no social life, and spend just as little time with their families.

Now, you tell me. We're talking about banks that lend out money they don't have, lowering the value of the dollar, only to charge interest on that money, money that never existed to begin with... why should these people make more money through lending money they don't have (and subsequently devaluing the money everyone already has by creating more of it through mortgage loans) than those who contribute to the quality of our society with bridges, roads, and buildings (things with inherent equitable value)? This is the question being posed, and your answers so far either detract from the question or flat out ignore it. Stop avoiding the question.

Well think about it for a minute.
Do I really deserve to earn as much as someone that studied on in fields like economics, medicine or law? I didn't even finish high school.
I stopped studying at 15 and entered the work force. I never spent the time preparing for a career I just went out and started working my way through one, right from the bottom. But at least from there the only was up.
I have since done several short courses in laboratory techniques, Fire Assay, Metalurgy and a host of ridiculous mines and lab safety courses. Not that I think mine and lab safety is a stupid thing, just the way they go about it is silly, with the amount of crap they want you to do its almost as if there philosophy is to get you off the mine and into a classroom in order to keep you safe.
Sorry for the ramble.

And the fact is, you might get some thing of a shock if you knew what I got paid. :)

Are you contributing something to your society? Are you providing something of value? To my knowledge you are, so yes, you should be paid more than someone who, by nature of their business, devalues the money of others. The education you have, the experience you've accrued, and well, in general the fact that you obviously pose no liable risk to your employer lead me to believe that you deserve more earnings than someone that is lending money they don't have and profiting from it. What have they really done to contribute to society other than create money out of thin air and subsequently charged interest on it, interest that is supposed to be paid by ... money... that doesn't exist either. Watch the video if you don't know what I'm referring to. That's what we're talking about, that's the topic.