Warren Buffet nails it on inequality

[Bomb#20]

That was a real question. Everything is attributable to labor. We would still be a pre-stone age society without the application of human labor.

So? I didn't say any part wasn't labor or that anything wasn't attributable to labor.

I agree, you didn't say that and I didn't imply that you said it either.

So, the premise underlying your conviction that it's stealing to pay market rate for labor is your conviction that the goods and services employers sell are "the fruits of labor".

Why do you believe they're the fruits of labor? To be precise, why do you believe they're the fruits of only labor?

Which part isn't a fruit of labor?

Sure looks to me like you implied I said something wasn't attributable to labor. I'm pretty sure it will look like that to our readers too. But if you believe you didn't imply that, well, I'm already quite accustomed to you using Humpty Dumpty word meanings, so believe what you please.

It's all attributable to labor and it's also all attributable to a variety of other factors. Production is synergistic, not additive. There is no "the part from labor" and "the part from X" and "the part from Y". It all comes from all the inputs. If any of them were missing the goods and services wouldn't exist.

Well, this started with me asking you to name some of these other inputs. You didn't feel like it and here we are.

No. This started in post #109 with you asking me which part isn't a fruit of labor. If you'd instead asked me to name some of those other inputs, then this digression would have been a whole lot shorter. You see, when you claim I "didn't feel like it", you're just making that up out of whole cloth because you just don't give a damn whether the things you accuse your opponents of are true or not. We can tell, because I already did what you claim I didn't feel like doing: I named some of those other inputs in post #100.

But we shouldn't forget that it's a metaphor -- the olives are first and foremost the fruits of the tree. The metaphor that lets us extend the "fruits of" concept to the labor doesn't play favorites. By the same token, those olives are also the fruits of the soil, the fruits of the weather, the fruits of whoever decided that was a good place for an orchard, the fruits of the merchants who told him they'd buy olives, the fruits of the soldiers who deterred the Spartans from invading and cutting down the olive orchards, and any number of other contributors. Without any of those factors there wouldn't be any olives to pick. So the olives are the fruits of all those things.

See? In fact, you already saw. That was the very post you replied to in post #109. So stop saying things about me that you already knew aren't true. If you feel tempted to make an accusation even though it takes you less than eight hours to forget which things you know about me, try fact-checking your accusation before you post it.

What justifies attributing everything only to labor?

What should not be attributed only to labor? This should be a pretty easy question to answer if there are lots of inputs not attributable to human labor.

Well, obviously, the tree, the soil, the weather, the orchard planner's wisdom, the olive merchants' willingness to buy, and the enemy's fear should not be attributed only to labor. No doubt many other inputs have some non-labor causes too, but that list will do as a start.

Capital is just stored up human labor.

Why do you believe that? Because you hear people say it all the time?

No, I believe it because it's true.

Ah, so you are an oracle? Truth copies itself directly into your brain, does it, unmediated by the inconveniences of logic and evidence? Is it instead mediated by ethylene inhalation? And do you feel readers should take your word for such revealed truths even though you supply no argument? You are preaching, not debating.

I'm open to changing my mind if you have a convincing argument that I'm wrong.

And now you're trying to reverse burden of proof. Things are not stored up labor until proven otherwise. You made the claim; back it up or quit offering it as an argument. Saying capital is stored up labor is like saying the fruit of an apple tree is stored up fertilizer the owner gave it.

 

[RavenSky]

Just curious: Who is the "deadwood middlemen" and who are the workers when a house is built.

How are homes presently built?

Do banks lend money to builders, workers capable of building a house, or do they lend it to somebody like Donald Trump?

What is Donald Trump capable of building?

Donald Trump doesn't build houses. He builds casinos and hotels.

You were talking about houses. I asked you who is the "deadwood middlemen" and who are the workers when a house is built.

To make it easier for you, let's say hypothetically I want to build a custom house for myself. The bank lends me the money on the strength of my net worth and ability to repay the loan. I hire architects, who in turn hire contractors, who in turn hire laborers; and the house gets built.

Who owns the house in your world-view?

 

[untermensche]

How are homes presently built?

Do banks lend money to builders, workers capable of building a house, or do they lend it to somebody like Donald Trump?

What is Donald Trump capable of building?

Donald Trump doesn't build houses. He builds casinos and hotels.

You were talking about houses. I asked you who is the "deadwood middlemen" and who are the workers when a house is built.

To make it easier for you, let's say hypothetically I want to build a custom house for myself. The bank lends me the money on the strength of my net worth and ability to repay the loan. I hire architects, who in turn hire contractors, who in turn hire laborers; and the house gets built.

Who owns the house in your world-view?

I said somebody LIKE Donald Trump. A rich developer that builds nothing but the banks lend him money as if he can. Any money he takes is money wasted since he adds no labor to the building.

He and his ilk are the deadwood that could be easily eliminated.

Unless you somehow think builders couldn't build just as well without some airbag that adds no labor.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I said somebody LIKE Donald Trump. A rich developer that builds nothing but the banks lend him money as if he can. Any money he takes is money wasted since he adds no labor to the building. He and his ilk are the deadwood that could be easily eliminated. Unless you somehow think builders couldn't build just as well without some airbag that adds no labor.

So people who hire a builder to build a home are deadwood? To answer your question, most builders require capitol to build a home.

 

[untermensche]

I said somebody LIKE Donald Trump. A rich developer that builds nothing but the banks lend him money as if he can. Any money he takes is money wasted since he adds no labor to the building. He and his ilk are the deadwood that could be easily eliminated. Unless you somehow think builders couldn't build just as well without some airbag that adds no labor.

So people who hire a builder to build a home are deadwood? To answer your question, most builders require capitol to build a home.

Are they necessary?

If they are not necessary and it is easy to envision a system where they are unneeded, then they are deadwood.

The slave master is deadwood. Humans don't need them to be productive.

The purpose they serve is to steal the fruits of workers.

That is Donald Trumps role in this immoral system of masters and slaves.

 

[RavenSky]

Donald Trump doesn't build houses. He builds casinos and hotels.

You were talking about houses. I asked you who is the "deadwood middlemen" and who are the workers when a house is built.

To make it easier for you, let's say hypothetically I want to build a custom house for myself. The bank lends me the money on the strength of my net worth and ability to repay the loan. I hire architects, who in turn hire contractors, who in turn hire laborers; and the house gets built.

Who owns the house in your world-view?

I said somebody LIKE Donald Trump. A rich developer that builds nothing but the banks lend him money as if he can. Any money he takes is money wasted since he adds no labor to the building.

He and his ilk are the deadwood that could be easily eliminated.

Unless you somehow think builders couldn't build just as well without some airbag that adds no labor.

So you refuse to answer my question. OK

But to answer yours... No, I don't think "builders" could build "just as well" without someone to whom the banks will lend the money. Moreover, I have never met a housing developer (& I have met a LOT of them because it is my career) that was nothing more than an "airbag that adds no labor". Many started as laborers themselves, and all are directly involved in the business of building those developments. At minimum they are securing financing for the developmen, and then marketing the development. Without them, there would be no development to build. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the only form of labor is manual labor.

If you want to discuss income inequality, you won't get much disagreement from me. But when you choose to make extremely naive ill-informed broad brush statements about "some airbag that adds no labor" then I am going to have to politely disagree and point out your false premise.

 

[RavenSky]

So people who hire a builder to build a home are deadwood? To answer your question, most builders require capitol to build a home.

Are they necessary?

Yes.

To go back to my hypothetical, I (as the person commissioning the home to be built) am the MOST important component. Without me sitting on my ass eating Bon-bons while waving my fingers at the architects and contractors and brick-layers (as you seem to envision the "deadwood" doing), the house would never be built and none of those people would make any money from the building of it. It was my ability to get the loan and my desire to have a house built that made it all possible even if I never once picked up a hammer.

 

[untermensche]

I said somebody LIKE Donald Trump. A rich developer that builds nothing but the banks lend him money as if he can. Any money he takes is money wasted since he adds no labor to the building.

He and his ilk are the deadwood that could be easily eliminated.

Unless you somehow think builders couldn't build just as well without some airbag that adds no labor.

So you refuse to answer my question. OK

But to answer yours... No, I don't think "builders" could build "just as well" without someone to whom the banks will lend the money. Moreover, I have never met a housing developer (& I have met a LOT of them because it is my career) that was nothing more than an "airbag that adds no labor". Many started as laborers themselves, and all are directly involved in the business of building those developments. At minimum they are securing financing for the developmen, and then marketing the development. Without them, there would be no development to build. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the only form of labor is manual labor.

Your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Yes, you clearly see the way it is. You don't seem to understand that the way it is is arbitrary and the way it is is not far removed from centuries of slave master relationships.

I can easily envision a system where workers did work without the deadwood of Donald Trump smirking in some office someplace.

We don't need all these master/slave relationships to have an economic system.

The Spanish had a functioning system almost 100 years ago. We know how to do it. We have to overcome the power of the current master/slave system to do it though. Masters have never given anything up freely. They had to be forced to stop exploiting children.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they necessary?

Yes.

To go back to my hypothetical, I (as the person commissioning the home to be built) am the MOST important component. Without me sitting on my ass eating Bon-bons while waving my fingers at the architects and contractors and brick-layers (as you seem to envision the "deadwood" doing), the house would never be built and none of those people would make any money from the building of it. It was my ability to get the loan and my desire to have a house built that made it all possible even if I never once picked up a hammer.

Your money is necessary, not you.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you refuse to answer my question. OK

But to answer yours... No, I don't think "builders" could build "just as well" without someone to whom the banks will lend the money. Moreover, I have never met a housing developer (& I have met a LOT of them because it is my career) that was nothing more than an "airbag that adds no labor". Many started as laborers themselves, and all are directly involved in the business of building those developments. At minimum they are securing financing for the developmen, and then marketing the development. Without them, there would be no development to build. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the only form of labor is manual labor.

Your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Yes, you clearly see the way it is. You don't seem to understand that the way it is is arbitrary and the way it is is not far removed from centuries of slave master relationships.

I can easily envision a system where workers did work without the deadwood of Donald Trump smirking in some office someplace.

We don't need all these master/slave relationships to have an economic system.

The Spanish had a functioning system almost 100 years ago. We know how to do it. We have to overcome the power of the current master/slave system to do it though. Masters have never given anything up freely. They had to be forced to stop exploiting children.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they necessary?

Yes.

To go back to my hypothetical, I (as the person commissioning the home to be built) am the MOST important component. Without me sitting on my ass eating Bon-bons while waving my fingers at the architects and contractors and brick-layers (as you seem to envision the "deadwood" doing), the house would never be built and none of those people would make any money from the building of it. It was my ability to get the loan and my desire to have a house built that made it all possible even if I never once picked up a hammer.

Your money is necessary, not you.

And using the Spanish model to predict anything would be like watching the weather for 10 mins and predicting the weather the next day. It didn't last. And there were no measurements to take from that system.

 

[untermensche]

And using the Spanish model to predict anything would be like watching the weather for 10 mins and predicting the weather the next day. It didn't last. And there were no measurements to take from that system.

No it is like building a fine bridge and then somebody comes and blows it up.

Then fools condemn all bridges.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And using the Spanish model to predict anything would be like watching the weather for 10 mins and predicting the weather the next day. It didn't last. And there were no measurements to take from that system.

No it is like building a fine bridge and then somebody comes and blows it up.

Then fools condemn all bridges.

Maybe, but you can't use it to predict anything because the system didn't last long and it didn't last under it's own power. And it could be said that it last as long as it did because they had a common mission for a bit that would go away once the fight was over.

 

[RavenSky]

So you refuse to answer my question. OK

But to answer yours... No, I don't think "builders" could build "just as well" without someone to whom the banks will lend the money. Moreover, I have never met a housing developer (& I have met a LOT of them because it is my career) that was nothing more than an "airbag that adds no labor". Many started as laborers themselves, and all are directly involved in the business of building those developments. At minimum they are securing financing for the developmen, and then marketing the development. Without them, there would be no development to build. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the only form of labor is manual labor.

Your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Your feeble attempts at insults is not an answer either

Yes, you clearly see the way it is. You don't seem to understand that the way it is is arbitrary and the way it is is not far removed from centuries of slave master relationships.

I can easily envision a system where workers did work without the deadwood of Donald Trump smirking in some office someplace.

And yet you consistently fail to ever describe your alternate system

The Spanish had a functioning system almost 100 years ago. We know how to do it. We have to overcome the power of the current master/slave system to do it though. Masters have never given anything up freely. They had to be forced to stop exploiting children.

and yet you cannot answer the simplest questions asked of you about your envisioned alternate system.

Are they necessary?

Yes.

To go back to my hypothetical, I (as the person commissioning the home to be built) am the MOST important component. Without me sitting on my ass eating Bon-bons while waving my fingers at the architects and contractors and brick-layers (as you seem to envision the "deadwood" doing), the house would never be built and none of those people would make any money from the building of it. It was my ability to get the loan and my desire to have a house built that made it all possible even if I never once picked up a hammer.

Your money is necessary, not you.

My money doesn't exist without me. Moreover, you completely ignored the other key component, my desire to have the house built.

To take it back to the broader example of housing developers, even if the brick-layer sees demand for new houses in Utopiaville, does the brick-layer have the ability/knowledge to also act as the general contractor? Likely not, so he needs a general contractor. Does the general contractor have the ability/knowledge to also be the architect? Likely not, so she still needs an architect. Does the architect also have the funds to pay for the land, the materials, the permits, and the wages of the contractor and the brick-layer? Maybe, and lots of builders do use their own funds to build individual "spec homes". So who is the "deadwood" here?

But if the contractor or architect or brick-layer do not have the money to buy the land, buy the materials, pay for the permits, and pay the salaries of the others, then at least one of them needs to have the ability (meaning the net-worth and ability to repay) to get a loan or a financial backer. So let's ask again, who is the "deadwood"

Bottom line? I don't think it is me who is lacking in imagination.

 

[untermensche]

No it is like building a fine bridge and then somebody comes and blows it up.

Then fools condemn all bridges.

Maybe, but you can't use it to predict anything because the system didn't last long and it didn't last under it's own power. And it could be said that it last as long as it did because they had a common mission for a bit that would go away once the fight was over.

The system worked fine and showed no sign of just crumbling. It was crushed with overwhelming force.

Just like the US Britain and Russia crushed Germany.

Does that mean Germany's economic system was flawed?

It is a preposterous argument to claim that because a system was crushed it was no good. A worthless irrational argument.

And the Spanish system eliminated the deadwood I'm talking about.

That is the reason the US, Britain, Italy, Germany, and Russia, all worked to crush it.

And it was replaced with a fascist dictatorship.

That was what those nations, except Russia that wanted to make it a puppet, preferred.

Deadwood protecting deadwood.

 

[untermensche]

My money doesn't exist without me.

I see.

The whole system crumbles without you.

Again your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Builders can get funding in many ways. From worker owned and run banks that lend to workers for example.

You are not necessary at all.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Maybe, but you can't use it to predict anything because the system didn't last long and it didn't last under it's own power. And it could be said that it last as long as it did because they had a common mission for a bit that would go away once the fight was over.

The system worked fine and showed no sign of just crumbling. It was crushed with overwhelming force.

Just like the US Britain and Russia crushed Germany.

Does that mean Germany's economic system was flawed?

It is a preposterous argument to claim that because a system was crushed it was no good. A worthless irrational argument.

And the Spanish system eliminated the deadwood I'm talking about.

That is the reason the US, Britain, Italy, Germany, and Russia, all worked to crush it.

And it was replaced with a fascist dictatorship.

That was what those nations, except Russia that wanted to make it a puppet, preferred.

Deadwood protecting deadwood.

The system didn't have to do anything in that time so there is no way to make a comparison. It was initially united but you can't make any predictions from that little time. It took russia 60 years for its system to fall apart and you would make the argument that captialism is falling apart after 100+ years.

 

[RavenSky]

My money doesn't exist without me.

I see.

The whole system crumbles without you.

Again your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Builders can get funding in many ways. From worker owned and run banks that lend to workers for example.

You are not necessary at all.

Really? If I don't buy that house, how will the builders make any money?

Your overly-simplistic hyperbolic posts are what is lacking in imagination. If you are trying to discuss worker cooperatives, do so. Stop with your silly "deadwood" declarations. If you are trying to discuss income inequality, do so. Stop with your tortured "master slave" nonsense.

In the meantime, in the real world, even a house built by a worker cooperative needs someone with money to commission it, to finance its construction, and/or to buy it in the end.

 

[untermensche]

The system worked fine and showed no sign of just crumbling. It was crushed with overwhelming force.

Just like the US Britain and Russia crushed Germany.

Does that mean Germany's economic system was flawed?

It is a preposterous argument to claim that because a system was crushed it was no good. A worthless irrational argument.

And the Spanish system eliminated the deadwood I'm talking about.

That is the reason the US, Britain, Italy, Germany, and Russia, all worked to crush it.

And it was replaced with a fascist dictatorship.

That was what those nations, except Russia that wanted to make it a puppet, preferred.

Deadwood protecting deadwood.

The system didn't have to do anything in that time so there is no way to make a comparison. It was initially united but you can't make any predictions from that little time. It took russia 60 years for its system to fall apart and you would make the argument that captialism is falling apart after 100+ years.

It had to feed and sustain millions. It did more than that. The society thrived and there was a lot of innovation.

This was at a time the US was mired deep in the Great Depression. If any system crumbled it was capitalism.

 

[untermensche]

I see.

The whole system crumbles without you.

Again your lack of imagination is not an argument.

Builders can get funding in many ways. From worker owned and run banks that lend to workers for example.

You are not necessary at all.

Really? If I don't buy that house, how will the builders make any money?

Your overly-simplistic hyperbolic posts are what is lacking in imagination. If you are trying to discuss worker cooperatives, do so. Stop with your silly "deadwood" declarations. If you are trying to discuss income inequality, do so. Stop with your tortured "master slave" nonsense.

In the meantime, in the real world, even a house built by a worker cooperative needs someone with money to commission it, to finance its construction, and/or to buy it in the end.

If they don't build you a house how do you have a house to buy?

They are necessary for there to be a house.

They don't need your money to do it, but you are certainly free to buy the finished product.

 

[RavenSky]

Really? If I don't buy that house, how will the builders make any money?

Your overly-simplistic hyperbolic posts are what is lacking in imagination. If you are trying to discuss worker cooperatives, do so. Stop with your silly "deadwood" declarations. If you are trying to discuss income inequality, do so. Stop with your tortured "master slave" nonsense.

In the meantime, in the real world, even a house built by a worker cooperative needs someone with money to commission it, to finance its construction, and/or to buy it in the end.

If they don't build you a house how do you have a house to buy?

They are necessary for there to be a house.

They don't need your money to do it, but you are certainly free to buy the finished product.

I never said that the architect, contractor and brick-layer weren't necessary for my house to be built. And I have already said that you won't have much argument from me if you want to discuss income inequality or the merits of worker cooperatives.

But I will continue to refute your declaration that I am not also a necessary component to that house being built. If I am not available to commission, finance and/or buy the house, it won't be built. Period.

 

[untermensche]

If they don't build you a house how do you have a house to buy?

They are necessary for there to be a house.

They don't need your money to do it, but you are certainly free to buy the finished product.

I never said that the architect, contractor and brick-layer weren't necessary for my house to be built. And I have already said that you won't have much argument from me if you want to discuss income inequality or the merits of worker cooperatives.

But I will continue to refute your declaration that I am not also a necessary component to that house being built. If I am not available to commission, finance and/or buy the house, it won't be built. Period.

You confuse what is necessary to build something with what is necessary to buy it.

Yes, to keep the whole thing going again you must buy it.

But to build it, you are not needed. They can do it without you.

And if they are good, after a few homes they shouldn't need a bank either.