BLM leader: Looting is "reparations".

[Loren Pechtel]

That's what the Marxists think.

I'm not a Marxist, I just have an education.

Then there are no wealthy self-employed people.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Apples and oranges, as these individuals occupy different industries and power structures. Indeed, certain specific McDonald's employees do make as much or more than any neurosurgeon.

A more relevant question would have to split this into two examples, like so:

1. When it comes to producing a burger for you, of an afternoon, does Christopher John Kempczinski truly do 1,939% more of the work as the person who actually makes the sandwich?

And

2. No one denies that neurosurgeons are unusual talents and services are valuable, but is a hospital nurses' work truly so inconsequential to the hospital that he should struggle to feed, clothe, and educate his family, while the neurosurgeon lives a comfortable upper middle class life? And, does it make sense that the neurosurgeon is only middle class, while the CEO of the insurance company that funds most of the care out-earns her to a greater degree than she outearns the nurse, despite not actually producing a product of any sort?​

Number 1 is too extreme imo. In many cases, the person serving the burger would not have a job if the guy employing him had not had the initiative to take the entrepreneurial risk of opening the restaurant.

And imo the second guy deserves more in return for that, because he (or she) has taken the necessary initiative involving a very large risk. Not 2000 times more return. But capitalism does not have to involve such high ratios. And it often doesn’t, especially in small or medium sized, non-corporate businesses, of which there are a lot, even in the USA. And they provide a lot of people with a way to earn a living as employees.

And if it makes me a capitalist to say the above then I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t see any reason to.

Executives aren't entrepreneurs. They are taking hardly any risk at all.

Actually, some executives are shareholders. Actually, I'd say that it's a rare executive who isn't a shareholder.

 

[James Madison]

BLM leader: Looting is "reparations".

Same way as everywhere else, ruthless exploitation of the poor and the friendship of a superpower that saw them as a useful proxy.

Do you genuinely think that the only way anyone gets any wealth is by exploitation?

No. But if you think "any wealth" is a synonym for "capitalism", you're very uninformed on economic history; there was plenty of wealth, even unequal wealth, before capitalism ever developed or was defined.

But if the question is whether extreme wealth disparities are indicative of exploitation, that strikes me as tranparently obvious. You shouldn't need Marx to explain something so basic as the fact that if Reggie and Reginald both work thirty hours a week, but Reggie "works for" Reginald, and Reginald makes 2000 times what Reggie does, that Reginald is probably on the take somehow - whether by scheming or heredity, they are in a relationship where Reggie does not get compensated for his work in the same way as Reginald.

If you think that's super cool and entirely justifiable, then congratulations -- you're a capitalist! Maybe you think Reginald must be two thousand times smarter and more valuable than Reggie, that The Market would step in to magically correct it if it weren't, and it's sheer coincidence that one thousand years previous Reggie's ancestors were uncompensated serfs while Reginald's were wealthy churchmen who transitioned to banking when the gods of our society changed. Great, if you like. Nothing to stop you from drinking the Kool-aid(tm) if Kool-aid(tm) is your beverage of choice. But thinking that it is good for the wealthy to extract labor from the poor doesn't make it any less exploitative That's just grammar and logic at play.

But if the question is whether extreme wealth disparities are indicative of exploitation, that strikes me as tranparently obvious. You shouldn't need Marx to explain something so basic as the fact that if Reggie and Reginald both work thirty hours a week, but Reggie "works for" Reginald, and Reginald makes 2000 times what Reggie does, that Reginald is probably on the take somehow - whether by scheming or heredity, they are in a relationship where Reggie does not get compensated for his work in the same way as Reginald.

If you think that's super cool and entirely justifiable, then congratulations -- you're a capitalist!

Does this make one a “capitalist”? What you’ve described and referenced is an occurence in a capitalist regime. A phenomenon occurring within a capitalist regime isn’t necessarily capitalist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Politesse]

Well, you want Reggie to be compensated for his work as much as Reginald.

I do?

 

[James Madison]

BLM leader: Looting is "reparations".

Apples and oranges, as these individuals occupy different industries and power structures. Indeed, certain specific McDonald's employees do make as much or more than any neurosurgeon.

A more relevant question would have to split this into two examples, like so:

1. When it comes to producing a burger for you, of an afternoon, does Christopher John Kempczinski truly do 1,939% more of the work as the person who actually makes the sandwich?

And

2. No one denies that neurosurgeons are unusual talents and services are valuable, but is a hospital nurses' work truly so inconsequential to the hospital that he should struggle to feed, clothe, and educate his family, while the neurosurgeon lives a comfortable upper middle class life? And, does it make sense that the neurosurgeon is only middle class, while the CEO of the insurance company that funds most of the care out-earns her to a greater degree than she outearns the nurse, despite not actually producing a product of any sort?​

Number 1 is too extreme imo. In many cases, the person serving the burger would not have a job if the guy employing him had not had the initiative to take the entrepreneurial risk of opening the restaurant.

And imo the second guy deserves more in return for that, because he (or she) has taken the necessary initiative involving a very large risk. Not 2000 times more return. But capitalism does not have to involve such high ratios. And it often doesn’t, especially in small or medium sized, non-corporate businesses, of which there are a lot, even in the USA. And they provide a lot of people with a way to earn a living as employees.

And if it makes me a capitalist to say the above then I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t see any reason to.

And imo the second guy deserves more in return for that, because he (or she) has taken the necessary initiative involving a very large risk. Not 2000 times more return.

How do you arrive to such a cutoff? Is it arbitrary? Or is there some objective approach to determining when a “return” is too much?

Perhaps it is a visceral basis? After all, Politesse’s Reggie and Reginald disparity perhaps sounds shocking to the ears and reprehensible to the eyes. When the news reports on the compensation package of a CEO, to the amount of 30 million, and refers to Peter for comparison, making $10/hr, 40 hours a day, making widgets, yeah, the immediate response, for some, is that’s unjust, wrong, or such a disparity shouldn’t be tolerated. But what, other than the shock to our sensibilities, does one base the idea such a disparity is too great? Is there an objective basis?

I too have at times found myself thinking the compensation disparity is too great, just based on how it sounds or looks. Developing an objective measure or approach to satisfactorily support the idea such a disparity is too great, unjust, and so forth, is the issue.

The law has a “shock the conscience” standard. It is not often used but does exist. The standard is rather arbitrary, some government action is impermissible because it “shocks the conscience” on little more than the judge said so, or the judge’s own sensibilities were offended and shocked. I am by no means suggesting this is your approach, but illuminating a parallel to the practice of law in which the basis for the decision, the line drawing, was arbitrary, a shock to the conscience of someone, somewhere, or some people, hence, forbidden.

It seems, I emphasize seems, the legal “shock the conscience” is parallel, obstensibly, to the line drawing of X is too much of a “return,” with both being arbitrary, perhaps shocking to some, but maybe not others. How is the line drawn?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jarhyn]

Capitalism only works with protection for private property. Theft must be prosecuted and not excused.

And don't get me the spiel that they need to "eat". This is not Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread! There is food stamps and food banks. Nobody needs to loot to "eat".

That a fact? [Citation needed]

The central tenant of capitalism is the right to private property. If citizens can't freely accumulate capital due to theft or whatever capitalism collapses. What would the purpose of a capitalistic system if people couldn't own anything? What kind of a citation do you need here?

No. Capitalism could in fact function without the current form of "right to private property". The extant model of ownership is broken in favor of a moneyed aristocracy of rent seekers. It always has been.

It could function much better with modifications to the underlying concept of ownership, wherein the person using the resource to create value (or paying to use the thing) automatically, necessarily, gains ownership stake.

If citizens can't accumulate capital because the "owners" refuse to offer contracts that decay or reduce their ownership, then the king is dead, long live the landlord (never mind the crown on their head and the throne they sit upon).

We could, as a society, redefine ownership, and capitalism would continue, albeit with more onus on the "owners" to continue to create new value rather than resting on their conquests.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Executives aren't entrepreneurs. They are taking hardly any risk at all.

Since college I have had only one short-term job where the executives weren't taking major risks. My former boss was at one point probably worth $20 million on paper. He died on Medicaid.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The central tenant of capitalism is the right to private property. If citizens can't freely accumulate capital due to theft or whatever capitalism collapses. What would the purpose of a capitalistic system if people couldn't own anything? What kind of a citation do you need here?

No. Capitalism could in fact function without the current form of "right to private property". The extant model of ownership is broken in favor of a moneyed aristocracy of rent seekers. It always has been.

It could function much better with modifications to the underlying concept of ownership, wherein the person using the resource to create value (or paying to use the thing) automatically, necessarily, gains ownership stake.

If citizens can't accumulate capital because the "owners" refuse to offer contracts that decay or reduce their ownership, then the king is dead, long live the landlord (never mind the crown on their head and the throne they sit upon).

We could, as a society, redefine ownership, and capitalism would continue, albeit with more onus on the "owners" to continue to create new value rather than resting on their conquests.

No, capitalism can't survive without the right to private property. Capitalism works because it provides strong incentives to work hard, increase efficiency, improvise, innovate, invest wisely, produce superior products, and etc. But this is hard work. People aren't going to work hard if there are no incentives. No private property.

 

[Jarhyn]

The central tenant of capitalism is the right to private property. If citizens can't freely accumulate capital due to theft or whatever capitalism collapses. What would the purpose of a capitalistic system if people couldn't own anything? What kind of a citation do you need here?

No. Capitalism could in fact function without the current form of "right to private property". The extant model of ownership is broken in favor of a moneyed aristocracy of rent seekers. It always has been.

It could function much better with modifications to the underlying concept of ownership, wherein the person using the resource to create value (or paying to use the thing) automatically, necessarily, gains ownership stake.

If citizens can't accumulate capital because the "owners" refuse to offer contracts that decay or reduce their ownership, then the king is dead, long live the landlord (never mind the crown on their head and the throne they sit upon).

We could, as a society, redefine ownership, and capitalism would continue, albeit with more onus on the "owners" to continue to create new value rather than resting on their conquests.

No, capitalism can't survive without the right to private property. Capitalism works because it provides strong incentives to work hard, increase efficiency, improvise, innovate, invest wisely, produce superior products, and etc. But this is hard work. People aren't going to work hard if there are no incentives. No private property.

You're full of shit and just repeating your premise at this point. You begged the question.

You haven't spoken a whit about how a different model of ownership couldn't be functional.

The fact is, if you have to continue to work to continue to own and gain dividends, there is more incentive to keep doing that, not less

 

[J842P]

Executives aren't entrepreneurs. They are taking hardly any risk at all.

Actually, some executives are shareholders. Actually, I'd say that it's a rare executive who isn't a shareholder.

Sure. But that's generally not why people are saying that they are taking a risk. I get compensated with equity, but that doesn't mean I'm really taking a risk except in a technical sense.

 

[ruby sparks]

Apples and oranges, as these individuals occupy different industries and power structures. Indeed, certain specific McDonald's employees do make as much or more than any neurosurgeon.

A more relevant question would have to split this into two examples, like so:

1. When it comes to producing a burger for you, of an afternoon, does Christopher John Kempczinski truly do 1,939% more of the work as the person who actually makes the sandwich?

And

2. No one denies that neurosurgeons are unusual talents and services are valuable, but is a hospital nurses' work truly so inconsequential to the hospital that he should struggle to feed, clothe, and educate his family, while the neurosurgeon lives a comfortable upper middle class life? And, does it make sense that the neurosurgeon is only middle class, while the CEO of the insurance company that funds most of the care out-earns her to a greater degree than she outearns the nurse, despite not actually producing a product of any sort?​

Number 1 is too extreme imo. In many cases, the person serving the burger would not have a job if the guy employing him had not had the initiative to take the entrepreneurial risk of opening the restaurant.

And imo the second guy deserves more in return for that, because he (or she) has taken the necessary initiative involving a very large risk. Not 2000 times more return. But capitalism does not have to involve such high ratios. And it often doesn’t, especially in small or medium sized, non-corporate businesses, of which there are a lot, even in the USA. And they provide a lot of people with a way to earn a living as employees.

And if it makes me a capitalist to say the above then I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t see any reason to.

Executives aren't entrepreneurs. They are taking hardly any risk at all.

Ok. I did not know who Christopher John Kempczinski was.

My point is not necessarily about non-risk taking, non-entrepreneurial executives then. But I'll stick with it otherwise. In my defence, the goalposts have been moving around somewhat as regards who the evil exploiters are since the claim that capitalism is based on theft was made on page 1 by a non-Marxist with an education.

 

[Jarhyn]

Executives aren't entrepreneurs. They are taking hardly any risk at all.

Actually, some executives are shareholders. Actually, I'd say that it's a rare executive who isn't a shareholder.

Sure. But that's generally not why people are saying that they are taking a risk. I get compensated with equity, but that doesn't mean I'm really taking a risk except in a technical sense.

Executives aren't even taking those risks to become shareholders. They are given ownership stake in the company to make them risk-averse

 

[ruby sparks]

What definition of executive is being used here? Is a business owner who starts (or buys) and runs his own company not a type of executive?

 

[Jarhyn]

What definition of executive is being used here? Is a business owner who runs his own company not an executive?

Executive, in this context, generally means an officer appointed by the owners, or the board of a publicly traded company. Sometimes the CEO is the owner, but then, I would just call them "the owner". Their primary function is usually to guarantee that the money flows up, not down to employees.

 

[ruby sparks]

Executive, in this context, generally means an officer appointed by the owners, or the board of a publicly traded company.

Ok, in that case, we've somehow segued away from the starting target. Merchants and South Koreans were near the start as I recall, shortly after capitalism of itself.

Sometimes the CEO is the owner, but then, I would just call them "the owner".

That doesn't make sense, or is a bit arbitrary, or a personal preference. It is at least a distinction that was not made previously, so people have not been talking about the same thing.

 

[J842P]

Executive, in this context, generally means an officer appointed by the owners, or the board of a publicly traded company.

Ok, in that case, we've somehow segued away from the starting target. Merchants and South Koreans were near the start as I recall, shortly after capitalism of itself.

Sometimes the CEO is the owner, but then, I would just call them "the owner".

That doesn't make sense, or is a bit arbitrary, or a personal preference. It is at least a distinction that was not made previously, so people have not been talking about the same thing.

No, it makes perfect sense and isn't arbitrary. I can own a boat but not be its captain, although, sometimes the owner of the boat is the captain. These are reasonably well-defined concepts, and I only brought it up keep things precise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, capitalism can't survive without the right to private property. Capitalism works because it provides strong incentives to work hard, increase efficiency, improvise, innovate, invest wisely, produce superior products, and etc. But this is hard work. People aren't going to work hard if there are no incentives. No private property.

You're full of shit and just repeating your premise at this point. You begged the question.

You haven't spoken a whit about how a different model of ownership couldn't be functional.

The fact is, if you have to continue to work to continue to own and gain dividends, there is more incentive to keep doing that, not less

We don't have any examples of other systems that function anywhere near as well.

 

[Politesse]

The central tenant of capitalism is the right to private property. If citizens can't freely accumulate capital due to theft or whatever capitalism collapses. What would the purpose of a capitalistic system if people couldn't own anything? What kind of a citation do you need here?

No. Capitalism could in fact function without the current form of "right to private property". The extant model of ownership is broken in favor of a moneyed aristocracy of rent seekers. It always has been.

It could function much better with modifications to the underlying concept of ownership, wherein the person using the resource to create value (or paying to use the thing) automatically, necessarily, gains ownership stake.

If citizens can't accumulate capital because the "owners" refuse to offer contracts that decay or reduce their ownership, then the king is dead, long live the landlord (never mind the crown on their head and the throne they sit upon).

We could, as a society, redefine ownership, and capitalism would continue, albeit with more onus on the "owners" to continue to create new value rather than resting on their conquests.

No, capitalism can't survive without the right to private property. Capitalism works because it provides strong incentives to work hard, increase efficiency, improvise, innovate, invest wisely, produce superior products, and etc. But this is hard work. People aren't going to work hard if there are no incentives. No private property.

I see your definition of Capitalism is as hazy and confused as your definition of Marxism...

 

[Politesse]

What definition of executive is being used here? Is a business owner who starts (or buys) and runs his own company not a type of executive?

Potentially, though certainly not in the case of my named example. I'm baffled as to how anyone could not know who the major CEOs are; you realize they have enormous influence over your life, right? McDonalds, Walmart, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway. It matters who is in the top spot, they routinely make decisions that define the lives of your countrymen, more so than most presidents or celebrities and so forth could dream of doing.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, capitalism can't survive without the right to private property. Capitalism works because it provides strong incentives to work hard, increase efficiency, improvise, innovate, invest wisely, produce superior products, and etc. But this is hard work. People aren't going to work hard if there are no incentives. No private property.

You're full of shit and just repeating your premise at this point. You begged the question.

You haven't spoken a whit about how a different model of ownership couldn't be functional.

The fact is, if you have to continue to work to continue to own and gain dividends, there is more incentive to keep doing that, not less

We don't have any examples of other systems that function anywhere near as well.

We don't have examples of any systems not run by the people who benefit most from "ownership" as it currently functions (whether by the state or by individuals, they both treat ownership as "all mine forever").

We don't have examples that force ownership to cede towards the people who do the actual living at, paying for, or the working with. We don't have those examples because we have never had the power to renegotiate a compromise on ownership itself away from rent seeking. Nobody has been able to establish a different paradigm because it is a paradigm that will absolutely NEVER directly benefit those with the most individual power, power they got originally by doing the very thing that such a model would prevent.