Portrait of a 47% moocher

[ksen]

yes

 

[fromderinside]

Why?

 

[ksen]

why not?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is a simple scenario written to test untermensche's belief in the Labor Theory of Value. Since I subscribe to the Subjective Theory of Value I do not see any of them exploiting anyone.

If untermensche answers, he'll probably say that any profit the entrepreneur made was done so by exploiting everyone else in the situation ... except without him there would be no situation with shoes being sold. He would have one believe that the managers and investors have no role in a vibrant and functioning economy, so that is why I wrote this, leaving out as many extraneous variables as possible.

If untermensche answers, I have another question about the Labor Theory of Value I'd like him to answer,.

 

[untermensche]

It's actually a pretty broad definition.

To exploit something for personal gain is pretty broad.

It is the only way a concept like profit can even arise.

If we had the idea that the money generated by some group engaged in an enterprise belonged to the people in that group then the idea of profit doesn't even exist.

But when you exploit some in the group and say that the money generated does not belong to everybody the idea of profit can arise.

But you are then deciding what you think is personal gain. By your definition a worker to can be an exploiter too. I hire a babysitter so I can go to dinner with my SO, that's a capitalist too.

No. The babysitter gets all the money. Nobody besides the babysitter gains financially through the performance of the service.

It is not exploitation to pay for a service.

It is exploitation to get something for a service you have not done.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But you are then deciding what you think is personal gain. By your definition a worker to can be an exploiter too. I hire a babysitter so I can go to dinner with my SO, that's a capitalist too.

No. The babysitter gets all the money. Nobody besides the babysitter gains financially through the performance of the service.

It is not exploitation to pay for a service.

It is exploitation to get something for a service you have not done.

But when there is service performed, you don't like that either. You define service as, "Something I define as a service"

 

[ksen]

<snip>

 

[fromderinside]

Societies are defined from the top. Pure and simple. Doing Everything corrective requires pummeling institutional barriers, or, getting authority to see their own interests are at risk if the institutions don't change.

But you also have to prove to the bottom that change will make a different. Socialism has tried to be adopted and failed miserable. So you have to show something more than, things suck now but a great miracle will happen and things will be better.

I'm pretty happy with my SS and MC and living with regulations that keep me safe, my children happy, and the air in LA better than its been since 1965. So much for socialism I guess.

If the bottom cares enough for change there will be a bloodbath. If the top recognizes the bottom is getting restless they usually do something to keep from the expense of or the possibility of them being erased. Child labor problems. Age and hour restrictions. Opportunity problems? Universal education (whoops another socialist thingie). Too many hosts being killed in knife fights. Make it fashionable for people to go without knives, invent forks. It goes on and on and on. We aren't about to get to madam Defarge again any time soon.

What I don't get is why people don't see dividing into takers and givers only applies to capitalists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a stupid article and that will always be a stupid argument.

Calling it stupid is not a rebuttal. What's wrong with it?

 

[fromderinside]

That's a stupid article and that will always be a stupid argument.

Calling it stupid is not a rebuttal. What's wrong with it?

Richer represented by things? That's a stupid position. Just as moochers and takers are legitimate categories for finding what makes humans work. Why not just go with what the ancients did? Take a religion and fight anybody who held to a different God? Rather than debating whether we're doing more or less or have more now than then why not get down to whether we are better off today than we were in the day.

Humans didn't evolve to create shit for kids; kids aren't the the focus of fitness guaranteeing human survival. Try asking "do we do things better relative to our likelihood of continuing to evolve". It must be a very long view definition not just an industrial age or space age or computer age or anything like that. Did our adaptation to the use of grains and milk in our diets , what we did to get there and what we did when we got there make our position stronger. Try giving metrics to better that aren't just coins or decision matrix parameters.

I use my hands more for typing now than I did when I was young when I engaged my mind in designing and building models where my insights were driving me. Is this better? My penman shit is for shit. It always has been that way. Yet my hand is still very steady when I guide my robot controller's probe into the brain of a rat or dog in my quest to understand hearing. Is this better?

 

[Jayjay]

That's a stupid article and that will always be a stupid argument.

Calling it stupid is not a rebuttal. What's wrong with it?

The reason, which was mentioned several times, is that the standard of living of working class rose between pre-Depression and 50s/60s. Why is that, and why shouldn't the trend of increasing living standard for average worker have continued until now?

 

[Ford]

The idea that the reason we need two or more incomes to support a middle class family is because our lives are so much more lavish is bunk. The life of a middle class family living on a single income in the 60s is far more lavish than that of a middle class family living prior to the Depression.

How are you defining lavish? Did the families back then have multiple Ipads, TVS, gaming systems, computers per person in the household? For the people who had healthcare was it better? Did they survive heart attacks in better numbers? Was cancer survival rates better? Did they have bigger houses back then with more amenities like bigger fridges, freezers, microwaves and ovens?

Again, you need to put things into perspective. Yes, we have flat screen TVs, video games, computers, and microwave ovens...technology far beyond anything a family in 1960 could imagine. The same would be true if you wound the clock back another turn. A middle class family in 1910 would not have a television, probably wouldn't have an automobile, a refrigerator, and maybe not even a telephone. A 1960s home would seem to them like a technological marvel.


But here's the point you seem to be missing:


Had the earning power of a typical middle class family kept up, they'd be able to afford all the stuff you listed, and they'd be able to do it on one income.

 

[Canard DuJour]

What Ford said

Exactly.

Yes, technology has moved on in the last 40 years. And would have done so if the average household still only needed 40 hrs wage labour with secure jobs and pensions. As it did in previous decades when people gained leisure and financial security. Technology evolves as a matter of course and without it most folks have not gained. The gains have mostly gone to the inventors of financial scams and ways to bid down wages.

Yes, new houses are bigger (at least in the US), but look at the debt to equity ratio for same houses or living space people could comfortably afford on a single wage 40 years ago. New houses are bigger but living in them, we're told, is "living beyond our means." Don't tell us in the same breath we're better off.

And - worst bullshit of all - no, of course women shouldn't go back to the kitchen. Men and women should be working about 40 hrs a week between them and enjoying the leisure society earlier generations anticipated by now.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Stock holders are not capitalists unless they own enough to control something.

They are contributors to the capitalist system, but all they are doing is handing over money and hoping things work out. And with the bursting of the economic bubbles that constantly arise many of these stock holders lose everything.

A capitalist is somebody who uses money to exploit something for their gain, be it some natural resource or human beings.

There is no requirement that these people have any leadership abilities. All they need is money and personal greed.

So here is a scenario.

In location A you have the raw materials, a tanner who makes and sells leather.
In location B you have the skill set, a cobbler who turns leather into shoes.
In location C you h ave the market, people who want to buy shoes.

The tanner would love to sell his leather to the cobbler, but the cobbler doesn't have enough money to make the initial investment. He has skills but no resources. He asked the tanner for credit, explaining that if the shoes do sell at location C he'll have enough to pay back the tanner. The tanner refuses saying that it is too risky and asks who will cover the transportation costs. There is a driver that goes between towns A, B, and C, but he only drives when hired and doesn't invest in goods in any location.

Along comes an entrepreneur. He sees this mess and say "I will use my personal money to cover these transactions. I will purchase the leather at point A, hire the driver to transport the leather to point B, hire the cobbler to work the leather into shoes, hire the driver to transport the shoes to point C, and sell the shoes at point C. If I guess correctly there is a market at point C and I will recoup my investment and also make a profit. If I guess incorrectly, I am the only one who loses money; the tanner, the driver, and the cobbler all get paid."

Who is being exploited and who is doing the exploiting?

Who's the capitalist? Your scenario has artisans with their own capital and a merchant. A merchant they'd cut out if the shoes sell.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Calling it stupid is not a rebuttal. What's wrong with it?

The reason, which was mentioned several times, is that the standard of living of working class rose between pre-Depression and 50s/60s. Why is that, and why shouldn't the trend of increasing living standard for average worker have continued until now?

Because we were exporting the shit in the 50s/60s far more than we can now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Calling it stupid is not a rebuttal. What's wrong with it?

The reason, which was mentioned several times, is that the standard of living of working class rose between pre-Depression and 50s/60s. Why is that, and why shouldn't the trend of increasing living standard for average worker have continued until now?

Because we were exporting the shit in the 50s/60s far more than we can now.

 

[Axulus]

Untermenche - you pretty much seem to be saying that after the entreprenaurs add the value by getting an operation running smoothly and successfully learning that there was sufficient consumer demand (after risking vast sums of money that would've been lost had they been wrong) you want to cut them out and transfer all that value gained from that knowledge and effort to the workers. It seems to me that you are simply in denial about the source of this value you wish to expropriate.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How are you defining lavish? Did the families back then have multiple Ipads, TVS, gaming systems, computers per person in the household? For the people who had healthcare was it better? Did they survive heart attacks in better numbers? Was cancer survival rates better? Did they have bigger houses back then with more amenities like bigger fridges, freezers, microwaves and ovens?

Again, you need to put things into perspective. Yes, we have flat screen TVs, video games, computers, and microwave ovens...technology far beyond anything a family in 1960 could imagine. The same would be true if you wound the clock back another turn. A middle class family in 1910 would not have a television, probably wouldn't have an automobile, a refrigerator, and maybe not even a telephone. A 1960s home would seem to them like a technological marvel.


But here's the point you seem to be missing:


Had the earning power of a typical middle class family kept up, they'd be able to afford all the stuff you listed, and they'd be able to do it on one income.

That isn't so. By your logic since buying a trip into space didn't exist in the 50s/60s/70s but exists today then a one person earner household should be able to buy one now since it exists. Our buying patterns have changed to reflect the dual income and it's become the new norm.

 

[ksen]

jesus christ

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So here is a scenario.

In location A you have the raw materials, a tanner who makes and sells leather.
In location B you have the skill set, a cobbler who turns leather into shoes.
In location C you h ave the market, people who want to buy shoes.

The tanner would love to sell his leather to the cobbler, but the cobbler doesn't have enough money to make the initial investment. He has skills but no resources. He asked the tanner for credit, explaining that if the shoes do sell at location C he'll have enough to pay back the tanner. The tanner refuses saying that it is too risky and asks who will cover the transportation costs. There is a driver that goes between towns A, B, and C, but he only drives when hired and doesn't invest in goods in any location.

Along comes an entrepreneur. He sees this mess and say "I will use my personal money to cover these transactions. I will purchase the leather at point A, hire the driver to transport the leather to point B, hire the cobbler to work the leather into shoes, hire the driver to transport the shoes to point C, and sell the shoes at point C. If I guess correctly there is a market at point C and I will recoup my investment and also make a profit. If I guess incorrectly, I am the only one who loses money; the tanner, the driver, and the cobbler all get paid."

Who is being exploited and who is doing the exploiting?

Who's the capitalist? Your scenario has artisans with their own capital and a merchant. A merchant they'd cut out if the shoes sell.

The capitalist is the entrepreneur who risks his own money, and possibly takes a loss, while paying the driver, the tanner, and the cobbler so that the capitalist merchant can sell the resulting shoes elsewhere.

So you are saying that once the capitalist takes the risks, then the tanner, cobbler, and driver should cut him out of the equation?