Portrait of a 47% moocher

[coloradoatheist]

jesus christ

Since that comment was directed at me. Ford makes no distinction when the scenario of buying a space flight is considered too lavish to not be considered the normal for what a one family earner should be able to buy.

 

[ksen]

That's because only idiots should have to have that distinction made for them and I have never considered you an idiot so it surprised me.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That's because only idiots should have to have that distinction made for them and I have never considered you an idiot so it surprised me.

However that's the problem with his argument though. If a one earner family household a while back bought 1 TV and now a family is buying 4 TVs and 3 gaming consoles to go with it, is that family better or worse off? One side says yes they are better off, the other side is saying no they are worse off. If you do an apple to apple comparison then the family is better off, but if you do a an apple to orange comparison they are worse off.

 

[untermensche]

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.

The entrepreneur (you should learn how to spell that word), can merely add money or they might add knowledge or they might add leadership.

But mainly the entrepreneur adds money.

But without workers his money gets him very little.

The workers are as essential as the money.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

The entrepreneur (you should learn how to spell that word), can merely add money or they might add knowledge or they might add leadership.

But mainly the entrepreneur adds money.

But without workers his money gets him very little.

The workers are as essential as the money.

Yes, they are important. That's why the get paid to do their work.

 

[fromderinside]

The entrepreneur (you should learn how to spell that word), can merely add money or they might add knowledge or they might add leadership.

But mainly the entrepreneur adds money.

But without workers his money gets him very little.

The workers are as essential as the money.

Leave out knowledge and leadership entrepreneur please.

I've added, by reviewed article count, over 100 scientific publications and I've lead many a team using novel and thereafter repeated processes, but, I'm not an entrepreneur. These types can be seen as innovative or ground breaking, but please not entrepreneur.

My view of an entrepreneur is one who has money and a plan for making money with that plan. Usually they are pretty good leaders even charismatic persons, but, never do I ever confuse them with aristocracy, leaders, scientists. or even innovators.

The main problem with your remaining category is that entrepreneurs don't have to depend on people that implementer stuff at which the money was thrown (I use Romney as my prototype entrepreneur) who use their money do that. Those people, it turns out, are among the one percent, not the 47%, and they are blood sucking leeches who take advantage of needs with that which they found in those spoons when they were born.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

untermensche, you haven't directly addressed my scenario. Canard duJour did address it, but you haven't.

But you have responded to people talking about my scenario.

In my scenario, did the entrepreneur add anything?

 

[arkirk]

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.

Axulus: You don't seem able to find any way to avoid some guy with a wad of money to risk and then profit unduly. You seem to think that every risk is too big for common unmonied people to assume. Why do common consumers have to pay GE's taxes? Basically the investor class acts as a gatekeeper on all economic activity according to you and you seem to think this is just fine. As for riches making a person knowledgable...that is an absurd proposition. Riches and too much disposable income makes a rich person too narcissistic to do anything but gamble with his money. It never occurs to you that this rich person is also gambling with the labor or the workers does it?

 

[untermensche]

The entrepreneur (you should learn how to spell that word), can merely add money or they might add knowledge or they might add leadership.

But mainly the entrepreneur adds money.

But without workers his money gets him very little.

The workers are as essential as the money.

Yes, they are important. That's why the get paid to do their work.

They are essential.

As essential as anything else.

There is no way to say what is most important, unless one has been carefully brainwashed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes, they are important. That's why the get paid to do their work.

They are essential.

As essential as anything else.

There is no way to say what is most important, unless one has been carefully brainwashed.

You are the one who is saying they are more essential than other part. Take a McDonalds restaurant. These and not limited to this list are essential: the building, the marketing, the location, the ingredients, the cash register, the cooking machines. However your argument is that if that stores takes in more money than it spends, its robbing the employees. It could easily be robbing the location.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem is he is living in the Marxian world where things are static. Once the business is set up you don't need the guy at the top anymore, everyone knows what to do.

The notion that this is how the world really works makes no sense to me, though--my profession would not exist in his world because nobody would need new software.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Just because he didn't give the guy a label doesn't mean he's not there. Look at the last paragraph.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The entrepreneur (you should learn how to spell that word), can merely add money or they might add knowledge or they might add leadership.

But mainly the entrepreneur adds money.

But without workers his money gets him very little.

The workers are as essential as the money.

And they get paid for their work.

Money is actually just saved work. Why should the entrepreneur not get paid for the work he contributed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Axulus: You don't seem able to find any way to avoid some guy with a wad of money to risk and then profit unduly. You seem to think that every risk is too big for common unmonied people to assume. Why do common consumers have to pay GE's taxes? Basically the investor class acts as a gatekeeper on all economic activity according to you and you seem to think this is just fine. As for riches making a person knowledgable...that is an absurd proposition. Riches and too much disposable income makes a rich person too narcissistic to do anything but gamble with his money. It never occurs to you that this rich person is also gambling with the labor or the workers does it?

We look at the reality where the common man doesn't take the risk.

And to a large degree riches are an indication of knowledge about making wise investments--that's how they get rich in the first place. (Note that I am not talking only about the Buffet types, people like Bill Gates made wise decisions on investing within their companies.)

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, they are important. That's why the get paid to do their work.

They are essential.

As essential as anything else.

There is no way to say what is most important, unless one has been carefully brainwashed.

Foot, meet bullet.

 

[untermensche]

They are essential.

As essential as anything else.

There is no way to say what is most important, unless one has been carefully brainwashed.

You are the one who is saying they are more essential than other part. Take a McDonalds restaurant. These and not limited to this list are essential: the building, the marketing, the location, the ingredients, the cash register, the cooking machines. However your argument is that if that stores takes in more money than it spends, its robbing the employees. It could easily be robbing the location.

There are essential people and there are essential things.

Capitalism is about keeping the essential things from the essential people so that you can extract the fruits of labor from the essential people.

 

[Ford]

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.

According to your logic, the earning power of a middle class individual working a 40 hour week has not changed at all since 1960, and the only reason families subsist on two incomes is so they can have IPhones. Wages - you seem to think - have kept pace perfectly with inflation/cost of living increases, and if it weren't for people wanting flat-screen TVs and cars with navigation systems they'd be able to raise a family just fine with only one spouse working. This is clearly bollocks.

Now, as to the ridiculous example you provided, you are again comparing apples to an entire orange grove.

Of course expensive items existed before, just as they exist today. Mansions existed in 1960. So did yachts. A trip into space (which commercially doesn't quite exist yet) is an absurdly expensive indulgence unavailable (like mansions and yachts) to the average middle class person.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are the one who is saying they are more essential than other part. Take a McDonalds restaurant. These and not limited to this list are essential: the building, the marketing, the location, the ingredients, the cash register, the cooking machines. However your argument is that if that stores takes in more money than it spends, its robbing the employees. It could easily be robbing the location.

There are essential people and there are essential things.

Capitalism is about keeping the essential things from the essential people so that you can extract the fruits of labor from the essential people.

In my scenario who keep what essential thing from which essential people?

 

[Canard DuJour]

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?

No, I'm saying they WOULD cut him out. In which case he still isn't a capitalist. SHOULD has bugger all to do with it. If the shoes sell, they could do the rudimentary admin' from which he wanted to skim a profit themselves or employ a clerk if he demanded any more than a clerk's wage. They'd be the "petty-bourgeois" capitalists and your merchant would remain a merchant. Unless he's exploiting some other advantage like information asymmetry.

Merchants like yours evolved into capitalists with the advent of steam powered factories which out-produced the artisans by orders of magnitude. Then they exploited the fuck out of people.

 

[Jayjay]

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?

No, I'm saying they WOULD cut him out. In which case he still isn't a capitalist. SHOULD has bugger all to do with it. If the shoes sell, they could do the rudimentary admin' from which he wanted to skim a profit themselves or employ a clerk if he demanded any more than a clerk's wage. They'd be the "petty-bourgeois" capitalists and your merchant would remain a merchant. Unless he's exploiting some other advantage like information asymmetry.

They would want to cut him out, and eventually probably will once they've saved up enough capital to hire the driver themselves, but why would the merchant originally agree to the initial deal knowing that he'll be cut out if there is profit, but loses his investment if there isn't?

 

[Canard DuJour]

No, I'm saying they WOULD cut him out. In which case he still isn't a capitalist. SHOULD has bugger all to do with it. If the shoes sell, they could do the rudimentary admin' from which he wanted to skim a profit themselves or employ a clerk if he demanded any more than a clerk's wage. They'd be the "petty-bourgeois" capitalists and your merchant would remain a merchant. Unless he's exploiting some other advantage like information asymmetry.

They would want to cut him out, and eventually probably will once they've saved up enough capital to hire the driver themselves, but why would the merchant originally agree to the initial deal knowing that he'll be cut out if there is profit, but loses his investment if there isn't?

He wouldn't. Well spotted.

He'd have to exploit some other advantage like information asymmetry or trying to keep them too poor.

But the scenario is explicit about their being informed.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

According to your logic, the earning power of a middle class individual working a 40 hour week has not changed at all since 1960, and the only reason families subsist on two incomes is so they can have IPhones. Wages - you seem to think - have kept pace perfectly with inflation/cost of living increases, and if it weren't for people wanting flat-screen TVs and cars with navigation systems they'd be able to raise a family just fine with only one spouse working. This is clearly bollocks.

Now, as to the ridiculous example you provided, you are again comparing apples to an entire orange grove.

Of course expensive items existed before, just as they exist today. Mansions existed in 1960. So did yachts. A trip into space (which commercially doesn't quite exist yet) is an absurdly expensive indulgence unavailable (like mansions and yachts) to the average middle class person.

If you believe the data, and I think it overstates inflation by a bit, does show they have have grown together the same, so the purchasing power is the same. If we did an exact apple to apple comparison from the 60s to today we are better off. However our buying expectations have risen since then and as we have grown accustomed to a two income household our spending patterns have grown to reflect that. And it's funny when you talk about things that seem extravagant like a space flight. Computers at the time took up whole floors and the computing power was less than the common cell phone today. Nobody had computers back then, while today, everyone has access to one on a daily basis.