gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/18/85)
The Rich also create jobs, because they are willing to pay people to
do things they themselves are not willing to do. This is, in effect,
redistributing wealth.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gamgam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/23/85)
> > = amdahl!gam > = Vassos Hadzilacos > > The Rich also create jobs, because they are willing to pay people to > > do things they themselves are not willing to do. This is, in effect, > > redistributing wealth. > > Huh? How is this "redistributing wealth"? The auto manufacturer pays > wages and gets cars. The cars he gets are worth more than the wages > he pays (otherwise he would have long ceased to be an auto manufacturer). > Therfore, not only does he not "redistribute wealth" but in fact > appropriates the wealth created by the labour power he hires. The auto manufacturer could not get cars if he were not able to pay wages. And the auto-workers get paid quite a bit. More than just about anyone reading this network. The workers get a share of the value of their labor. If there were no auto manufacturing company to pay them, their labor would be worthless. It is because some person with a lot of money (theirs or someone else's) is willing to pay them for their labor that these people have jobs. Isn't that nice? Here is another example, which I was thinking of when I originally posted the article: I am not rich, but I have enough money so that I can pay a woman to clean my home. I don't have the time nor inclination to do it myself. She does it, and she gets paid rather well for it ($6.50/hr). (She also does a good job; she even irons my shirts!) If I did not have the disposable income to hire a housekeeper, this woman would be out of roughly $100/mo, and I would be stuck with a messy home. I think this situation is typically of many employee-employer relationships. There seems to be a common belief by some readers here that the employer-employee relationship is a "win-lose" situation, but this is not true. Most such relationships are win-win (as this one is). > Thank goodness there are the Rich in this world to take care of > redistributing wealth. And thank goodness there are thoughtful > people to remind ungrateful knee-jerk radicals of the important > social contributions of the Rich. Hey, easy there. That's "bleeding-heart quiche-eating limp-wristed knee-jerk egg-sucking bed-wetting liberals" (thank you, canopus). -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/06/85)
Dave Hudson writes: >> [From Vassos Hadzilacos:] >>The auto manufacturer pays wages and gets cars. The cars he gets are >>worth more than the wages he pays (otherwise he would have long >>ceased to be an auto manufacturer). Therefore, not only does he not >>"redistribute wealth" but in fact appropriates the wealth created by >>the labor power he hires. > [Hudson:] > 1) I could have sworn someone claimed that socialism had progressed > beyond this stupidity (even overlooking who really owns the auto > manufacturers). Didn't you? Which stupidity? The one that claims that capitalists redistribute wealth from rich to poor? Yes, we progressed beyond that long ago. Words fail me when I try to think of a sufficiently sarcastic response to the claim that capitalists are great benefactors because they redistribute wealth, provide jobs, etc. But Marx was a master of the art, so I'll just refer you to *Capital*, Vol. 1. An obvious question is why, if capitalists are busily redistributing their wealth, the distribution remains so grossly unequal in the US and so intractable to change. Surely we would expect things to have roughly evened out after all this time. In any case, all that this "thank-God-for-rich-capitalists" argument amounts to is that the capitalist system requires the existence of capitalists. Well, some of us had already figured this out. If I'm not mistaken, libertarians on the net have stated that wealth is created by the labor of men and women. Correct, and since only people produce wealth, not capital or money, what gives the capitalist the right, merely by virtue of ownership, to appropriate any of this wealth created by other people? In their efforts to justify an exploitative system, apologists for capitalism have come up with this answer: The capitalist is risking his wealth when he invests it in production or some other instrument. But no one has ever explained why anyone deserves or "earns" a return merely by having taken a risk. No one in his right mind thinks that someone who comes out of a casino richer than when he went in has "earned" or "deserved" his increased wealth because he risked his money, any more than the losers deserved to lose their money. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/07/85)
Actually, the casino model is useful in discovering how people think. ``Deserve'' is an interesting word. Richard Carnes claims that noone in theri right mind would claim that the winners in a casino game deserved to win or the losers deserved to lose. I guess I must not be in my right mind then, because I would assume that everybody who goes into a casino deserves what they get -- whatever that is, assuming that both the House and the players are not cheating. I assume that *everybody* deserves what they get until I can see some evidence of coercion -- fraud included. This does not appear to be what Richard Carnes does. I think that another area where Richard Carnes is going to disagree with most libertarians is that he either a) thinks that thinking is not labour or b) thinks that there is no thinking involved in managing wealth. It is actually quite easy to lose lots of money, especially since there is no shortage of people with hairbrained schemes who want you to invest in them. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/09/85)
> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > If I'm not mistaken, libertarians on the net have stated that wealth > is created by the labor of men and women. Correct, and since only > people produce wealth, not capital or money, what gives the > capitalist the right, merely by virtue of ownership, to appropriate > any of this wealth created by other people? If capital is so irrelavant to creating wealth, why is it so necessary to "seize the means of production"? Why don't the workers go off by themselves and create all the wealth, leaving the poor capitalist to starve in his factory? Marxists appear to forget that capital is the great magnifier or catalyst for labor in creating wealth-- I've addressed this point before. > In their efforts to > justify an exploitative system, apologists for capitalism have come > up with this answer: The capitalist is risking his wealth when he > invests it in production or some other instrument. But no one has > ever explained why anyone deserves or "earns" a return merely by > having taken a risk. It turns out that in the real world, wealth cannot be created without risks being taken. It takes a lot of someone's money to build that factory that the socialist would expropriate so blithely. In a steady- state socialist system, since someone would have to build the factories, and there were no capitalists (a capitalist is someone who agrees to give money to build capital, in return for profits...) you must take the money from the workers by force. So how is that different from capitalist "exploitation"? --JoSH
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (03/12/85)
************************************************************************** > If I'm not mistaken, libertarians on the net have stated that wealth > is created by the labor of men and women. Correct, and since only > people produce wealth, not capital or money, what gives the > capitalist the right, merely by virtue of ownership, to appropriate > any of this wealth created by other people? The fact that they couldn't have done it without his capital. > In their efforts to > justify an exploitative system, apologists for capitalism have come > up with this answer: The capitalist is risking his wealth when he > invests it in production or some other instrument. But no one has > ever explained why anyone deserves or "earns" a return merely by > having taken a risk. Otherwise, why should he take the risk? (If your answer is some explicit or implicit use of force, don't bother.) > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/17/85)
JoSH and Carnes have been having a little duel on the rights of
entrepreneurs to profit from their investments. "Socialism" and
"Capitalism" have been bandied about as both derogatory and
laudatory terms. The argument seems to be in the wrong field.
Large-scale enterprises, such as factories, cannot be built by a
single person or a group of friends whose links are conversational.
There has to be some organization that allows for planning and the
execution of the plan, and that is able to coordinate the acquisition
of the resources and labour required. There are at least two ways
to construct this organization, and they are not mutually incompatible,
although one might be called "socialist" and the other "capitalist."
The socialist way uses the organizational structure inherent in
the state's administrative machinery to coordinate things. Someone
decides that a factory should be built, and arranges to pay people
to plan it, to provide materials, and to do the actual work. Perhaps
the workers are the people who originally thought that the factory
was needed, perhaps they are only doing the work because of the pay,
or perhaps they are coerced into working on the job. The success of
the enterprise may well decline in that order, but the principle
that coordination is required is the same in each of the three cases.
The capitalist way uses the pooling of money to provide an coordinating
attraction for people who will develop the required organization. Someone
decides that a factory should .... [repeat rest of last paragraph here].
Which method is better for getting together the people with the
original idea and the ability to harness the organization is an
argument of pracitcality. It probably is different for different
cases. An individual is more likely to want to do something wild
and different (with a small chance of a big success). An existing
bureaucracy (government or big company) is more likely to want to
do something in support of an infrastructure on which other things
can be built. I see no contradiction in supporting both to do what
they can. The infrastructure that the state builds is beneficial
to all; the wild idea on which an individual risks a life's savings
may well benefit us all. Why shouldn't the entrepreneur be encouraged
with the prospect of great wealth? Why shouldn't the great gray
state support the structure within which the entrepreneur makes
millions?
Why are socialism and capitalism seen as enemies, as swear-words or
banners? I think it is from seeing them as polar opposites, rather
than as mutually supportive means to the same end. Perhaps I misdefine
both, in the eyes of their zealous supporters (or opponents). But
then, zealotry rarely builds much of anything.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt