Can a foreigner take your job?

[iustitia]

It seems most people, left and right, claim to support capitalism or market freedom, however I believe what they usually end up supporting is really just repackaged mercantilism because "illegal aliens and China take our jobs".

Some questions immediately arise upon hearing this or should.

How can an illegal alien or foreigner take your job? Specifically, can someone "take" your job? Furthermore, if they can then is it really "your" job?

How can they take "our" jobs? Do "we" have jobs collectively or as individuals? If individuals, then shouldn't we be responsible for our own livelihood? If not, why is it "our" collective responsibility to provide people with jobs? Isn't that like mandating wages?

Can you have a free market with state intervention to protect the jobs and wages of an undesirable workforce? Is there any evidence that autarky is a rational economic principle?

[Redrose]

Our community landscaping company had 70 employees. Ten years ago they were mostly young college age men, American guys, mostly White and Black men with a couple of Hispanic men, most working their way through school almost all were single. Working hard too. Nice kids, very willing to help the older residents with a special landscaping request. We pay dearly for this service.

Today, there are still about 70 workers, but now all of them are 30ish Mexican and Central Americans, except the two supervisors who are White. They work hard, but speak no English so homeowner interraction now is very limited. The company owner said it was a business decision. He can pay them less than he was paying the American men and it keeps him competitive in the market.

So to answer the question in your OP, yes.

[iustitia]

Our community landscaping company had 70 employees. Ten years ago they were mostly young college age men, American guys, mostly White and Black men with a couple of Hispanic men, most working their way through school almost all were single. Working hard too. Nice kids, very willing to help the older residents with a special landscaping request. We pay dearly for this service.

Today, there are still about 70 workers, but now all of them are 30ish Mexican and Central Americans, except the two supervisors who are White. They work hard, but speak no English so homeowner interraction now is very limited. The company owner said it was a business decision. He can pay them less than he was paying the American men and it keeps him competitive in the market.

So to answer the question in your OP, yes.

Which question are you answering?

[Redrose]

Which question are you answering?


The title of your OP. Yes, foreigners are taking our jobs because employers are taking advantage of cheaper labor.

[Chris]

It seems most people, left and right, claim to support capitalism or market freedom, however I believe what they usually end up supporting is really just repackaged mercantilism because "illegal aliens and China take our jobs".

Some questions immediately arise upon hearing this or should.

How can an illegal alien or foreigner take your job? Specifically, can someone "take" your job? Furthermore, if they can then is it really "your" job?

How can they take "our" jobs? Do "we" have jobs collectively or as individuals? If individuals, then shouldn't we be responsible for our own livelihood? If not, why is it "our" collective responsibility to provide people with jobs? Isn't that like mandating wages?

Can you have a free market with state intervention to protect the jobs and wages of an undesirable workforce? Is there any evidence that autarky is a rational economic principle?



It seems most people, left and right, claim to support capitalism or market freedom...

Some evidence for that can be found at Poll: Americans Like Free Markets More than Capitalism and Socialism More Than a Government-Managed Economy (http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/12/poll-americans-like-free-markets-more-t2).


I believe what they usually end up supporting is really just repackaged mercantilism...

This too is very true. The reigning economic theory today is Keynesianism, or neoKeynesianism, which is nothing less than repackaged mercantilism. Yes, their is the neoliberal monetarist reaction to that, in even such greats as Milton Friedman, but they adhere to Keynesian macroeconomics and the belief government can manage the economy.


How can they take "our" jobs? Do "we" have jobs collectively or as individuals? If individuals, then shouldn't we be responsible for our own livelihood? If not, why is it "our" collective responsibility to provide people with jobs? Isn't that like mandating wages?

A job is a contract, it is not something that can be owned, or taken. That contract is based on the subjective valuations of employer and employee, and when those valuations change, which they do in a changing economic environment, jobs change, you go elsewhere or are let go. The contract may stipulate conditions and compensations, but otherwise there is no obligation on either parties part.

Can that seem unfair, can that impose hardship? That's life.


Can you have a free market with state intervention to protect the jobs and wages of an undesirable workforce?

Inasmuch as government (mis)manages it, it is not free. Fortunately government (mis)manages only a small part.


Is there any evidence that autarky is a rational economic principle?

Economies since primitive man has always been based on division of labor, specialization and trade. The anthropological record shows isolation from trade leads to devolution if not disappearance of those isolated.

[PolWatch]

They aren't taking the jobs...we are giving them the jobs. Why is it ok for the company to hire illegals and not face consequences? I have a friend who agrees we need to do something about the illegal immigration situation....but when she needs someone to paint a rental property, they go to the local big-box store & hire one of the illegals waiting in the parking lot. There are legal companies with legal employees available but the illegals are cheaper. They are making a choice to take advantage of the difference in cost and encouraging the illegals to stay here.

[Chris]

They aren't taking the jobs...we are giving them the jobs. Why is it ok for the company to hire illegals and not face consequences? I have a friend who agrees we need to do something about the illegal immigration situation....but when she needs someone to paint a rental property, they go to the local big-box store & hire one of the illegals waiting in the parking lot. There are legal companies with legal employees available but the illegals are cheaper. They are making a choice to take advantage of the difference in cost and encouraging the illegals to stay here.


Hiring illegals should be illegal and should be enforced.

[PolWatch]

The illegal immigration problem stands little chance of being resolved when people continue to take advantage of the situation. Complaining that government can't/won't make you follow the rules doesn't make for a good situation. No jobs = no (or greatly reduced) illegal immigration. The cost of the proposed border fence could be used for enforcement of our current laws...with money left over.

[Chris]

The illegal immigration problem stands little chance of being resolved when people continue to take advantage of the situation. Complaining that government can't/won't make you follow the rules doesn't make for a good situation. No jobs = no (or greatly reduced) illegal immigration. The cost of the proposed border fence could be used for enforcement of our current laws...with money left over.

Government looking the other way is good for business. Just more corruption from the collusion of government and business. Need to separate the two!

[Mac-7]

They aren't taking the jobs...we are giving them the jobs. Why is it ok for the company to hire illegals and not face consequences? I have a friend who agrees we need to do something about the illegal immigration situation....but when she needs someone to paint a rental property, they go to the local big-box store & hire one of the illegals waiting in the parking lot. There are legal companies with legal employees available but the illegals are cheaper. They are making a choice to take advantage of the difference in cost and encouraging the illegals to stay here.


Two problems.

welfare allows lazy people to reap without sowing.

Meaning a lot of Americans excuse themselves from the work market.

Second, open borders allows millions of illegal aliens to flood the market with cheap labor.

Honest contractors who refuse to hire illegal aliens will be run out of business by less principled contractors who can underbid them for projects.

[Captain Obvious]

Hiring illegals should be illegal and should be enforced.

Listen to what you just said for a second.

That's not a knock on you, btw.

[Chris]

Listen to what you just said for a second.

That's not a knock on you, btw.

Horseshoes. :)

[Common Sense]

I have a few friends who live in the US that have "stolen" American jobs in the film industry.

[PolWatch]

The welfare issue is valid...which is why I thought the Work-fare program was such a good idea. It was started by Clinton and allowed to sit, unused by every president since then....its much more fun to point fingers and place blame than actually try to solve the problem.

Contractors who continue to hire illegals are not honest...that is a justification for illegal practices. People who are concerned about the issue only need to tell them they won't hire anyone who uses illegals. It will cost consumers more but that is the price for getting rid of illegal labor. How important is it to you?

It makes no sense to pass more laws and scream about the subject if no one obeys the laws we already have. We are saying the government should enforce the laws that WE are breaking because it gets into OUR wallets....'please, make me obey the laws that I am encouraging others to break'.

[Mac-7]

Contractors who continue to hire illegals are not honest...that is a justifications for illegal practices.

People who are concerned about the issue only need to tell them they won't hire anyone who uses illegals. It will cost consumers more but that is the price for getting rid of illegal labor. How important is it to you?

.

Say you have the proverbial barrel of good apples and one bad apple is added.

What happens to the others?

They all go bad too.

If you are a contractor bidding on jobs the price you charge is a major factor in who the customers choose.

A few contractors underbidding the competition by using cheaper illegal labor will cause a domino affect in the industry.

And it isn't the otherwise honest contractor's fault.

Because it's not their job to secure the border or enforce the immigration laws for illegals who are here.

[Cigar]

I say go to "any" Fortune 500 Information Technology Depertment, that isn't already in India ... then tell me what you see. :wink:

[Mister D]

I say go to "any" Fortune 500 Information Technology Depertment, that isn't already in India ... then tell me what you see. :wink:

I think they are still predominantly white. True, Plenty of Asians but virtually no...ahem. :wink:

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/technology/tech-diversity-data/?iid=EL

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/09/technology/diversity_silicon_valley/

[Cigar]

I think they are still predominantly white. True, Plenty of Asians but virtually no...ahem. :wink:

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/technology/tech-diversity-data/?iid=EL

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/09/technology/diversity_silicon_valley/

No I didn't say pull a Link from the Web ... I said "actually" go to a Fortune 500 IT Deptment and use your actual "eyes".

I work in the Indistry ... I know who is there.

[Chris]

Say you have the proverbial barrel of good apples and one bad apple is added.

What happens to the others?

They all go bad too.

If you are a contractor bidding on jobs the price you charge is a major factor in who the customers choose.

A few contractors underbidding the competition by using cheaper illegal labor will cause a domino affect in the industry.

And it isn't the otherwise honest contractor's fault.

Because it's not their job to secure the border or enforce the immigration laws for illegals who are here.



Economy's not a pie and contractors aren't apples.

[gamewell45]

Hiring illegals should be illegal and should be enforced.

The US Chamber of Commerce will never allow it to happen.

[Cigar]

The US Chamber of Commerce will never allow it to happen.

They will never go after The Real Criminals ... their Donors :laugh:

[Chris]

The US Chamber of Commerce will never allow it to happen.

Not when the feds offer amnesty.

[gamewell45]

Not when the feds offer amnesty.

It's all a huge circle; the business owners, the US Chamber of Commerce, both houses of congress, the executive branch and the cycle starts all over again.

[Chris]

It's all a huge circle; the business owners, the US Chamber of Commerce, both houses of congress, the executive branch and the cycle starts all over again.

Best government money can buy.

[nic34]

It seems most people, left and right, claim to support capitalism or market freedom, however I believe what they usually end up supporting is really just repackaged mercantilism because "illegal aliens and China take our jobs".

Some questions immediately arise upon hearing this or should.

How can an illegal alien or foreigner take your job? Specifically, can someone "take" your job? Furthermore, if they can then is it really "your" job?

How can they take "our" jobs? Do "we" have jobs collectively or as individuals? If individuals, then shouldn't we be responsible for our own livelihood? If not, why is it "our" collective responsibility to provide people with jobs? Isn't that like mandating wages?

Can you have a free market with state intervention to protect the jobs and wages of an undesirable workforce? Is there any evidence that autarky is a rational economic principle?

I work for "foreigners" as they and a few Americans own the company.

S. Asian, Mexican and Irish.

[nic34]

Say you have the proverbial barrel of good apples and one bad apple is added.

What happens to the others?

They all go bad too.

If you are a contractor bidding on jobs the price you charge is a major factor in who the customers choose.

A few contractors underbidding the competition by using cheaper illegal labor will cause a domino affect in the industry.

And it isn't the otherwise honest contractor's fault.

Because it's not their job to secure the border or enforce the immigration laws for illegals who are here.

It IS the contractor's responsibility to follow the law.

[Mister D]

No I didn't say pull a Link from the Web ... I said "actually" go to a Fortune 500 IT Deptment and use your actual "eyes".

I work in the Indistry ... I know who is there.

:laugh: Yeah, we'll trust Cigar's personal experience of every Fortune 500 Company in the country. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Common Sense]

The Chamber of Commerce are a bunch of crooks who have somehow fooled people into thinking they are a govt organization.

[Mac-7]

It IS the contractor's responsibility to follow the law.

Not if it means they will go out of business.

If the government does not enforce the immigration laws then neither will employers.

[Mister D]

I'm not for capitalism so let me get that out of the way first. I have no objections to state interference in the "free market" in principle. I also have no problem with the idea that I should care about my community, fellow citizens, and people in general (the order there was intentional). Anyway, when people speak of jobs being taken away they don't mean, for example, that you drive to work one day and find an Ecuadorian at your desk. They're referring to the impact immigration (legal and illegal) has on the wages of poor and working class Americans never mind the other social and economic costs (e.g. is it just a coincidence that bankruptcy and an unprecendented demographic change occurred at the same time in CA?).

[Chris]

Thing is, no one is showing any evidence of such an impact. It exists only in the abstract. I mean, it seems intuitively reasonable that on the aggregate if immigrants work then on aggregate there are less jobs. But (a) those may well be entry-level jobs natives just don't want; (b) the work and subsequent consumption contributes to the economy and thus general welfare; and (c) other jobs are being created all the time, partly based on (b).

[Mister D]

Thing is, no one is showing any evidence of such an impact. It exists only in the abstract. I mean, it seems intuitively reasonable that on the aggregate if immigrants work then on aggregate there are less jobs. But (a) those may well be entry-level jobs natives just don't want; (b) the work and subsequent consumption contributes to the economy and thus general welfare; and (c) other jobs are being created all the time, partly based on (b).

Economics is admittedly not my strong suit but it seems simple enough: an increase in supply lowers demand and thus cost. Right? Moreover, why is Congress constantly lobbied to increase the supply of labor if in fact that's not what business lobbies want? Secondly, putting their kids through school, feeding them, warehousing their miscreants, and sending them welfare checks more than likely covers whatever contribution they make to the economy.

[Chris]

Economics is admittedly not my strong suit but it seems simple enough: an increase in supply lowers demand and thus cost. Right? Moreover, why is Congress constantly lobbied to increase the supply of labor if in fact that's not what business lobbies want? Secondly, putting their kids through school, feeding them, warehousing their miscreants, and sending them welfare checks more than likely covers whatever contribution they make to the economy.

That's a good point, yes, the immigrant increase in supply should lower demand, whether less jobs or lower pay. Yet jobs keep increasing, largely, I think, because exploitation of cheap labor contributes to the economy--and they do pay taxes etc, even the illegals. Yes, it is what business wants, and that's what drives Congress and Presidents to increase immigration with amnesties of various sorts.

If Congress and President represented the interests of the people, instead of the rich, they'd insitute different closed-door policies.

It's like printing fiat money in a way.

[Mister D]

That's a good point, yes, the immigrant increase in supply should lower demand, whether less jobs or lower pay. Yet jobs keep increasing, largely, I think, because exploitation of cheap labor contributes to the economy--and they do pay taxes etc, even the illegals. Yes, it is what business wants, and that's what drives Congress and Presidents to increase immigration with amnesties of various sorts.

If Congress and President represented the interests of the people, instead of the rich, they're insitute different closed-door policies.

It's like printing fiat money in a way.

I'm perusing a few studies now. It's pretty complicated and, quite frankly, I think you can find data to support either position. So much for studies...

I have to admit I'm a little disgusted by how some people intimate that Americans are lazy while acquiescing in the exploitation of migrants.

[Mac-7]

I'm perusing a few studies now. It's pretty complicated and, quite frankly, I think you can find data to support either position. So much for studies...

I have to admit I'm a little disgusted by how some people intimate that Americans are lazy while acquiescing in the exploitation of migrants.

Why do we have to convince Chris?

He's an anarchist who doesn't even vote.

[Chris]

I'm perusing a few studies now. It's pretty complicated and, quite frankly, I think you can find data to support either position. So much for studies...

I have to admit I'm a little disgusted by how some people intimate that Americans are lazy while acquiescing in the exploitation of migrants.


I don't think people are lazy. Most work hard at what they do. Others find government welfare more appealing.

Economist Russ Roberts talks about how data can be found for all cases/sides. In his recent How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life, he writes: "It's a big problem in my field of economics. Keynesians just know that Obama's stimulus package created millions of jobs. After all, their data and studies prove it. But somehow, the skeptics on the other side can prove the stimulus did little or nothing. Their data and studies seem just as convincing to them. How can that be?" Confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance.

[Chris]

Why do we have to convince Chris?

He's an anarchist who doesn't even vote.


You don't have to convince me of anything.

[Mac-7]

You don't have to convince me of anything.

That's what I just said.

[Chris]

That's what I just said.



You offer nothing of substance. And that's fine. I doubt many expect anything more from you.

[Mac-7]

You offer nothing of substance. And that's fine. I doubt many expect anything more from you.

Again Chris, who cares if you agree or not?

We give you a glimpse of reality but it goes in one ear and out the other.

There is more to the world than what you read in a book.

[Chris]

Again Chris, who cares if you agree or not?

We give you a glimpse of reality but it goes in one ear and out the other.

There is more to the world than what you read in a book.



Mac, you need to offer something of substance to agree or disagree with.

You offer your opinion, you offer nothing to tie it to reality, no evidence at all.

Tell us something about the world you have gotten from RNC talking points.


I feel like I'm talking to ransom.

[Mac-7]

Mac, you need to offer something of substance to agree or disagree with.

You offer your opinion, you offer nothing to tie it to reality, no evidence at all.

Tell us something about the world you have gotten from RNC talking points.


I feel like I'm talking to ransom.

I have offered you logic but you don't deal in logic.

You only know what you read in a book somewhere

[Mr. Right]

Government looking the other way is good for business. Just more corruption from the collusion of government and business. Need to separate the two!

Government, in these times, has taken a different shape than 30 years ago. If you go against or speak out on excessive government regulations, you get what I get, an invitation to visit your local IRS agency for an American Iquisition or, better known as an audit.

[Archer0915]

It seems most people, left and right, claim to support capitalism or market freedom, however I believe what they usually end up supporting is really just repackaged mercantilism because "illegal aliens and China take our jobs".

Some questions immediately arise upon hearing this or should.

How can an illegal alien or foreigner take your job? Specifically, can someone "take" your job? Furthermore, if they can then is it really "your" job?

How can they take "our" jobs? Do "we" have jobs collectively or as individuals? If individuals, then shouldn't we be responsible for our own livelihood? If not, why is it "our" collective responsibility to provide people with jobs? Isn't that like mandating wages?

Can you have a free market with state intervention to protect the jobs and wages of an undesirable workforce? Is there any evidence that autarky is a rational economic principle?

Hell yeah they are taking jobs! Just listen to Fat Ass Bubba redneck and Lard Ass tyrone the liberal... Sitting back on welfare getting unemployment and... while not even considering the jobs they bitch about somebody else taking because they got a free fucking pell degree handed to them and are now toooo edumaketed to take a job that is below them.

We would not have issues if people were proactive and watched how they shopped.

[PolWatch]

I have offered you logic but you don't deal in logic.

You only know what you read in a book somewhere

shame on you Chris...you & those pesky facts! Books! bah-humbug!

[Chris]

I have offered you logic but you don't deal in logic.

You only know what you read in a book somewhere


You offer nothing, mac. You make a claim about the economy, asked to substantiate it, you discuss me. How boorish and boring.

[Chris]

Government, in these times, has taken a different shape than 30 years ago. If you go against or speak out on excessive government regulations, you get what I get, an invitation to visit your local IRS agency for an American Iquisition or, better known as an audit.


Well, I think it's always been coercive that way.

[PolWatch]

Government, in these times, has taken a different shape than 30 years ago. If you go against or speak out on excessive government regulations, you get what I get, an invitation to visit your local IRS agency for an American Iquisition or, better known as an audit.

I'm a wuss...that would terrify me.

[Mac-7]

shame on you @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)...you & those pesky facts! Books! bah-humbug!

You should just keep mindlessly thanking your fellow libs and not tax your brain by posting words.

This thread has become the usual personal attack pissing contest that all threads here become.

In post #15 I was attempting to communicate with you in a reasonable manner but that is not your style I suppose.

Yes books are good things.

But the purpose of a book is to make us smarter not to be used as a club to beat down the other side.

If libs have no knowledge within themselves after reading those books then you are all pretty worthless even by lib standards.

[kilgram]

Government looking the other way is good for business. Just more corruption from the collusion of government and business. Need to separate the two!
it is what government does with the illegals. Looking the other way because that is good for business.

But previously you said that something should be done with the illegals and not being possible to hire them. Like all liberals, you are full of contradictions.

[Chris]

it is what government does with the illegals. Looking the other way because that is good for business.

But previously you said that something should be done with the illegals and not being possible to hire them. Like all liberals, you are full of contradictions.


Government looking the other way is the problem. Private property is the solution. No contradiction.

[Chris]

You should just keep mindlessly thanking your fellow libs and not tax your brain by posting words.

This thread has become the usual personal attack pissing contest that all threads here become.

In post #15 I was attempting to communicate with you in a reasonable manner but that is not your style I suppose.

Yes books are good things.

But the purpose of a book is to make us smarter not to be used as a club to beat down the other side.

If libs have no knowledge within themselves after reading those books then you are all pretty worthless even by lib standards.



All I'm doing, mac, is demonstrating the shallowness of your partisan opinions.

Here's your post #15:


Say you have the proverbial barrel of good apples and one bad apple is added.

What happens to the others?

They all go bad too.

If you are a contractor bidding on jobs the price you charge is a major factor in who the customers choose.

A few contractors underbidding the competition by using cheaper illegal labor will cause a domino affect in the industry.

And it isn't the otherwise honest contractor's fault.

Because it's not their job to secure the border or enforce the immigration laws for illegals who are here.

It's just a collection of disjointed statements of opinion. Where's the reasoning? You seem to have something against lower consumer prices. Certainly you can't be arguing that a contractor, even a US contractor, that innovates and thereby lowers prices, underbidding competition, is a "bad apple." That's the way the free market is supposed to work.

So really all you're saying is hiring illegals is not fair.

When in fact it's simply illegal.

And whose job is that, why none other than the government you so dearly love is failing you.

[Mac-7]

All I'm doing, mac, is demonstrating the shallowness of your partisan opinions.

Here's your post #15:



It's just a collection of disjointed statements of opinion. Where's the reasoning? You seem to have something against lower consumer prices. Certainly you can't be arguing that a contractor, even a US contractor, that innovates and thereby lowers prices, underbidding competition, is a "bad apple." That's the way the free market is supposed to work.

So really all you're saying is hiring illegals is not fair.

When in fact it's simply illegal.

And whose job is that, why none other than the government you so dearly love is failing you.

My opinions on this issue are not partisan.

if you think they are which party is my position being partisan for?


Certainly you can't be arguing that a contractor, even a US contractor, that innovates and thereby lowers prices, underbidding competition, is a "bad apple."

if they are hiring illegal aliens they are bad apples.

As long as there are unemployed Americans companies should be hiring them instead of foreigners.

[PolWatch]

You should just keep mindlessly thanking your fellow libs and not tax your brain by posting words.

This thread has become the usual personal attack pissing contest that all threads here become.

In post #15 I was attempting to communicate with you in a reasonable manner but that is not your style I suppose.

Yes books are good things.

But the purpose of a book is to make us smarter not to be used as a club to beat down the other side.

If libs have no knowledge within themselves after reading those books then you are all pretty worthless even by lib standards.

As s Bobbsey Twin, I'm surprised my opinion would matter to you. I do try to follow the KISS rule with some people. You say the thread is a personal attack like all threads here. Why do you think that is so? Could it be because when you disagree with someone you immediately start telling them that they are lib, lib, libertarian, 3%, fence sitters. Surprise! 75% of those people are so far from liberal it could be Siberia. What result do you get? Few get upset...they have accepted your response is a sort of Tourette's syndrome...inappropriate, all purpose response.

Books are not used to beat people over the head...they contain facts. Facts are what people cite instead of labeling others when they disagree. Look at some of the other discussions. People make a statement and they back up their statement with facts. The conversation continues. When you start labeling others because they don't agree with your personal opinion, conversation stops. The choice is yours. Who knows, maybe someone would thank you on some of your posts....

[Chris]

My opinions on this issue are not partisan.

if you think they are which party is my position being partisan for?



if they are hiring illegal aliens they are bad apples.

As long as there are unemployed Americans companies should be hiring them instead of foreigners.



Which party? The way you cite RNC talking points, tacking on all your empty vitriol, I'd say you're a closet Democrat trying to give Republicans a bad name.

[Chris]

As s Bobbsey Twin, I'm surprised my opinion would matter to you. I do try to follow the KISS rule with some people. You say the thread is a personal attack like all threads here. Why do you think that is so? Could it be because when you disagree with someone you immediately start telling them that they are lib, lib, libertarian, 3%, fence sitters. Surprise! 75% of those people are so far from liberal it could be Siberia. What result do you get? Few get upset...they have accepted your response is a sort of Tourette's syndrome...inappropriate, all purpose response.

Books are not used to beat people over the head...they contain facts. Facts are what people cite instead of labeling others when they disagree. Look at some of the other discussions. People make a statement and they back up their statement with facts. The conversation continues. When you start labeling others because they don't agree with your personal opinion, conversation stops. The choice is yours. Who knows, maybe someone would thank you on some of your posts....




Why do you think that is so? Could it be because when you disagree with someone you immediately start telling them that they are lib, lib, libertarian, 3%, fence sitters. Surprise!

That's it exactly. And then to hypocritically whine about "he usual personal attack pissing contest that all threads here become." Amazing, truly amazing.

[kilgram]

Government looking the other way is the problem. Private property is the solution. No contradiction.
????

Are you asking for freedom, right? Then as owner of my corporation I want to hire whatever person who wants to work for me. And exactly that is what government is doing, letting me hire whoever I want.

Private property. You said once, that with my private no one had right to say whatever I did with it. Then no one has right to tell me who I hire. And if I can find cheaper workers in foreign land you are not anybody to tell me what I have to do with my money.

Or are you against my liberty?

Are not you a defender of small government or no government, then I don't understand how is a problem that government ignores what companies do with their own private properties. Government has no right to interfere in the market or private property.

[Peter1469]

Chris is the furthest from being a lib. Only a retard would call Chris a lib.


You should just keep mindlessly thanking your fellow libs and not tax your brain by posting words.

This thread has become the usual personal attack pissing contest that all threads here become.

In post #15 I was attempting to communicate with you in a reasonable manner but that is not your style I suppose.

Yes books are good things.

But the purpose of a book is to make us smarter not to be used as a club to beat down the other side.

If libs have no knowledge within themselves after reading those books then you are all pretty worthless even by lib standards.

[Mister D]

Chris is the furthest from being a lib. Only a retard would call Chris a lib.

The way Mac means it, yes.

[Peter1469]

The way Mac means it, yes.

Agreed.

[Archer0915]

My opinions on this issue are not partisan.

if you think they are which party is my position being partisan for?



if they are hiring illegal aliens they are bad apples.

As long as there are unemployed Americans companies should be hiring them instead of foreigners.

When Bubba the redneck and leroy the thug decide to get off the government sauce and take the damn job you will have a valid point. Kill most welfare and watch the employment rate rise.

[Mac-7]

As s Bobbsey Twin, I'm surprised my opinion would matter to you. I do try to follow the KISS rule with some people. You say the thread is a personal attack like all threads here. Why do you think that is so? Could it be because when you disagree with someone you immediately start telling them that they are lib, lib, libertarian, 3%, fence sitters. Surprise! 75% of those people are so far from liberal it could be Siberia. What result do you get? Few get upset...they have accepted your response is a sort of Tourette's syndrome...inappropriate, all purpose response.

Books are not used to beat people over the head...they contain facts. Facts are what people cite instead of labeling others when they disagree. Look at some of the other discussions. People make a statement and they back up their statement with facts. The conversation continues. When you start labeling others because they don't agree with your personal opinion, conversation stops. The choice is yours. Who knows, maybe someone would thank you on some of your posts....


I did did call you a Bobbsey Twin.

but that was on another thread that had already degenerated into chaos.

in post #15 I offered you my opinion in a reasonable way.

you may or may not agree with it but there was nothing to be gained by ignoring it and instead turning to the usual personal insults.

[Mac-7]

When Bubba the redneck and leroy the thug decide to get off the government sauce and take the $#@! job you will have a valid point. Kill most welfare and watch the employment rate rise.

I'm all for that idea.

but pending welfare reform I don't want to ignore illegal aliens or the open border with Mexico.

[Chris]

????

Are you asking for freedom, right? Then as owner of my corporation I want to hire whatever person who wants to work for me. And exactly that is what government is doing, letting me hire whoever I want.

Private property. You said once, that with my private no one had right to say whatever I did with it. Then no one has right to tell me who I hire. And if I can find cheaper workers in foreign land you are not anybody to tell me what I have to do with my money.

Or are you against my liberty?

Are not you a defender of small government or no government, then I don't understand how is a problem that government ignores what companies do with their own private properties. Government has no right to interfere in the market or private property.



Again, we're talking two different things. In this thread, up until your off-topic comments, the question has been, in part, illegals. If there must be government then the solution is for government to enforce its laws and not bend them as favors to anyone, here business.


Private property. You said once, that with my private no one had right to say whatever I did with it. Then no one has right to tell me who I hire. And if I can find cheaper workers in foreign land you are not anybody to tell me what I have to do with my money.

Yes, under a private property system you could hire anyone you want. You would have to assure other property owners that those you hire would only pass through to get to your property were they would stay.




Are not you a defender of small government or no government, then I don't understand how is a problem that government ignores what companies do with their own private properties. Government has no right to interfere in the market or private property.

This is all very simple. In the context of assuming a legitimate government, the argument is the government must apply the law to all to be legitimate. That's an argument within a given context. That doesn't imply I support big, small or no government. It simply says logically to be consistent a government must enforce the laws it makes.

Here, another example.

All men are animals.
Mac is a man.
Therefore mac is an animal.

That is simply logically sound. It doesn't imply I support men or animals or the notion men are animals and anything.


Within the context of monarchy vs democracy, I think monarchy, for various reasons, a better system than democracy. Within that context. That doesn't mean I support monarchy over anarchy, for in the context of anarchy vs monarchy, or the context of anarchy vs monarchy vs democracy, I prefer anarchy.


The context of an argument is all important.

[Chris]

When Bubba the redneck and leroy the thug decide to get off the government sauce and take the damn job you will have a valid point. Kill most welfare and watch the employment rate rise.

That's true. Why would anyone want to pick strawberries, oranges, and etc when government takes middle class wealth and redistributes it to social welfare to nothing?

[Archer0915]

I'm all for that idea.

but pending welfare reform I don't want to ignore illegal aliens or the open border with Mexico.

Well I guess they can offshore the rest of US industry but who is going to do the AG work? Force people to do the jobs or no welfare?

Still they are trying to put illegals on the sauce with EIC.

They use our schools... welfare...

Sadly, if we kick them out without forcing Americans to take the jobs or lose welfare, we are fucked.

[Archer0915]

That's true. Why would anyone want to pick strawberries, oranges, and etc when government takes middle class wealth and redistributes it to social welfare to nothing?

Middle class? Define that. These bastards are buying the lower middle as well.

[kilgram]

Again, we're talking two different things. In this thread, up until your off-topic comments, the question has been, in part, illegals. If there must be government then the solution is for government to enforce its laws and not bend them as favors to anyone, here business.



Yes, under a private property system you could hire anyone you want. You would have to assure other property owners that those you hire would only pass through to get to your property were they would stay.





This is all very simple. In the context of assuming a legitimate government, the argument is the government must apply the law to all to be legitimate. That's an argument within a given context. That doesn't imply I support big, small or no government. It simply says logically to be consistent a government must enforce the laws it makes.

Here, another example.

All men are animals.
Mac is a man.
Therefore mac is an animal.

That is simply logically sound. It doesn't imply I support men or animals or the notion men are animals and anything.


Within the context of monarchy vs democracy, I think monarchy, for various reasons, a better system than democracy. Within that context. That doesn't mean I support monarchy over anarchy, for in the context of anarchy vs monarchy, or the context of anarchy vs monarchy vs democracy, I prefer anarchy.


The context of an argument is all important.
And I proved you why you are authoritarian.

And I am going to bookmark this answer to use it against you when I find necessary. It has many interesting points proving your authoritarism. And I am not going to need to change a comma.

It has been very illustrative, thank you.

Wow... I never had those animosity against anybody. I don't know why you've caused this impact on me :-S

I see you as an enemy to defeat... Curious.

About the context... You are unable to understand the context when I use some of my arguments.

And in your comment is interesting how your system would create thousand of states. Each state ruled by a corporation. It is the reality of your system. Think about it, and read your answer and see because I see you as authoritarian and your system would lead to a something much worse than anything else.

And monarchy is not better than democracy except if you like Authoritarism. Because monarchy is more authoritarian than democracy. Democracy was an advance towards freedom from monarchy. Is a step towards freedom, very far from it, but closer than monarchy.

It is curious than an anarchist prefers one of the most totalitarian forms that exist.

[Chris]

And I proved you why you are authoritarian.

And I am going to bookmark this answer to use it against you when I find necessary. It has many interesting points proving your authoritarism. And I am not going to need to change a comma.

It has been very illustrative, thank you.

Wow... I never had those animosity against anybody. I don't know why you've caused this impact on me :-S



You didn't understand a word I said, did you.

[Chris]

Middle class? Define that. These bastards are buying the lower middle as well.

The people who create wealth.

These bastards? Define that.

[Archer0915]

The people who create wealth.

These $#@!s? Define that.

Ohhhhhhh this is going to be a good discussion!

Wealth creation? Well what is it and how is it created? Wealth is not money. Money is a measure and is simply a holder of value.

To create wealth you have to start with raw materials! Agriculture and raw materials is where it starts Hell we can break this up pretty well with some cost accounting.

[kilgram]

You didn't understand a word I said, did you.
I did.

And these words have implicit many negative consequences. From total power of the owners to likeness to systems where the people gets power to rule over the rest just because they are born in some family.

The implicit consequences of all those words are clear to anyone that is not liberal. And they would not like to live in that system.

But going to topic.

As I said, there is no prevention to prevent me to hire anyone that I want. And also, there is another thing, I can let people to pass or not through my lands that can be even a complete town, making me a feudal lord. Having absolute power on the people living in my lands. And they have to accept my rule or leave. Interesting system.

Because it is my private property and no one can prevent me to do whatever I want in my property and much less to sign any kind of contract with my serves.

When I am more inspired I am going to give you a better explanation of this. But for now this will do.

[kilgram]

The people who create wealth.

These bastards? Define that.
Mmm, the people who create wealth are middle class?

Everybody creates wealth, therefore is everybody middle class? I don't think so.

And in the process of wealth creation is involved everybody that participates in the production process. And even not everybody directly involved in the production process but they are in the support of the production process help to the creation of wealth, even not directly.

[Chris]

Ohhhhhhh this is going to be a good discussion!

Wealth creation? Well what is it and how is it created? Wealth is not money. Money is a measure and is simply a holder of value.

To create wealth you have to start with raw materials! Agriculture and raw materials is where it starts Hell we can break this up pretty well with some cost accounting.


Who said wealth is money?

Wealth is what people subjectively value. It is generated by exchange, trade.

[Chris]

Mmm, the people who create wealth are middle class?

Everybody creates wealth, therefore is everybody middle class? I don't think so.

And in the process of wealth creation is involved everybody that participates in the production process. And even not everybody directly involved in the production process but they are in the support of the production process help to the creation of wealth, even not directly.


Yes, mainly the middle class.

Yes, of course, everyone does.

[kilgram]

Yes, mainly the middle class.

Yes, of course, everyone does.
Mainly the middle class?

[Archer0915]

Who said wealth is money?

Wealth is what people subjectively value. It is generated by exchange, trade.

Not really. Wealth generation, creating wealth. Should I say creating new wealth. Sure we can create virtual wealth but the fact is tangible is the word here. Sure things have value but value does not create wealth. You can exchange currency for services but you have created nothing. Sure there is value added to some things but again that is adding value... VAT at a company you know...

[Chris]

Not really. Wealth generation, creating wealth. Should I say creating new wealth. Sure we can create virtual wealth but the fact is tangible is the word here. Sure things have value but value does not create wealth. You can exchange currency for services but you have created nothing. Sure there is value added to some things but again that is adding value... VAT at a company you know...

If you and I exchange for what we value more than what we have we will have generated wealth. It doesn't matter what in particular you or I subjectively value, be it money or good food or just a good time, it is what we value that's important.

Money/currency is just a medium of exchange, earned by producing something of value. Say I have cows and you have wheat and Joe has a shovel. If I value that shovel but Joe doesn't value my cows, you do, I can sell the cows to you, purchase the shovel, and Joe can buy your wheat.

[Chris]

Mainly the middle class?

Mainly the middle class. Most entrepreneurship and innovation comes from the middle class.

[Archer0915]

If you and I exchange for what we value more than what we have we will have generated wealth. It doesn't matter what in particular you or I subjectively value, be it money or good food or just a good time, it is what we value that's important.

Money/currency is just a medium of exchange, earned by producing something of value. Say I have cows and you have wheat and Joe has a shovel. If I value that shovel but Joe doesn't value my cows, you do, I can sell the cows to you, purchase the shovel, and Joe can buy your wheat.

No sir we have exchange what we value for something we value more. We have generated nothing and created nothing. Well we generated expenses and revenues. We CREATED no wealth. Exchange for goods is not wealth creation it is exchange.

[Chris]

No sir we have exchange what we value for something we value more. We have generated nothing and created nothing. Well we generated expenses and revenues. We CREATED no wealth. Exchange for goods is not wealth creation it is exchange.

No, in any voluntary exchange you will gain what you value more and I will gain what I value more. It's not zero-sum, wealth is generated.

[Archer0915]

No, in any voluntary exchange you will gain what you value more and I will gain what I value more. It's not zero-sum, wealth is generated.

Chris, you are wrong. This is not wealth generation. It just is not. Stop thinking small. This is exchange! No new wealth has been generated! Currence has been exchanged or existing items have been bartered in a way the is at a minimum mutually satisfying.

If I sell you an existing video card for a profit I have made a profit I have generated no wealth.

If I grow trees and build a home that you buy I have generated wealth. It is something new and of value! Why do you think the housing market is such a big thing? The auto industry?

Those are two of the big three that are left. Next is agriculture... This is why illegals are so important.

[Archer0915]

Chris I think our disconnect is our personal view. I am looking at this as creating new wealth you are looking at it in the form of exchange.

To me creating (wealth generation) is adding to what is by creating something that is not and you are looking at the exchange of existing commodities.

You are looking at creating wealth for the individual I am talking about adding value to things of little worth and creating new wealth.

[kilgram]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) I think our disconnect is our personal view. I am looking at this as creating new wealth you are looking at it in the form of exchange.

To me creating (wealth generation) is adding to what is by creating something that is not and you are looking at the exchange of existing commodities.

You are looking at creating wealth for the individual I am talking about adding value to things of little worth and creating new wealth.
And exactly that is wealth creation. Wealth generation is directly related to creation, to production.

As you indicated the exchange of good is not a wealth generator.

Now, we have a great part of wealth production that is in services but what generates more wealth in a country is the industry, the secondary sector. A country without industry does not have future.

Industry gives independence, or can give it. Industry is the real generator of wealth.

Entrepeneurships, or better said, employers only generate a part of the wealth generated related to their activity (always considering that activity is productive).

PS: Chris why do you think that a country with no industry has a very weak economy.

[Chris]

Chris I think our disconnect is our personal view. I am looking at this as creating new wealth you are looking at it in the form of exchange.

To me creating (wealth generation) is adding to what is by creating something that is not and you are looking at the exchange of existing commodities.

You are looking at creating wealth for the individual I am talking about adding value to things of little worth and creating new wealth.


Things don't have value in themselves but only as individuals value them.

You can mix (exchange) your labor with resources to create new things, but most wealth is generated in exchange with others. Division of labor, specialization and trade is how wealth is generated.

[Chris]

And exactly that is wealth creation. Wealth generation is directly related to creation, to production.

As you indicated the exchange of good is not a wealth generator.

Now, we have a great part of wealth production that is in services but what generates more wealth in a country is the industry, the secondary sector. A country without industry does not have future.

Industry gives independence, or can give it. Industry is the real generator of wealth.

Entrepeneurships, or better said, employers only generate a part of the wealth generated related to their activity (always considering that activity is productive).

PS: Chris why do you think that a country with no industry has a very weak economy.



The labor theory of value assigns intrinsic value to labor when it depends on how others subjectively value it. You might expend great effort making something no one else wants, it has no value, spend little effort on what others value.

[Mac-7]

And exactly that is wealth creation. Wealth generation is directly related to creation, to production.

As you indicated the exchange of good is not a wealth generator.

Now, we have a great part of wealth production that is in services but what generates more wealth in a country is the industry, the secondary sector. A country without industry does not have future.

Industry gives independence, or can give it. Industry is the real generator of wealth.

Entrepeneurships, or better said, employers only generate a part of the wealth generated related to their activity (always considering that activity is productive).

PS: Chris why do you think that a country with no industry has a very weak economy.

You are correct.

industrial production is the process of converting raw material into products that humans need or want.

that is wealth generation.

and America needs it

[Chris]

You are correct.

industrial production is the process of converting raw material into products that humans need or want.

that is wealth generation.

and America needs it


Kilgram is a Communist who abides by Marx's Labor Theory of Value. But the value of goods is not determined by labor but by the individual valuations of consumers.

[Mac-7]

Kilgram is a Communist who abides by Marx's Labor Theory of Value. But the value of goods is not determined by labor but by the individual valuations of consumers.

I don't care if he's a Martian with two heads.

he happens to be correct about the need for old fashioned industrial production

[Chris]

I don't care if he's a Martian with two heads.

he happens to be correct about the need for old fashioned industrial production


How do you arrive at a true conclusion based on a false premise?

[iustitia]

LOLOLOL Mac has no problem agreeing with a communist on economics but Chris, PolWatch, Alyosha, Ethereal, and everyone else are lib lib lib socialists!

[Chris]

LOLOLOL Mac has no problem agreeing with a communist on economics but Chris, PolWatch, Alyosha, Ethereal, and everyone else are lib lib lib socialists!

I think the irony somehow escapes him.

[Mac-7]

How do you arrive at a true conclusion based on a false premise?

I see no false premise

Industrial production is good for America because it provides decent paying jobs for blue collar workers and improves our trade deficit with the world

[Chris]

I see no false premise

Industrial production is good for America because it provides decent paying jobs for blue collar workers and improves our trade deficit with the world


Value is not determined by labor.

Of course producing things is good, but that wasn't his point.

But producing things is only valuable in exchange and trade. If I produce 10000 watermelons they are of no value unless people buy them.

[Mac-7]

Value is not determined by labor.

Of course producing things is good, but that wasn't his point.

But producing things is only valuable in exchange and trade. If I produce 10000 watermelons they are of no value unless people buy them.

I think it was his point

or if not I'll let him correct me instead of you

yes traders have an important role to fill

But they depend on producers to create the wealth that is traded

[Private Pickle]

It seems most people, left and right, claim to support capitalism or market freedom, however I believe what they usually end up supporting is really just repackaged mercantilism because "illegal aliens and China take our jobs".

Some questions immediately arise upon hearing this or should.

How can an illegal alien or foreigner take your job? Specifically, can someone "take" your job? Furthermore, if they can then is it really "your" job?

How can they take "our" jobs? Do "we" have jobs collectively or as individuals? If individuals, then shouldn't we be responsible for our own livelihood? If not, why is it "our" collective responsibility to provide people with jobs? Isn't that like mandating wages?

Can you have a free market with state intervention to protect the jobs and wages of an undesirable workforce? Is there any evidence that autarky is a rational economic principle?

I think prostitutes have the most to lose on this one.

[Chris]

I think it was his point

or if not I'll let him correct me instead of you

yes traders have an important role to fill

But they depend on producers to create the wealth that is traded


Mac, the Marxist, amazing!


Trade generates wealth. Simple fact.

[Mister D]

kilgram is a communist? Certainly a leftist but a communist?

[iustitia]

Anarcho communist like Kropotkin, I thought.

[Mister D]

Anarcho communist like Kropotkin, I thought.

Gotcha. That makes sense.

[Chris]

kilgram is a communist? Certainly a leftist but a communist?

So he says.

I'm sure he has a special definition for it. :P

[iustitia]

Or was he a syndicalist? I get my anti-authoritarian authoritarianisms mixed up.

[Mister D]

Or was he a syndicalist? I get my anti-authoritarian authoritarianisms mixed up.

That's what I thought. Let's get it straight from the horse's mouth! kilgram

That's an English idiom, kilgram.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/336400.html

[Mister D]

So he says.

I'm sure he has a special definition for it. :P

When I think of communism I can't help but think of its historical manifestations.

[Chris]

When I think of communism I can't help but think of its historical manifestations.

Yes, well, we're back at everyone seems to like the idea of government just not the reality.

[Chris]

Or was he a syndicalist? I get my anti-authoritarian authoritarianisms mixed up.


That's Guerilla, though Kilgram agrees with it some, then again he also prefers democracy.

[Chris]

Max Nettlau in his A Short History of Anarchism complains from the opening chapter that in the struggle between libertarian and authoritarian anarchy, of any sort, the authoritarians tend to take over and control the movement.

Here he is again in After Six Years of Authoritarian Revolution - Max Nettlau (https://libcom.org/library/after-six-years-authoritarian-revolution-max-nettlau), prefaced with "In this short essay written during the 1920s, Max Nettlau discusses the psychological and political impacts of the success of the Soviet dictatorship and the eclipse of libertarian socialism on the workers of Europe, claims that the “taste for freedom” is “almost dead”, predicts that any European revolution in the circumstances of his time would be an authoritarian revolution, and calls for a worldwide libertarian initiative to “create a new mentality” that should embrace all those “movements that still have a basis in voluntarism, free association, federation, the coexistence of various opinions, free experimentation, abstention from the state, and real internationalism”.":


To summarize these impressions, it seems to us that there is an unsavory truth, but we know we have to admit that, in what took place in Europe on the terrain of the active social struggles since 1917: the authoritarians have seized the initiative and still have it, which renders the best libertarian efforts impotent. The popular masses, from their point of view, see nothing but one socialist project, the authoritarian one; they do not see us and they do not understand us, and they go directly to the authoritarian victors, whose prestige makes them feel small since they have not been distanced from the age old traditions of the masses accustomed to being ruled; they are for their new masters just as they were for their old ones.

...This is how the situation appears to me in those parts of Europe where the general conditions are leading to a situation that cannot last and which will finally result in a tragic ending in any case because not even a revolution, due to its inevitably authoritarian character, will bring any beneficial change. A worldwide libertarian initiative is the only thing that can contain the development of authoritarianism on all fronts, communist, fascist, militarist, capitalist and clerical.

[Mister D]

Max Nettlau in his A Short History of Anarchism complains from the opening chapter that in the struggle between libertarian and authoritarian anarchy, of any sort, the authoritarians tend to take over and control the movement.

Here he is again in After Six Years of Authoritarian Revolution - Max Nettlau (https://libcom.org/library/after-six-years-authoritarian-revolution-max-nettlau), prefaced with "In this short essay written during the 1920s, Max Nettlau discusses the psychological and political impacts of the success of the Soviet dictatorship and the eclipse of libertarian socialism on the workers of Europe, claims that the “taste for freedom” is “almost dead”, predicts that any European revolution in the circumstances of his time would be an authoritarian revolution, and calls for a worldwide libertarian initiative to “create a new mentality” that should embrace all those “movements that still have a basis in voluntarism, free association, federation, the coexistence of various opinions, free experimentation, abstention from the state, and real internationalism”.":

IMO, that was inevitable due to the greater organization of authoritarian movements and parties. A small, dedicated communist minority eventually took control of the resistance to Franco in Spain, for example.

[kilgram]

Gotcha. That makes sense.
Exactly :)

Anarcho-communist. However I have the tendency to simplify to communist, sometimes to troll. Sometimes because in truth is also a communism and I hate that communism is only being related to Marxism when it is wrong or only partially true.

Chris, there is no special definition in any of my words. All of them are in the dictionary or in any enciclopaedia, not like the yours that even don't exist in any dictionary like governance/government.

[Chris]

Bakunin was a major critic of Marx' attempt to take over the First International.


“Again, I’m not enough of a Marx scholar to pretend to an authoritative judgement. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the early Marx was very much a figure of the late Enlightenment, and the later Marx was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives. But those are impressions.” Noam Chomsky.

From The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm), which goes on:


According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”,1 while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.


I've pointed this out before. The movement is betrayed from within. It's almost as if some leaders lack the patience to let people change, so take over to forcibly transition to the new world order. Naturally dictatorships never relinquish power till the next revolution.

[kilgram]

That's Guerilla, though Kilgram agrees with it some, then again he also prefers democracy.
I am more complicated than it and what I've shown in the forum.

I've never showed the whole of my ideology. And no, I don't prefer democracy, by the way, @Guerilla (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=606) also defends same ways of organization like the mine. As any social anarchist would do.

He defends syndicalism. What kind of organization is inside of it? How do you think the anarchosyndicalism is organized?

And I am pretty anarchosyndicalist, too. However in general anarchocommunist, but obviously a great part of my idea of organization is through syndicates, however not only limited to that (that is the biggest difference between an anarchocommunist and an anarchosyndicalist, simple explanation and it is more complex).

And Chris, when you mention me would be nice that you add @ front of my nick. I saw those answers by casuality.

[Chris]

Exactly :)

Anarcho-communist. However I have the tendency to simplify to communist, sometimes to troll. Sometimes because in truth is also a communism and I hate that communism is only being related to Marxism when it is wrong or only partially true.

Chris, there is no special definition in any of my words. All of them are in the dictionary or in any enciclopaedia, not like the yours that even don't exist in any dictionary like governance/government.


Common usage dictionaries do not cover political, economical, technological meanings of words. Moreover, dictionaries are not authoritative as you wish them to be, but descriptive of common usage.

[Chris]

I am more complicated than it and what I've shown in the forum.

I've never showed the whole of my ideology. And no, I don't prefer democracy, by the way, @Guerilla (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=606) also defends same ways of organization like the mine. As any social anarchist would do.

He defends syndicalism. What kind of organization is inside of it? How do you think the anarchosyndicalism is organized?

And I am pretty anarchosyndicalist, too. However in general anarchocommunist, but obviously a great part of my idea of organization is through syndicates, however not only limited to that (that is the biggest difference between an anarchocommunist and an anarchosyndicalist, simple explanation and it is more complex).

And Chris, when you mention me would be nice that you add @ front of my nick. I saw those answers by casuality.



You've consistently argued for democracy in your communism.

[kilgram]

IMO, that was inevitable due to the greater organization of authoritarian movements and parties. A small, dedicated communist minority eventually took control of the resistance to Franco in Spain, for example.
MMM, the PCE had no relation with any anarchism. And they did well destroying the revolutionary progress of the anarchists. Their philosophies during the war

PCE philosophy: Do war after revolution
Anarchism philosophy: Do the revolution and the war

I obviously believe that was more correct the anarchist philosophy.

[kilgram]

You've consistently argued for democracy in your communism.
Yes and no.

I've constantly explained that in no better term and to make easier the explanation I used democracy. However, I don't see any evil in democracy.
Demo: People
Cracy: Power

Power in the people. That is the meaning that I've used for democracy. Power in the people. It is democracy.

And, I am going to change my strategy. Yes I defend democracy. Real democracy. Where the people is in power and has the power to self-manage themselves.

And you have defended pyramidal structures where minorities have power over majorities. Like monarchy. You prefer the power of minority over the power of majority (that is bad but not comparable to your preference)

[Chris]

Yes and no.

I've constantly explained that in no better term and to make easier the explanation I used democracy. However, I don't see any evil in democracy.
Demo: People
Cracy: Power

Power in the people. That is the meaning that I've used for democracy. Power in the people. It is democracy.

And, I am going to change my strategy. Yes I defend democracy. Real democracy. Where the people is in power and has the power to self-manage themselves.



"Yes and no" is not very consistent. And having just said you don't support democracy you now say "Yes I defend democracy."


We all know what democracy is, authoritarian rule of majority over minorities.

Of course you can now argue a no true Scotsman fallacy of true or "real" democracy. But that takes us back to most people like the idea of government just not the reality.

[kilgram]

"Yes and no" is not very consistent. And having just said you don't support democracy you now say "Yes I defend democracy."


We all know what democracy is, authoritarian rule of majority over minorities.

Of course you can now argue a no true Scotsman fallacy of true or "real" democracy. But that takes us back to most people like the idea of government just not the reality.
Democracy is the power in the people. That is democracy.

And, yes liberal democracy is an authoritarian way to keep the power in the same.

You are for the rule of the minority over the majority. it is even much more authoritarian.

If you have a way to give the power to the people, tell me. But your system is very similar to the feudalism with the lords and the serves. And that is very far from any thing of freedom.

Democracy leads to real freedom. It has issues, yes.

Let's go analysing the progress of freedom, from authoritarian to libertarian

- Absolutist Monarchy and dictatorship: The most authoritarian forms that exist. Each of them in different degrees, but the system itself is based in the rule of one person over the rest. That is always dictatorial. In other levels, a traditional corporation would fit in this structure.

Between those there are some other levels, but I ignore them because would be Transitional positions.

- Liberal democracy with two levels: Constitutional Monarchy: keeps some of the old ways like that just through family rights you have some privileges like being a king, but without almost no power, or no power. Republic: A system where the head of the state and the president of the government is chosen so there is more direct participation of the people.

- Liberal democracy with direct participation: Like Switzerland. People have more possibility to take decissions that affect to them. It would be a company like Steam, however it would be something transitional to the next step of power in hands of people.

- Direct democracy: People decide every question of their lives. In other level it would be a socialist cooperative business, for example.

We are in the stage of the liberal democracy, a long way to real freedom yet.

You like the first step, the step of the monarchies and the empires. The most authoritarian of all.

I defend a system where I can choose my own decisions. That I have influence in what affects to me.

You defend a system where I cannot have any kind of influence.

As I said many times, you defend a system where if I hire you to work for me you must do the things as I've decided, and you don't have any choice if I don't want to give you the opportunity to decide. You are under my absolute power. Your only option is accept my rule or go away to a company that treats you better. How a self called anarchist can defend a system like that? Seriously I don't understand it. I don't get how someone can support a system where people cannot self-manage.

[Archer0915]

Things don't have value in themselves but only as individuals value them.

You can mix (exchange) your labor with resources to create new things, but most wealth is generated in exchange with others. Division of labor, specialization and trade is how wealth is generated.

Wow lost power and web but this is what I was getting ready to post last night: That is transference not wealth creation. Do you see the difference?

If I sell you something I own for 2x what I paid for it then I have generated a revenue. You on the other hand have expensed. Credits and debits are recorde of monetary transfer.

Gaining wealth is not creating it, it is transferring it.

If I pull some materials out of the ground, mix a batch of clay, make a pot and sell it I have added value to dirt. If that pot that has a value that is more than the sum of its inputs I have created something new.

Adding to what was saved last night:

Wealth transfer is not what wealth creation is. Honestly fiat currency is not wealth either.

What you have are revenue and expenditures, credits and debits, assets and liabilities... These are not related to wealth creation. You are simplt talking in common mans terms and not in the language of productivity and value added.

Making a profit is not nor will it ever be wealth creation.

[Chris]

Democracy is the power in the people. That is democracy.

And, yes liberal democracy is an authoritarian way to keep the power in the same.

You are for the rule of the minority over the majority. it is even much more authoritarian.

If you have a way to give the power to the people, tell me. But your system is very similar to the feudalism with the lords and the serves. And that is very far from any thing of freedom.

Democracy leads to real freedom. It has issues, yes.

Let's go analysing the progress of freedom, from authoritarian to libertarian

- Absolutist Monarchy and dictatorship: The most authoritarian forms that exist. Each of them in different degrees, but the system itself is based in the rule of one person over the rest. That is always dictatorial. In other levels, a traditional corporation would fit in this structure.

Between those there are some other levels, but I ignore them because would be Transitional positions.

- Liberal democracy with two levels: Constitutional Monarchy: keeps some of the old ways like that just through family rights you have some privileges like being a king, but without almost no power, or no power. Republic: A system where the head of the state and the president of the government is chosen so there is more direct participation of the people.

- Liberal democracy with direct participation: Like Switzerland. People have more possibility to take decissions that affect to them. It would be a company like Steam, however it would be something transitional to the next step of power in hands of people.

- Direct democracy: People decide every question of their lives. In other level it would be a socialist cooperative business, for example.

We are in the stage of the liberal democracy, a long way to real freedom yet.

You like the first step, the step of the monarchies and the empires. The most authoritarian of all.

I defend a system where I can choose my own decisions. That I have influence in what affects to me.

You defend a system where I cannot have any kind of influence.

As I said many times, you defend a system where if I hire you to work for me you must do the things as I've decided, and you don't have any choice if I don't want to give you the opportunity to decide. You are under my absolute power. Your only option is accept my rule or go away to a company that treats you better. How a self called anarchist can defend a system like that? Seriously I don't understand it. I don't get how someone can support a system where people cannot self-manage.




Democracy is the power in the people. That is democracy.

How do you solve the problem of allocating resources when people disagree on how to do that? Your definitions do not answer this essential problem.



You are for the rule of the minority over the majority.

No I am not. I am an anarchist who seeks to decentralize and distribute political power to everyone, the individual, who then may choose to voluntarily join others in a community etc etc.


You defend a system where I cannot have any kind of influence.

I do not. I defend a system in which you have authority over yourself alone but are free to non-coercively influence and persuade others.


As I said many times, you defend a system where if I hire you to work for me you must do the things as I've decided, and you don't have any choice if I don't want to give you the opportunity to decide.

I do not. I defend a system where you are free to choose to work for me or not, where we are free to choose to a a mutually agreeable contract, or not make such a contract.


Why are you lying about what I stand for? It's really pathetic.

[Chris]

Wow lost power and web but this is what I was getting ready to post last night: That is transference not wealth creation. Do you see the difference?

If I sell you something I own for 2x what I paid for it then I have generated a revenue. You on the other hand have expensed. Credits and debits are recorde of monetary transfer.

Gaining wealth is not creating it, it is transferring it.

If I pull some materials out of the ground, mix a batch of clay, make a pot and sell it I have added value to dirt. If that pot that has a value that is more than the sum of its inputs I have created something new.

Adding to what was saved last night:

Wealth transfer is not what wealth creation is. Honestly fiat currency is not wealth either.

What you have are revenue and expenditures, credits and debits, assets and liabilities... These are not related to wealth creation. You are simplt talking in common mans terms and not in the language of productivity and value added.

Making a profit is not nor will it ever be wealth creation.



How is it transference when you exchange what you value less for what you value more and I do the same?



If I sell you something I own for 2x what I paid for it then I have generated a revenue. You on the other hand have expensed. Credits and debits are recorde of monetary transfer.

So to you wealth is simply monetary?

What if I buy a truck from you regardless the cost that I then use to haul things and make enough to buy another and eventually a fleet and hire others to do the hauling? Even if all we consider is monetary value, I have gained a fortune, while you have merely made some money selling trucks.

What if you sell me some long lost Bob Dylan tapes for 2x whatever, and all I do is sit and listen to them the rest of my life and sign along and sometimes dance for joy? Have I not gained more in wealth than you ever could in mere money?


I don't disagree that mixing labor with resources adds value as well, but unless you're Robinson Crusoe isolated on an island by yourself the value added is determined by exchange and trade and not by the labor you mixed.

[Mister D]

Democracy is the power in the people. That is democracy.

And, yes liberal democracy is an authoritarian way to keep the power in the same.

You are for the rule of the minority over the majority. it is even much more authoritarian.

If you have a way to give the power to the people, tell me. But your system is very similar to the feudalism with the lords and the serves. And that is very far from any thing of freedom.

Democracy leads to real freedom. It has issues, yes.

Let's go analysing the progress of freedom, from authoritarian to libertarian

- Absolutist Monarchy and dictatorship: The most authoritarian forms that exist. Each of them in different degrees, but the system itself is based in the rule of one person over the rest. That is always dictatorial. In other levels, a traditional corporation would fit in this structure.

Between those there are some other levels, but I ignore them because would be Transitional positions.

- Liberal democracy with two levels: Constitutional Monarchy: keeps some of the old ways like that just through family rights you have some privileges like being a king, but without almost no power, or no power. Republic: A system where the head of the state and the president of the government is chosen so there is more direct participation of the people.

- Liberal democracy with direct participation: Like Switzerland. People have more possibility to take decissions that affect to them. It would be a company like Steam, however it would be something transitional to the next step of power in hands of people.

- Direct democracy: People decide every question of their lives. In other level it would be a socialist cooperative business, for example.

We are in the stage of the liberal democracy, a long way to real freedom yet.

You like the first step, the step of the monarchies and the empires. The most authoritarian of all.

I defend a system where I can choose my own decisions. That I have influence in what affects to me.

You defend a system where I cannot have any kind of influence.

As I said many times, you defend a system where if I hire you to work for me you must do the things as I've decided, and you don't have any choice if I don't want to give you the opportunity to decide. You are under my absolute power. Your only option is accept my rule or go away to a company that treats you better. How a self called anarchist can defend a system like that? Seriously I don't understand it. I don't get how someone can support a system where people cannot self-manage.

I agree that in contemporary liberal, representative democracies a citizen has virtually no influence. We exercise an infinitesimal fraction of political power through our vote. Moreover, can the people really be said to have sovereignty when we immediately surrender it to our representatives?

[Archer0915]

How is it transference when you exchange what you value less for what you value more and I do the same?

No but it seems that is what you were saying. Why would you even assume that is what I thought? It is all you have been spouting off about is it not? Everything I have read from you in this thread is about revenues and profit. Neither is wealth creation as buying and selling are not value added activities.


So to you wealth is simply monetary?

What if I buy a truck from you regardless the cost that I then use to haul things and make enough to buy another and eventually a fleet and hire others to do the hauling? Even if all we consider is monetary value, I have gained a fortune, while you have merely made some money selling trucks.

What if you sell me some long lost Bob Dylan tapes for 2x whatever, and all I do is sit and listen to them the rest of my life and sign along and sometimes dance for joy? Have I not gained more in wealth than you ever could in mere money?


I don't disagree that mixing labor with resources adds value as well, but unless you're Robinson Crusoe isolated on an island by yourself the value added is determined by exchange and trade and not by the labor you mixed.

My reply diskappeared!

[Archer0915]

How is it transference when you exchange what you value less for what you value more and I do the same?

No but it seems that is what you were saying. Why would you even assume that is what I thought? It is all you have been spouting off about is it not? Everything I have read from you in this thread is about revenues and profit. Neither is wealth creation as buying and selling are not value added activities.


So to you wealth is simply monetary?

What if I buy a truck from you regardless the cost that I then use to haul things and make enough to buy another and eventually a fleet and hire others to do the hauling? Even if all we consider is monetary value, I have gained a fortune, while you have merely made some money selling trucks.

What if you sell me some long lost Bob Dylan tapes for 2x whatever, and all I do is sit and listen to them the rest of my life and sign along and sometimes dance for joy? Have I not gained more in wealth than you ever could in mere money?


I don't disagree that mixing labor with resources adds value as well, but unless you're Robinson Crusoe isolated on an island by yourself the value added is determined by exchange and trade and not by the labor you mixed.

WEALTH CREATION! We were talking about CREATION! Only through value added activities can you create (generate) wealth.

As to how is it transference? How is it not? There were no value added activities.

[Chris]

WEALTH CREATION! We were talking about CREATION! Only through value added activities can you create (generate) wealth.

As to how is it transference? How is it not? There were no value added activities.


Mixing labor with resources is transformative wealth creation, exchange and trade is also wealth generation.

You're the one labeling the generation of wealth via trade as transference, you need to explain it, not me. Again, if you exchange what you value less for what you value more with me and I do the same, we have each gained what we value. Transference would imply you lost something to my gain or vice versa, but it's not zero-sum if each of us gains what we each value.

[Archer0915]

Mixing labor with resources is transformative wealth creation, exchange and trade is also wealth generation.

You're the one labeling the generation of wealth via trade as transference, you need to explain it, not me. Again, if you exchange what you value less for what you value more with me and I do the same, we have each gained what we value. Transference would imply you lost something to my gain or vice versa, but it's not zero-sum if each of us gains what we each value.

If something new is not being put on the market then wealth is not being created. You do not agree. You have said as much. Changes in valuation and the eventual trade of said items is not wealth generation. It is trade! It is one generating revenues while the other expenses. Nothing more. Nothing of value has been created. This mindset is the one that said we need to educate everyone and grow the service sector... Who the hell you going to service... Service does not create wealth it simply trades something of value (time) for something already in existence. No wealth has been generated. Sure the seller may grow their revenues but the buyer has also increased his expenditures. Nothing has been created.

If I invest 50,000 in a mine, pull out some minerals, clean them up and then make something to sell out of them I have created wealth.

Here let me put it this way @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128). A nation can survive off of tourism (strict revenue generation), agriculture (creating wealth), raw mineral/ore,other commodity extraction and manufacture using said assets. A strictly serviced based or predominately service based has less opportunity and its economy grow great debt because it is not generating the wealth to ship out. Here the national wealth shrinks as wealth generators (Asia) sell tangible items to the other economies.

Those economies can not keep up because they now find that they are making nothing to sell...

Is any of this sinking in?

[Chris]

If something new is not being put on the market then wealth is not being created. You do not agree. You have said as much. Changes in valuation and the eventual trade of said items is not wealth generation. It is trade! It is one generating revenues while the other expenses. Nothing more. Nothing of value has been created. This mindset is the one that said we need to educate everyone and grow the service sector... Who the hell you going to service... Service does not create wealth it simply trades something of value (time) for something already in existence. No wealth has been generated. Sure the seller may grow their revenues but the buyer has also increased his expenditures. Nothing has been created.

If I invest 50,000 in a mine, pull out some minerals, clean them up and then make something to sell out of them I have created wealth.

Here let me put it this way @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128). A nation can survive off of tourism (strict revenue generation), agriculture (creating wealth), raw mineral/ore,other commodity extraction and manufacture using said assets. A strictly serviced based or predominately service based has less opportunity and its economy grow great debt because it is not generating the wealth to ship out. Here the national wealth shrinks as wealth generators (Asia) sell tangible items to the other economies.

Those economies can not keep up because they now find that they are making nothing to sell...

Is any of this sinking in?



Again, if you exchange what you value less for what you value more with me and I do the same, we have each gained what we value. If we both gain then we have generated wealth.

You will generate wealth only if those minerals have value to someone else.

Nations don't trade, only individuals do.

[Archer0915]

Again, if you exchange what you value less for what you value more with me and I do the same, we have each gained what we value. If we both gain then we have generated wealth.

You will generate wealth only if those minerals have value to someone else.

Nations don't trade, only individuals do. Chris you are confusing things here. Revenues are not creating wealth! Revenues from simple trade are nothing more than simple exchange. Nothing is created!

You are the one confusing revenues and wealth. If we trade and neither of us has created wealth. We exchanged an existing commodity for money or bartered it.

If I have 1000 dollars and you have something that you bought 10 years ago that I want and I give you 500 dollars for it we have not created wealth. Nothing new is on the market. If value is not added then wealth is no created.

[Dr. Who]

How is it transference when you exchange what you value less for what you value more and I do the same?




So to you wealth is simply monetary?

What if I buy a truck from you regardless the cost that I then use to haul things and make enough to buy another and eventually a fleet and hire others to do the hauling? Even if all we consider is monetary value, I have gained a fortune, while you have merely made some money selling trucks.

What if you sell me some long lost Bob Dylan tapes for 2x whatever, and all I do is sit and listen to them the rest of my life and sign along and sometimes dance for joy? Have I not gained more in wealth than you ever could in mere money?


I don't disagree that mixing labor with resources adds value as well, but unless you're Robinson Crusoe isolated on an island by yourself the value added is determined by exchange and trade and not by the labor you mixed.
When you sell an item for twice it's purchase price, you create inflation. Is inflation wealth? You have also created profit. Is profit wealth? Neither have contributed anything additional to the whole, but have made it more expensive to sell again. It depends on your definition of wealth. I understand Archer's point. If you plant seeds in the ground and produce say grain, you have brought something into the world that would not otherwise be there. You have created something tangible out of dirt, water and labor. If you dig up ore and turn it into steel, you are creating something useful out of the minerals of the planet. If you simply trade goods over and over again, you create inflation, causing goods to become more expensive. You gain in fiat currency, but there is no actual additional product being generated. Over time, the traders becomes richer, but the buyers become poorer. You haven't created anything. If a country fails to generate goods or at least virtual goods to trade (something that has an inherent intellectual value), all that happens is that the traders effectively become parasites in the economy.

[Archer0915]

When you sell an item for twice it's purchase price, you create inflation. Is inflation wealth? You have also created profit. Is profit wealth? Neither have contributed anything additional to the whole, but have made it more expensive to sell again. It depends on your definition of wealth. I understand Archer's point. If you plant seeds in the ground and produce say grain, you have brought something into the world that would not otherwise be there. You have created something tangible out of dirt, water and labor. If you dig up ore and turn it into steel, you are creating something useful out of the minerals of the planet. If you simply trade goods over and over again, you create inflation, causing goods to become more expensive. You gain in fiat currency, but there is no actual additional product being generated. Over time, the traders becomes richer, but the buyers become poorer. You haven't created anything. If a country fails to generate goods or at least virtual goods to trade (something that has an inherent intellectual value), all that happens is that the traders effectively become parasites in the economy.

Thank you...

Next up VAT vs NVAT and then Takt time.

[Chris]

Chris you are confusing things here. Revenues are not creating wealth! Revenues from simple trade are nothing more than simple exchange. Nothing is created!

You are the one confusing revenues and wealth. If we trade and neither of us has created wealth. We exchanged an existing commodity for money or bartered it.

If I have 1000 dollars and you have something that you bought 10 years ago that I want and I give you 500 dollars for it we have not created wealth. Nothing new is on the market. If value is not added then wealth is no created.


It's interesting that at the start of this discussion you rejected money as wealth and as time has gone on you've focused solely on money. Wealth is more than money.

[Chris]

When you sell an item for twice it's purchase price, you create inflation. Is inflation wealth? You have also created profit. Is profit wealth? Neither have contributed anything additional to the whole, but have made it more expensive to sell again. It depends on your definition of wealth. I understand Archer's point. If you plant seeds in the ground and produce say grain, you have brought something into the world that would not otherwise be there. You have created something tangible out of dirt, water and labor. If you dig up ore and turn it into steel, you are creating something useful out of the minerals of the planet. If you simply trade goods over and over again, you create inflation, causing goods to become more expensive. You gain in fiat currency, but there is no actual additional product being generated. Over time, the traders becomes richer, but the buyers become poorer. You haven't created anything. If a country fails to generate goods or at least virtual goods to trade (something that has an inherent intellectual value), all that happens is that the traders effectively become parasites in the economy.


That's an odd definition of inflation. Inflation is when you flood the market with money.

The crop you harvest is worth nothing if no one purchases it.

You two are trying to take a small part of an economy and make it the entire economy. Look at the bigger picture. Since time immemorial wealth has been generated by division of labor, specialization and trade.

Countries do not trade, individuals do. An individual might take a division of labor and specialize in it, but if his produce has no market for trade, it's worthless.

[Archer0915]

It's interesting that at the start of this discussion you rejected moany as wealth and as time has gone on you've focused solely on money. Wealth is more than money.

No Chris I have not. You are not getting what I am saying. Tangible goods and VAT are wealth.

Are you capable of discussing this on an intellectual level or not?

[Archer0915]

That's an odd definition of inflation. Inflation is when you flood the market with money.

The crop you harvest is worth nothing if no one purchases it.

You two are trying to take a small part of an economy and make it the entire economy. Look at the bigger picture. Since time immemorial wealth has been generated by division of labor, specialization and trade.

Countries do not trade, individuals do. An individual might take a division of labor and specialize in it, but if his produce has no market for trade, it's worthless.

Disconnect! Industrial engineer vs layman, industrialist vs common labor... Cost accounting vs doing your checkbook.

[Chris]

Disconnect! Industrial engineer vs layman, industrialist vs common labor... Cost accounting vs doing your checkbook.

The disconnect is in communicating, what's you're point? What value does a horse and buggy industrialist produce? Not much because people no longer value buggies.

[Chris]

No Chris I have not. You are not getting what I am saying. Tangible goods and VAT are wealth.

Are you capable of discussing this on an intellectual level or not?


Oh, boy, so unable to communicate, you resort to ad hom.

[Chris]

Ohhhhhhh this is going to be a good discussion!

Wealth creation? Well what is it and how is it created? Wealth is not money. Money is a measure and is simply a holder of value.

To create wealth you have to start with raw materials! Agriculture and raw materials is where it starts Hell we can break this up pretty well with some cost accounting.


There you are, archer, saying exactly what I said you said and you just denied saying.

[Archer0915]

No Chris I have not. You are not getting what I am saying. Tangible goods and VAT are wealth.

Are you capable of discussing this on an intellectual level or not?


There you are, archer, saying exactly what I said you said and you just denied saying.

You need to take your meds or something. I never said wealth was money, you did...

You are the one who said selling something for a profit created wealth I am the one who told you that revenues are not wealth.

[Chris]

You need to take your meds or something. I never said wealth was money, you did...

You are the one who said selling something for a profit created wealth I am the one who told you that revenues are not wealth.


I've been arguing this whole time wealth is not money. You, otoh, have argued nothing but in direct contradiction to your initial statement. Here, just above, you argued money: "If I have 1000 dollars and you have something that you bought 10 years ago that I want and I give you 500 dollars for it we have not created wealth."

And I never said "selling something for a profit created wealth." You won't find that anywhere the way I can cite your words.

My point is that, regardless of money, you have exchanged for something you value less something you value more, and so have I, we have, despite any money, each gained something more of personal, subjective value. We have generated wealth.

Now you go ahead with your ad hom. It's an emotional white flag you've run out of rational argument.

[Chris]

WEALTH CREATION! We were talking about CREATION! Only through value added activities can you create (generate) wealth.

As to how is it transference? How is it not? There were no value added activities.



I have said absolutely nothing about VATs. That's you.

[Mac-7]

The crop you harvest is worth nothing if no one purchases it.

.

Thats a dumb thing to say.

if nothing else the farmer can eat the crop and let Chris the stock broker starve.

[Archer0915]

If you aind I exchange for what we value more than what we have we will have generated wealth. It doesn't matter what in particular you or I subjectively value, be it money or good food or just a good time, it is what we value that's important.

Money/currency is just a medium of exchange, earned by producing something of value. Say I have cows and you have wheat and Joe has a shovel. If I value that shovel but Joe doesn't value my cows, you do, I can sell the cows to you, purchase the shovel, and Joe can buy your wheat.


I've been arguing this whole time wealth is not money. You, otoh, have argued nothing but in direct contradiction to your initial statement. Here, just above, you argued money: "If I have 1000 dollars and you have something that you bought 10 years ago that I want and I give you 500 dollars for it we have not created wealth."

And I never said "selling something for a profit created wealth." You won't find that anywhere the way I can cite your words.

My point is that, regardless of money, you have exchanged for something you value less something you value more, and so have I, we have, despite any money, each gained something more of personal, subjective value. We have generated wealth.

Now you go ahead with your ad hom. It's an emotional white flag you've run out of rational argument.

No matter the exchange medium (I mentioned barter) wealth can not be created through the exchange of existing items. You are talking trade and nothing more. Revenues, profits...

[Chris]

No matter the exchange medium (I mentioned barter) wealth can not be created through the exchange of existing items. You are talking trade and nothing more. Revenues, profits...

And yet wealth is generated all the time by exchange. Again, if you exchange what you value less for what you value more with me who does the same we will each have gained. That gain is wealth generated.

This is basic economics.

You highlight me speaking of wealth created by means of gains in subjective value and you highlight yourself speaking of money, revenues, profits: "If I have 1000 dollars and you have something that you bought 10 years ago that I want and I give you 500 dollars for it we have not created wealth," and yet you somehow reverse who's saying what.

[Archer0915]

And yet wealth is generated all the time by exchange. Again, if you exchange what you value less for what you value more with me who does the same we will each have gained. That gain is wealth generated.

This is basic economics.

You highlight me speaking of wealth created by means of gains in subjective value and you highlight yourself speaking of money, revenues, profits: "If I have 1000 dollars and you have something that you bought 10 years ago that I want and I give you 500 dollars for it we have not created wealth," and yet you somehow reverse who's saying what.

No. You said simple trade creates wealth. I said it does not. Trade can transfer monies (or whatever) but it can not create wealth! it is transference, not wealth creation.

[Chris]

No. You said simple trade creates wealth. I said it does not. Trade can transfer monies (or whatever) but it can not create wealth! it is transference, not wealth creation.

Yes, I said trade generates wealth. Perhaps if you would stop attaching your meaning to the word and attached my meaning you'd understand. I do not mean trade in the sense of transferring money. I mean it in the sense of exchanging value, subjective value. Earlier I used an example of where we exchanged and what I got out of the exchange some tapes of Bob Dylan. Now to many I expect there's little to no value in that, but to me, I would value that extremely highly, and done so completely outside any monetary considerations.

To understand this you need to set aside the definition of trade you're hung up on.

Another example, I once spent hours and hours building wine bottle and glass box for a Christmas gift to my parents. It gave me enormous pleasure building it, doing it for my parents, and seeing their delight in receiving it, and they were extremely pleased and still show it off. Now in terms of money it was worth a few bucks, but in terms of subjective value it was very high. Wealth was created, yes, in working the wood, but also in the exchange.

Wealth need not merely be materialistic.

[Mac-7]

Chris trades some of his stock with another lib and they celebrate by feasting on a meal of AT&T Preferred for lunch.

[Archer0915]

Yes, I said trade generates wealth. Perhaps if you would stop attaching your meaning to the word and attached my meaning you'd understand. I do not mean trade in the sense of transferring money. I mean it in the sense of exchanging value, subjective value. Earlier I used an example of where we exchanged and what I got out of the exchange some tapes of Bob Dylan. Now to many I expect there's little to no value in that, but to me, I would value that extremely highly, and done so completely outside any monetary considerations.

To understand this you need to set aside the definition of trade you're hung up on.

Another example, I once spent hours and hours building wine bottle and glass box for a Christmas gift to my parents. It gave me enormous pleasure building it, doing it for my parents, and seeing their delight in receiving it, and they were extremely pleased and still show it off. Now in terms of money it was worth a few bucks, but in terms of subjective value it was very high. Wealth was created, yes, in working the wood, but also in the exchange.

Wealth need not merely be materialistic.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn100.htm
http://www.efinancemanagement.com/financial-management/profit-maximization-vs-wealth-maximization
http://www.managementstudyguide.com/financial-goal.htm
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_wealth_maximization_is_better_than_profit_maxi mization

your meaning to the word and attached my meaning you'd understand

I think the word does not mean what you think it mens.

I should go by your definition and not the generally accepted meaning of wealth in business and on a national level. Got it.

EDIT: I must say I do like this forum because of discussions like this one. No flames, NO thread crapping... Yes it is still an internet forum but some of the members here do a good job of discussing things.

[Chris]

http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn100.htm
http://www.efinancemanagement.com/financial-management/profit-maximization-vs-wealth-maximization
http://www.managementstudyguide.com/financial-goal.htm
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_wealth_maximization_is_better_than_profit_maxi mization

your meaning to the word and attached my meaning you'd understand

I think the word does not mean what you think it mens.

I should go by your definition and not the generally accepted meaning of wealth in business and on a national level. Got it.

EDIT: I must say I do like this forum because of discussions like this one. No flames, NO thread crapping... Yes it is still an internet forum but some of the members here do a good job of discussing things.



In economic terms, what you're arguing is the Labor theory of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value). Marx was wrong.

I'm arguing the Subjective theory of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value).

[Chris]

Chris trades some of his stock with another lib and they celebrate by feasting on a meal of AT&T Preferred for lunch.


Max, you're delusional.

[Archer0915]

In economic terms, what you're arguing is the Labor theory of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value). Marx was wrong.

I'm arguing the Subjective theory of value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value).

Value... Value is not wealth but it is related.

I just think we are looking at this from differing perspectives. I am looking at it from a business perspective and you are looking at it from a personal perspective.

[Chris]

Value... Value is not wealth but it is related.

I just think we are looking at this from differing perspectives. I am looking at it from a business perspective and you are looking at it from a personal perspective.


Yes, you're attributing wealth to labor and I to subjective valuations. You could labor night and day to create buggies but there's no wealth created unless people value buggies.

[Dr. Who]

That's an odd definition of inflation. Inflation is when you flood the market with money.

The crop you harvest is worth nothing if no one purchases it.

You two are trying to take a small part of an economy and make it the entire economy. Look at the bigger picture. Since time immemorial wealth has been generated by division of labor, specialization and trade.

Countries do not trade, individuals do. An individual might take a division of labor and specialize in it, but if his produce has no market for trade, it's worthless.
Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services rises, and, subsequently, purchasing power falls.

Only a fool plants a crop that no one wants. It can happen however that too many farmers plant the same crop, and the price for same drops accordingly. Hence if I am a smart farmer, I don't just farm one crop.

Before anyone can trade anything, there has to be a product to trade. You could trade services, but if I give you a haircut and you do my laundry, we haven't created any wealth. You have shorter hair and I have clean clothes. If I trade you 10 chickens for a baby goat, we still haven't created wealth. The wealth only comes when those ten chickens breed and turn into one hundred chickens and the goat is bred and makes more goats. Now if I only trade you seven chickens for a baby goat, I have made a profit of two chickens. Still no wealth, but I've kept more of my chickens. Perhaps if I trade those two chickens for a rooster to breed with my other chickens, I will create wealth. Then if I trade some of those new chickens for a nanny goat, I will get more goats. Then I will be creating wealth.

On the other hand, there is a market for services, so if I am a mechanic and you are a farmer with a broken tractor, my skills at repairing the tractor helps you to plow your fields, and thus wealth will still created because you get to plant your seeds and grow a crop, which you would take to market. In a simple society, people would trade you for your crop something that you want - perhaps something that you don't grow, like tomatoes, or cloth or shoes etc. You might even trade for services.

In modern society we simply exchange money and you as a farmer take your crop to a broker who sells it for you, for a fee. The broker really generates no wealth, but facilitates the sale of your crop, so you take a little less over all for the value of your crop, but are more assured of its sale. Once your crop has been purchased, many people take a piece of the action for handling and transport and the cost of that crop increases until it is finally purchased by the end consumer, or a manufacturer. If the manufacturer turns say your wheat crop into flour, again something of value has been added to the process, so that new product is traded on the market and various entities make a profit, but don't necessarily contribute to wealth, until the flour is sold to a bakery. The bakery turns the flour into baked goods, again new products, which are then sold to the public.

So, by itself trade does not generate wealth. It is dependent on a product to sell. The first time that product is sold, wealth is generated. Unless that product is converted or integrated into another product, any further sales of that same product only creates profit and inflation.

[Archer0915]

Yes, you're attributing wealth to labor and I to subjective valuations. You could labor night and day to create buggies but there's no wealth created unless people value buggies.

Well yeah but the stupidity of making something that will not generate new wealth is not what we were discussing:) I agree with that.

Now, we must consider the market here. There is not point in adding value to something to that will have no value when completer. It is like Efficiency and effectiveness! You can be the most efficient at making widget 3, 99% even. Sadly you were supposed to make widget 1, 0% effectiveness.

[Chris]

Well yeah but the stupidity of making something that will not generate new wealth is not what we were discussing:) I agree with that.

Now, we must consider the market here. There is not point in adding value to something to that will have no value when completer. It is like Efficiency and effectiveness! You can be the most efficient at making widget 3, 99% even. Sadly you were supposed to make widget 1, 0% effectiveness.



That's the risk you take in producing something. You may not make ROI on it. You may lose.

I'm not arguing producing doesn't create wealth, I'm arguing the wealth generated is determined by the subjective valuations of others in the market. Supply and demand work together.

[Archer0915]

That's the risk you take in producing something. You may not make ROI on it. You may lose.

I'm not arguing producing doesn't create wealth, I'm arguing the wealth generated is determined by the subjective valuations of others in the market. Supply and demand work together.

This I can agree with. It was when you got into the strict trade that you lost me.

Trade != wealth creation
Value added = wealth creation

[Chris]

Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services rises, and, subsequently, purchasing power falls.

Only a fool plants a crop that no one wants. It can happen however that too many farmers plant the same crop, and the price for same drops accordingly. Hence if I am a smart farmer, I don't just farm one crop.

Before anyone can trade anything, there has to be a product to trade. You could trade services, but if I give you a haircut and you do my laundry, we haven't created any wealth. You have shorter hair and I have clean clothes. If I trade you 10 chickens for a baby goat, we still haven't created wealth. The wealth only comes when those ten chickens breed and turn into one hundred chickens and the goat is bred and makes more goats. Now if I only trade you seven chickens for a baby goat, I have made a profit of two chickens. Still no wealth, but I've kept more of my chickens. Perhaps if I trade those two chickens for a rooster to breed with my other chickens, I will create wealth. Then if I trade some of those new chickens for a nanny goat, I will get more goats. Then I will be creating wealth.

On the other hand, there is a market for services, so if I am a mechanic and you are a farmer with a broken tractor, my skills at repairing the tractor helps you to plow your fields, and thus wealth will still created because you get to plant your seeds and grow a crop, which you would take to market. In a simple society, people would trade you for your crop something that you want - perhaps something that you don't grow, like tomatoes, or cloth or shoes etc. You might even trade for services.

In modern society we simply exchange money and you as a farmer take your crop to a broker who sells it for you, for a fee. The broker really generates no wealth, but facilitates the sale of your crop, so you take a little less over all for the value of your crop, but are more assured of its sale. Once your crop has been purchased, many people take a piece of the action for handling and transport and the cost of that crop increases until it is finally purchased by the end consumer, or a manufacturer. If the manufacturer turns say your wheat crop into flour, again something of value has been added to the process, so that new product is traded on the market and various entities make a profit, but don't necessarily contribute to wealth, until the flour is sold to a bakery. The bakery turns the flour into baked goods, again new products, which are then sold to the public.

So, by itself trade does not generate wealth. It is dependent on a product to sell. The first time that product is sold, wealth is generated. Unless that product is converted or integrated into another product, any further sales of that same product only creates profit and inflation.




Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services rises, and, subsequently, purchasing power falls.

What I said. And that is caused by flooding the market with money. It is not cause by my making a profit.


Before anyone can trade anything, there has to be a product to trade.

And if you produce something for which there is no market? Buggies, for instance. People want automobiles.



So, by itself trade does not generate wealth. It is dependent on a product to sell.

A product to sell/trade. You can't say one without the other. Yet you want to locate the source of wealth in only one. Basically, in terms of economics, you, too, are arguing the labor theory of value. It may make intuitive sense but it's a long discarded theory.

[Chris]

This I can agree with. It was when you got into the strict trade that you lost me.

Trade != wealth creation
Value added = wealth creation


Value is not inherent in products but determined by the subjective valuations of those you trade with.

If you and I exchange and we each exchange for something we value less what we value more, then we each have gained, increased our wealth. It's not a zero-sum game.

[Dr. Who]

What I said. And that is caused by flooding the market with money. It is not cause by my making a profit.



And if you produce something for which there is no market? Buggies, for instance. People want automobiles.




A product to sell/trade. You can't say one without the other. Yet you want to locate the source of wealth in only one. Basically, in terms of economics, you, too, are arguing the labor theory of value. It may make intuitive sense but it's a long discarded theory.
They were discarded for those theories that proposed that you could have a debt based economy that doesn't ultimately crash in upon itself.

[Chris]

They were discarded for those theories that proposed that you could have a debt based economy that doesn't ultimately crash in upon itself.

That's Keynesian and ought to be discarded.

[kilgram]

How do you solve the problem of allocating resources when people disagree on how to do that? Your definitions do not answer this essential problem.
From consensus to majority. Depending of the situation.




No I am not. I am an anarchist who seeks to decentralize and distribute political power to everyone, the individual, who then may choose to voluntarily join others in a community etc etc.



I do not. I defend a system in which you have authority over yourself alone but are free to non-coercively influence and persuade others.



I do not. I defend a system where you are free to choose to work for me or not, where we are free to choose to a a mutually agreeable contract, or not make such a contract.


Why are you lying about what I stand for? It's really pathetic.
I am not lying.

I am saying the consequences of your system:

- Private property: I own the resources and with them I can do whatever I want and you don't have no possibility to say anything.

- Work for me or nothing or go somewhere else if you can: In other words, a contract where as owner of the means of production I have the pure power of negotiation and I can do whatever I want. The illusion of your mutually agreeable contract.

- How do you distribute political power when owners have full rights on their properties and they can do whatever they want on them. While the non-owners have no possibility to do anything except to accept the will of owners. Pyramidal system. That is corporations. Where you have the owner that is the king of the corporation and he has the last word. He can be totalitarian or not, but that is his choice. Again we are going to the most authoritarian system.

And I am not lying when you've said that you defend monarchy over democracy, so you defend the most totalitarian system over a lesser one. And obviously you don't see how the system itself leads to a form of feudalism where you have masters and serves.

I am not lying. I am saying what is for me the Libertarianism. You can say that I am wrong of the consequences or not. But that is what I foresee of your system. Maybe I have a wrong image of the system, but for what I've seen and how it works I don't see good consequences.

[Chris]

From consensus to majority. Depending of the situation.




I am not lying.

I am saying the consequences of your system:

- Private property: I own the resources and with them I can do whatever I want and you don't have no possibility to say anything.

- Work for me or nothing or go somewhere else if you can: In other words, a contract where as owner of the means of production I have the pure power of negotiation and I can do whatever I want. The illusion of your mutually agreeable contract.

- How do you distribute political power when owners have full rights on their properties and they can do whatever they want on them. While the non-owners have no possibility to do anything except to accept the will of owners. Pyramidal system. That is corporations. Where you have the owner that is the king of the corporation and he has the last word. He can be totalitarian or not, but that is his choice. Again we are going to the most authoritarian system.

And I am not lying when you've said that you defend monarchy over democracy, so you defend the most totalitarian system over a lesser one. And obviously you don't see how the system itself leads to a form of feudalism where you have masters and serves.

I am not lying. I am saying what is for me the Libertarianism. You can say that I am wrong of the consequences or not. But that is what I foresee of your system. Maybe I have a wrong image of the system, but for what I've seen and how it works I don't see good consequences.




How do you solve the problem of allocating resources when people disagree on how to do that? Your definitions do not answer this essential problem.


From consensus to majority. Depending of the situation.

Then the majority has authority over minorities.

But you have not solves the allocation problem.



I am not lying.

You are lying about my position and what I defend.


I am saying the consequences of your system:

As you redefine that system. But then it is your strawman system and not mine.


And I am not lying when you've said that you defend monarchy over democracy

When you omit that I defend anarchy over monarchy and omit my criticisms of democracy then your lie is one of omission.


I am not lying. I am saying what is for me the Libertarianism. You can say that I am wrong of the consequences or not. But that is what I foresee of your system. Maybe I have a wrong image of the system, but for what I've seen and how it works I don't see good consequences.

As you redefine that system. But then it is your strawman system and not mine.


Do you enjoy arguing with yourself?

[kilgram]

I agree that in contemporary liberal, representative democracies a citizen has virtually no influence. We exercise an infinitesimal fraction of political power through our vote. Moreover, can the people really be said to have sovereignty when we immediately surrender it to our representatives?
We need a change of culture.

I always say that when we have more freedom more responsibility and less comfort.

The dictatorship is the most comfortable system. You have not to think anything, just follow the rules and you will not have any problem.

[Archer0915]

You want to put control back in the hands of the people? All it would take is for 25 or so % of working Americans to refuse to do anything for a few days. No work, no shopping, no travel... Nothing. That is the power of the people but they are tooo stupid to realize it.

[kilgram]

Then the majority has authority over minorities.

But you have not solves the allocation problem.




You are lying about my position and what I defend.



As you redefine that system. But then it is your strawman system and not mine.



When you omit that I defend anarchy over monarchy and omit my criticisms of democracy then your lie is one of omission.



As you redefine that system. But then it is your strawman system and not mine.


Do you enjoy arguing with yourself?
With myself? Strawman?

Seriously. I explain the problems that would derive from your system. You can say. It is not right because...

When I omit no. That you prefer the most authoritarian system over democracy, less authoritarian says a lot of your real ideology. I obviously attack to the weak links of your argumentation :) And you have many.

About the problem of the allocation of my system. It is in the hands of the people. We would see if it works or not. The truth: more freedom for people.

And in your system you have the problems of:

- Owners: I have absolute power. You cannot change that fact. Or are you saying me that you, as a poor worker can say me what I have to do, even if I am doing it badly. No, you can't if I don't let you to opine.

[kilgram]

You want to put control back in the hands of the people? All it would take is for 25 or so % of working Americans to refuse to do anything for a few days. No work, no shopping, no travel... Nothing. That is the power of the people but they are tooo stupid to realize it.
True, what is called a general strike.

But I think that in USA they are banned.

[Archer0915]

True, what is called a general strike.

But I think that in USA they are banned.

Banned? No people are just too lazy, pampered and ignorant to take control of their own destiny.

[kilgram]

Banned? No people are just too lazy, pampered and ignorant to take control of their own destiny.
I thought that people only could do strikes in a company or something like that. That sectorial and general strikes were banned/forbidden by law. But if you say so, the opposite. Then you are right is a problem of the people. And even if it was forbidden continues being a problem of the people but more dangerous.

I am not from USA, so I don't know this.

[Archer0915]

I thought that people only could do strikes in a company or something like that. That sectorial and general strikes were banned.

I am not from USA, so I don't know this.

No matter. They can not stop people from refusing to go to work for a few days and they can not force them to spend money. Illegal? What the hell could they do?

I am not talking about a strike against a company I am talking about a peaceful stop of things by the producers. The effects would be on the government.

[Chris]

With myself? Strawman?

Seriously. I explain the problems that would derive from your system. You can say. It is not right because...

When I omit no. That you prefer the most authoritarian system over democracy, less authoritarian says a lot of your real ideology. I obviously attack to the weak links of your argumentation :) And you have many.

About the problem of the allocation of my system. It is in the hands of the people. We would see if it works or not. The truth: more freedom for people.

And in your system you have the problems of:

- Owners: I have absolute power. You cannot change that fact. Or are you saying me that you, as a poor worker can say me what I have to do, even if I am doing it badly. No, you can't if I don't let you to opine.



No, you describe problems as you define things not as I do. You are therefore arguing strawmen. To then argue against your strawmen is talking to yourself.


Again you omit my preference for anarchy over monarchy.




About the problem of the allocation of my system. It is in the hands of the people. We would see if it works or not.

IOW, you have no solution.


The truth: more freedom for people.

Only in the hands of the majority who rule over minorities.




nd in your system you have the problems of:

- Owners: I have absolute power. You cannot change that fact. Or are you saying me that you, as a poor worker can say me what I have to do, even if I am doing it badly. No, you can't if I don't let you to opine.

That is not the system I advocate. That is your straw man. Talk to yourself.

[Mac-7]

That's an odd definition of inflation. Inflation is when you flood the market with money.



Not necessarily.

prices rise when there is a scarcity of supply relative to demand.

when the Arabs embargoed oil in 1973 oil became scarce but deman remained the same.

Prices rose because of that and had nothing to do with the money supply.

[Chris]

Not necessarily.

prices rise when there is a scarcity of supply relative to demand.

when the Arabs embargoed oil in 1973 oil became scarce but deman remained the same.

Prices rose because of that and had nothing to do with the money supply.


Not inflation. Inflation concerns rise in general price level.

[Mac-7]

Not inflation. Inflation concerns rise in general price level.

When gasoline prices go up everything else goes up too.

[Bob]

It seems most people, left and right, claim to support capitalism or market freedom, however I believe what they usually end up supporting is really just repackaged mercantilism because "illegal aliens and China take our jobs".

Some questions immediately arise upon hearing this or should.

How can an illegal alien or foreigner take your job? Specifically, can someone "take" your job? Furthermore, if they can then is it really "your" job?

How can they take "our" jobs? Do "we" have jobs collectively or as individuals? If individuals, then shouldn't we be responsible for our own livelihood? If not, why is it "our" collective responsibility to provide people with jobs? Isn't that like mandating wages?

Can you have a free market with state intervention to protect the jobs and wages of an undesirable workforce? Is there any evidence that autarky is a rational economic principle?

Peavey electronics was on the Undercover Boss Sunday. They were trying hard to hold onto their US facilities and keep all workers on the job. They failed. Costs in the USA are extremely high and their products can't command enough to pay for the workforce in the USA. When they tried raising prices, it failed.

They are or have laid off the last workers in the USA.

But China never took the jobs, it was Americans not willing to pay higher prices that forced them to end plants in the USA. It took years to happen, but they had to close all American plants. And they regret doing it.

http://peavey.com/

Peavey Electronics @Peavey (https://twitter.com/Peavey)

It was hard to lose members of our family in our reorganization, but we had no other choice if we were going to remain viable as a company.

[kilgram]

No, you describe problems as you define things not as I do. You are therefore arguing strawmen. To then argue against your strawmen is talking to yourself.


Again you omit my preference for anarchy over monarchy.





IOW, you have no solution.



Only in the hands of the majority who rule over minorities.





That is not the system I advocate. That is your straw man. Talk to yourself.
Chris, I don't care for the names.

I don't care how you define it. I know the system that you defend and its consequences that I've explained.

Again:

1) You create a system where owners can create microstates.

2) The non-owners have no rights, only depending of the good will of the owners.

It is the reality behind this.

I know that you don't advocate for that sytem. But Chris think a fucking second: What do you think would happen? Exactly what I describe.

Seriously Chris, do you think that today's system does not come from good ideas? Believing that would give much more freedom, from idealism.

You know what is the difference between you and me. That I know that my system is not perfect and has many issues and dangers. You are unable to see them in the system that you defend. There are a lot of dangers of becoming a fucking Feudal system much worse than we have today.

[Chris]

Chris, I don't care for the names.

I don't care how you define it. I know the system that you defend and its consequences that I've explained.

Again:

1) You create a system where owners can create microstates.

2) The non-owners have no rights, only depending of the good will of the owners.

It is the reality behind this.

I know that you don't advocate for that sytem. But Chris think a fucking second: What do you think would happen? Exactly what I describe.

Seriously Chris, do you think that today's system does not come from good ideas? Believing that would give much more freedom, from idealism.

You know what is the difference between you and me. That I know that my system is not perfect and has many issues and dangers. You are unable to see them in the system that you defend. There are a lot of dangers of becoming a fucking Feudal system much worse than we have today.



So you're telling me you can define and dictate for me what I think and believe, adhere to and defend. Even when I say I don't think and believe, adhere to and defend to what you define and dictate.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:



You know what is the difference between you and me.

Yes, you talk to yourself. I don't.

[Chris]

When gasoline prices go up everything else goes up too.



Causes

Historically, a great deal of economic literature was concerned with the question of what causes inflation and what effect it has. There were different schools of thought as to the causes of inflation. Most can be divided into two broad areas: quality theories of inflation and quantity theories of inflation. The quality theory of inflation rests on the expectation of a seller accepting currency to be able to exchange that currency at a later time for goods that are desirable as a buyer. The quantity theory of inflation rests on the quantity equation of money that relates the money supply, its velocity, and the nominal value of exchanges. Adam Smith and David Hume proposed a quantity theory of inflation for money, and a quality theory of inflation for production.[citation needed]

Currently, the quantity theory of money is widely accepted as an accurate model of inflation in the long run. Consequently, there is now broad agreement among economists that in the long run, the inflation rate is essentially dependent on the growth rate of money supply relative to the growth of the economy. However, in the short and medium term inflation may be affected by supply and demand pressures in the economy, and influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates.


Don't sweat the small stuff.

[Bob]

Don't sweat the small stuff.

When the price of fuel goes up, it is reflected over time in the prices of goods. He is correct. For as long as i have studied economics, the definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. This tells you that supply is low.

What most seem ignorant of that is vital to understanding this very topic is the velocity of money. Velocity of money is why Clinton got a surplus. Money was earned faster and spent faster. As money moves, it is taxed.

If the entire money supply rotates 1 time per year, it is taxed 1 time. If it can be forced to move 4 times per year, tax revenue climbs by the 4 times rate. Obama clearly is not a believer in the velocity of money concepts.

[Archer0915]

When the price of fuel goes up, it is reflected over time in the prices of goods. He is correct. For as long as i have studied economics, the definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. This tells you that supply is low.

What most seem ignorant of that is vital to understanding this very topic is the velocity of money. Velocity of money is why Clinton got a surplus. Money was earned faster and spent faster. As money moves, it is taxed.

If the entire money supply rotates 1 time per year, it is taxed 1 time. If it can be forced to move 4 times per year, tax revenue climbs by the 4 times rate. Obama clearly is not a believer in the velocity of money concepts.

Sadly the other components to a strong economy are leaving. I know you put it in simple form but 30 years ago a dollar was taxed (on average) 20-50%+ more times than it is today. If that dollar stays in our economy it goes to the retailer (Tax), distributor (Tax), manufacturer (Tax), refiner (Tax), extractor (raw materials)(Tax) ...

Now it pretty much goes: retail, distributor, CHINA! Yup it is about time for their yearly stimulus package... China gets the EIC that is not spent on a new car...

[Chris]

When the price of fuel goes up, it is reflected over time in the prices of goods. He is correct. For as long as i have studied economics, the definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. This tells you that supply is low.

What most seem ignorant of that is vital to understanding this very topic is the velocity of money. Velocity of money is why Clinton got a surplus. Money was earned faster and spent faster. As money moves, it is taxed.

If the entire money supply rotates 1 time per year, it is taxed 1 time. If it can be forced to move 4 times per year, tax revenue climbs by the 4 times rate. Obama clearly is not a believer in the velocity of money concepts.


Not according to current economic theory, bob, see post 175 which summarizes that. The point is inflation is a general price rise, that's caused by flooding the market with money: "the definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods" and the money devalues. Cutting back on the supply of oil will, if demand remains the same, cause the price of it to go up, and that can cascade to transportation, and so on, but it's still not a general rise in prices as it it with printing more money.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=963419#post963419)
When the price of fuel goes up, it is reflected over time in the prices of goods. He is correct. For as long as i have studied economics, the definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. This tells you that supply is low.

What most seem ignorant of that is vital to understanding this very topic is the velocity of money. Velocity of money is why Clinton got a surplus. Money was earned faster and spent faster. As money moves, it is taxed.

If the entire money supply rotates 1 time per year, it is taxed 1 time. If it can be forced to move 4 times per year, tax revenue climbs by the 4 times rate. Obama clearly is not a believer in the velocity of money concepts.


Sadly the other components to a strong economy are leaving. I know you put it in simple form but 30 years ago a dollar was taxed (on average) 20-50%+ more times than it is today. If that dollar stays in our economy it goes to the retailer (Tax), distributor (Tax), manufacturer (Tax), refiner (Tax), extractor (raw materials)(Tax) ...

Now it pretty much goes: retail, distributor, CHINA! Yup it is about time for their yearly stimulus package... China gets the EIC that is not spent on a new car...

Certainly when part of the chain went to China, they get the benefits of the velocity of money. I agree in other words.

[Bob]

Not according to current economic theory, bob, see post 175 which summarizes that. The point is inflation is a general price rise, that's caused by flooding the market with money: "the definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods" and the money devalues. Cutting back on the supply of oil will, if demand remains the same, cause the price of it to go up, and that can cascade to transportation, and so on, but it's still not a general rise in prices as it it with printing more money.

Since I agree with that, what do you mean by saying "not according to current economic theory." That has been the case for a very long time.

[Chris]

Since I agree with that, what do you mean by saying "not according to current economic theory." That has been the case for a very long time.

Post #175 just above summarizes quite nicely.

[Bob]

Post #175 just above summarizes quite nicely.

While it does, did I say I don't agree?

[Dr. Who]

Not inflation. Inflation concerns rise in general price level.
Inflationary pressures on certain goods can have a cascading affect on the prices of other products. Oil is one of those products than can cause inflationary pressures by driving up the cost of manufacturing and transportation of goods as well as the cost of heating and the movement of people. Air fares rise as do taxi fares and the cost of public transit. Pretty soon, as prices rise, labor demands higher wages to keep pace with the cost of inflation.

[Chris]

Inflationary pressures on certain goods can have a cascading affect on the prices of other products. Oil is one of those products than can cause inflationary pressures by driving up the cost of manufacturing and transportation of goods as well as the cost of heating and the movement of people. Air fares rise as do taxi fares and the cost of public transit. Pretty soon, as prices rise, labor demands higher wages to keep pace with the cost of inflation.


See post 175 for that in context. A rise in prices of certain good can cause rises in other specific prices, but not generally the was government printing money and flooding the larger will.

[Dr. Who]

See post 175 for that in context. A rise in prices of certain good can cause rises in other specific prices, but not generally the was government printing money and flooding the larger will.
I think that ultimately the causation becomes the same. If inflationary pressure drives up the price of goods, it lowers the value of money. $10 isn't going to buy you as much as it did the year before. Similarly if the government responds by printing more currency to accommodate its own higher costs, that currency is still worth less than last year's currency, so then you have a double whammy of devaluation because of higher costs and devaluation because of more currency with less intrinsic value. So printing more money can actually extend an inflationary period. Since there is now more available money for lending, more entities take out loans to survive the inflationary pressures, which in turn creates more inflationary pressures caused by the need to repay those loans and the increase in the cost of goods to do so. The usual solution is to generally increase interest rates to discourage frivolous borrowing from further increasing the price of goods. It doesn't always work, so inflation continues until interest rates become intolerable and the bubble bursts causing bankruptcies, recession and rectification. I point to the 80's for that general syndrome.

[Chris]

I think that ultimately the causation becomes the same. If inflationary pressure drives up the price of goods, it lowers the value of money. $10 isn't going to buy you as much as it did the year before. Similarly if the government responds by printing more currency to accommodate its own higher costs, that currency is still worth less than last year's currency, so then you have a double whammy of devaluation because of higher costs and devaluation because of more currency with less intrinsic value. So printing more money can actually extend an inflationary period. Since there is now more available money for lending, more entities take out loans to survive the inflationary pressures, which in turn creates more inflationary pressures caused by the need to repay those loans and the increase in the cost of goods to do so. The usual solution is to generally increase interest rates to discourage frivolous borrowing from further increasing the price of goods. It doesn't always work, so inflation continues until interest rates become intolerable and the bubble bursts causing bankruptcies, recession and rectification. I point to the 80's for that general syndrome.


It can, whether specific short term price rises or general long term flooding the market with money. But the one likely has natural causes, weather for example can affect the cost of oil, while government flooding the economy is artificial and avoidable.

The better solution is to get government out of the economy. It can't manage it.

[Dr. Who]

It can, whether specific short term price rises or general long term flooding the market with money. But the one likely has natural causes, weather for example can affect the cost of oil, while government flooding the economy is artificial and avoidable.

The better solution is to get government out of the economy. It can't manage it.
Often the causes are unnatural, like war in the middle east, which can take vast amounts of oil out of the market. Remaining providers jack up their prices in response to increased demand. Foreign policy causing inflation both by decreasing the supply of oil and by government printing money to finance war. Weather related issues are very temporal. Government related issues are systemic.

[Mac-7]

See post 175 for that in context. A rise in prices of certain good can cause rises in other specific prices, but not generally the was government printing money and flooding the larger will.

You have a one track mind.

Yes government printing of money causes inflation.

But so does the example of high oil prices that I gave you.

[Chris]

Often the causes are unnatural, like war in the middle east, which can take vast amounts of oil out of the market. Remaining providers jack up their prices in response to increased demand. Foreign policy causing inflation both by decreasing the supply of oil and by government printing money to finance war. Weather related issues are very temporal. Government related issues are systemic.


As United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler put it, war is a racket.

[Chris]

You have a one track mind.

Yes government printing of money causes inflation.

But so does the example of high oil prices that I gave you.


Just not the way economists today see it.

[Mac-7]

Just not the way economists today see it.

You mean some economists.

[Chris]

You mean some economists.

Read post #175.

[Captain Obvious]

Read post #175.

You're really pimping post #175.

There better be titties on it or I'm pissed.

[Chris]

Don't sweat the small stuff.

Since I keep referring people back to post #175, here it is again for thier inconvenience:



Causes

Historically, a great deal of economic literature was concerned with the question of what causes inflation and what effect it has. There were different schools of thought as to the causes of inflation. Most can be divided into two broad areas: quality theories of inflation and quantity theories of inflation. The quality theory of inflation rests on the expectation of a seller accepting currency to be able to exchange that currency at a later time for goods that are desirable as a buyer. The quantity theory of inflation rests on the quantity equation of money that relates the money supply, its velocity, and the nominal value of exchanges. Adam Smith and David Hume proposed a quantity theory of inflation for money, and a quality theory of inflation for production.[citation needed]

Currently, the quantity theory of money is widely accepted as an accurate model of inflation in the long run. Consequently, there is now broad agreement among economists that in the long run, the inflation rate is essentially dependent on the growth rate of money supply relative to the growth of the economy. However, in the short and medium term inflation may be affected by supply and demand pressures in the economy, and influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates.

Note what that is saying. There are two theories of inflation, quality and quantity. Quality has to do with speculative expectations. Quantity with the amount of money in the market. Period. Those are the economic explanations of inflation. The quantity theory is the one most widely accepted today.

Other market pressures, like cutting the supply of oil, or increasing it, can affect inflation, but are not considered inflationary in themselves.

Now some of you will continue to argue with me when all I'm doing is reporting current thought in economics.

[Chris]

You're really pimping post #175.

There better be titties on it or I'm pissed.

Do quality and quantity count? How about a Venn Diagram?

http://i.snag.gy/oYOIy.jpg

Use imagination.

[Adelaide]

I have never personally encountered a situation where a 'foreigner' could take my job. I do work with quite a few first gen immigrants but they're very valuable for things like their language capabilities. Where I work, we have translators for about 40+ different languages (I'm a translator for 2) and to have employees who can take over situations and speak to clients who don't speak English very well is immensely useful. But they weren't hired for that reason. They aren't paid differently/less. They get the same benefits.

Now, where my brother works they do tend to hire mostly new immigrants and they do take advantage of it to pay less - but they also pay people like my brother less. It's a factory/auto manufacturing environment. Unfortunately, it seems like most people think they are above the work so on the other hand I can see why new immigrants would be more likely to apply as they are less picky. Jobs that don't require a degree but offer a fairly reasonable wage is a good opportunity for someone who is new to the country and needs to make enough money to provide for their family or to sponsor other family members to come to Canada.

[Captain Obvious]

https://turtleboysports.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/0cf.jpg

[Mac-7]

I have never personally encountered a situation where a 'foreigner' could take my job. I do work with quite a few first gen immigrants but they're very valuable for things like their language capabilities. Where I work, we have translators for about 40+ different languages (I'm a translator for 2) and to have employees who can take over situations and speak to clients who don't speak English very well is immensely useful. But they weren't hired for that reason. They aren't paid differently/less. They get the same benefits.

Now, where my brother works they do tend to hire mostly new immigrants and they do take advantage of it to pay less - but they also pay people like my brother less. It's a factory/auto manufacturing environment. Unfortunately, it seems like most people think they are above the work so on the other hand I can see why new immigrants would be more likely to apply as they are less picky. Jobs that don't require a degree but offer a fairly reasonable wage is a good opportunity for someone who is new to the country and needs to make enough money to provide for their family or to sponsor other family members to come to Canada.

So your solution is for every Canadian to get a PhD and not worry about foreigners taking their job?

[Archer0915]

Wikinomics... Priceless! I need to throw my degrees and certificates in the trash.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation1.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation2.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation3.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation4.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation5.asp


Two theories as to the cause of inflation are demand-pull inflation (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demandpullinflation.asp) and cost-push inflation (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/costpushinflation.asp).

[Chris]

Wikinomics... Priceless! I need to throw my degrees and certificates in the trash.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation1.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation2.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation3.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation4.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation5.asp


Two theories as to the cause of inflation are demand-pull inflation (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demandpullinflation.asp) and cost-push inflation (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/costpushinflation.asp).



Same as what wikipedia said. Two theories of inflation. One holds sway.

Wiki is just a place to start, just as investopedia is.

[Archer0915]

Same as what wikipedia said. Two theories of inflation. One holds sway.

Wiki is just a place to start, just as investopedia is.

Oh wiki is a quick source. I still have some economics text book around but I do not feel like actually opening them and typing...

But I posted all the links so we can broaden the discussion a little. We americans (all of us, generally, me included) tend to over simplify things and many times we miss the root causes. Root cause analysis is something I do. Sure one can know what to point the finger at but that is a direction and not a true cause. Inflation and deflation are just that. There is nothing special about them.

[kilgram]

So you're telling me you can define and dictate for me what I think and believe, adhere to and defend. Even when I say I don't think and believe, adhere to and defend to what you define and dictate.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:




Yes, you talk to yourself. I don't.
Chris, why does someone say something you don't like, you directly say you never said that?

I am refering to the problems derived from your ideas.

I know what you defend:

- Freedom of market, where people can produce and freely trade

Well, all that have consequences. The consequences are leading to a system of feudalism where owners have absolute power.

That is the reality. That is what I am reporting. You can say, I've not said that, and you didn't. I am saying what it means what you defend. From my point of view. Maybe it is wrong or maybe not, but your job is refuting my position. Not saying that is talking to myself.

When I discuss with you, I try to refute your attacks about my ideology if they are wrong. And if I cannot answer because I don't know, I directly I say I don't know.

[Chris]

Chris, why does someone say something you don't like, you directly say you never said that?

I am refering to the problems derived from your ideas.

I know what you defend:

- Freedom of market, where people can produce and freely trade

Well, all that have consequences. The consequences are leading to a system of feudalism where owners have absolute power.

That is the reality. That is what I am reporting. You can say, I've not said that, and you didn't. I am saying what it means what you defend. From my point of view. Maybe it is wrong or maybe not, but your job is refuting my position. Not saying that is talking to myself.

When I discuss with you, I try to refute your attacks about my ideology if they are wrong. And if I cannot answer because I don't know, I directly I say I don't know.



What I don't like is someone putting words in my mouth, kilgram, it's intellectually dishonest. When you do that from now I will will simply say you're lying.



Freedom of market, where people can produce and freely trade

Well, sort of, kind of oversimplified.


Well, all that have consequences. The consequences are leading to a system of feudalism where owners have absolute power.

Then you do not understand what I defend. You are arguing strawmen.


It would be like my saying you defend authoritarianism and when you tell me you don't I say I don't care what you say, I say it's true. And that's intellectual bullshit.




I try to refute your attacks about my ideology if they are wrong.

No, you do not. My first and lasting challenge to you has been how communism solves the problems of economic calculation and coordination. You have never had an answer. Understandable, communism cannot solve those problems.

[Chris]

Oh wiki is a quick source. I still have some economics text book around but I do not feel like actually opening them and typing...

But I posted all the links so we can broaden the discussion a little. We americans (all of us, generally, me included) tend to over simplify things and many times we miss the root causes. Root cause analysis is something I do. Sure one can know what to point the finger at but that is a direction and not a true cause. Inflation and deflation are just that. There is nothing special about them.



What matter the source, the content is what counts. And what I posted was the same as what you posted, only the labels differed.

[Archer0915]

What matter the source, the content is what counts. And what I posted was the same as what you posted, only the labels differed.

No I posted much more information. Similar conclusion but what good is it to know a number without knowing its components? How do you speak of something without even understanding what you are talking about. I am not saying you but I am saying anyone reading this should be informed.

[Chris]

No I posted much more information. Similar conclusion but what good is it to know a number without knowing its components? How do you speak of something without even understanding what you are talking about. I am not saying you but I am saying anyone reading this should be informed.



Actually all you posted was an Investopedia article that discussed: "Two theories as to the cause of inflation are demand-pull inflation and cost-push inflation."

These correspond to the two I posted, quality and quantity.

It's all good information to read and understand and I assume you read it as did I, but it tends to get lost in the noise of typical forum bickering. Mac repeating it's oil! Kilgram carrying on some sort of feud with me unrelated to the topic.

Numbers?

[Archer0915]

Actually all you posted was an Investopedia article that discussed: "Two theories as to the cause of inflation are demand-pull inflation and cost-push inflation."

These correspond to the two I posted, quality and quantity.

It's all good information to read and understand and I assume you read it as did I, but it tends to get lost in the noise of typical forum bickering. Mac repeating it's oil! Kilgram carrying on some sort of feud with me unrelated to the topic.

Numbers?
did you read the five links?

[Chris]

did you read the five links?

Yes, most of it--the five links were to five pages to same Investopedia article.

[Archer0915]

Yes, most of it--the five links were to five pages to same Investopedia article.

Yes I think (to me) the information is a little better than the WIKI. Not saying either is incorrect but I feel the investopedia leads to better understanding.

[Chris]

Yes I think (to me) the information is a little better than the WIKI. Not saying either is incorrect but I feel the investopedia leads to better understanding.

The information in wiki was aimed at answering a general question, what are the two theories of inflation and which do most economists adhere to today, in order to counter answers that dealt more with the rise and fall of prices in the business cycle. The rest of the wiki goes into as much if not more detail as Investopedia on inflation from variou economic schools, and provides links to primary sources for further study should one desire it.

I'm really not sure why the source is important except for shooting messengers.

And the question of inflation was a minor point among many in a topic of foreigners supposedly taking jobs.

[Archer0915]

The information in wiki was aimed at answering a general question, what are the two theories of inflation and which do most economists adhere to today. The rest of the wiki goes into as much if not more detail as Investopedia, and provides links to primary sources for further study should one desire it.

I'm really not sure why the source is important except for shooting messengers.

And the question of inflation was a minor point among many in a topic of foreigners supposedly taking jobs.

You know what? It does not matter:) Points were made and there is no need to keep this up...

We got off on a tangent, nothing more.

[Chris]

You know what? It does not matter:) Points were made and there is no need to keep this up...

We got off on a tangent, nothing more.


Yes, and the notion foreigners take jobs lost hands down.

[Archer0915]

Yes, and the notion foreigners take jobs lost hands down.

No they do take jobs. But I think we showed, through discussion, people have no right to complain about it