TrueMaterialist
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TrueMaterialist
-
-
Okay. what itmeans t o call something yours is exactly the issue I am examining. If I stand on a piece of land and call it mine because I personally found it and maybe build a fence around it, does that make it mine, just because I say so? If I then sell that land to a man for a price we both agree upon, does that then make the land his? That is the issue I am essentially getting at. It is a question I actually ansking you to answer. The root of a real-estate market begins with one man, standing on a piece of land and calling it his because he is there and he "found it" and he protects it as his.
Is this conclusion incorrect?
-
Okay. what itmeans t o call something yours is exactly the issue I am examining. If I stand on a piece of land and call it mine because I personally found it and maybe build a fence around it, does that make it mine, just because I say so? If I then sell that land to a man for a price we both agree upon, does that then make the land his? That is the issue I am essentially getting at. It is a question I actually ansking you to answer. The root of a real-estate market begins with one man, standing on a piece of land and calling it his because he is there and he "found it" and he protects it as his.
Is this conclusion incorrect?
-
You're assuming my question was rhetorical, and you're assuming you know my answer. I was asking a question, to understand your answer.
Okay. what it means to call something yours is exactly the issue I am examining. If I stand on a piece of land and call it mine because I personally found it and maybe build a fence around it, does that make it mine, just because I say so? If I then sell that land to a man for a price we both agree upon, does that then make the land his? That is the issue I am essentially getting at. It is a question I am actually asking you to answer. The root of a real-estate market begins with one man, standing on a piece of land and calling it his because he is there and he "found it" and he protects it as his.
Is this conclusion incorrect?
-
The government will enforce laws.
"Profiteering" really has no meaning except: making more profit than some arbitrary person arbitrarily deems "fair"
Force, at its simplest, is physical force or the threat thereof. e.g. instead of doing a deal with another person, you shoot him and take his money, or threaten to shoot him so he gives you his money.
Other questions: Your reply to Michelle contains a lot of mistaken ideas about Economics. I'll try to reply to that post at some point, unless someone else beats me to it.
Okay, I am interested to hear your economic perspective. Keep in mind, however, that I am aware economics is more complex than just the concept behind minimum wage...and I you would like to pluge deeper into the subject, I would be happy to partake in a discussion. I was simply presenting one aspect. My personal perspective was rather absent. I wass simply providing the way in which many economists justify minimum wage. My perspective will always take "The Balance of Powers" into consideration. I do not believe in taking one side of a posed dichotomy, for I believe that dichotomy is a singularity that is often mistaken for two isolated powers in "opposition."
I agree with your defintion of force on is most simplistic level, but surely force can be much more complicated than that, correct. Force is actually, in its broadest defintion, "energy applied." surely robbing some one at gun point is a forceful immoral action, but dont you think more complicated immoral forceful actions are possible? Do you have an example of immoroal economic force that can be applied in the absence of government.
Yes, government will enforce laws, therefore governnmet intervention is necessary in the market, in order to ensure that those laws are being follwed by those who partake in the market. In truth, you know no other way to enforce laws, except through the use of government. The enforcing of these laws can then be considered a service. No service is free. The government must have the funding to be able to conduct investigations of "immoral" behavior in the market system. Who will fund them for the service they provide?
You have concluded that government must play a role in our market, in the interest of keeping that market free of immoral people who seek to abuse it. Do you mean to say that the government can actually regulate the market to promote capitalism and keep the market free? If so, this is the complexity of the issue I am attempting to address.
Force, at its
-
You've misunderstood what Freestyle said. He said that the law should uphold individual rights and work against force and fraud. He was not supporting laws as currently defined.
I understand that, but he does support laws and the enforcing of said laws...and who will enforce such laws? Who will ensure that force or fraud is not used as a method of profiteering? Also, define force please. But be sure to answer my other questions too, so we dont go out of scope.
-
Is anyone here defending the porn industry? I assume we all make use of it to some extent or another. I don't view it as lacking virtue, as the actors or producers lacking virtue.
To me, it is obvious that the porn Industry should be defended.
-
One needs to ask themselves how their chosen mode of production satisfies their needs. Artisitic expression is one need/desire. However, their are other ones such as supporting your family unit (which is assumed to be of value here) and your own health.
So Howard Roark had real skills that he knew he could depend on in the future, and when he couldn't depend on those skills to bring him the work he needed (honest work, not sham work that would ruin his aritistic abilities) he went and worked in a quarry and used that as a means to educated and feed himself.
I am in complete agreement
-
This is in regard to recreating the world around you in some way as to produce a completely new product or service (with respect to the it's original state, not necessarily creating a new invention or something). It's about producing something, this is not related to changing or manipulating other people in any way. It scares me that this is the first thing that somehow comes to your mind when you think of production.
what do you mean by "recreating the world around you?" This vague statement without any example is what scares me. How does one do this exactly. I would like an example please. How would you personally do this?
-
No, eminent domain laws are not justifiable.
"Eminent Domain Laws" do not only include the permission of the government to seize property, they also include prohibiting or limiting the governments power to seize property.
"Eminent Domain" however was used by the government to seize land from native americans to allow settlers the use of that land. Natives did not like the fact that settlers invaded hunting grounds and area that the native population used for cultivation. Therefore many tribes would attempt to fight off these settlers. The settlers would then forcefully take the land under the protection of government, or the government would kill, subdue or rforcefully relocate those tribes in area of interest and sell, or give, that land to settlers. This means, in order for settlers to make use of land, the government and citizens of that government felt "eminent domain" was justifiable.
-
What does it mean to "call something yours" anyway? Why would someone else be willing to pay you to "call something his"? You've "stepped back" in your example, but I think you need to step back one more step by answering the following counter-question: if you come upon a piece of virgin land, and set up a homestead there, building a house, cultivating some land around it, and so on, does someone else have the right to come along and take it over from you? Or, for that matter, does someone else have the right to come along and say: half of this should be mine?
So than you believe that Europeans and early European settlers unfairly stole land from Native Americans, under the protection of government, and either kept or sold the land to others for profit?
-
Who is "they" here, who has never discussed this, and always made assumptions that the market existed without inquiring into its basis? There are, by now, several generations of libertarian and free market scholarship on the foundations of property rights as based in the tradition of John Locke.
"They" are those who do not recognize that a "discoverer" of land felt entitled to take the land without trading for it. He took the land and called it his because he "found" it. He may have stuck a flag in the ground, or secured boundaries around the area, but he did not make payment for it, nor did he pay any respect for any natives, who may have been inhabiting that land for centuries. He did however sell the land to some one of a similar ideology, who believed in the "discoverers" "ownership" of it...and that is how a real-estate market beings, unless you have another theory.
Also keep in mind, that in american history, native land was ceased by the government and sold to wealthy land buyers, so , this means that the real-estate market began with the government, so saying that the government has no place in the market is kind of ignorant.
-
Minimum wage seems like a good idea because it's goal is to give people with low-wage jobs more money. This supposedly raises the standard of living for poor people and will help them better their situation. The problem with minimum wage is that it was created on the principle that the government can redistribute the wealth, passing it from the middle and upper classes to the lower class. The reason wages should be raised is because of greater productivity: the more you produce, you more you should earn in terms of wages and benefits.
Because of minimum wage, many lower paying jobs have been cut. Notice how it's so hard for a teenager with no job experience to find work. Businesses have decided it's not worth it to pay $10 an hour for a gas station attendant or movie usher, so the jobs have been cut (or completely eliminated). This ultimately hurts the kid who wants to earn his own money, gain a skill, and work towards his own independence.
Well, I think there is more to it than simply giving employees a "better situation." Many believe that minimum wage helps stimulate the buyer market. They think people need to be able to afford more than just basic necessities like the minimum shelter and food. They believe that if more people have enough money to buy other consumer products, besides the basics, then the pool of buyers grows, contributing to a higher rate of sales for businesses. This higher rate of sales makes products cheaper and dissuades employers from having to make labor cuts, or hike up prices to make up for the lack of sales. Thus, in other words, they believe that minimum wage benefits more people than just the millions of low wage employees.
when the pool of potential buyers shrinks, the price of an item must either become more expensive, or labor expenses must be cut even more. This can contribute to either inflation or deflation and both can be detrimental to a free market. In a free market, it must be possible for potential buyers to buy and it also must be possible for sellers to sell. This is an interdependent relationship, meaning that a balance must be acheived.
If the consumer pool shrinks, it actually means that control is largerly in the hands of the few who can still afford to buy. Throughout history merchants sold only to the wealthy elite. It has only been in the past 200 years or so that merchants began having the luxery of buyer diversity, which is what has made many companies wealthy.
-
So long as the law protects individual rights and allows for legal recourse against acts of force and fraud, there is no need to interfere with a voluntary employee/employer relationship.
(null)
freestyle, then you believe that government has a valid funtion in the market because an employee can take legal action against a company that violates labor laws? If some one reports the abuse of an employee, as it is defined in our legal system, then the justice system, a branch of the government, is obligated to conduct an investigation of the company in question, correct?
-
how will the market take care of employees?
-
Well, first you have to convince them that socialsim and capitalism are trully opposing, isolated concepts. The problem with teaching some one to accept your position lies in interpretation. Many will find socialist concepts in the ideas you present as capitalism.
Are you really attempting to convert a socialist, however, or are you attempting to convert some one who you believe to be a socialist. These are two different things.
If it is the absence, or presence, of government in the market that divides a socialist from a capitalist, then this is little more than a symmanitc game.
But what is a government, other than a group of people who assume control over a population. A government governs, so whoever is governing in the government. Can a corperation that acheives a monopoly over a highly valued resource, acquire the power to govern men? How does one ensure that a new king does not rise by means of monopoly?
Many actually believe a democratic government protects capitalism...and they may see you as the one who is destroying capitalism. How much is too much ownership? Is there a limit?
-
In my experience, people who discuss economics rarely start at the beginning. They often dicuss issues like The Right to Property within the context of selling and buying, under the assumption that a market has always existed. I would like to examine how property becomes property.
Land: Can I stumble upon a piece of land and call it mine, then sell it to another person? Clearly the person I sold that land to will call his ownership of it legitmate, but it was legitimized through trade with me. I called the land mine without paying for it. I might claim that the land is mine because I found it, but what of the people who may have used that land before me and still exist there (native americans)? Will they agree that I found the land and therefore it belongs to me and is mine to sell...and once it is sold and a fence is built around it and they are forced from the property, will they say that the person I sold that land to has a legitimate claim on it.
The American Government is the force that made this type of trade possible. They also enforced the finality of these types of agreements.
-
You know why banks can give you those things right? Because they are using other people's money to do it. I am exploring why we even need this type of currency at all. Im strong enough to make it on my own, but are you? Why dont we do this thing right. Free market!!!! You are a fake because banks are a form of socailsim, just another collective, sharing more qualities with the government than with Rands ideas. it is socialist behavior to pool money, to make it possible for an ornanization to use that money in their own interest, loaning it out for frofit that you will never see, for the sake of "protection," and pretty, little check-book for you to write your name on, so you can say, "look at me, I belong to a bank." its funny how you are forced into this situation with the threat of not being able to own a house, or get a job, if you dont have a bank account. Do you know who controls a socialist state? Whoever regulates the currency. Banks regulate currency more than the government.
Ha. you just play at this, dont you? your not really serious about it. This is the source of my aggression. You dont really want individualism or a free market, you just want our system to work in your favor. Well, do yourself a favor and think about it. Dont be a hypocrite. bye.
-
You are using a service. Should somebody safe-guard your money for you at no charge? Provide you a loan, mortgage, or checking account at no charge? These types of services and many more is what you go there for, they are not provided for free, and are completely legitimate ways for banks and bankers to make money. You're objections make no sense to me unless you think people and businesses should provide these services for free.
You know why they can give you those services right? Because they are using other people's money to do it. I am exploring why we think we even need this type of currency. Why dont we do this thing right? Free market!!!! You are a fake because banks are a form of socailsim. Its a place where you pool your money, so that it can be used by others for their own personal gain...and your only profit is protection because you are too scared and insecure to guard it yourself. Do you know who controls a socialist state? Whoever regulates the currency. Funny that you trust the banks. Why? Ha. you just play at this, dont you. youre not really serious about it. This is the source of my aggression. You dont really want individualisma or a free market, you just want our system to work in your favor, so do yourself a favor and dont be hypocrite. Admit what you are.
-
To start with, Grames brings up two points I neglected as it complicates an already complex topic.
My objective in responding to your inquiry was to try and select what I considered the most relevant issue to address.
If you are going to proliferate all over the map by interjecting all the what-ifs, you will find it more difficult to discover the principles that provide the greatest illumination on the topic.
If you are interested in an entire treatise on economics, consider investigating Austrian Economics for a broad depth coverage of the topic, keeping in mind that it is at odds with aspects of Objectivism in some regards. This would give you a general overview of how employers make their money. I consider productive endeavors that involve neither force (against human beings) nor fraud (which by grasping the concept necessary means against human beings), ethical.
If you are considering the Federal Reserve as a banker, the money is made via a printing press as well as held in the form of electronic digits. (Which I consider government abetted monopolies in this realm fraudulent, but I am not interested in discussing that at this time.)
I only selected the top and bottom of your list. What I stated, I consider equally true at every strata (barring government intervention, but since we have government intervention it is certainly a factor).
Are you asking about the sanction of the victim here? When you spend your money at McDonald's, are you aware of where any particular employee may spend their particular share and upon what? What criteria do you choose to select a bank? The availability of your funds when required? The interest rate they offer you to entice you to select them? Or do you ask them to open their books so you can review them for what you may consider to be economic or ethical anomalies?
As I sit here responding to this, my gut reaction is "Why the shot-gun approach to this. Is there a sense of bitterness about money, or the lack thereof? Is it Objectivism's stance on subjectivism or altruism that touches a sore spot?"
Hi, your literary tone is pretentious.
First, do not presume to know what I have learned. second, when I go to mcdonalds, I am buying something. What am I buying at a bank? A bank is not a mall, or a food court. there is nothing tangible inside a bank, just representational paper, so your analogy doesn't fit here.
Next, ease up on the ad homonyms. My initial argument was a question of the value of work, I was not attacking wealth itself. I do not like the way many people want to misuse our currency, NOT because I DONT have money, but because I DO have money. Do you see how the opposite assumption can be equally true. I feel that our nation is collapsing not just because of the government, but also because of unregulated banks, big business, the sensasionalist media and the ignorance and gullibility of Americans. Its a group effort. I think that are people are getting poorer because they are belieivng lies...and I know that when less people can afford to buy my products, I will eventually lose money too. The only people who will make money, are those people in the position, or with the interest, to profit off of a collapsing economy, those who have enough money to exert power as the middle class loses any control it managed to obtain in the past 100 years.
Here is an economic truth:
Money is a representation. In truth, it is only paper. It is called currency because it is a concept derrived directly from the concept of "current." It is only worth something when it is moving, when it is changing hands. It is sybolism, a detachment from the things that shold be traded.
The belief that money is backed by some asset...is just that, a belief. who prints your money? The government does. You have all stated that you do not trust your government, so why do you accept this money as being worth something, knowing the source? That is a double standard, a contridiction that you have overlooked.
The truth is, for all you know, our currency is is the trade of faith. "in god we trust" haha.
I will prove to you how speculation of the value or amount of representational currency is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Take the recession for example.
One economist cries, "RECESSION. We are in debt." The man throws out an estimated number. He does not know the exact amount, but he speculates. "We are going broke" he says, but he does not give an exact number. Its too complicated and too early to tell, but we think its blah blah blah." the media gets a hold of the story.
The man is interviewed and says "the economy is tanking, stocks are plummeting, I foresee a 20 percent unemployment rate" he provides statements without evidence. People watching the news panic, they sell their stocks, companies start prepairing for downsizing, in reaction to the man's claims.
The man comes back on the news. He uses the reaction, caused by his initial warning as evidence that his initial warning was, in fact, correct. The news begins to run stories on those plummeting stocks...and what businesses plan to do to prepare for the plunge, then a horror story "Mr Jones lost his job and now he is on unemployment."
The news then runs a story speculating the amount of people who will be on unemployment, then welfare. The next story is about the amount of money the nation is losing in an attempt to support the unemployed "bums."
Those who were skeptical at first, begin to worry. They think "well, now there's evidence that I cant deny!" Soon even rational, critical thinkers are selling stocks and sitting on their money. Every one decides it is not a time for spending, but a time to save save save save and screw taxes. "Why should we pay for people who cant help themselves."
Currency stops circulating and thus loses its value..because trade that isn't traded is worthless. The value of the money drops, inflation occurs. Interest rates go up. Houses foreclose. "Blame the homeowner, but not the baks who loaned them our money. They are innocent." Political divisions become more and more apparent, people turn more radical. Political and social reform become a pressing issue. Blame the democrats, who cares if the recession hit just before Bush ended his last term. Thats nothing to be suspitious about.
We turned our nightmare into a reality simply by believeing athe nightmare will happen and we furthered the nighmare by blaming the only organization the represents us and protecting the privacy of any equally questionible organizations that do not give us representation at all.
Currency and the speculation of its amount and value, have turned us into irrational subjective fools. It just takes a couple of economist.
All you have to do is a slip em a very large sum of money. Only a rich man and some of his whore politicians, can afford to orchestrate that despicable plan. He just has to find an economist greedy enough to go along with the plan. A small group of "trustworhty" people, lying and exaggerating on tv, is all it takes.
Other economists argue against them, sure, but the argument itself will cause the damage anyway. "The economists who claim the recession isn't going to happen are liberals," says one news station. "They only believe in spending. They are not to be trusted. Their spending habits are the reason we're in this mess." Another news station yells, "The government is attempting to print more money, but that money is being printed without anything to back it," "how do you know," ask the people.
The media dances around the question. "We heard from reliable sources," they reply. The reliable sources were a few low level government workers who were simply speculating, but were taken at their word. The news loves the new stories of dread. The feed them to us all on constant loop...because...HIGH RATINGS, MAGAZINES SOLD WEBSITES VISITED. CEOs law of mass amounts of people. "We need a bailout."
If you don't believe this type of thing happens, you are in denial. If you know it can happen, I applaud you for your ability to see through the snow-screen and the white-noise.
If you think this sounds unrealistic, ask yourself what would happen if the news reported that a large, doomsday meteor is on a collion course with earth, or oil companies report that there is an oil shortage and they will need to raise gas prices until we either lower taxes or give them the freedom to drill anywhere they please, whenever they please.
Our economy is crumbling because we are being duped. Sorry, the truth hurts.
But go ahead and trust the currency supplied to you by the government that you claim not to trust...and, while your at it, stay convinced that you are against the feds. The contradiction is comical...and its funniest when you dont notice it.
-
You make a good point in that people on the upper end seem to be condescending toward the lower end. I have noticed this. But you you have to admit the fact the the lower end is often also very upset at the upper end. Who is right? Neither in most cases. Let's take the example of your uncle first. He works the least amount of hours of anyone in this example. If how hard you work is equal to how long you work then he works the least hard and gets the most reward for it. I can see how this might be interpreted as an injustice. But was your uncle making 1 million dollars right out of college? I highly doubt that. He probably had many years of working his way up to the top and making connections. He probably worked a ton of hours when he was younger to get to where he is now. I disagree with him that teachers are overpaid, but he isn't alone in hating taxes, everyone hates taxes. This doesn't meant that you should lower government worker's wages though, it means you should privatize education.
Now for you Sister-in-Law: I think a teacher can be a valuable person in a child's life. She doesn't make a lot of money, but is she justified in being upset about it? Think about it this way: Not a great salary, but generally speaking, amazing pension and early and comfortable retirement, something a lot of other Americans don't have. Her job might not end when the school day ends, but it does in May or June when she probably has about 3 MONTHS of no work. 40k /y isn't a bad deal when you get a the longest summer vacation of anyone in this scenario. Also, if she wanted to make more money, than she is foolish. Why would you get a masters degree in Philosophy and be a teacher. I would love to get a philosophy degree myself, philosophy is one of my passions. But I'm not going to because it is highly impractical given the things I want to achieve in my life. You seriously can't expect to spend over a hundred thousand dollars on a philosophy degree and to come out making a ton of money, it doesn't work that way. I think she just made a poor choice in career/degree if she wanted to be wealthy. But once again, a teacher can be a very important job.
As for your cousin: He seems like an idiot, and there is not much more I can say. People who assume laziness on the part of any and all persons who don't make at least 100,000 are total jackasses. Are there people who don't work hard, or take welfare and don't attempt to improve their situation? Absolutely. But I would submit to you that those are the exception not the rule. My mother is working two jobs at the moment, and is making very little money while she has three college age children. She doesn't make 100,000 a year, but she works her ass off for my brothers and I. Anyone who would accuse a single mother of three of being lazy because of her income total is a fool. Why does he watch fox news? what a joke.
Your step-brother seems like a great guy who works hard and doesn't complain. And your best friend is your best friend so I wouldn't dare offend you haha. This has been my commentary on your scenario, I'll do my best to help with your questions now if I can.
Everyone in your scenario probably deserves every penny of what they make. And I don't think it is wrong for them to say that. If they are adequately completing a job that pays a certain amount, they should get that money. I do not think that Rand would call your uncle's earnings a grave injustice. I believe that she would view everyone has having gotten what they deserve. I agree with you that society values some professions over others, but I think you have it horribly backward. Higher salary does not mean higher respect from the population. In fact, I believe that society has been conditioned to believe that the teacher is the most valuable profession, and yet the teacher makes the least in your scenario. People hold the opinion that being teacher is a noble occupation because they are shaping the future of America and giving their time to the children etc. Why then do they make less money than the analyst. It is because value is not necessarily money. Some of it can be attributed to marginal utility. A lot of it is supply and demand. There are tons of teachers and would be teachers but not that many stock analysts with a masters in economics. Take athletes. I hear people say almost everyday that athletes are way overpaid. A friend of mine posted this a few weeks back after Albert Pujols signed with the Angels:
wow... alright Albert Pujols just signed a 10 year $254 million dollar deal.. okay lets think about this
$254,000,000 = a quarter of a BILLION dollars
$254,000,000/10 years = $25,400,000 a year
$25,400,000/ 365 days in a year = $69,589.04 a day... thats more than most people make in a year.... (average annual household income for the U.S. = $50,233.00)
Lets see.. he walked up to the plate 579 times last season..
$25,400,000 a season/579 at bats in a year = $43,868.74 every at bat..
wow. thats all i have to say. i would gladly get hit by a 90 mph fastball for $43,868.74
and im sure i could think of a thousand ways to put that money to good use. You sir, along with a lot of other athletes, make way too much money. Your job is to play a game. Seriously.
This is me talking now, not what my friend posted. How many people can do what Albert Pujols does? Basically no one. And what is the demand for someone who can do what he does? Extremely high, not only because he an almost unique skill set, but because there are baseball fans. Sports fans seem to be the people that complain about player salaries. If you watch baseball, you are contributing to Albert's huge paycheck. There probably aren't a lot of people that could do what your uncle does as well as he does it. He is more valuable because of this and gets paid to match. There are plenty of people capable of teaching a curriculum, and plenty of people that are certified and looking to, so their salary is less. I'm not saying that these are the only factors involved, but they play a vital role. I think supply and demand is a fantastic thing when it comes to a free market capitalist system, which Ayn Rand would defend to the death. To say that she would call this set up a grave injustice, I think, is pretty far off base. But I'm not an objectivist expert. Someone swoop in and shut me down if I'm wrong. But once again, society does not value a banker over a teacher, I do believe it is the other way around. And it is probably not rational.
Finally, as for Atlas Shrugged, I think it relates to the occupy wall street aspect of this thread. Atlas Shrugged is partly about people vilifying industrialists and great thinkers for making a ton of money off of them. And occupy wall street, and I'm guessing because they have no official set of grievances or demands, are vilifying wall street executives and the 1 percent of society because they simply make money. If they believe that government is dangerously mixing with business, and that the earnings of the 1 percent aren't fair because of some sort of system cheat, then they might have ground to stand upon. Other than that they seem to be mindless rabble. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they are a horrible human being who doesn't work hard or deserve their money. Like wise, just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean that they earned their money either. Donald Trump for instance was born into it. People need to stop hating on each other out of misplaced anger. It isn't the people that are bad, it is the system that needs to be fixed. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I find this to be reasonable and fair, but I do not think all rich people are bad. I do however attach wealth to power. The power to bribe, for example. Your argument is a good one, but still, it is weakened by the fact that you are leaving out the concept of economic power. You are overlooking the fact that the wealthy are more powerful than the poor, or the middle class, that a trust-fund boy with millions dollars and the keys to his father's company will always have more power than a middle class boy. This is why we call these rich kids privileged. Do you deny that these things happen in society, that big business bribes government? That unqualified people gain power simply because of what they were born with? You act as though government intrudes on big business, but do you think it is possible that the opposite is just as likely?
Remember my sister-in-law did not want to be rich. She simply wanted to teach...and make a descent living, but, as of now, she cant even do that because she was laid off. We can privatize schools, but that will only lead to a bigger sea of idiots...because many cannot afford private school, even the educated middle class parents. will school be then only for the rich? Will that also hinge on supply and demand? Privatizing schools will only provide more proof that wealth is not just luxery, but power. Power that may be in the hands of bankers, who are skilled only in the art of money changing and nothing more. do you want a society where only about 10 percent of the population can read? Ayn Rand will have a much smaller following then.
-
The above quote is about free market values. The salaries of a public school teachers are not determined by a free market. Neither are the salaries of bankers ever since the federal government took it upon itself to insure all deposit accounts and especially to bailout failing banks that are deemed "too big to fail".
The above quote is about free market values. The salaries of a public school teachers are not determined by a free market. Neither are the salaries of bankers ever since the federal government took it upon itself to insure all deposit accounts and especially to bailout failing banks that are deemed "too big to fail".
Oh yes, I understand that. That's basically what I said. Did Rand herself value lipstick over microscopes? Why do you think Rand made that statement? Was this statement made merely to inform us, was she telling us to accept this, or change this? We have the power to change our environment for the better. I'm pretty sure my cousin and my uncle do not get their wages from the government. Im pretty sure my cousin makes his money off the interest of loans and the trade of those loans. I'm also pretty sure my uncle earns money trading stock for big investors. Yep, pretty sure. Do not try to drag me into la la land to make your point. Yes, some banks were bailed out at one point, but why? Have you given that any thought? While we're on the subject of bailouts, dont you think it is strange that banks borrow your money, charge heavy interest rates for loaning out that money, give loans to people who obviously cant afford them, raise the rates on those people, sell those loans to other bankers, based on a highly exaggerated speculation of profit return, so they can make money quick and aren't caught with the lemon (so to speak),like a game of musical chairs? Don't you also find it strange that, when music stops and debt is caused because the sold loans turn out to be garbage, tbankers turn around around and demand our tax dollars, blaming every one but themselves for the problems they caused?
I wonder what you value. Do you value a banker over a scientist? Do you think a bank should be able to use your money, unregulated? Are you going to spend your time overseeing every bit of money? I'm getting the feeling we're not really having a conversation because you keep trying to go out of scope, throwing red herrings into the argument.
-
I would like to elaborate on what I mean t by my last post. Perhaps allowing a bank to borrow your money, without knowing exactly what that money is being invested in and how that money is being used and manipulated, is, in itself altruistic and therefore an act of evil. Perhaps by giving power to people who otherwise would not have it, if not for our conditioned trust in their purpose, we are being blind enablers. I mean, if we put money in a bank and they loan that money to other people at high interest rates, giving you a very small fraction of the profit from that loan, does that not make you a subjective altruist? If we, instead, invested in the scientific community, do you think we might profit more off the inventions and discoveries made in that field? What do you think? Are you disregarding objective morality in this thread, for the sake of argument?
-
How many people in the world are qualified to be stock analysts, bankers, engineers, facility supervisors, teachers, etc. Scarcity of resources applies in this arena. You did not mention if everyone in your listing is employed by someone who had to make a decision of how much each resource is worth. <br>
If a company employs someone for any salary, they expect the employee to produce or provide services which exceed the salary paid, or go out of business eventually. As an employee, you cannot earn more than an employer is willing to pay. <br>
Hard work includes many things. The effort you put into doing your job is just one aspect. There is the effort in acquiring the skills required. There is also effort in determining what skills will be needed in the marketplace. <br>
Your uncle provides a service that the market is willing to pay him about a million a year. Your sister-in-law does not. <br>
How do you measure a "grave injustice"? Is there some form of force or fraud here?
perhaps society values one profession over another, not because that profession is actually more benificial than another, but because the population has been conditioned to accept one profession over another without giving any thought as to why, just as society is convinced that altruism is a supreme virtue. Perhaps the method of obtaining profit, in one profession, is dishonest, but the people in that profession have managed to strong-arm society into thinking they really need them, when they do not. You have not mentioned how an employer makes his money. Do you have any regard for ethics, concerning this issue? How do you think a banker makes money? Do you know?
Perhaps society does value a banker over a teacher. Is that rational? Interesting that you would pin the banker against the teacher, but not at all suprising. Why did you not pin the engineer against the banker in this argument?
What about "Atlas Shrugged." I trust you know the plot of that novel. Since this is an Ayn Rand forum, how would you compare that book to the subject of this thread?
-
so are you saying a banker is more uncommon and more in damand than a man with a doctrites in mechanical engineering?
Another point was made in a different thread about "adapting the environment." Perhaps bankers convinced the world they are more important than they actually are. Is this sort of what you mean?
The first man to sell land, called it his
in Economics
Posted · Edited by TrueMaterialist
I think you are missing the point. I am saying that a real-estate market did not always exist. It had to begin somewhere. It begun with a person claiming land as his own, simply because he stood on it, or claimed to "find it." He claimed this land as his own because he desired something that land offered, beauty, resources, etc. When that man decides to sell it to another man, the seller must convince the buyer that the land is his. When the buyer agrees to pay for that land at whatever cost, this is the beginning of that market. Do you know of another way a real-estate market begins.
Many natives DID see land as theirs. There may have been certain tribes who did not believe in land ownership, but these tribes also did not believe that other people could assume control over it. These tribes believed that the land should be shared and many could inhabit it. This is an important distinction because it does not justify the "others" right to seize it and deny those native tribes equal usage and access, nor did they consent to forcefull rellocation. The certain tribes who did not believe that one could control, govern or seize land for personal ownership were not giving settlers permission to seize, control, or govern it.
Other tribes were very territorial. They would kill you if you so much as walked through their territories without permission.
So your point is moot, first, because you misunderstand certain native perspectives and, 2nd, because you assume all natives tribes shared the same perspectives.
Further, I bring up the government role in "manifest destiny" and the forceful seizing of land from natives because I am driving the point that the government carved the ability for us to have property and use that property. The government would forcefully seize it, then it would sell, or give that land to settlers.
Big business uses government all the time. The government in itself is benign. It exists as a catalyst for those who seek to use it. If you are upset with the government, it may be because of corruption caused by wealthy lobbyists and those wealthy enough to bribe public officials. If you like I can provide many examples of big business abusing power through government to achieve specific desires.
So perhaps it is not government intervention in the market that is the problem, but rather big business intervention in government that is the problem. It is actually brilliant, though immoral, for a wealthy big business tycoon to influence government action through lobbying and "soft money," or bribes, to influence the market is said tycoons favor. Dishonnest business men often use middle use men as the fall guy, as a way to prtotect themsleves from being caught red-handed. If this sounds impossible to you, then you are not thinking realistically.