Collectivism is Inherently Selfish

I am game. What policies of the right do you want to end? I also believe we have wasteful corporate welfare. GM is a great example. But that is not right wing economics that is lefty stuff

 

Its just factual to note that GDP is derived from an accounting identity and cannot be used to make any unambiguous conclusion over wage rates. Is it a useful measure? Of course. However, we always have to be careful with it: e.g. issues of externalities, failure to take into account non-pecuniary issues etc.

Your question doesn't make sense. Wages I want people to have? I've merely referred to how the labour contract in capitalism reflects both exchange and coercion. I'd have my views over wage norms, but that doesn't matter. Its up to the market, absence of coercion, to determine wage rates

 

I believe we should be actually solving simple poverty in our republic when due to a lack of income that would otherwise be obtained from full employment in the market for labor, with existing legal and physical infrastructure, instead of merely paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation.

 

Ok so you are for free market capitalism then?

- - - Updated - - -

You post that over and over as of it means something. Next time post "I want to buy the world a coke". In the mean time don't free markets grow prosperity for everyone faster then all other economic models? If not what specifics do you think should be made into law?

 

Nope. First, free markets in capitalism are a myth. Second, capitalism will ensure coercion in the labour contract.

 

Should we move towards a freer market then?

What is your point then when you say markets should define wages as in your last post?

 

Within capitalism? That cannot occur. You'd need something like market socialism.

I'm referring to the importance of exchange within the labour market. Capitalism ensures coercion, with the coercion used to inflame inefficient economic rents

 

That makes no sense. Why do you need market socialism? What policies are necessary in your mind?

What coercion? Is the worker not free to quit and/or start their own businesses in your country? That doesn't sound like a capitalist place at all.

 

It makes perfect sense and I've spelt it out to you. In capitalism supply & demand doesn't determine wage. There is coercion involved that effectively means theft.

The biggest issue with right wingers is that they just demand repetition! Involuntary unemployment and underpayment cannot exist without coercion in the labour contract.

 

How does supply and demand not determine wage? What is the supply of baseball players that can compete in the majors? What do they get paid? Is it for the hard work or high demand for the limited supply of people with their skills? How many people have the skills to be bag boys? Do they get paid as much as lawyers? Are there the same amount of people with legal skills? Etc..,

 

I've already told you this so please stop with the pretend ignorance. We know that underpayment is the norm. Supply & demand would inform us that wages reflects productivity criteria.

 

No you haven't explained it you just jump to the conclusion. If anything your productivity example as flaws as it is shows there is a larger supply of labor then demand and further proves that wages like everything else are subject to supply and demand rules.

Good dodge on the rest. I know I make good points when you selectively leave then out of quotes.

 

Why do you insist on not going with the truth? I've referred to numerous sources of underpayment: from monopsony to the internal labour market. Its easy to test empirically. For example, stochastic frontier analysis can be used to assess the impact of monopsony.

You've not actually made an economics comment yet. Will you manage one soon?

 

Dodge again.

If anything your productivity example as flawed as it is shows there is a larger supply of labor then demand and further proves that wages like everything else are subject to supply and demand rules. Do you think workers should get all of the profits their labor produces, or are the owners allowed to make something from their investments at some point?

 

Another misinformation effort!

This is just further confirmation that you don't understand supply & demand. I've referred numerous times to how it should operate, referring to both labour demand (MRPL) and labour supply (MCL).

I'm a socialist, of course I think workers should receive the profits. However, that only reflects my support for the protection of property rights. Underpayment is theft. It can only exist because of coercion

 

Dodges from the last page so I dont have to keep repeating myself:

So what is your point? If there are more people willing to take a job, then there are jobs, the supply of labor is high, therefore the price goes down. It becomes a buyers market, which is market correcting mechanism for times of unemployment. It is a good thing in the long run. That employee is trading the extra money per hour they used to get, for the security of a job when they are hard to find. On the other end, when times are good and skilled people are hard to find, they can command the highest wages.

What coercion? Is the worker not free to quit and/or start their own businesses in your country? That doesn't sound like a capitalist place at all.

How does supply and demand not determine wage? What is the supply of baseball players that can compete in the majors? What do they get paid? Is it for the hard work or high demand for the limited supply of people with their skills? How many people have the skills to be bag boys? Do they get paid as much as lawyers? Are there the same amount of people with legal skills? Etc..,

Dodge away.

 

You haven't actually even tried to respond to any of my comments. Your misinformation over dodge won't work. You're merely trying to hide from responding to my comment. Please be honest. I expect you to respond to my quotes (obviously)

 

Your question gets to a fundamental point. Classical Marxism says workers should get the entire 'surplus,' with no return to capital at all. Capitalism says workers should get a defined wage, and capital should get all the profit, however large. I submit that each represents a class seeking to screw the other, and neither side has a principled argument as to why their class is entitled to all the goodies.

I suggest the following.

1) workers get a market wage
2) capital gets a market return, based on an index to the corporate bond rate.
3) further income may be used for dividends, as decided by a board with effective labor representation. Dividends must be divided between shareholders and workers at the ratio of capitalization to annual labor costs.

 

This isn't true. Classical Marxism merely uses the labour theory of value to understand the nature of exploitation.

 

Workers get a market wage in capitalist economies. How much does a cashier at wal Mart make? How much for the same job at publix? Which state? Etc... There no defined wages in a capitalist economy, only in marketing or socialist one. you have it backwards.

Revier - your repeated dodges of the arguments I repost indicate you have no answer. Take your time and try to address the specifics. I do not need a litany of terms out of place instead.

 

There is no market wage in capitalism. The existence of monopsony guarantees that. The empirical evidence has shown that for yonks.

I haven't dodged anything. Look back and note how many times that you don't even bother to respond to long posts. Why? Because you can't. Whilst you can play pretend, we both know the reality

 

I meant defined as in fixed by the employment terms under with the worker was hired. It is defined at a certain level regardless of the profit performance of the company.

I did not mean defined in general across all firms. Though I'm not convinced the labor market is always fair for workers. I have a feeling that the mass of wage earners gets too little, while upper management gets too much. So I might be open to something other than laissez-faire influencing wage levels across firms.

 

Alas, I've yet to see an explanation of 'labor theory of value' that didn't seem to me to be 'doubletalk designed to legitimize the idea of workers getting everything.' Not that the workers ever can or do, in any system actually put into operation....

 

It has to do with the supply of people who can perform each task. The cashier doesn't have the skills to be CEO, the CEO can run a register.

People are paid today based on contracted salary, they are also free to determine the length of the contract and it's nature etc... At least in a right to work state. What policy different then the free market operation would you prefer? Do not state a desired outcome, show me how we could get to where you want people to be that is better then the free market. Who would pay for it?

 

Sounds like you just refer to Marxism without knowing its nature. Not very cunning!

I'm not a Marxist. It is depressing, however, how ignorant people are with regards its nature. It shows economic debate is unnecessarily restricted