Collectivism is Inherently Selfish

Name one specific example of this not caused by government policy please. Can you show me what policy you would enforce to fix the problem? Do not give me a desired outcome, please explain the policy that would get you there.

 

You adopt a tedious policy of asking questions because you don't actually have any content! The idea of a market wage has been dismissed for yonks. e.g. Lester (1946, Wage Diversity and Its Theoretical Implications, Review of Economic Statistics, 28, pp. 152–59)

 

Well, if you just want to slap me down, your loss. I do point out that nothing in the above is a defense of the labor theory of value.

 

Our wars on drugs and terror are examples of public sector intervention in private sector markets that have nothing to do with providing for the general welfare nor the common defense.

 

No they are not. The wars on drugs and terror where championed by politicians, but private businesses have made enormous profits off of both.

Even though the War on Drugs/Terror sound like they contribute to general welfare or common defense, it's really hard to know the actual practicality of these programs. Like terrorism. The US has suffered no real change in the level of terrorist activity before or after 9/11. (in the US) What changed was what involved terrorism and how many terrorists incidents were actually revealed to the public.

 

Only due to your lack of understanding of the issues involved. If you have to appeal to ignorance, how well can you understand the issues or the argument.

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. I thought It was clear that we merely need to be moral enough to bear true witness to a federal doctrine regarding employment at will and State at-will employment laws to solve simple poverty in our republic, with existing legal and physical infrastructure in our republic.

No. Free markets only concentrate wealth faster than most other economic models; or, only if you mean growing prosperity for only the wealthiest.

 

Uh, I think it's rather important to have a desired outcome understood before one tries to design policy. I desire to have the working class better housed, better educated, better care-for medically, etc. Basically, I think this should be accomplished by reducing the return to capital, but I see at least symbolic importance in addressing the ever-expanding ratio of management wages to worker wages.

As to how to do it, isn't a message board a good place to brainstorm? I've offered a part of a scheme to to what i want. I don't claim to have everything worked-out perfectly. But is it your position that everything is great, no improvement possible?

 

Agreed with war on drugs.

Fighting literal wars is part of national defense though. The jihadis want you dead. Believe that.

 

Again we wait for your spefics and not this bear true witness and worship thy government you spam all the time. A specific would be like "vouchers for
Children age 5-18 for their education to be spent on their behalf by their legal guardian"

 

You just haven't said anything. I expect content

 

Everyone wants everyone to be better. That is no brain work. The point is how do we get those things most efficiently? The problem with debating a leftist is the right has to use reality in weighing economic trade offs and the left pretends a magic wand exists in the hands of an all powerful government that can fix all their problems, so the only thing to worry about is the end result.

Don't bother with Revier. Whatever his age he suffers from college know it all ism. Big on words, short on meaning.

 

This isn't true, as neatly advertised by your (lack of) understanding of the labour market. Indeed, I've seen you openly support inefficient government interventionism (such as the the Thatcherite subsidisation of low wages)

 

When did I do that? Wages increased under thatcher and close the gap between wages paid and productivity the thing you have been complaining about. You just don't know it.

In any event, I await my specific policy. Still I wait.

 

Your memory is very selective. Thatcherism made a big deal of supporting low wages, via the use of family credit. You of course know that already.

This amused me. Please refer to one economic study that finds, in this period, there is a reduction in underpayment (I know you'll come out with dodge as there is no economic study in support of that view)

 

If collectivists stopped using google, facebook, and buying apple products, computers, apps for cell phones they would do more to close the gap between the worker and the top 1% than they ever could with tax policy.

 

Could you come out with a coherent argument?

 

He is saying socialists love capitalist produced products. So do you.

 

Crikey, you're even more incoherent. Think before you type

 

A lot of the wealth in the top 1% is related to advances in technology. There are quite a few internet millionaires and billionaires and those are not blue-collar worker intensive so it is only logical the capital class would see their fortunes rise faster than the working class.

 

Technology leads to increases in wages too, given the focus on capital-intensive product. There is no reason for an aggressive deterioration in the income distribution, except of course with the negative influence of market power

 

Glad your computer made possible through capital investments worked reliably enough to deliver that message. In your world of workers get all the production they produce, there would never be enough accumulation of capital in the hands of the big risk takers that purchased the equipment needed to make your keyboard. Nevermind the monitor!

 

Again you only inform me that you don't understand supply & demand. The MRPL=MCL is simply the profit maximisation condition under conditions of exchange. You're essentially arguing for coercion. Neat!

 

I understand supple and demand just fine. You equate supply and demand for a product the same as supple and demand for labor. They are not the same.

 

Another poor effort at misrepresentation! I made it clear with the reference to MRPL and MCL, the determinants of labour demand and labour supply

 

So you agree that a fair price is not based on production but what the supply and demand dictates? And that the market is the best way to setting that price without force? If not, lets hear a policy you would prefer in specifics please.