Looters vs. Producers....

A lot has been talked about recently here in the PF about Ayn Rand, and Atlas Shrugged in particular. Like the novel, or hate it, if you have ACTUALLY read it, then you cannot deny the strange parallels of what happens in the book, and what is going on right now.

In some ways, I am really glad that the OWS movement exists. If for no other reason to compare and constrast their point of view with others... A very few of the points the OWS people make are valid ones. I can get behind the idea of no bailouts by the govt. But for me.. no bailouts... means NOT for anyone.... not for the rich.... OR for the poor. How much money in your pocket should never determine what is right or wrong. I just thought I would take a few minutes and list out some of the things I have heard from people in the OWS movement, and often spoken by others here in the forum as well. Some will agree... others... not so much....

1. Why is is fair that others should get more than I do?
People seems to have this wierd idea that they are owed things merely for the fact that they are alieve. So if I want to be completely lazy and sit around all day, then others still have the obligation of taking care of me.

Looters (to use the Ayn Rand's term) will always seek the path of getting something from those that have it, and shift it to themselves who do not have it. They believe for one reason or another they are entitled to what other people have. They believe that they have a claim on other peoples property, just because they want it. They will use the word "greedy" when someone does not give them what they have.

Producers (again using Rand's term) when they do not have something, will attempt to aquire more skills, or better ways to trade for what it is they want or need. They do not believe they are entitled things just because they are alive. They do not thing they are owed a lamp, by someone that owns 20 lamps. Just because someone HAS something that they do not, does not give them a claim on it.

I think it is this basic divergence of thinking that frames most of what I have seen in the OWS movement. Think about it for a minute. You have all of these OWS people together in one place now. Are you honestly telling me that there is not enough brain and physical power there, to create their own companies and do things differently if they think things are being done poorly right now in corporate america? There is no OWS art studio, where artists get together and paint their pictures to sell. No OWS computer repair stores opening, and the list goes on and on... Ghandi said , "Be the change that you want to see in the world". But none of the OWS people are actually doing that. All of their demands are for the govt to "Do something about it". Why don't THEY do something about it? If there are so many that believe as they do... they should have SOME skills in the group to do some usefull productive work right?

So my advice to the OWS crew... is to become producers.... rather than looters. Become the change you want to see in the world. Make a product that I want to buy, and I might give you money to help make that happen. Sit around and bang drums and yell at me... and I will call you a bunch of children... because that is how children behave.... No one is stopping anyone in the OWS movement from starting their own company.... go for it!!! Show us what you can do. Give us better products than what is being offerred... and we might buy them. Maybe set up a bunch of companies that do not have a CEO if you think that is so bad.... but lead by example... show us how it should be done.....

 

Ah. So then you have your ideas and opinions spoon-fed to you by the MSM, eh? Well that's pretty common nowadays so I can see why you would be so ignorant about what OWS is really about.
So would you like to know or do you prefer intentional ignorance?

 

So do you always correct people when you believe them wrong by insulting them? Or can you do a bit better by explaining what you believe the OWS is all about if I have gotten it so wrong?...

 

What she's described, though, sounds more like basic capitalism. People produce something, and a person who has done nothing other than invest capital, which is a government-granted privilege, claims what has been produced. Workers are producers. Capitalists are looters. This is how it looks to me.

 

Where does the capital come from which gives the workers the opportunity to work on the produce the inventor created?

 

The OWS does not hate the rich.

The OWS just wants Wall Street to stop making money by cheating ordinary people and the taxpayer.

The OWS also wants the Government to Govern for everybody and not just for the rich 1%.

 

Originally from natural resources that the government grants to private citizens to give them leverage over other private citizens. Those natural resources are turned into capital by workers, and the capital is taken from them by capitalists.

 

You don't know what capital is do you...

 

I do, actually. Well, I've read a lot of books on the subject, anyway. But they all seem to agree on the definition of capital.

Why, what do you think it is?

 

Capital (economics) is already produced goods used for the production of goods and services. And that is not what I think it means, that is what it means.

I asked: Where does the capital come from which gives the workers the opportunity to work on the produce the inventor created?

 

The capitalists are the looters? LOL! I've got to save this link. That's pretty funny.

 

It depends. Normally can come from a capitalist, in our capitalist world.

 

Yes!!!

The capitalists are the looters. The capitalists are the ones that take the money from the producers while capitalists produce nothing!!!

The workers are the producers, it always has been and always will be.

 

If they take the money from the workers, why do the workers ever need jobs?

Logic, meet ignorance. And vice versa.

 

Because they have the means of production

And without means of production there is no production.

 

Oh! So the capitalist have the money to begin with. So they aren't taking money from the workers, but at the same time they are.

Can't argue with that premise.

At some point you'll have to concede and realize the things you believe in makes zero sense.

 

Wow, this thread reeks of revisionism of Rand's philosophy.

 

LOL! You're talking about the 'Intellectuals'. A capitalist creates the jobs in the first place.

 

Capital in the most basic economic form means goods used to produce other goods and services, plain and simple.

 

Which means, governments can grant usage of raw materials, sell those material rights, lease them or collect a fee per amount produced as a surcharge.

Lets take gold mines for example. People staked claims for territory they thought would be prosperous. They then trade for good or if the market is advanced to fiat currency then sell that gold ore for money.

The gold ore now has value.

I think you guys are taking the whole concept of capital a little too simplistically, in those who ever has the biggest pile has the implicit right to all the income that the capital resources can generate.

A laborer's efforts also have an intrinsic value associated with them, and to discount labor is a bad concept. Without the labor of refining, or manufacturing you can have all the capital resources you want, but if you don't have the labor to produce the next step in the product life cycle, those resources are worthless.

Capitalists want to get that production for nothing, they don't see honest labor as a real asset and would prefer never to pay for any of it.

Which then leads to another angle. If the capitalists never release capital into the market, then how do they expect there to be a consumer base to exchange products for?

Labor should be considered an investment into the economic stability of your market place, and it should be balanced, you can't give away the farm in the process. But to do otherwise means that eventually there will be no consumers to consume your capital.

Ayn Rand is a nitwit fiction writer who's books sucked. That is my stated opinion.

 

Labor is an investment. It is also one of the four economic resources. The other three are land, capital, and entreprenuership.

 

Aaaaaaaand somebody built it, right?

Who?

You didn't contradict what I said at all.

 

Capital is produced by someone or something.

 

No, I am talking about the capitalist. The capitalist creates jobs because he has the means of production. No more than that. Because the capitalist has the monopoly of the means of production.

And to produce you need them, so you go to the person that have it. And you are subjugated to the conditions that he wants, if you don't work you don't have money, and if you don't have money you can't get anything, also you can't get any means of production to go by your own. So you depends of the capitalist, and for this necessity he jobs, but he is not necessary, because there are many ways to prescind of the capitalist, but you can't prescind of any way of the worker. And the capitalist many times have the means of production doing anything, maybe inherited or whatever, or coming from other workers, because all comes from the work of other people.

 

All capital is produced by someone else, which is a worker. But they also had some sort of capital to produce your capital, which you use to produce goods or services.

Who gives the worker that capital?