BF2S Forums Rand Illusion

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

When exactly?

Before the New Deal, poverty was much more widespread.  It wasn't until the '50s that we really had a sizable middle class worthy of calling ourselves a modern First World society.

Captains of industry? Carnegie? Rockefeller? Morgan?

The economy crashing because of speculation is not the failure of producers, it was a lack of them.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What? I don't understand.

The only way to neutralize the more aristocratic aspects of society is to have institutions in place that intervene on the behalf of the working class.

Or tax the shit out of inheritance.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, society dictates otherwise. If people became one with their greedy inner nature they would do whatever they can to get the best man or woman for the job.

It's not greed that encourages meritocracy -- it's logic.

<3

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

If you eliminate social programs like unemployment benefits, the presently unemployed rapidly get forced into either employment of crime.

No one is ever "forced" into a life of crime. The more businesses grow, the more opportunities there are to find a job.

PureFodder wrote:

This results in a large drop in the number of low-skilled workers that are seeking employment (they either already have a job or become unemployable)

Drop in the number of low skilled workers seeking employment by dropping benefits? They look for jobs or they starve.

I think you missed the point here, after removing benefit, the currently unemployed will either get a job or face starvation (likely turning to crime to avoid that). In this period the supply of workers will be high and wages will drop. After a while most of the previously unemployed will either have become employed or criminals. Now the pool of potential workers that have no job will have become much smaller. Businesses will have great trouble finding replacement workers. Now they will be forced to out bid each other to get the few unemployed people to come work for them or to poach workers from other companies. They will have to accept most wage increase demands form their workers in order just to keep them from going to work somewhere else.

This is exactly what is expected in market economies when the number of unemployed people is very low.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

This means the middle classes loose income, see rising prices and have their savings eroded by high inflation rates and the business owners lose profit margins and inflation kills their savings too. The economy goes into a wage/price inflation spiral and everyone gets completely screwed.

Where is this inflation coming from?

Rising prices + Rising wages = Inflation

See "Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment"(NAIRU) and "Wage/price inflation spiral" for details.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Even if you don't personally care about the poor at all, if you're rich or middle class it makes perfect financial sense to pay 5% of the working population to sit at home doing nothing.

bull. shit.

Tower of toothpicks.

Actually it's standard economics.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

When exactly?

Before the New Deal, poverty was much more widespread.  It wasn't until the '50s that we really had a sizable middle class worthy of calling ourselves a modern First World society.

Captains of industry? Carnegie? Rockefeller? Morgan?

The economy crashing because of speculation is not the failure of producers, it was a lack of them.

Captains of industry don't mean much when the majority of the populace is poor.  For example, Carlos Slim might be extremely wealthy and successful, but the average Mexican is poor as shit.

One person can't do shit.

I agree.  I'm not sure what you mean by that though.  See, captains of industry may represent the work of a lot of people under them, but if the majority of the fruits of labor are hoarded at the top, your society suffers overall.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What? I don't understand.

The only way to neutralize the more aristocratic aspects of society is to have institutions in place that intervene on the behalf of the working class.

Or tax the shit out of inheritance.

I suppose that's a possibility, but that would be a relatively easy tax to avoid.  Also, most Libertarians and Republicans don't exactly like that idea.

The only way to get natural selection rolling is to introduce an element of risk to the offspring of the rich. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, because those that are rich would understand the importance of challenging their own children. The problem is the rich that are the product of a corrupt society, and unsavory measures would have to be taken to right past wrongs.

That's an interesting outlook.  I wouldn't expect such a thing to manifest though unless things got so bad we had a French Revolution.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

<3

I'm glad we can agree on that one, but let's face it...  the average person isn't very logical.

That's not a good reason to give up.

It's not a matter of giving up, it's about crafting policies that take into account the tendencies of the average person.

To guide the sheep, you must understand the flock.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The captains of industry represent the work of themselves. However a single industrialist can't save a nation, just as you can't run a business with a single competent person.

They represent the work of themselves in addition to the work of those below them.

As you said, a business can't be run by a single competent person.  Bill Gates has more than just his own innovation to thank for his wealth.  He can thank the hard work of the people below him.

No single person is worth billions in a literal sense, but wealth tends to accumulate at the top because that's how capitalism works.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose that's a possibility, but that would be a relatively easy tax to avoid.  Also, most Libertarians and Republicans don't exactly like that idea.

The only way to get natural selection rolling is to introduce an element of risk to the offspring of the rich. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, because those that are rich would understand the importance of challenging their own children. The problem is the rich that are the product of a corrupt society, and unsavory measures would have to be taken to right past wrongs.

That's an interesting outlook.  I wouldn't expect such a thing to manifest though unless things got so bad we had a French Revolution.

We had a revolutionary peaceful transition of power here over 200 years ago.

Yep, and that revolution partially involved working class people fed up with the powers that be.  Powers that ran our country like a feudalism.  If capitalism is allowed to run without any intervention whatsoever, that's what it eventually becomes.  Plutocracy is essentially the modern version of feudalism.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's not a good reason to give up.

It's not a matter of giving up, it's about crafting policies that take into account the tendencies of the average person.

To guide the sheep, you must understand the flock.

To build the flock into anything more interesting than a lump of biomass you have to civilize the sheep first.

Well, I'd say we're pretty civilized.  Now, it's a matter of education.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are shifting the supply and demand multiple times from the same cause, making your predictions shakier and shakier. Why won't businesses expand to give the unemployed productive jobs, increasing output and lowering unemployment without massive inflation?

I can't speak for Fodder, but I know from my own perspective that the reason why the expansion of business rarely keeps pace with unemployment is because of what we discussed earlier.  There is always a push to minimize the amount of labor you hire.  Automation is a good example of avoiding the hiring of additional people, but you see it in retail as well.  Most retailers run with a pretty slim pool of employees.

It's why the arguments against raising the minimum wage are mostly hollow when applied to reality.  If you have to pay your lowest wage earners a little more, you're not going to lay them off most of the time, because you're already running on as few employees as possible most of the time.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why will people spend every cent that they are now earning with a job, won't good saving practices mitigate the intense consequences you are predicting?

Yes, but the average person is no better than the government at savings or balancing their budgets.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The captains of industry represent the work of themselves. However a single industrialist can't save a nation, just as you can't run a business with a single competent person.

They represent the work of themselves in addition to the work of those below them.

As you said, a business can't be run by a single competent person.  Bill Gates has more than just his own innovation to thank for his wealth.  He can thank the hard work of the people below him.

No single person is worth billions in a literal sense, but wealth tends to accumulate at the top because that's how capitalism works.

He can thank the fact that he created a company that can draw in and pay for the talent below him. He owes nothing to those below him except their paychecks.

A single person can be worth billions in a very literal sense. A piece of lint could be worth a billion dollars if someone was willing to pay that much for it. They accumulated that wealth, and that is their worth.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose that's a possibility, but that would be a relatively easy tax to avoid.  Also, most Libertarians and Republicans don't exactly like that idea.

The only way to get natural selection rolling is to introduce an element of risk to the offspring of the rich. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, because those that are rich would understand the importance of challenging their own children. The problem is the rich that are the product of a corrupt society, and unsavory measures would have to be taken to right past wrongs.

That's an interesting outlook.  I wouldn't expect such a thing to manifest though unless things got so bad we had a French Revolution.

We had a revolutionary peaceful transition of power here over 200 years ago.

Yep, and that revolution partially involved working class people fed up with the powers that be.  Powers that ran our country like a feudalism.  If capitalism is allowed to run without any intervention whatsoever, that's what it eventually becomes.  Plutocracy is essentially the modern version of feudalism.

Good thing we aren't a plutocracy then.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's not a matter of giving up, it's about crafting policies that take into account the tendencies of the average person.

To guide the sheep, you must understand the flock.

To build the flock into anything more interesting than a lump of biomass you have to civilize the sheep first.

Well, I'd say we're pretty civilized.  Now, it's a matter of education.

So what, we can use a fork? I'm not sure that qualifies as civilized.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are shifting the supply and demand multiple times from the same cause, making your predictions shakier and shakier. Why won't businesses expand to give the unemployed productive jobs, increasing output and lowering unemployment without massive inflation?

I can't speak for Fodder, but I know from my own perspective that the reason why the expansion of business rarely keeps pace with unemployment is because of what we discussed earlier.  There is always a push to minimize the amount of labor you hire.  Automation is a good example of avoiding the hiring of additional people, but you see it in retail as well.  Most retailers run with a pretty slim pool of employees.

It's why the arguments against raising the minimum wage are mostly hollow when applied to reality.  If you have to pay your lowest wage earners a little more, you're not going to lay them off most of the time, because you're already running on as few employees as possible most of the time.

Yeah, so we would achieve equilibrium at some level of unemployment and all hell would not break loose.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why will people spend every cent that they are now earning with a job, won't good saving practices mitigate the intense consequences you are predicting?

Yes, but the average person is no better than the government at savings or balancing their budgets.

No, not now, but they could be.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The captains of industry represent the work of themselves. However a single industrialist can't save a nation, just as you can't run a business with a single competent person.

They represent the work of themselves in addition to the work of those below them.

As you said, a business can't be run by a single competent person.  Bill Gates has more than just his own innovation to thank for his wealth.  He can thank the hard work of the people below him.

No single person is worth billions in a literal sense, but wealth tends to accumulate at the top because that's how capitalism works.

He can thank the fact that he created a company that can draw in and pay for the talent below him. He owes nothing to those below him except their paychecks.

A single person can be worth billions in a very literal sense. A piece of lint could be worth a billion dollars if someone was willing to pay that much for it. They accumulated that wealth, and that is their worth.

I suppose this is where all I can say is that you put way more faith in the market than I do.

I don't think you understand what I am saying...this is not a matter of how much we agree with capitalism, it is the definition of capitalism. In a capitalist society something is worth exactly what someone will pay for it, and by extension someone is worth how much money they have.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I suppose that's a possibility, but that would be a relatively easy tax to avoid.  Also, most Libertarians and Republicans don't exactly like that idea.

The only way to get natural selection rolling is to introduce an element of risk to the offspring of the rich. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, because those that are rich would understand the importance of challenging their own children. The problem is the rich that are the product of a corrupt society, and unsavory measures would have to be taken to right past wrongs.

That's an interesting outlook.  I wouldn't expect such a thing to manifest though unless things got so bad we had a French Revolution.

We had a revolutionary peaceful transition of power here over 200 years ago.

Yep, and that revolution partially involved working class people fed up with the powers that be.  Powers that ran our country like a feudalism.  If capitalism is allowed to run without any intervention whatsoever, that's what it eventually becomes.  Plutocracy is essentially the modern version of feudalism.

Good thing we aren't a plutocracy then.

We're getting there.

Then it would be a good time to step back and reconsider don't you think? Why the denouncement of Rand?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

To build the flock into anything more interesting than a lump of biomass you have to civilize the sheep first.

Well, I'd say we're pretty civilized.  Now, it's a matter of education.

So what, we can use a fork? I'm not sure that qualifies as civilized.

What I find particularly interesting about your viewpoint is that you doubt the capabilities of the average person but then expect them to be able to better themselves and everything will be alright.  How does that work?

Over the course of generations after a profound shift in common values things will be alright.

I do not think I am as naive as you think when it comes to the implications of the implementation of such ideas - I just value the ends enough to justify the means. If a transition is ever to exist it would be absolutely devastating to the country on multiple levels. The phoenix that would rise from the ashes however is exactly everything that I believe one could expect from mankind.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are shifting the supply and demand multiple times from the same cause, making your predictions shakier and shakier. Why won't businesses expand to give the unemployed productive jobs, increasing output and lowering unemployment without massive inflation?

I can't speak for Fodder, but I know from my own perspective that the reason why the expansion of business rarely keeps pace with unemployment is because of what we discussed earlier.  There is always a push to minimize the amount of labor you hire.  Automation is a good example of avoiding the hiring of additional people, but you see it in retail as well.  Most retailers run with a pretty slim pool of employees.

It's why the arguments against raising the minimum wage are mostly hollow when applied to reality.  If you have to pay your lowest wage earners a little more, you're not going to lay them off most of the time, because you're already running on as few employees as possible most of the time.

Yeah, so we would achieve equilibrium at some level of unemployment and all hell would not break loose.

Theoretically.  The trick is that social programs are there to make sure the unemployed don't create hell, so to speak.

Things would get worse before they get better yes. There would be withdrawal symptoms to be sure, but that's not reason enough to abandon the goal.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Yes, but the average person is no better than the government at savings or balancing their budgets.

No, not now, but they could be.

Perhaps...  but that goes back to education.

Which would be fundamental.

PureFodder wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are shifting the supply and demand multiple times from the same cause, making your predictions shakier and shakier. Why won't businesses expand to give the unemployed productive jobs, increasing output and lowering unemployment without massive inflation? Why will people spend every cent that they are now earning with a job, won't good saving practices mitigate the intense consequences you are predicting?

You are taking it much to far for any accurate predictions.

You really don't seem to get this. Businesses will expand, give the unemployed jobs and reduce unemployment, but that's exactly the problem. At the moment the relatively high number of unemployed people has a large downward pressure on the wages of the low-skilled workforce as they can readily be replaced by someone from the pool of unemployed people. If you remove unemployment benefits you'll greatly reduce the number of unemployed people, predominantly leaving the truely unemployable without jobs. Now there is no large pool of potential replacement workers, so when a business wants to expand they have to poach workers from another company by offering them better wages etc. hence the wages of the low-skilled workers rise at the expense of the profit margin of busniesses.

Wage/price inflation spiral wrote:

When unemployment got low, wages would increase as employers tried to lure workers away from other businesses, regardless of unionization. Workers would be better paid, and would probably consume more. But they would also produce more output, which would tend to depress prices for goods. The loser, in this scenario, would be profits. Business would be unable to raise prices, as competition for sales would prohibit it. They would be unable to cut wages, as competition for workers would prohibit it. Therefore, their profits would shrink. This would reduce the amounts they were willing to pay for capital goods, and tend to reduce demand for labor in those industries which primarily produce such goods. Thus, high economic growth with a stable money supply would lead to high wages, low profits, more resources allocated to production of consumer goods, and fewer resources allocated to production of producer goods.

These aren't strange ideas based on shakey predictions. They are the basic economic models that are being currently used to control our countries economies right now. Go look up it up if you don;t believe me.

I had a problem before and after that assertion.

Initially there is a significant jump in unemployment, you skipped straight from welfare queens to already having a job. In reality unemployment would jump first, and would only go down as businesses expand over time. The transition period would make it much easier on the economy, as businesses have time to find ways of reducing their labor expenses by investment or innovation over time.

Then you say the lack of unskilled workers would greatly cut into profits in turn effecting the middle class, but middle management can be cut as well.  The people that would get to stay in the working middle class wouldn't just be the ones with a diploma, but the ones that have the brains to actually use their diploma.

Any one of your assertions is correct taken by itself, I never had a problem with that. The problem is you have stacked so many on top of each other that the connection from change to doomsday gets weaker and weaker.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Yep, and that revolution partially involved working class people fed up with the powers that be.  Powers that ran our country like a feudalism.  If capitalism is allowed to run without any intervention whatsoever, that's what it eventually becomes.  Plutocracy is essentially the modern version of feudalism..

Our early government did not look like feudalism. They were self governing colonies and eventually states, starting with the Mayflower Compact. It was only when the crown tried to assert it's rules over here that we began revolting. In fact I don't even know if you would call it a revolution since what we were trying to maintain was what we were already doing.

Maybe aristocracy would be a better description.  Especially in the Southern colonies, there was a pretty clear division of wealth and poverty, and slavery added to the feudalistic image.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's why the arguments against raising the minimum wage are mostly hollow when applied to reality.  If you have to pay your lowest wage earners a little more, you're not going to lay them off most of the time, because you're already running on as few employees as possible most of the time.

Hollow? .. no. When you force a minimum wage hike you force business to discriminant against hiring the unskilled. It has resulted in higher unemployment nearly every time.

I'll research that.  I can see where you're coming from, but I'm gonna need some statistics to back that up.