I recently had a debate on shannons blog reguarding the productivity of the usa. The other person claimed that we had the largest GDP (gross domestic product) and therefore the US was more productive than lesser poor nations. My argument is that the productive people in society are usually the poor working class and so is the case on a country to country relationship. That is the poor countries perfrom the productivity that the US reaps the benefits. When looking into GDP I found that services count in the GDP. So while it may appear we have a large GDP, its really only so big because we perform _highly_ overpriced services for one anther here in the us. So that bellagio valet attendant who parked cars contributed an unrealistic $100,000 to our GDP. Same with the pimply teenagers who charge you $7.99 for your upsized combo meal at Jack in the box. A similar meal would cost you pennies in India and probably be more labor intensive to prepare.
I support my argument by identifying where the various belongings I use everyday are laborously created. Here's my list of what I have today.
Cell phone - taiwan
cell phne battery - korea
watch - japan
blue tooth headset - malaysia
ball point pen - japan
shirt - el salvador
shoes - brazil
jeans - bangledesh
underwear - el salvador
pocket knife - USA (ironic only my weapon is USA)
laptop cmputer - malaysia
scisors - china
coffe mug - china
desk fan - china
even my house was created largely by illegal immigrant labor.
how does your list come out? I would bet that 95% of everything you own was produced outside of our country.
its not that americans are productive it's the fact that americans are in control which makes our country rich.
-brad
11 comments:
I went over that wikipedia information before I blogged. I believe that information is just a way of tracking who's oppressed and who's doing the oppressing. It's also muddled with who has good technologies, education and training incorporated into their society. Afterall, a man in india is not much different than a man in luxembourg. Certainly both are similarly capable of learning and working. Yet india supplies much of the work in producing so many goods for so many other countries. Even the technology argument can be excluded as an excuse for our tyranny as a nation to the rest of the world. Because we would take any economically beneficial technology and apply it to any factories we have located in india or elsewhere.
G: "Also, I wouldn't define "productive" as simply producing goods. A good manager makes his employees more effective,"
Right, so a manager's value is soley based on being able to motivate his employees to *produce* more goods than if the manager simply acted as an additional production employee (ie 10 workers + 1 manager > 11 workers). Ultimately the end result for a business and economy as a whole is production. what mankind is able to produce for itself (or in india's case produce for someone else).
G: " and a smart investor funds a useful project that would otherwise never happen. After all, if you had to invest in a business would you rather have 20 uneducated (but strong?) employees directing themselves or 10 of those employees and one manager with the vision to make things happen?"
I propose that an investor is the same as oppressor. When you invest and make a profit beyond inflation, which is the whole point of investing, you are directing people to work for you and not giving them anything in return. Investing is the game of controlling your fellow man. Directing him on a constructive path for himself and yourself.
-Brad
G: "Capable, certainly. A Lux guy actually *is* educated, however. He also probably has the benefit of already having money."
ok, I'll give you that his education likely improves his productive capability. however, Already having the money has _Nothing_ to do with _his_ productive capability. having money only gives him control over other people.
G: "I'm not really sure what you're getting at. So that manager that makes his 10 employees 50% more efficient is producing as much as 5 employees, right? If you agree then we're completely on the same page."
Agreed, as long as he is not improving his employees production by making them work harder (ie uses soley organizational skills to improve production effeciency not whipping the employees to burn the midnight oil)
>B: "When you invest ... you are
>directing people to work for you
>and not giving them anything in
>return."
G: "No way dude - you're giving them the means to work. They might have great ideas and talent but simply don't have the capital. If I had a great idea and didn't have the money to fund it I'd be *thrilled* to have an investor front me money in exchange for a percentage of the profits."
First of all, from your statement, I get the impression that your "great idea" would be one that ends up putting both you and your investor "buddy" in the oppressor catagory. Somthing that would end up making you a fat profit.
Capital is an imaginary thing. It's a game where most humans pretend that a few people have control over things that already exist.
G: "I'm sure you can view the economy solely in terms of oppression/control, but I don't believe it to be the most effective model. Maybe just one of many tools to use when trying to understand a situation. There are win-win situations and non zero-sum game economies."
The best way I can describe it is oppression/control. It's the ONLY model I've found that works perfectly. Perhaps there's a better term for it. Basically there are 3 kinds of people.
1. produce about what they consume
2. produce more than consume
3. consume more than produce
Rich people are always #3
Poor & middle class people are *usually* #2
in utopia we would all be #1
And of course most situations are win/win. That's why economies can grow.
G: "What about having tools? Am I more productive because I own a computer? What if I owned a super computer, or software that allowed me to work more efficiently? When I talk about money I'm also talking about wealth/goods/capital, since money is interchangable with these things."
This is where our views differ. When I talk about money, I'm talking about the current potential for a human to perform labor for himself or others. The fact that you are in possession of a computer, land, animals or other pre-existing tools to enhance your production ability is _usually_ irrelevant. I say usually because the aquisition of such material items are frequently NOT a result of that individuals productive contribution to society. The reason I have a new truck, house, computer, bigscreen, toolbox, power tools etc. is not because I contributed so much to society that I labored to produce that equivelant amount of material. It's simply because in this imaginary game of capitol possession It's agreed that this stuff is mine. Assign possession of it all to a similarly capable individual and he/she would be just as productive as myself.
G: "Sure, that's the point. But if I design some really cool software/gadget, produce everything myself and sell it for a fortune how am I an 'oppressor'? Maybe I can 'oppress' people with the money I make, but the process of making that money oppresses no one."
Absolutely correct! Producing the software/gadget and selling for a fortune is fruitful and beneficial to all. The damage (oppression) occurs when you choose to spend that money. I know this is a very counter-intuitive concept but it's when you spend money that you control your fellow man. And therefore, the point at which you have the ability to unjustly indenture your fellow man.
G: "It's not pretend - those people realy do control those things. That's the point of property laws. I'm not really sure what your point is here."
It's about as real as the barbarian's possession of a +4 sword. If the DM and players agree that the barbarian owns a +4 sword, well then surely the barbarian owns the +4 sword.
If US law has it written down that I own "7086 Sea orchard ave", well then by golly I must own it, right? Afterall I could call police and have my possession of the land enforced. God forbid, mexico invades the southwest successfully and now claims they own my house. They're in control and guess what? It's no longer agreed that I own that house.
It is a game, and it is imaginary. It does, however, usually have a logical history behind why someone is given possession of his material things. Just as the barbarian probably won some battles in the game to gain possession of his +4 sword.
G: "How do services fit into your 'productivity' model? Do you just lump then in with products,"
Services are maintenance for the human machines that we are. Services are necessary and require human labor. In a sense, services are part of what is required for mankind to produce goods. Therefore, the Janitor that cleans the bathrooms in the IBM building plays a required roll in the production of computers and should be paid accordingly.
G: "I think the crux of this is how productive can a person in power be? A person with drive and vision can easily be orders of magnitude more productive than the cashier at walmart (who produces nothing, eh?)"
Yes this is the crux. The Walmart checker is part of the production machine. The machine of prodcution includes distribution to the end user. The checker participates in that end, and is therefore productive to some extent. There are certainly people that are 100 times more productive than the walmart checker. Hell, lets say say that some person is 1,000 times more capable than the most efficient, skilled, and motivated wallmart checker in the world. I think that's being very fair on the limits of individual human capablility. Now we see that wallmart checker makes 35k/year (best checker in the world mind you). that would put the upper limit of the most productive human in the world at 35M/year. I would give it to you that the band from 35k-35M could be argued to be a "gray" area of uncertainty of value of an individuals production.
Would you agree that it's fairly white and black when someone is pulling in over 35M a year they are DEFINATELY not contributing to society for the ammount of control over society they are paid?
G: "is someone with tools more productive than someone without? Think of it in terms of manufacturing - is the cobbler who owns all the latest equipment and able to make 20 shoes a day more productive than the cobbler who can only make 1? How does this change if the cobbler rents his equipment? He is now more productive by sole virtue of someone else having bought shoe manufacturing equipment. How does your model explain this?
The cobbler that makes 20 shoes is being more productive, obviously. However, it would seem that both cobblers have equal *potential* of productivity. One just happens to have possession of shoe equipment. If one cobbler rent's the equipment, he is being Equally productive as the other cobbler. He just happens to give some of his productivity to the rentee of the equipment.
I hope we will get to agreement on these arguments. I have never been able to explain my understanding of economy before.
-Brad
G: "Well this isn’t really the accepted definition, is it? How about we call my money ‘wealth’ and we call your money ‘labor potential’, just to get our terms straight."
certainly, as long as you remember that wealth is simply a popular agreement that someone owns pre-existing material items.
G: "So by your definition, someone loses money the instant they have a stroke, break a limb, or have their harddrive crash (depending on what they produce)?"
Of course. If I made a deal with you to tile my roof and in exchange I would brew you a barrel of beer. If you lose your arms, you're not going to tile my roof and you're not getting the beer. Now of course you would still have your "wealth", that is the inaccurate historical account of what it is you have produced up to that point in your life and is commonly agreed as your ownership.
The economy only exists in the present and is shaped by the perception of the future. The past has no impact (other than analyzing it to predict the future).
B: “is not because I contributed so much to society that I labored to produce that equivelant amount of material. It's simply because in this imaginary game of capitol possession It's agreed that this stuff is mine.”
G :"And that agreement is fairly baseless?"
Yes, fairly baseless. In most cases you "own" somthing simply because no one can prove you stole it. When you look into the ammount of human labor involved to create and transport all the things I have owned, there is no way I could have been that productive. The reason I "own" these things is because I legally took it from thousands of people, mainly from other poor nations. Through the assistance of large companies who set up factories there.
G :"You don’t produce what others consume using your own equipment, so this is a difficult comparison."
It's kind of irrelavent but, sure I do. I used my truck and tools to tile Nat's condo for $600 bucks. I also use them to improve my house and as a result will capture that money spent when I sell my house.
G: "You use your employer’s capitol to increase your efficiency. In return for using their capitol you exchange a (large) percentage of your labor over to them, no?"
This is often the case. However, where you view this as assisting an employee. I view it as enslavement. Because the employer has legal ownership of so much pre-existing material items, the employer is able to force poeple to labor for them. Not much different than a hebrew in ancient egypt, just further up the spectrum.
B: “Producing the software/gadget and selling for a fortune is fruitful and beneficial to all.”
G: "But they had to spend their money to buy my gadget – why was no oppression happening then?"
Because when they spend money, they are having you perform them a service. It's when you demand a much greater favor in return when the oppression happens (when you, or your decendants spend the money).
G: "Is this always the case? Do you *always* control someone when you spend your ‘labor potential’?"
When you *spend* it yes. You could give it away, burn it, or eat it. But you can only spend it by having someone *DO* somthing for you.
G: "Why is it non-oppressive for others to use their wealth to buy my gadget, but oppressive for me to then use that wealth to purchase other things?"
Because of the disparity of the exchange. If you spit in the mouth of a dehydrated man and in return want 10 years of his servitude, then there is a GRAND disparity the the exchange of your services. Same goes for your gadget if it was one that earned you bucko bucks, and only took you a few months to invent and implement. Well then that would be an unfair "oppressive" exchange. I see these types of exchanges constantly. Such as the music, software, movie, and other industries that can mass produce one laborously created item and sell it millions of times over as though the creator was laboring to make the product for each person who bought the DVD. Simply unfair and leads to vast disparity in the economy.
G: "Ok, I get how it’s ‘imaginary’ in that sense. But would you agree that possession is a real concept within the confines of US law (assuming no one invades?)."
Sure, if you want to step out of reality and assume that US law is now reality. But why stop there, how about we start incorporating various religious law too? Im sure there's some religious laws that will let me own women or slaves.
Our laws are the best we can do as a society. I don't think they are even remotely close to being fair as they could be. But the rich are who create the law so it will always be in their favor. The only way the law is not writ in their favor is when the masses are likely to riot and so the laws will be writ to appease the masses.
G: "The whole point of forming a nation is to protect things like property rights so that people are able to rely on owning a house, car, and a +4 flaming keen greatsword"
Yes, agreed. It's to give the workers a sense that they earn and keep what they work for. Workers are much more productive when they get to keep what they produce. Unfortunately the power hungry wealthy aren't willing to wait for the worker to die to get all his possessions he left behind. the rich want to take it from him as he's producing it.
G: "Is this really about property being an illusion or more a statement that possession laws and the way that capitalism distributes property is somewhat arbitrary (and perhaps unjust)?"
More leaning towards unjust. But I think it's important to know that ownership is makebelieve most of the time. If you could actually "fairly" account for what each individual contributes and ensure that each individual recieved a lifestyle commensurate with his contribution, then we would all be living in standards closer to the global average GDP of $6k somthing USD a year.
G: "Just to be clear – you’re saying that the janitor and the engineer are both ‘producing’ --- just a different levels (or maybe not, if the engineer works at Bechtel!), right?
Exactly.
B: “The cobbler that makes 20 shoes is being more productive, obviously. However, it would seem that both cobblers have equal *potential* of productivity.”
G: "Hrmmm – and thus have the same labor potential a.k.a. money?!"
yes, if I were to do somthing for one of them, they would both have the potential to create me 20 shoes in one day's labor to pay me back.
G: "Why use ‘just happens’? What are you getting at, exactly? What if he invented the shoe equipment? Contrast that with being born with the shoe equipment. What about being given the shoe equipment.
Meaning that it's arbitrary that an individual may have many material possessions. It's not usually based on the fact that that person actually worked to create his possessions.
Wether he invented it, was given it, found it, or born with it. IT's not really relevant to the fact that both have the potential to produce 20 shoes!
G: "And is the renter controlling / oppressing the second cobbler? What if the renter invented the machine – how else is he to participate in this economy?
He should be paid for the time and labor he spent inventing the machine. Even paid well, say $500/hr + expenses + $100/hr spent in secondary school learning such things to create this invention. Its when the renter/inventor takes Way more than his fair share from his invetion that he is oppressing his fellow man.
Example: I live in a village of 1,000 peoople and water is a scarcity. One day I discover a well. Law says if you discover somthing you can claim it as your own. So after claiming the well I sell my water to the poeple of the village until I become the richest man in town. I continue this trend from generation to generation. This would be obviously unfair and oppressive.
G: "is renting or leasing always an oppressive move? What if something requires some much labor to produce (like a house) that it can’t be bought outright by one individual, but could potentially be leased?"
No, oppression occures only when there is a disparity in an exchange. This could happen renting, leasing, selling, buying or bartering.
In the case of loaning money. The only fair way to loan money is to loan it in an interest rate that matches inflation. Anything higher is unfair to the borrower, anything lower is unfair to the lender.
G: "That’s because you’re a deluded atheist. (j/k) Actually, I think you use common-place words in ways that really obfuscate your arguments. Words like money, oppression, control, capitol, wealth, possession etc… "
And you are limited athiest. You don't follow the laws of some men that are trying to control you (religions) but you are willing to follow the laws set forth to you by other men that are trying to control you (polititions).
Once you break into Full Blown athiesm (pure philosiphist) then these concepts are better accepted.
Language of course has been a limitation for me. I've always had trouble explaining things in an understandable way.
-Brad
Dude, I don't even have enough time to read your whole discussion, much less research and write an essay in order to partake!
come on claudia. With all that law school speed reading under your belt. This should be a 5 minute read.
G: "So is all wealth inaccurate? Is actually impossible to ‘own’ anything in a fair sense of the word?
Yes, inaccurate as far as our ability to measure it. Kind of like when I tell someone I'm 6'4" when Im not exactly 6'4.0" tall. Except, with property ownership, its often the case where we are all around 5-6 feet but the law has it on record that some people are 2,000 feet tall and many other's are 1 foot tall. Just because the law says someone is a mile tall has no bearing on the reality that they are simply 6' tall. Does this analogy make sense?
G: "I’ll grant you that we all agree people should be allowed to own things (i.e. that it’s not a physical law), but is there no place for wealth in your philosophy? Only by oppressing others can you obtain wealth – even if you make it yourself?
Only by oppressing others can you obtain "rich" wealth. By one's own merits you could create a decent living (plenty of food, house to live in, modest transportation). It's when you have a yacht, a jet, 100 room mansion, 2 butlers and 5 maids and a personal cook that can only be obtained through oppression (taking labor from others).
G: "What a gloomy outlook! So even if you had all of the proper tools/IP you don’t think you could make a car?
Sure I could If I was nearly that productive. My argument is that we (USA) are not that productive.
Sure according to law, that Valet at bellagio earned $100,000 last year and deserves to spend it on 5 nissan titan trucks.
My argument is that he is NOT remotely that productive. It's only because we operate as such a globally oppressive mechanism that services to the US rich by the US middle class (globally relatively rich) are way overpriced. That transaction between the valet and the ferrarri owner to have the valet jog over to pick up his car may be paid for by the Ferrarri owner in terms of 10 weeks of labor from an indian girl. That indian girl could have done the same job in the same amount of time as the valet.
It would take a lot of adding up to get the total labor cost of building a car. Assuming you could instantly change your skillset to whichever job is needed for a complete car creation:
Est per vehicle
Assembly: 19 hours
R&D: maybe 10hours
Factory creation: 10 hours
Factory maintenance: 50 hours
Transportation: 10 hours
Parts (from raw materials): 2,000 hours
So roughly somewhere between 1,000-5,000 hours of labor to produce a modern car. So sure, I could build one If I chose to work so hard for about a year. Thing is, I don't work that hard or long in 1 year.
G: "How many man-hours really went into making your TV? 20? 100? There’s no way it could have taken more than 100 once you spread the R&D time over each TV."
Agreed. But add up all the things I own and I think I've come out on top at this point vs the work of put into society. Granted im not a good case to look at for oppressing. As I have just started my way down oppression road. Prior I was the one being oppressed.
G: "But how much pre-existing material does it really take to start a business? You have money, why not start a business and enslave others?"
Yes, agreed. And I have.
G: "I think you have a double standard here. I guess you’re saying that it’d be hard for me (or you) to be oppressed since we’re already in the upper echelon, eh?"
Yes, when you look at things on a Global scale. We have it good here. A free ride so to speak. However look at just our interactions with-in our own society and you can and are still being oppressed. Walk into a Best Buy and pick up a DVD and some CDs and you've just been oppressed (even if it's willingly so).
B: “When you *spend* it yes. You could give it away, burn it, or eat it. But you can only spend it by having someone *DO* something for you.”
G: "That’s a narrow view. Who oppressed who when you tiled Nat’s condo? There are certainly exchanges where both parties are very happy with the exchange."
In a way we both oppressed third parties. Ultimately that Tile was put in the condo so Nat could receive money from his tenants wanting to rent such a nice looking condo. And ultimately when he sells the condo get back even more from the buyer. I put in my labor of $600 knowing that I'll be able to trade off that $600 for much more than my 20 hours of labor put into tiling his floor. Now If I spent that $600 unwisely I could very well have allowed myself to be oppressed working all that time on Nat's condo for no gain for myself.
G: "No one is being oppressed if I exchange my computer services for automotive maintenance as I’m a much better engineer and they are a much better mechanic than me. I’m not saying that spending money *can’t* oppress people, but I certainly don’t see how it always does."
Agreed, not always. Your example could be very close to a "fair shake"
G: "We’re splitting hairs here. US Law is certainly reality. You abuse it all the time to create more wealth for yourself.
US law is only as real as we want to believe it is. If people didn't have faith or belief in it, then it wouldn't have an effect on us.
G: "Calling property an illusion is deceptive, as it implies that no ownership actually exists. Ownership exists; the illusion is that ownership is natural and would exist without enforcement. Law exists; I don’t think anyone has the illusion that law exists without enforcement."
Ownership exists in the sense that yes, "someone" did work to create that thing yer holding there in your hand. Just the simple fact that we need to enforce law should reveal it's illusionary status.
G: "Say they are socially constructed (and thus arbitrary on some level), but don’t say they aren’t real."
Ok, agreed. They are simple social constructs. As such, they are as real as a thought can be.
G: "Ok, but if he invented it then he’s being productive on some other level and would thus be ‘richer’, right?"
Right, the more productive you are the more you will have for yourself.
B: “In the case of loaning money. The only fair way to loan money is to loan it in an interest rate that matches inflation. Anything higher is unfair to the borrower, anything lower is unfair to the lender.”
G: "Whoa - way to slap ‘standard’ economic principles in the face! So is there no value in owning something now instead of tomorrow? Why is it unfair to charge someone a little more for the ability to use it now?"
If by value, you mean owning something now gives you the ability to exploit someone who doesn't own it now. Then yes, you could indenture someone 10,000 work hours for a truck that only costs 5,000 work hours to produce. Gaining you 5,000 hours of work.
G: "Don’t you follow these rules too? It’s just a matter of understanding the rules to play the best game you can."
I have my own rules. I only acknowledge other's rules to the point of which their enforcement will affect me.
-Brad
G: "Overall I think your ideas accurately express how rich people (unjustly) continue to stay rich, as well as describe how people can become rich (by taking advantage of a situation and other people)."
Ok, cool. I can't believe how many poeple esp poorer people believe that being rich is justified. The poor really have a magical belief in money and think that it's ok for the rich to possess so much of that "magical" power.
G: "Trying to extend this idea to daily transactions and ALL situations feels like a force fit to me. It’s confusing because it’s counter intuitive and ignores common observations."
Explain. How is it a force fit to accept that in a transaction one party almost always comes out better vs another party?
G: "I still don’t think a man’s ability to produce tells the whole story. What about consuming less?"
Certainly consumption has an equal role to production (prod. - cons. = end product) In the case of the rich, consumption is much greater than production leaving them being just a huge consumption hole for society's workforce. The trick is that the rich know how to add other poeple's productivity over to their equation (prod. - Cons. +otherpplsendprod. = end product).
G: "Many people throw money away on frivolous things and have nothing to show for it. Accumulation of wealth has a _element_ of oppression in it, but that’s not the whole story."
You're missing it here. IT's not the accumulation of wealth that oppresses. IT's *SPENDING* wealth(not throwing it away) for labor that is the oppressing part. This is easier to see if you can imagine the economy working without the use of currency. So pretend there are no dollar bills, no bank accounts, no tracking of monies whatsoever. Now analyze the activities of several individuals and see how they labor for each-other without receiving meaningless paper $. Look at the janitor, look at the Engineer, look at the banker!, look at the slum lord, look at the construction worker. It gets pretty easy to identify who's making things happen vs who is reaping the benefits of society's workforce.
G: "I completely agree now. Again, I think your model works fine for explaining the rich – but would you agree it’s less useful in explaining the disparities between upper middle class and lower middle class, for example?"
No, it's just clearer at the far ends of the spectrum. You're looking at the gray area when comparing the middle classes. The shades of Gray are definately there, just harder to recognize by the untrained eye.
Again, I think the model isn’t particularly useful for ‘small time’ oppression.
Why not? Why can't I hire mexican labor for $4 and hour to install concrete work on the side of my house, or cut my lawn every week? Why couldn't I apply this on a 1 to 1 basis and come out on top? I don't see how it couldn't apply.
G: "Meh. Having to finagle the model to allow “willingly oppressed” cases just furthers my point of it feeling like a force fit in those cases."
I don't see how the mental state of an individual matters at all in determining if he's being oppressed or not. It doesn't matter if he's aware, unaware, happy about it, sad about it, wanting it, not wanting it, or even if the guy being oppressed is a happy-raped-retarded-born-again-christian.
The simple fact is that oppressed guy traded in 2 hours of his labor for 1 minute of someone elses labor. It's an un-equal transaction no-matter how happy both parties are about the transaction.
G: "You evaded who oppressed whom in the exchange and jumped to 3rd party exchanges instead. Plus, you have a caveat where if you spend your money poorly then Nat oppresses you."
You have to consider how I'm going to spend (consume) my $600. And what Nat is going to end up consuming as a result in getting his tile floor. If you "only" look at the interaction between Nat and myself and stop time after that, then I was the one who was oppressed. I spent all the time working for Nat and he only got me lunch a couple times and handed me some useless green paper.
G: "Maybe you’d be oppressed by your own stupidity, but retroactively assigning oppression based on how you spend your wealth seems awkward."
Again, if it's your own stupidy or someone else's cunningness has no relevancy on the fact that one person has labored for the other for nothing in return.
So in this example, If I end up losing the $600, then I end up losing out on the credit for doing all the labor for Nat. Someone who find's the $600 will reap those benefits instead (if they use that $600 to demand labor). If the $600 was lost forever, then the Tilework just ends up being my contribution to Nat with no strings attatched.
G: "… and as real as marriage, literature, movies, morality, ethics, politics, and anything else not concrete. It’s insightful to realize that laws are constructs, but I think you dismiss them too quickly. Most of human experience is ‘illusion’."
As real as the story in a movie, the ideas in literature. I dismiss the laws for argumentative sake. Obviously I do put faith in the enforcement of our laws like everybody else. I own a home and count on the police/courts to defend that ownership if someone challenges me on it. I understand that laws are the rules that we have agreed to play by.
G: "No no no, I mean the time value of money. Economists often use investment as a way to judge time value, but it’s easy enough to see people always want things now rather than later. "
Time has no value. poeple's individual values change with time. Capitalizing on an individual's changes of value over a span of time is just another effective way of indenturing them to labor for you.
G: "if you had worked on Nat’s tile in exchange for, say, gymnastic lessons you’d want those lessons sometime this year, not when you’re 50. There’s uncertainty in collecting payment later (Nat could die)"
I don't think this example applies. The fact that nat could die does not have a bearing on the value of his gymanstic lessons. The fact that I'm 50yrs old and wouldn't want gymanstics lessons also doesn't have bearing on the value of Nat's gymnastic lessons. It's simply a change in how much I personally value a gymnastic lesson.
G: ", plus there’s the benefit of being able to wear that shirt, drive that car, or play that guitar more since you have it sooner. You could say a person is being ‘oppressed’ by allowing someone to sell them a shirt today for 2 hours of labor instead of working 1 hour today and getting the shirt next week, but I think that’s a force fit."
Sure they benifit. That's why you can take advantage of them and get yourself a hefty unfair transaction in your favor. I could sell gasoline in the south right after Hurricain Katrina for $50/gal. Afterall, the buyer gets the tangible benefit of having that gas now to drive his car vs waiting 2 months for the infrastructure to be rebuilt.
It seems to me you're trying to justify price gouging simply because someone needs something or want's somthing badly.
G: "Paying more for something now isn’t oppressing a person fully aware of the tradeoffs; they are spending some of their labor for a real benefit."
Why can't someone be fully aware they are being taken advantage of? Why can't someone even accept and be happy with the fact that they are paying too much for something.
G: "I like the model of oppression for large-scale disparities in quality of living. I think there’s some insight to be gleaned from it and I’ve definitely been looking at things a little differently."
Yeah, it helps me too when I discuss these things. I start seeing new perspectives and refining my PoV. I think it also helps me along my path to my financial independance.
-Brad
I think I'm losing you here Greg. I'm not conveying the meaning of my oppression theory correctly.
Firstly, my main point is that we as a nation are not so productive. The GDP does not indicate that we produce wealth. I back this up by revealing that almost everything we own is produced elsewhere. Our country is supported on the backs of toiling thirdworld countries.
Secondly, I apply this concept in a micro scale within an individual society (rich and poor in USA). The rich individuals do not produce, they let others produce for them. They simply reap the benifits of society's work. THe heirarchy goes:
3rd world people work for scraps
US gives scraps for products
poor/middle class works for PAris Hilton
Paris hilton distributes some products to "pay" US workers.
g: "Because your model assumes it’s best to “oppress” as much as possible and “be oppressed” as little as possible."
Otherwise translated "getting a good deal" or "getting somthing for nothing". Don't you agree that repeadedly getting things for free or a good deal will help accumulate wealth?
G: "the laborer is more oppressed if he spends his money at a payday loan place than saving for a house."
Would any economist disagree with this?
G: "the oppression to wherever he spends his money to see how good of a deal he got with you. It’s convoluted and I think simple supply and demand economics would work better."
The BoT is used only to see the actual events occuring in the real world. Once you understand the BoT you can then apply traditional economics. Go ahead and assign a dollar value to material objects, Place ownership on pre-existing materials, Work with the US laws. It's when you understand that you're ultimate goal is to have others work for you, while not having to work for anyone. Then you can work with other poeple's perceptions of money, economy and work to get them to work for you.
G: "maybe you find it more useful to think of yourself as oppressing the laborer."
It's usefull to know you're getting the better end of the deal. Even if the laborer is happy getting paid the $50 bucks to haul concrete all day. Let him be happy, do not take his happiness away.
Knowing BoT better enables an individual to avoid being oppressed and hence fall into the pit trap of working for others. Or if you are in the pit stuck working for others, it will help you get out of that pit.
G: "This just seems like a cumbersome way to analyze the situation. I can’t simply look at what labor I *could* purchase with that money, but I have to look at what I actually purchase?"
Yeah, its cumbersom, but it's the explination for why some poeple end up rich or poor when they work just as hard their entire life. It's a cumbersome calculation and can only be roughly estimated at best.
G: "A better model would be to look at the purchasing power represented by those dollars received and treat them as you would any other $600 you received. I’m sure that’s what you actually do when you’re deciding what extra work to take on."
Of course, this is fundamental to using money with the understanding of BoT.
G: "Sure, you _could_ view losing money in a fire as being oppressed but it just sounds like the wrong word, doesn’t it? Nat’s certainly not oppressing you in this scene, so I guess it must be the fire, eh?"
Lets take an extreme example. Man works hard and productively for 50 years. That man consumes almost nothing his whole life, lives like a pauper. All his money is stuffed in his matress. one day a fire burns his house and the $1M stuffed in his mattress. He never gets to spend his hard earned money. The man dies the next day.
For this example, what do you think?
1. did the man lived the life of an extreemely oppressed individual?
2. Who gained the benifits from all his productivity?
3. What oppressed this man, if anything?
4. Does this man's intellect or phisical ability change anything to do with the fact that he's oppressed?
5. If this man is still happy, was he oppressed?
G: "There’s labor involved in sacrificing one’s time. Jobs that require long commutes and travel should pay more, because that person is ‘producing’ during that travel time."
Jobs that take a lot of time can certainly be laborous. we're splitting hairs here. This is a very gray area. Trying to identify when spending time is part of a required task to produce somthing can go on indefinately. Let's just say that sometimes spending time waiting can be part of the labor in producing.
G: "The same would go for jobs that require a lot of hurry up and wait – simply requiring someone to be available is making them labor. A person’s time has value."
Again more gray area. If im a swat member and only work 1 day/year with a $90,000/yr salary. I'd say im on the oppressor side of things. It would be a dream job that almost anyone would readily take. On the other hand you could be called for duty 10 times a week and truely earn your $90k.
G: "If Nat promises to give you a lesson in 100 years then you know you’ll never collect and those lessons are worthless. You would never accept any payment past your life expectance because you may never be able to enjoy that labor."
Your argument here is a straw man. The fact that Nat or myself will die simply points out that this labor could never be done. Not that receiving in the future would have a change in its value.
G: "The point is simply that people want things now instead of later. This is universally true. Your system doesn’t accurately reflect this."
Wanting somthing that is in short supply means only a few people will get to have it. As a result the sellers of those items will raise the price. In BoT this is very simple to represent. The sellers are simply enabled to oppress the perhaps foolish buyers. I think BoT very elegantly displays the dynamics of this transaction. It's TVoM that tries to assign some ficticious value to scarcity or time.
G: "$50/gal would probably be oppressive."
That's cause this is on one end of the spectrum it's obvious. But the same thing occurs in *Every* transaction just in a very small incriment.
G: "Take another example: you work on my tile for a day and I give you my bike in exchange. Let’s assume this is a fair trade. Now, I haven’t gotten my new bike yet so it’d be very helpful for me to keep it for another week. If we negotiate me giving you the bike next week instead of today then I’ve actually gotten a better deal"
True, you have gotton a better deal. you VERY marginally have oppressed me (nothing I wouldn't freely do for a friend).
G: "I get to ride *your* bike for a week. If that same deal had been for me to keep the bike for a year I would have made out even better."
True, even better, more oppressive.
1) Brad’s Oppression Theory (BOT): You labored and thus technically ‘own’ my bike. Fair exchange. Now you are letting me use your bike, which I assume means I’m oppressing you for a
week (or year).
You would be oppressing me for the 1st week or year value of a bicycle like around $1-$100 depending on the price of the bike.
2) Time Value of Money (TVoM): You labor for the current value of my bike. My bike is worth less in the future than it is at present, so you are losing whatever the value of having a bike for a week (or a year) is worth.
You would be oppressing me for the 1st week or year value of a bicycle like around $1-$100 depending on the price of the bike.
BOT has to borrow from its theory of lending to prove that oppression is taking place
No, I dont think so. It's obvious that you are now getting somthing for nothing. For both BoT or TVoM you need to approximate the value of a new bike to a bike thats been used a year.
G: "and even then it’s shaky as it stands because all renting is oppressive."
No it's not. I never said renting is oppressive. Renting is only oppresive when the Rentee takes more than his fair share in Rent $ from the renter. ie successfully charging $5k/mo for a run down 1 bed room apartment in the ghetto. Clearly benefits the landlord.
G: "So if you charge me even 1cent (or a free bike tune up) for using the bike an extra week you’ve all of a sudden oppressed me"
Only if you charged even 1cent *OVER* the rentee's material costs and his own labor value to provide you the rental.
More to come later.. I gotta go now.
-Brad
G: "TVoM is clean and consistent. Using the bike for an extra week is worth something to both of us. The right to use it is valuable. This doesn’t fit in well with BOT, but I think it better describes what’s actually happening.
I think it does. When you haggle for more time with the bike, you get the better end of the deal. Hence in BoT you acted as the oppressor.
G: "If I wasn’t able to invest my money I’d spend almost every cent the minute I earned it "
What if you were able to invest it in a way that kept it up with inflation? Then any labor you performed, you could stow away in a savings account that grew with inflation. Therefore, the work you did would still be there at the same value waiting for you to use it at your leisure.
G: "BOT suggests that everyone would be best off if they didn’t spend their money until the very last minute possible, which is both impractical and not a good description of what makes people ‘better off’"
how did you come to this conclusion? BoT doesn't say not to spend your money. In fact I would say it encourages spending. Spending will encourage poeple to become productive, and productivity is the goal of a growing economy.
G: "‘if I buy this guitar I’ll be more oppressed than if I buy it 40 years from now – but if I invest that money then I can oppress others instead’ just seems an awkward way of thinking about things."
Awkward but true (assuming you buy at retail price). Instead, someone thinking in BoT terms would find a way to purchase the Guitar at a price that oppresses the seller (garage sale, ebay, pawn shop, craigs list). find somebody who already oppressed themselves by paying retail and now needs to sell the guitar for a super low price. Then you could use the guitar until you feel like selling it. In which a BoT thinker will view as another transaction in which he could act as an oppressor on the seller's side of the transaction. This gives the BoT person two opportunities to improve his wealth and free use of the guitar.
G: "I’d rather use a cost benefit analysis: “buying this guitar now means I can’t invest that $500 which will become $30,000 when I retire. Is being able to play this guitar now and for the next 40 years worth what I’ll be able to do with $30,000 40 years from now?”
I suspect you’re more prone to use the second logic in actual day-to-day decisions."
Actually I'm not. I'm really into the mindset of the BoT. I won't even balk at spending thousands of dollars on somthing if I know I'm going to be getting a good deal and as such will be able to turn that deal over for a profit.
-Brad
I think they miss each other.....aweeeeee
Post a Comment