User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 50

  1. #31
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Ok, you're totally not getting it. Yes, the money supply is a zero-sum game, but the goods they can purchase are NOT zero sum. So while your 'piece of the pie' might stay constant, if economic output is increasing (more goods made available for purchase), the amount of goods you're able to purchase will increase. You're simply not understanding how zero-sum applies. It applies to the money supply, only, not to the goods (housing, automobiles, food, water, etc), which are true wealth.

    Yes, wealth is created. If someone plants an apple tree and sells those apples. Wealth was created. The pool of goods available for purchase was increased. Your dollar (if the money supply was constant), even though it buys the same percentage of goods, buys a greater absolute amount of goods. That's how people can be moved out of poverty, even though their percentage of income, in relation to the rich, did not increase.
    The big question here is the correlation between monetary wealth and material wealth. A system where monetary wealth is used as the means to everything creates issues. A system that uses monetary totals as an objective has even bigger problems.

    How does someone's posession of money allow them to buy an apple? Perhaps more importantly, how does it allow someone to plant an apple tree?
    As I was pointing out, the value of money in relation to itself causes the overall value of a single dollar to be extremely inconsistent. For every dollar added, everyone dollar now holds a smaller portion of the gloabl monetary value for itself, so one dollar becomes less valuable. You've basically admitted that to be true.
    Now, if the aquisition or production of goods is achieved through money, a problem occurs. The material wealth becomes subject to the inconsistencies of abstraction and subjectivity. The stock market is one of the worst examples of this. The productivity of a country can be absolutely gutted by a rapid trend of subjective speculation. But it's very silly too, because the value of money unto itself is the first thing to consider. As long you are using money as the means, it must be considered before all other factors, even supply and demand regarding other goods. I'm talking about something equivalent to the supply and demand of money itself, which is a zero-sum game. Everything that's built on a zero-sum game will be effectively be a zero-sum game too. It's like building a house on a swampy foundation.

    It is problematic that you can never outline an objective proportion of monetary value in relation to material value. There is no objectivity to determining how many dollars and apple is allegedly worth. It calls into question how much monetary value actually has to do with material value.

    Of course, I could always just bypass money altogether. I could find some apple seeds, plant it in my yard and nurture it. I just made material wealth without using monetary wealth. If I give the apples away, then people will be gaining material wealth without spending monetary wealth, from someone who himself did not spend monetary wealth. If something like was attempted en masse, it would probably destroy the economy, because the economy has become so monetarist.

    So it's sort of lose/lose. I subject everything to money, then I subject everything to money's zero-sum game. If I don't subject everything to money, then every economic plan and theory that has been built around this monetary system is dead.

    It was incorrect when I said that wealth cannot be created. I should have said that material wealth can only be a product of material wealth.
    Material wealth can never literally, objectivelym or practically be the product of monetary wealth, and because of how money works, even monetary wealth can no be increased through monetary wealth.

    People that think money can make more money, at least with any REAL value, are basically proposing a perpetual energy machine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    That's also why it's so important for people to work in productive segments of the economy, rather than government bureaucracy. Bureaucracies create nothing.
    A lot of countries have much higher percentages of government employment and lower levels of poverty than the USA at the same time. How does this happen?



    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    That's a flawed way to view poverty. Poverty has to do with having the basic essentials to live, not how you compare to the wealthiest people on the planet. The number of boats you have, compared to some other douchebag is not a measure of poverty (unless a fleet of boats was necessary for survival). Whether or not you can afford enough food for you and your family to eat is a much better definition (along with other things like shelter, transportation, etc). The problem is, our definition of poverty keeps changing. We're spoiled. Capitalism has been that successful.
    I actually agree with you, in a way. I just think what you are talking about is a very different issue. I totally agree that people are unappreciative of what living out of poverty really means. I don't know how this really relates to what mercury posted, though. The IMF's system doesn't apply very well to your idea of poverty. The PPP is a very flawed system for determining well being.


    I will point out that having the lowest share usually is the cause of poverty. Remember, there is no amount of money so great that you can't be given a small enough share to put you in poverty. The Gross World Product Per Capita is $10,000. That's a not a ton of money, but would be enough to mostly keep people out of poverty. But it goes without saying that it isn't even remotely even in its distribution. Poverty almost always exists because of inequality.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #32
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    I believe that most bosses aren't evil for real, but as it is said, power corrupts. And being a business owner is the closest thing to being a dictator that any non-dictators get. They have power over their underlings finances, and in this world that means everything.
    Hell, you can't eat, sleep or drink water if the money is taken away. Bosses definitely have too much power. The only thing that is wrong and evil about bosses is the position itself.

    Weird proposition for change in medium sized to large companies:
    1. Shareholders, direct owners or other people who can become greedy should not be allowed by law to fire employees or have any influence about the staff at all. They can stick to raw material, finding jobs, make suggestions about business ideas and other things that aren't related to the people who work for them.
    The real people managing should be done by highly qualified personel. Balanced people. Of course they would have to be government employees and funded by tax money. That would create new job opportunities on one hand and increase taxes on the other. But it would be better than living in constant fear when the business owner has had a fight with his wife or other thins that can make the life of an employee a real bitch.



    Can any of you see my point, or am I talking to deaf ears? Of course this is somewhat of a utopia. But what do you like more? Absolute power or balance? I mean, the boss still earns all the money and gets to stay rich, and the poor remain poor. But at least the employees can have some kind of increased safety.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  3. #33
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Heh. The Poriferan thinks that if I'm rich, it's because ten other people had to be poor to make me so.
    Depends on how you mean that. There are a few ways in which I would say: "yes, that is correct". The world is extremely synergous(I don't think that's officially a word) and reciprocal. I notice that Libertarians tend to be very apathetic and hands-off on environmental issues, and I think it's sort of the ultimate example of a lack of appreciation for this reciprocity.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #34
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    I believe that most bosses aren't evil for real, but as it is said, power corrupts. And being a business owner is the closest thing to being a dictator that any non-dictators do. They have power over their underlings finances, and in this world that means everything.
    Hell, you can't eat, sleep or drink water if the money is taken away. Bosses definitely have too much power. The only thing that is wrong and evil about bosses is the position itself.

    Weird proposition for change in medium sized to large companies:
    1. Shareholders, direct owners or other people who can become greedy should not be allowed by law to fire employees or have any influence about the staff at all. They can stick to raw material, finding jobs, make suggestions about business ideas and other things that aren't related to the people who work for them.
    The real people managing should be done by highly qualified personel. Balanced people. Of course they would have to be government employees and funded by tax money. That would create new job opportunities on one hand and increase taxes on the other. But it would be better than living in constant fear when the business owner has had a fight with his wife or other thins that can make the life of an employee a real bitch.



    Can any of you see my point, or am I talking to deaf ears? Of course this is somewhat of a utopia. But what do you like more? Absolute power or balance? I mean, the boss still earns all the money and gets to stay rich, and the poor remain poor. But at least the employees can have some kind of increased safety.
    You want shareholders to have no say in the direction of the company, which would be determined by government agents who place people in their work positions? No, I don't think that would work. Part of the reason of starting your own company is to run the business you want in the industry you like, the way you want to do it. Do you live in constant fear of your boss (assuming you have a job)? I know I don't, but, then again, I have about 7 competing bosses, and I work for a university health system with decent pay and benefits. Also, with the largest corporations, the shareholders and Board of Directors have the ultimate say over the upper management. That's how they get things done.

    That wouldn't increase job opportunities, either. You are talking about people who would need at least a bachelor's degree (preferably with a Human Resources concentration) who would most likely otherwise be working for higher salaries in the corporate world. We couldn't put our undereducated unemployed in those positions, and our unemployment rate is already low by world standards. It seems like a gigantic bureaucracy that would be counterproductive.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #35
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Depends on how you mean that. There are a few ways in which I would say: "yes, that is correct". The world is extremely synergous(I don't think that's officially a word) and reciprocal. I notice that Libertarians tend to be very apathetic and hands-off on environmental issues, and I think it's sort of the ultimate example of a lack of appreciation for this reciprocity.
    That isn't really true. Libertarians have an array of thoughts on the subject, but the most common is that pollution is a tortious trespass. If you can demonstrate damage to your health or property, you can and should sue the polluter, and they would also be subject to criminal prosecution in many cases.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Depends on how you mean that. There are a few ways in which I would say: "yes, that is correct". The world is extremely synergous(I don't think that's officially a word) and reciprocal. I notice that Libertarians tend to be very apathetic and hands-off on environmental issues, and I think it's sort of the ultimate example of a lack of appreciation for this reciprocity.
    There is a recognition among many in the business leadership positions that "Green is green." (That is being environmentally sound has great potential to make/save money).

    If for no other reason, but to take a share of the incredibly lucrative energy market, people are getting into alternative energy, fuel-cell, and electric/hybrid vehicle businesses.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #37
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    There is a recognition among many in the business leadership positions that "Green is green." (That is being environmentally sound has great potential to make/save money).

    If for no other reason, but to take a share of the incredibly lucrative energy market, people are getting into alternative energy, fuel-cell, and electric/hybrid vehicle businesses.

    That is what will drive people (pardon the pun) away from gasoline-powered automobiles. Eventually, oil will become too expensive to extract and still make gasoline viable. Only then will we wean oursevles off the petro-economy.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #38
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Wow! I didn't realize my relative post rate gotten so slow that this would be several pages by now.

    I'm afraid my response to Magic would now be of little relevance.


    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Still, to Magic:

    I would seriously like to understand where you are comming from. I will look into those books. I generally, like to find out how someone arives at their own world view.
    Then I have to give you an important heads-up. Mancur Olson isn't really the source of my opinions about the growability of wealth. So he won't explain that part of my belief.

    The reason I brought up Olson when I did, is because he has a lot of points against Libertarian, Classical Liberal, Objectivist, and Anarchist theories.
    It's not coincidence that I brought him up after the essay Mercury linked to.

    Olson dismisses the invisible hand as being insufficient.
    He proves rational egosim to be often self-defeatist.
    He shows that groups of rational people will not naturally do what is good for the whole group.
    And from there, he points out why large society does not exist in the world today without extensive government oversight, (He explains why they are virtually always taxes, for example).

    Those are a few examples of his suggestions that really go against the beliefs of the liberal set.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    To sum up the major points of dispute:

    1) You believe that the only wealth/poverty that matters is relative wealth/poverty. True? If so, why do you say that?

    2) You do not believe that overall wealth can increase. True? If so, why do you say so?
    Both of these questions I suppose should be answered with a no.
    I attempted to explain in a post I have made since that material wealth can change, but that monetary wealth cannot, and reliance on monetary wealth as a means or measure will always result in practical stagnation.
    If you just put the words "monetary" or "financial" before "wealth" than the answer would be yes. The answer is therefore also yes to any kind of wealth if it is being founded on monetary wealth.

    I do believe that the whole existance of poverty is mostly attributable to inequality at this point in history.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #39
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The big question here is the correlation between monetary wealth and material wealth. A system where monetary wealth is used as the means to everything creates issues. A system that uses monetary totals as an objective has even bigger problems.
    Are you talking about fiat currency? Or money, in general? Because the alternative to the use of money is a barter system. And that's horribly inefficient. Money evolved because it simplifies transactions.

    Do you have another system in mind?

    How does someone's posession of money allow them to buy an apple? Perhaps more importantly, how does it allow someone to plant an apple tree?
    As I was pointing out, the value of money in relation to itself causes the overall value of a single dollar to be extremely inconsistent. For every dollar added, everyone dollar now holds a smaller portion of the gloabl monetary value for itself, so one dollar becomes less valuable. You've basically admitted that to be true.
    Yes, that's called inflation, which plagues both capitalist and socialist nations.

    Now, if the aquisition or production of goods is achieved through money, a problem occurs. The material wealth becomes subject to the inconsistencies of abstraction and subjectivity.
    I fail to see the problem.

    The stock market is one of the worst examples of this. The productivity of a country can be absolutely gutted by a rapid trend of subjective speculation.
    Please elaborate. As far as I know, no stock market crash has ever been the primary cause of a depression.

    But it's very silly too, because the value of money unto itself is the first thing to consider. As long you are using money as the means, it must be considered before all other factors, even supply and demand regarding other goods. I'm talking about something equivalent to the supply and demand of money itself, which is a zero-sum game. Everything that's built on a zero-sum game will be effectively be a zero-sum game too. It's like building a house on a swampy foundation.
    Money is a medium of exchange. Nothing more. Whether the supply/demand of money is fixed or not has absolutely no bearing on whether wealth can be created. I just don't see how you're making these connections.

    It is problematic that you can never outline an objective proportion of monetary value in relation to material value. There is no objectivity to determining how many dollars and apple is allegedly worth. It calls into question how much monetary value actually has to do with material value.
    Why is this problematic? And the value of everything is subjective. There is no way to objectively determine value, because objective value does not exist.

    Of course, I could always just bypass money altogether. I could find some apple seeds, plant it in my yard and nurture it. I just made material wealth without using monetary wealth. If I give the apples away, then people will be gaining material wealth without spending monetary wealth, from someone who himself did not spend monetary wealth. If something like was attempted en masse, it would probably destroy the economy, because the economy has become so monetarist.
    That would destroy the economy? On what do you base this assumption?

    So it's sort of lose/lose. I subject everything to money, then I subject everything to money's zero-sum game. If I don't subject everything to money, then every economic plan and theory that has been built around this monetary system is dead.
    I think your understanding of the money supply is flawed.

    People that think money can make more money, at least with any REAL value, are basically proposing a perpetual energy machine.
    I don't think you're understanding the term 'make money'. The only way to really make money is to counterfeit.

    A lot of countries have much higher percentages of government employment and lower levels of poverty than the USA at the same time. How does this happen?
    The US has the largest bureaucracy in the world.

    I actually agree with you, in a way. I just think what you are talking about is a very different issue. I totally agree that people are unappreciative of what living out of poverty really means. I don't know how this really relates to what mercury posted, though. The IMF's system doesn't apply very well to your idea of poverty. The PPP is a very flawed system for determining well being.

    I will point out that having the lowest share usually is the cause of poverty. Remember, there is no amount of money so great that you can't be given a small enough share to put you in poverty. The Gross World Product Per Capita is $10,000. That's a not a ton of money, but would be enough to mostly keep people out of poverty. But it goes without saying that it isn't even remotely even in its distribution. Poverty almost always exists because of inequality.
    The greatest cause of poverty is political instability.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    Can any of you see my point, or am I talking to deaf ears? Of course this is somewhat of a utopia. But what do you like more? Absolute power or balance? I mean, the boss still earns all the money and gets to stay rich, and the poor remain poor. But at least the employees can have some kind of increased safety.
    Absolute power? No one has absolute power. If a business owner were to engage in the practices you describe, he would be doing so at his own detriment. Firing good employees because you're in a bad mood is horrible business decision. The hypothetical business owner you describe would never be very successful and might eventually go out of business. The strongest companies in the world don't engage in these sorts of practices, and if these incidents do occur, they're so incredibly rare that government intervention is not needed.

    Government intervention would cause all companies to be less efficient because they'd have to employ people who basically do nothing. Costs would go up and the poor's standard of living would suffer. It would also make companies more hesitant to hire in the first place. If a company can't sever a relationship with a bad employee, they're going to be far more strict in their hiring practices, which would hurt people who either don't have experience/trying to fix a bad reputation/etc. In the end, the program you advocate would actually hurt the people you intend to help.

    Not all business owners are rich, nor do they get to 'earn all the money'.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] ENFPs who are NOT sensitive to criticism and AREN'T highly emotional?
    By Elfboy in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-01-2011, 02:02 PM
  2. [MBTItm] ISxPs are not xi and Se
    By jixmixfix in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 08-20-2011, 01:02 AM
  3. Proof that not all languages are singable
    By Alpha Prime in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-05-2010, 06:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO