The Good and Bad in Materialism and Consumerism (1 Viewer)

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

I'm unsure if this belongs in Economics or Philosophy

I thought it would be interesting if we had a topic about this somewhere. I'll setup the discussions that have been made already.

I just usually find Materialism as a contributing factor to Willful Ignorance, Apathy, Passivity and Over-Indulgence. A true Facist would want a populace to be Willfully Ignorant, Apathetic to reform, Passive with the problems, and be Over-Indulgent in what the facist government promises them, and most definantly would want everyone to be defenseless.

I'm not against Material Worship or Celebrity Worship or Popculture Worship because it doesn't worship God. I'm against Material Worship, Celebrity Worship, and Popculture worship because it Worships Materialism, Celebrities and Popculture.

Well I am very much in favor of materialism. I dont think that it encourages apathy, I think it encourages consumerism, the economy and capitalism in general.

I dont see the connection between materialism and celebrities/pop culture. At least not in the capitalistic sense outside of the teenage age range.

But I guess I may be an exception because I am opposed to worship, and could care less about popculture/celebrities.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What was wrong with the thread we had? Oh well, its your turn...

 

[LeftyHenry]

Well I am very much in favor of materialism. I dont think that it encourages apathy, I think it encourages consumerism, the economy and capitalism in general.

A society that runs on greed is doomed to failure. Anyone with half a brain can should realize that eventually we'll run out of something and collapse. Like for example oil.

I dont see the connection between materialism and celebrities/pop culture. At least not in the capitalistic sense outside of the teenage age range.

You must not watch commercials that appear on tv shows or sporting events like the super bowl sponsored by budweiser...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

A society that runs on greed is doomed to failure. Anyone with half a brain can should realize that eventually we'll run out of something and collapse. Like for example oil.

All societies/empires are doomed for failure. You mind explaining your logic on how greed is counterproductive?

Oil wasnt a natural resource until we figured out how to make use of it, its time will come and pass, and unlike people like you claiming the end is near, some people are actually working on the alternative. Not that nuclear power isnt a viable solution to our energy problems.

You must not watch commercials that appear on tv shows or sporting events like the super bowl sponsored by budweiser...

Do I really have to go into the difference between targetted advertising and celebrity worship? If you read what I said after that, you'll understand why those methods dont affect me.

 

[liberal1]

Greed is the primal instinct inherent in all humans, or rather, the want to prosper. Capitalism harnessed that nature for its its success, and the concept of materialism is at the basis of capitalistic nature. For the reigning economic system in America to survive, so must materialism and consumerism.

 

[LeftyHenry]

All societies/empires are doomed for failure. You mind explaining your logic on how greed is counterproductive?

Greed is not counter-productive, however it does help create this unsustainable period where people will just buy and buy bargain things alot of times made elsewhere. Thus those countries will have an increase in demand for resources like gas and our gas prices will rise or we'll be willing to sacrifice milage for big looks with all these inefficient gas guzzlers. I think eventually American hyper-consumerism will catch up with us in the long run.

Oil wasnt a natural resource until we figured out how to make use of it, its time will come and pass, and unlike people like you claiming the end is near, some people are actually working on the alternative. Not that nuclear power isnt a viable solution to our energy problems.

the oil industry will hold the energy industry's throat even when they really can't do it any more thanks to lobbyists. Let's face it, millions of jobs worldwide will be stopped, billions of cars will become useless, everyone will have to change to the new natural resource which could have chaotic effect.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Greed is not counter-productive, however it does help create this unsustainable period where people will just buy and buy bargain things alot of times made elsewhere. Thus those countries will have an increase in demand for resources like gas and our gas prices will rise or we'll be willing to sacrifice milage for big looks with all these inefficient gas guzzlers. I think eventually American hyper-consumerism will catch up with us in the long run.

America cant keep the biggest piece of the pie forever. Eventually people will catch up to us, the market will serve its purpose, dont worry...

the oil industry will hold the energy industry's throat even when they really can't do it any more thanks to lobbyists. Let's face it, millions of jobs worldwide will be stopped, billions of cars will become useless, everyone will have to change to the new natural resource which could have chaotic effect.

True, but not to that extreme I think. We will be fine, as long as men of unborrowed vision see their contributions to humanity realized.

Back to the greed thing, why is greed bad?

I mean that in the truely selfish tense. I know you also associate greed with theft, and fraud. I'm asking of the harm a greedy person inflicts when acting in a legal manner, by only trading value for value, and selling his work for whatever consumers will pay for it.

 

[NguyenRhymesWithWin]

What was wrong with the thread we had? Oh well, its your turn...

I really wanted to continue the topic of Materialism and Hyper-Consumerism (as LeftyHenry so cleverly coined for us) without derailing the real issue in the other topic which spawned this one.

Oil wasnt a natural resource until we figured out how to make use of it, its time will come and pass, and unlike people like you claiming the end is near, some people are actually working on the alternative. Not that nuclear power isnt a viable solution to our energy problems.

The logic in hyper-consumerism and materialism may oppose new technology rather than support it. I know there will be alot of exceptions in American Auto-Mechanics for what I'm about to say, but I think it's been well established with American AutoMakers that people will just simply buy more cars if they need them so why design a car that's designed to last along time and not be an economic burden to Americans since they won't share the same economic success in the long term, when people start not buying cars hand over fist because their new Energy Efficient Propane-Electric-Hydro-Solar-WindMill-WaterMill Future-Buggies are doing them just fine. (excuse the cartooniness of the future-buggie).

For the reigning economic system in America to survive, so must materialism and consumerism.

But at what cost? I think the demand for FastFood and the lack of Independent House Keeping and Home Improvement make the need for a work force of exploited illegal aliens. Should our Materialism and Consumerism also be the system that keeps Illegal Aliens living a less than decent life as a day laberor or someone with a careere in burger flipping?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The logic in hyper-consumerism and materialism may oppose new technology rather than support it. I know there will be alot of exceptions in American Auto-Mechanics for what I'm about to say, but I think it's been well established with American AutoMakers that people will just simply buy more cars if they need them so why design a car that's designed to last along time and not be an economic burden to Americans since they won't share the same economic success in the long term, when people start not buying cars hand over fist because their new Energy Efficient Propane-Electric-Hydro-Solar-WindMill-WaterMill Future-Buggies are doing them just fine. (excuse the cartooniness of the future-buggie).

Only when that new technology threatens powerful "special interests," or as I like to call them "special cowards." I hate protectionism, and in a truely capitalistic system, technology/innovation and consumerism will dance the night away.

But at what cost? I think the demand for FastFood and the lack of Independent House Keeping and Home Improvement make the need for a work force of exploited illegal aliens. Should our Materialism and Consumerism also be the system that keeps Illegal Aliens living a less than decent life as a day laberor or someone with a careere in burger flipping?

I dont think illegal aliens are exploited at all. I think they're the market reacting to protectionism and most specifically, agricultural(corn) subsidies.

 

[SFLRN]

Greed is not counter-productive, however it does help create this unsustainable period where people will just buy and buy bargain things alot of times made elsewhere. Thus those countries will have an increase in demand for resources like gas and our gas prices will rise or we'll be willing to sacrifice milage for big looks with all these inefficient gas guzzlers. I think eventually American hyper-consumerism will catch up with us in the long run.



the oil industry will hold the energy industry's throat even when they really can't do it any more thanks to lobbyists. Let's face it, millions of jobs worldwide will be stopped, billions of cars will become useless, everyone will have to change to the new natural resource which could have chaotic effect.

Firstly, capitalism, which is based on consumerism, has caught up, with much of the developing world. Its pulling people out of poverty. Its creating social mobility where once there was none. Consumerism ultimately helps by lowering prices, forcing new products and diversifying markets. As people purchase they help move the market foward by forcing competition to lower their prices.
Your assumptions on gas do not account for the kind of profit businesses can go after for alternative fuel. Businesses aren't ignorant to oil problems. They're investing in new technologies to save them money. People, especially businesses who love profits, don't like high gas prices. So they start demanding cheaper energy, better cars. So the markets make it for them in hope that they get more money from this. The price for oil will decrease its demand and at the same time facilitate a rise in the demand of alternative fuels.

Now lets talk about how consumerism will support long lasting cars. People don't just buy cars for giggles. They buy them so they have a reliable way of getting places. With that they can't all afford to buy tons of new cars. Why do you think people buy so many used hondas? Because they last, they're reliable and they last. In this way we see how people will demand quality out of an expensive product such as an automobile.
Business will choose to start making alternative fuel cars, or higher level gas efficiency because as gas prices go up people don't want to buy as much. So they think of how they can save money and not use as much gas. So they're not hamstrung on traveling around. They look into cars that have good gas milleage. They'll look because its in their best interest not to spend a ton of money on gas and instead save money with alt fuel cars. Businesses will jump on this so they have a product people want and can make a profit on such a product.

 

[justin]

Materialism is indeed a precondition needed for capitalism and consumerism occurs when capitalism has become the dominate economic system. The problem is that these two aspects have become to prevailant in our society. Through our prosuite of material we have created huge vehicles, over-extravagant homes and a plethora of things we don't need. The thing about capitalism is that this material gain seem in one segment of the population must come at the cost of another segment. There is only a finite amount of money and commodity circulating in a given economy and by capitalisms very nature this will be unbalanced.

When we look at how materailism can be purely destructive in prosuite of profit and luxury can be. The entire history of the british empire serves as an example as well as U.S. foriegn policy in Latin America over the past twenty years.

 

[justin]

<<<<<But the emboldened part is the part I have a problem with. Although it is true, what is left out is that this multi-tiered. In any given economy, the finite maximum varies widely based on a number of factors, freedom of the economy, stability of the economy, any comparative advantage, etc. There is also an ultimate, but no more static finite maximum which is where there is equilibrium between freedom and order. This can also increase or decrease, based on comparative advantage, technology, and a number of other factors.

Greed helps us reach the ultimate finite maximum. Competition comes from greed, someone seeing "Hey, that guy's making a lot of money doing that, I should get in on that.", although the person knows that a substantial amount of any benefit received would be at the expense of those already participating in the market. Competition leads to maximizing the use of available resources, and thus we all get as much as we can out of what we've got>>>>>


True the maximum in an economy is very static, but again due the equations that govern the capitalist system will ensure that a smaller and smaller number of people will control more the money and material.

The basic model that is used for capitalism is this (M=Money Capital C=Commidity Capital, P=the production process, s=surplus value)
m-c-m
M-C....P....C'(C+s)-M'(M+s)
m-c-m

The key factor is surplus labor, ie labor that adds value to the product but which costs the employer nothing. Due to this the amount of money that goes to the laboring classes will always be lower than the going to the capitalist classes, therefore ensuring an increasing unbalance.

I figured I touch on this point as well, before someone posts the question "how is it possible to take out more then you send out in a finite economy"
This is amswered by circulation, if three owners maintain a capital of 3000 and a labor costs of 300 and a surplus value rate of 100% so the original 3000 now draws a value 3300, but there is oly 3000 in circulation. But the owners never hold the new value of their capital all at once, through the laborers buying products from each of the companies each owner will a hold a portion and promply either send it back into the production process, compsumption or a stash, which will eventually re-enter circulation.

 

[SFLRN]

<<<<<But the emboldened part is the part I have a problem with. Although it is true, what is left out is that this multi-tiered. In any given economy, the finite maximum varies widely based on a number of factors, freedom of the economy, stability of the economy, any comparative advantage, etc. There is also an ultimate, but no more static finite maximum which is where there is equilibrium between freedom and order. This can also increase or decrease, based on comparative advantage, technology, and a number of other factors.

Greed helps us reach the ultimate finite maximum. Competition comes from greed, someone seeing "Hey, that guy's making a lot of money doing that, I should get in on that.", although the person knows that a substantial amount of any benefit received would be at the expense of those already participating in the market. Competition leads to maximizing the use of available resources, and thus we all get as much as we can out of what we've got>>>>>


True the maximum in an economy is very static, but again due the equations that govern the capitalist system will ensure that a smaller and smaller number of people will control more the money and material.

The basic model that is used for capitalism is this (M=Money Capital C=Commidity Capital, P=the production process, s=surplus value)
m-c-m
M-C....P....C'(C+s)-M'(M+s)
m-c-m

The key factor is surplus labor, ie labor that adds value to the product but which costs the employer nothing. Due to this the amount of money that goes to the laboring classes will always be lower than the going to the capitalist classes, therefore ensuring an increasing unbalance.

I figured I touch on this point as well, before someone posts the question "how is it possible to take out more then you send out in a finite economy"
This is amswered by circulation, if three owners maintain a capital of 3000 and a labor costs of 300 and a surplus value rate of 100% so the original 3000 now draws a value 3300, but there is oly 3000 in circulation. But the owners never hold the new value of their capital all at once, through the laborers buying products from each of the companies each owner will a hold a portion and promply either send it back into the production process, compsumption or a stash, which will eventually re-enter circulation.

I agree that in capitalism money can be put into the hands of the few. But lets remember. What system of economy doesn't have more power being in the hands of one group or another? Surely not socialism and communism. In that model we put all the economic power into the hands of a few political bureaucrats. And the great thing about those couplpe of super rich Americans is that they are still held down by the demands of the people. If they don't meet consumers needs then they ultimately will ultimately taken out by another, formerly less powerful opponent. So sure, there are a few rich, but with that power, presuming they control some kind of company they must also balance it with the peoples demands so someone else doesn't come along and throw them from their chair of power.

Furthermore the lower classes benefit from this by having lower prices and better products. Sure we may have things we don't need. But we have the freedom to get things we want. It only benefits the consumer when they can save money and they have more selection with what they want to buy. Even with the gap, people are still given the oppurtunity to move up in the capitalist society by working hard and thinking of new ideas. Sure the guy with an average IQ can't become a CEO but he can maintain job stability by working hard, expections yes.

 

[Voidwar]

The key factor is surplus labor, ie labor that adds value to the product but which costs the employer nothing.

I strongly doubt this exists. If the laborer is there, he's being paid, if hes paid the labor has a cost, if he's not paid, he's not there, thus the value isn't added.

Exploitation is a lie, since you can always just build your own widget maker.

Furthermore, it completely ignores the fact that Labor is a manufacturer, peddling their product, which is hours of work.

 

[justin]

<<<<<Surely not socialism and communism. In that model we put all the economic power into the hands of a few political bureaucrats. And the great thing about those couplpe of super rich Americans is that they are still held down by the demands of the people.>>>

Socialism, which puts economic power in the state will in the end suffer the same social gap as capitalism, communism on the other hand suffers the problem of not being practical on a large scale.(p.s.the word "communist state" is an oxymoron, the creation of a ruling class goes against the point of communism)

Unfornulatly those who have economic power very rarely yeild to the people on issues that are important for the 'ownership class", which seems to be an appropriant term, look at the public demand for an alternative to gasoline, and the resistance energy companies have put up. The oil industry demonstrates how when capitalism reaches an advanced stange in an industry, a small group of large companies can exert power against the poeple's will, and at least in the case of oil weild massive social and political power.


<<< strongly doubt this exists. If the laborer is there, he's being paid, if hes paid the labor has a cost, if he's not paid, he's not there, thus the value isn't added.>>>

The elements that enter a products price are constant capital(rent, machines or anything that offers it's value bit for bit), fluid capital( coal, energy, anything that is completely consumed in production) and varable capital(labor). Since neither constant or fluid capital can "create value" only only place left to look is labor, if you look at any labor for any bussiness you will find that the value of the labor will always be higher then the laborer's wages, thus surplus value.

<<<<The maximum finite point in most economies has yet to be realized. You're problem is you're acting as if it's already been achieved. There is not a single economy that has achieved maximum efficiency, which is neccisary for the zero sum game scenario to completely apply. Since we have not achieved maximum efficiency, if one can improve efficiency, they can create value that is not taken from anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, what you're getting at is that in creating that value, which typically would involve other people, since the side that is in a position to benefit from the increase in efficiency gets the value that was created, it hurts the "labor classes", since they don't directly receive anything.

What you leave out is that those who stand to reap the benefits also take the risks. As owners of the company they have their own money that they've already earned invested in this company, while on a material level a laborer (which I can assume for this discussion is to no degree an owner of the company) has no stake in the company's future, be it good or bad. It's risk and return.>>>>

I assumed 3000 for the sake of an example, you're right economies are always expanding, or contracting thus the current "maximum" is always in flux, either way the gap between the rich and poor remains, and yes my major problem with capitalism is the fact that those who work to create this value are not payed completely, thus insuring that the one exploiting this labor gains more than the laborers.

And although it is inevitable that many owners will face ruin, this may largely be in part of their decisions, but any gain they make is through exploitation of the owner laborers. if the company succeeds then the laborer gains nothing aside from job sercurity(maybe), while if the company fails, the laborer is out of the job right along side the owner.

 

[Voidwar]

The elements that enter a products price are constant capital(rent, machines or anything that offers it's value bit for bit), fluid capital( coal, energy, anything that is completely consumed in production) and varable capital(labor).

When you talk about elements factoring into price, you have left out the profit. No profit, no store, no retail price. So your model is absolutely bunk.

if you look at any labor for any bussiness you will find that the value of the labor will always be higher then the laborer's wages, thus surplus value.

I posit that the value of the labor IS the laborer's wages, and thus the laborer was paid what his work was worth. There is no surplus value. There is surplus price, and it is called profit.

 

[SFLRN]

<<<<<Surely not socialism and communism. In that model we put all the economic power into the hands of a few political bureaucrats. And the great thing about those couplpe of super rich Americans is that they are still held down by the demands of the people.>>>

Socialism, which puts economic power in the state will in the end suffer the same social gap as capitalism, communism on the other hand suffers the problem of not being practical on a large scale.(p.s.the word "communist state" is an oxymoron, the creation of a ruling class goes against the point of communism)

Unfornulatly those who have economic power very rarely yeild to the people on issues that are important for the 'ownership class", which seems to be an appropriant term, look at the public demand for an alternative to gasoline, and the resistance energy companies have put up. The oil industry demonstrates how when capitalism reaches an advanced stange in an industry, a small group of large companies can exert power against the poeple's will, and at least in the case of oil weild massive social and political power.

Look at alternative fuels. They're becoming marketed more and more. Sure its not happening blazing fast. But we can't say thats theres enough technology out there to make an affordable completely non-gasoline car to market to the masses. And its not like the people themselves are going completely to green energy either. So the people's will doesn't come right away, it comes slowly because change for the masses comes slowly. But more and more SUVs and other cars are being marketed as fuel efficient. Yet again the powerful are still constrained. Sure theres lobbying that can cause slow downs, sure the lobbying hurts and thats another issue all unto itself, but the fact is that those lobbyists are still balanced out by lobbyist in other fields that stand to benefit from the new technology. Having more money will ultimately undermine the will of the rich to the poor but that will happen in any state, we can only hope to make enough transparency.

<<< strongly doubt this exists. If the laborer is there, he's being paid, if hes paid the labor has a cost, if he's not paid, he's not there, thus the value isn't added.>>>

The elements that enter a products price are constant capital(rent, machines or anything that offers it's value bit for bit), fluid capital( coal, energy, anything that is completely consumed in production) and varable capital(labor). Since neither constant or fluid capital can "create value" only only place left to look is labor, if you look at any labor for any bussiness you will find that the value of the labor will always be higher then the laborer's wages, thus surplus value.

And thus the only way businesses would be able to make a profit.

<<<<The maximum finite point in most economies has yet to be realized. You're problem is you're acting as if it's already been achieved. There is not a single economy that has achieved maximum efficiency, which is neccisary for the zero sum game scenario to completely apply. Since we have not achieved maximum efficiency, if one can improve efficiency, they can create value that is not taken from anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, what you're getting at is that in creating that value, which typically would involve other people, since the side that is in a position to benefit from the increase in efficiency gets the value that was created, it hurts the "labor classes", since they don't directly receive anything.

What you leave out is that those who stand to reap the benefits also take the risks. As owners of the company they have their own money that they've already earned invested in this company, while on a material level a laborer (which I can assume for this discussion is to no degree an owner of the company) has no stake in the company's future, be it good or bad. It's risk and return.>>>>

I assumed 3000 for the sake of an example, you're right economies are always expanding, or contracting thus the current "maximum" is always in flux, either way the gap between the rich and poor remains, and yes my major problem with capitalism is the fact that those who work to create this value are not payed completely, thus insuring that the one exploiting this labor gains more than the laborers.

Yes the labor doesn't receive the full value but how do we expect to pay the people who run the company? Do we simply exploit them so that the laborers may receive the money from their good management? Without the businessman there would be no business, because no one would invest. Workers aren't exploited, no one forces them to work. Sure they might gain more money wise, but as stated before they are putting more of their financial well-being on the company than the 40 hr a week laborer.

And although it is inevitable that many owners will face ruin, this may largely be in part of their decisions, but any gain they make is through exploitation of the owner laborers. if the company succeeds then the laborer gains nothing aside from job sercurity(maybe), while if the company fails, the laborer is out of the job right along side the owner.

 

[justin]

<<<<When you talk about elements factoring into price, you have left out the profit. No profit, no store, no retail price. So your model is absolutely bunk.>>>

You seem to be using Smith's idea of rent, labor, profit. This idea of prices hold the idea that profit somehow appears out of all facets of production, this exact process hasn't been described yet...

<<<posit that the value of the labor IS the laborer's wages, and thus the laborer was paid what his work was worth. There is no surplus value. There is surplus price, and it is called profit>>>

If you were to look at any job and check how much money the labor being done is worth and how much the employee is being paid, the former will always be higher than the latter, thus surplus labor.

<<<Look at alternative fuels. They're becoming marketed more and more. Sure its not happening blazing fast. But we can't say thats theres enough technology out there to make an affordable completely non-gasoline car to market to the masses. And its not like the people themselves are going completely to green energy either. So the people's will doesn't come right away, it comes slowly because change for the masses comes slowly. But more and more SUVs and other cars are being marketed as fuel efficient. Yet again the powerful are still constrained. Sure theres lobbying that can cause slow downs, sure the lobbying hurts and thats another issue all unto itself, but the fact is that those lobbyists are still balanced out by lobbyist in other fields that stand to benefit from the new technology. Having more money will ultimately undermine the will of the rich to the poor but that will happen in any state, we can only hope to make enough transparency.>>>

I haven't seen of an ethonol station in my area, and the amount they put in the gasoline hasn't exactly effected the prices. Hybrids get good gas milage but still require gas, and fully electric cars are a red herring seeing as how the energy going into it was most likely created through burning fossil fuels. But we can only hope for transparency? The state is funded through our taxes and bussiness makes profits off our labor, it is only logical that the working classes short exert far more power over both.

<<<< Yes the labor doesn't receive the full value but how do we expect to pay the people who run the company? Do we simply exploit them so that the laborers may receive the money from their good management? Without the businessman there would be no business, because no one would invest. Workers aren't exploited, no one forces them to work. Sure they might gain more money wise, but as stated before they are putting more of their financial well-being on the company than the 40 hr a week laborer.>>>>

The owner isn't neccesary, the laborers are more than capable to run the bussiness without an owner. Participartory economics can be a functional alternative to our current system. Basically the workers vote on the actions of the company.

<<<So it depends on the material contributions of the laborers, be it capital, conceptual, or by their own work, they will receive their reward.

It would be nice if hard work was worth more, I agree with that wholeheartedly, but that's no longer neccisarily enough. As a society we've evolved to the point where to contribute enough to set ourselves apart we need to add something more to the equation than our ability as laborers. I understand being afraid of a changing world, but that doesn't change how things work.>>>>

The reward they recieve will always be much smaller than the gain that the management will recieve. Why should someone make a profit off of someone elses work? Have we really evolved as a society? It seems our society has evolved into one where materailism has lead us to have to lock our doors and have a fear of theft of our property. We have evovled technologically, but we seem to have gone backwards in how we function as a society.

I'm no afraid of change, it's that the change I want to see goes in opposition to what changes those in power want.

 

[Voidwar]

You seem to be using Smith's idea of rent, labor, profit.

Not using anyone's ideas, just the real words, acc'd to dictionary definitions.

This idea of prices hold the idea that profit somehow appears out of all facets of production, this exact process hasn't been described yet...

Allow me to describe it for you. He looks at how many units he's got, and his overhead, and then he adds price, by fiat, through the Power of ownership, to make profit meet and exceed overhead / production cost.

If you were to look at any job and check how much money the labor being done is worth and how much the employee is being paid, the former will always be higher than the latter, thus surplus labor.

I reject your assertion entirely. I think what the employee gets paid is exactly what his work is worth. You keep claiming its not, but based on what ? I say his work is worth what he was paid, prove otherwise.

Surplus Labor is a myth, bandied about by the envious.

 

[SFLRN]

<<<<When you talk about elements factoring into price, you have left out the profit. No profit, no store, no retail price. So your model is absolutely bunk.>>>

You seem to be using Smith's idea of rent, labor, profit. This idea of prices hold the idea that profit somehow appears out of all facets of production, this exact process hasn't been described yet...

<<<posit that the value of the labor IS the laborer's wages, and thus the laborer was paid what his work was worth. There is no surplus value. There is surplus price, and it is called profit>>>

If you were to look at any job and check how much money the labor being done is worth and how much the employee is being paid, the former will always be higher than the latter, thus surplus labor.

<<<Look at alternative fuels. They're becoming marketed more and more. Sure its not happening blazing fast. But we can't say thats theres enough technology out there to make an affordable completely non-gasoline car to market to the masses. And its not like the people themselves are going completely to green energy either. So the people's will doesn't come right away, it comes slowly because change for the masses comes slowly. But more and more SUVs and other cars are being marketed as fuel efficient. Yet again the powerful are still constrained. Sure theres lobbying that can cause slow downs, sure the lobbying hurts and thats another issue all unto itself, but the fact is that those lobbyists are still balanced out by lobbyist in other fields that stand to benefit from the new technology. Having more money will ultimately undermine the will of the rich to the poor but that will happen in any state, we can only hope to make enough transparency.>>>

I haven't seen of an ethonol station in my area, and the amount they put in the gasoline hasn't exactly effected the prices. Hybrids get good gas milage but still require gas, and fully electric cars are a red herring seeing as how the energy going into it was most likely created through burning fossil fuels. But we can only hope for transparency? The state is funded through our taxes and bussiness makes profits off our labor, it is only logical that the working classes short exert far more power over both.

<<<< Yes the labor doesn't receive the full value but how do we expect to pay the people who run the company? Do we simply exploit them so that the laborers may receive the money from their good management? Without the businessman there would be no business, because no one would invest. Workers aren't exploited, no one forces them to work. Sure they might gain more money wise, but as stated before they are putting more of their financial well-being on the company than the 40 hr a week laborer.>>>>

The owner isn't neccesary, the laborers are more than capable to run the bussiness without an owner. Participartory economics can be a functional alternative to our current system. Basically the workers vote on the actions of the company.

<<<So it depends on the material contributions of the laborers, be it capital, conceptual, or by their own work, they will receive their reward.

It would be nice if hard work was worth more, I agree with that wholeheartedly, but that's no longer neccisarily enough. As a society we've evolved to the point where to contribute enough to set ourselves apart we need to add something more to the equation than our ability as laborers. I understand being afraid of a changing world, but that doesn't change how things work.>>>>

The reward they recieve will always be much smaller than the gain that the management will recieve. Why should someone make a profit off of someone elses work? Have we really evolved as a society? It seems our society has evolved into one where materailism has lead us to have to lock our doors and have a fear of theft of our property. We have evovled technologically, but we seem to have gone backwards in how we function as a society.

I'm no afraid of change, it's that the change I want to see goes in opposition to what changes those in power want.

On Alternative fuels... Yes I understand they're not coming along in a rapid manner. But I wasn't trying to debate the nature of alternative fuels. I said that they've been hindered by technology. But I was simply using that example to negate your example of how the managers with power won't bend to the will of the people when their development alone shows them going after consumer demands. But all major change takes time.

The owner is neccessary. Ask the auto workers at Jeep, do they want to vote on how they go after their marketing strategy? No. They didn't take the job at Jeep so they could make advanced financial decisions. They did it because it pays well and they may not want or be able to handle the kind of work of a CEO. Now its great to talk about participatory economics. But who manages the labor at floor level? Is everyone given the same responsibilities? It seems quite apparent that without some basic level of management a company can't work. Use this example. The firm needs to hire new employees. Now maybe it'd work that a small firm has everyone interview the new person. but in a large firm the labor couldn't possibly all interview new employees. So who makes the decision without some form of management? Laborers can already participate by thinking of new ways to do things . The simple fact is that there is no leaderless way to run a business, there needs to be people looking at the overall picture with people who specialize in specific areas of the firm.

 

[justin]

<<<Not using anyone's ideas, just the real words, acc'd to dictionary definitions.>>>>

Most people use smiths models whether they know it or not, out of all te economists his work has had the most lasting impact, despite the advancements by ricardo, marx and others this idea that profit is simply tacted on.

for a more technical description of surlpus labor, than i can write here

<<<They did it because it pays well and they may not want or be able to handle the kind of work of a CEO.>>>

I hate this attitude, that somehow the work of the owner is beyond the grasp of average person. The decsions CEO's make are based on mathematics and market understanding, things any average human is fully capable of, not to mention if that work were divided. If we as people are so imcapable of governing ourselves, how then do we trust other people to govern us?

<<<This would raise the question, if the owner is unneccisary, why don't the laborers go elsewhere and start their own company?

And what you're talking about is corporations. That's participatory, if the workers want to own the company, shares are sold on the open market, and then they have a say in how it's run. Many companies offer stock options to encourage this, actually.>>>

This would be a great idea, for small firm the nessecary capital could be pulled together. As for trading on the market, the shares that the workers could obtain as opposed to whoever owns the 51% that grants ownership, plus the other more wealthy investers will be a drop in the hat, and thus will give almost no power to them.

<<<<Are you implying that theft did not exist before capitalism? Are you joking? Theft, and other similar crimes have existed as long as there's been people who wanted something that someone else had, and that has existed as long as time itself. The only difference is we can afford to protect ourselves from it.>>>>

Out of all the functioning industrial nations, our crime rates are far above those in europe, even just north of the border people regularly leave doors unlocked. All of this implies that our society has taken theft and violent crime to a point not seen in the "civilized" world.

<<<< All of these rewards that you think the laborers deserve, they're all considered into the supply curve. A lot of people want to work, and don't have any special skills that separate them from the pack, and so price for unskilled labor is pretty low, but it's a fair price.>>>

So those whos jobs are skilled ones, but often nessecary for society to function ( a doctor is much less effective without someone to sterilize the room before surgery.) don't deserve to compensated for how society benefits from thier work?

<<< You're afriad of change. You're afraid of the change that makes it so working hard isn't neccisarily enough. That change wasn't orchestrated, that change is evolution>>>>

Maybe i do, perhaps i do fear to see what will happen as the third world gets further exploitation so we can drink cheap coke, or buy cheap goods at wal-mart, maube i am aftraid of the fact that while the vast majority of thew people live in poverty while we live in excess, this the effect that global capitalism has started to create. The nature of capitalism is nessecary that some be poor, a certain surplus population is always created that will be given meager employment in time of a market boom, and then will be cast aside once the boom is over.

 

[Voidwar]

I say his work is worth what he was paid, prove otherwise.

Still Waiting. I checked your link and I don't think it covers my query.

And DUDE, you need to figure out the quotes . . .

>>><<<>>><<< this crap is not gonna cut it.

 

[SFLRN]

<<<They did it because it pays well and they may not want or be able to handle the kind of work of a CEO.>>>

I hate this attitude, that somehow the work of the owner is beyond the grasp of average person. The decsions CEO's make are based on mathematics and market understanding, things any average human is fully capable of, not to mention if that work were divided. If we as people are so imcapable of governing ourselves, how then do we trust other people to govern us?

It is beyond the grasp of a good amount of people. You need vision, you need wits, and you need a degree of smarts to be a CEO. Not everyone has the same intelligence. Therefore not everyone can do the same kind of tasks. For example we can't expect a worker with a regular IQ to do the work of engineers in the firm who develop the aerospace technology of the firm. The simple fact is that people have different skills. Some can be workekrs and others can't . Some can be CEOs and others can't, whether its lack of vision, risk taking , IQ or desire not people have certain limitations, smart and dumb.