Argus Posted September 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Wow. Would you like to provide any actual evidence for that grandiose sweeping generalization or should we all just accept it as gospel just cuz you're so much smarter than us? Where do you think money comes from anyway? The government has none. It can only take it from those who make it. Everyone in this country is either a capitalist, works for a capitalist, or produces no direct financial benefit to the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Without capitalism the government would have no money, and all those useless mouth breathers who now pay no taxes, or worse, need welfare or other huge government subsidies to survive, would either starve, or have to live in tin shacks like the third world's poor do. Would you agree that our capitalist, market based economy would benefit from wealthier middle and lower classes? It seems logical that by increasing the minimum wage and thus raising the income of the poorest, we reduce the need for our safety net and increase the number of consumers in our market. Near 100% of income increases on the lower-middle and lower classes is returned to the local economy through purchases, as they tend not to be meeting all of their needs. Whereas, income increases experienced by the upper-middle classes and above is generally not returned to the local economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Wow. Would you like to provide any actual evidence for that grandiose sweeping generalization or should we all just accept it as gospel just cuz you're so much smarter than us? Russia, pre glasnost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Would you agree that our capitalist, market based economy would benefit from wealthier middle and lower classes? It seems logical that by increasing the minimum wage and thus raising the income of the poorest, we reduce the need for our safety net and increase the number of consumers in our market. Near 100% of income increases on the lower-middle and lower classes is returned to the local economy through purchases, as they tend not to be meeting all of their needs. Whereas, income increases experienced by the upper-middle classes and above is generally not returned to the local economy. Whatever amount the min wage is increased by unions will demand the wages go up by the same amount. Thus prices for goods and services will go up too. Making the min wage raise useless. You don't see this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Without capitalism the government would have no money, and all those useless mouth breathers who now pay no taxes, or worse, need welfare or other huge government subsidies to survive, would either starve, or have to live in tin shacks like the third world's poor do. Of course... And in the dead of winter when my house burnt down I really appreciated my neighbour letting me sit in her kitchen, wrap a blanket around me and give me a nice hot cup of tea. I really like that and was grateful for it and that woman can do no wrong in my books. But according to the post I took issue with, I should be thankful that my house burnt down! As one the kids said in the Commission report " I don't see daylight cept on the sabbath. I don't like it here. I'd rather be in the field with the plough" Three cheers for industrialism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Would you agree that our capitalist, market based economy would benefit from wealthier middle and lower classes? An economy is not benefited by taking money from one segment of it and giving it to another segment. The idea of taxing the rich and giving it to the poor has been described, not altogether inaccurately, as taking from the productive and giving it to the non-productive. Economically, this discourages the productive, while encouraging the non-productive to stay that way. I agree that it's necessary, to some extent, for societal reasons. But speaking purely of economics I don't see the benefit. It seems logical that by increasing the minimum wage and thus raising the income of the poorest, we reduce the need for our safety net Maybe, maybe not. It's a complex issue. The more low skill job costs, the more likely employers will decide they don't need it, or can find a way to automate it at less cost. I bet Tim Hortons and Starbucks are looking into that now. Can better bar code readers, or better yet, a new system entirely, like data chips make it much easier to automate store cashiers? Or even worse, can the work be moved to another country where the labour is a lot cheaper? How much of the increased costs can be passed onto the consumers without a drop in demand for the products which leads to fewer jobs? This all depends on the industry involved, of course, and to some extent on how elastic the demand is and how rich the local area. As far as I know this sort of thing has only been tried in very rich areas with low unemployment. What will the results be if it happens in poorer, more rural areas? Plus, what will be the effect on other jobs which are currently making what will be the new minimum wage? They'll have to be paid more too. You can't pay them minimum wage. Near 100% of income increases on the lower-middle and lower classes is returned to the local economy through purchases, as they tend not to be meeting all of their needs. Whereas, income increases experienced by the upper-middle classes and above is generally not returned to the local economy. Define local? Individuals like myself spend more locally, but the excess goes into investment. Does that investment help the 'local economy'? Well, it helps the Canadian economy, because I mostly invest in Canadian growth companies, small and midcap stocks which are growing fast and hiring people. Take away the investment and they don't grow and they don't hire. Edited September 12, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Considering the capitalists don't produce anything and their workers do, you've got a funny way of defining productive and non-productive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Considering the capitalists don't produce anything and their workers do That's some pretty twisted logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Considering the capitalists don't produce anything and their workers do, you've got a funny way of defining productive and non-productive.nothing except provide the environment for them to have jobs and benefits.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 nothing except provide the environment for them to have jobs and benefits.... Jobs and benefits are nothing without people to occupy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 That's some pretty twisted logic. Well, it's literally true. If you want to argue that capitalists produce the conditions that allow for better or more efficient innovation and production to take place, that's one thing, but I don't see how you can deny that iPhones are ultimately produced by the workers who, um, produce them. Presumably, if the Apple Corporation were to be nationalized or collectivized, workers would still be able to produce iPhones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Jobs and benefits are nothing without people to occupy them.We have lots if unemployed here in Canada. We don't need more people. We're full Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 nothing except provide the environment for them to have jobs and benefits.... Only because you can't yet figure out a way to avoid employee's and the benefits to keep them on. If you could you'd be there with bells on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Only because you can't yet figure out a way to avoid employee's and the benefits to keep them on. If you could you'd be there with bells on!Excuse me? We had some house boys working for our family in Africa and they were well treated. Paid fairly. They lived on our property. Given medical care when needed at no cost to them. Here in Canada. It's a different situation but people under my employ were again treated and paid fairly. In either instance I never wanted to mistreat my boys. In Africa it was commonplace for the employer to beat the domestic help or even kill them. We treated them like family. We use to have a thing called slavery. So it has been figured out. We as humans have just chosen to be above that. Slavery still exists in Africa. With blacks being the slave masters. But you don't care about that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Presumably, if the Apple Corporation were to be nationalized or collectivized, workers would still be able to produce iPhones. That presumes that iPhones would have been invented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) That presumes that iPhones would have been invented. If they were needed they would have been. I mean if you're just going to make a bunch of negative assumptions, the other side of the argument is to make a bunch of positive assumptions. You're not actually getting anywhere. The fact of the matter is that the producers of things are not the capitalist. They don't produce anything. They provide the means for production. They also worked on dividing labour up, so it would be harder for individuals to get the necessary skills to produce anything in its entirety on their own. This kept the workforce dependent on the those who provide the means of production. In any case, the comment was made that those at the "bottom" don't produce anything which is entirely wrong. They're the only ones producing anything of material value. Edited September 12, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 By the way, the Apple example is a bad one because Apple doesn't even remotely produce anything. Apple markets things. Apple designs things. Apple works only with ideas, images, and marketing. They contract out the production of things to third parties. Those third parties don't even produce things, but the de facto slaves in their factories do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 It's like people just think they throw a bunch of money at an idea and it just magically appears, without anyone to do the actual labour to create it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOV84C55OnM&feature=youtu.be "Reduce taxes, balance the budget. That friends is how you do it" One of the reasons I'm voting Conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 If they were needed they would have been. They aren't needed. It's entrepreneurship that made them a reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 They aren't needed. It's entrepreneurship that made them a reality. Entrepreneurship was an idea. People slaving away in factories in China made them a reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Entrepreneurship was an idea. People slaving away in factories in China made them a reality. They could be made anywhere. Not just anyone could dream then up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 They could be made anywhere. Not just anyone could dream then up. Yes, that's true, and innovation is absolutely valuable and should be promoted. My only point here, and I think cc's as well, is just that there's a difference between invention and production (which was the original topic) and the production of the goods is done by the workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Yes, that's true, and innovation is absolutely valuable and should be promoted. My only point here, and I think cc's as well, is just that there's a difference between invention and production (which was the original topic) and the production of the goods is done by the workers. Just this. The original comment I replied to said that the working class and working poor "don't produce anything." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) Just this. The original comment I replied to said that the working class and working poor "don't produce anything." In contrast the working poor produce everything. And for very little too. Though robotics is changing that. Imagine this.. A very rich but kind of lazy guy knows a lot about baking and with his knowledge comes up with a recipe for baking a cake. The recipe looks good but the person that came up with the recipe does not want to test it so he hires some people to try it out. So they gather the ingredients and bake this delicious cake, everyone loves it. So of course the rich guy takes all of his money and hires hundreds of people to bake him cakes every single day so he can sell them. He has not lifted a finger in the entire process. Who deserves what portions of the profits? Now imagine he doesn't even come up with the recipe, he hires someone to do that too. Who deserves what portions of the profits then? Edited September 12, 2015 by PrimeNumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.