Socialism is evil. Tell my why I am wrong. (and let's keep it civil)

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Or listen to media that challenges their views, since broadcasting is fading out and narrowcasting is in.

Or talk to people who aren't like them, since people are tending to live in like-minded neighborhoods: http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0547237723/

Too many people live in echo chambers and only hear their own views repeated back at them

Great recommendation.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, David13 said:

Does not the system reward "people" according to their productivity and social value?

I'd say, "No." The system rewards people based on how much they, the market, values their, the workers', product. The reward is not on effort, it's not on productivity, it's on how many people are made how much better off.

The person who makes a lot of people a lot happier (however the consumer rates that) is rewarded well, the one who makes fewer people happier somewhat less.

That's why a basketball player can makes millions in a single night, while a teacher makes a few hundred in a day. People prefer his product over hers by a factor of tens of thousands.

Lehi

[tesuji]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Great recommendation.

If you like books about depressing trends in America, here's an even better one: The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America, http://www.amazon.com/Unwinding-Inner-History-New-America/dp/0374534608/

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I'd say, "No." The system rewards people based on how much they, the market, values their, the workers', product. The reward is not on effort, it's not on productivity, it's on how many people are made how much better off.

The person who makes a lot of people a lot happier (however the consumer rates that) is rewarded well, the one who makes fewer people happier somewhat less.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that, either. The current trend in America is to value the teacher more and hate the rich guys. Envy is still gravely sinful. 

[LeSellers]

For those who have not read Smith, here is the passage I alluded to:

Quote

In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely.

Lehi

Edited April 15, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And there is nothing wrong with that, either. The current trend in America is to value the teacher more and hate the rich guys. Envy is still gravely sinful. 

Yet the basketball player still earns his millions, and the teacher her thousands. Don't listen to people's words, hear their actions.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Yet the basketball player still earns his millions, and the teacher her thousands. Don't listen to people's words, hear their actions.

Lehi

The ballplayer would argue he's providing a service that makes people happier than teaching, like you mentioned. Because people pay to see him play basketball, people are employed at the concession stands at the arena, people work in the offices of the sports team, etc. If you don't think LeBron James created jobs for the Cavaliers, you don't understand how sports works (not you meaning LeSellers. Universal usage of "you") 

We all want to think that our job is the most important-and teaching IS important. So this isn't to knock teachers. But there is a bigger picture. 

[David13]

26 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I'd say, "No." The system rewards people based on how much they, the market, values their, the workers', product. The reward is not on effort, it's not on productivity, it's on how many people are made how much better off.

The person who makes a lot of people a lot happier (however the consumer rates that) is rewarded well, the one who makes fewer people happier somewhat less.

That's why a basketball player can makes millions in a single night, while a teacher makes a few hundred in a day. People prefer his product over hers by a factor of tens of thousands.

Lehi

I think we are saying the same thing.  The non productive player doesn't get millions, does he?

And his social value if he can't score the points is ... less.  Social value is determined by the society.  

Unions get teachers what pay they get. 

The social value of teachers today is rather low.  Particularly in view of the job they do in not teaching anything, like how to think, but in promoting or propagandizing the agenda.

dc

[LeSellers]

10 minutes ago, David13 said:

I think we are saying the same thing.  The non productive player doesn't get millions, does he?

And his social value if he can't score the points is ... less.  Social value is determined by the society. 

Yes. It depends on how one defines "social value". We keep hearing that teacher provide more "social value than basketball players. But these same people pay more for basketball tickets than they voluntarily pay for school: they'd rather force other people to pay for their children's education.

13 minutes ago, David13 said:

Unions get teachers what pay they get. 

The social value of teachers today is rather low.  Particularly in view of the job they do in not teaching anything, like how to think, but in promoting or propagandizing the agenda.

Unions (and government) create artificial shortages of teachers by imposing ridiculous hurdles to enter the profession. That drives up the price to artificially high wages for teachers.

But teachers could command higher wages if there were no government-run, tax-funded welfare schools. The mechanisms are somewhat esoteric, but it has been proven that, although unions and bureaucracies make us pay more for (too many) lousy teachers than they are truly worth, the good teachers would earn two or three times their current wages in a free market. Among all the professions, teaching is one of the few that has not embraced technology in a way that would increase productivity, and that is the only way to increase wages.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The ballplayer would argue he's providing a service that makes people happier than teaching, like you mentioned. Because people pay to see him play basketball, people are employed at the concession stands at the arena, people work in the offices of the sports team, etc. If you don't think LeBron James created jobs for the Cavaliers, you don't understand how sports works.

And the player would be right. We know this because people voluntarily pay to watch him play.

It has not as much to do with how many auxiliary jobs he requires (who'd go to a basketball game without a concession stand?) as how much people want to be distracted from their lives. They're willing to pay a lot for that, but they're not as willing to pay for the marginal teaching found in grtf-welfare schools.

We talked around this before. It's all elementary economics: supply'n'demand.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

We talked around this before. It's all elementary economics: supply'n'demand.

Lehi

I think we both know that you can't talk about the basics of economics enough. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It's not the greatest of virtues, but it is a virtue. If a business doesn't profit it will not function, people will lose their jobs. 

I don't even see it as a virtue any more than breathing is for the human body.  It's a necessity.  That's all.  Even a non-profit must have more money coming in than going out.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, LeSellers said:

We talked around this before. It's all elementary economics: supply'n'demand.

I have a firm grasp of the supply side.  I really can't figure out the demand side.  This is why I'd never make a great salesman.  I see things that just FLY off the shelves and wonder "why on earth are people buying this stuff?"  It is all about "what do I value?"  I guess I just have a completely different value system than others have when it comes to material things.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't even see it as a virtue any more than breathing is for the human body.  It's a necessity.  That's all.  Even a non-profit must have more money coming in than going out.

 I see it a a virtue because you are giving people what they want without force. IE-I trade my four dollars for a bagel. I want the bagel and without you being there I couldn't get it. You've helped me out. Without you being there I wouldn't get my bagel. Thank you. With your profit you've fed not only me but your own family, your employees, etc. 

Edited April 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I see it a a virtue because you are giving people what they want without force.

Giving them what they want without force is indeed a virtue.  But the profit itself is not.  If you don't get that differentiation, then let's agree to disagree.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Giving them what they want without force is indeed a virtue.  But the profit itself is not.  If you don't get that differentiation, then let's agree to disagree.

 I get that differentiation, it's just that we don't see it the same way. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they "don't get it". 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I get that differentiation, it's just that we don't see it the same way. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they "don't get it". 

No, I'm going to disagree with you.  I think if you disagree, you just don't get it.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I have a firm grasp of the supply side.  I really can't figure out the demand side.  This is why I'd never make a great salesman.  I see things that just FLY off the shelves and wonder "why on earth are people buying this stuff?"  It is all about "what do I value?"  I guess I just have a completely different value system than others have when it comes to material things.

Indeed. Everyone has "a completely different value system than others". That's why macro economics is (as my professor put it) "like a drunk shooting turkeys in the fog."

But we can understand the aggregate of demand by simply watcing what people are willing to trade their wealth for. (And we need to keep Adam Smith's concept in mind:

Quote

shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of.

In other words, as counter intuitive as is may appear, when two people make an uncoerced trade, they each get the better part of the bargain.

As a society, we value grtf-welfare school teachers far less than we value basketball players. And the latter is not an uncoerced trade, since the state puts its gun to our heads and says, "Pay what we demand, or we will kill you!" Without that force, we'd pay even less, perhaps nothing. Why, because we perceive the value of the grtf-welfare schools as being worth less, much less, than we're forced to pay. On the other hand, however, people are quite willing, and happy, to pay for private schools, often more, even a lot more, than the grtf-welfare system takes and pays for its product. It's not education or teachers we don't like, it's the grtf-welfare system.

Further, the demand side is affected by laws, as well. For instance, absent compulsory attendance (oddly, not compulsory learning)  laws, some parents would not pay for school for twelve (or 13) years for their children. There are a myriad of reasons for this, not least that the majority of that decade plus is a total waste of the child's time. Freedom would lessen this artificial demand to eight years for many students, less for the gifted. So, the state mandates twelve years of school (not twelve years of education) and drives up "demand" which raises the price even further.

No one forces anyone to go to a basketball game. The ticket price is high because there is a limited number of seats. People make a rational choice to go or not go based on the ticket price. (The true price is even higher because, along with the ticket, one normally must buy a parking place, and food and drinks, and so on. This is the true demand.) When the last seat is sold, and everyone who wants to go to the game at that price can buy a ticket, supply and demand balance (they are in "equilibrium"). The next game (or season), the owner may increase the price and still find his seats all full. Or he may see a hundred empty seats because the demand is now lower than the price.

Notice how for baseball games, there are incentives to come to the ball park? Championship teams don't have them as often as lower-ranked teams because the demand is higher and is limited by the stadium. the owners have to lower the price of a ticket (incentives are one way) to increase their total revenue. (Since their costs are nearly all fixed, increasing sales is the only way to increase profit. There are almost no marginal costs incurred when another fan plants his butt in a seat.)

One thing that people not only ignore but disbelieve, is that the customer sets the price: all suppliers are "price takers".  If the price they set is lowers than the "clearing price" (the equilibrium price), they'll sell everything they have. If it's too high, there will be stock left on the shelf (or unbilled hours or whatever). They must reduce the price until they have no inventory left. That's because, in a free economy, the customer, and the customer only, is free to take the offered trade or reject it. Once the supplier makes the offer, he must honor the terms and sell at the stated price.

Understanding supply is no easier than understanding demand, but they are different. They both hinge on individual values. And we cannot know in advance what any individual values at any given time. Further, because after eating a couple of eggs for breakfast (which I valued highly), the next two eggs offered would have to be at a much lower price for me to want them, because my demand for another egg breakfast is pretty well stated. The restaurateur would have to pay me to eat a third breakfast. It is wrong to say that anyone has a certain demand for anything. Like the breakfast, that individual's demand for that product or service changes with the hour or  minute. But we can say that the market (all the people in the region) had a certain demand at a certain time for eggs, lawyer hours, basketball seats, or teachers. Our observation will be 100% accurate because we can see what they spent on those things.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

There's been some discussion about whether socialism is a form of government or just an economic philosophy/system.

It is undeniably an economic system. The problem comes about because it cannot exist without governmental power to enforce it. People flee socialism when they are not restrained because it doesn't work, it costs too much, and it restricts God-given freedom.

So, while it is "only" an economic system, it is, by necessity, tied up in a Gordian knot of governmental force.

Lehi

Edited April 15, 2016 by LeSellers

[David13]

8 hours ago, LeSellers said:

There's been some discussion about whether socialism is a form of government or just an economic philosophy/system.

It is undeniably an economic system. The problem comes about because it cannot exist without governmental power to enforce it. People flee socialism when they are not restrained because it doesn't work, it costs too much, and it restricts God-given freedom.

So, while it is "only" an economic system, it is, by necessity, tied up in a Gordian knot of governmental force.

Lehi

Yeah, it's funny how the only country they have to put a wall around to keep people IN is ... "the socialist workers ... PARADISE?"

DC