comrades, is bitcoin a great leap forward for international socialism?

[stevendobbs]

And that's where the theory of marginal value comes in. Which is more valuable - gold or water? Well, it depends on how much water you have.

It is dangerous to attribute the concept of goods to human beings? Markets may work well at setting the priorities of production. But to have a unregulated market in human beings; in their labour risks or perhaps IS, a form of slavery.

[NghtRppr]

And that's where the theory of marginal value comes in. Which is more valuable - gold or water? Well, it depends on how much water you have.

Exactly right. We have a winner!

If you are in the desert and you are offered a gallon of water or an ounce of gold. You'd take the water. Repeat the process enough times and eventually you'd get to the point where you'd say, "let me take a look at that gold". The 1st gallon of water is worth more than the 1st ounce of gold. The 1,000th gallon of water might not be.

But to have a unregulated market in human beings; in their labour risks or perhaps IS, a form of slavery.

The only bad thing about slavery was that you couldn't quit. You got to sing songs, pick cotton, you got fed, you had a roof over your head, etc. However, when the whip comes out and you say "I quit!" and you can't quit. That's when it becomes a bad deal.

I'm being slight facetious but you get the point.

[Hawker]

And that's where the theory of marginal value comes in. Which is more valuable - gold or water? Well, it depends on how much water you have.

It is dangerous to attribute the concept of goods to human beings? Markets may work well at setting the priorities of production. But to have a unregulated market in human beings; in their labour risks or perhaps IS, a form of slavery.

Is there a reason why every debate on this forum relies on slavery and the holocaust ?  Surely you can make a logical case without resorting to emotional rhetoric to prop it up?

[NghtRppr]

Is there a reason why every debate on this forum relies on slavery and the holocaust ?  Surely you can make a logical case without resorting to emotional rhetoric to prop it up?

It's not emotional rhetoric when it directly relates to the issue at hand. If I suggest that we kill all people with blue eyes and you say that would be genocide, is that emotional rhetoric? No. It's a fact. That would be genocide.

[stevendobbs]

And that's where the theory of marginal value comes in. Which is more valuable - gold or water? Well, it depends on how much water you have.

It is dangerous to attribute the concept of goods to human beings? Markets may work well at setting the priorities of production. But to have a unregulated market in human beings; in their labour risks or perhaps IS, a form of slavery.

Is there a reason why every debate on this forum relies on slavery and the holocaust ?  Surely you can make a logical case without resorting to emotional rhetoric to prop it up?

not really; look at the world. Do you think it is near optimum? of course you don't.

There is some serious issues that cannot be swept under the carpet any longer. billions of people are living in a precarious state, hungry, or worried, through the developed and developing world - now is as good a time as any for emotion to drive the overall vision.

Did you know that nearly 100,000,000 children die every decade from poverty related causes? We of the left argue that poverty is sustained as a consequence of prevailing economic policies. So its a life and death issue that economic policy be reviewed.

Now even in the rich developed world, something like 14% of US families experience food insecurity - the richest nation on earth - a large % of its population hungry - in the UK it is similar but well masked by social charities.

Many people, many ordinary people here would fit into the category of Mortgage Slave, or Slave to their Land Lord etc.

---

edit:
when i was posting what I posted, i was thinking or Rising Inequality in Earnings.

How can any of you justify static median income, and rising income at the top? what is the point of economic growth if it is never shared?

[Hawker]

stevendobbs - all good points but slavery relates to taking a person by force and selling them to someone who can kill them on a whim or work them to death.  While its tragic that there is poverty in our world, its not quite the same thing as slavery.  The impact of the point you make is diminished as people can see the cheap emotional trick you have used the buttress your argument.

[stevendobbs]

stevendobbs - all good points but slavery relates to taking a person by force and selling them to someone who can kill them on a whim or work them to death.  While its tragic that there is poverty in our world, its not quite the same thing as slavery.  The impact of the point you make is diminished as people can see the cheap emotional trick you have used the buttress your argument.

I'm not sure bondage by force, or bondage by necessity has any real practical difference.

edit:

slavery is frightening, and the way things are going leads to defacto slavery.

[NghtRppr]

what is the point of economic growth if it is never shared?

It is shared. Look at the lowest class in America. They all have refrigerators, color TV's, cars, etc, etc. They live like richest people did 50 years ago. The rich get rich by making the poor better off. How do you think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got rich? By putting computers and iPods in the hands of millions of middle and lower class people instead of just the richest.

[stevendobbs]

what is the point of economic growth if it is never shared?

It is shared. Look at the lowest class in America. They all have refrigerators, color TV's, cars, etc, etc. They live like richest people did 50 years ago. The rich get rich by making the poor better off. How do you think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got rich? By putting computers and iPods in the hands of millions of middle and lower class people instead of just the richest.

nooo it isn't though:

median income is flat, top end gains rise.

how is that possible?

It is possible because the median worker is working harder, and harder - productive goes up, but earnings remain static for most, whilst gains at the top accelerate.

Project that forward and imagine a political economy, where the wealth and power is dominated by a new aristocracy; a return to serfdom.

[stevendobbs]

what is the point of economic growth if it is never shared?

It is shared. Look at the lowest class in America. They all have refrigerators, color TV's, cars, etc, etc. They live like richest people did 50 years ago. The rich get rich by making the poor better off. How do you think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got rich? By putting computers and iPods in the hands of millions of middle and lower class people instead of just the richest.

i didn't fully answer this:

The point about cheap tech. Cheap tech is not the most important expenses a citizen makes. We spend most of our money on:

Housing,
Health,
Education,
Transport,
Food,
gadgets are just bits of plastic.

[blacbe]

what is the point of economic growth if it is never shared?

It is shared. Look at the lowest class in America. They all have refrigerators, color TV's, cars, etc, etc. They live like richest people did 50 years ago. The rich get rich by making the poor better off. How do you think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got rich? By putting computers and iPods in the hands of millions of middle and lower class people instead of just the richest.

nooo it isn't though:

median income is flat, top end gains rise.

how is that possible?

It is possible because the median worker is working harder, and harder - productive goes up, but earnings remain static for most, whilst gains at the top accelerate.

Project that forward and imagine a political economy, where the wealth and power is dominated by a new aristocracy; a return to serfdom.

serfs worked less hours than the modern average westerner and enjoyed lower taxes. serfdom would be a step up unfortunately. that road was paved 50 years ago

[NghtRppr]

It is possible because the median worker is working harder, and harder - productive goes up, but earnings remain static for most, whilst gains at the top accelerate.

Productivity goes up because new technology is invented. We have riding lawnmowers instead of push mowers. We have backhoes instead of shovels. All of these things make work easier, not harder, while increasing productivity.

I suggest that you read "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig von Mises. It's fairly short and argues against a lot of what you're saying.

Here's the free PDF version: http://mises.org/etexts/anticap.pdf

[hugolp]

Typical bourgeois answer. You did not reply to what I said and tried to pass over it.

You are a traitor to the working class follower of the bourgeois Marx.

try to avoid inflammatory style of posting please, mr moderator?

Is not inflammatory. Marx was a bourgeois and you follow his teachings, therefore you are infected with buorgeois mentallity. You need to break free of the buorgeois teachings of Marx to be able to understand how the world works and bring about the real socialist revolution. Otherwise you are just a traitor to the cause and a willing follower of the buorgeois.

[stevendobbs]

It is possible because the median worker is working harder, and harder - productive goes up, but earnings remain static for most, whilst gains at the top accelerate.

Productivity goes up because new technology is invented. We have riding lawnmowers instead of push mowers. We have backhoes instead of shovels. All of these things make work easier, not harder, while increasing productivity.

I suggest that you read "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig von Mises. It's fairly short and argues against a lot of what you're saying.

Here's the free PDF version: http://mises.org/etexts/anticap.pdf

median income is static. why cant median income grow with GDP growth?

do you recognise as we of the left do, that as purchasing power parity falls, the relative importance of such median workers, the people who actually work in the economy falls away. So then the market economy, which naturally chases profit margins, develops products primarily more and more, for those who can afford it - a small and rising elite will consume ever more of national production - the cost of living compared to static wages will rise for most.

In contrast, a proper, well managed society will have a smaller wealth gap, and rising productivity will translate directly, to rising earnings.

You can see the effect in this plot:

from http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/08/misery-loves-company.html
high GDP/capita converges with many low GINI nations - which suggests, the argument against redistribution - socialism levels everybody down, is false.

the USA is a rather unusual anomaly. My prediction is that the USA will lurch to the left chavez style in the next 10 years, unless progressive reforms are already in place.

[stevendobbs]

Is not inflammatory. Marx was a bourgeois and you follow his teachings, therefore you are infected with buorgeois mentallity. You need to break free of the buorgeois teachings of Marx to be able to understand how the world works and bring about the real socialist revolution. Otherwise you are just a traitor to the cause and a willing follower of the buorgeois.

again, this sort of post doesn't really do it for me. Think yourself into my position: What is there for me to reply to? really?

perhaps a reflection post to illustrate the problem:

You are infected with libertarian-capitalist mentality. You need to break free of the elitist notions of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman to be able to understand how the world works and how it crushes real freedom in the name of liberty. Otherwise you are just a willing serf of the new aristocracy or a wannabe.

--see? such a post has no real content to reply to

[hugolp]

It is possible because the median worker is working harder, and harder - productive goes up, but earnings remain static for most, whilst gains at the top accelerate.

Productivity goes up because new technology is invented. We have riding lawnmowers instead of push mowers. We have backhoes instead of shovels. All of these things make work easier, not harder, while increasing productivity.

I suggest that you read "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig von Mises. It's fairly short and argues against a lot of what you're saying.

Here's the free PDF version: http://mises.org/etexts/anticap.pdf

median income is static. why cant median income grow with GDP growth?

do you recognise as we of the left do, that as purchasing power parity falls, the relative importance of such median workers, the people who actually work in the economy falls away. So then the market economy, which naturally chases profit margins, develops products primarily more and more, for those who can afford it - a small and rising elite will consume ever more of national production - the cost of living compared to static wages will rise for most.

In contrast, a proper, well managed society will have a smaller wealth gap, and rising productivity will translate directly, to rising earnings.

You can see the effect in this plot:

from http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/08/misery-loves-company.html
high GDP/capita converges with many low GINI nations - which suggests, the argument against redistribution - socialism levels everybody down, is false.

the USA is a rather unusual anomaly. My prediction is that the USA will lurch to the left chavez style in the next 10 years, unless progressive reforms are already in place.

And this has happened because of the policies the authoritarian left have defended (and to be fair also defended by the right wing).

I dont understand how you can complain of something produced by what you defend.

[stevendobbs]

I dont understand how you can complain of something produced by what you defend.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_doesn't_exist,_it's_all_about_Gnomes#Ecognomics
As underpants gnomes would say, there are 3 steps to getting rich: Phase 1: Steal Underpants Phase 2: ?? Phase 3: Profit!

-- you assert that the 'authoritarian left' has created the distribution above?

That is a very strange thing to say? the left wing has not been setting the direction of our economies since the late 1970's. We've seen now 30 years of free trade direction and associated ideas. The democratic state has been rolled back, central banks and other agents have filled that power vacuum.

And post credit crunch we inherit this mess.

[NghtRppr]

30 years of free sporadically regulated trade

FTFY

[hugolp]

That is a very strange thing to say? the left wing has not been setting the direction of our economies since the late 1970's. We've seen now 30 years of free trade direction and associated ideas. The democratic state has been rolled back, central banks and other agents have filled that power vacuum

Hahahaha. Was this ironic or you really believe it? If you do I recommend that you go and check the data (at least only for mental health).

[Hawker]

stevendobbs what would you say to someone who argued that its the lack of competitiveness of Western economies that is causing the huge burst in inequality.  The jobs that kept the working classes going are now being done in China and there is simply not need for their labour.  Naturally the rentier classes (doctors, public servants, lawyers and so on) are able to carry on getting paid as there is no way their work can be outsourced to China.  And the guys at the top are global players - there is little link between them and the country they live in.  The net effect is that the bottom 50% or so is scrabbling around for jobs and their wages are being inexorably driven to Chinese levels.  And this is bigger than any 1 country and certainly bigger than any 1 party; I can't see any escape from it.