Labor costs and prices in an economy using bitcoin exclusively

[Teslah]

The solution to 'sticky wages' is to educate people that the value of their wages is going up or staying flat, even if the number on their check goes down. I don't think this would be as hard as people think, especially if there were reliable statistics available on the price deflation rate.

It's doesn't have to happen anyway. Average nominal wages don't go down because productivity goes up. There is still the same amount of money per person in the economy. Average nominal wages only go down when the population increases.

Lost coins also have to be taken into account.

[1714151116]

1714151116

[1714151116]

1714151116

[1714151116]

1714151116

[1714151116]

1714151116

[1714151116]

1714151116

[1714151116]

1714151116

[db]

Being paid in X commodity is not the same as owning the products of your labor. I think that what FatherMcGruder is referring to here is having a business interest in the means of production.

Isn't that owning the the products of those means of production rather than owning the products of your labor?

[kiba]

Being paid in X commodity is not the same as owning the products of your labor. I think that what FatherMcGruder is referring to here is having a business interest in the means of production.

FatherMcGruder hates wages and profits. I don't mind getting paid in wages, or profiting from an enterprise.

[FatherMcGruder]

After the Soviet Union collapsed factory workers were paid in whatever the factories produced. People found it very inconvenient:

https://www.economist.com/node/369396

An interesting article, but just another example of capitalism at work. Those poor workers were just paid wages in the form of that which the factory owner told them to produce.

Also, the Soviet Union stopped existing in 1991. The article mentions no events prior to 1993. Not that it would matter, because the state paid the soviets' wages.

Thanks for your accurate explanation, chodpaba.

[wb3]

I kind of try to go to the basics of necessities and then work up from there for appropriate government.

Would one agree, that in order to properly distribute resources, the resources in of itself would need to be equally distributed.

For example: Oil would not be in the Middle East but equally distributed among all countries per capita. And the same for Iron, Coal, Water, Food, etc...

If the resources are not equally distributed then there will be a cost to equally distributing them. This cost would in of itself not be equal since the cost to the Middle East Oil will not be the same as Siberian Oil, or GOM Oil, or Anwar Oil, etc...  And the same for Iron, Coal, Water, Food, etc...

Communism and/or Socialism are grand idealisms but not realistic due to the need for resources (even basic resources). And this is assuming that Greed and Vanity have been eliminated from Human Nature which actually goes against natural laws as currently understood.

It Capitalism doomed to fail? Yes, when wanted resources are extinguished. But then other resources will become relevant and the whole thing starts over with Capitalism taking the lead again. The Key is to make Capitalism as fair as possible. No collusions between companies and people, no illegal behavior, etc... Basically a pure and true Capitalism. 

BTW: Capitalism is not a form of government, it is a Natural Law. It operates under all forms of government (Democracy, Socialist, Communist, Dictator, etc...) 

China is communist using capitalism and many other example around the world.

Democracy has its flaws too. Individuals are smart, people are stupid. Democracy should be used in electing a ruling class that is not swayed by quick knee jerk reactions to public opinion.  Kind of like ehh...  A Republic   

But the Key to a Republic is public trust. Once the Trust of the people is lost, the Republic is lost.  Tell the truth, be honorable, prevent corruption, etc....  As soon as politician started saying what people want to hear rather than what they needed to hear, the system started to fail.

Double speak and fooling sheeple into a belief system is doom for said system. Preventing peoples views and opinions on subject by ridiculing them and forcing them to stop speech is bad even though what they say is stupid.

i.e. there should be a KKK politician somewhere speaking his beliefs. Why it won't matter is that people won't agree with him. But by stopping his speech, what one is really saying is that people "secretly" believe it and will follow him so we must stop him.

There should also be a Black Panther politician, etc...

I would much rather have people speak their thoughts and debate them, then keep those thoughts "Secret" and subversive.

In conclusion: Capitalism isn't going away until Natural Laws cease to exist. Sorry, Nature made us this way. 

The only escape from this is the religious route: God has another method that will supersede Natural Laws. So if your an atheist, Capitalism will rule for ever; If you are religious, God will supply another method when he arrives.

[kiba]

Democracy has its flaws too. Individuals are smart, people are stupid. Democracy should be used in electing a ruling class that is not swayed by quick knee jerk reactions to public opinion.  Kind of like ehh...  A Republic   

But the Key to a Republic is public trust. Once the Trust of the people is lost, the Republic is lost.  Tell the truth, be honorable, prevent corruption, etc....  As soon as politician started saying what people want to hear rather than what they needed to hear, the system started to fail.

Pfft. Republic is doomed to fail in the same way that democracy is doomed to fail.

[wb3]

Funny in the History of the World, what system has lasted the longest.

What Country has the Longest system of government?

Do improvements need to be made? Yea, sure. But history will tell us the Republic is the starting point. Not Bloodlines (Kings, Lords), Not Communism, not Socialism, not Dictatorships, or even the old Club over the Head methods.

The most stable form is starting with the Republic, but it needs improvement to prevent illegal behavior and corruption.


There is one system that is guaranteed to work but I wouldn't wait for it.

The Theocracy with God as its leader.  So when God shows up, problem solved. No debate necessary, no court necessary, no bad businesses and/or people, etc...  No money necessary, no resources necessary, no elections necessary, etc...

The perfect dictator that never dies = Theocracy = perfect system of government.

BTW: if you are religious God choose a system of 3 Judges to rule, but man wanted a King.

[kiba]

The most stable form is starting with the Republic, but it needs improvement to prevent illegal behavior and corruption.

In 200 years, the American republic progress from less regulated to more regulated and more statism. It become an empire in that time.

[FatherMcGruder]

I kind of try to go to the basics of necessities and then work up from there for appropriate government.

Would one agree, that in order to properly distribute resources, the resources in of itself would need to be equally distributed.

For example: Oil would not be in the Middle East but equally distributed among all countries per capita. And the same for Iron, Coal, Water, Food, etc...

If the resources are not equally distributed then there will be a cost to equally distributing them. This cost would in of itself not be equal since the cost to the Middle East Oil will not be the same as Siberian Oil, or GOM Oil, or Anwar Oil, etc...  And the same for Iron, Coal, Water, Food, etc...

Communism and/or Socialism are grand idealisms but not realistic due to the need for resources (even basic resources). And this is assuming that Greed and Vanity have been eliminated from Human Nature which actually goes against natural laws as currently understood.

It Capitalism doomed to fail? Yes, when wanted resources are extinguished. But then other resources will become relevant and the whole thing starts over with Capitalism taking the lead again. The Key is to make Capitalism as fair as possible. No collusions between companies and people, no illegal behavior, etc... Basically a pure and true Capitalism. 

BTW: Capitalism is not a form of government, it is a Natural Law. It operates under all forms of government (Democracy, Socialist, Communist, Dictator, etc...) 

China is communist using capitalism and many other example around the world.

Democracy has its flaws too. Individuals are smart, people are stupid. Democracy should be used in electing a ruling class that is not swayed by quick knee jerk reactions to public opinion.  Kind of like ehh...  A Republic   

But the Key to a Republic is public trust. Once the Trust of the people is lost, the Republic is lost.  Tell the truth, be honorable, prevent corruption, etc....  As soon as politician started saying what people want to hear rather than what they needed to hear, the system started to fail.

Double speak and fooling sheeple into a belief system is doom for said system. Preventing peoples views and opinions on subject by ridiculing them and forcing them to stop speech is bad even though what they say is stupid.

i.e. there should be a KKK politician somewhere speaking his beliefs. Why it won't matter is that people won't agree with him. But by stopping his speech, what one is really saying is that people "secretly" believe it and will follow him so we must stop him.

There should also be a Black Panther politician, etc...

I would much rather have people speak their thoughts and debate them, then keep those thoughts "Secret" and subversive.

In conclusion: Capitalism isn't going away until Natural Laws cease to exist. Sorry, Nature made us this way. 

The only escape from this is the religious route: God has another method that will supersede Natural Laws. So if your an atheist, Capitalism will rule for ever; If you are religious, God will supply another method when he arrives.

Wat? How does one naturally not get angry when someone takes something from you that you labored to produce and gives back something of less value? I think that that such a victim must have fallen for a trick called capitalism. He thinks that by capitalism, he will later take more and give back less. Of course, if he isn't already born into such status, he'll have to rely on luck and coercion to achieve it. What a miserable way to live.

Not Bloodlines (Kings, Lords)...

How is capitalism not monarchy, wherein capital, and all the power that comes with it, passes from heir to heir?

[wb3]

Wat? How does one naturally not get angry when someone takes something from you that you labored to produce and gives back something of less value? I think that that such a victim must have fallen for a trick called capitalism. He thinks that by capitalism, he will later take more and give back less. Of course, if he isn't already born into such status, he'll have to rely on luck and coercion to achieve it. What a miserable way to live.

I think you are confusing Taxes with Capitalism. Taxes are independent of the system, they exist in all governments. The difference is in a democracy we can actually change it, unlike a dictatorship. If you want less taxes then vote to change Congress. Start with your local city, state, then Fed Representatives. The problem is people want the services, they just don't want the taxes. If the majority want it, Government could be reduced to basic necessities (defense and government maintenance(just what is needed)). Give up Social Security, Roads, Health Care, Medicaid, etc... and then demand lower Taxes.

If, however, you are talking about product prices. Then don't buy it, if you feel you are being cheated.

How is capitalism not monarchy, wherein capital, and all the power that comes with it, passes from heir to heir?

Ahh, but this is how it works. Just one example: Barron Hilton created a vast amount of wealth and a successful business that employs thousands.  Unfortunately for him but fortunately for us, his "heirs" are money wasting idiots that don't produce anything. They waste their money and spend it like a drunken sailor.  Paris Hilton is redistributing the wealth so some other "Barron Hilton" will create a successful business to leave to his heirs.

There are not many true Moguls left. If the Kennedy wealth is diminishing, and the Rockefeller wealth. They have been replaced by the Bill Gates and the Oracle of Omaha and Steve Jobs, etc...

If a lowly no one, wants to be a mogul, then get a garage, drop out of college, and create something useful. You will then take the wealth from someone else, probably Paris Hilton.

[FatherMcGruder]

I think you are confusing Taxes with Capitalism. Taxes are independent of the system, they exist in all governments. The difference is in a democracy we can actually change it, unlike a dictatorship. If you want less taxes then vote to change Congress. Start with your local city, state, then Fed Representatives. The problem is people want the services, they just don't want the taxes. If the majority want it, Government could be reduced to basic necessities (defense and government maintenance(just what is needed)). Give up Social Security, Roads, Health Care, Medicaid, etc... and then demand lower Taxes.

And so do employers force their rules on employees and tax them for the privilege.

If, however, you are talking about product prices. Then don't buy it, if you feel you are being cheated.

If I don't like it, leave? Indeed, capitalists can potentially coerce me into abandoning my home.

Ahh, but this is how it works.

Yes, but it doesn't have to.

Just one example: Barron Hilton created a vast amount of wealth and a successful business that employs thousands.  Unfortunately for him but fortunately for us, his "heirs" are money wasting idiots that don't produce anything. They waste their money and spend it like a drunken sailor.  Paris Hilton is redistributing the wealth so some other "Barron Hilton" will create a successful business to leave to his heirs.

And so too can a new king eventually ruin his father's kingdom, making room for a more coercive newcomer.

There are not many true Moguls left. If the Kennedy wealth is diminishing, and the Rockefeller wealth. They have been replaced by the Bill Gates and the Oracle of Omaha and Steve Jobs, etc...

And Bill Gates and Carlos Slim once grovelled at the feet of the John D. Rockefeller. Get real. No one ever took turns with him. He got rich, stayed rich, and died rich. All the people he exploited are dead too. They have no recourse and nor will we against our exploiters so long as we tolerate capitalism.

If a lowly no one, wants to be a mogul, then get a garage, drop out of college, and create something useful. You will then take the wealth from someone else, probably Paris Hilton.

This process is a fluke at best. You can rarely produce anything useful without the consent of your capitalist exploiters.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Capitalism works because its net effect is to take precious resources out of the hands of those that waste, squander and defile them and distributes them in a somewhat optimal way into the hands of those who grow, produce and nurture them.

Dysfunctional capitalistic systems, crony capitalism, centrally-controlled debt fiat-based capitalism, authoritarian capitalism (china) and etc, somewhat work but eventually meet a denouement when the control of resources ends up in too few hands (who are, yes, wasting, squandering and defiling resources). The rich-poor gap becomes untenable and a large majority of people get hungry and angry. Hungry, angry people stop working and revolt or go to war, this is inefficient and destructive but serves to bring about a more productive allocation of resources. It, the free market works and has done for centuries, as long as conflicts between individuals (theft, fraud, exploitation, etc) are settled equitably and it isn't interefered with from on high by the state, large corporations or other forces that attempt to centralise power and control over resource distribution (bail-outs).

Natural capitalism and the free market is the embodiment of the original P2P network for distributing resources (used here to include labour, services, IP, money, anything that has value).

[db]

Funny in the History of the World, what system has lasted the longest.

What Country has the Longest system of government?

Ancient Egypt. Its theocratic despotism system of government lasted, with some breaks, for 3000 years.

[wb3]

And so do employers force their rules on employees and tax them for the privilege

.

Employers do not tax, the Government has the employers tax and give the money to them. However, employment is not a right in a capitalistic society. You choose to work for someone else because you don't want to or can't work for yourself. You have indentured yourself and blame the government and its system for your standing.  I know a blind guy that runs his own business, so many things that people complain about fall on my deaf ears. (metaphorically speaking).

If I don't like it, leave? Indeed, capitalists can potentially coerce me into abandoning my home.

If you own your home and want to stay, I doubt anyone could coerce you to leave. You might not have electricity or water from the companies that supply it for you but they can't make you leave your home.  Drill a well, hook up a generator and supply it for yourself. Or go the Amish route and forgo indoor plumbing and electricity. The Amish don't complain about it, they choose to live that way and don't pay an electric bill.

And so too can a new king eventually ruin his father's kingdom, making room for a more coercive newcomer.

That is why Kings (Bloodline Rule) were terrible forms of government.

He got rich, stayed rich, and died rich.

The key words are: "He got rich".  Yep he sure did. He was born poor and struggled to become rich. He succeeded.  If he was born poor in India, he would have stayed poor because he was born poor. The Caste system.

What is the greatest reward or promise that America offers?  Is that no matter your station in life, perceived disabilities, or struggles you go through, if you work hard and never give up, you have a chance at changing your status for you and your family.

Abe Lincoln, taught himself, filed for bankruptcy, and became President of the United States. If others find that a flaw in our system, so be it. I find it an admired quality of the system.

Bill Gates dropped out of college, started his own business, IBM tried to take it from him through manipulation, but he out did them. Ditto for Steve Jobs and IBM. The little guy can win in this system.

The point being is that there is no guarantee, there is the "chance."


Curiously though, what system do you think is the best?  Obviously you don't think it is Capitalism, so to which system do you subscribe?

Bloodline Rule? (Kings and Queens)
Dictatorship?
Communist?
Socialist?
Oligarchy?
Republic?
Democracy?
or something else.

I would like to point out that Capitalism was working in each of those systems of governments because Capitalism isn't a system of government, it is a system of survival defined by Natural Laws. Even before money existed, Capitalism was at work all the way back to the stone age.

Don't fight it, accept it and work with it. Your tag is apropos, Capitalism is like Wolves. Wolves trying to survive. Just hope your in the right pack of Wolves.

[FatherMcGruder]

Capitalism works because its net effect is to take precious resources out of the hands of those that waste, squander and defile them and distributes them in a somewhat optimal way into the hands of those who grow, produce and nurture them.

Dysfunctional capitalistic systems, crony capitalism, centrally-controlled debt fiat-based capitalism, authoritarian capitalism (china) and etc, somewhat work but eventually meet a denouement when the control of resources ends up in too few hands (who are, yes, wasting, squandering and defiling resources). The rich-poor gap becomes untenable and a large majority of people get hungry and angry. Hungry, angry people stop working and revolt or go to war, this is inefficient and destructive but serves to bring about a more productive allocation of resources. It, the free market works and has done for centuries, as long as conflicts between individuals (theft, fraud, exploitation, etc) are settled equitably and it isn't interefered with from on high by the state, large corporations or other forces that attempt to centralise power and control over resource distribution (bail-outs).

Natural capitalism and the free market is the embodiment of the original P2P network for distributing resources (used here to include labour, services, IP, money, anything that has value).

All these terrible things happen because capitalists use them to make profit.

[wb3]

Funny in the History of the World, what system has lasted the longest.

What Country has the Longest system of government?

Ancient Egypt. Its theocratic despotism system of government lasted, with some breaks, for 3000 years.

Technically you could make that point. But the system changed with every Pharaoh. But as soon as people resized that the "Gods" weren't helping them, it collapsed.  Rome's Republic system supplanted it.  Personally I like to think that all the workers asked themselves why they were spending their entire lives building a house for a dead guy and decided to work for themselves.


However, a Theocracy can be the best and longest lasting system, if everyone believes and it is fair and truthful.  You need to fear "God".  Today, in order to fear "God" people need to believe in him first, or he needs to make his presence known.

It wouldn't need to be God, it could be an alien race that every 5 years shows up and kills all wrong doers by reading their minds to find out their crimes against the rules they set down. And there is nothing anybody will ever be able to do about it. Yep, everyone will listen and those who don't will only be around for 5 years.

[marcus_of_augustus]

All these terrible things happen because capitalists use them to make profit.

What terrible things happen because capitalists use them to make profits? You're are not making a lot of sense.

Evil communists make wars for ideological and control reasons, evil capitalists make wars for profits, evil socialists make war on people's minds for "green" power, wtf?. Evil people do evil things in any system but communism and socialism are demonstrably evil because of the servitude to the collective and authoritarianism that is inherent. There is no liberty without capitalism, but capitalism is only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for liberty.

[wb3]

All these terrible things happen because capitalists use them to make profit.

Yea, that confuses me also.

But if I assume your position correctly and you want a system without the natural system of Capitalism.

You wish to for each to live like the fish in the sea. Eat when it is time to eat, and only eat when necessary.  Basically live like any non-pet animal. To each his needs and no more.

Let imagine what that system would bring. Starvation, goodbye Middle East, goodbye Ethiopia, or any country in need of food and they can't get it for themselves. I can't give them mine, I only eat when needed nothing left over. I don't have a house, no one to build it. I don't have a car, no one to build it. 

I make fire by rubbing sticks together, use a bow and arrow to hunt (but I have to be good because there is a lot of other hunters out there eating my food) Hmm... might be some conflict there if there is not enough food to go around. I might have to kill my competition in order to eat.

And on, and on.

Nah, I will stick with capitalism. It is more "Humane" otherwise I have to kill the weak so the strong will survive.

[BitterTea]

Yea, that confuses me also.

But if I assume your position correctly and you want a system without the natural system of Capitalism.

His position is that use of means of production (land, factories, etc) is ownership. If you build or purchase a machine or plot of land and are not using it, others may use it as they wish.

[wb3]

Yea, that confuses me also.

But if I assume your position correctly and you want a system without the natural system of Capitalism.

His position is that use of means of production (land, factories, etc) is ownership. If you build or purchase a machine or plot of land and are not using it, others may use it as they wish.

Oh, I see, the American Indian idea. No ownership. Capitalism could still work with that idea. But I foresee problems. Some will be able to use more land than others. I could operate a 200,000 acre tree farm and use it indefinitely for generations to come. Oh, I found Oil under my acreage, and gold, and diamonds. Bummer for my neighbor. Without the principle of ownership, the larger families will always out perform the smaller families. What about those who don't marry or can't have children?

No, ownership was a step out of the animal kingdom. The rules on ownership could be tweaked though. I could agree with that. I would also be for fertile land set aside for "poor" people. But as soon as they start making profits, their profits need to be applied to the next poor persons acre. Sort of like homes for humanity. Pay for through work over time, so the next guy has a chance. If you don't work, you won't stay on your acre very long and hence open up a slot for someone willing to do it.


The factory thing is a little confusing. Without ownership, who builds a factory.  Lets say I put $30 Million into building a factory but my business fails. Under no ownership, I not only lost my investment in the business but I can't mitigate any losses by selling the factory and recover any losses. Any investors must eat the losses, but if they knew that up front, I wouldn't have had investors, and hence no factory.

To build a factory, you must have ownership.