Economics and free market

[Zythryn]

To answer individually and specifically is time consuming, I will just say why I think and do what I believe in regarding economics.

 

Mike, if you refuse to discuss points raised, why post to a discussion board?

I agree with some of what you say. But your refusal to define what you mean by doing 'real work' doesn't really help anyone understand what it is you are saying.

 

At one point you referred to the only people that really produce real goods as those that built something with their hands.

Then you referred to people doing sales jobs as real work as they helped sell the products.

Then you referred to 'lower management' as actually contributing to real wealth but not upper management.

 

If you could nail down that line as to who does and who doesn't contribute in your mind, that may help us understand you or at least discuss the topic with you.

[questor]

Pyro, you said:

''Sure, some taxes go to entitlement programs. Far, far more goes to the defense budget. But I notice you don't complain about the rich having to pay for B-2 bombers and flak jackets. ''

If you prefer to give to those who don't work, it's your prerogative. I would prefer to fund our military so that they can defend our country. The military

is composed of working people with families who are willing to die for our country. The poor are not called upon for this task or any other.

 

''Your posts make it sound like ALL the taxes paid by the rich go straight to lazy welfare queens. This is not merely misleading, but it undermines the valid points you make. You kinda shoot yourself in the foot when you insist on this style of wording and phrasing.''

An odd comment in the face of the fact I posted a link concerning th exact cost of the welfare program, around 435 billion.

My position on the poverty question is quite simple. If the poor receive welfare they should try to do the things necessary to get out of it. We should help those who cannot help themselves, but we should not coddle and enable those who simply will not work although able to do so. Each person

should aspire to become the best he can be, and we should use this as the quid pro quo for welfare. Do you think the life of a welfare person is better and more prideful if they rely on welfare? Do you think society is better for supporting those who will not work?

[Mike C]

Mike, if you refuse to discuss points raised, why post to a discussion board?

I agree with some of what you say. But your refusal to define what you mean by doing 'real work' doesn't really help anyone understand what it is you are saying.

 

At one point you referred to the only people that really produce real goods as those that built something with their hands.

Then you referred to people doing sales jobs as real work as they helped sell the products.

Then you referred to 'lower management' as actually contributing to real wealth but not upper management.

 

If you could nail down that line as to who does and who doesn't contribute in your mind, that may help us understand you or at least discuss the topic with you.

 

What I am saying here, started out as a biblical reference to the 'separation of light and darkness' that polarises the lion as a chauvinist self serving creature and the apes as the darkness that are inferior to the predator specie.

 

That is why I put emphasis that we have GODs greatest gift that is our 'hands'.

All creatures have brains, so brains in themselves do not create real wealth.

 

But yes, as evolved creatures, the evolution of our specie to create today what material comforts we have did require some thought. So yes, brains can contribute to our current productivity of wealth.

But you have to understand that our hands are the real source of our material capabilities of what we have.

 

Now I do not oppose capitalism and the contributers of this wealth we have but the trend today that workers are nothing but a commodity is what I consider 'tunaway greed' that is insulting to us apes.

Hence, their war on the workers unions and the poor are not right.

 

That is my main complaint of this runaway greed that is reducing our economy to a 3rd world level while the lords of capitalism are hoarding most of the wealth (99+% for themselves.

This is a comparison between the lowest earners ($7.00/hour US) and the top earners ($500,000,000/per year).

 

So that is my main complaint about current capitalism.

 

Mike C

[Pyrotex]

...My position on the poverty question is quite simple. If the poor receive welfare they should try to do the things necessary to get out of it....Do you think society is better for supporting those who will not work?

As I said before:

We all have our own particular place where we "draw the line". I have mine and you have yours. In a democracy, we get to enjoy the privilege of compromising on these unanswerable questions and unsolvable problems, thereby freeing up our time and talents to do other things

Yes, basically, I DO think society as a whole is better off for supporting those who CANNOT work. An unavoidable side affect of this policy, is that sometimes, some people will abuse the system. On the whole, as long as welfare payments are small enough, and temporary enough, and large enough to prevent decomposing bodies in the streets, I think it works okay.

 

You are certainly free and welcome to have a differing opinion on this. I urge you to participate in our democracy and vote your convictions as I do.

[Zythryn]

That is why I put emphasis that we have GODs greatest gift that is our 'hands'.

All creatures have brains, so brains in themselves do not create real wealth.

 

Basing your position on a false premise is probably why we disagree in this area:D

 

Many creatures have hands. A few even have opposable thumbs.

Hands are simply tools which we use to create tools which we thought up in our brains. Our brains are what make us more unique, and allow us to build things, not our hands.

[Mike C]

Basing your position on a false premise is probably why we disagree in this area:D

 

Many creatures have hands. A few even have opposable thumbs.

Hands are simply tools which we use to create tools which we thought up in our brains. Our brains are what make us more unique, and allow us to build things, not our hands.

 

Are you telling me that you can create a spear or other such weapon with just your brains?

 

You must believe in magic.

 

Granted, I believe their is a spiritual force that can influence the physical but not that much of an influence.

 

So the spiritual forces can make tiny corrections like Einstein corrections.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

Are you telling me that you can create a spear or other such weapon with just your brains?

 

You must believe in magic.

 

Granted, I believe their is a spiritual force that can influence the physical but not that much of an influence.

 

So the spiritual forces can make tiny corrections like Einstein corrections.

 

Mike C

 

Hi New Science,

 

What are you talking about? That's a pretty blatant misrepresentation of Zythryn's post.

 

 

Oops... I meant "MiKe C." :thumbs_up

[nutronjon]

The capitalist system is based on the laws of supply and demand. Although this is true, the existing system is based on supply side economics. In other words, demand for most goods and services can almost always be traced back to the supply side. For example, nobody originally demanded fast foods. Entrepreneurs, at the supply side, came up with this idea and used marketing to create demand. Once this demand appeared, there wasn't any universal demand to make more and more fast food varieties. The supply side provided these alternatives. Once the induced demand sticks, then the laws of supply and demand take over. What is taught in school has to do with supply side economics driving the supply and demand in a free market system.

 

Demand side economics, as the driving force of economics is different. Demand side are the consumers defining the need and price. The supply side would see an opportunity and would provide the supply. The law of supply and demand would apply, but driven by the demand. For example, if demand side wanted low cost medical insurance, the supply side would have to respond. Currently, due to economics being driven by supply side, there is no need to respond, since supply side is the driving force between supply and demand. While demand side has little leverage.

 

Let me give an example of demand side setting the price. All people and families, who buy a product X in the free market, rather than act as an individual, become part of a national buying group. Due to the volume that the buying group promises to buy, to reflect the needs of all the members, the group will be given a special price, at or below wholesale. The groups then issues all their members a membership card, that they use at the point of sale, that gives them this big discount.

 

If is sort of like a builder who buys from a hardware store. Due to the volume they anticipate buying, they get a deep discount. The average consumer does not have the buying power to get this discount. With supply side driving supply and demand, the demand side leveage often goes to those who have more. In other words, they can use their business to get discounts on personal items. While those who have the least money usually have to pay full retail price. To balance this out, one could extend the buying group to those with less that say $100K annual income. These can use their wholesale card when they shop. Those who are not part of the buying group, pay at the prices dictated by supply side.

 

This is nothing personnal. It is just part of the free market. The real demand side economics is not taught in schools; it is taboo. The laws of the economic jungle that are taught say there are shearers and sheep, with the sheep suppose give the wool. But the sheep need to realize, without their wool there is no economics. Because their wool is important to the economy, is should be considered valuable. The way you sell it in the free market, is to demand the price you wish to pay.

 

If we extrapolated this scenario, where demand side economics could set the demand and the price, it could cause many businesses to reach a point where they would go belly up. The govenment would have to step in and create a business welfare system. Essentially, without recieving any goods or services, the govenment would slip the business money under the table. It would be enough money to make the business worthwhile, to compensate for the extremely low prices. It would become a type of free market socialism, where the govenment dictates where the money goes, based on the demand of the people. If the people need food at low price, then the govenment would keep this business sector healthy.

 

This last scenario is neither good or optimum. But it would be beneficial to create a better balance between supply and demand side economics. Things that people need should be leverage with organized demand. Things that people want should remain under the current supply side system. This creates an interesting paradox for business; if they create artificial need, there will be a short term gain, but the demand side will step in and make the price drop. So business would have to learn to be careful about artificial need, if they wish to keep a market from getting gobbled by the demand side. Supply side has hyped medical demand. This could be a good experiment in real demand side economics.

 

I got totally confused. Can you help me?

 

We need affordable health care, not affordable medical insurance, but we seem to be pretty powerless in getting affordable health care. I have heard in some places, people can go to a mall and order their own medical test. This sounds great to me. We don't need doctors in the middle of every medical decision we need to make, and we should not be forced to go through a doctor for all medical care. Besides doctors have so many patients they can not possibly remember their patients and their medical needs, and they are not the experts on medication. Our present system makes no sense.

 

I would love to outlaw all medical insurance, so everyone would have to pay for medical care out of pocket. This is the only way the demand for affordable health care has a chance of driving the cost of health care down.

If we are going to regulate anything with laws, the law needs to protect individuals, by elementing the benefits groups.

[nutronjon]

Hi Pyrotex,

 

I have experienced extremely competent business executives who have treated everybody equally and made sure that all team members pull their fair weight, and I have worked for a bunch of amatuers who play favourites with people who bludge and then churn and burn their competent employees.

 

I have first hand experience of favoured people who have been paid well to do nothing apart from making life hell for the people doing the actual work.

 

How many people are aware of the difference between autocratic management and democratic management? I think the most important thing we could do is insist on democratic management. The Deming Institute provides training for democratic management.

[Zythryn]

Are you telling me that you can create a spear or other such weapon with just your brains?

 

No, I am telling you that you can't create a spear without your brains:doh:

You must believe in magic.

:)

Why would you come to that conclusion?

I didn't say our brains created things out of thin air. Our brains enable us to make use of tools. One of which is our hands.

We then use our hands to make other tools, such as spears. However the work is directed by our brains. :thumbs_up

[Pyrotex]

No, I am telling you that you can't create a spear without your brains:doh:... Our brains enable us to make use of tools. ...

uhhh... Zythryn? I'm beginning to think that in order to understand that the brain can and does produce wealth, in fact, MORE wealth than hands alone can ever produce... to understand this... well...

 

it requires a brain. :thumbs_up

[Pyrotex]

Are you telling me that you can create a spear or other such weapon with just your brains? You must believe in magic....

This is an obvious misrepresentation of Z's post.

You cannot possibly believe that THAT was what he meant.

 

We have rules against this kind of behaviour.

We consider it aggressive and malicious.

Behave.

[nutronjon]

uhhh... Zythryn? I'm beginning to think that in order to understand that the brain can and does produce wealth, in fact, MORE wealth than hands alone can ever produce... to understand this... well...

 

it requires a brain. :thumbs_up

 

I think economic growth requires more than brains. China and India are just two countries filled with very poor people who have brains. To a large degree, economic growth depends on something besides having a brain. Geology, geography, climate also play parts in economic development.

[Zythryn]

To a large degree, economic growth depends on something besides having a brain. Geology, geography, climate also play parts in economic development.

 

I agree 100% with the idea that there are factors other than having a brain. Many things lead to oportunities which can lead to economic growth.

However, I still hold the position that the ability to recognize those opportunities is paramount. Without the brain's ability to allow us to produce tools (wheather it is a spear, hammer or a loan) you have no economic growth.

You can grow economically without good climate, or geography or geology. It is more difficult, but you still can.

You can't grow economically without a brain:)

[nutronjon]

Moving past the brain issue.

 

I think democracy promotes an expanding economy and that autocracy tends to restrict economic growth. Yet the US built its industry on England's autocratic model.

 

The US transmitted a culture for democracy until 1958 when it replaced liberal education with education for technology. That is, the US prepared everyone for civil and industrial leadership, until 1958. In 1958 the US began preparing children as products for industry. I think the economic ramifacations will be very bad for the US, and for sure the social ramifications are very bad.

 

Free markets sound nice, but is that actually what we have? I suppose the devaluation of the dollar will open world markets to smaller industry? But can people living in $200,000 homes compete with people living in third world countries? Can the US compete with socialized countries? Or will these open markets hurt citizens of the US? Should the US compensate for this difference with increased socialism?

[Mike C]

No, I am telling you that you can't create a spear without your brains:doh:

 

;)

Why would you come to that conclusion?

I didn't say our brains created things out of thin air. Our brains enable us to make use of tools. One of which is our hands.

We then use our hands to make other tools, such as spears. However the work is directed by our brains. :doh:

 

All animals have brains but only we evolved apes have hands besides the other natural tree dwelling animals.

Sure, the brains did have some influence for our evolution but our hands are the most important reason for our evolution and the material wealth that we have.

 

Besides, my main complaint is the lack of controls on the self serving capitalists helping themselves to excessive dollars they do not deserve.

 

Mike C

[Pyrotex]

All animals have brains but only we evolved apes have hands besides the other natural tree dwelling animals.

Sure, the brains did have some influence for our evolution but our hands are the most important reason for our evolution and the material wealth that we have....

I find it nearly impossible to believe that you are serious. Either that, or there is a fundemental cultural difference between what YOU mean by "brain" and what I {a middle class, white-haired, well educated American} and several other posters here mean by "brain".

 

What WE mean by "brain" is NOT the physical organ that resides in the skull of all mammals. We are NOT stating that the physical brain in our skulls is a source of human wealth.

 

When we use the word "brain", we mean the:

 

"educated human mind".

 

In this sense, other animals do NOT have {thinking, self-aware, language-enabled, educated} "brains". Not in the sense that I and most other posters of this thread use the word.

 

Some human wealth was indeed created by "hands" alone, especially in the past, before (say) the 15th Century.

 

But the wealth that has been created by the human MIND {thinking, self-aware, language-enabled, educated} dwarfs the amount of wealth still being produced manually today. Dwarfs it by a huge factor.

 

This is an Information Age. Information equates to power and wealth. This information is created, sorted, analyzed, interpreted, utilized by the Human Mind.