Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sourclams wrote:The original point, going back to Sebster's post, seemed to be that what we can attribute out wage to is the 'framework', i.e. government. Which is bonkers, but hey, different realities I guess.

I believe biccat was responding to that point.

The framework, society, is more than government.

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

I'm not endorsing that position, to be clear.

dogma wrote:The framework, society, is more than government.

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

Yeah, Kumbayah, etc.

Frankly this is even more bonkers than saying the government creates revenue.

The Pilgrims, Chinese wheat production in the 1970s, Cuban crop ownership, and I don't know how many more examples through history all show that socialized ownership is ultimately less productive and ergo society is worse off than privatization.

DAaddict wrote:The lie is that it is unsupportable. They say it is due to mismanagement. To a degree they are right, as the money invested - through taxation- was not put aside but mixed in so when it was solvent you would have that money to draw on. The reality is if it took $12 to support one retiree in 1940 you needed to ask everyone to pay $1. With the cost of healthcare, that $12 is no about $66 and the reduced number of people paying in means you need to take in about $9.50 per person paying in. Now if you are used to paying in $1 and suddenly someone is going to hit you for $9.50. It is not going to be viewed as fulfilling a social contract, it is going to be viewed as undue taxation based on incompetence.

Which is, again, not a lie, but a demographic shift. It's a demographic shift that's been well documented and published by government. It makes no sense to claim they've been pretending about anything at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

This is a theory of labor that is consistent with communism, but not with a capitalist system.

Umm, no, what I stated wasn't the labour theory of value, as argued by Marx. I wouldn't argue for such a theory, because it is a terrible, terrible theory with no redeeming features.

Instead, what I argued for was the theory of labour value, a central component of neo-classical economics. You're somewhat familiar with it, in that you quote half of it, 'your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input'. The problem is that being entirely untrained in economics being as deliberately ignorant of the subject as you can possibly be, you completely fail to ask the other half of the question 'why is that the value given to my labour?'

This is a very interesting question, because it makes us ask why I am worth so much more than person of equal talents born in Mozambique? He is likely just as smart as I am, and almost certainly far more hard working, and yet I can command a small fortune for a wage, while he earns maybe a couple of thousand dollars.

It becomes very obvious that the difference between us comes from the systems we are in. In my system I was given some 18 years of education, if you include professional qualifications, while he was maybe given until year 6. And I work in a sophisticated economy, with a massive amount of capital, while he works in a very simple economy. These factors make my wage worth far more than his, not any inherent ability I was born with.

And it is impossible to seperate those functions from government, and as such it becomes impossible to continue to pretend that taxation is somehow seperate from the rest of the system.

And that, for those who are counting, is the 52nd time I've explained this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:The original point, going back to Sebster's post, seemed to be that what we can attribute out wage to is the 'framework', i.e. government. Which is bonkers, but hey, different realities I guess.

No, the framework is partially government. The point is that government portion is inseperable from the rest of the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The framework, society, is more than government.

Yes,

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

I'm not endorsing that position, to be clear.

No, the argument is that the system that allows you to command a high income is the very same system that takes some portion of it in tax. You can't seperate the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Frankly this is even more bonkers than saying the government creates revenue.

The Pilgrims, Chinese wheat production in the 1970s, Cuban crop ownership, and I don't know how many more examples through history all show that socialized ownership is ultimately less productive and ergo society is worse off than privatization.

No, that's just nonsense that has nothing to do with the point being made here. I'm not arguing for collectivisation, or any kind of greater socialisation. Just forget any of that nonsense. Please, seriously, just don't think about this in any kind of 'boo communism hooray capitalism' silliness.

Because what I'm saying doesn't conclude with 'and that's why everyone should earn the same'. Personal incentive is still essential to getting people to work hard. Nor does it conclude with 'and that's why the state should own all the assets', because the free movement of capital is the most efficient method we have to grow new businesses.

So you get that, right? I'm a capitalist.

It's just that I actually get what capitalism is. It isn't freedom and choices, because no matter the system you are still one person surrounded by millions of others, and your options are largely dependant upon them, just as your choices have a slight impact on everyone else. Capitalism is a system, defined by rules we made up over property laws, contract laws, businesss practices, employment standards and all the rest. It's a system just as feudalism, mercantilism, communism and all the rest were systems.

It happens to be the best system, but that doesn't mean it isn't a system.

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Although your Awesomeness may convince your employer to raise your wages to match a tax increase.

If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

This is a theory of labor that is consistent with communism, but not with a capitalist system.

Given that Australia isn't a communist country, I have no idea where it comes from. Maybe sebster studied economics under Castro. It certainly would explain a lot.

The simple fact that we are paid in fiat currency rather than conch shells or salt is proof of Sebster's argument.

sourclams wrote:
Frankly this is even more bonkers than saying the government creates revenue.

In what sense? The state certainly has a role in the production of revenue under a number of governmental systems, including the one that exists throughout the West. Modern corporations could not exist without government.

sourclams wrote:
The Pilgrims, Chinese wheat production in the 1970s, Cuban crop ownership, and I don't know how many more examples through history all show that socialized ownership is ultimately less productive and ergo society is worse off than privatization.

Its not really that simple, unless you're excluding things like credit unions from social ownership, which I think is a bit dishonest. Then we can look at organizations like Mondragon that have been very successful, if not strictly socialist cooperatives.

And then we get to the issue of whether or not production is the only thing that determines whether or not society is better off. I can design a fairly productive society based on slave labor, after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

The argument is that possession is ephemeral at best.

I'm not endorsing that position, to be clear.

No, the argument is that the system that allows you to command a high income is the very same system that takes some portion of it in tax. You can't seperate the two.

I agree with that, I was just working off the idea that taxation isn't taking something from someone.

The theory of social responsibility is something - I think - that we can all agree on.

The issue is the practical results and the extent to which a social net should exist and be supported.

1. I agree that it is a societal responsibility to care for those less fortunate.
2. It is the definition of care that we will argue about until the cow comes home. Does care include not having to have responsibility for anything? To not worry about food?
Housing? Clothing? Healthcare? This is the socialist model that stifles growth and has been proven over and over again to fail.
3. So then we can get to a granular level. Say on healthcare. We need to get down to the specifics of what is emergency care and what is frivolous personal comfort. So if someone has pneumonia, should their coverage be a societal issue? Should we collectively pay for it? Perhaps. But is someone shows up at the ER with every sniffle and ache should we as society be paying for it? I think not.

A social net is important but how inclusive the net is going to be is where we have our differences of opinion.

For my part, I would like to see a catastrophic coverage blanket that covers people to the point that they don't go bankrupt but I don't want to see a subsidized care that takes away any personal responsibility to contain costs.
I would like to see a welfare program that curtailed homelessness and starvation but not a program that incentivized people to not seek to work or improve themselves.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sonophos wrote:Although your Awesomeness may convince your employer to raise your wages to match a tax increase.

If taxation isn't taking anything from you, then your employer doesn't actually give you your wage. Your wage is determined based on society's valuation of your input, and your employer has nothing to do with it.

This is a theory of labor that is consistent with communism, but not with a capitalist system.

Given that Australia isn't a communist country, I have no idea where it comes from. Maybe sebster studied economics under Castro. It certainly would explain a lot.

The simple fact that we are paid in fiat currency rather than conch shells or salt is proof of Sebster's argument.

What if you're paid in stock?

How does that argument support Sebster's argument. Currency is merely a medium of exchange.

So is stock. It's an artificial construct of capitalist society.

Unlike haggis.

Kilkrazy wrote:So is stock. It's an artificial construct of capitalist society.

Unlike haggis.

The first rule of Haggis Club is we don't talk about Haggis Club.

Kilkrazy wrote:So is stock. It's an artificial construct of capitalist society.

The first recorded evidence of a person being paid based on a futures-implied market value was a Samurai in feudal Japan during... I think... the 1400s.

I don't think that Samurai nor his Shogun were necessarily rampant capitalists.

What's your point?

Feudal Japan was a society.

DAaddict wrote:
A social net is important but how inclusive the net is going to be is where we have our differences of opinion.

For my part, I would like to see a catastrophic coverage blanket that covers people to the point that they don't go bankrupt but I don't want to see a subsidized care that takes away any personal responsibility to contain costs.
I would like to see a welfare program that curtailed homelessness and starvation but not a program that incentivized people to not seek to work or improve themselves.

One way of demonstrating the difficulty of the issue, from a policy perspective, is that its possible to legitimately argue that there is no distinction between either component of both the dichotomies you have presented.

Kilkrazy wrote:What's your point?

Feudal Japan was a society.

But not the Society of Jesus. And therein is the rub arrrr.

sourclams wrote:The first recorded evidence of a person being paid based on a futures-implied market value was a Samurai in feudal Japan during... I think... the 1400s.

I don't think that Samurai nor his Shogun were necessarily rampant capitalists.

And we had people paid in scrip during the mercantile era. Which was just a different kind of system that was put in place, but one still put in place by society, and including a bunch of rules that people wrongly assumed were the natural order of things.