TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General Economics Thread

Go To

There was talk about renaming the Krugman thread for this purpose, but that seems to be going nowhere. Besides which, I feel the Krugman thread should be left to discuss Krugman while this thread can be used for more general economic discussion.

Discuss:

  • The merits of competing theories.
  • The role of the government in managing the economy.
  • The causes of and solutions to our current economic woes.
  • Comparisons between the economic systems of different countries.
  • Theoretical and existing alternatives to our current market system.

edited 17th Dec '12 10:58:52 AM by Topazan

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#19651: May 19th 2020 at 2:40:00 PM

NANIIIIIII!?!??!

Anyways, for examples of economic systems developing on other societies (yes, it's possible), there's that experiment were monkeys were taught to use currency, and well, long story short they ended up discovering they could use it to trade for food, or sex.

Fun story.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19652: May 19th 2020 at 2:49:19 PM

You are a sexy beast that lives in Australia?

Do you have a link to the monkey study? That sounds fascinating.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#19653: May 19th 2020 at 2:52:49 PM

There’s actually a Wikipedia article on prostitution amongst animals.[1]

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19654: May 19th 2020 at 3:00:08 PM

I wonder what the value of a nesting stone is in the Penguin sex market.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#19655: May 19th 2020 at 3:05:38 PM

About three feathers, unless you're a fat capitalist whale.

Down with the iceberg system, where only a few are at the top! Revolution!

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#19656: May 19th 2020 at 3:11:31 PM

Damn, this thread is moving fast today. Going back to the previous page:

[My comment] So why is it inherently exploitative for me to use that labor X-Y, in combined with additional labor Z (people working in the factory), to produce additional wealth (goods made in the factory), and take a share of the profit in proportion to the value of the original labor X-Y that I'm contributing to the endeavour?
[Silasw's reply] Because the original X-Y labour wasn’t your labour, it was the labour of other people, who you are not providing with any of the proceeds of their labour.
I paid them for that labor. They got their benefit out of it. They did a finite amount of labor (building a factory) and got a finite economic reward for it (whatever wages they earned for the project). What makes them entitled to anything more?

Like, the whole deal was "I pay you to build me a factory, and at the end of the project, you have money and I have a factory". They built it, I paid them for it, so now the factory is mine by mutual agreement. The workers no longer have any claim to ownership of the factory — or the proceeds of using it in future economic activity. That's how property works.

Both parties knew this when they agreed to the terms of the money-for-factory deal. How is this exploitation of the workers?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
ShinyCottonCandy Everyone's friend Malamar from Lumiose City (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Everyone's friend Malamar
#19657: May 19th 2020 at 3:13:34 PM

[up]Often times, the workers can't afford to risk making you mad by asking for more.

My musician page
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#19658: May 19th 2020 at 3:17:42 PM

Which goes back to the imbalance of power thing that I talked about in earlier posts. Capitalism can lead to problems like that, but it doesn't have to. A properly regulated system can avoid that pitfall.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19659: May 19th 2020 at 3:17:52 PM

Because, in a perfectly fair system, the construction workers wouldn't get paid by the factory owner (who wouldn't exist), they would get paid directly by the workers who created the surplus that is being used to build the factory. The idea here is that owners of means of production are acting as useless middlemen, siphoning off a percent without adding anything.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#19660: May 19th 2020 at 3:22:02 PM

And now you're just begging the question. You can't justify "all capitalist profit is stolen from worker labor" by declaring "workers should be the ultimate recipient of all economic benefit" as a first principle. My whole argument revolves around the fact that capitalists do add something to the equation — capital — without which workers would be less productive, so therefore capitalists are justified in earning profits in proportion to the increased productivity they provide.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#19661: May 19th 2020 at 3:27:46 PM

I never did buy the argument that Pontius' hands were clean of blood.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#19662: May 19th 2020 at 3:28:26 PM

My whole argument revolves around the fact that capitalists do add something to the equation — capital — without which workers would be less productive, so therefore capitalists are justified in earning profits in proportion to the increased productivity they provide.

It's the "in proportion" part that notably seems AWOL in every walk of modern life. But the point is that by induction, capitalists only provide have the concentration of capital to provide capital by this exploitation of workers, and in a capitalist system it's structured such that they will continue to accrue more capital at the expense of the workers, who are given as little of the rewards of their labour as feasibly possible.

Exactly how much more important this system makes being wealthy and owning things is the entire reason the industrial revolution lead to labour movements.

DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19663: May 19th 2020 at 3:32:13 PM

@Jovian: To be clear, I do not make this claim, certain socialists do. In socialist theory, "providing capital" is simply transfering wealth from the people who made it to the people who need it, and charging everyone for the service. If people could exchange surplus wealth directly, without the capitalists, then they would obviously save a certain amount of wealth.

My claim in this discussion is that a large group of specialized workers are incapable of exchanging wealth with each other in the absence of a market, which has to be organized by someone. In Communist regimes, the "market" took the form of state ownership of all means of production, and all means of distribution as well. We all know how exploitative that turned out to be. In laissez faire societies, the market takes the form of financial transactions measured in currency, which is facilitated and managed by laws that protect private property at the expense of public property. "In-between" systems, or mixed economies, regulate private exchanges in the interest of the public good. In all cases, elites inevitably form and perpetuate themselves, which leads to exploitation. How to manage this exploitation is the question of the current moment of history.

Edited by DeMarquis on May 19th 2020 at 6:32:32 AM

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#19664: May 19th 2020 at 3:35:47 PM

What makes them entitled to anything more?

The fact that they produced something of value, of very high value.

That's how property works.

Yes it is, and that’s why the system is considered unjust, because the capitalist gets to enjoy the fruits of the labour (a shiny new factory that can be used in conjunction with other labour to product great value) while doing minimal labour and providing those who did the labour with minimal amounts of the value they created.

Also let’s note that most of the time the capitalist doesn’t pay the people who built the factory, he pays another capitalist who then takes a big share of that money and uses the rest to pay the people who do the labour.

How is this exploitation of the workers?

Because the labourer is denied a full choice, he is often constrained by poverty or simply the fact that capitalists have take control of all the means of labour (in this case the viable land to build factories upon) and will not allow the labourer to carry out labour without getting a cut.

The labourer has no option to opt out the way the capitalist does, the capitalist can always as a last resort carry out their own labour upon their property so as to generate value, the labourer can either work for one capitalist or work for another, but they have to work for someone, until they can gain property and become the capitalist.

Which does raise a big possibility, that MBI would break the cycle, if the labourer does not need to sell their labour to survive then the power dynamics change massively, suddenly the building crew can realistically say “No, we want a 70% share of the factory or we’re not building it”.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19665: May 19th 2020 at 3:40:07 PM

MBI would help, but the main challenge is that all or nearly all developed economies would have to adopt this policy, at more or less the same level. Otherwise, global finance would simply move capital to those regions where labor is cheaper.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#19666: May 19th 2020 at 3:42:25 PM

Not all labour is mobile, though I admit I’m sure they’d try, I can imagine construction sites without humans, instead it’s just robots being remotely piloted by people in a country where labour is cheep.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19667: May 19th 2020 at 3:43:39 PM

Well, not all labor, obviously, but what percent of private investment would have to move to have a significantly negative effect on the ability to pay for the MBI?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#19668: May 19th 2020 at 3:45:36 PM

Selling brains in a jar! cheap brains in a jar! Good for basic manual labor! Some of them are brians in a jar!

Edited by Aszur on May 19th 2020 at 4:45:48 PM

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#19669: May 19th 2020 at 3:54:25 PM

Some of them are brians in a jar!

I don't know if this is a typo or not but it totally fits and shouldn't be changed. [lol]

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#19670: May 19th 2020 at 3:58:27 PM

But the point is that by induction, capitalists only provide have the concentration of capital to provide capital by this exploitation of workers, and in a capitalist system it's structured such that they will continue to accrue more capital at the expense of the workers, who are given as little of the rewards of their labour as feasibly possible.
The "at the expense of workers" part is what I'm asking you to justify. You are not doing that. You're assuming it. Why is it the case that all capital must be accumulated by exploitation of workers?

To be clear, I do not make this claim, certain socialists do.
Ah, fair enough. This conversation is large and sprawling and I forgot who was taking what position, my bad.

The fact that they produced something of value, of very high value.
And they were compensated for it. Why do they deserve more than the price of their labor?

Yes it is, and that’s why the system is considered unjust, because the capitalist gets to enjoy the fruits of the labour (a shiny new factory that can be used in conjunction with other labour to product great value) while doing minimal labour and providing those who did the labour with minimal amounts of the value they created.
This is just begging the question again. "Labor deserves the profit because all economic gain should go to labor" is not an argument, it's a conclusion. I'm asking you to justify this conclusion, not just state it again.

Again, the labor is being compensated. They're getting paid for their labor. They're not being forced to work by feudal lords or rent-seeking monopolists that force them to work for a pittance or starve. The assumption in this example is that they're being paid a fair market wage consummate with the value of their labor. You're arguing that they're entitled to more than that because... profit is inherently exploitative since it doesn't go to workers? The argument is circular.

Because the labourer is denied a full choice, he is often constrained by poverty or simply the fact that capitalists have take control of all the means of labour (in this case the viable land to build factories upon) and will not allow the labourer to carry out labour without getting a cut.
This is the power-imbalance thing again. I fully acknowledge that this is a failure state of capitalism, but my argument is that you can have a fair capitalist system by enforcing rules that prevent these power imbalances from occurring.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#19671: May 19th 2020 at 4:14:33 PM

The "at the expense of workers" part is what I'm asking you to justify. You are not doing that. You're assuming it. Why is it the case that all capital must be accumulated by exploitation of workers?

Because

The assumption in this example is that they're being paid a fair market wage consummate with the value of their labor.

The value of their labour, as determined not by their productivity or the value produced by the labour, but by the market's judgement of what that worker's labour is worth.

The huge disconnect between the value produced and the market value of their labour, which becomes the capital that starts this scenario and propagates it, can be described as "the exploited value of the labour".

If the fair market wage reflects the value produced accurately, then there shouldn't be such a huge imbalance as to have this capital in the first place.

David7204 Since: Apr, 2011
#19672: May 19th 2020 at 4:17:48 PM

[up]Do you advocate that labor is the source of all value?

Edited by David7204 on May 19th 2020 at 6:18:49 AM

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#19673: May 19th 2020 at 4:19:06 PM

"Labor deserves the profit because all economic gain should go to labor" is not an argument, it's a conclusion.

It’s a philosophical belief, which I think is where we are butting heads.

Again, the labor is being compensated. They're getting paid for their labor.

Yes, they’re getting paid the minimum the capitalist can pay them while retaining the right to their labour.

In the end this isn’t actually an economic debate, it’s a philosophical one, should the value ascribed to a person’s labour (and thus the compensation they receive for that labour) be based on the abundance of supply of similar labour, or on the value that said labour produces?

Should a wage/compensation be based on how replaceable you are or on the value you produce? Should increased efficacy via automation boost the value of my labour (because I now produce more value with the same amount of labour) or decrease it (because I’m now easier to replace)?

The assumption in this example is that they're being paid a fair market wage consummate with the value of their labor.

What is a fair wage? That’s the philosophical question we’re actually disagreeing over, the communist case that I’m explaining/making is that a fair wage is one that reflects the value a person generates, not one based on the availability of other people able to do the same labour, which is how a capitalist society calculates wages.

Edited by Silasw on May 19th 2020 at 11:25:55 AM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#19674: May 19th 2020 at 4:19:38 PM

[up][up] I think this whole conversation has been through the lens of the labour theory of value, regardless of anyone's particular view on the matter.

Edited by RainehDaze on May 19th 2020 at 12:20:09 PM

David7204 Since: Apr, 2011
#19675: May 19th 2020 at 4:26:00 PM

[up] So...is that a yes?

[up][up]No, not really. If we care about our economic well-being and the well-being of our society, we have no choice but to respect value. And we don't get to choose what determines it.


Total posts: 27,399
Top