$1 USD, that's like $1 CAD?

[Tatar Khan]

Just because people become re-employed doesn't necessarily mean they have anything near constant employment. Doesn't looking at the unemployment % give a better idea than the average duration of unemployment periods. If stats indicate that 20% of the populace was unemployed for straight 40 years, then that is in a sense

[SandChigger]

I'm not after your shirt or your sheet.

Well, that's good re the former, as I'm rather attached to it.

And as for the latter, well, I geeve eet freely.  ;)

(Serious question: how many of you really read ALL of the masses of text posted above? Really? Wow. :O )

[Sneakgab]

''(Serious question: how many of you really read ALL of the masses of text posted above? Really? Wow. Shocked ''

Just imagine those who read all of it and also write a great deal of all of it. :D  :-X :'(. Yes, those smilies in that order somewhat indicate the reactions... ''haha'''... ''it's not funny''.... ''arggh''

''Hmm, people are replying too quickly for me to keep up. I have a bunch of older posts I really want to reply to, but for now I'll just answer this one:''

Tell me about it. I think this is the most active the board has been for a very long time.

As a matter of fact, I must say that more time will probably have to pass between my posts after this one.

(edit)

Hmmm, I am finding that I didn't know too much about CEO pay. I heard about Americans CEO's getting payed 10 of millions of dollars (for whom my text probably still applies) but that is perhaps not remotely close to the general pay and case. I took the general view we hear about so much (obviously, these CEOs would typically be more famous) and assumed it to be the general case without actually checking (the many examples I knew of appeared disproportionately you might say) However, when somebody get's payed tens of times as much the same pay for a similar job, it seems reasonable to think that some unfairness exists there too.

For now, I leave my text on CEO's here, but it is nothing close to my final opinion on the matter. I will gather more information on the matter and with this new information that I will be certain of, as opposed to my earlier info, I will analyze and formulate a new opinion. Don't be surprised Tatar, to find myself agreeing with you on the topic of CEO's in my next post. It seems perhaps that the compensation you and I were speaking about were vastly different, with me imagining tens of millions. Hence my view that this compensation could not be justified merely by a job being more difficult and demanding.

Basically, I thought the usual number was something that maybe it isn't. Of course, my view would be completely dependent on the number. Divide that number by 50 and the situation is obviously completely different. :P

''Duration of unemployment shows how quickly people get back to being employed''

But not for how long. Said duration could be any amount of time.

''The unemployment that really causes concern is the one that happens for other than the two reasons above.''

Any you contest that all of these people are lazy (who aren't injured or anything, ie: able-bodied) and not looking for work, as (according to you), looking for work means you will surely find it?

Well from the numbers it would seem that the average tenure at average for the given values and treating 10+ as 10 (unfair I suppose) then that is an average of 4.8 years.

That still doesn't say too much (good or bad in Canada's situation?). Shouldn't we also consider the probability of re-employment after a contract ends and in the event of re-employment for how long the average re-employment contract is?.

''Ok to back up your proportional growth of salaries to the proportion of business size you need numbers to show that and in which proportion they grow versus the work load.''

Well, I don't need numbers to convince you that there exist super rich businessmen right? The justification of the pay checks that was proposed was the workload right (for CEO's at least). For this justification to work for these businessmen, their workload or ability must have increased to unfathomable amounts. Let us look at Chris Gardner, an arbitrarily chosen CEO. His net worth is 65 million dollars. Let us then look at the CEO's of small businesses, who are also often the owners. Comparing the workload in maintaining the businesses and the ability of those involved (looking purely at the CEO/managerial function), it cannot be said that the ability or workload of this man is thousands of times that of the small business owner... and all that is without even considering YOU'RE argument that the owner also takes risk in gaining his profit. In other words, the risk involved should mean that even if Gardner is a thousand times better, that he should earn less than a small business owner (look at one with medium success and ability who therefore maintains a small business throughout his life which though yielding a profit to satisfy the risk and provide supposedly deserved reward remains a business that gives the man no more than 1 hundreth of the CEO's non investment based pay) who manages to make good on his risk (therefore earning more than is justified by his labor and ability and by you're argument deserving it but still earning less than Gardner who DOES not take the risk [speaking about the money he makes WITHOUT investing or doing something similar when making this comparison])

So by risk, labor, and ability it is clear that Chris's pay cannot be justified .

Well, it is important to the correctness of this that Chris earns a sizeable amount just for being CEO (ie: without taking risks associated with being an owner). However, it shouldn't be so hard to find a CEO that fits that bill if he does not (his pay for being CEO is at least a hundred times larger than that earned by a small business owner, thus being too high to be justified by workload or ability).

Incentive may be required (though that is not an issue for those who run their own companies) but where do we draw the line.

By the way, if there is truly risk involved, then how is luck not a factor? If somebody buys ten thousand identical small business's each with chances of earning money, earning nothing, or even losing money being as such that they are on average worth their risk, their is virtually no risk involved due to how things average it. So that for example is not really risk, in case you use that as an example. Seeing some way to manipulate things to avoid risk does not make somebody so great that they automatically deserve (insert large number here)$. If there is true risk then it is a matter of luck. If there isn't really risk, even if that is due to market ability, then the risk argument cannot be applied and if sufficiently large profit is gained it cannot be justified by ability or workload alone. Just for the record, I don't view some guy with business savvy as having superior ability than a scientist and I doubt that his workload is higher.

''With scientists we have often somebody taking on the risk for them to develop their ideas in the end and to see them work so therefore they get paid less on the contrary if they did the development of their ideas into product themselves. Consider Bill Gates and his friends who developed their idea themselves rather than work for some company and let it assume the risk for developing the idea.''

I was not saying that scientists deserve to be paid as much as super rich business owners. I was saying that no one deserves to be paid that much based on the difference that would exist if they did not exist, as that argument leads to absurdity (it is impossible to pay most people what they deserve) and is just generally absurd. However, I note that you didn't actually make that argument (it was kind of in advance or maybe it would be better to say it was my own avenue that I was personally exploring)...

We must differentiate between scientists whose work dwells in the abstract and those whose work has obvious business potential. Looking at Guass, his matrices at the time seemed pointless (and what he was paid for other works is not relevant here), but later on they proved to be of immense importance. The point is that there is research that is of no interest to companies but is of great interest to man kind and perhaps to future companies. Ie: it is not about others taking on the risk for the scientists, it is about nobody taking on the risk at all because do not see how they (the risk taker) can directly profit from their work. I suppose if they could patent their theories... but that would of course be... ''patently'' ridiculous (cue: groans of pain). ;D

Bill Gates did not earn the vast majority of his fortune from his own ideas. Maybe his initial ideas gave him good starting capital, after that he was the same as any businessman.

In the case of the canal monopolies, people had to wait till the next century for the railroads to end them... which resulted in another monopoly. Mankind cannot not conveniently come up with the technology to end a monopoly, and so they often persist for decades.

Monopolies can persist for a long time and depending on their nature they can be troublesome. For example if you own all the canals and all rivers that could support a canal and trade (or whatever) then you can simply not sell them and charge what you please. Monopolies of different natures (eg: where other competitors can enter) may act more like a normal company (I don't know if that is true or not and don't know enough to even guess)

''Luck is not a factor here it is the skill''. If luck is not a factor then risk is not a factor. If skill and workload are the only factors then the reward cannot be justified.

Either the statement in quotes is false (clearly you are speaking about using business skills such that luck is no longer an issue) or the reward is unjustified. ie: the statement in qoutes and the statement that the reward is justified cannot be simultaneously true.

''Yes there are those reasons but usually they take a back seat to financial security. Most of the wealthy turn philantropists later in their life when they "made it"''

You seem to be suggesting that if people had financial security in the first place they would be motivated to further action by these reasons. However, there is a difference between financial security and being rich enough to have anything you might want. Not sure which one you mean, but there are examples of non rich people everywhere doing things that will not give them money. Many just want to keep on doing their thing and many want to help others. Yes, they are getting paid something, but there are more profitable avenues open to them which they do not take.

There is nothing special about the motive of monetary profit. There are many other selfish motives which do not involve and cannot always  be indirectly achieved via profit and/or often have many ways of being achieved other than profit. Someone seeking entertainment (for example) CAN obtain it through money but can also obtain it by choosing the right job or action. Many clearly choose the latter.

[Edric O]

Hmm, people are replying too quickly for me to keep up. I have a bunch of older posts I really want to reply to, but for now I'll just answer this one:

Working smarter is even more important than working harder. A manual laborer may work harder physically than a CEO of a major corporation, but he

[Dante]

A collection of thoughts:

(because I find edited posts that reply to posts that came after them too much of a hassle to bother with)

So I heard not so long ago that capitalism will never reach 0% unemployment. Assuming my sources are to be trusted (;)), this means that capitalists face a rather interesting dilemma. They are supporting a system whereby someone, somewhere, will always be unemployed. Not through any fault of their own, but just because someone has to be.

Now, those that were able to procure "a legal means to make ludicrous scads of money" will claim that the unemployed was (lets assume singular. We can call him Kevin) simply too lazy, unambitious or inept to get a job. If Kevin had been able to play the game better, he'd have taken the last job and booted some other poor bastard out onto the street. In which case that sorry fellow would be the inept one. Competition! Not everyone can win. Even those with good ideas can't always win, because there will always be someone better.

Anyway. The dilemma that I refered to is this: the capitalist must then attempt to justify how personal gain trumps collective benefit. In other words, they must answer the question "why should I be part of the 'haves' and above the 'have nots' when it is within my power to make everyone part of the 'haves'?"

Or, to quote one of my favourite phrases:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith.

The capitalist (yes, I know that conservatism and capitalism are not always the same thing. It's a reference) may reply "well, I was able to play the game. Winning at the game justifies my position at the top of the game." Even putting aside the tautology that Edric pointed out, this has still not provided a reason for individual gain being more important than collective good.

I believe, and I think a lot of people do but phrase it more prettily, that conservatives and capitalists alike are essentially selfish. They dress it up by saying that the poor/unemployed/destitute deserve their position at the bottom rung of the ladder through their own incompetance, laziness or poor foresight, but what they really mean is "I don't want to share." They don't believe their own arguments, they just want. The only way to escape the hypocracy is to honestly declare "my interests are more important than yours. It's selfish and I don't care." It's not nice, but at least it's true.

"Greed is good!" As the man said.

Which brings me neatly on to the second point: how this is relevent to the current situation.

It's currently in vogue to be blaming people. The world blames the USA, the USA blames the banks, the banks blame the US government, which blames both itself and the banks. That's the immediate crisis. But I've heard it argued that the problem started far earlier.

It started in the 80's, when Margaret Thatcher and her ilk spread a system of capitalism that is still running today under 'New Labour.' She was the British incarnation. There were others in other countries, including the US of course.

And they said such nice things. Everyone can own their own house, payment can come later, mortgages are good things...

And a few people shook their heads and said it will all end in tears.

I wasn't one of them, I missed most of the 80's by dint of being born in 1987. But I know people who were, and their argument seems compelling. What we are witnessing now is a hiccup in a system that simply cannot support itself. Once the small bricks at the bottom fall out, the great big ones at the top find their position precarious all of a sudden. Then they fall, taking the rest of the plutocracy with them...

Or so they say.

[Anathema]

That argument might hold some water if you could show me an industrial society where the standards of living for everyone have NOT increased so much these last two centuries. But you can't. Standards of living have increased dramatically in each and every industrial society, regardless of the economic system, the incentive structure, or the existence of competition.

The only places where average standards of living have not increased are the societies that remain based on agriculture. I therefore conclude that the rise in living standards is due to the introduction of industry, not incentives or competition.

You can't give capitalism credit for doing what every other industrial economic system is equally capable of doing.

What other industrial systems are we talking about? Besides certain regimes of wich you've always maintained that they're not really socialist?  ;)

Ah' date=' so there's nothing wrong with a system which creates stupidly rich people who waste money so long the money they waste is money given to them by the system, because making a few people stupidly rich is an inherent part of the system.

(For the record, no, I don't agree with your views that competition and incentivisation are the necessary to increase standards of living, nor that the business acumen as rewarded by the market has much to do in practice with real wealth production).[/quote']

Because there's a (relatively) free playing field with a large amount of agents on not just the demand, but also on the supply side capitalism is the most suitable way to achieve a good allocation of recources -and by extention, welfare- something wich no planned economy can achieve.

Using Edric's wording, because capitalism's rulebook works out the best for the whole of society, those who are most effective in playing by the rules deserve what they get according to the rules.

[Edric O]

What other industrial systems are we talking about? Besides certain regimes of wich you've always maintained that they're not really socialist?  ;)

Well, yes, I was thinking mainly of those systems - the Soviet-style or stalinist systems. They were not socialist, but they were certainly not capitalist either. And I was also thinking of the various different types of capitalism, some of which are closer to socialism than others.

You are correct that the vast majority of industrial societies have been capitalist, but that only weakens your argument: If so few alternatives to capitalism have been tried, and if they've been tried so rarely, how do you know capitalism is the best system? You don't have a lot to compare it with.

Because there's a (relatively) free playing field with a large amount of agents on not just the demand, but also on the supply side capitalism is the most suitable way to achieve a good allocation of recources -and by extention, welfare- something wich no planned economy can achieve.

Using Edric's wording, because capitalism's rulebook works out the best for the whole of society, those who are most effective in playing by the rules deserve what they get according to the rules.

I don't agree that capitalism achieves a good allocation of resources, or that it "works out the best for the whole of society," or anything of that sort. What arguments do you use to support those claims? (if they're based on neoclassical economic theory, it's very likely I've heard them before ;) )

[Anathema]

The industrialisation of the Soviet Union started out with 5 year plans backed by stalinist management ethics, and got a further boost when WW2 made it absolutely necessary. Unless a real socialist state would follow his example or count on warfare to spur the economy, I don't think it should count.

I think that capitalism is, to a high degree, self selecting. Both China and Vietnam for example have implemented market economics in the light of their increasingly failing command economies. For the Soviet Union, perestroika was too little and too late.

I don't agree that capitalism achieves a good allocation of resources' date=' or that it "works out the best for the whole of society," or anything of that sort. What arguments do you use to support those claims? (if they're based on neoclassical economic theory, it's very likely I've heard them before Wink )[/quote']

Many people don't think it's fair that people get rich for "merely" setting up an operating business, but this happens to be a fundamental characteristic of the system, the system wich has raised the standards of living for all classes of western society. It may be possible to achieve true income parity in a command economy, but the wealth of each and every citizen will be (signifantly) less than that of the average person in a market economy.

I'm a little rusty on economic theory, but it largely goes back on "perfect competition" ruthlessly weeding out those producers who don't give enough bang for their buck. Perfect competition is of course unachievable in practice, and one of several reasons why laissez-faire doesn't work.

[Edric O]

The industrialisation of the Soviet Union started out with 5 year plans backed by stalinist management ethics, and got a further boost when WW2 made it absolutely necessary. Unless a real socialist state would follow his example or count on warfare to spur the economy, I don't think it should count.

My argument was that non-capitalist economies can achieve growth just as well, if not better, than capitalist economies. I wasn't talking about socialism in particular, but rather non-capitalist economies in general. Maybe you don't think the Soviet example should count, but then we don't have ANY past examples of non-capitalist economies to compare capitalism with, so we can't say that capitalism is better or worse than anything.

The Soviet example isn't all about Stalin's industrialization drive in the 30s, though. The USSR and other countries following its model also maintained high growth rates in the 50s and 60s, and decent growth rates in the 70s.

Also, don't forget that WW2 utterly obliterated a lot of infrastructure and industry in the Soviet Union. The war was an economic boost for countries like the United States because they never had to fight on their own soil, but for the Soviet Union it was a catastrophe.

The point is: You want to use historical evidence to show that capitalism is the best economic system, but the historical evidence is inconclusive. Only one non-capitalist system - out of many possible ones - was ever tried on a large scale, and that system was better than capitalism in certain ways and worse than capitalism in other ways.

I think that capitalism is, to a high degree, self selecting. Both China and Vietnam for example have implemented market economics in the light of their increasingly failing command economies. For the Soviet Union, perestroika was too little and too late.

You should know better than to talk as if the governments of China and Vietnam made their economic decisions with the welfare of the people in mind. Their command economies weren't failing - they had sluggish growth, which isn't "failing" by any definition of the term. What happened was simply that the ruling elite decided a market economy would better serve its own interests (which is true), so they moved towards a market economy. The welfare of the people, or "the economy" in general, had nothing to do with it.

As for the economy of the Soviet Union, it also had very sluggish growth in the 80s, until perestroika came along - at which point it took a nosedive, crashed and burned. Given that perestroika destabilized the Soviet economy and caused it to collapse, I'd say it was far too much as it was. Or rather, it was simply bad, stupid, disastrous policy.

Many people don't think it's fair that people get rich for "merely" setting up an operating business, but this happens to be a fundamental characteristic of the system, the system wich has raised the standards of living for all classes of western society.

Except that it's possible to raise the standards of living "for all classes" just as much using other systems.

It may be possible to achieve true income parity in a command economy, but the wealth of each and every citizen will be (signifantly) less than that of the average person in a market economy.

Why?

I'm a little rusty on economic theory, but it largely goes back on "perfect competition" ruthlessly weeding out those producers who don't give enough bang for their buck. Perfect competition is of course unachievable in practice, and one of several reasons why laissez-faire doesn't work.

Wait, did you just say that capitalism is the best system in practice because of something that never really happens in practice? :P

[Anathema]

My argument was that non-capitalist economies can achieve growth just as well, if not better, than capitalist economies. I wasn't talking about socialism in particular, but rather non-capitalist economies in general. Maybe you don't think the Soviet example should count, but then we don't have ANY past examples of non-capitalist economies to compare capitalism with, so we can't say that capitalism is better or worse than anything.

I think I covered that with the self-selection comment. When things get bad, you switch over before the catastrophe becomes all-encompassing. If total failure is averted, we can still draw conclusions about the old system.

The Soviet example isn't all about Stalin's industrialization drive in the 30s' date=' though. The USSR and other countries following its model also maintained high growth rates in the 50s and 60s, and decent growth rates in the 70s.[/quote']

I recall that the agricultural sector did very badly in that period. Regardless, a broken system can function for a while with visible defects only appearing later.

Also' date=' don't forget that WW2 utterly obliterated a lot of infrastructure and industry in the Soviet Union. The war was an economic boost for countries like the United States because they never had to fight on their own soil, but for the Soviet Union it was a catastrophe.[/quote']

Yes and no. Initially it was disastrous. Stalin decided to pack up the industries in the more western areas and move production behind the caucasus, wich initially meant that war production dwindled but afterwards increased immensely. Eventually they'd overtake the German war machine in industrial output (allied bombing campaigns also had something to do with this), and after the war they seized a lot of machinery from east Germany as spoils of war. The immense loss of life was disastrous, of course.

You should know better than to talk as if the governments of China and Vietnam made their economic decisions with the welfare of the people in mind. Their command economies weren't failing - they had sluggish growth' date=' which isn't "failing" by any definition of the term. What happened was simply that the ruling elite decided a market economy would better serve its own interests (which is true), so they moved towards a market economy. The welfare of the people, or "the economy" in general, had nothing to do with it.[/color']

I have to admit I don't know much about Vietnam. But the Soviet aparatchiks proved that even while the rest of the country is hurting, they usually can manage well enough for themselves.

As for sluggish growth not equating failure; it shows their failure to compete with market economies. And the whole point was that command economies can never provide citizens with as much welfare as market economies.

As for the economy of the Soviet Union' date=' it also had very sluggish growth in the 80s, until perestroika came along - at which point it took a nosedive, crashed and burned. Given that perestroika destabilized the Soviet economy and caused it to collapse, I'd say it was far too much as it was. Or rather, it was simply bad, stupid, disastrous policy.[/quote']

I suspect that the little growth of the economy in the '80ties had much to do with increasing military spending to keep pace with the US. The Soviet military industrial complex was efficient and enduring enough until the collapse, but the rest of the economy was in an atrocious state. On the other hand, the black market was positively huge even before Gorbachov took office. I wouldn't blame the disintegration on perestroika at all.

Wait' date=' did you just say that capitalism is the best system in practice because of something that never really happens in practice?[/color'] :P

Perfect competition is an archetype, and archetypes are never fully realised in practice. It may never be achieved in its totallity, but measures can be taken to approximate it, ie anti-trust legislation.

[Andrew]

WTF. I just head that minimum wage went up to $8.50 in my province on January 1st. Outrageously high.

It was $7.75 in April 30, 2008.

$10 an hour by 2010 is what the gov wants.

So in less than a year it went up 9.6%.

Jeez I guess I should charge 10% more for my services.

And what's more retarded is that food services people in restaurants making tips are essentially making $15 per hour no education required. And yet you still hear them complaining that they can't afford a living wage off of it.

I remember minimum wage being at $4. This is bad news for inflation.

Lets take a business that has 10 full time min wage employees.

Before and after the recent min wage increase:

10 employees * $7.75/hour *40hours/week *50 weeks per year = $155,000

Now with $8.50 min wage

10 employees * $8.50/hour *40hours/week *50 weeks per year = $170,000

In one year business now has $15,000 more in labour expenses (9.7% increase). Basically the same amount as they were formerly paying each employee each year. So maybe this now means they can't hire another person.

So how will business deal with this?

Increase prices? Attempt to sell more volume?

How about decreasing other non wage related expenses?

Or maybe they will fire someone, or make someone part time. Are these workers doing 10% more work now to make up for wage differences? Are they making the business more money?

I'm looking at this from a business owner perspective that does not want government interference, and want the market to dictate what a worker is worth.

And yah, I've been skipping the long posts. At least it's not just me posting links to news briefs now :D

EDIT:

Turns out the news program falsely reported min wage increases. They have not increased.

[Tatar Khan]

''Duration of unemployment shows how quickly people get back to being employed''

But not for how long. Said duration could be any amount of time.

Well you said that the average is at least 4 years

''The unemployment that really causes concern is the one that happens for other than the two reasons above.''

Any you contest that all of these people are lazy (who aren't injured or anything, ie: able-bodied) and not looking for work, as (according to you), looking for work means you will surely find it?

And out of them that actively look for work find int in abut 4 months as according to average statistic.

That still doesn't say too much (good or bad in Canada's situation?). Shouldn't we also consider the probability of re-employment after a contract ends and in the event of re-employment for how long the average re-employment contract is?.

Your number of 4.8 years is based on data that doesn't differ between the if person if first time employed or re-employed.

Well, I don't need numbers to convince you that there exist super rich businessmen right? The justification of the pay checks that was proposed was the workload right (for CEO's at least). For this justification to work for these businessmen, their workload or ability must have increased to unfathomable amounts. Let us look at Chris Gardner, an arbitrarily chosen CEO. His net worth is 65 million dollars. Let us then look at the CEO's of small businesses, who are also often the owners. Comparing the workload in maintaining the businesses and the ability of those involved (looking purely at the CEO/managerial function), it cannot be said that the ability or workload of this man is thousands of times that of the small business owner... and all that is without even considering YOU'RE argument that the owner also takes risk in gaining his profit. In other words, the risk involved should mean that even if Gardner is a thousand times better, that he should earn less than a small business owner (look at one with medium success and ability who therefore maintains a small business throughout his life which though yielding a profit to satisfy the risk and provide supposedly deserved reward remains a business that gives the man no more than 1 hundreth of the CEO's non investment based pay) who manages to make good on his risk (therefore earning more than is justified by his labor and ability and by you're argument deserving it but still earning less than Gardner who DOES not take the risk [speaking about the money he makes WITHOUT investing or doing something similar when making this comparison])

Chris Gardner still owns his own company. His net worth is not his salary. Finally the small business CEO will see his compensation be based on his risk aversion and cost of capital as appropriate. Running a small company that has one production facility is not easier than running a company stretched out across the continents.

By the way, if there is truly risk involved, then how is luck not a factor? If somebody buys ten thousand identical small business's each with chances of earning money, earning nothing, or even losing money being as such that they are on average worth their risk, their is virtually no risk involved due to how things average it. So that for example is not really risk, in case you use that as an example. Seeing some way to manipulate things to avoid risk does not make somebody so great that they automatically deserve (insert large number here)$.

Answer is in my profit thread.

We must differentiate between scientists whose work dwells in the abstract and those whose work has obvious business potential. Looking at Guass, his matrices at the time seemed pointless (and what he was paid for other works is not relevant here), but later on they proved to be of immense importance. The point is that there is research that is of no interest to companies but is of great interest to man kind and perhaps to future companies. Ie: it is not about others taking on the risk for the scientists, it is about nobody taking on the risk at all because do not see how they (the risk taker) can directly profit from their work. I suppose if they could patent their theories... but that would of course be... ''patently'' ridiculous (cue: groans of pain). ;D

That is the reason the Universities were created where the professors are paid to explore their theories that become public domain most of the time. At the same time it is also possible to point out that Guass lacked the selling skills to sell his idea. And by selling I mean not cash sale but rather get people interested in buying the end product or to invest in production of it.

In the case of the canal monopolies, people had to wait till the next century for the railroads to end them... which resulted in another monopoly. Mankind cannot not conveniently come up with the technology to end a monopoly, and so they often persist for decades.

True bt the reward gets so much higher and causes more people to be willing to try to get in on it. In case of another monopolies Kodak at one point had almost completely virtual monopoly *more than 80% of the market) in North American for its film. It took Fuji 3 tries to break that monopoly and effectively compete.

''Luck is not a factor here it is the skill''. If luck is not a factor then risk is not a factor. If skill and workload are the only factors then the reward cannot be justified.

One can not account for luck as something one has or not. Outside factors of the control is what adds results in the risk. However ability to be ready for the these factors is the skill, and not too many posses that ability.

''Yes there are those reasons but usually they take a back seat to financial security. Most of the wealthy turn philantropists later in their life when they "made it"''

You seem to be suggesting that if people had financial security in the first place they would be motivated to further action by these reasons. However, there is a difference between financial security and being rich enough to have anything you might want. Not sure which one you mean, but there are examples of non rich people everywhere doing things that will not give them money. Many just want to keep on doing their thing and many want to help others. Yes, they are getting paid something, but there are more profitable avenues open to them which they do not take.

There is occasional mother Theressa out there, who survive through contributions of those financially secure to their cause. But usually for the people financial security comes first which could have different meaning to each person. Abromovich (Russian billionaire) I am sure defines it in terms of having money that will allow him to escape Russia in case government turns on him.

There is nothing special about the motive of monetary profit. There are many other selfish motives which do not involve and cannot always  be indirectly achieved via profit and/or often have many ways of being achieved other than profit. Someone seeking entertainment (for example) CAN obtain it through money but can also obtain it by choosing the right job or action. Many clearly choose the latter.

I would argue that anything we do is a selfish act because we do things to avoid pain and cause happiness for ourselves, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Or, more likely, something that no one else had the startup capital to do for themselves. Most capitalists are not inventors. They are rich people who fund inventors and reap the profits from their inventions.

Or it is possible to say that the inventor lacked the skills to acquire funding for his invention.

A collection of thoughts:

So I heard not so long ago that capitalism will never reach 0% unemployment. Assuming my sources are to be trusted (;)), this means that capitalists face a rather interesting dilemma. They are supporting a system whereby someone, somewhere, will always be unemployed. Not through any fault of their own, but just because someone has to be.

Now, those that were able to procure "a legal means to make ludicrous scads of money" will claim that the unemployed was (lets assume singular. We can call him Kevin) simply too lazy, unambitious or inept to get a job. If Kevin had been able to play the game better, he'd have taken the last job and booted some other poor bastard out onto the street. In which case that sorry fellow would be the inept one. Competition! Not everyone can win. Even those with good ideas can't always win, because there will always be someone better.

Anyway. The dilemma that I refered to is this: the capitalist must then attempt to justify how personal gain trumps collective benefit. In other words, they must answer the question "why should I be part of the 'haves' and above the 'have nots' when it is within my power to make everyone part of the 'haves'?"

It is not the goal of capitalism to have 0% unemployment. Since unemployment could happen due to failing of unsuccessful business, due to the fact that people willingly leave their jobs to search for the new ones that are better than they had before, and due to the fact that their skills are obsolete and the need to retrain. The last two reasons are productive as they lead to improvement of the personal situation and so the governments and capitalism do not concern themselves with those unemployed (actually often governments have special retraining programs and money that they provide for such situations). The concern is the ones who became unemployed due to the failure of the company. They actively look for new position or retrain themselves for positions that are in higher demand. The last action again improves the situation, the other action  as I pointed out before usually ends up with the finding of work. So again no poor people who get displaced from their work constantly.

Or, to quote one of my favourite phrases:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

John Kenneth Galbraith.

"my interests are more important than yours. It's selfish and I don't care." It's not nice, but at least it's true.

Capitalism does not try to assign the higher moral definition to the selfishness. Adam Smith when he was was writing "On Wealth of Nations" was not proclaiming high morality of selfishness he was just pointing out that out of selfish actions of everyone a system arises that gets things done.

Which brings me neatly on to the second point: how this is relevent to the current situation.

It's currently in vogue to be blaming people. The world blames the USA, the USA blames the banks, the banks blame the US government, which blames both itself and the banks. That's the immediate crisis. But I've heard it argued that the problem started far earlier.

It started in the 80's, when Margaret Thatcher and her ilk spread a system of capitalism that is still running today under 'New Labour.' She was the British incarnation. There were others in other countries, including the US of course.

And they said such nice things. Everyone can own their own house, payment can come later, mortgages are good things...

And a few people shook their heads and said it will all end in tears.

I wasn't one of them, I missed most of the 80's by dint of being born in 1987. But I know people who were, and their argument seems compelling. What we are witnessing now is a hiccup in a system that simply cannot support itself. Once the small bricks at the bottom fall out, the great big ones at the top find their position precarious all of a sudden. Then they fall, taking the rest of the plutocracy with them...

Or so they say.

What you referring to is shift from Keynesian economics to neo-classical economics. Keynesian economics came about during 1930s when, classical economics failed. However, back than classical economist were shacking their heads and saying that Keynesian economics will cause problems and everything will go down the drain. Around comes 1970s and that happens and Keynesian economics got switched to neo-classical. The problem is that the economic science is not exact science as it deals with the uncertain element of human beings who behave not in completely rational behavior as economists like them to. Since mid 1990s both economic schools of thought have been utilised and been taught in universities (in contrast to the previous years when each university was either Keynesian or neo-classical.

[Dante]

It is not the goal of capitalism to have 0% unemployment.

And it's still the best system for everyone?

Capitalism does not try to assign the higher moral definition to the selfishness. Adam Smith when he was was writing "On Wealth of Nations" was not proclaiming high morality of selfishness he was just pointing out that out of selfish actions of everyone a system arises that gets things done.

Gets what done, exactly?

What you referring to is shift from Keynesian economics to neo-classical economics. Keynesian economics came about during 1930s when, classical economics failed. However, back than classical economist were shacking their heads and saying that Keynesian economics will cause problems and everything will go down the drain. Around comes 1970s and that happens and Keynesian economics got switched to neo-classical. The problem is that the economic science is not exact science as it deals with the uncertain element of human beings who behave not in completely rational behavior as economists like them to. Since mid 1990s both economic schools of thought have been utilised and been taught in universities (in contrast to the previous years when each university was either Keynesian or neo-classical.

So... what's your point?

Yeah, I'm skipping the longer parts. Economic theory bores me.

[Sneakgab]

For now I only have time for this short reply.

''Guass lacked the selling skills to sell his idea''

Any by virtue of that businessmen (whose business' often could not exist without his ideas) deserve many times more than him?

Btw, you cannot sell a scientific theory. You cannot sell Pascals law, Bernoullis principles or Newtons laws of motion (with the latter most being the most absurd notion). Not all ideas can be sold and lead directly to profit but that does not mean they hold no value.

If everybody deserves what they get in capitalism, then the captains of industry often deserve many times what even famous pure theoreticians (ie: people who do not ''invent'' physical things. their work is purely abstract) get (at most such a theoretician may receive some fiscal prize, but his net worth will still never be even comparable to the multi-billionaires [who include the likes of Oprah, making the notion more absurd]). Obviously that notion is absurd.

Now, of course I know these people are payed for their research... maybe what they deserve. That is not the point, the point is that there are others who get receive hundreds or even thousands of times more without (obviously) being hundreds or thousands of times better. Unless of course you rate business skills most unreasonably highly (even when assuming business is completely fair despite huge differences in capital btw starters and existing giants).

The closest thing to ''selling theories'' would be somehow working on theories that are expected to be of use to a company (of course, predicting the use is practically impossible before starting at least.) who therefore invests in the researcher (who will receive less pay in the end than the company so as to allow profit. In this capitalist system the company may be taking a risk but the reality is that in many cases the benefit of the research [to mankind] compared to it's costs is such that it would obviously be worth it and therefore more efficient to pursue but unfortunately is not pursued because it may not be worth it to a particular company

However, some (well, all really.) theoretical work is far too generalistic and too abstract to predict it's usefulness to a particular company (even though it's is virtually guaranteed that it will be useful to mankind). The practice of not performing this work would have horrendous consequences... ones which could not even be fully predicted.

Fortunately, the work is carried out anyway.

Btw, patronages in the fuedal days were given not by companies expecting to gain a profit from them (which such occurences you may otherwise have used to evidence that their usefullness to a company can be predicted [even though maybe these companies if they existed just THOUGHT they could predict it's usefulness] sufficiently to make their investment worthwhile [to companies].

They were made mostly by lords seeking further respect and fame by doing this and by being associated with them.

Other than that there are charities that donate to research and government which pays for it. I don't think I've ever heard of a company investing in THEORETICAL (not inventing something) research and if they did so it would be a complete gamble (with it's use being worth it to mankind but perhaps not to the company) from which profit would be due to luck.

[chatfsh]

Define "smarter." How do you know who is working "smarter," and how much smarter they are working? It sounds to me like you're using wealth as proof of "working smarter," which is circular reasoning. You're basically saying that rich people deserve more money because they get more money, and they get more money because they deserve more money.

Person A goofs off in school making mediocre grades, maybe has a child or two by early twenties and now has to support a family, so finds a job at the local factory making a little over minimum wage.  He is industrious, working very hard to support his family, but they are just barely making ends meet on his wages.  As a result, he takes on a second job to provide for his family in an adequate manner.  The family hardly ever sees him because he

[Sneakgab]

''Even if this is the case, rich people should still be rewarded for recognizing a good invention when they see one''

More than the inventor or workers who actually produce the invention? You must be joking.

''Recognizing a good invention when they see one''? Maybe we should reward them with millions of dollars for wiping their own @$$e$ as well?

Btw, when you speak of recognizing a good invention you actually mean recognizing an invention which is good FOR giving them even more money that they can't think of doing anything.

''Not every venture will succeed and if the rich continuously make foolish investments, they will soon be parted from their capital.''

Probably not before they stop making foolish investments and pay stock brokers and investors to do it for them, thus eliminating even that justification for the wealth received from these investments... oh I guess they should be rewarded for the good sense of getting somebody else to take over that task for them though. (probably even more so than the person doing the task as can often be seen with US CEO's [and other managerial staff. Well, I don't actually know the pay's and income though so I can't really say for sure...] and owners...)

And by the way you seem to be equating ''sheeple'' to not being motivated into action through the shallow, COMMON traits or wanting more money and wanting to be better than others. Sheep are generally considered to be people who unthinkingly follow others. But if anything, having non-common traits wouldn't be associated with sheep (it is basically irrelevant in the association)

Those who are simply satisfied with their lives and have the wisdom to step back, forgo these shallow motives and enjoy their lives (when they can) or help others are more unsheeplike than most. Selfish or otherwise they pursue their own goals (happiness) instead of ravenously pursuing money and glory because that is the COMMON idea of the pursuit of happiness and like. Some can only be happy with money or glory, but there is nothing special about those motives they are just another 2 selfish motives in the list of many. They are pursued disproportionately (even when people are so rich that they have no further use of money) by people due to most people being much more sheep-like in letting others set their goals and following the commonly spouted and praised goal. Ie: they have let others think for them.

Of course, there are those who would seek glory and/or wealth anyway. There is no sense in labeling somebody as a sheep for their motives but there is probably some sense in labeling people as sheep for so rarely engaging in the activity of thinking for themselves that they let others set their goals for them.

Most certainly, those who do have other goals other than the mainstream should at least be labeled sheep for not sharing those goals.

Peh, ''the joy of knowing you did it better than your peers''? That is even more sheepish than the monetary motive. What difference does it make to you're happiness whether you're performance was superior or not? The only reason for a relatively arbitrary motive to be so commonplace is because people don't realize that ultimately they should pursue happiness for themselves  or others (basically).

So in other words I think that even people who just want money are less sheep like than people who want to be the greatest pokemon trainer of them all. As a matter of fact, selfish, greedy @$$holes are downright cool*, wise and deep (not to mention less sheep like) compared to such fools. Even the ones for whom money can no longer increase their happiness (without status boost which these particular greedy people don't care about ), but the ones who seek money not for it's own sake but for their own personal pleasure are even (far) cooler, wiser, deeper, and less sheeplike for realizing that a far more ''utlimate'' (in the sense of the ''end analysis'', ''ultimately) goal is the pursuit of whatever makes you happy.

Unless what makes you happy is something as random as having cash you have no use for, all these things can be pursued in socialism. Edric O mentioned some number about max inequality but there is no reason socialism need be constrained to these values. Instead of 4 times we can make it 10 times and we will still have a far less wasteful society than capitalism.

''Ok, I

[Dante]

Ah, so personal self interest is more important than the collective good of everyone. Good to know.

Here is your badge of honour.

[chatfsh]

Not sure what anyone else is seeing when they click on 'badge of honor' but I got an error message.  Try again?

[Dante]

Ah well, far be it from me to let a convenient error stand in the way of a pithy visual point. I'll just replace the [url] code with [img], shall I?

Better?

[chatfsh]

Hmm

[Dante]

Dear me no. It's supposed to prokove a demonstration of how capitalists are essentially heartless, soulless husks concerned only with their own property and the aquisition of material wealth. :)

Thanks for playing along, do come back back again.

[chatfsh]

Holy batmobile!  How can you possibly blame capitalists for that?  I blame the travesty on the bleeding heart liberals for perpetuating a situation that should have been eliminated long ago.

Wouldn

[Dante]

Oh dear me, dear me. Even after I explained the point it remains misunderstood. Very well, I'll try again.

I wasn't apportioning blame for anything. The situation as depicted in that image could have been caused by war, bad luck, disease, a bad summer, or even a flash flood. Human activity certainly does play a part, but even if it didn't, that's not the point.

No, the point is that some people don't care.

"What's that, children are starving in the middle of a world obesity crisis? Pff, whatever. Now are you going to give me directions to the SUV sale or what?"

Oh, and was that comment about slaughtering huge numbers of people in Africa a joke? Because it was in remarkably poor taste.

[chatfsh]

If good taste were the criteria for posting here, a good deal of the posts made by other forum members wouldn

[Dante]

"It's ok if everyone else is doing it!"