Pain at the pump

@no1marauder said
It's a fantasy that Average Joe believes in. In reality, in capitalist societies the owners of capital have a permanent advantage that forces labor to accept an inferior bargain (though, of course, progressive reforms in the US and other capitalist countries somewhat mitigate that reality). I guess you didn't bother to read the Adam Smith quote, so I'll repeat it:

"" ...[text shortened]... m; but the necessity is not so immediate.” (Smith 1776, Book 1, Chapter 8 “Of the Wages of Labour“ )

Get marauder’s first sentence, from a man with a fantasy that everyone should be equal and no one should make any more money than the next guy.
He will tell you that he does not believe that, but he does. He will tell you that that is not true, and at the same time he is telling you that something should be done about people with all this money, …..guess what he wants to do with it.

@AverageJoe1 said
Get marauder’s first sentence, from a man with a fantasy that everyone should be equal and no one should make any more money than the next guy.
He will tell you that he does not believe that, but he does. He will tell you that that is not true, and at the same time he is telling you that something should be done about people with all this money, …..guess what he wants to do with it.

Geez, you admit you're claiming something I never said and don't believe.

Your debating style is based on such obvious dishonesty.

@AverageJoe1 said
Hey….

You are redefining “private property” so narrowly that virtually every productive civilization in history suddenly becomes “anti-property.” That is not how economists, historians, or ordinary people use the term.
And you can ‘rename’ property with possession if you want, but civilization itself has always depended on stable ownership rights. It is crazy that ...[text shortened]... more than someone who does not work as hard as they do ……and you will never deal with that question

This is a waste of time; you keep over and over and over claiming I said things I didn't and believe things I don't. You are either incredibly dishonest, incredibly stupid or both.

You think Nazi Germany had "strong and stable property rights"? LMAO!

Interestingly, most industrial workers in the Soviet Union were paid by "piece work" meaning those who "worked harder" got paid more:

"The system of payment by result, the all-round application of piece-work made rapid progress. In 1928, When the first Five Year-Plan was introduced, piecework accounted to 57.5 per cent., in 1932 it reached 63.7 per cent., in 1933 it grew to 70 per cent, And it was supplemented by a “progressive” bonus system."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/petroff/1938/soviet-wages.htm

In most of your "civilizations", human beings could be and were "private property". Tell me how much of the "fruits of their labor" they received.

@no1marauder said
Geez, you admit you're claiming something I never said and don't believe.

Your debating style is based on such obvious dishonesty.

Have you not said that there should be no distinctions between people when it becomes to their wealth.? that a perfect society would not have wealthy people living amongst people who are poor? I think that you have said that, but you realize that you want to respond back to you would have to tell us that you meant that there cannot be one person with one more dollar than someone else. If you do say that, then you need to tell us just how wide that divide between the two can be ….you may say a guy can have $100,000 more than someone else. But in my opinion, I think a guy can have $3 billion more than someone else.
So I have set the stage for you to explain yourself. What’s it gonna be?

@no1marauder said
This is a waste of time; you keep over and over and over claiming I said things I didn't and believe things I don't. You are either incredibly dishonest, incredibly stupid or both.

You think Nazi Germany had "strong and stable property rights"? LMAO!

Interestingly, most industrial workers in the Soviet Union were paid by "piece work" meaning those who "worked harder ...[text shortened]... could be and were "private property". Tell me how much of the "fruits of their labor" they received.

I have no choice but to point out something I just typed a few hours ago , that you did not respond to because I nailed you. Instead, you write this stuff about the Nazis and who did what, when in the end , Germany has prevailed , where the Soviets have not. You just wanted to go into the weeds. Very boring.
(Def prevailed: made Money!!!!!)

Here is what I wrote, and you glossed right over it. And my stuff is not boring funny; huh?

“ A man digging a ditch with his bare hands is laboring. A man operating a bulldozer is also laboring. The difference in productivity comes from capital, invention, organization, investment, technology, and entrepreneurship — all the things your argument keeps leaving out.

Wealth is created when human effort is combined with ideas, risk-taking, innovation, and coordination. Someone has to invent the bulldozer, finance the factory, organize the supply chains, risk bankruptcy, create the business model, and employ thousands of people before that labor becomes massively productive.

And philanthropy matters too. Much of the modern world — universities, hospitals, libraries, research foundations, museums — was funded not by socialist governments but by wealthy individuals created through capitalist systems.

Your argument reduces the economy to “workers vs owners,” but real economies are ecosystems of workers, inventors, managers, investors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and consumers all depending on one another. “

Yep, not a peep.

@AverageJoe1 said
Have you not said that there should be no distinctions between people when it becomes to their wealth.? that a perfect society would not have wealthy people living amongst people who are poor? I think that you have said that, but you realize that you want to respond back to you would have to tell us that you meant that there cannot be one person with one more dollar th ...[text shortened]... n more than someone else.
So I have set the stage for you to explain yourself. What’s it gonna be?

I never said any of that.

I'm fine with there being "wealthy" people so long as their wealth isn't obtained by enriching themselves by the labor of others.

@AverageJoe1 said
I have no choice but to point out something I just typed a few hours ago , that you did not respond to because I nailed you. Instead, you write this stuff about the Nazis and who did what, when in the end , Germany has prevailed , where the Soviets have not. You just wanted to go into the weeds. Very boring.
(Def prevailed: made Money!!!!!)

Here is what I wrote, and ...[text shortened]... vestors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and consumers all depending on one another. “

Yep, not a peep.

None of that requires capitalism or even private property.

Sorry I didn't state the obvious.

@no1marauder said
I never said any of that.

I'm fine with there being "wealthy" people so long as their wealth isn't obtained by enriching themselves by the labor of others.

Let's take a fresh look. We all agree that the Marx view is that if/when a worker 'creates value' , but an owner takes a large share of the profit simply because they own the company, then the owner is 'living off the labor of others." That is classic socialist criticism of capitalism.
That is stipulated, ...right? Marauder...you are treating labor as the only (meaningful) contributor to production. Listen to your limited take on things.
You ignore evertyhing required to create the business enterprise and keep it running. How can there be labor without these things? Tools, organization , risk. Tell me, if I invest in a book shop and hire a lady at $18 an hour to work there, am I morally suspect to you????? Am I ? A good question, Marauder. Where do you draw the line.....you DO have a line. Is she entitled to, or do I owe her, any more than the $18/hr.
This arrangement is voluntary, productive and beneficial to both sides. You have me back teaching econ 101!
C'mon, stay on this issue, a fresh start, mentioning Adam Smith (that I am too rusty on) is off subject.

{Owner: investment, organization, capital creation, innovation, management, buncha stuff.)

@no1marauder said
None of that requires capitalism or even private property.

Sorry I didn't state the obvious.

huh? I can go out and make a billion WITHOUT private property? Yeah, I guess I could, if I told an inventor an 'Idea' ( a non-tangible contribution) that I have to cure Aids forever. He takes the idea, I go play golf, and get a check of a billion dollars 3 months later.
THAT did not require capitalism or private property on my part, for sure. I guess it did go on, though.....just not in my little world on the golf course.
(This is a good primer on closing your posts).

@no1marauder said
I never said any of that.

I'm fine with there being "wealthy" people so long as their wealth isn't obtained by enriching themselves by the labor of others.

How do you think capitalism works? Laborers never get a fair share of the profits. The owner pockets most of the profits. What do you think motivates people to start their own business?

You sound just like Karl Marx when you write like that.