What Is Economic Fairness?

You keep stating that there's a large income gap. I've agreed on this point several times.

My contention is that extracting more tax revenue out of the rich one per cent has been done all while this income gap has widened. Therefore your solution, higher taxes for the top earners, is provably ineffective. There are some pretty obvious reasons for why that is, I'm wondering whether you know them.

 

Rubbish. Eighteen capitalist armies invaded a country where the working class was in a tiny minority and sabotaged everything so that the workers went back to the villages. The Party was in power but had no-one to represent but didn't feel as great need to have their families murdered by foreigners, so they turned into a new boss class, removing most of the socialists when Stalin repaced them with new careerist members with the same motivation as other capitalists

 

Well this is why I ask about dissent. This isn't a unique occurrence my friend. Anywhere in the world you try this stuff you WILL meet CONSIDERABLE resistance for obvious reasons. People don't want to give up their stuff.

Secondly -- are we suggesting that in the absence of capitalist opposition (this is a pie in the sky hypothetical but let's just say), Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, these guys would've done a bang up job? Or is it that once the party came to power unfortunately all the good guys were purged... had these good guys constituted the party, it's these ones which would've done a good job?

The question is really rhetorical. The answer rests on my first contention. Anyone who believes in the abolition of property has to have faith in some benevolent, incorruptible group of intellectuals who will be able to manage property/resource/labour effectively and equitably. This belief is unjustified given the track record of all directors of society.

 

So what it all boils down to is this.

Who rules.

Whoever rules will decide what fairness is. What the correct share out of the money should be. And what the best use of it is.
And it will benefit them most of all.

Those of us who contribute little have little stake in the current system.
If you promise us more, we may side with you.
If we are stupid.

But we aren't. We know you can't deliver and that the only people who will benefit are the new rulers at the expense of the old rulers.
Why bother dying in wars to achieve this?

Socialism = less fair capitalism.
The only people who want it are those who see it as a vehicle to their own increased power.

You will never rule here.


So socialism as a medium to revolution is a dead concept.
Why? because we have had time to counter it.
We have learnt it's methods.

Broken the monopolies on the means of production and embraced global trade as alternative sources for production, should any group be able to monopolise them locally.
Unionism no longer works as Marx described. The political arms race has moved on.

Marxism is a revolutionaries handbook. A guide for over throwing countries.
The problem for Marxists is, it's not just the Marxists who have read it.

You will not rule here.
Greater intellectuals already do.

 

The free market does mind you, given it guarantees market failure, is not an attractive proposition!

Faith in government is ironically capitalist in its nature. Given the tendency of capitalism to descend into crisis, government interventionism is key. Its much less important in other economic paradigms. For example, in market socialism (where we actually do protect property rights, rather than just play pretend as in 'free market capitalism') the role of government is actually reduced. Its typically there to protect investments according to social returns.

That isn't going to happen in capitalism. Rent seeking behaviour will ensure that co-operative, although more productive, are typically less profitable. Ironically that reflects a lack of protection of property rights (e.g. wage exploitation)

You haven't factored in the purpose of those hierarchies: divide and conquer. Given they aren't based on any notion of efficient division of labour, they're inefficient but create profit nonetheless.

 

Co-operatives can't happen but violent revolutions to establish the dictatorship of the prole...

Not saying this is your proposition but you can at least see that the former is imaginable whereas the latter really is dangerous fantasy.

I remember when I heard of this co-op wholefoods company in Yorkshire who made headlines because they paid the workers all the same salary and could afford a bonus of just under 5 grand for everyone at the end of the year: https://www.ft.com/content/3c59e65e-6bd4-11e3-85b1-00144feabdc0

So the model is there, and it is viable. It appears to me to be something entirely more doable and real but like I said it would require some work, some risk, and collective action. In theory there isn't any market you couldn't enter with enough people behind it, think crowd funding/micro finance etc etc.

The profitability comes from those who conscionably discern between co-op and non-co-op type organisations. Set up an agency whose symbol can be displayed on each product which all hemp wearing egalitarians can recognise and bobs your uncle.

Good luck and God speed!

 

All human co-operation is co-operative.
The methods in which we co-operate differ,

"worker co-operatives" are one method of workers co-operating. But by no means the only one. Eg. corporations. Eg. charities. Eg. contractors.
And by Darwinian standards not the most successful.
While still being able to be every bit as successful as any other method of working co-operation in principle and practice, in common actuality, they aren't.
It's a niche method.

Some people prefer it. Good for them. Carry on.
Each to their own. It takes all sorts to make a world.

If however I must co-operate in the way you prefer. It is to be an enforced system of co-operation and I am not to be free to follow my own preferred methods, I may just ignore your dictatorship.
In fact, I will do so. You will not rule here.

 

For worker ownership to become the norm, given the problem of rent seeking in capitalism, there needs to be protection of a key property right: value of labour. That doesn't need to come from violent revolution. It does need, however, compensation to non-SME current owners.

There will always be co-operatives in capitalism. Democracy in the company, for example, will improve on diffusion of knowledge (and can ensure greater levels of innovation). But they are exceptions as, in capitalism, success isn't determined purely by efficiency criteria. It is also dictated by economic rents.

Just actually protect property rights. Underpayment of workers is not protecting property rights. Using hierarchy to create 'opportunities' such as discriminatory labour practices is not protecting property rights.

 

This is the thing. Although there's no rule which says you can't pay everyone the same salary, and it is done as I've demonstrated, almost NOBODY does it.

Yet with the amount of people who say they're FOR equality you'd think at least a good number of businesses would operate that way. Surely there are a good number of business minded lefty egalitarians out there? The truth is that left to their own devices regardless of their purported virtues, people will take the opportunity to make more money for themselves over others. Since this is a natural propensity we cannot really expect to create an equal system without a great deal of force (dictatorship) to suppress the propensity to seek profit.

And then, who's going to police the police?

Therein lies the age old rub. Oh well.

 

OK I'm not sure I follow so I think it would help to show me what we're working with. Perhaps I'm being a dunce I don't know...

Explain why rent seeking prevents people starting co-operatives and competing within a capitalist environment. Or, rather, explain why rent seeking prevents the co-operative model from being scalable in theory. To me, there's no reason to think that a co-operative organisation cannot operate the same way as any other company, it is only the ownership structure which differs.

And could you also explain why 'value of labour' is a property right. The value of labour, so far as I can tell, is whatever firms are willing to pay in relation to whatever workers are willing to accept and is in constant flux. So I'm unsure of the terms we are using here. Thanks in advance.

 

Because it gives the traditional firm higher profit and therefore a competitive advantage. Hierarchy is often used independently of economies of scale (and therefore division of labour criteria). Its used to reduce worker bargaining power and therefore increase profit. We know its successful as market forces fail to drive out this types of inefficiency. It rewards it.

I'm self-employed. I own my labour. However, when I was a worker I sold my labour rights to the employer. That isn't necessarily a problem. If supply and demand operate then I will be paid according to the value of that labour. However, if there is coercion in the labour contract then there will be economic rents. Rents here are fancy vocab for exploitation. I've effectively seen some of my labour value stolen because of asymmetric power.

The only issue is the extent of that theft. As a while male from a middle-class location (with greater opportunity to move up the hierarchy), I'm likely to be underpaid less. Other demographic groups will feel the impact of coercion more acutely!

 

"Economic fairness" is a skewed term with Socialist connotations. The market is already fair in itself since in voluntary exchange, all parties are winners. If we at all can talk about "fairness" in this context it must be in a way that accepts that "fairness" is entirely subjective.

If you want five chickens more than you want your turkey and I want a turkey more than my five chickens, the outcome of our trade is entirely fair.

Simple as that.

 

That simply isn't true. Economics has always considered equity and efficiency. Was Adam Smith a Socialist?

 

Equity is bad for the economy. The economy requires diversity to work and specialisation is the key. Adam Smith is a dubious figure imo.

 

Why's that then?

 

Spot on,
"Economic fairness" = I am a socialist and I want to rob you.

It's a con. /ignore anyone who talks about it.

If a Prince from Nigeria asks you for your bank details you don't need to examine the proposition. Just walk away.
It's a perfectly fair that lazy ****ers don't have any money.
It'd perfectly fair that unproductive people haven't produced anything.

It's perfectly fair that stupidity and immorality is not compensated as genius and social responsibility.
Get a job.

That is how you end wealth disparity. You go to work.
It's not rocket science.


Adam Smith is probably quite smart. How a socialist interprets him, is well worth ignoring. The fundamental economic relationship of socialism is theft.

All else is justification towards that goal.

You will hear about the plight of the poor. You will hear about the plight of the environment. The plight of the sick. The plight of the socially victimised.

You will hear an endless stream of worthy causes that need your money more than you do.

What you will not ever hear is someone offering to pay for it.

Hi, I've identified a social problem and I spent some of my money and resolved it.
You will never hear this.

Because solving the issue isn't the name of the game. Stealing is.

 

Equity and economic efficiency are often positive related. Imagine, for example, that we had a meritocracy and economic outcome reflected worth.

 

capitalism is pure meritocracy. those who sell products with the most merit are worth more. 1+1=2

 

This amused me at least. You think the extreme inequalities and lack of social mobility reflects merit? Crikey you must properly hate your fellow American

 

sure, some people invent iphones and some don't. Still over your head?

 

we have all the social mobility possible. Jobs was adopted and still was worth $20 billion. Obama even worse and became president. Now do you understand.

 

Why is the US's social mobility so low compared to other developed nations? Have a think!

 

Simple, we have crippling liberal class based welfare programs that keep the poor in their place.

 

Try again. All of those countries with superior social mobility have more comprehensive welfare systems.

 

so?? the measure is, does it work. America's does not especially when coupled with uberliberal hip hop culture.