CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible
Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).
Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?
1) Money is a social construct, it does not exist, it is imaginary, if you think money is actually something tangible then you are superstitious and you may as well believe in fairies. That being said it is inherently nonsensical right off the bat.
2) A true "free market" cannot exist so long as there are monopolies and governments, but if there where no governments there would be nothing to stop monopolies from forming, a true free market will almost inevitably result in monopolies and the only way to stop it is by specifically limiting the free market.
3) Governments don't always stop monopolies from forming, they often create them as well.
4)Without regulation, businesses and financial institutions are free to engage in corrupt practices, corrupt practices are unfair and thus limit your ability to compete freely in the free market, but WITH regulation, the market is not free anymore, so either way it's not a free market.
5) There is no such thing as a "free market" in a literal sense, I sometimes use words and phrases like "free market" in order to communicate, but there are different layers of nuance to certain things that would require too much explanation and lead to serious digression, so I am using simplified terminology when I talk to most people. When you have a "free market" you forfeit many of the systems that may be put in place to limit the powers of certain bodies in favour of a more free and open market environment, this allows corruption to take root and proliferate unchecked which destroys the free market. As soon as you create an institution to legislate or enforce any kind of regulation or limitation on enterprise you are limiting the free market, so a free market cannot technically exist and would not be particularly any better than any other market if it did.
Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered
What makes you more qualified to decide what something is worth than the buyer and seller?
The underlying assumption in your statement is that it is necessary to subscribe to the "Free Market" (whatever that means) religious ideology.. I don't
As I've explained in previous posts, the entire modern Global system (all/overwhelming majority of the luxuries of modernity, as well as the dangers) is predicated on the fruits of Science and Tech. Now, I can only conclude that a person asking this question fails to understand just how precarious our situation is.
For example, there are only about 10,000 Physicists in the world (not all of which are great researchers--there is a standard distribution like in any other population). Without Physicists, we would have next to none of our modern inventions that we currently depend upon nor would we be able to push innovation forward. Therefore, the "basic" research and work of such people is extremely valuable (and there is currently hardly anyone equipped to do it). The standard/average Engineer learns enough Physics, Chem, ect. to harness what we have learned about Nature in a useful manner (however, the overwhelming bulk of this work in no way approaches the depth of understanding in Physics, Chem, ect. and they are highly limited in what they can do). If you just gathered up the one million people most eager, persistent, and qualified to do the sort of research that our modern world depends upon and removed them from the planet, we would be left with very few people (if any) capable of sustaining our current system (and one million is a very generous number). That is a huge problem, and one that is nearly never discussed (accept for in the Scientific community itself, which discusses this matter perpetually) simply because people are taught that their collective delusions in some way make sense, and are viable ideas to organize their lives around (when in reality they are non-sensical and self-destructive).
Also, others such as intensive laborers, many "Blue Collar" professions are imperative in order to keep society functioning and they are looked down upon (often are disincentivized) due to people's simple-minded prejudices (DarthSidious explained this point rather well, I would refer you to his posts). This is an inherently unstable structure as well as unjust (because the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work are not the ones benefiting from the system).
Basically, my argument is simply: the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work should be quasi-proportionally related to the ones reaping the benefits (which is not at all our current model)
Your argument is basically, "If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this, then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?" (Note: That is not a straw-man of what you are suggesting/implying)
Edit: I would add, based on my reading of you current position, the 10,000 physicists number likely doesn't bother you one bit. What if it were 1,000? 500? There is an enormous problem having the information that society is based upon being that arcane. You must see that? Also, it is important to note, these few people in fields such as this are not at all treated like Athletes, Actors, Celebrities, ect. but rather are largely treated very poorly. If someone wants to go into such a field at the moment it has to be in spite of the profound hardships they are bound to encounter (even if they are genius level like Alan Guth for example).
Also, Construction Workers and the like are often treated similarly awful even though our society absolutely depends upon their hard work and continued existence (which is largely taken for granted)
You wrote, Your argument is basically, "If people are stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions as a consequence of this, then let them be stupid/ignorant and make horrible decisions. Who are you and/or the people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work that allows society to function, pushes it forward and lets us survive to voice disapproval/complain about that? Who are "they" to promote intervening with the system in order to course correct this scheme even if people's collective ignorance/stupidity and horrible decision making is objectively running humanity off of a cliff (as well as the ecosystem at large) all while oppressing the people doing all the work?"
The underlined portion is what you seem to have missed in my argument. My argument is EXACTLY that the "people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work" are the ones who should be negotiating with the people who are paying for the work to determine the price. They can voice disapproval/complain all they want, but I want them to have equal say in how much they get paid.
I want the same thing for buyers.
There should be no force (outside the parties to the transaction) compelling workers to accept less pay than they are willing to work for. As much to the point, there should be no force compelling them to set their prices so high that not enough customers can afford their services, causing them to remain unemployed. Workers are best protected by the free market because the free market allows them to protect themselves.
The same goes for customers as for workers.
The whole point is that the free market is the surest way to ensure workers do not get screwed, and are not oppressed. They have the freedom to set their price as high as buyers are willing/able to pay. The more the buyer needs the product or service, the more the buyer will be willing to pay. This is subject of course to competition between the laborers selling their services, because all the workers are free to adjust their prices if they want.
The underlined portion is what you seem to have missed in my argument. My argument is EXACTLY that the "people doing the overwhelming bulk of the work" are the ones who should be negotiating with the people who are paying for the work to determine the price. They can voice disapproval/complain all they want, but I want them to have equal say in how much they get paid.
I want the same thing for buyers...The whole point is that the free market is the surest way to ensure workers do not get screwed, and are not oppressed. They have the freedom to set their price as high as buyers are willing/able to pay
The entire point is that people have demonstrated themselves to be far too ignorant, stupid, irresponsible, superficial, petty, ect. in order to properly make such decisions. As I pointed out (keeping with the Physicist example), most people do not even understand what Physicists do, have done, what Physics even is, ect. ect and are told that it is okay to lead a life of such profound ignorance even when our society is fundamentally based on the products of Physics. That is, the general public doesn't appreciate it because they don't understand it, and also fear it due to their own pre-conceived notions about the Universe (and penalize Physicists for their (the publics) own lack of respectability--which they have the power to do under the current system).
Note, this is in no way confined to just Physicists, but the same line of reasoning applies to intensive labor professions that are needed to maintain society as well. Currently, our primitive mammalian prejudices, preferences, ect. are determining what is and is not valuable even though it largely is not what is objectively most valuable. Even though some people are able to recognize this incongruity, most people inhabit a Mammal Snow Globe of a World that they are unable to see out of and will always make profoundly irrational decisions based on their vision of the world (which is highly limited/skewed at best).
(Marcus: I would refer you to DarthSidious' response to Nomenclature on this last point, as he put it rather well)
The entire point is that people have demonstrated themselves to be far too ignorant, stupid, irresponsible, superficial, petty, ect. in order to properly make such decisions.
We are on the same page when it comes to how stupid the human animal is.
This is among the top reasons I favor the free market.
Consider:
It is obvious that there are degrees of stupidity.
We can tell by the comparative popularity of athletes over engineers that we cannot depend on stupid animals to put the right (smart enough) people in charge.
If the stupidest people are directing the whole show, there is no hope.
However, if the system is set up so that the smarter (less stupid) people have at least some say in what happens, then at least some things can be done less stupidly.
The nature of the free market is to ensure that even the smart people, who are an obvious minority, can have at least some effect on the system.
One more comment, then I will acknowledged that the horse is dead, and that we can stop beating it.
Currently, our primitive mammalian prejudices, preferences, ect. are determining what is and is not valuable even though it largely is not what is objectively most valuable.
Price is not a function of value.
In a practical sense, I think a lot of people base our estimation of the value (distinct from price) of something on the answer to three questions:
- 1 - What are the consequences (negative or positive) of having it vice not having it?
- 2 - Can I do it for myself?
- 3 - Do I want to do it for myself?
Absolutely you are correct that "people have demonstrated themselves to be far too ignorant, stupid, irresponsible, superficial, petty, ect." to properly answer question 1, and sometimes even question 2.
By contrast, the price of something is determined by the answers to two versions of two questions.
- 1 Seller - What are my expenses?
- 1 Buyer - What can I afford?
- 2 Seller - Can I find someone else who will pay more?
- 2 Buyer - Can I get it cheaper (of same/ similar quality) from someone else?
I think the fact that the questions about value are not included in the list of questions about price is what frustrates you.
Believe it or not, I agree with most of your assessment of the current state of the world, although I actually calculate that most of the technological "advances" of the last 75 years have failed to improve the quality of human life, and most are on the way to destroy the quality of life and sustainability of human societies worldwide.
I am not sure whether you actually answered my question (What makes you more qualified to decide what something is worth than the buyer or seller?)
Are you proposing that physicists should decide what physicists' contributions are worth? If they negotiate with those who buy their services, then that is free market capitalism. If they decide unilaterally, then that is a technocratic dictatorship (assuming they are as critical as you propose).
I do not think that is actually your position, but I can not really tell.
.
So, what are the requisite abilities and beliefs to decide what something is worth?
Who do you think should determine the price of goods and services if not the individuals involved in the transaction?
- Economists?
- Religious leaders?
- Political leaders? (The answer to this one, I think is obvious: the result of political leaders determining prices of goods and services would likely be wide scale oppression, as demonstrated by various versions of government-controlled economies like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Communist China under Mao.)
- Voters in a democracy? The effects of this would run completely counter to your desires and mine. People would simply vote that the prices be high for jobs they do to , and that the prices be low for things they need/want . That would mean that those things most important to the largest number of people would most likely be set BY LAW to pay the least. The likely effect would be that people would leave that profession (or close those businesses), ultimately creating a shortage of the most necessary products and services.
I think this is exactly the situation your argument indicates you seek to prevent.
Believe it or not, I agree with most of your assessment of the current state of the world, although I actually calculate that most of the technological "advances" of the last 75 years have failed to improve the quality of human life, and most are on the way to destroy the quality of life and sustainability of human societies worldwide.
Interesting, you may agree with Brontoraptor here as I have previously briefly discussed with him the Luddite movement and what level of Technological Advancement is actually necessary to live happy, healthy, meaningful lives. I think this is a very interesting question, and if I understand you correctly, I would be interested in opening a separate debate dedicated to this topic (as I don't think the idea of Humanity continuing Technological progress endlessly should be a given, but rather a topic that we have a serious debate about as a Global society).
I am not sure whether you actually answered my question (What makes you more qualified to decide what something is worth than the buyer or seller?)
Are you proposing that physicists should decide what physicists' contributions are worth?
I did answer your question. It is not that I am more qualified, rather jobs that have high utility value (e.g. "Blue Collar" laborers, Architects, Scientists, ect.) objectively contribute far more to society than Justin Bieber (although the current system incentive structure would suggest that this is the other way around). Note, the current system is based on preference value while I am arguing for utility value system.
Are you proposing that physicists should decide what physicists' contributions are worth? If they negotiate with those who buy their services, then that is free market capitalism. If they decide unilaterally, then that is a technocratic dictatorship (assuming they are as critical as you propose).
I do not think that is actually your position, but I can not really tell.
No, that is not my position. My point about Physicists is that:
1. They have been the "God Father" of our Modern Science & Technological Advancement
2. Without them, humanity would be in a very different situation currently indeed. That is, if you removed every Professional Athlete from the Earth at the moment, we would be in essentially the same position as a Global society. However, if you were to remove every Physicist from Earth, we would be f'cked, big time
3. The current system does not reflect (2) at all, rather is suggests the inverse is true
4. There are very few people indeed who are currently capable of doing the sort of crucial work that (many) Physicists perform-- for this reason, they are not disposable but rather of very high value
Note, Physicists was simply an example of a field that has a very high utility value (as our entire society is base around it). Now, I am suggesting that the system be set up to reflect the objective value that already exists. This is in no way a "Technocratic Dictatorship" since this dynamic would equally apply to a less Technologically Advanced civilization as intensive laborers have high utility value and are necessary to maintain a society while "celebrity figures" overwhelmingly are not
if you removed every Professional Athlete from the Earth at the moment, we would be in essentially the same position as a Global society. However, if you were to remove every Physicist from Earth, we would be f'cked, big time
While physicists discovered and articulated the basis of our current technology, going forward, physicists are much less valuable to society than are engineers. Were all the physicists to disappear, we might slow our advance, but the engineers would still be able to build on current knowledge of physics.
By the same token, I think engineers are much less valuable to society than the technicians who actually build, install, and fix our gadgets. Were the engineers to disappear, we could make no advances in technology, but we would still be at our current technological level.
However, with or without physicists and engineers, were the technicians to disappear, we could not even maintain our current technological capabilities, and would slide backward into the 18th century.
However, with or without physicists and engineers, were the technicians to disappear, we could not even maintain our current technological capabilities, and would slide backward into the 18th century.
I know, that was my point exactly. All of the people you are listing have high utility value while the Justin Beiber's of the world have zero utility value but rather a (currently) high preferential value
I know, that was my point exactly. All of the people you are listing have high utility value while the Justin Beiber's of the world have zero utility value but rather a (currently) high preferential value
Yeah, but we pay engineers more than technicians, even though we need the technicians more than the engineers. This is no different than paying Justin Beiber more than a construction worker.
Yeah, but we pay engineers more than technicians, even though we need the technicians more than the engineers. This is no different than paying Justin Beiber more than a construction worker.
Sure it is. Firstly, the gap between the technicians and engineers absolutely pales in comparison to that of J.B. and Construction Workers. Also, I am arguing for a fundamental shift in how we incentivize work based on its utility value. So, for this example, it seems to me much more likely that if given a choice, a qualified person would prefer to be an Engineer rather than a Construction Worker since C.W. is so labor intensive (although this may not in fact always be the case). Based on this, I would argue for a higher incentive for such work since it is coming at a higher personal cost and is absolutely necessary toward a functioning society.
So, what are the requisite abilities and beliefs to decide what something is worth?
Who do you think should determine the price of goods and services if not the individuals involved in the transaction?
- Economists?
- Religious leaders?
- Political leaders? (The answer to this one, I think is obvious: the result of political leaders determining prices of goods and services would likely be wide scale oppression, as demonstrated by various versions of government-controlled economies like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Communist China under Mao.)
Honestly, it is not nearly as difficult to roughly quantify the utility value of many careers as you are suggesting relative to others (certainly not compared to frivolous professions that are currently amongst the most highly rewarded). As I motioned before, it does not have to anywhere near exact, rather quasi-proportional.
That is, keeping with the Physicist example, if you look at the disparity between what even a genius level Physicist makes/has been treated by society such as Alan Guth, compared to Justin Beiber, you would think that the Beiber types are the ones that are absolutely indispensable for society rather than the other way around (which could hardly be further from the truth). Also, be aware that I am not suggesting that top Physicists necessarily make a Beiber type salary, rather I am pointing out the fundamental flaw in the current system. It is based on preference rather than utility and opens the door for peoples deep irrationality to alter what is deemed valuable and not valuable based on their own prejudices, biases, ignorance, stupidity, ect. ect.. This has produced a "pay-out" system that does not at all resemble one's actual value to society/humanity.
It is a pleasure to debate with you as well Marcusmoon. I enjoy these debates as we can come from quite different perspectives in various areas.
Also, do you consider yourself to tend to align with American Libertarians, Reason magazine, ect. on economic issues? Or is there another group/movement/ect. that you tend to align with more?
Also, do you consider yourself to tend to align with American Libertarians, Reason magazine, ect. on economic issues? Or is there another group/movement/ect. that you tend to align with more?
I am not part of any party/group/movement, nor do I align with any codified set of ideas other than an overriding value of personal freedom.
I might describe myself an American conservative, which means I align with the political philosophy of the Framers of the Constitution:
- Weak central government
- Very limited scope of government activities
- States' rights
- Independence
- Liberty
- Personal responsibility to meet my own needs
- Free market capitalism
- Rugged individualism
Regarding social and political issues, I tend to ask a few questions:
- Are you doing it on my land?
- Do I have to pay for it?
- Does it create any obligation on my part?
- Does it create any involuntary obligation on anyone's part?
- Does it involve interfering with anyone's person or property against their will?
If the answer to all these questions is no, then it is none of my business, and I don't care.
You wrote, The underlying assumption in your statement is that it is necessary to subscribe to the "Free Market" (whatever that means) religious ideology.
It is not a religious ideology, but rather a practical strategy for promoting the maximum possible freedom from oppression for everyone.
Also, Construction Workers and the like are often treated similarly awful even though our society absolutely depends upon their hard work and continued existence (which is largely taken for granted).
This is not necessarily true. There are many low skilled people who do construction for low rates, but that is because they lack many of the skills that would make their efforts more valuable. People in construction and related fields are often highly respected and well paid.
Well-trained and certified plumbers are paid very well. My plumber in San Diego (13 years ago) made $250k/year. He was a certified Master Plumber, owned his own business (which consisted of him and his truck), and was half the price of any other plumbers in the area. (According to The Millionaire Next Door Plumbers account for a high percentage of American millionaires.)
I paid tile setters to lay 800 square feet of tile in my house at the standard rate of $3/square foot. (I supplied the materials.) Two guys did the job in two 10-hour days. That means I paid them $60/per hour. I have three degrees and make barely half that.
I met an underwater welder who earned his mortgage payment by doing a half-day of work.
I pay my mechanic $45/hour, rounded up to the nearest whole hour. When the task takes him only a half hour, his effective rate is $90/hour. Bear in mind, he is ALWAYS busy, so he is actually making that $90/hour.
There is currently a 5.6 MILLION job skills gap in the US, almost all of which are blue collar jobs. The pay rates for those jobs are going up rapidly.
This is not necessarily true. There are many low skilled people who do construction for low rates, but that is because they lack many of the skills that would make their efforts more valuable. People in construction and related fields are often highly respected and well paid
Average Construction Worker salary is $30,000 per year (before taxes). That is about $14.50 an hour (Side note: that is what I made as a Security Guard for several years while in College even though Construction work is far more labor intensive, ect.).
People in construction and related fields are often highly respected
Average Construction Worker salary is $30,000 per year (before taxes). That is about $14.50 an hour (Side note: that is what I made as a Security Guard for several years while in College even though Construction work is far more labor intensive, ect.).
How labor intensive a job is has nothing to do with how much it should pay. Engineers and scientists rarely sweat or pick up heavy things. By contrast, professional weight lifters and bodybuilders do things the most labor-intensive way possible.
Regarding my observation that "People in construction and related fields are often highly respected."
Please.. They are highly disrespected, viewed as disposable Gorillas and you know it..
-1- I said often not always.
-2- "Goodwill Hunting" is hardly a documentary on the realities of blue collar social status in 20th/21st century urban society.
-3- Watch Dirty Jobs and Deadliest Catch. Better yet, work some construction jobs, then hire people to work on your house.
The pertinent question is whether the gorilla is easy to replace. True, there are some jobs on a construction site that are easily fillable by anybody strong enough. However, most construction jobs are not like that. Those construction workers who have harder to replace skills actually ARE valued and respected.
Obviously, some people are disrespectful asses, but that is not the most common attitude.
Obviously, some people are disrespectful asses, but that is not the most common attitude.
It is the common attitude. In fact, that is the justification behind taking the fruits of their labor and spending it on Justin Beiber, Athletes, ect. ect. (i.e. Justin Beiber "earned it" while "x" is "just" a [insert intensive labor job])
It is the common attitude. In fact, that is the justification behind taking the fruits of their labor and spending it on Justin Beiber, Athletes, ect. ect. (i.e. Justin Beiber "earned it" while "x" is "just" a [insert intensive labor job])
You are conflating respect and reward.
The aggregate reward of a construction worker compared to Justin Beiber is NOT a function of each individual customer's value system.
Think for a moment about HOW they come to make different incomes.
If I pay someone $10-$60/hour (depending on skill level, etc.)to help build my house, I have to come up with the entire cost of the plans, the lot, the materials, and all the laborers. I have to get ahold of roughly $200,000 before I can hire anyone.
The construction worker gets $10-60 for any particular hour he works, depending on the particular job & skills.
By Contrast:
To see Beiber in concert, someone only has to pay $50, not including parking for a one hour experience. Assume he keeps only 10% of the gate receipts. That means each little girl is only paying him $5/hour (if we don't pay him for travel time, rehearsal, etc.) This is multiplied by the 30,000 screaming teenies at the concert to make Beiber $150,000 for that hour.
The critical differences between Beiber and the construction workers:
- 1 - more people have $50 dollars to spend than have $200,000 to spend, so he has more potential customers.
- 2 - Each customer pays the construction worker a higher rate ($10-$60/hour) than Beiber ($5/hour) which means EACH CUSTOMER IS REWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION WORKER MORE THAN BEIBER.
- 3 - The construction workers only get paid by one employer/customer at a time, whereas Beiber is charging 30,000 customers SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Before I answer you at further length, I want to establish we are on the same page (if we are).
You are conflating respect and reward
Are you under the impression that Plumbers/C.W./Carpenters/Electricians/Sewer Management/Garbage (wo)men/ect. ect. are respected on par with Celebrities/Athletes/ect. ect. or somewhere close to it?
Are you under the impression that Plumbers/C.W./Carpenters/Electricians/Sewer Management/Garbage (wo)men/ect. ect. are respected on par with Celebrities/Athletes/ect. ect. or somewhere close to it?
Respected by whom? Who do the two of us respect more? Not the famous folks, and we are not so unusual as all that.
Watch Fox News for a couple hours and you will realize celebrities are routinely given less respect than the grungy blue collar folks.
Obviously, the venue and situation matter. George Cloony and a mechanic have different levels of comparative respect depending on whether they are in a garage or on a red carpet.
Bear in mind, respect and status are distinct, and often do not coincide. In general, status is related to wealth, fame, strength/power, and competence. These also are venue specific because it depends on which dominance hierarchy is pertinent at the moment.
Red Adair has greater status than most other firefighters because he has more fame, more money, and can put out oil well fires. He is dominant in that hierarchy, and Cloony is below the bottom of it. Regardless of Cloony's status in Hollywood, at an oil well fire, Cloony would have neither respect nor status.
As much to the point, were Cloony to disrespect a janitor, and the janitor were to kick Cloony's ass on the red carpet, Cloony would likely end up with less respect than the janitor, and would definitely have lower status than the janitor.
I paid tile setters to lay 800 square feet of tile in my house at the standard rate of $3/square foot. (I supplied the materials.) Two guys did the job in two 10-hour days. That means I paid them $60/per hour. I have three degrees and make barely half that.
I met an underwater welder who earned his mortgage payment by doing a half-day of work.
I pay my mechanic $45/hour, rounded up to the nearest whole hour. When the task takes him only a half hour, his effective rate is $90/hour. Bear in mind, he is ALWAYS busy, so he is actually making that $90/hour.
Some points you make here are valid.
Again, the fundamental question I'm asking is; Where is the money going and does it reflect the utility value of the respective areas or is it highly disproportional?
It is not at all sensible to have uninvolved parties to determine how much others pay or are paid.
By contrast, the free market is a much more sensible system for anyone who values both freedom and fairness.
When trying to decide the "fair" price of a product or service, the free market does the best job because it leaves the decision regarding what is fair up to the buyers and sellers.
It does not matter that I think professional athletes are overpaid, because I do not ever purchase their services, nor am I an athlete. Likewise it does not matter if I think engineers are underpaid, because I do not purchase their services, nor am I an engineer. What matters is what the people purchasing their services want to pay, and what they are willing to work for.
In a free market, nobody is ever forced to buy or sell, so they get to decide what they want the price to be. If the buyer or seller wants the price to be higher or lower, each is free to negotiate for a more favorable price.
If they cannot agree, each is free to walk away from the deal and look for a different customer or vendor, or do without.
In this way over the course of thousands, or even millions of negotiations and transactions and the market uses crowd sourcing to determine the fair price. Most sensibly, in a free market, the only people who participate in this crowd sourcing process are INTRESTED PARTIES.
I agree with you, MF (no pun intended;-)), in principle. I like a well regulated free market system, regulated to protect the people, that is. I think it's kind of impossible to protect the people from their "distractions". I think many of the things you mention above come from peoples insecurity with the way the world is today ... insecure..., the rhythmic noise that is called music today makes people THINK about other things like, what the words are, how to move to it instead of thinking about politics and nuclear war, etc.
I'm an old "leg and fanny" man as opposed to a "boob(er)". Kim K's ass is definitely a "distraction", rather than a thing of beauty IMO. Today, distractions are a necessity. It doesn't require regulations to protect us from that free market.
I agree with you, MF (no pun intended;-)), in principle.
I think you are noting there are problems with an unfettered Market while maintaining a belief in the utility of a Market system and are reaching for examples that have been thus far provided in the popular culture (e.g. Sanders, Green Party, typical Social Democratic societies, ect.). Note, I am arguing for a very different form of "Constrained Market" system that would incentivize productive work over unproductive work/activity
I think it's kind of impossible to protect the people from their "distractions".
I partially agree. Note, many people's distractions also fall in line with what is currently incentivized/glorified/respected/honored in our society. Many people will always have trouble "breaking the mold" of societal norms (in my view) because there is good reason to believe that average range human intelligence or below is only intelligent enough to understand the rules of the society for which they were born into or otherwise are later introduced to and become acclimated with (although even this, the latter, falls into the higher range of average human intelligence compared to the former). Now, even with this dynamic, we can produce a highly healthy, rational, productive, intellectual, creative society if the framework is properly structured (e.g. think Star Trek).
That's a nice thought. But to live in Star Trek's financial world we would first have to have a world alliance. That means one world government, the abolishment (likely) of borders, an agreement between the left and the right (good luck with that!), a world where the Putin's, Netanyahu's, Trump's and EU leaders all agree with the world alliance. "Incentivize productive work over non-productive work/activity." I agree, that would be wonderful. So would be bringing back the Unicorn. We are in a world economy where everyone competes, and only cooperates with one another when it is beneficial TO THEMSELVES.
In this country, we have one side that wants NO taxes, that wants NO regulation, that wants to keep and spend every cent they make, AS THEY want to spend it, and if you are unable to work, if you don't have the skills or knowledge, you can't afford the education to get them, you have a handicap, SCREW YOU! If you are ripped off because of no consumer protecting regulations, lose what money you have, SCREW YOU! MY money is MINE!
I agree Sanders is a bit over the top also, in the other direction, but, certainly more humane. Libertarians have great ideas, but totally impractical, as a whole. There is NO WAY, in this environment that your "Constrained Market System" will (can) work, so we must work with what we have. Until we have a "World Alliance", we can't get together enough to agree on your "better" system. Bring on the Star Wars era! Neither you or (especially) I will be here. We have to survive the NOW, we have to live with what we have NOW. It's great to dream.
That's a nice thought. But to live in Star Trek's financial world we would first have to have a world alliance.
Yes. Ultimately, we are one species and need to make a transition to a Type 1 Civilization likely in the next 1-3 centuries (or if this fails to happen, it is probably we will have wiped ourselves out--in any meaningful way at least). The level of in-out group tribal fighting in our species given the destructive power of modern technology is inherently unstable and needs to be overcome (or else)
"Incentivize productive work over non-productive work/activity." I agree, that would be wonderful. So would be bringing back the Unicorn. We are in a world economy where everyone competes, and only cooperates with one another when it is beneficial TO THEMSELVES.
Note, the economy already is "rigged", so all you would have to do is "rig" it in a different direction (as well as the imperative of getting people more interested in productive, creative, activities rather than frivolousness--note, rigging the economy would in it of itself shift peoples interests due to the incentive structure)
...lose what money you have, SCREW YOU! MY money is MINE!
Although I generally agree with many of your sentiments, note what I am proposing does not fundamentally alter any of this (i.e. it would still be a market system, there would still be an abundance of greedy, self-interested people, ect. ect, However, by necessity, the work they would be doing if they wanted to increase their wealth would be productive and actually benefit society rather than frivolous--e.g. Models would not be paid much at all in such a society while being a Construction worker, many "Blue Collar" fields, Scientist, Architect, ect. ect. would be paid well (just nearly flip everything on its head, roughly speaking)). This is why I said such a system is feasible in the short-term given the current climate/Zeitgeist. It would essentially be like a Social Democratic society but rather than the type of "Inverse Capitalism" Nom was discussing elsewhere (think Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein/Green Party, ect.), it would be based on a productivity/utility incentive structure.
There is NO WAY, in this environment that your "Constrained Market System" will (can) work, so we must work with what we have.
It is actually designed to be far more productive and would most certainly benefit any objective measurement of the economy far more than the current system.
Until we have a "World Alliance", we can't get together enough to agree on your "better" system.
Actually, this is intended to be the short-term solution while we are transitioning toward a more Scientifically & Technologically advanced Civilization that doesn't require the agreement of other Nations since it is still a Market system. Once we reach a tipping point of technological development, we will no longer require a Market system because there would be abundance. This is very feasible from a Scientific standpoint, the problem is attempting to get the general population of the world on board (and that is quite a non-trivial problem indeed)
Well in a FREE MARKET prices for goods and services are determined by consumers and the open market in which supply and demand and are free from intervention by government, price fixing, ( excluding oil ) or monopolies.
As Maggie Thatcher once said;- ''you can't buck the market''.
Most successful companies spend a lot of dosh on market research to ensure that they have what people want, and not what they think people should want.
In the past deviation from the principles of an open market has resulted in economic stagnation, stunted growth and a smothering of innovation and innovative design.
This was obvious in the comparison between the old communist East Germany and the go ahead FREE MARKET economy of West Germany whose, (for one instance), Automobile Industry was, and still is the envy of the world.
I ran my own business for over 30 years and whilst recognizing the necessity to listen to all shades of opinion, I always found it amusing that those who knocked the status quo seldom, if ever were able to present a well thought out and detailed viable alternative.
So far I haven't read any proposals which would even come close to replacing the FREE MARKET SYSTEM.
Maybe talented entertainers and sports stars are overpaid, but only while they're popular with a fickle public.
In the past deviation from the principles of an open market has resulted in economic stagnation, stunted growth and a smothering of innovation and innovative design.
There has never been a real world implementation of a "Free Market" that is unfettered from forms of Government regulation. Rather, the degrees of regulation and in what areas vary.
One place where private companies have benefited tremendously from "leaching" off of public tax payers is in Medical, Pharmaceuticals, and Tech. research that is largely funded by the public, and then privatized once something is of significance is found (later to public continued expense as they still need to purchase the products--i.e. the public took the overwhelming bulk of the risks, while the private companies reaped the overwhelming bulk of the rewards). Note, this is orthogonal to my larger/main point however, I just wanted to raise the issue due to you tacitly invoking it in your response. What are your thoughts here?
The only times when governments intervene in a free market economy is when the emergence of a monopoly situation is detected and to ensure the existence of unobstructed competition.
In accordance with Donald Trump's ''AMERICA FIRST policy we are seeing government intervening on the side of Boeing who were facing unfair competition from Bombardier whose aircraft manufacturing, ( in particular the C series) was/is being heavily subsidised by both the Canadian and U.K, governments.
This is a classic case of a government moving to ensure that international trade laws and accepted customs and practises are being observed and no one company has a unfair advantage over it's rivals as a CONSEQUENCE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
This will threaten some 4000 Bombardier jobs in my home city of Belfast, but we must accept that cheating ,like stealing, is great until you're caught and taken to task.
The only times when governments intervene in a free market economy is when the emergence of a monopoly situation is detected and to ensure the existence of unobstructed competition.
This isn't true at all. I just gave you the example of research largely funded by the public that is done at State Universities that receive/rely upon Government support (through public Tax dollars)
On the particular point of State Universities being government funded I must plead ignorance as I live in Northern Ireland but am confident that none of the European administrations are involved in institutionalized 'STATE AID'.
Please note that I have already stated, it does happen, and as in the case of Bombardier, is stamped out when identified.
We would both be naive to claim that the taxpayer doesn't partially finance certain private sector companies whose products are deemed to be vital for national security or to encourage the pharmaceutical giants to develop new drugs such as a new generation of antibiotics.
Anyway x, it's been a genuine pleasure debating this, one of my favourite topics with you.
I always found it amusing that those who knocked the status quo seldom, if ever were able to present a well thought out and detailed viable alternative.
So far I haven't read any proposals which would even come close to replacing the FREE MARKET SYSTEM.
The market IS kinda funny. But I can’t imagine any other way to set prices
Capitalism" as it is generally used, is consistent with both a "Free Market" system and various forms of "Constrained/Regulated Market" systems. I am arguing for a form of "Constrained Market" system (in the short term) as I think they still have usefulness and are feasible to implement in the current climate/Zeitgeist. However, it is important to note that the type of "Constrained Market" system I am proposing is very different than typically conceived of by people such as Sanders, Green Party, ect. ect. (I can elaborate on this if you like, I began to address it in my previous posts)
Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it
Here's the thing. You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational. Hence, when you make capricious claims about the system every civilised society has used for centuries, you are required to support them.
Conversely, what you have done in this thread (and indeed what you do generally) is present an arbitrary claim which you have not attempted to support with any line of reasoning. You have simply claimed that a free market system is not sensible, and then attempted to "evidence" it with the further arbitrary claim that society is stupid.
The one thing which cannot be missed in your writing, even when you are on your best behaviour, is that you have a serious narcissistic personality disorder. For some reason you believe that merely by writing something down you make it true. When challenged, you believe either insulting the other person or disguising your own bullshit behind a wall of convoluted language validates the original claim. I am afraid this is not the way debate works, buddy.
Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer
Stupid.
The overwhelming majority of musicians, actors and athletes are much, much poorer than engineers. What you are actually doing is selectively picking out the most successful musicians, actors and athletes in the entire world and trying to compare them with ordinary people. Clearly, only a halfwit would do something like this in the first place, let alone draw a blanket conclusion from his own false comparison. The most successful engineers in the world are actually richer than their thespian counterparts. Have a look for yourself:-
Firstly, I would like to point out the extreme contradiction wherein you have positioned yourself "Against the Motion" while you have went out of your way elsewhere on CD to state that you are a Social Democrat (which you wrongly labeled as "Democratic Socialist") who believes in a form of "Inverse Capitalism". To quote you:
" I'm a democratic socialist, or kind of an inverse capitalist. I believe we should nationalise the banks and hike tax rates on the top income bracket, then use the profit to eliminate homelessness, provide free basic healthcare and education. I describe myself as an inverse capitalist because I would still retain the profit incentive, but instead of 90 percent of the profit a person's labour produces being stolen by someone else who does absolutely nothing to earn it, I would flip it around, give the worker 90 percent and the economic parasite 10 percent. I bet you that pretty quickly those parasites are going to want to become workers and contribute something more than inherited capital to society."
This is the antithesis of a "Free Market" system, and is one possible arrangement of a "Regulated Market" system (as I have already addressed in my previous posts)..
Here's the thing. You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational.
I'm not claiming to be. It is a simple fact that our society is based upon harnessing the knowledge of Science & Mathematics to useful ends (and our species strength revolves around creativity & intellectualism), not Kim Kardashian's ass (or equivalency). Therefore, the former is objectively far more important than the ladder
When challenged, you believe either insulting the other person or disguising your own bullshit behind a wall of convoluted language validates the original claim.
Well, you have missed the point entirely and most of what you said is bullsh't. I'm tempted to just leave it there, but I'll indulge your attempt..
The overwhelming majority of musicians, actors and athletes are much, much poorer than engineers.
Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:
NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:
MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year
Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.
Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.
Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:
Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?
The incentive structure of our current system is very clear and self-destructive. The system never should have been set up in such a way and (in any time period) should be altered. However, in our current age, the situation is now dire and we cannot afford to be "sleep-walking" as a species any longer, or I fear we are nearing the end of the road (if a fundamental shift/course corrections are not made in the next roughly 1-3 centuries)
The incentive structure of our current system is very clear and self-destructive.
This assumes that the primary incentive is money. Honestly, I don't think that is true for everybody.
More to the point, it may be to society's benefit that the people who do some of our most important jobs are not primarily motivated by money.
Scientists: I have known a few researchers and scientists. The ones I knew only cared about earning enough for basic security and comfort (buy a modest house, raise kids, have an emergency fund in savings, etc..) The money they really cared about was funding/grants for their research projects. What really motivated them was wanting to know, the thrill of learning and discovery.
Teachers: I was a teacher for many years. Many of my students loved me, and felt real gratitude for what I taught them, and helped them accomplish. I made fair money--enough to live a comfortable and secure life, and I had good benefits, even by pre-Obamacare standards. But best of all I was able to do important things in the lives of people who became important to me. Near as I can tell, teaching is the only job that pays with love. Most of my colleagues felt the same about the job as I did. I never worked as hard at any job as I did at teaching, despite that other jobs paid more.
Police: My brother is a cop. He loves it. More to the point, he believes in the importance of what he does, and he wants to protect people and enable them to live their lives in peace and safety. He does not do it for the money. Consider the havoc that can be caused by people with that sort of power and authority who are motivated primarily by money.
Military: I grew up a Navy brat, and have known military people all my life. Almost all of them serve, not for the compensation, but to protect and preserve our country because they love and believe in America.
There are lots of jobs like these, that are critically important, but pay relatively poorly. As a result, they attract and keep only those people who are dedicated in a way that cannot be bought with money. I think our society benefits from a system that discourages people from filling our most important roles for mercenary reasons.
This assumes that the primary incentive is money. Honestly, I don't think that is true for everybody.
No, I have not assumed that. In fact, I went into quite some depth about how that is precisely not the case in many areas that are currently not highly incentivized (though are very important--the exact example I gave was that of a Scientist and/or Mathematician: Note, I am very familiar with this because it is the path I'm on and have many friends that are PhD students in these areas, ect.)
Scientists: I have known a few researchers and scientists. The ones I knew only cared about earning enough for basic security and comfort (buy a modest house, raise kids, have an emergency fund in savings, etc..) The money they really cared about was funding/grants for their research projects. What really motivated them was wanting to know, the thrill of learning and discovery.
Yes, exactly. In fact, I have already discussed what this path is like at great length and it is a very long and difficult one in which one will be living off the salary of a Grocery Store Cashier equivalency for about 15 years. I cited the case of Alan Guth as an example, if you look up his story (him discussing it), it should be quite an eye-opener as to how these people are treated (and Alan Guth is not a standard Physicist, but rather genius level (fun side note: I have met Guth IRL)).
Teachers: I was a teacher for many years. Many of my students loved me, and felt real gratitude for what I taught them, and helped them accomplish. I made fair money--enough to live a comfortable and secure life, and I had good benefits, even by pre-Obamacare standards. But best of all I was able to do important things in the lives of people who became important to me. Near as I can tell, teaching is the only job that pays with love. Most of my colleagues felt the same about the job as I did. I never worked as hard at any job as I did at teaching, despite that other jobs paid more.
I agree with all of this.
There are lots of jobs like these, that are critically important, but pay relatively poorly. As a result, they attract and keep only those people who are dedicated in a way that cannot be bought with money. I think our society benefits from a system that discourages people from filling our most important roles for mercenary reasons.
This is partially true, however the overarching framework that emerges is untenable.
Firstly, I already raised a critically important issue regarding the extreme lack of Scientists (due to the reasons I have previously discussed) even though our modern society is fundamentally based around it. Not only does this hold back innovation (which I know is an entirely separate topic, whether or not more tech. is ultimately necessary or not), but we depend on much of this highly arcane knowledge to keep our current system running (Note, you raised a point about Engineers before, and while this is true in some areas, ultimately Engineers are forced to collaborate with Chemists, Physicists, Geologists, Mathematicians, ect. ect. constantly due to their higher level of expertise in specific concentrated areas, and without this resource Engineers would be highly limited as to what they could do independently--i.e. it is a team effort).
As a result, they attract and keep only those people who are dedicated in a way that cannot be bought with money. I think our society benefits from a system that discourages people from filling our most important roles for mercenary reasons.
If a field requires a high-level of training that suggests such a person were capable of doing a separate, higher paying profession instead, than this would be true. So, what you stated is true in some areas, however not in all (so it does not always work as the sieve you suggested).
The reality is, most people do not have deep hobbies, passions, interests, ect. and are motivated by various forms of incentive, whether it be money, respect, status, power, ect. (I'm presuming you are on board with this considering this is often one of the arguments used for a "Free Market").
Also, note, you are by no means representative of "most people" or "the average adult" because we both know that the average adult wants nothing to do with intellectualism and certainly isn't going to spend a chunk of their free time doing independent research essays for internet debate sites (Hell, it is difficult to get them to do a few 3-5 page essays per class in the span of a 4 month semester for a couple years in College).
I completely agree with almost everything in this post, and the rest I partially agree.
What I think is interesting about our conversation is that we are focusing on the what people should be paid. We have not addressed in much detail what people should pay for products.
Interestingly, we have left out the term law of supply and demand.
Well, you have missed the point entirely and most of what you said is bullsh't. I'm tempted to just leave it there, but I'll indulge your attempt..
Lol. God, you're just so stupid. It has taken you ten hours to even think up a reply. I was done with this conversation by the end of this morning you intellectual halfwit. I didn't miss your point. I decimated your point. I exposed an error in your analysis so fundamental that it has taken you literally all day to even acknowledge it. Moreover, the brobdingnagian blockade of text you have eventually fired back at me illustrates your complete inability to present a quality argument.
Lets take Professional athletes as the first example
NBA
NFL
This is just retarded. It is just utterly, utterly retarded. It's like you haven't even read the post you are replying to. The NBA is the highest paid basketball league in the entire world and the NFL is the highest paid American football league in the entire world. In most countries people don't even play American football. As unbelievable as it actually is, you are selectively cherry-picking the highest paid athletes in the highest paid sports you can find, AFTER I have just criticised you for doing exactly this. Furthermore, only the very best athletes ever have a professional career in the first place, which is not the case with engineers.
If you think I'm wading any further through your gigantic lake of stupid, narcissistic, delusional denials you are very much mistaken.
You made a fundamental mistake in comparing highly successful actors, musicians and athletes with averagely successful engineers, while entirely ignoring the 95 percent of actors, musicians and athletes who never make anywhere near as much money as an average engineer. You did this not because I "missed the point", but because you are cretinous and stupid.
Yeah that's right, retard. Downvote me because you're upset that you're an imbecile. The highest paid basketball players in the British league earn £30,000 a season:-
I'm going to assume you didn't read DarthSidious's reply then..
I tried, but after half a paragraph I began to realise he had no point at all and was just writing a long stream of garbled nonsense, as very much also defines the content of your own rantings.
You are still missing the fundamental point
No, you are attempting to deflect the fact that I tore your argument apart. It is your standard reaction as a narcissist to revert back to these vague, generic lines about "missing the point" or "not understanding" every time I decimate something you write, which is precisely what happened to you this time.
I tried, but after half a paragraph I began to realise he had no point at all and was just writing a long stream of garbled nonsense
Wrong. He had a very clear point that you failed to understand.
No, you are attempting to deflect the fact that I tore your argument apart.
As I demonstrated in my first response, you destroyed yourself because you have proclaimed elsewhere to be an "Inverse Capitalist" which is the antithesis to a "Free Market" (smh..)
It's like you haven't even read the post you are replying to. The NBA is the highest paid basketball league in the entire world and the NFL is the highest paid American football league in the entire world.
I'm discussing the American-centered current Market system. This is what the Professional athletes here make..
As unbelievable as it actually is, you are selectively cherry-picking the highest paid athletes in the highest paid sports you can find, AFTER I have just criticised you for doing exactly this. Furthermore, only the very best athletes ever have a professional career in the first place, which is not the case with engineers.
Refer to DarthSidious' response, he addresses this exact point
If you think I'm wading any further through your gigantic lake of stupid, narcissistic, delusional denials you are very much mistaken.
As I predicted, it is slowly but surely coming out more and more just how far gone you are.. That is why you are even able to believe your serial Conspiracy Theory hysteria to begin with..
You made a fundamental mistake in comparing highly successful actors, musicians and athletes with averagely successful engineers, while entirely ignoring the 95 percent of actors, musicians and athletes who never make anywhere near as much money as an average engineer.
No, I actually addressed that point. They still make as much or more than people on the path to becoming a Scientist who are forced to live on scraps because of people like you who have their blinders on tight
I'm discussing the American-centered current Market system.
The market system is not "American-centred" you utter retard. The entire world uses it. It's like I'm speaking to one of those 4th century idiots who thinks the Earth is the centre of the universe.
God, you're just so stupid.
Refer to DarthSidious' response
Stop cryptically referring me to other bullshit and make a point, you retard.
No, I actually addressed that point.
You "addressed it" by doing exactly the same thing again a second time. You chose the highest paid athletes in the highest paid sporting leagues in the world, and then tried to compare them with ordinary working engineers. You're a stupid, brain-dead twit and that's the reality of the matter, buddy.
And China is the second biggest in the world, yet still only half of the U.S. economy. The point? You have the brains of a starving monkey when it has no bananas.
Yeah that's right, retard. Downvote me because you're upset that you're an imbecile. The highest paid basketball players in the British league earn £30,000 a season:-
capricious claims about the system every civilised society has used for centuries
First of all, define civilised, second of all, that statement is blatantly wrong because a free market has probably never existed in the whole history of the universe. What you are referring to is just the monetary system in general, and even the monetary system is not universal in "civilised" societies, whatever you define as "civilised"
You have simply claimed that a free market system is not sensible, and then attempted to "evidence" it with the further arbitrary claim that society is stupid.
So he is making the "arbitrary" claim that society is valuing arbitrary things over logical and productive things and you complain about his supposed arbitrary claim while failing to look around you and see the obvious truth that society is full of arbitrary things and the market system rewards you for appealing to the arbitrary stupidity of the masses? Why the fuck aren't you more concerned about the "arbitrary" things that are infecting the entire human race than his supposedly "arbitrary" conclusions which anyone with more intelligence than a dusty old ATARI in your uncles addic can recognise as valid just by taking one look at society. If a super advanced super intelligent being from another dimension took a look at earth what do you think would piss him off more?
A) people making minor grammatical errors and saying that society is stupid on the internet.
B) The fact that the average primitive homo ape creature seems to be more interested in arbitrary things and entertainment than in using their cognitive capacities to their full potential or making improvements and that they believe more in social constructs and superstitious notions than in reason and evidence.
convoluted language
People often say that when they are too stupid to even know what the fuck someone is talking about.
What you are actually doing is selectively picking out the most successful musicians, actors and athletes
If you look at who is the most "successful" and who is actually the most talented, skilled etc. then you will notice a problem if you have any brains at all. He is "selectively picking the most successful" specifically to point out how fucking stupid and pathetic they are. The thing is, the "most successful" musicians create nothing but mindless repetitive drivel, the "most successful" athletes are really nothing special in many cases when it comes to their actual athleticism etc...
If it where not for the fact that you can make money specifically by appealing to the stupidity of the average person then none of the "most successful" in the entertainment industry would be handed so much just for repeating the word "baby" 4382789572983593822985 times with autotune to mask any semblance of manliness or humanity that may be left in macklemore, Lil wayne or Justin Beiber's body or chasing a ball down a field like a fucking dog while dressed in tights and an oversized padded bra..
If a super advanced super intelligent being from another dimension took a look at earth what do you think would piss him off more?
A) people making minor grammatical errors and saying that society is stupid on the internet.
B) The fact that the average primitive homo ape creature seems to be more interested in arbitrary things and entertainment than in using their cognitive capacities to their full potential or making improvements and that they believe more in social constructs and superstitious notions than in reason and evidence.
What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted--which actually is why we are having this debate here and now. Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing.
However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system
Actually, the critical ones are the folks who build and fix the stuff.
If we were to have no more technological advancement, we would be fine.
However, if the things on which people have come to rely were to stop working, society would slide backward into a chaos of unfulfilled dependence. I have come across the estimate that were the electricity shut off in most modern industrialized societies (Europe, Japan, USA, etc.) 90% of people would be dead within 3 weeks.
We don't need new stuff nearly as badly as we need to keep the stuff we have working.
Regarding your observation, Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted--which actually is why we are having this debate here and now. Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value".
You are obviously right about the ignorance and lack of perspective of the sheeple.
However, I would recommend consideration of the fact that most of the technological advancements of the last two centuries are of nominal value.
I would propose that almost all of the improvement of quality of life brought about by industrialization, etc. result from the following:
-1- Germ theory
-2- Water treatment combined with indoor plumbing
-3- Refrigeration
-4- Treatment for lice
Most of the rest of what we have in modern society is just doing the same old stuff in different ways. Computers did not change what we do at all, but only how far, how fast, how big. We already wrote, did math, kept records, communicated, made/watched stories, etc.. They simply are not the big advancement in human society many folks like to tout.
The fact is any society has very few actual needs, and people have been meeting them for millennia:
- Food production/distribution
- Protection
- Shelter production and maintenance
- Garbage disposal
Very few people in our society do anything related to these needs. That means that the vast majority of people in our society are useless.
However, we don't want to deal with these useless people running amok, so we give them things to do: Discovering physics, doing engineering, designing/manufacturing/selling computers, making art, running fast and knocking things down for others' entertainment, etc. ad nauseum.
To look at it functionally, the whole point of a computer is to give a lot of useless people a mechanism to justify giving them food, a place to live, etc..
You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational.
Thank you. Well put.
You succinctly articulated the basic truth that underlies the free market: that individuals decide for themselves what is the rational price to charge or pay for a good or service.
I never would have expected you to make a statement that supports the free market.
Nomenclature: You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational.
Marcusmoon: Thank you. Well put.
No, actually it is not well put.
Consider for a moment if society had to start from scratch tomorrow. Now, if you want to survive there are certain necessities that are required such as food, protection, shelter, ect. This requires contributors, at minimum people who find and prepare food, construct/find some form of shelter that gives some level of protection from the environment and/or other animals, care for the young, ect. This is very rudimentary however it still requires people to step-up and work, not guys that simply goof around and wrestle with each other all day (i.e. athletes) or perpetually gawking over some hot chick's ass to the point that you give them all your resources (i.e. celebrity culture).
Now, unless you want to live in a perpetually primitive state (i.e. quasi Anarcho-Primitivism), than you require people of practical intelligence (i.e. architects, engineers, scientists, ect.) to plan and organize with workers willing and able to put such plans into motion (i.e. construction workers, "blue collar" laborers, farmers, repairs, waste management, ect.). After a certain level of advancement is achieved, then this will sufficiently free things up for other creative/intellectual work (i.e. artists, other intellectual pursuits that lack practical application but nevertheless are highly enriching, ect.). Even then, society does not require much of what goes on in Celebrity culture and the like (e.g. think of ET network, reality TV, ect. ect.) which serves no purpose to society other than being harmful.
Note, our Modern World only feels disconnected from the thought experiment described above, however this remains our situation--we are just starting from a framework that is already in place rather than scratch. Now, is it a scientific fact that describing some courses of action for society rather than others is more rational?--No. However, that doesn't mean that it is entirely arbitrary either and anyone with even the most rudimentary Philosophical sophistication would comprehend that. We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes (the latter being quite seriously how our current society is largely structured around/product of and this is how people largely behave in a "Free Market" as well as many versions of "Constrained Markets" that don't fundamentally challenge the underlying dynamics at work)
Nomenclature: You are not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not rational.
Marcusmoon: Thank you. Well put.
MathFan: No, actually it is not well put....
...We need to (at least) start incentivizing people to use their Frontal Lobes (if not demanding it)--you know, behave like Homo Sapiens rather than Bonobo Apes
Embedded in your post is a foundation for acknowledgement that homo sapiens sapiens are a very stupid animal. Most are not even smart enough to recognize that doing something complex is not necessarily an indication of intelligence. We are so amazingly primitive that we still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. (Douglas Adams)
We are remarkably averse to apply our skills and understanding to identifying and addressing basic problems in straightforward ways.
As much to the point, this is largely the result of our tendency to mistakenly think that whether we like or dislike something is pertinent information.
The result is that people give greater reward or respect to folks who do useless/damaging things they like, (athletes, entertainers, porn stars, Mark Zuckerberg, genetic engineers, women's studies professors, congressmen who increase entitlement funding, humanitarian aid workers, doctors who lower infant mortality rates, nurses who give vaccinations.)
The parenthetical jabs are meant to illustrate a second point. Most of us disagree on what are useless or damaging because we have different priorities. What is the more rational priority:
- Security/protection of the weak?
- Reduced suffering?
- Freedom/independence?
- Pleasure?
- Etc. ad infinitum?
None of us, ultimately gets to be the arbiter of what is rational because we all value completely different things, and are willing to exact/pay different costs to achieve them.
This brings us back to the free market. This time it is the free market of values and priorities that underlie the economic free market.
The parenthetical jabs are meant to illustrate a second point. Most of us disagree on what are useless or damaging because we have different priorities. What is the more rational priority:
- Security/protection of the weak?
- Reduced suffering?
- Freedom/independence?
- Pleasure?
- Etc. ad infinitum?
None of us, ultimately gets to be the arbiter of what is rational because we all value completely different things, and are willing to exact/pay different costs to achieve them.
This is actually touching upon the fundamental point I am challenging. That is, the current system (and you) are taking as a given that a preference value system is inherently more "just" than utility value system (while this is not at all obvious and I have raised a large number of profound concerns of the logical consequences in valuing people's individual preferences rather than their productive contributions).
In fact, most of my argument is centered around this fundamental Philosophical point
This is actually touching upon the fundamental point I am challenging.
It has already been demonstrated repeatedly that your argument is founded on a false premise. I genuinely don't understand why you begin debates like these because every time somebody illustrates that you haven't thought it through properly you enter into complete denial and then spend the next few weeks harassing whoever disproved you.
That is, the current system (and you) are taking as a given that a preference value system is inherently more "just" than utility value system.
But he isn't saying that. You literally just made that up. He's saying what is most useful is a matter of preference, and hence the objective "utility" value you refer to does not exist. You have entirely misrepresented his argument, which leads me to question whether you actually can read.
while this is not at all obvious and I have raised a large number of profound concerns of the logical consequences in valuing people's individual preferences rather than their productive contributions
Just wtf? Why are you wasting everybody's time writing such senseless, deliberately convoluted nonsense? Quite literally everything you write is an attempt to disguise your complete misunderstanding of whatever you are writing about. You are so fundamentally ignorant of everything that you dare not make a simple point lest someone frontally assault it and rip it to pieces.
His ENTIRE POINT is that the "value" of contributions is relative and hence cannot be objectified. If I pick five apples and you pick five oranges then who has made the greater contribution? Given that you have misrepresented his argument to the point that you have actually turned it inside out, there is only one explanation why you are trying to write that misrepresentation in the style of a university academic, and that is a narcissistic personality disorder.
It has already been demonstrated repeatedly that your argument is founded on a false premise.
This is incorrect, and the point I am making is relatively basic. What your comment does indicate however is that you are one of many people who lack the requisite intelligence needed to think their way out of Snow Globe for which they were raised into--your wiring is already very solidified based upon the general rules of our current society. If someone radically challenges the validity of these rules, your brain overheats and is unable to perform the requisite computations (i.e. you are an old model computer that is highly limited in the software it is able to accept/run). Note: This is consistent with you being "nearly 40" also
I hoped that help clear up some confusion for you
I genuinely don't understand why you begin debates like these because every time somebody illustrates that you haven't thought it through properly you enter into complete denial and then spend the next few weeks harassing whoever disproved you.
Are you referring to 9/11, Intelligent Design, Time Travel into the Past, ect. ect.?
His ENTIRE POINT is that the "value" of contributions is relative and hence cannot be objectified
I know, for which I have challenged and raised issue with here (i.e. you can quantify the obvious difference between the contributions of Kim Kardashian and Applied Physicists for example--or countless other examples. When the difference is patently obvious there is nothing difficult to figure out).
are taking as a given that a preference value system is inherently more "just" than utility value system
You seem to object to this primarily because you PREFER utility. On the other hand, some people PREFER beauty, or meaning ("meaningfulness").
It seems to me that meaning is less valued than utility, which is in turn valued less than beauty.
Personally, I would like those of us (majors in philosophy, religion, and English) to get preference over those who sell tools or entertainments and beautiful things. Rationally it only makes sense because however we live, we want our lives to have meaning.
By contrast, some people think that beauty in all its forms and permutations, and entertainment are most important, because what gives us pleasure is at the core of our psyches. Useful things only exist to make room in our lives for beauty and pleasure and entertainment.
You, of course, think useful things, and the people who make them, are most important, and that meaning and pleasure are merely extras.
There is no rational way around the fact that any of these can be logically supported as most important.
That is why the free market is helpful. It enables all of us to get paid based on our customer base's preferences.
You seem to object to this primarily because you PREFER utility
Yes, I wasn't attempting to keep that a secret. I was stating that our current system is holding one Philosophical premise which needs to be justified (as there are very strong arguments against it) and that others can be argued for as well. I have laid out my basic argument for utility value system as well as against our current model. What you have on your side at the moment is what I have also discussed, "The Tide of the Times"--see my response to AlofRi for more information
Personally, I would like those of us (majors in philosophy, religion, and English) to get preference over those who sell tools or entertainments and beautiful things. Rationally it only makes sense because however we live, we want our lives to have meaning.
By contrast, some people think that beauty in all its forms and permutations, and entertainment are most important, because what gives us pleasure is at the core of our psyches. Useful things only exist to make room in our lives for beauty and pleasure and entertainment.
You, of course, think useful things, and the people who make them, are most important, and that meaning and pleasure are merely extras.
There is no rational way around the fact that any of these can be logically supported as most important.
That is why the free market is helpful. It enables all of us to get paid based on our customer base's preferences.
There is no rational way around the fact that any of these can be logically supported as most important.
Although societies such as you mentioned are entirely concievable, you are failing to address the point (that I have discussed at some length now) that our society is based around Science & Tech. Currently, people are accepting all of the toys without any of the responsibility. In a society that held Beauty as the highest value (in the common sense of Beauty that is), although we may have more incredible works of art (e.g. sculptures, painting, ect.) we most certainly wouldn't have the overwhelming majority of our modern comforts (provided by Sci and Tech.)
Although societies such as you mentioned are entirely concievable, you are failing to address the point (that I have discussed at some length now) that our society is based around Science & Tech.
Our society is DEMONSTRABLY not "based around Science & Tech" with Meaning and Beauty/Entertainment as mere sideline activities.
If what you say were the case, there would be very little time and money spend on the following activities.
-Religion
-Movies
-TV shows
-Art and music
-Art and music production materials and tools
-Fictional literature
-Humanities courses
-Non-STEM think tanks, foundations, and organizations
-Sports events
-Sports equipment
-Toys
-Fashion
-gourmet cooking
-alcohol
-publications about fashion, food, art, sports, entertainment etc.
-Tourism
-Theme parks, museums, etc.
As it is, with the exception of the medical industry, science and tech are merely providing new ways to do any of these things, ALL of which are activities that people have been doing for millennia.
Science and tech are support activities changing HOW we do meaning/beauty/entertainment activities, NOT WHETHER we do them or even whether we can.
If it were the case that our society is actually based on science and technology, science for its own sake would be a primary activity for a much larger number of people.
In a society that held Beauty as the highest value (in the common sense of Beauty that is), although we may have more incredible works of art (e.g. sculptures, painting, ect.) we most certainly wouldn't have the overwhelming majority of our modern comforts (provided by Sci and Tech.)
I disagree.
Face it, very few non-medical technological advances have demonstrably improved human quality of life. The primary items on the list are:
-Writing/paper/printing
-Ceramics
-Soap
-Steel hand tools
-Hot/cold running water
-Sewage treatment
-Refrigeration
-The fact that most people in modern industrialized nations are never infested with lice and fleas
-The telephone (possibly)
NONE of these technological advances is less than 150 years old! During the time periods of these developments, science was NOT the primary value.
All the rest of our technical advances since the mid 19th century (outside of the medical industry) have done nothing more than change how big, how small, how fast, and how far humans can do things we have always done. These factors have certainly changed how cheaply, which is not inconsequential, but it hardly justifies your statement that our society is based around science and technology.
(Due to the science/tech-related damage to the environment and increase in human population, it is arguable that the past 150 years worth of science & tech developments have actually decreased human quality of life. That is NOT my argument, however.)
Beauty/Entertainment, and Science/Technology are NOT mutually exclusive. THERE IS ROOM FOR ALL OF IT!
This is why free market capitalism is so sensible. The free market has enabled us to have it all.
The case of pharmaceutical companies profiteering and exploiting their more vulnerable clients is no more than unethical business practices by a few unscrupulous companies who would undoubtedly argue that their excessive profits are necessary to continue their highly expensive research and development of new drugs.
I'm more pointing out that the overwhelming bulk of new Science/Medical/Tech "basic" research is occurring at University systems that receive much of their funding through the Government (public tax money) and then once something fruitful comes out of this massive Public investment, private companies are able to use the results of the research to their advantage and privatize products (and such) that would not have been possible if not for the Public funding
Now, in a "Free Market" system, the Private company would be the one taking all of the risks (with the inevitable high financial investment/burden that doesn't pan out) as well as the rewards (if anything manifested out of the research) which is not at all what is occurring at the moment (under our current system). Right now, they essentially get the reward without having to take the risks
Again I must back off on this one as I'm totally unaware of the instances of '' massive public investment in private sector, profit orientated concerns to which you refer.
I would be surprised, if not astounded if the funding you allege is occurring does not come with terms and conditions.
The European Parliament has passed numerous laws on the illegal state funding of private sector corporations and impose brutally severe penalties on both the governments and companies involved in such unlawful practices.
The case of pharmaceutical companies profiteering and exploiting their more vulnerable clients is no more than unethical business practices by a few unscrupulous companies
The reason pharmaceutical companies can "profiteer" is because of the DISRUPTION and RESTRICTION of the free market.
Consider this example:
How much is your eyesight worth to you? If you were told you were going to lose your eyesight, and there was no cure, what would you be willing to pay to keep from going blind?
$50/day?
$500/day?
$5000/day?
What if you were told there was a pill that would delay the blindness?
How much would you pay for each additional day of sight?
That would depend on how much value YOU place on your sight. You would never be forced to pay more than a fair price, because fair is determined by what you are willing to pay and what the company is willing to take in exchange for the pill.
If there was only one company that sold the pill, they could set the price at the highest price you would be willing and able to pay. You would never be forced to pay more than how much you value your ability to see. They would never be forced to sell for less than they thought their product was worth.
If there were two companies that made the pill, they would compete in a free market. That would bring the price down, as they compete for your money.
Two things throw a wrench into the pharmaceutical free market in American society.
- 1 - Government regulations interfere unduly with the process of bringing products to market, add extra costs to product development and testing, and limit competition between companies by prohibiting the purchase of many medications from vendors outside the US.
- 2 - Insurance companies act as a buffer between the pharmaceutical companies and the patients. Patients cannot shop around because the pharmaceutical companies have already negotiated their rates with the insurance companies. As a result, the pharmaceutical companies collude with the insurance companies in hiding the prices of the medications as "proprietary information."