i typed this, but i'm not sure why. good luck figuring out wtf i mean by it.
--- yes, h1b will save our jorbs by giving them to other people who will do the same work for lower wages. the real problem is that americans overvalue their work. if we worked for market value, there would be no need to export labor, except possibly to get away from the EPA or other govt. interference. eliminate the minimum wage and all the other regulations, and that problem is solved. or maybe it has no effect whatsoever. i don't know, i'm not an economist.
here's an economic idea rooted in a philosophical approach that requires no actual math or knowledge of the laws of supply and demand--eliminate all lending and all investments. stop money from reproducing itself--it's unnatural. not all money is created equally. no more banks, and the economy improves for everyone.
here's how i think investing screws up the market for actual work: as it is, people (that's us) borrow money to support lifestyles that they (we) can't support on wages alone, then turn around and try to make up the difference with investment income. maybe people (we) do this because they (we) are unwilling or unable to do enough actual work that pays enough actual wages to cover all the bills for all of the things our loans make us think we're entitled to. eliminate borrowing, and people have to live on what they can support by doing actual work, being wise, and investing the leftovers wisely. but at bottom, the idea of investing has the same effect on the market for work as borrowing does.
point #2: because you can get money by investing (or borrowing), money loses its symbolic value--it used to be that you could only get a days wage by doing a days work or by doing something illegal. an economy that is built on the exchange of investment income on a one-to-one exchange for wage income is inherently unstable. but the irony is that the instability doesn't always show up in the form of bad things happening here--mostly, it shows up in the form of bad things happening everywhere people do an actual days work but are not paid an actual days wage.
(maybe that happens because some "investor" reaps a profit off of selling the product of someone else's work even though the investor didn't actually do anything except provide the money.)
sooner or later, the system--by that i mean our present ability to earn wages (that represent actual work) and borrow money (that represents actual work) to invest (to earn investment income)--will fail to pay off well enough to keep our end balanced.
but that won't stop the system, it'll just screw up our end, and someone else will still be earning high enough wages to "invest" in our work.
(so we'll end up being the people doing all of the actual work while everyone else makes money off of it. or at least that's what i'm afraid will happen. this is why--if i explained it clearly at all--in my view, investing in someone's work, to profit off of what someone else does with his own two hands is very much like stealing from him, and why usury used to be illegal.)
so, regardless of where the actual work is done, the investor benefits from someone else's work as if he did it himself despite the fact that the investor didn't actually do any actual work. the IRS agrees with me--that's why investment income has to be distinguished from wages on a tax return.
another way of summarizing the core of my argument is that wages are what slaves earn after the masters take everything their "investment" entitles them to.
So I read what you said, but I did not see that you gave any actual recommendation all I saw was a complaint with no solution. I don't think you have thought through all the ramifications of eliminating debt. If you eliminate the loaning of money you are going to make it much much harder for the poor to "change there stars". The rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor.
Let me give you an example: I work on computers but I also do construction on the side. If I were not able to borrow money, my only option would be to work for someone else who had money to buy a house. Because I am able to borrow money I am able to purchase an old house and refurbish it. (I closed on the house last week.) I will then rent it with the goal of having it pay for itself and eventually give me a steady income. There is no way I would be able to do that if I could not borrow. It would take me 20 years of saving to get the capital to do what I am now doing at 23 years of age.
You brought up the idea of a days wages. Basically I am borrow the money against the fact that most likely I will work for the next twenty years and thus have wages coming in.
all i really meant to point out is exactly what you said--that apart from borrowing money, few (if any) people are able to support investments. but, while you will profit from investing a loan into a house, your profit is tied to the work you do to improve that house's value whereas the lenders' profits are not connected to any work they actually did. instead, their profits are connected to the increase in value of your work.
(actually, part of what i'm thinking about and not expressing very well in that other rant is that when the value of something increases despite the fact that no work was necessarily done (i.e. loaning 10000 coins out today to get 11000 back a month from now), the increase is only an illusion--and such illusions destabilize an economy. lending profits are purely an illusion unless the people who are being lended to actually do work to increase the value of whatever the loan enabled them to buy...there is no way to assure or account for that... and sooner or later, if people keep borrowing to buy disposible goods that provide little or no increase in the value of the work they do, the loans turn to dust and the economy falls on its fat head for allowing people to borrow money to do something other than higher quality/quantity work. but, i'd contend, without cheap credit, nobody would be able to buy enough to keep this economy going, and nobody would be able to produce enough to keep this economy going... but, because the economy itself is tied to a kind of borrowing that does not increase the value of work, it is rooted on a very unstable foundation.
investing is subject to the same illusion--getting a lot of people to invest in something gives the appearance that a lot of work is being done, when in fact there is no necessary reason why anyone should assume that investments increase the value of work. if it does, good for the investor--he's invested wisely. but even wise investors get screwed by the illusion that the work required to make investments pay off is actually being done.
i'm not very well versed in economics, but it seems to me that the most stable economy multiplies work-for-cash trades and cash-for-product trades, and limits credit-for-cash trades to the point of making credit available only to improve the value of work, like eduction loans and a few other kinds of loans/investments i haven't thought about yet. there are probably thousands of reasons why my idea of a stable economy is wrong, but i doubt anyone can describe an economy that is truly just, seeing as how all markets function to keep work priced lower than the products of work.)
two questions about justice: should one be allowed to buy another's work for less than the product of the work is worth? (honestly, i don't think so.)
should people even be allowed to sell their own work for less than what the product of their work is worth? (i'm less sure about that one.)
4 comments:
So your saying we should stick it to him?
i typed this, but i'm not sure why. good luck figuring out wtf i mean by it.
---
yes, h1b will save our jorbs by giving them to other people who will do the same work for lower wages. the real problem is that americans overvalue their work. if we worked for market value, there would be no need to export labor, except possibly to get away from the EPA or other govt. interference. eliminate the minimum wage and all the other regulations, and that problem is solved. or maybe it has no effect whatsoever. i don't know, i'm not an economist.
here's an economic idea rooted in a philosophical approach that requires no actual math or knowledge of the laws of supply and demand--eliminate all lending and all investments. stop money from reproducing itself--it's unnatural.
not all money is created equally. no more banks, and the economy improves for everyone.
here's how i think investing screws up the market for actual work: as it is, people (that's us) borrow money to support lifestyles that they (we) can't support on wages alone, then turn around and try to make up the difference with investment income. maybe people (we) do this because they (we) are unwilling or unable to do enough actual work that pays enough actual wages to cover all the bills for all of the things our loans make us think we're entitled to. eliminate borrowing, and people have to live on what they can support by doing actual work, being wise, and investing the leftovers wisely. but at bottom, the idea of investing has the same effect on the market for work as borrowing does.
point #2: because you can get money by investing (or borrowing), money loses its symbolic value--it used to be that you could only get a days wage by doing a days work or by doing something illegal. an economy that is built on the exchange of investment income on a one-to-one exchange for wage income is inherently unstable. but the irony is that the instability doesn't always show up in the form of bad things happening here--mostly, it shows up in the form of bad things happening everywhere people do an actual days work but are not paid an actual days wage.
(maybe that happens because some "investor" reaps a profit off of selling the product of someone else's work even though the investor didn't actually do anything except provide the money.)
sooner or later, the system--by that i mean our present ability to earn wages (that represent actual work) and borrow money (that represents actual work) to invest (to earn investment income)--will fail to pay off well enough to keep our end balanced.
but that won't stop the system, it'll just screw up our end, and someone else will still be earning high enough wages to "invest" in our work.
(so we'll end up being the people doing all of the actual work while everyone else makes money off of it. or at least that's what i'm afraid will happen. this is why--if i explained it clearly at all--in my view, investing in someone's work, to profit off of what someone else does with his own two hands is very much like stealing from him, and why usury used to be illegal.)
so, regardless of where the actual work is done, the investor benefits from someone else's work as if he did it himself despite the fact that the investor didn't actually do any actual work. the IRS agrees with me--that's why investment income has to be distinguished from wages on a tax return.
another way of summarizing the core of my argument is that wages are what slaves earn after the masters take everything their "investment" entitles them to.
So I read what you said, but I did not see that you gave any actual recommendation all I saw was a complaint with no solution. I don't think you have thought through all the ramifications of eliminating debt. If you eliminate the loaning of money you are going to make it much much harder for the poor to "change there stars". The rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor.
Let me give you an example: I work on computers but I also do construction on the side. If I were not able to borrow money, my only option would be to work for someone else who had money to buy a house. Because I am able to borrow money I am able to purchase an old house and refurbish it. (I closed on the house last week.) I will then rent it with the goal of having it pay for itself and eventually give me a steady income. There is no way I would be able to do that if I could not borrow. It would take me 20 years of saving to get the capital to do what I am now doing at 23 years of age.
You brought up the idea of a days wages. Basically I am borrow the money against the fact that most likely I will work for the next twenty years and thus have wages coming in.
all i really meant to point out is exactly what you said--that apart from borrowing money, few (if any) people are able to support investments. but, while you will profit from investing a loan into a house, your profit is tied to the work you do to improve that house's value whereas the lenders' profits are not connected to any work they actually did. instead, their profits are connected to the increase in value of your work.
(actually, part of what i'm thinking about and not expressing very well in that other rant is that when the value of something increases despite the fact that no work was necessarily done (i.e. loaning 10000 coins out today to get 11000 back a month from now), the increase is only an illusion--and such illusions destabilize an economy.
lending profits are purely an illusion unless the people who are being lended to actually do work to increase the value of whatever the loan enabled them to buy...there is no way to assure or account for that... and sooner or later, if people keep borrowing to buy disposible goods that provide little or no increase in the value of the work they do, the loans turn to dust and the economy falls on its fat head for allowing people to borrow money to do something other than higher quality/quantity work. but, i'd contend, without cheap credit, nobody would be able to buy enough to keep this economy going, and nobody would be able to produce enough to keep this economy going... but, because the economy itself is tied to a kind of borrowing that does not increase the value of work, it is rooted on a very unstable foundation.
investing is subject to the same illusion--getting a lot of people to invest in something gives the appearance that a lot of work is being done, when in fact there is no necessary reason why anyone should assume that investments increase the value of work. if it does, good for the investor--he's invested wisely. but even wise investors get screwed by the illusion that the work required to make investments pay off is actually being done.
i'm not very well versed in economics, but it seems to me that the most stable economy multiplies work-for-cash trades and cash-for-product trades, and limits credit-for-cash trades to the point of making credit available only to improve the value of work, like eduction loans and a few other kinds of loans/investments i haven't thought about yet. there are probably thousands of reasons why my idea of a stable economy is wrong, but i doubt anyone can describe an economy that is truly just, seeing as how all markets function to keep work priced lower than the products of work.)
two questions about justice:
should one be allowed to buy another's work for less than the product of the work is worth? (honestly, i don't think so.)
should people even be allowed to sell their own work for less than what the product of their work is worth? (i'm less sure about that one.)
Post a Comment