Is there a benefit to racism?

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2018, 01:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Rising stock price is not a loss to employees. 

Yes it is.  The employees helped create the increase in wealth but they did not receive any share of it.


Most people call it a loss when you do not receive a share of what your labor created.

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2018, 02:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah that's a broad statement based on the whole economy, and not the price of a single stock. 

And that is what public policy should be based on.  I can't imagine any politician running on a policy of "What is best for Michealsean?"

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that is what public policy should be based on.  I can't imagine any politician running on a policy of "What is best for Michealsean?"

Except none of that is what we were talking about.  We were talking about wealth being created without loss.  Dino threw that in there and I obliged him with an answer.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it is.  The employees helped create the increase in wealth but they did not receive any share of it.


Most people call it a loss when you do not receive a share of what your labor created.

So when a stock's price goes down they should have their wages cut?

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2018, 02:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So when a stock's price goes down ten percent they should have their wages cut?

If it keeps them from losing their jobs then yes.

Usually wages are not reduced.  Instead people lose their jobs.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 02:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If it keeps them from losing their jobs then yes.

Usually wages are not reduced.  Instead people lose their jobs.

Not based on stock prices.  They lose their jobs or have their wages cut based on the company's performance which may or may not be accurately reflected in the stock price.

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2018, 02:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Except none of that is what we were talking about.  We were talking about wealth being created without loss. 

I have no idea what you were talking about.  I was talking about new wealth being created and workers not getting the share they earned.

That is what has been going on for decades.  Working class has not gained any wealth while the top ten percent have seen massive gains in wealth.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2018, 02:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah that's a broad statement based on the whole economy, and not the price of a single stock.  Plus lots of companies give stock to their employees.  

So talking about speculative markets makes this difficult to get across. I maintain that what I said holds true even in speculative markets, but this conversation would go on and on.

The basic component of an economy is the transaction. Person A exchanges goods and/or services to person B for goods and/or services. Something of value. That is the foundation of an economy. Unless transactions occur where both sides are of equal value, one person is winning and one person is losing because one person is giving more than they are receiving. If all transactions were based on equal value, then there would be a completely egalitarian society with a 0.0 Gini coefficient. However, that is not the case here. In order for income/wealth inequality to exist, there are winners and losers.



An egalitarian society can never exist with capitalism. It is impossible, even in theory, because capitalism is based on there being these winners and losers in these transactions. Without them, there would be no profit.

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2018, 02:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not based on stock prices.  They lose their jobs or have their wages cut based on the company's performance which may or may not be accurately reflected in the stock price.

I still don't see your point.  Why don't you make a statement and tell us what you mean instead of just asking questions on all sorts of tangents.


Please tell me what you think of this statement.  .  .  .  If workers are more productive and produce more wealth should they get a share of it or should the owners take it all?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 02:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I still don't see your point.  Why don't you make a statement and tell us what you mean instead of just asking questions on all sorts of tangents.


Please tell me what you think of this statement.  .  .  .  If workers are more productive and produce more wealth should they get a share of it or should the owners take it all?

I've made lots of statements.I know you don't see my point because you are trying to twist something.  Nobody (except maybe Dill) thinks an employee not getting a share of profits is a loss to them unless they were promised a share of the profit which some companies do.  Earnings go to owners.  That's the point of being an owner.  That's how they make their money.  If they want to share it by giving raises or having an employee profit plan, that's great.  
And I see you slipped more productive in there.  

And remember if you share the profit, you share the loss which means you don't get laid off, you work for free.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So talking about speculative markets makes this difficult to get across. I maintain that what I said holds true even in speculative markets, but this conversation would go on and on.

The basic component of an economy is the transaction. Person A exchanges goods and/or services to person B for goods and/or services. Something of value. That is the foundation of an economy. Unless transactions occur where both sides are of equal value, one person is winning and one person is losing because one person is giving more than they are receiving. If all transactions were based on equal value, then there would be a completely egalitarian society with a 0.0 Gini coefficient. However, that is not the case here. In order for income/wealth inequality to exist, there are winners and losers.



An egalitarian society can never exist with capitalism. It is impossible, even in theory, because capitalism is based on there being these winners and losers in these transactions. Without them, there would be no profit.

I'm not claiming there aren't losers as there always are, I'm just saying there doesn't have to be a loser in order for wealth to be created. Somehow we are far more wealthy today than we were in 1800.  And where do natural resources fit in?  What if I find gold?  

[GMDino]

(08-15-2018, 02:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not claiming there aren't losers as there always are, I'm just saying there doesn't have to be a loser in order for wealth to be created.  Somehow we are far more wealthy today than we were in 1800.  And where do natural resources fit in?  What if I find gold?  

Someone will claim you are on "their land" and the goldisn't yours.  Probably.  

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 03:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Someone will claim you are on "their land" and the goldisn't yours.  Probably.  

Well Dill already burned down my barn and gave my cows diseased blankets, so par for the course I guess.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2018, 02:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not claiming there aren't losers as there always are, I'm just saying there doesn't have to be a loser in order for wealth to be created.

There definitely does, but that's been my whole argument, so you knew I would say that.

We can go back to the stock market. For your stock to go up, someone has to have purchased a share of that stock for that price. Immediately, anyone that may have purchased a share at a higher price lost out and those that sold at a lower price lost out. Your stock value then matches that trade because the speculation is that your stock could sell for that amount.

(08-15-2018, 02:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Somehow we are far more wealthy today than we were in 1800.

 

Inflation.

(08-15-2018, 02:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And where do natural resources fit in?  What if I find gold?  

What if you do find gold? Whose property is it on? Your wealth may go up, but if the property belongs to someone else they have lost that. If it was your property, then the person you purchased it from lost out on it. If it was public property, then the whole country lost out on that value.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 03:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  

There definitely does, but that's been my whole argument, so you knew I would say that.

We can go back to the stock market. For your stock to go up, someone has to have purchased a share of that stock for that price. Immediately, anyone that may have purchased a share at a higher price lost out and those that sold at a lower price lost out. Your stock value then matches that trade because the speculation is that your stock could sell for that amount.

 

Inflation.


What if you do find gold? Whose property is it on? Your wealth may go up, but if the property belongs to someone else they have lost that. If it was your property, then the person you purchased it from lost out on it. If it was public property, then the whole country lost out on that value.

 In the stock market, someone may have lost in the trade and someone won, but I also won and I didn't sell so it's a net increase in wealth. So can we say wealth can be created disproportional to the losses incurred?

edit:The land I found the gold on was given to my great great great great great grandfather by a Shawnee whose ancestors lived on the land for 1500 years for saving his life. That land has been passed down until today. And if you tell me the Shawnee lost out due to his act of kindness I'm coming down to Appalachia.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2018, 03:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  In the stock market, someone may have lost in the trade and someone won, but I also won and I didn't sell so it's a net increase in wealth. So can we say wealth can be created disproportional to the losses incurred?

We don't know if that is necessarily true, though. That would take a lot of calculations that I have neither the patience nor the skillset to make.