Re: Landlordism and Slavery. was: Live8

"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%WgDe.20694$mC.3085@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The Trucker wrote:
>> "Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:_UtCe.6543$iG6.4826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>Mark Monson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>In any case, labor produces what we consume. Whether here or offshore,
>>>>those laborers are trying to produce something they can consume. The shirt
>>>>you wear was made in Sri Lanka by a worker who traded it for a bit of
>>>>something to eat.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because the dollar he gets for me means more to him than me.
>>>That's comparative advantage. It's not a thing apart.
>>
>>
>> No. That is NOT comparative advantage. The actual
>> definition of comparative advantage assumes equal labor
>> applied.
>
> http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html
>
> "If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity
> cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it
> of them with some part of the produce of our own
> industry, employed in a way in which we have some
> advantage. " (Book IV, Section ii, 12, Adma Smith's
> "Wealth")
>
> All it says is that the good is cheaper. There's
> no discussion of any inputs into cost. "Predatory
> pricing" ( like with cars in the '80s ) was
> a comparative advantage situation - the makers
> just made no, or negative profit.

But read what Smith actually says: We must pay for
the stuff we get with our own produce. So long as
there is a trade deficit this is NOT the case. We are
selling ourselves into indentured servitude in the
current scheme of things. And it will be that
way so long as there is not equal labor. The
Chinese are laboring more and saving more and
using the savings to buy us out. Meanwhile, the
Pinocchio government does all it can to increase
that flow of wealth from here to China using cute
little phrases like "comparative advantage" and
"free trade" to justify its ruinous policies.

>> This does not mean that each person's labor
>> is equally productive. It means that each person labors
>> an equal amount. If the person in China labors for 10
>> hours and produces 20 pairs of shoes and the person
>> in the USA labors for 10 hours and produces 20 pair
>> of similar shoes, the fact that you need only pay the
>> Chinese person 2 bananas while you would need to
>> pay the American person 50 bananas is not referred to
>> as "comparative advantage" even if it sounds really
>> cool.
>
> Comparative advantage refers to price only.

How does it work when you use borrowed (created
out of thin air) money that obligates you to pay in
_real_ stuff?

We, the American people, are being sold down the
river by the Pinocchio regime and their pet
neoconomists. People who drive trucks for a living
do not have a bunch of dough to "invest" in bonds.
But the fat cats that got the tax breaks can do that
very easily. Even better they can "invest" in companies
in China and if they ever have a problem with
China nationalizing the operation then the US military
will intervene even though the investors (due to the
tax breaks) have not paid for such enforcement.

Comparative advantage is not supposed to be
based on loans of fiat money or asset sales It is
based on actual goods.

> > The EFFORT to produce the shoes is the same.
>> The _owner(s)_ and consumers are simply able to
>> extract more economic rent in China than they are
>> able to extract in the USA, i.e. they are able to
>> use slave labor in China because the Chinese people
>> do not have the abundant supply of land and other
>> natural resources per capita as we have here.
>>
>
> People in poorer countries simply have a higher
> marginal value for a dollar. This is *exactly*
> why this works.

Real people (producers) in foriegn contries are paid
in foreign countries are not paid in dollars. And most
of the real profits will flow to the American and Chinese
OWNERS. People in "poorer"countries are "poor"
because they are slaves to the land owners in their
respective countries. The Repugnicans and
their idiot ass kissing rank and file pine for the
day when our nation is similar to this. In that
type of environment their abject stupidity will
not be a disadvantage vis a vis the other
members of the great unwashed. Neoconomic
horse*** is a means to legitimize an attack on the
intelligent people of the society by the dummies
in the society who _MUST_ have an authority
to tell them which way to point when taking a
leak and who with and how to have sex.

>> In any case where comparative advantage is
>> a reality it is probably due to land suitability
>> (e,g, it is easier to produce corn in Iowa than
>> in Texas)
>
> That depends. Really. But in general, yup.
>
> or to education/skill (e.g. the population
>> of the USA is more able to produce certain
>> technologies than folks in Africa), or age/health
>> (e.g. 70 year old coots do not make good
>> furniture movers). And in all of these cases
>> you have the EFFORT/labor as equal. You
>> will NOT convince me, or anyone else, that the
>> average Chinese person is more educated or
>> skillful than the average American person.
>>
>
> Nor me. What's up is that there's a Policy in China
> of "loss leading" the capital, creating an
> investment honeypot, with a crackdown to follow.
>
>> The reality is that America has most of the
>> _comparative advantage_.
>>
>
> Except where there's subsidy.

Subsidy in China, Pinocchio subsidy of money
creation and stupidity of asset speculation
(sale of Unocal). The dollars accepted for the
assets will soon be worth much less than
anticipated. There will come a time when the
Chinese own enough American assets to
bribe the congress as they see fit. Does the
CEO of XYZ corp get paid 30 million a year
so he will be able to bribe the congress or
does the wannabe CEO borrow the money
to bribe the congress and become CEO
by doing so?

>> wikipedia
>>
>>
>>>People in Sri Lanka are poor for a vast list of reasons.
>>>Land rent is probably one of them. I don't disagree,
>>>there.
>>
>>
>> It may well be that the land is no good for
>> anything that can be done with little or no
>> education. And with no education and
>> no good land you be poor.
>>
>
> People in Sri lanka are, if you beleive modern
> development theory, "underdeveloped". That
> means there must be a societal critical mass
> of developement before this improves on
> a broad scale.

Uh, yeah... That is what I said.

>>
>>>>>Those may be the atoms, but they do not expose the entire
>>>>>chemistry. If you subsidize labor, you'll certainly
>>>>>get more of it.
>>
>>
>> That is flat wrong. Totally out of phase. And it
>> illustrates the level to which misunderstanding
>> is a part of current econ. If you give people
>> a citizen's dividend, then they will need to labor
>> _LESS_ so as to see to their needs.
>
> I have never beleived that, and I am unable
> to find even a cursory explanation that holds any
> water to support it. This goes to the prime
> error of Spencer's Chapter IX - that labor is
> *the* primary.
>
> I've done simple perturbation analysis here,
> with multipe posters, and nobody gets it.
> You cannot have your cake and eat it.
>
> The error is the assumption that putting all people
> on a labor footing will make labor more valuable.
> Well, that's wrong because:
>
> 1) You'll now have more labor, chasing the
> subsidy. People who live on rent now will be
> displaced back into labor.

No. The largest rent takers will simply lose some
of their power and will command less labor in
pursuit of their particular power pyramids. Less
towers of prestige and power, less Hummers.

> 2) All the money paid into the LVT system will
> go towards government. That's a relatively poor
> generator of productivity. This "citizen
> dividend' is science fiction - if you
> put the fish (gummint) in a bigger tank ( budget )
> it grows.

The current Pinocchio regime should be enought
to dissuade most thinking people of this ficticious
link between taxation and government spending.
I do not believe that you are stupid enough to
subscribe to such foolishness and then you uncork
somehting like this.

This supposition of government bloat is based on
the lack of a true representative form of government.
It is also based on the myth that government is
not able to do a better job in some areas than can
the private sector.

> *All* that's left is labor, so guess what?
> There'll be more labor for the same output.

There is MUCH, MUCH, more than labor left.
You seem to leave _real_ capital out of the
equation.

> Surely this is clear?

It is clear that _real_ capitalism (a system that
tolerates private ownership of capital so as
to maximize the development of _real_
capital) requires the removal of land and
fiat money from the definition of capital.

>> Such a
>> dividend would be a subsidy to labor
>
> Yes, and that would tend to increase its
> price, but it does nothing on the demand side.

We are not currently in need of ANY increase
in demand but for the sake of providing
wages. Those of us who have good jobs are
supporting those that have no or very poor
jobs by working longer hours. Seems a lot
simpler to just get rid of the illegal immigrants
and the H1B visa people and share the
actual work that needs doing among the
people that live here legally.

> In essence, many people today live on an indirect
> subsudy based on rent accruing to landowners. It's
> not all held in gold coin, Scrooge McDuck style.

This is an outright lie. The people to whom you
refer would be far better off with NO forced
indebtedness and a tax on land as opposed to
taxes on production.

The same result might also be achieved with a
direct citizen's dividend drawn from a federal
tax on land.

> All that rent ends up flowing back in, but in
> arbitrary ways.

No. It is not all "flowing back in" as much of it
is simply withheld so as to increase the power of
the rentier. And that which
does flow will flow in the form of opulent
extravaganzas and displays of wealth as opposed
to the more utilitarian creation of roads, bridges,
and better Fords and Chevys. or **Gasp** better
mass transit and better electrical power distribution
and information systems.

> because
>> the vast majority do actually labor for their
>> sustenance. But _LESS_ labor would be
>> performed in the aggregate and less pyramids
>> (icons to the wealthy) would be constructed.
>>

The point is amplified above.

>>>>With what can you subsidize labor but other labor?
>>>>
>>>>MM
>>>
>>>Well, if all there is is labor and land, then you can't.
>>>But we see cases where synergies occure - where we get
>>>more out than we put in.
>>
>>
>> Capital and specialization do contribute to productivity.
>> Is that a "subsidy"? I would think not.
>
> No.
>
>> I would
>> think that you are hinting at welfare yet that would still
>> not result in more labor.
>>
>
> But there has to be some invariant there to meet
> the demand staying-the-same invariant, or there
> can be no equilibrium.

I think I have addressed this adequately. There is
less demand for yachts perhaps, but more demand
for bass boats. Meanwhile, there is less return
to land and privilege (rent) and more return to
_real_ capital. And it is this _real_ capital
that drastically reduces the need for actual
LABOR. It matters as to where the funds
are taken in the first place.

> Geez, the last ten years have been the obviously
> weakest in demand for goods and services of any
> previous. That's why all the real estate speculation.

NO. The real estate speculation is caused by
a lack of sufficient land taxation and lack of
_real_ capital investment opportunities in this
country. Home ownership with very low interest
loans and tax subsidies add to the fire. There
is low demand but for borrowed money because
there is little _real_ capital development in the
USA and, hence, few jobs. And the well paying
jobs that require education and talent are filled
by foreigners coming here on H1B visas. All
of the _real_ capital development has been taking
place in China. No capital development and no
opportunities (_real_ interest or wages) here in the
USA. The workers that have been displaced
by American investment in offshore enterprises
do not have the liquidity with which to join the
offshore investment surge. Let's see you borrow
money at 5% to start a shoe making factory
in China. The once prosperous middle class
is left holding the bag. The subsidy to home
ownership (speculation) was bad enough, but
the H1B visas and the tax cuts for the rich made
things a lot worse.

> Why do you think there was a dotcom bubble? THERE
> WAS NO REAL DEMAND FOR ANYTHING PERTAINING TO IT!

The explanation to the existence of the dotcom
bubble is a lot more involved than that. Contributing
factors were:

1. Credit too lose.
2. H1B visas allowed Neoeconomically brainwashed
stupiedos with MBA degrees to build incompetent
software development staffs and operations with
very little cash flow to R&D and operations. It
looked like a gold mine to the average investor.
3.The there was the Newt Gingrich Repugnican
deregulation of business that allowed the companies
to claim profits where none existed. It wasn't
just the dotcoms that took a dive, boys and girls.
Inflated earnings make inflated stock prices. Clinton
vetoed the legislation, but the Republicans in the
Democratic party joined in to override the veto.

>>
>>>Take union work rules. Those *should* have impeded
>>>productivity. They have apparently had the opposite
>>>effect - because output is not purely linear with
>>>respect to input - people are more productive in say,
>>>an eight hour day instead of a twelve hour day.
>>
>>
>> There is also better machinery/capital.
>>
>>
>
> But even holding all that constant, people are
> more "TCO"* productive with shorter days.

Probably.

> *total cost of output - including rework and
> scrap.

Probably true. And the only thing that suffers
is sheer quantity of output which should not be
a problem. Just hire more workers. OOOPS!!!
That means you have to pay insurance, retirement,
FICA, FUTA, etc. You need more land and
structure, etc, etc. National Catastrophic Health
Insurance would go a long way toward
fixing this problem.

>>>Production is a compositional process. No element is
>>>absolutely more important than any other. It depends on
>>>"when". This is a matter of the organization of
>>>constraints.
>>
>>
>> Yet the point remains: If labor is subsidized you
>> get _less_ of it. AND THAT IS GOOD.
>> No person in his right mind actually _WANTS_
>> more labor.
>>
>
> But that is precisely what you'll get.

Not if it is done using proceeds from a land
tax. Opulence and power mongering based on
rent is what gets curtailed, not _real_ capital
development.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org


.

Quantcast