Re: China's growth is not due to trade

"Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:di6i62$n4l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dhv72v02443@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> >>
>> >> It depends on where you stand as to whether one thing
>> >> is seen to rise or another thing is seen to fall.
>
>> "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx> wrote .
>
>> >
>> > ???? These are "real" (inflation corrected) dollars. Everyone can
> become
>> > "richer":
>>
>> Horseshit, Blair. Rich is a zero sum game.
> .....
>> >> >> So it is quite fair and reasonable to say that wage earners
>> >> >> are getting the shaft when compared to those who
>> >> >> OWN stuff and receive UNEARNED income (mostly
>> >> >> economic rent).
>
> jeb:
>> >> >
>> >> > More the case that "workers" now own more capital (stocks and bonds)
>> > than in
>> >> > the past.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/marx.txt
>
> Trucker:
>> >>
>> >> This is precisely the sort of lying for which the rightards
>> >> will forever be guilty. While the number of families owning
>> >> shares of stock has grown in the last 20 years, the actual
>> >> OWNERSHIP of the means of production by the middle
>> >> class has decreased .....
>> >
>> > Meaningless gribbish unless you define "middle class", and show that
> they
>> > (however defined) now own less stocks and bonds than in the past.
> (before
>> > 1980).
>>
>> I never claimed that they owned LESS stocks, B-liar. I
>> claimed that they owned LESS of the means of production.
>> That means that their percentage of ownership has fallen:
>> ------
>>
>> What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership
> of
>> stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go
> up very
>> dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of
> households had
>> some ownership of stock.
>> By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread
> stock
>> ownership, in terms of number of families.
>
> Er, yes.
>>
>> But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In
> 2001,
>> only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only
> 25
>> percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.
>>
>> So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of
> stock.
>> There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest
> 1 or
>> 10 percent.
>
> You see wealth as a "zero sum" game because you think in terms of "percent
> of the total". So most household that owned NO stocks in 1980 now own
> "only" $10K-25K. I say that is an increase. You claim not. Because the
> total has grown faster?

No. I claim that wealth has a zero sum dimension as well as
a non zero sum dimension. The top guns still control all the means
of production and they reap so much more from their ownership
that they will ever maintain _control_. No _control_ has been
transferred to the small guys. You refuse to understand that
_WEALTH_ has two dimensions. One is related to goods but
the zero sum dimension is power. It is the power to have others
do as you (an owner) may want.

> Say you live on an island with 9 other families. You have the only house.
> If another family builds a house, does that decrease the value or usefulness
> of YOUR house?

If and when they actually _OWN_ the house and the land
(as defined by our current set of laws) then there will be
a reduction in the power of those who currently own
their homes.

> Because your share of the housing stock has dropped from
> 100% to 50%?

Because they now have a house and they need not beg to
sleep in yours. More importantly, they need not
kiss ass so as to pay the land rent to the privileged
land owners (this includes the trees that are naturally
produced on the land) so as to gain ownership of their
homes.

> And if another is built, your share drops to 1/3?

Your control over others (or your control over your
own life) will have declined if the others actually
_own_ their home In our current economy
the "rat race" is composed of those who do not
_OWN_ their home. They race after such ownership
constantly producing the stuff that is consumed by
those who do own.

> I say percents don't matter here. The more houses the better. If they all
> have their own house, that is GOOD. Not only because of my humanitarian
> concern for the other, but also because they will be less inclined to try to
> move into MY house ;-)

I take issue with your desire to convince the
rest of us that the desire of others to live in a
house is a problem for the "rich".
That desire can be and will be harnessed by
a Repugnican so as to get work done by the
others that will reward the Repugican. The
Repugnican will erect as many barriers as
possible to TRUE REAL home ownership
so as to fleece those who desire it.

> And I don't care if some of them have a bigger house than me. Only that
> my house is big enough for me.

It is a very false analogy, Blair.

1. Houses are not a means of production.
2. Houses sit on LAND and are constructed
from the fruits of LAND and land is in fixed
(zero sum) supply and owned by the big
boys.

You are attempting to conflate _real_ capital
with ownership privilege. _real_ capital does
not require privatization as a fundamental
element of its being. Dams and roads
and bridges need not be owned/privatized
so as to exist as _real_ capital. I have
considered removing owner occupied
structures form the list of things that I
consider to be _real_ capital because they
are more a "durable good" than they are
a tool or a productive piece of machinery.

--
"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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chinas growth is not due to trade
    ... > That means that their percentage of ownership has fallen: ... > What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership ... > some ownership of stock. ... You have the only house. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Chinas growth is not due to trade
    ... And it says that wages have increased 9% But it does not tell ... "Productivity can be thought of as setting a limit ... The stock market ... ownership is NOT very equal and so it is not. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Chinas growth trumps ours due to neoeconomics
    ... >>> stock. ... I claim that wealth has a zero sum dimension as well as ... >> of production and they reap so much more from their ownership ... > Others think in terms of control. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: To Fell Knight----Russ G
    ... I have 5 shares of a GREAT stock. ... One share of the stock could buy a house, not a dog house like you ... He's not talking about a closely held private corperation, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)