JREF Forum Leftists: How do you feel about entrepreneurship? [Archive]

MarkCorrigan

6th February 2010, 08:02 AM

I'm confused. I thought that the "profit motive" was bad, period.

Then either you, or the person you were talking to, is a moron.

Aiming for profit isn't bad in and of itself. It CAN lead to bad things, and with the larger companies, I would say it does more often than is really acceptable, but why on earth would anyone be against profit?

The only people who would rant against a company trying to make a profit are those currently orbiting Titan in terms of their grounding in reality. It's what a company is FOR (some exceptions required, of course). It is when the company drives itself to make a profit in such a way that it actively harms its employees, or violates social responsibility or someone's rights. THAT is when profit is bad.

Take for example, two companies in the same industry, Nike and New Balance. New Balance are a company that strives to make a profit for the shareholders, and it impliments innovations, cuts staff when it needs to, and generally acts like a company. They make mistakes, they do stupid or costly things, but they do rather well for themselves (and make damn good trainers to boot, no pun intended).

Nike on the other hand are a company I would call a bad company. They sure do come up with innovations, market well and do very VERY well for themselves, but they (http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/02-007.pdf) keep (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/970385.stm) doing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qzm7MCusGM&fmt=18) unethical and disgusting things. That last one was in 2008!

I don't have a problem with a company trying to make itself as much as it can, provided it also pays BACK into the workforce, into the economy, AND into some form of social responsibility. It is companies which do not give rights to their employees or who lie (http://hbharti.com/h_bharti_mcd/mcdonlads%20_letter_05_05_93.jpg) about things they (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93386&page=1) really shouldn't do, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/26/waste.pollution) or even use anti-union rules to screw newer workers (http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html).

These are some of the companies that I personally rail against. Others are companies that take over something that used to be competently run by a government agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail) which are then farmed out to morons who (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash) couldn't find (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potters_Bar_rail_crash) their own arse with both hands and a map. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tebay_rail_accident) Companies which put saftey concerns as LOWER priority than profit margins. Companies which knowingly screw the developing world for a fast buck (http://ethics.emory.edu/news/archives/000152.html) or who purchase raw materials without giving a toss about who they buy from (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=vn20090928074015118C579440).

Those are the companies I am against. Those are the reasons I think unbridled capitalism really IS a social evil, and THOSE are the companies I would never and could never work for. I may be naïve, I may be "blind" or a "stupid leftie", a "commie" or even a "freedom hater" (all things I assure you I have been called in the past), but I have a clean concience and I refuse to allow apolagetics for disgusting and degrading policies such as the ones I've mentioned above. There isn't anything wrong with profit, no, it's when profit is pushed at the expense of all other concerns that I start to grumble.

ETA: Feel free to disagree with me on anything, and I WANT people to point out if I'm wrong, but do not try to tell me what I believe.

hgc

6th February 2010, 08:02 AM

I'm confused. I thought that the "profit motive" was bad, period.

You live a world of strawmen.

quarky

6th February 2010, 08:12 AM

I can't even spell entraponoorship.

Upchurch

6th February 2010, 08:34 AM

I'm confused. I thought that the "profit motive" was bad, period.

Interesting. Why do you think being motivated for profit is always bad?

daenku32

6th February 2010, 08:54 AM

leftysergeant

6th February 2010, 09:48 AM

Then either you, or the person you were talking to, is a moron.

Aiming for profit isn't bad in and of itself. It CAN lead to bad things, and with the larger companies, I would say it does more often than is really acceptable, but why on earth would anyone be against profit?

The only people who would rant against a company trying to make a profit are those currently orbiting Titan in terms of their grounding in reality. It's what a company is FOR (some exceptions required, of course). It is when the company drives itself to make a profit in such a way that it actively harms its employees, or violates social responsibility or someone's rights. THAT is when profit is bad.

Erm....Yeah. What he said.

joobz

6th February 2010, 10:19 AM

entrepreneurship leads to innovation. It is the type of innovation that determines whether something is "good or bad"
For example: "Innovations" in accounting and regulation that led to the Enron collapse is bad.

Innovation in technologies which make clean water affordable and profitable in remote areas good.

daenku32

6th February 2010, 12:02 PM

Cain

6th February 2010, 12:41 PM

Entrepreneurship is the engine that allows a society to flourish, so it's no surprise even leftists have attempted to co-opt the term; now they squawk about "social entrepreneurs," but they're really referring to wealth-destroying communist-terrorists like Ingrid Newark. The countries lacking wealth-creating spirit are pre-destined for squalor. (the French don't even have a word for "entrepreneur").

MarkCorrigan:
Nike on the other hand are a company I would call a bad company. They sure do come up with innovations, market well and do very VERY well for themselves, but they keep doing unethical and disgusting things. That last one was in 2008!

You're just jealous you didn't think of it first. If potential workers do not like the terms of the contracts, then they shouldn't sign them! If they can't read the contracts, then they shouldn't sign them! I agree that some of those images are disgusting, I mean, look at all those people mugging for the camera "hey, feel sorry for me." A real social entrepreneur would figure out a way to stop them from breeding.

fuelair

6th February 2010, 12:46 PM

A question to JREF's left-wing community: How do you feel about entrepreneurship in general?

I'm not making any judgments based on opinons. I just want to get a feel for what people think.

Nothing wrong with it at all - if it is controlled for the benefit of all rather than the pure unalloyed benefit of the entrepreneur and his investors.

I do, by the by, also believe that the investors should never be able to drive the entrepreneur from the company. Reduce/remove his control, but never drive him out.

hgc

6th February 2010, 01:38 PM

I do, by the by, also believe that the investors should never be able to drive the entrepreneur from the company. Reduce/remove his control, but never drive him out.

How do you propose this should be controlled ("never be able")?

I've seen numerous start-ups where the originator is a genius at having the idea, getting customers and investors to believe in it, and convincing people to work for (uncertain) deferred compensation to see the dream come true. But then, that person turns out to be simply unfit to manage the company beyond the very beginning stage. Let's face it -- the people with the money will always decide who's in and who's out. It's their money afterall.

Achán hiNidráne

6th February 2010, 02:58 PM

MarkCorrigan

6th February 2010, 03:23 PM

First of all, let me thank everyone who has responded so far.

The reason for this thread is that I wanted to get your own thoughts rather than someone else's strawman.

As some of you know, I grew up in a very right-wing household and anything that even vaguely smacked of "liberalism" was savaged. According to my parents and the radio squawk show hosts I listened to growing up, those on "the left" ideologically hated and dispised capitalism and wanted to tax and regulate entrepreneurs out of business (i.e. "punishing achievement" as they usually call it). Now that I consider myself a political/economic moderate, I feel I'm more open to other people's opinions on the topic.

As for taxation, yes, I think that higher earners should be taxed more than lower earners. Yes, I think they should be charged a lot, including up to 50% for the highest earners.

I think that money should be pumped into social systems such as an NHS, support for unemployed people and free education for everyone, so that the people are adequately cared for by the state until they can put back into it, and are able to make better choices for themselves so they can put more back in to the economy for longer. There's also a chance that better education will lead to lower crime rates, and it will CERTAINLY lead to lower teen pregnancy rates and will slow the spread of STI's, including HIV and AIDS.

I would also have the government fund all public transport, from buses to trains and the London Underground. Given the utter balls-up that privitisation has made of our rail networks, with poor or non existant maintenance, constant fare hikes and a disturbing lack of communication between the different companies running different areas of the country, I think I'm rather justified in that one.

Added to the definite and potential bonuses comes my attitude that I really can't understand why anyone would want to deny someone free at the point of access healthcare, transport or education.

Oh, and also, I can't believe I misspelled apologetics.

leftysergeant

6th February 2010, 04:41 PM

How do you propose this should be controlled ("never be able")?

Outlaw leveraged buy-outs.

Come up with the cash. No cash plus stock in the new company.

JoeTheJuggler

6th February 2010, 05:47 PM

So I can know if I should respond, can you define what you mean by "left-wing"?

And terms like "entrepreneurship" and even "profit".

My own thinking is that innovative economic activity is not the sole property of laissez-faire capitalism.

Also, I don't think there's anyone that thinks it's wrong to make a living.

In my own case, I'm an "entrepreneur" in at least one sense. (I own my own business. I am my own boss. I bring innovation and creativity to my economic activity.) At the same time, I don't make enough money to be considered a member of the middle class--nowhere near it. But on my Schedule C, I always show a profit for my business. (If I didn't, I would have no income.)

I also think that capitalism's greatest effect is to create and concentrate wealth. The creation of wealth generally raises the standard for everyone, but the concentration of it makes that raised standard extremely unequitable. Also, perpetual growth is not sustainable. (And isn't "growth" of the economy the same thing as the creation of wealth?)

quarky

6th February 2010, 06:40 PM

The entrepreneurial spirit is alive, even amongst those leaders of the movements that would spell its demise.

Toss in some coke, and people want to buy a used car from Hitler.

leftysergeant

6th February 2010, 07:09 PM

Joe the Juggler just brought up some of what I consider the most important points to consider when discussing capitalism from a left-leaning point of view.

Capitalism is merely one way of managing an ecconomy, perhaps a civilization, but it is not the only way, and it is fraught with dangers to ensnare the unwary. It can inspire some people to create marvels, or to commit some of the most disgusting crimes against their fellows. At its worst, it can sap our very humanity.

I also think that capitalism's greatest effect is to create and concentrate wealth. The creation of wealth generally raises the standard for everyone, but the concentration of it makes that raised standard extremely unequitable.

I must still quibble slightly with this point. Capitalism does not exactly create wealth. When it is properly managed it does, however, redistribute wealth so that larger numbers of people can benefit. Labor and natural resources are, ultimately, the real source of all wealth. But the farmer, the miner and the craftsman must find a way to move their products to a place where they can be traded for the products of the other workers, and gain access to raw materials with which to continue producing goods. This is the task of the capitalist. As long as the capitalist is actively redistributing goods and raw materials, he is ensuring the prosperity of his greater community. Clearly, it would be a burden on the worker to have to move his product in person over any great distance.

What can break the system, however, is human greed and aggression. All of us want to make money, to secure a comfortable life style, to providfe for ourselves and loved ones through hard times or in retirement. It is also an important part of being human that we should also wish to be a blessing on our community and to help those who for whatever reason fall by the wayside. That this is an essential part of what distinguishes man from ape is written in stone in the fossil record. It is to be seen in the bones of severely disabled individuals as far back as Homo habilis that our ancestors did not let one of their own die when they could still help the invalid along to recovery or feed the old and frail who were past caring for themselves. Man functions best as part of a collective, whether it be a tightly-controlled or loosely affiliated collective, in which each contributes and benefits to some degree.

It is when we become obsessed with accruing to ourselves the greatest amount of material wealth, regardless of the negative effect on others, that things break down.

When the capitalist no longer moves goods from the point of production to the point of consumption without skimming an exhorbitant amount of the top, the capitalist becoimes a hinderance rather than a help to the collective.

The most destructive land mines that capitalism places in its own path are usery and slavery. Both devalue the work of the farmer, miner and craftsman, to make them mere tools for the betterment of the capitalist. Thus wealth passes more and more into the hands of the capitalist, leaving few resources for the working class, sometimes to the point that the worker may feel forced to surrender his freedom for the bare few crusts of bread that will keep him alive. At this point, the capitalist becomes a bane rather than a blessing to the collective.

Also, perpetual growth is not sustainable.

"All growth is good" is the ethic of the carcinoma.

(And isn't "growth" of the economy the same thing as the creation of wealth?)

Not always. If the growth is in food produced, minerals excavated, and widgets built, yes, wealth is being created.

The problem arises, sooner or later, that a larger proportion of ecconomic activity comes to center around the financial sector. This begins the process of concentration of wealth into fewer hands over time. We see now where that has led our ecconomy. We see crushing poverty amid oppulence left over from the glory days of the usurers.

This is not how God intended us to live, not how He intended that we should treat one another.

It is a denial of those qualities of a human being that raised us up out of the bushveldt.

Limits must be set to ensure that the concentration of capital into fewer hands and to ensure that the entrepreneur continues to contribute to the overall progress of mankind. When the entrepreneur, using his greater ecconomic power to re-shape his world, finds no further place for the worker, we are soon enough all screwed.

Distracted1

6th February 2010, 07:44 PM

I would like the poster to be more descriptive of what an "entrepreneur" is. Specifically- Is a drug dealer, or a pimp, or the creator of a pyramid or Ponsi scheme an entrepreneur ? Does an Entrepreneur need to create something, or simply market it?

Dancing David

7th February 2010, 04:58 AM

As for taxation, yes, I think that higher earners should be taxed more than lower earners. Yes, I think they should be charged a lot, including up to 50% for the highest earners.

.

I am more of a flat taxer myself. Here is the US there are just too many ways to avoid paying taxes.

leftysergeant

7th February 2010, 05:21 AM

I am more of a flat taxer myself. Here is the US there are just too many ways to avoid paying taxes.

This is a bizarre reason to go to a flat tax. "Because we can't make the person hogging the higher portion of the commons and occassioning the greater need for regulatory expenditures to pay his dues, we shall have to spread that cost out to the people recieving a lesser benefit from the commons."

Graduated income tax, license fees and nuisance taxes are the only fair way to fund government. But that is a matter for another thread and might derail this one if we dwell on it. When the working man is required to subsidize the entrepreneur, the working man has become a slave.

Bob Blaylock

7th February 2010, 11:26 AM

This is a bizarre reason to go to a flat tax. "Because we can't make the person hogging the higher portion of the commons and occassioning the greater need for regulatory expenditures to pay his dues, we shall have to spread that cost out to the people recieving a lesser benefit from the commons."

Of course not. Those who are collecting food stamps, and other government handouts are usually doing so because they aren't producing sufficient wealth of their own to support themselves. You cannot tax them nearly enough to cover the part of the “common” that they are hogging, because they don't have the money to pay anything approaching their fair share of the taxes.

The Atheist

7th February 2010, 12:12 PM

I'm planning on being one, scale of which depends on job prospects after I get done with school in another year or two.

But I need to make sure to maintain my integrity in the face of the profit motive, if for example my business model creates toxins. I need to make sure I don't do like your typical business person and try to dump them in the local river to save on waste handling.

That would actually be your Atypical business person.

Almost all businesses recognise that while dumping can look like a cheap option, reality in the 21st century dictates that attempting it could - and probably would - lead to bankruptcy and potential jail time.

Don't confuse ideologically-incorrect stereotypes with reality.

The first and most important trait of entrepreneurs is acceptance of reality. Without that, they're just dreamers.

I would like the poster to be more descriptive of what an "entrepreneur" is. Specifically- Is a drug dealer, or a pimp, or the creator of a pyramid or Ponsi scheme an entrepreneur ? Does an Entrepreneur need to create something, or simply market it?

No, an entrepreneur merely takes advantage of opportunities.

Some operate legally, some operate illegally, but it doesn't alter their entreneurial abilities or that they are entrepreneurs. Just their risk/reward parameters.

leftysergeant

7th February 2010, 12:15 PM

Those who are collecting food stamps, and other government handouts are usually doing so because they aren't producing sufficient wealth of their own to support themselves.

Stop it. The people aon foodstamps are not universally useless to society, not always locked into a state of poverty, not always unproductive.

Part of being human is that you do not throw people away when they fall on hard times.

The poor are hardly subsidized the way that the Walton larvae are. The poor cannot demand that a city exempt them from taxation and still build roads to their big tacky boxes full of cheap crap made by slave labor.

We either expend money from the public treasury to pay inspectors to keep an eye on the Walton larvae to see that they are complying with the laws or we let them get by with all manner of vile deeds. There is no reason to let them get away with not paying for that.

The poor have been known to regain their ability to earn a living, but it is a lot harder when they have been beaten down by competition from useless investor class trash who move the jobs off shore and stil;l insist that they be subsidized.

Every subsidy given to the Walton larvae is a subsidy to the slave labor factories in China.

Magyar

7th February 2010, 12:38 PM

I'm confused. I thought that the "profit motive" was bad, period.

No you're confused, because you get your information from the likes of Hannity, Limbough and the TV woman about what "lefties" object to about the "profit motive" and corporations.

If you look at my log in, and know what it is you'll KNOW that I am NO fan of even Socialism much less communism,
but I am still a "lefty" who own their own business and considers the ability to so easily do so one of the great things about the US.

Debaser

7th February 2010, 01:29 PM

Stop it. The people aon foodstamps are not universally useless to society, not always locked into a state of poverty, not always unproductive.
...
Part of being human is that you do not throw people away when they fall on hard times.
...
The poor have been known to regain their ability to earn a living...

AS a British 'lefty' I think it is this attitude to the poor that separates, more than the attitude to 'wealth creation'.

For my part I am a left winger out of selfishness. Because I have the imagination to see that the poor are not another species out to suck my blood, but they are me and I am them should I make a series of bad or simply poor decisions.

Of course, the problem is, what is a bad decision and will I recognise making them until it's too late? In my opinion, probably not. And it will be the combination and culmination of those actions that will bring me down, and at that moment I know I would be immensely grateful for the safety net of the welfare state.

The more complex and globalised our economies, the larger the cracks down which we can fall, and never claw our way out again.

Dancing David

7th February 2010, 03:07 PM

Thank you, that is my game theory take. Especially as my wife and I might BOTH loose our jobs next year. My union (CESP) at least has seniority, so some other shmuck will get displaced by me. She is non-tenured CFT , so she may be out of work.

MikeMangum

7th February 2010, 03:12 PM

Interesting. Why do you think being motivated for profit is always bad?

I don't. But I've heard many liberals who derided anything to do with profit, and the phrase the "the profit motive" is usually their epithet. If the people that I've heard this from aren't representative of liberals in general, I'm very glad.

leftysergeant

7th February 2010, 03:50 PM

I don't. But I've heard many liberals who derided anything to do with profit, and the phrase the "the profit motive" is usually their epithet. If the people that I've heard this from aren't representative of liberals in general, I'm very glad.We're just saying that using the profit motive as an excuse for inhumane or wreckless behavior is contemptible.

gnome

7th February 2010, 04:31 PM

I think of "profit motive" as like "fire". Fire is not inherently bad, and can be harnessed to provide benefit in the form of energy. But unrestrained fire isn't a desirable thing.

Likewise, the drive for profit is the furnace of our economy. But there are plenty of reasons or situations where it causes a problem. Working against those, however, can be painted as being "anti-profit".

leftysergeant

7th February 2010, 04:37 PM

Likewise, the drive for profit is the furnace of our economy. But there are plenty of reasons or situations where it causes a problem. Working against those, however, can be painted as being "anti-profit".

You rotten commie! Next thing we know, you'll be insisting that home builders surround the furnace with non-combustible materials and and make sure that they do not let carbon monoxide into living quarters, and there goes a big part of the profit in building tacky boxes.

pipelineaudio

7th February 2010, 07:52 PM

Outlaw leveraged buy-outs.

Come up with the cash. No cash plus stock in the new company.

Neither my idea for a Digital Audio Workstation, several audio plugins, nor my microphones would have ever been possible without the money of others. I willingly agreed to what that money would mean. I know of hundreds of innovators in my personal circle for whom this is true

Please move to saudi arabia or wherever it is that would like to stay in the stoneage by bossing people around, we innovators don't need your type around here

leftysergeant

8th February 2010, 12:43 AM

Neither my idea for a Digital Audio Workstation, several audio plugins, nor my microphones would have ever been possible without the money of others. I willingly agreed to what that money would mean.

So? If leveraged buy-outs were illegal, then investors will still need a place to invest. All I am lookiong for is a way to prevent corporation from forcing competitors to sell out and stop competing. Competition is good. Leveraged buy-outs make it harder for new competitors to enter the market. The market is thus only free for those who already have money.

Chaos

8th February 2010, 02:19 AM

I think of "profit motive" as like "fire". Fire is not inherently bad, and can be harnessed to provide benefit in the form of energy. But unrestrained fire isn't a desirable thing.

Good analogy. I agree with that - and that´s coming from an Economics student!

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 05:47 AM

Capitalism does not exactly create wealth.What creates wealth is various inputs being combined together and shaken and stirred to that the output is worth more than the inputs. That's normally referred to as production or trade, both of which are synonymous with capitalism, when they are voluntarily undertaken.

When it is properly managed it does, however, redistribute wealth so that larger numbers of people can benefit.Production and trade don't "redistribute" wealth except via the invisible hand, which is better described as voluntary allocation of inputs/outputs than redistribution. "Managed" implies central direction of the process, which is not necessary (but often helpful) for production and trade to work. Hence you are stating that central direction can redistribute, rather than capitalism doing it.

Labor and natural resources are, ultimately, the real source of all wealth.That was true in excess of 13,000 years ago--according to the fossil record--but since then there has been increasing presence of a third input factor, which is, funnily enough, the last word in the title of the thread. Moreover, this input ("entrepreneurship", or innovation or technical progress or intellectual capital, or knowledge) is arguably responsible for the elephant's share of productive output / income generated. That's because labour and natural resources are (pretty much) ultimately consumed, but know-how is durable and cumulative. You are not benefitting from the labour of someone who planted a cash crop in Mesopotamia a dozen millennia back. You are still benefitting from the intellectual discovery that it was possible to do this.

leftysergeant

8th February 2010, 06:29 AM

What creates wealth is various inputs being combined together and shaken and stirred to that the output is worth more than the inputs. That's normally referred to as production or trade, both of which are synonymous with capitalism, when they are voluntarily undertaken.

Innovation and creation of intellectual property are functions of labor. They occur in the abscense of capital.

Hence you are stating that central direction can redistribute, rather than capitalism doing it.

If need be, yes. The lord of a domain can tell the peasants where to deliver their produce in exchange for plows or pants, or the miner to deliver pig iron for chisels and hammers.

It doesn't matter how good an idea you can come up with on your own, or find someplace far afield, you still need miners to provide the pig iron, craftsmen to make the tools, other craftsmen to make the widgets and farmers to feed the lot of them. More often than not, it is someone other than the entrepreneur (usually a bright craftsman)who invents the widget in the first place, and the only contribution that the entrepreneur makes is to figure out where to trade them for what.

Thus, without labor and resources, the entrepreneur is left to fumble about looking for his next meal with the rest of the unemployed.

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 07:09 AM

Innovation and creation of intellectual property are functions of labor. They occur in the abscense of capital.No they don't. Until someone postpones consumption (saves) there's no carrying capacity for invention, at all. Once they do, it compounds.

Thus, without labor and resources, the entrepreneur is left to fumble about looking for his next meal with the rest of the unemployed.Dunno who said otherwise. And both labour and capital get compensated for what they bring to the party. And there is no evidence that labour's share is shifting up or down.

leftysergeant

8th February 2010, 07:39 AM

And both labour and capital get compensated for what they bring to the party. And there is no evidence that labour's share is shifting up or down.

I don't know how well it is working where you are, but about 40% of our ecconomy right now is tied up in the financial sector where it produces mostly financial instruments and blood little merchandise. This is creating a sort of artificial wealth for the entrepreneurs who invent these financial instruments, but it sure screws the rest of us.

Wealth has to come from somewhere and right now I feel a big cold hand rummaging about in my pocket not attached to my arm.

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 07:57 AM

One of the reasons for the present moral outrage is that labour compensation manages to capture so much of financial sector output. Capital (shareholders) have attracted so little that they have not been able to keep the boat afloat.

"Entrepreneurship" doesn't make up a separate share of the fruits of the economy because either capital owners or labour owners (lessors) tend to have a property right, either de facto or by contract, in the innovation--so it goes to one or other of them.

Bankers' bonus millions are labour compensation the same as factory workers' wages. Of course, the distributional equity of labour compensation is extremely wide, and has gotten wider in every rich economy, but that's a separate issue from the split between "the investor class" and the labour force--which has been historically stable.

leftysergeant

8th February 2010, 08:06 AM

One of the reasons for the present moral outrage is that labour compensation manages to capture so much of financial sector output. Capital (shareholders) have attracted so little that they have not been able to keep the boat afloat.

Bull flops. The disgraced CEO of GM left with a serverance package of millions of dollars after driving the company into the ditch and defaulting on workers' pensions. Guess whose pocket that went into.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that parasite is holding up his end of the social contract?

Bankers' bonus millions are labour compensation the same as factory workers' wages. Of course, the distributional equity of labour compensation is extremely wide, and has gotten wider in every rich economy, but that's a separate issue from the split between "the investor class" and the labour force--which has been historically stable.

Well, if it becomes any more unstable, it may be time to claw back what all of these fat cats have been soaking up out of the ecconomy and lend it out to entrepreneuirs who will actually start producing something. There is no way that the executives of those finacial institutions that got TARP money earned their bonuses after running the companies into the ditch.

They are getting paid out of working people's pockets. And with the number of pensions going into default as these fools get those fat checks, it becomes harder to find fault with those who suggest that we eat the rich.

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 08:16 AM

Bull flops. The disgraced CEO of GM left with a serverance package of millions of dollars after driving the company into the ditch and defaulting on workers' pensions. Guess whose pocket that went into.A payoff for being a fired CEO, deserved or not, is still labour compensation not investor compensation.

Well, if it becomes any more unstable, it may be time to claw back what all of these fat cats have been soaking up out of the ecconomy and lend it out to entrepreneuirs who will actually start producing something. There is no way that the executives of those finacial institutions that got TARP money earned their bonuses after running the companies into the ditch.This is a statement about the lack of merit in compensation differentials within the labour force, not about capital ripping off labour.

drkitten

8th February 2010, 08:16 AM

Bull flops. The disgraced CEO of GM left with a serverance package of millions of dollars after driving the company into the ditch and defaulting on workers' pensions. Guess whose pocket that went into.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that parasite is holding up his end of the social contract?

Actually, you're proving Francesca's point for her.

The CEO is not "capital"; it's "labor." He makes his money (perhaps that should be "makes" it) not by putting wealth into the business, but by "working" for it.

And he's admittedly vastly overpaid, because the "capital" (the ordinary shareholders) don't have effective control over his salary and bonus.

Chaos

8th February 2010, 09:47 AM

Actually, you're proving Francesca's point for her.

The CEO is not "capital"; it's "labor." He makes his money (perhaps that should be "makes" it) not by putting wealth into the business, but by "working" for it.

And he's admittedly vastly overpaid, because the "capital" (the ordinary shareholders) don't have effective control over his salary and bonus.

In that case, perhaps the dichotomy of capital versus labor is a mistake? Perhaps a more accurate way of looking at things is a trichotomy (if that is actually a real word...) of capital versus management (i.e. the ones giving orders) versus workforce (i.e. the foot soldiers).

leftysergeant

8th February 2010, 10:06 AM

The CEO is not "capital"; it's "labor." He makes his money (perhaps that should be "makes" it) not by putting wealth into the business, but by "working" for it.

And he's admittedly vastly overpaid, because the "capital" (the ordinary shareholders) don't have effective control over his salary and bonus.

He is basicly the interface between the investors and labor, often an investor himself, there mostly to ensure (these days) that the maximum return from the investment is returned to shareholders, often himself in stock as a yearly bonus.

In the case of GM, I would say that a good part of their problem was signing an exorbitant agreement with an idiot.

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 10:20 AM

In that case, perhaps the dichotomy of capital versus labor is a mistake? Perhaps a more accurate way of looking at things is a trichotomy (if that is actually a real word...) of capital versus management (i.e. the ones giving orders) versus workforce (i.e. the foot soldiers).More accurate to those who want to stratify the labour force into "angels" and "demons" perhaps. That's a bit OT though, or do you want to argue that one group is more entrepreneurial than the other or something?

lomiller

8th February 2010, 10:22 AM

I don't know how well it is working where you are, but about 40% of our ecconomy right now is tied up in the financial sector where it produces mostly financial instruments and blood little merchandise. This is creating a sort of artificial wealth for the entrepreneurs who invent these financial instruments, but it sure screws the rest of us.

Wealth has to come from somewhere and right now I feel a big cold hand rummaging about in my pocket not attached to my arm.

You can produce whatever you want, but unless there is some intelligence behind it, it does nothing for no one. The financial system, when functioning properly, provides the intelligence to decide what to produce. Without it new ideas that improve peoples lives never get off the ground and bad ideas from someone with a little power go ahead instead wasting resources and labor that could have been better utilized.

Capitalism works because, within certain limits, it’s highly effective at figuring out what people need to make their lives better and figuring out how to deliver this using the least labor/resources. Since any resources freed up are redeploy to make even more things people need it’s a win for everyone.

The reason financial services are growing as a % of our economy is that we need less labor to produce all the things people want to have. This is a good thing, it means it easier to make enough of those things to go around so everyone can have them. This is directly analogous to the reduction in the number of people involved in agriculture. More efficient agricultural production meant more food to go around even as the number of people involved in producing that food shrank rapidly.

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 10:25 AM

He is basicly the interface between the investors and labor, often an investor himself, there mostly to ensure (these days) that the maximum return from the investment is returned to shareholdersThat has always been the case. The company would not bother to hire her/him otherwise. Henry Ford was sued for ostensibly not doing that.

But--again--the share of profits in total output have not grown at the expense of labour comp, so it hardly seems like the shareholder has undue influence.

lomiller

8th February 2010, 10:29 AM

In the case of GM, I would say that a good part of their problem was signing an exorbitant agreement with an idiot.

Perhaps, but that speaks to investors having too little power not too much.

He is basicly the interface between the investors and labor, often an investor himself, there mostly to ensure (these days) that the maximum return from the investment is returned to shareholders, often himself in stock as a yearly bonus.

This is the opposite of return to shareholders, it's him keeping money for himself that could have gone to shareholders.

Chaos

8th February 2010, 10:53 AM

More accurate to those who want to stratify the labour force into "angels" and "demons" perhaps. That's a bit OT though, or do you want to argue that one group is more entrepreneurial than the other or something?

Not so much Angels and Demons (do I look like Dan Brown?), but three rather than two groups with different incentives, different information and different options for acting.

For example, the classic principal-agent problem, as it plays out in the top management level, has managers acting on both sides of the equation, who are technically both agents, which means that the principal´s (i.e. the capital´s) side of the situation is not properly represented - because both principal and agent have an agent´s utility structure. Whereas if we are talking about a lower-level employee in the agent´s role, the manager can be a principal, while the lower-level employee is the agent - thus the lower-level employee is in a radically different situation from the manager.

The problem here is that, while the workforce is supervised by an external group, the management, on behalf of the capital, whereas management itself is not supervised at all except by itself, and we know how that sort of thing usually works out.

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 11:34 AM

Not so much Angels and Demons (do I look like Dan Brown?), but three rather than two groups with different incentivesSince all employees are agents of the shareholders as well as prinicipals seeking to gain personal compensation, there are not three groups but two, and two interests which have varying degrees of influence. Plus, the two interests are only partly opposing and are substantially aligned. I fail to see how there are three groups unless you want to arbitrarily stratify the labour force.

(Left-wing agitprop likes to do that of course, along the lines of honest workersTM and bastard-fat-cat-managersTM, or angels and demons)

drkitten

8th February 2010, 11:44 AM

Since all employees are agents of the shareholders as well as prinicipals seeking to gain personal compensation, there are not three groups but two, and two interests which have varying degrees of influence.

This, frankly, is nonsense.

Any person is a unique group of one person with a unique set of interests; any two people are a unique group of two with a unique set of joint interests they can act together to further. What is to my advantage as a employeee may be to the disadvantage of my department. What is to the advantage of my department may be to the disadvantage of the division, and so on up the ladder.

You can't just sweep the major differences between "labor" and "management" (as the terms are typically used in employment law) under the rug by saying "they're all just agents of the stockholders," nor can you just sweep the differences between excecutive-level management and lower to middle management by calling them all "management."

The question of executive compensation is not going to be resolved by simply pointing at the mail clerk and saying "see, we're underpaying HIM, so it is okay on average!"

Francesca R

8th February 2010, 01:09 PM

Oh so there's infinite groups? Right . . . the discussion just got really useful.

leftysergeant

8th February 2010, 01:23 PM

That has always been the case. The company would not bother to hire her/him otherwise. Henry Ford was sued for ostensibly not doing that.There is something unutterably sick about a system which rewards abuse of working people to increase the rewards of greed and allows the victimization of virtue and industry and punishes decency.

But--again--the share of profits in total output have not grown at the expense of labour comp, so it hardly seems like the shareholder has undue influence.

Maybe not where you live, but worker productivity in the USA has been steadily increasing for decades, much of that increase in industries which, during their greatest expansion were heavily unionized, yet, in the 30-odd years since some goofy actor whom the right wing thought was a great president threw acid in the faces of the unions, the working people's purchasing power has declined while snivelling little rich boys gobble up a growing part of the GDP and whine about not getting enough tax cuts.

So maybe God is actually Franz Kafka writing under a pseudonym.

Francesca R

9th February 2010, 05:21 AM

Maybe not where you live, but worker productivity in the USA has been steadily increasing for decadesSo has the capital intensity per worker, so has the productivity of capital. Only a buffoon would think that all, or even most, of the increase in per-capita income in the US (or anywhere) was due to people working harder, as opposed to working with better/smarter kit and more of it. So what then? Are you trying to argue that the labour force deserves all the spoils from the increase in output per worker? That would be bananas. In fact their share of it--as I have already said and provided data (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5590342#post5590342) for (where you live)--has remained constant.

much of that increase in industries which, during their greatest expansion were heavily unionizedRather off topic, but unions, according to their stated objectives (http://aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/constitution/art02.cfm), exist to benefit their members in the (their) interest of justice. Economically that is approximately zero-sum. Unions have little to do with increasing productivity or entrepreneurship. They don't even say they do.

the working people's purchasing power has declined while snivelling little rich boys gobble up a growing part of the GDP and whine about not getting enough tax cuts.Which is incorrect, again, unless you have a stratified definition of "working people". And no doubt you do, but that, again, is a rant about unequal labour compensation and not about the split of labour compensation versus profits, which is not in decline.

quarky

9th February 2010, 08:57 AM

Economists understand economics like a priest understands God.

Chaos

9th February 2010, 09:50 AM

Oh so there's infinite groups? Right . . . the discussion just got really useful.

So you think it is unimportant that part of the labour force can negotiate their contracts with their peers, while others have to negotiate with their superiors?

Francesca R

9th February 2010, 12:04 PM

I don't see what that has to do with entrepreneurship or total labour productivity or the total labour income share. If you wish the topic to be about pay inequality and differential bargaining power within the labour force, then I suspect a new thread is appropriate.

uruk

9th February 2010, 04:02 PM

Entrepreneurship, like anything in life, is a fine thing when taken in moderation.
If people (in general) weren't so fundamentaly greedy or lazy, just about any social or economic system would work.

Nothing wrong with being filthy rich just so long as you don't destroy lives (or your company) trying to get there.

For god's sakes people, think of the children!!!!

T.A.M.

9th February 2010, 06:31 PM

As a Canadian lefty, I would say this.

The idea of starting one's own business, making a profit from an idea or product is essential to innovation, and essential to economic growth.

So yes I totally am in favor of entrepreneurship.

However, what I do not agree with is assuming that the business sector can run a nation government free. I will go further. I think Government is MORE ESSENTIAL then business, to making a country run properly.

As well, while I know many good people, I DO NOT TRUST society as a whole, to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves without Government assistance. There are a lot of good samaritans out there, but not enough to get the job done, and done right. There is a reason why the USA spends more then anyone else per person on health care, but is ranked 37th world wide in health care...YOUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN, because it is run by BUSINESS.

Anywho...to regress from the tangential tirade, I totally embrace the idea of entrepreneurship.

TAM:)

daenku32

10th February 2010, 06:58 AM

But on my Schedule C, I always show a profit for my business. (If I didn't, I would have no income.)

If you are paying yourself, isn't that payroll cost, not profit?

daenku32

10th February 2010, 07:11 AM

I'd also like to add that Board of Directors in this country is more and more like a secret society of Skulls & Bones, all part of the corporate elite who don't have one bit idea of real wages in this country.

JihadJane

10th February 2010, 07:32 AM

If it was any good the French would have a word for it.

Francesca R

10th February 2010, 07:36 AM

If there's any word in French for it then it must be a loony-left piece of socialism.

GreyICE

10th February 2010, 08:43 AM

Entrepreneurship is the engine that allows a society to flourish, so it's no surprise even leftists have attempted to co-opt the term; now they squawk about "social entrepreneurs," but they're really referring to wealth-destroying communist-terrorists like Ingrid Newark. The countries lacking wealth-creating spirit are pre-destined for squalor. (the French don't even have a word for "entrepreneur").

MarkCorrigan:

You're just jealous you didn't think of it first. If potential workers do not like the terms of the contracts, then they shouldn't sign them! If they can't read the contracts, then they shouldn't sign them! I agree that some of those images are disgusting, I mean, look at all those people mugging for the camera "hey, feel sorry for me." A real social entrepreneur would figure out a way to stop them from breeding.
Nice troll, a tad obvious. I give you an 8/10. The fact that other people fell for the 'french don't have a word for it' is a tad classic, I must admit.

Beerina

10th February 2010, 02:57 PM

I don't have a problem with a company trying to make itself as much as it can, provided it also pays BACK into the workforce, into the economy, AND into some form of social responsibility.

Some suggest, and not without reason, that corporations provide for a better quality of life for the "common man" than all the government programs, whining, and activity put together ever could.

They make it possible for an uneducated person to stand there, moving their arms, and own a house and a car because of it, while that same motion would have them starving to death, left to their own devices.

Hence, before dime one of any socialist's concept of "social responsibility" is spent, they've already boosted people far more than the wildest dreams of the "socially responsible" types could possibly imagine, just by being a greedy corporation. They are the ones who lifted people out of hunter-gatherer societies, not politicians.

MarkCorrigan

10th February 2010, 03:16 PM

Some suggest, and not without reason, that corporations provide for a better quality of life for the "common man" than all the government programs, whining, and activity put together ever could.

They make it possible for an uneducated person to stand there, moving their arms, and own a house and a car because of it, while that same motion would have them starving to death, left to their own devices.

Hence, before dime one of any socialist's concept of "social responsibility" is spent, they've already boosted people far more than the wildest dreams of the "socially responsible" types could possibly imagine, just by being a greedy corporation. They are the ones who lifted people out of hunter-gatherer societies, not politicians.
Did you fail reading comprehension, or do you just not understand hyperlinks?

I LIKE companies. I LIKE business. I LIKE competition. I LIKE Capitalism.

I just like the idea that people. All people. ANY people can get access to things they need, housing, food, healthcare and education. What is so wrong with these things being provided by a governmental organisation? Why do you and others who echo your viewpoint not realise that healthcare CAN be provided and given to a damn good standard by governments? What is wrong with you that you simply deny reality so your precious view of "socialism", a concept you don't even seem to understand, isn't damaged?

I pity you, and I really mean that. I don't pity you because you're right wing, because there are many many conservatives on this board who I hold with respect, such as Wildcat, or Dubalub, and in some cases, but not all, Whiplash. You refuse to listen. You refuse to grasp that things like the NHS work, and your system doesn't, and yet you have the gall to mock religious people, ALL religious people for being uneducatable?

FarmallMTA

10th February 2010, 03:20 PM

Small business is the life's blood of the middle class. My only concern is that the entrepreneur should pay a decent day's provisions to all who perform a day's work for him, that he pay his share of the upkeep of the commons, and that he observe all ethical and safety standards of the community.

This is, sadly, rarely the case in our modern coporatist bedlam.

The business of a merchant is to re-distribute wealth, taking a cut for himself. Those that merely concentrate and horde the wealth of the community and use it as a tool of social control are to be shunned and, as needed driven out.

Typical Leftysarge bilge: you don't even keep up with the evolution of your own ilk, old timer.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n2_v37/ai_15419771/pg_4/?tag=untagged

George McGovern himself found out what Ronald Reagan advocated all along was the proven truth. You haven't even kept up with the retrograde leftists, Leftysarge.

*shakes head, feeling sorry for you*

Your blather about safety and ethical standards... that's always established by an academic and legal leftist elite in your mind, not contractually between consenting parties. So just drop the smug act and quit pretending you have such a lofty moral stance.

You're just what your nick says you are. A command and control leftist. No more, no left. ;)

roger

10th February 2010, 03:32 PM

You rotten commie! Next thing we know, you'll be insisting that home builders surround the furnace with non-combustible materials and and make sure that they do not let carbon monoxide into living quarters, and there goes a big part of the profit in building tacky boxes.
You know that would never be necessary, as in Libertopia the builders would realize the liability that represents and would willingly build very safely even without rules and regulations.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2010, 11:18 PM

A question to JREF's left-wing community: How do you feel about entrepreneurship in general?

I'm not making any judgments based on opinons. I just want to get a feel for what people think.I am an entrepreneur. I developed a new field, made a business of it, and have been doing it successfully for over 18 years now. And I'm seen as left wing by the stereotypers on this forum all the time.

The truth is, left wing does not mean communist and/or socialist as is often claimed by those who refuse to believe one can have different opinions about many things without being the demon they are imagined to be.

I don't think every right winger on the forum is a Libertarian fundamentalist or a religious fanatic. And every left wing leaning board member is not anti-capitalism just because they think regulations are needed to keep a free market healthy.

MarkCorrigan

11th February 2010, 01:32 AM

I am an entrepreneur. I developed a new field, made a business of it, and have been doing it successfully for over 18 years now. And I'm seen as left wing by the stereotypers on this forum all the time.

The truth is, left wing does not mean communist and/or socialist as is often claimed by those who refuse to believe one can have different opinions about many things without being the demon they are imagined to be.

I don't think every right winger on the forum is a Libertarian fundamentalist or a religious fanatic. And every left wing leaning board member is not anti-capitalism just because they think regulations are needed to keep a free market healthy.

Hell, I AM a Socialist and I don't mind profit. I wonder what that means....

stilicho

11th February 2010, 01:58 AM

A question to JREF's left-wing community: How do you feel about entrepreneurship in general?

I'm not making any judgments based on opinons. I just want to get a feel for what people think.

It's been a long time since I read anything from Marx but did he even say much about entrepreneurs?

Socialist economics is risk-averse; entrepreneurs are risk-takers. I'm sure there's some common ground between them. I can see that some self-described leftists have started their entries with an apology for risk-taking or tales of entrepreneurial masterpieces.

I doubt there are any true leftists on the JREF or certainly not on your thread.

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 03:48 AM

Marx appears to have had plenty to day about technical progress and changes in the means of production. I think he even acknowledged that this was responsible for the elephant's share of the rise in incomes (no reference)

IMO the more relevant snippet from Marxian political-economic thought is that he thought that there was essentially no such thing as a legitimate return on capital (rent, profit, interest) and that it was all "surplus labour value" that was unfairly appropriated by capital owners ("bourgeousie")

The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital.

[ . . . ]

Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune.

Capital 1, V, 16 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch16.htm)

I think there are some forum members that agree with this viewpoint. Obviously, it is not the case in capitalist societies that labour commands the entirety of income. I think it is a badly flawed philosophy that Marx never defended adequately.

The Fallen Serpent

11th February 2010, 04:20 AM

I am a fairly left-leaning individual, supporter of social democracy and social market systems...

Entrepreneurship is necessary, beneficial and a positive aspect that needs to be cultivated for a healthy society and economy. Entrepreneurship can also be detrimental if abused, so appropriate regulations should be enacted. Entrepreneurs should receive commensurate rewards to the risk they take and the benefit they bring to the system. There is plenty of disagreement on what is appropriate, but that is a topic for a different thread.

Dancing David

11th February 2010, 04:41 AM

There are always problems when people make sweeping generalization, profit is not nessecarily 'a bad thing'. However there are times when personal self interest will dominate over things like 'what is good for the company'.

There are no leftists who are always wrong or rightists that are always right. There are many interesting claims made by both.

I am a leftist, as in way left. Like I used to be a commie leftist.

My beef is this, the playing field is not close to level, there are plenty of people who get ahead because of who their parents were, inside deals and outright breaking the rules.

So we have to be very careful when we say things like "they made lots of money so it must be good","they made lots of money so it must be bad".

Some people make money because they are industrious, others make money because their father went to Yale and they get an inside track on a deal.

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 04:51 AM

My beef is this, the playing field is not close to levelThere is a sort-of still active thread on that here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166494). You could join that and argue exactly how close to level it should be.

stilicho

11th February 2010, 05:51 AM

IMO the more relevant snippet from Marxian political-economic thought is that he thought that there was essentially no such thing as a legitimate return on capital (rent, profit, interest) and that it was all "surplus labour value" that was unfairly appropriated by capital owners ("bourgeousie").

This is that labour theory of value IIRC. I have seen it pop up on other boards but not here. And I think that does back up what I said about Marx not really seeing entrepreneurs as a separate entity. I could be wrong about this since it's been years and I'm not sure I care to revisit it.

Maybe there is a transitional left-leaning economist who gets into the specifics about entrepreneurship. Do you know of one? I would be looking at one from the later nineteenth-century once it became clearer how that part of capitalism works.

@Dancing David: Aren't you talking about entitlement? That pops up regardless of political or economic system. One of the problems of excoriating entitlement is that it works for smaller units, too, such as Mom-&-Pop stores and families. Or do we just draw the line at people we don't happen to like?

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 06:02 AM

This is that labour theory of value IIRC. I have seen it pop up on other boards but not here. And I think that does back up what I said about Marx not really seeing entrepreneurs as a separate entity. I could be wrong about this since it's been years and I'm not sure I care to revisit it.That's my understanding too. A similar thought is expressed in this post:Innovation and creation of intellectual property are functions of labor. They occur in the abscense of capital. [ . . . ]. . . . but when I challenged that, the member avoided it thereafter.

Maybe there is a transitional left-leaning economist who gets into the specifics about entrepreneurship. Do you know of one? I think that understanding of entrepreneurship (as I said before, AKA technical change, or innovation, or progress) is deep-seated in just about all economists whatever their political leanings, ever since Robert Solow. By that I mean it is regarded, almost universallly, as an exogenous factor of production, not something that just results from regular labour.

And that's where folks disinterested in economics will switch off and say if all economists agree they must be wrong.

stilicho

11th February 2010, 09:36 AM

I think that understanding of entrepreneurship (as I said before, AKA technical change, or innovation, or progress) is deep-seated in just about all economists whatever their political leanings, ever since Robert Solow. By that I mean it is regarded, almost universallly, as an exogenous factor of production, not something that just results from regular labour.

And that's where folks disinterested in economics will switch off and say if all economists agree they must be wrong.

And, just so I've got it straight, you're not a leftist. But leftists would agree with non-leftists regarding entrepreneurship unless they bought into the labour theory of value. We know that's not supportable--as in not observed as having actually happened anywhere.

Thread solved!

Francesca R

11th February 2010, 09:42 AM

leftysergeant

11th February 2010, 03:58 PM

Perhaps we should separate entrepreneurialism from capitalism. They are nort always exactly the same.

A merchant leading a caravan from one out post to another is an entrepreneur, but not neccessarily a capitalist. He makes a profit by bringing the goods of one farmer, miner, craftsman or whoever to those who need that item. , then starts the circuit again. This redistributes wealth. This is good for society.

A capitalist merely provides the funding for the production of something of value. But his money cannot call things into being of itself, outside of the sorts of paper-profit shenanigans we see going on now. His money has worth only in that it is a token of exchange for the products of someone else's labor.

Capital, when it is used properly, redistributes wealth among the communities of producers, benefitting all. But the mere accumulation of profit, when not returned to circulation, can lead to the control of all of a resource by a single person or family or corporation, so that individuals have less opportunity to start their own enterprises. Thus, capital can strangle enterprise and reduce the real innovators and creators to dependency on the whim of the capitalist. It is but a short step from there to slavery.

This is one of the reasons that so many of the world's great religions consider usery one of the most heinous of sins.

Dancing David

12th February 2010, 04:56 AM

@Dancing David: Aren't you talking about entitlement? That pops up regardless of political or economic system. One of the problems of excoriating entitlement is that it works for smaller units, too, such as Mom-&-Pop stores and families. Or do we just draw the line at people we don't happen to like?

No, for me the issue is the people who make broad claims about unregulated capitalism and the wonders of the free market and they ignore the factors that influence the market place, such as inside deals and the good old boy network. Often the free market is not free.

It is more the 'this man is great because they made money' thing that I object to. Like calling GW Bush a great leader of the bussiness community because he bought a baseball team and leveraged community money to make money on it. He was not really a private capitalst, he was a capitalist who used government money to make a lot of money.

(I am not saying that is a bad thing, I am pointing out that the playing field is not level.)

Dancing David

12th February 2010, 05:03 AM

I never said what I was. FWIW leftists think I'm right and rightists think I'm left, and I got a score of about zero (left v right), but -4 (liberty vs authority) last time I did one of those political compass test things.

I am also a fiscal conservative as a socialist style liberal, which drives many people crazy.

I believe that one of the issues is that we all like government services but don't like to pay for them. In Illinois there is a crisis of management, social services are about collapse if the bills are not payed soon, but we had a candidate for govenor who said we should cut the budget by 20%.

People forget, nursing homes are run basically on Medicaid money, you cut that and grandma is out on the street. Etc...

I am all for fiscal conservatism, it is very strange to me however the amount the US Federal government spnds on certain items and how they spend it. Like most US foriegn aid money is consumed shuffling it around before it gets to the distribution level.

The Fallen Serpent

12th February 2010, 05:46 AM

I am all for fiscal conservatism, it is very strange to me however the amount the US Federal government spnds on certain items and how they spend it. Like most US foriegn aid money is consumed shuffling it around before it gets to the distribution level.

Removing waste and improving efficiency is laudable, I am all for it. Such as the situation that it was found that more money is loaned and less spent if we directly loan college students funds instead of subsidizing banks giving these same loans. To keep matters in perspective though, such efficiency and cost savings are unlikely to balance the Federal budget. I know you did not do this, but I see people rant about Foreign Aid and how it is dragging down the budget, pointing out the inefficienceis such as you did but with a different slant. However foreign aid even in 2008 was approximately $26 Billion out of a near $2.9 Trillion budget before counting funds for the two wars.

leftysergeant

12th February 2010, 12:54 PM

But leftists would agree with non-leftists regarding entrepreneurship unless they bought into the labour theory of value. We know that's not supportable--as in not observed as having actually happened anywhere.

It is still more supportable thatn the idea that capital can create
wealth.

Capital is, itself, the created by labor.

GreyICE

12th February 2010, 01:17 PM

It is still more supportable thatn the idea that capital can create
wealth.

Capital is, itself, the created by labor. Capital can efficiently distribute the labor, however. Specialized labor is more efficient than non-specialized labor. For instance, three farmers, one weaver, and one blacksmith can create more nails, more food, and more clothes than having five farmers trying to make clothes and nails in their off time while food farming.

Capital makes specialized labor possible, since the barter system is unsustainable for specialized labor, as is easy to create examples of.

Capitalists can distribute labor efficiently by assigning capital to high value labor. Since specialized labor is more efficient than non-specialized labor, everyone benefits from this.

This is at least the theory. Whether modern investment bankers exemplify or pervert this is an open question.

The Fallen Serpent

12th February 2010, 02:31 PM

Whether modern investment bankers exemplify or pervert this is an open question.If movies and TV are any indication modern investment bankers exemplify perversion. Or is that just people in general?

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 07:24 PM

No, for me the issue is the people who make broad claims about unregulated capitalism and the wonders of the free market and they ignore the factors that influence the market place, such as inside deals and the good old boy network. Often the free market is not free....And even if it weren't for cronyism and other kinds of influence, there are system problems preventing real true free markets as well.

For example, the cost of disposal is not generally included in the price of a product. And we subsidize the trucking industry by building roads. This made the US a country with trucks instead of trains. There are many aspects of a real true free market people are unaware just unleashing private business doesn't achieve.

Dorian Gray

12th February 2010, 07:29 PM

Entrepreneurship is the engine that allows a society to flourish, so it's no surprise even leftists have attempted to co-opt the term; now they squawk about "social entrepreneurs," but they're really referring to wealth-destroying communist-terrorists like Ingrid Newark. The countries lacking wealth-creating spirit are pre-destined for squalor. (the French don't even have a word for "entrepreneur").

MarkCorrigan:

You're just jealous you didn't think of it first. If potential workers do not like the terms of the contracts, then they shouldn't sign them! If they can't read the contracts, then they shouldn't sign them! I agree that some of those images are disgusting, I mean, look at all those people mugging for the camera "hey, feel sorry for me." A real social entrepreneur would figure out a way to stop them from breeding. Troll in sarcastic clothing.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2010, 07:29 PM

.... Like most US foriegn aid money is consumed shuffling it around before it gets to the distribution level.It buys government influence, not the 'facade labeled thing' it is supposedly earmarked for. We mostly prop up governments with foreign aide that benefit our private corporate interests who achieve their directed government spending via lobbying.

That's why we want a "Free Iraq" but don't give more than verbal patronage to Darfur.

Dorian Gray

12th February 2010, 07:36 PM

Francesca R

13th February 2010, 02:16 AM

Perhaps we should separate entrepreneurialism from capitalism. They are nort always exactly the same.Correct, but your understanding of what they both are is faulty, it seems.

A merchant leading a caravan from one out post to another is an entrepreneur, but not neccessarily a capitalist. He makes a profit by bringing the goods of one farmer, miner, craftsman or whoever to those who need that item. , then starts the circuit again. This redistributes wealth. This is good for society.The same thing Sam Walton did, in other words. That's capitalism indeed.

A capitalist merely provides the funding for the production of something of value.Your use of "merely", as a masquerade for "is required for" is as illogical as saying "the worker merely does the work". Capital and labour are essential for almost anything productive that happens today in your country or mine. This is not the case everywhere; but as countries escape dirt-poverty they invariably accumulate more capital intensity (capital per worker), and they use it.

But his money cannot call things into being of itself, outside of the sorts of paper-profit shenanigans we see going on now. His money has worth only in that it is a token of exchange for the products of someone else's labor.Of course, you can't have money in an unproductive society apart from a brief period where it may be used to divvy up the resource endowments, but it tends to become worthless even then.

However, as before, you are incorrectly stating/inferring that only labour produces wealth.

Capital, when it is used properly, redistributes wealth among the communities of producers, benefitting all.See my first post in this thread--"redistributes" is a bit of a misnomer since everything is a voluntary exchange. Redistribution tends to refer to compulsory transfer.

But the mere accumulation of profit, when not returned to circulation, can lead to the control of all of a resource by a single person or family or corporation, so that individuals have less opportunity to start their own enterprises.Illogical. Time is unkind to capital that is not used (hidden under the mattress) since it neither keeps pace with inflation nor earns a real return on top of that.

This is one of the reasons that so many of the world's great religions consider usery one of the most heinous of sins.However they have myriad ways of getting around such a hypocritical, reality-denying stance (google "Islamic Finance" or "Islamic Banking". I don't think that looking to religion to exemplify logic always works all that well.

Francesca R

13th February 2010, 02:31 AM

It is still more supportable thatn the idea that capital can create wealth.The labour theory of value is unsupported by evidence in any society that has moved away from hunting-gathering.

Capital is, itself, the created by labor.In the beginning there was labour and resource endowments. Ever since someone deferred comsumption there has been capital as well. OK so perhaps it happened on day 2 of the creation. So what?

These days you need capital and labour to create income, and the more capital you have, the more income you will generally create. This is why someone in the rich world can create something like $100 of income in a day but someone in the capital-starved bottom billion can only create $1, all of which they have to consume to survive (and often it is not enough for that).

Dancing David

13th February 2010, 05:53 AM

Economics requires scale to some extent, in post marxist anthropology it runs like this:

-agriculture+storage technology= extra

This leads to 'petty chiefs' (egaltarian leader who rule by consent) becoming redistributers of wealth under an egaltarian system, until someone realize that they can raid other people's storage units.

Now (under the theory) we have a reason to have an armed militia that does not produce goods they merely protect and raid goods. This leads to further social straitification and the eventual loss of egaltarian values.

True economies develop when an easily used currency develops under a partial barter system, such as vegetable oil, wine or salt. These allow for the abstraction of wealth and the development of representational currency. This shifts the balance farther from the egaltarian social currency where the petty chiefs, early rulers have a heavy obligation to use the goods to the benefit of the group, as they are ruled by consent.

This leads to the following conditions for the social stratification and development of social groups like monarchies, hegemonies and military plutocrats.
-agriculture
-storage technology
-non-producing military (as opposed to farmer warriors)
-representational currencies

But it also has the benefits of
-higher populations
-concentrations of population
-division of labor

Now as a side bar most of the 'ills of capitalism' seem to arise from certain stages of premodern technologies as they develop.
We have the usual culprits seen earlier, the 'stealing of commons', the social stratification and lack of egaltarian values and concentration of wealth. But we also have the benefits of economies of scale and deflation.