ADVERTISEMENT

New Rules to Live By

fabknight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2007
14,017
9,173
113
1. Money is a construct. It can be created from thin air. Annual deficits and aggregate national debt no longer matter much.

Prior presidents ran up huge annual deficits, but at least there were some concessions that the money was real and had to be paid back. Not now. As we near $30 trillion in national debt and 110 percent of annual GDP, our elites either believe permanent zero interest rates make the cascading obligation irrelevant, or the larger the debt, the more likely we will be forced to address needed income redistribution.

2. Laws are not necessarily binding anymore. Joe Biden took an oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But he has willfully rendered federal immigration laws null and void. Some rioters are prosecuted for violating federal laws, others not so much. Arrests, prosecutions, and trials are all fluid. Ideology governs when a law is still considered a law.

Crime rates do not necessarily matter. If someone is carjacked, assaulted, or shot, it can be understood to be as much the victim’s fault as the perpetrator’s. Either the victim was too lax, uncaring, and insensitive, or he provoked his attacker. How useful the crime is to the larger agendas of the left determines whether a victim is really a victim, and the victimizer really a victimizer.

3. Racialism is now acceptable. We are defined first by our ethnicity or religion, and only secondarily—if at all—by an American commonality. The explicit exclusion of whites from college dorms, safe spaces, and federal aid programs is now noncontroversial. It is unspoken payback for perceived past sins, or a type of “good” racism. Falsely being called a racist makes one more guilty than falsely calling someone else a racist.

4. The immigrant is mostly preferable to the citizen. The newcomer, unlike the host, is not stained by the sins of America’s founding and history. Most citizens currently must follow quarantine rules and social distancing, stay out of school and obey all the laws.

Yet those entering the United States illegally need not follow such apparently superfluous COVID-19 rules. Their children should be immediately schooled without worry of quarantine. Immigrants need not worry about their illegal entry or residence in America. Our elites believe illegal entrants more closely resemble the “founders” than do legal citizens, about half of whom they consider irredeemable.

5. Most Americans should be treated as we would treat little children. They cannot be asked to provide an ID to vote. “Noble lies” by our elites about COVID-19 rules are necessary to protect “Neanderthals” from themselves.

Americans deserve relief from the stress of grades, standardized testing, and normative rules of school behavior. They still are clueless about why it is good for them to pay far more for their gasoline, heating, and air conditioning.

6. Hypocrisy is passé. Virtue-signaling is alive. Climate change activists fly on private jets. Social justice warriors live in gated communities. Multibillionaire elitists pose as victims of sexism, racism, and homophobia. The elite need these exemptions to help the helpless. It is what you say to lesser others about how to live, not how you yourself live, that matters.

7. Ignoring or perpetuating homelessness is preferable to ending it. It is more humane to let thousands of homeless people live, eat, defecate, and use drugs on public streets and sidewalks than it is to green-light affordable housing, mandate hospitalization for the mentally ill, and create sufficient public shelter areas.

8. McCarthyism is good. Destroying lives and careers for incorrect thoughts saves more lives and careers. Cancel culture and the Twitter Reign of Terror provide needed deterrence.

Now that Americans know they are one wrong word, act, or look away from losing their livelihoods, they are more careful and will behave in a more enlightened fashion. The social media guillotine is the humane, scientific tool of the “woke.”

9. Ignorance is preferable to knowledge. Neither statue-toppling, nor name-changing, nor the 1619 Project requires any evidence or historical knowledge. Heroes of the past were simple constructs. Undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees reflect credentials, not knowledge. The brand, not what created it, is all that matters.

10. ‘Wokeness’ is the new religion, growing faster and larger than Christianity. Its priesthood outnumbers the clergy and exercises far more power. Silicon Valley is the new Vatican, and Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are the new gospels.

Americans privately fear these rules, while publicly appearing to accept them. They still could be transitory and invite a reaction. Or they are already near-permanent and institutionalized.

The answer determines whether a constitutional republic continues as once envisioned, or warps into something never imagined by those who created it.

Victor Davis Hanson is a conservative commentator, classicist, and military historian. He is a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, a senior fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University, a fellow of Hillsdale College, and a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
 
1. Money is a construct. It can be created from thin air. Annual deficits and aggregate national debt no longer matter much.

Prior presidents ran up huge annual deficits, but at least there were some concessions that the money was real and had to be paid back. Not now. As we near $30 trillion in national debt and 110 percent of annual GDP, our elites either believe permanent zero interest rates make the cascading obligation irrelevant, or the larger the debt, the more likely we will be forced to address needed income redistribution.

2. Laws are not necessarily binding anymore. Joe Biden took an oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But he has willfully rendered federal immigration laws null and void. Some rioters are prosecuted for violating federal laws, others not so much. Arrests, prosecutions, and trials are all fluid. Ideology governs when a law is still considered a law.

Crime rates do not necessarily matter. If someone is carjacked, assaulted, or shot, it can be understood to be as much the victim’s fault as the perpetrator’s. Either the victim was too lax, uncaring, and insensitive, or he provoked his attacker. How useful the crime is to the larger agendas of the left determines whether a victim is really a victim, and the victimizer really a victimizer.

3. Racialism is now acceptable. We are defined first by our ethnicity or religion, and only secondarily—if at all—by an American commonality. The explicit exclusion of whites from college dorms, safe spaces, and federal aid programs is now noncontroversial. It is unspoken payback for perceived past sins, or a type of “good” racism. Falsely being called a racist makes one more guilty than falsely calling someone else a racist.

4. The immigrant is mostly preferable to the citizen. The newcomer, unlike the host, is not stained by the sins of America’s founding and history. Most citizens currently must follow quarantine rules and social distancing, stay out of school and obey all the laws.

Yet those entering the United States illegally need not follow such apparently superfluous COVID-19 rules. Their children should be immediately schooled without worry of quarantine. Immigrants need not worry about their illegal entry or residence in America. Our elites believe illegal entrants more closely resemble the “founders” than do legal citizens, about half of whom they consider irredeemable.

5. Most Americans should be treated as we would treat little children. They cannot be asked to provide an ID to vote. “Noble lies” by our elites about COVID-19 rules are necessary to protect “Neanderthals” from themselves.

Americans deserve relief from the stress of grades, standardized testing, and normative rules of school behavior. They still are clueless about why it is good for them to pay far more for their gasoline, heating, and air conditioning.

6. Hypocrisy is passé. Virtue-signaling is alive. Climate change activists fly on private jets. Social justice warriors live in gated communities. Multibillionaire elitists pose as victims of sexism, racism, and homophobia. The elite need these exemptions to help the helpless. It is what you say to lesser others about how to live, not how you yourself live, that matters.

7. Ignoring or perpetuating homelessness is preferable to ending it. It is more humane to let thousands of homeless people live, eat, defecate, and use drugs on public streets and sidewalks than it is to green-light affordable housing, mandate hospitalization for the mentally ill, and create sufficient public shelter areas.

8. McCarthyism is good. Destroying lives and careers for incorrect thoughts saves more lives and careers. Cancel culture and the Twitter Reign of Terror provide needed deterrence.

Now that Americans know they are one wrong word, act, or look away from losing their livelihoods, they are more careful and will behave in a more enlightened fashion. The social media guillotine is the humane, scientific tool of the “woke.”

9. Ignorance is preferable to knowledge. Neither statue-toppling, nor name-changing, nor the 1619 Project requires any evidence or historical knowledge. Heroes of the past were simple constructs. Undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees reflect credentials, not knowledge. The brand, not what created it, is all that matters.

10. ‘Wokeness’ is the new religion, growing faster and larger than Christianity. Its priesthood outnumbers the clergy and exercises far more power. Silicon Valley is the new Vatican, and Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are the new gospels.

Americans privately fear these rules, while publicly appearing to accept them. They still could be transitory and invite a reaction. Or they are already near-permanent and institutionalized.

The answer determines whether a constitutional republic continues as once envisioned, or warps into something never imagined by those who created it.

Victor Davis Hanson is a conservative commentator, classicist, and military historian. He is a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, a senior fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University, a fellow of Hillsdale College, and a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
****ing old people are so boring.
 
Money is literally a construct and always has been.
maxresdefault.jpg


****ing old people are so boring.
you're a 13-17 type guy, right? kinda like Drake?
 
Lmao right on cue these inbred dipshits are complaining about the deficit now. Didn't read the rest, it's probably just as idiotic as the first post.

Moron.
 
Money is literally a construct and always has been.
Sort of. If money supply is directly tied to a physical commodity then it isn't just an intermediary. I'm not advocating a return to the gold standard, just saying that there's definitely a difference between a backed currency and a fiat currency.
 
Sort of. If money supply is directly tied to a physical commodity then it isn't just an intermediary. I'm not advocating a return to the gold standard, just saying that there's definitely a difference between a backed currency and a fiat currency.

There is nothing sort of about it. It is literally a construct. It doesnt matter if it is tied to a commodity, it is still a construct.
 
There is nothing sort of about it. It is literally a construct. It doesnt matter if it is tied to a commodity, it is still a construct.
So at what point do you go from money having tangible value to just being a construct? If our currency was actual physical gold, would it be a construct?
 
So at what point do you go from money having tangible value to just being a construct? If our currency was actual physical gold, would it be a construct?

Yes, it would still be a construct because it has no inherent value. Even if we used physical gold for transactions, we still set a value to that gold that isnt a natural value. There is nothing in nature that dictates that gold is worth x amount of dollars. We "constructed" a system that gives it that value. Gold is pretty much worthless for the vast majority of people, other than we have devised a system that adds value to it. Without that system, how valuable would gold be? You cant eat it, you cant drink it, breath it, etc etc. If you were a caveman for example, and you stumbled upon a chunk of gold while searching for berries, what value would that gold bring to you? It would bring none because it had little to no use during that time. But as civilizations started, we started adding value to things and developing currencies, which makes it a construct.
 
Yes, it would still be a construct because it has no inherent value. Even if we used physical gold for transactions, we still set a value to that gold that isnt a natural value. There is nothing in nature that dictates that gold is worth x amount of dollars. We "constructed" a system that gives it that value. Gold is pretty much worthless for the vast majority of people, other than we have devised a system that adds value to it. Without that system, how valuable would gold be? You cant eat it, you cant drink it, breath it, etc etc. If you were a caveman for example, and you stumbled upon a chunk of gold while searching for berries, what value would that gold bring to you? It would bring none because it had little to no use during that time. But as civilizations started, we started adding value to things and developing currencies, which makes it a construct.
So is there any system of trade that isn't based on a construct? Even a strict barter system involves assigning a value to one product and comparing it to the value of another product.
 
Trumps trillion dollar pandemic spending = great leader

Bidens trillion dollar pandemic spending = MONEY IS MEANINGLESS NOW EVERYBODY PANIC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
So is there any system of trade that isn't based on a construct? Even a strict barter system involves assigning a value to one product and comparing it to the value of another product.

Straight up bartering would be the closest but we still assign value to those things as well, but with that it would be more up to the individuals involved more so than a central currency that dictates value. The whole idea of an economy and currency was invented by people, so it has always been a construct.
 
So is there any system of trade that isn't based on a construct? Even a strict barter system involves assigning a value to one product and comparing it to the value of another product.

Another way you know it is a construct, is because values change. If it were a natural system then the value of a dollar vs a euro, pound etc, would never change, inflation wouldnt be a thing, etc etc. The "value" (not economic value, but value to the planet) of water doesnt change. We will always need water just to be able to survive. WE dont need gold to be able to survive. The value placed on it is not an organic value, it is the value we have chose to set for it.
 
1. Money is a construct. It can be created from thin air. Annual deficits and aggregate national debt no longer matter much.

Prior presidents ran up huge annual deficits, but at least there were some concessions that the money was real and had to be paid back. Not now. As we near $30 trillion in national debt and 110 percent of annual GDP, our elites either believe permanent zero interest rates make the cascading obligation irrelevant, or the larger the debt, the more likely we will be forced to address needed income redistribution.

2. Laws are not necessarily binding anymore. Joe Biden took an oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But he has willfully rendered federal immigration laws null and void. Some rioters are prosecuted for violating federal laws, others not so much. Arrests, prosecutions, and trials are all fluid. Ideology governs when a law is still considered a law.

Crime rates do not necessarily matter. If someone is carjacked, assaulted, or shot, it can be understood to be as much the victim’s fault as the perpetrator’s. Either the victim was too lax, uncaring, and insensitive, or he provoked his attacker. How useful the crime is to the larger agendas of the left determines whether a victim is really a victim, and the victimizer really a victimizer.

3. Racialism is now acceptable. We are defined first by our ethnicity or religion, and only secondarily—if at all—by an American commonality. The explicit exclusion of whites from college dorms, safe spaces, and federal aid programs is now noncontroversial. It is unspoken payback for perceived past sins, or a type of “good” racism. Falsely being called a racist makes one more guilty than falsely calling someone else a racist.

4. The immigrant is mostly preferable to the citizen. The newcomer, unlike the host, is not stained by the sins of America’s founding and history. Most citizens currently must follow quarantine rules and social distancing, stay out of school and obey all the laws.

Yet those entering the United States illegally need not follow such apparently superfluous COVID-19 rules. Their children should be immediately schooled without worry of quarantine. Immigrants need not worry about their illegal entry or residence in America. Our elites believe illegal entrants more closely resemble the “founders” than do legal citizens, about half of whom they consider irredeemable.

5. Most Americans should be treated as we would treat little children. They cannot be asked to provide an ID to vote. “Noble lies” by our elites about COVID-19 rules are necessary to protect “Neanderthals” from themselves.

Americans deserve relief from the stress of grades, standardized testing, and normative rules of school behavior. They still are clueless about why it is good for them to pay far more for their gasoline, heating, and air conditioning.

6. Hypocrisy is passé. Virtue-signaling is alive. Climate change activists fly on private jets. Social justice warriors live in gated communities. Multibillionaire elitists pose as victims of sexism, racism, and homophobia. The elite need these exemptions to help the helpless. It is what you say to lesser others about how to live, not how you yourself live, that matters.

7. Ignoring or perpetuating homelessness is preferable to ending it. It is more humane to let thousands of homeless people live, eat, defecate, and use drugs on public streets and sidewalks than it is to green-light affordable housing, mandate hospitalization for the mentally ill, and create sufficient public shelter areas.

8. McCarthyism is good. Destroying lives and careers for incorrect thoughts saves more lives and careers. Cancel culture and the Twitter Reign of Terror provide needed deterrence.

Now that Americans know they are one wrong word, act, or look away from losing their livelihoods, they are more careful and will behave in a more enlightened fashion. The social media guillotine is the humane, scientific tool of the “woke.”

9. Ignorance is preferable to knowledge. Neither statue-toppling, nor name-changing, nor the 1619 Project requires any evidence or historical knowledge. Heroes of the past were simple constructs. Undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees reflect credentials, not knowledge. The brand, not what created it, is all that matters.

10. ‘Wokeness’ is the new religion, growing faster and larger than Christianity. Its priesthood outnumbers the clergy and exercises far more power. Silicon Valley is the new Vatican, and Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are the new gospels.

Americans privately fear these rules, while publicly appearing to accept them. They still could be transitory and invite a reaction. Or they are already near-permanent and institutionalized.

The answer determines whether a constitutional republic continues as once envisioned, or warps into something never imagined by those who created it.

Victor Davis Hanson is a conservative commentator, classicist, and military historian. He is a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, a senior fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University, a fellow of Hillsdale College, and a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
This seems like a top ten list for the Proud Boys. .😁😁😁😁😁
 
Another way you know it is a construct, is because values change. If it were a natural system then the value of a dollar vs a euro, pound etc, would never change, inflation wouldnt be a thing, etc etc. The "value" (not economic value, but value to the planet) of water doesnt change. We will always need water just to be able to survive. WE dont need gold to be able to survive. The value placed on it is not an organic value, it is the value we have chose to set for it.
I get what you're saying, but I don't know that I would agree that just because the value of something relative to something else necessarily makes it a construct. You used the example of water having an actual intrinsic value because it is a necessity for life. By that standard, if I were to use water to barter with someone would its value be considered a construct?
 
I get what you're saying, but I don't know that I would agree that just because the value of something relative to something else necessarily makes it a construct. You used the example of water having an actual intrinsic value because it is a necessity for life. By that standard, if I were to use water to barter with someone would its value be considered a construct?

Anything looks through the lens of the economy is a construct. If you took a bottle of water to trade, then the value is still simply what someone would be willing to trade for it, not a natural value. One person might be willing to give you 5 tomatoes, another person might be willing to give you 20 carrots, etc. Someone dying of thirst would probably be willing to give more than someone who just drank a glass of water. So based on that there is still no natural economic value to it. I think that is probably closer to a natural system since it is based more on need than want, but even in that situation someone still decided its economic value.
 
Anything looks through the lens of the economy is a construct. If you took a bottle of water to trade, then the value is still simply what someone would be willing to trade for it, not a natural value. One person might be willing to give you 5 tomatoes, another person might be willing to give you 20 carrots, etc. Someone dying of thirst would probably be willing to give more than someone who just drank a glass of water. So based on that there is still no natural economic value to it. I think that is probably closer to a natural system since it is based more on need than want, but even in that situation someone still decided its economic value.
But would you agree that the value of something isn't always a construct? If I have a glass of water and just consume it myself, is the value of that glass of water intrinsic or just a construct?
 
But would you agree that the value of something isn't always a construct? If I have a glass of water and just consume it myself, is the value of that glass of water intrinsic or just a construct?

It depends on what you mean by value. Obviously water is very valuable and necessary when it comes to life on the planet, but when you put an economic value on it, then someone had to decide that value. So finding a stream and drinking out of it isnt a construct obviously, but bottling the stream water and selling it is.
 
It depends on what you mean by value. Obviously water is very valuable and necessary when it comes to life on the planet, but when you put an economic value on it, then someone had to decide that value. So finding a stream and drinking out of it isnt a construct obviously, but bottling the stream water and selling it is.
So if I had a glass of water and you had a glass of water and we traded them, would that transaction be based on a construct?
 
So if I had a glass of water and you had a glass of water and we traded them, would that transaction be based on a construct?

I dont know that I would say a single transaction between 2 people necessarily constitutes a construct, but we are getting away from the actual topic. The system as a whole is a construct. It was literally "constructed" by humans to make transactions easier, and the numerical values we put on things were things we came up with. The economic value of anything is based on human behavior, nothing more, and the tools we use to make transactions (currency) were invented by humans and given value. A hundred dollar bill only has value because we decided it has value.
 
I dont know that I would say a single transaction between 2 people necessarily constitutes a construct, but we are getting away from the actual topic. The system as a whole is a construct. It was literally "constructed" by humans to make transactions easier, and the numerical values we put on things were things we came up with. The economic value of anything is based on human behavior, nothing more, and the tools we use to make transactions (currency) were invented by humans and given value. A hundred dollar bill only has value because we decided it has value.
I was trying to see if we could determine at what point something goes from having intrinsic value to it being a construct. Totally theoretical discussion.
 
I was trying to see if we could determine at what point something goes from having intrinsic value to it being a construct. Totally theoretical discussion.

Nothing within the scope of the economy really has intrinsic value. Obviously things like food, water, air, etc have value because we need them to survive, but within an economic viewpoint, there value is a construct because we determined that value. If you and I were standing by each other, both trying to sell a bottle of water. Same bottle, same amount of water, etc. And you were selling your bottle for 1 dollar, and I was selling mine for 5 dollars, then what is the value of that water? Is it 1 dollar? Is it 5 dollars? It is the exact same product with 2 different prices. Obviously the cheaper one would sell first, but that doesnt necessarily mean that is its true economic value, because the more expensive one might sell right after the cheaper one. So, we can't say there is a natural economic value when 2 of exact same products, each sold for a different amount, in the exact location, within minutes of each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
Nothing within the scope of the economy really has intrinsic value. Obviously things like food, water, air, etc have value because we need them to survive, but within an economic viewpoint, there value is a construct because we determined that value. If you and I were standing by each other, both trying to sell a bottle of water. Same bottle, same amount of water, etc. And you were selling your bottle for 1 dollar, and I was selling mine for 5 dollars, then what is the value of that water? Is it 1 dollar? Is it 5 dollars? It is the exact same product with 2 different prices. Obviously the cheaper one would sell first, but that doesnt necessarily mean that is its true economic value, because the more expensive one might sell right after the cheaper one. So, we can't say there is a natural economic value when 2 of exact same products, each sold for a different amount, in the exact location, within minutes of each other.
That's true, but at the same time this is an example of the value of the currency being more flexible than the value of the water, so at that point the currency becomes less of a construct and more of a commodity. If I can physically have possession of a dollar or a coin, it isn't make believe beyond the value we assign to it, as opposed to something like a crypto currency that has literally no intrinsic value at all. Even if the value is just the heat I can generate by burning the paper it's printed on, that's still value.
 
That's true, but at the same time this is an example of the value of the currency being more flexible than the value of the water, so at that point the currency becomes less of a construct and more of a commodity. If I can physically have possession of a dollar or a coin, it isn't make believe beyond the value we assign to it, as opposed to something like a crypto currency that has literally no intrinsic value at all. Even if the value is just the heat I can generate by burning the paper it's printed on, that's still value.

It isnt make believe, but it also isnt organic. The reason currency has value is simply because we decide it has value, which is what makes it a construct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
It isnt make believe, but it also isnt organic. The reason currency has value is simply because we decide it has value, which is what makes it a construct.
I’d like to say, I appreciate your posts even if I disagree with your political viewpoint most of the time. There are some morons on this board, but you’re not one of them.

Anyway, I think the most important way value is embedded into our currency is through wages. We all exchange our labor for it, whether that’s through working for someone else or operating our own businesses with the goal of turning a profit.

In that way and in the purest form, currency represents the work we do in the economy for each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cubs79
I’d like to say, I appreciate your posts even if I disagree with your political viewpoint most of the time. There are some morons on this board, but you’re not one of them.

Anyway, I think the most important way value is embedded into our currency is through wages. We all exchange our labor for it, whether that’s through working for someone else or operating our own businesses with the goal of turning a profit.

In that way and in the purest form, currency represents the work we do in the economy for each other.

All of that is true, but it still comes from a system we invented, not some sort of natural system. We have determined how much monetary value a product or labor is worth but even in saying that, especially when it comes to labor and large corporations, there are also a lot of differing views on the value of those things, especially with income inequality being such a major issues these days.
 
I’d like to say, I appreciate your posts even if I disagree with your political viewpoint most of the time. There are some morons on this board, but you’re not one of them.

Anyway, I think the most important way value is embedded into our currency is through wages. We all exchange our labor for it, whether that’s through working for someone else or operating our own businesses with the goal of turning a profit.

In that way and in the purest form, currency represents the work we do in the economy for each other.
Well, unfortunately we have gotten to the point that the only thing backing the value of the dollar is the productive capacity of the US worker. There is no full faith and credit left in the government to regulate the quantity of dollars anymore and we dropped the gold standard 50 years ago, so all that's left is yours and my labor. Not to hijack this thread into something it shouldn't be, but our country is walking a very thin rope here with our trade and immigration policies. The service sector isn't going to bail us out of our debt.
 
All of that is true, but it still comes from a system we invented, not some sort of natural system. We have determined how much monetary value a product or labor is worth but even in saying that, especially when it comes to labor and large corporations, there are also a lot of differing views on the value of those things, especially with income inequality being such a major issues these days.

Would you say that labor and capital should be considered equal components in economic output?
 
Well, unfortunately we have gotten to the point that the only thing backing the value of the dollar is the productive capacity of the US worker. There is no full faith and credit left in the government to regulate the quantity of dollars anymore and we dropped the gold standard 50 years ago, so all that's left is yours and my labor. Not to hijack this thread into something it shouldn't be, but our country is walking a very thin rope here with our trade and immigration policies. The service sector isn't going to bail us out of our debt.
And that’s certainly fair criticism. The gold standard is just an arbitrary limitation just like any other, but limitations on what gets printed are important.

Printing more money devalues the currency, but it’s fine if our collective understand of how much a dollar is worth changes over time. Serious economic disaster sets in if the value changes so rapidly that there’s no more confidence in the currency.
 
Would you say that labor and capital should be considered equal components in economic output?

It would depend on what company and the product and labor involved would be. I think Amazon is an easy example. Jeff Bezos just basically decided that selling stuff online was a good business model, and obviously he was right, but I also dont think that is some sort of irreplaceable genius. Its not like cured cancer or something. So the argument would be, how much value does he actually bring to the table? Does he bring more value than a single warehouse worker or driver? Yes. Does he bring more value than 100 workers? 1000? 10,000? Etc. Based on his net worth compared to theirs the answer is obviously yes, but I think that is something that is certainly debatable.
 
And that’s certainly fair criticism. The gold standard is just an arbitrary limitation just like any other, but limitations on what gets printed are important.

Printing more money devalues the currency, but it’s fine if our collective understand of how much a dollar is worth changes over time. Serious economic disaster sets in if the value changes so rapidly that there’s no more confidence in the currency.
I'm not a gold bug, actually far from it. I think in theory that FIAT currency is actually a preferable system but like anything else it needs to be kept under tight wraps. Ideally, I would like to see a system where the quantity of dollars tracks total output, with a margin of 5% A little bit of flexibility is needed to adjust to the circumstances on the ground, but not so much that it can affect the value of existing capital significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knight In TN
Would you say that labor and capital should be considered equal components in economic output?
What does equal mean in this case? Should they always be compensated equally?

My argument would be an emphatic no, and argue that most of the time now capital is far more valuable than labor.

The best way I can explain that is:
Say I have a machine that can produce anything you want very rapidly just by slowly turning a crank that’s easy to turn. That machine cost me a lot to make, and now it’s going to be very productive, I just need someone to turn the crank. Turning the crank is very easy and anyone can do it. The machine produces a million dollars worth of goods every day.

Do I owe the crank turner a very high salary? No, because they’re very easily replaceable, and it’s the machine (capital) really doing the work. The employee couldn’t produce that much with just any old machine. But the machine could do just as much with any old crank turner.

Capital is what’s important. That’s why our economic output as a planet continues to grow. The capital keeps expanding much faster than labor does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanjerk
It would depend on what company and the product and labor involved would be. I think Amazon is an easy example. Jeff Bezos just basically decided that selling stuff online was a good business model, and obviously he was right, but I also dont think that is some sort of irreplaceable genius. Its not like cured cancer or something. So the argument would be, how much value does he actually bring to the table? Does he bring more value than a single warehouse worker or driver? Yes. Does he bring more value than 100 workers? 1000? 10,000? Etc. Based on his net worth compared to theirs the answer is obviously yes, but I think that is something that is certainly debatable.
I'm talking more on a macro level. Generally speaking, should labor be considered equal to capital in regards to the economy as a whole? What we have now is a situation where capital is clearly preferred and generates a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to what labor receives. On the flip side, there have been circumstances where labor (unions in particular) have disproportionately benefitted from production.
 
What does equal mean in this case? Should they always be compensated equally?

My argument would be an emphatic no, and argue that most of the time now capital is far more valuable than labor.

The best way I can explain that is:
Say I have a machine that can produce anything you want very rapidly just by slowly turning a crank that’s easy to turn. That machine cost me a lot to make, and now it’s going to be very productive, I just need someone to turn the crank. Turning the crank is very easy and anyone can do it. The machine produces a million dollars worth of goods every day.

Do I owe the crank turner a very high salary? No, because they’re very easily replaceable, and it’s the machine (capital) really doing the work. The employee couldn’t produce that much with just any old machine. But the machine could do just as much with any old crank turner.

Capital is what’s important. That’s why our economic output as a planet continues to grow. The capital keeps expanding much faster than labor does.
As an extreme example, let's say you have a million employees. Should you make more than those million do collectively?
 
I'm talking more on a macro level. Generally speaking, should labor be considered equal to capital in regards to the economy as a whole? What we have now is a situation where capital is clearly preferred and generates a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to what labor receives. On the flip side, there have been circumstances where labor (unions in particular) have disproportionately benefitted from production.

I think it is tiered too much to the side of capital right now, and certainly will be going forward. And I think in the not so distant future that is going to be a major issue that is going to have to be fixed either politically, like a UBI or something, or companies are going to have to realize that killing the labor class will eventually bite them in the ass too because their money, stems from the masses buying their products or services. So as we continue to advance to a more automated and technology driven market, we are going to have to find ways to insure that we still have a strong middle class.
 
Last edited:
I think it is tiered too much to the side of capital right now, and I think in the not so distant future that is going to be a major issue that is going to have to be fixed either politically, like a UBI or something, or companies are going to have to realize that killing the labor class will eventually bite them in the ass too because their money, stems from the masses buying their products or services. So as we continue to advance to a more automated and technology driven market, we are going to have to find ways to insure that we still have a strong middle class.
I agree. That's part of why I am posing the question. It seems to me that in an ideal situation, capital investment and labor should reap equal benefits (on a macro level). Let's say that somebody has a billion dollars and has someone use that money to set up a business, hire employees that produce a product, secretaries that manage the office, janitors and maintenance people that keep things clean and functional, etc.

Should the guy that just provided the capital to start up that business make as much in profits as all of the employees combined?
 
I agree. That's part of why I am posing the question. It seems to me that in an ideal situation, capital investment and labor should reap equal benefits (on a macro level). Let's say that somebody has a billion dollars and has someone use that money to set up a business, hire employees that produce a product, secretaries that manage the office, janitors and maintenance people that keep things clean and functional, etc.

Should the guy that just provided the capital to start up that business make as much in profits as all of the employees combined?

I think it could be a case by case basis, but generally speaking I would say no. Obviously if someone takes the risk of opening a business, then they should reap the rewards for that risk. But, especially if it is a large business, they obviously arent achieving success on their own.
 
I think it could be a case by case basis, but generally speaking I would say no. Obviously if someone takes the risk of opening a business, then they should reap the rewards for that risk. But, especially if it is a large business, they obviously arent achieving success on their own.
OK. So full disclosure, I had a motive for asking this and I've been using this as an experiment with other people. It stems from a notable quote and I've been interested to see how many left leaning people agree with it:

"I declare that henceforth capital and labor shall have equal rights and duties as brothers"

I leave the end of that statement out which is "in the fascist family".


It's a quote from mussolini, so it's kind of funny to see how many left leaning people agree with the statement until you include the last 4 words and then it becomes horribly racist and xenophobic, lol. Props on being a free thinker and not getting caught in that trap.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT