tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post3937668402529019927..comments2023-09-03T03:37:33.902-07:00Comments on My Soapbox, by Chad Lupkes: Economic Theory: The Terms of the DebateChad Lupkeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10011268144165790263noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-83899062728631996642009-07-23T13:21:31.305-07:002009-07-23T13:21:31.305-07:00Thushara, you're talking about the very reason...Thushara, you're talking about the very reason the labor movement exists. To promote the idea that giving people more than enough to live on will lead to expansion of existing industries and the invention of new industries. The price of labor resulted in the Enlightenment and in the creation of a middle class in the United States thanks to the minimum wage. The problem is that the minimum wage has not kept up with what would be required to give a single wage-earner the ability to keep up with the bills.<br /><br />So if you're asking for an increase in the minimum wage, I agree with you.Chad Lupkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011268144165790263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-64603504488386125982009-07-23T12:40:09.319-07:002009-07-23T12:40:09.319-07:00I would like to add another dimension to the quest...I would like to add another dimension to the question of choice. Whatever economic system we have in place to satisfy basic needs, the less time one has to work in order to meet his needs, the more choice there will be.<br /><br />Say, all people of the world can work 4 hours a day and produce enough goods to satisfy their basic needs. If the rest of the 20 hours are basically free for them to do as they wish, it is highly likely that a part of the population will create new inventions, art, literature that adds to choice, and not diminish it as we sometimes think.<br /><br />These developments are happening as we speak. ex: increasingly, the knowledge worker of today has more time available than a production worker. and since production from a knowledge worker's perspective needs little capital (a computer, some mostly free software, and an internet connection), she is able to create more choice for the community.<br /><br />I point out the Linux operating system and the vast body of open source software available, that grew out of the contribution of a community of knowledge workers in large part because they were not employed 15-20 hours a day, and the capital needed for production was marginal.<br /><br />Moving on to the area of content, the content on youTube has grown in quality and quantity such that it poses a distinct challenge to big media companies. Again this is a result of people using their free time effectively with the cost of producing/distributing content becoming marginal.<br /><br />And this massive growth of open source software / content then in turn compels companies to hire engineers / designers who work on these projects, and to keep the "technology / media capital" thriving, they are compelled to cut down the number of working hours the employee works for them, so that she has enough time to contribute to the shared technology / media capital.<br /><br />So this is a fine example where a co-operative model has changed how businesses think in terms of individually owning and controlling the means of production.<br /><br />Imagine the gains we could have in fields like healthcare, space travel, automobile manufacture if the costs of production could be reduced, and production / service workers in those fields had more free time...<br /><br />And why can't we? Why is the cost equation so different in these different industries?thusharahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09820727533887579134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-1701820334296787282008-12-18T10:39:00.000-08:002008-12-18T10:39:00.000-08:00Oh, Chad, take it from me, that post was too long....Oh, Chad, take it from me, that post was too long. Plus the premises are skewed. A person who has the cultural or even practical view that we are a part of our environment and existing resources--belonging to it, instead of the other way around--has no beginning point. Further, there are indeed some things, like health care, or housing, that should be treated differently than say, shoes, or hangers, with any number of ways to govern as there are forms of government. <BR/><BR/>This is all aside from the reason we are where we are economically at this particular point in time. We've been playing with money we didn't really have. Just about everyone is the emperor of the children's story, wearing the finest of clothing--or so they all said--except some knew we were naked all along, and some are still trying to cling to the idea, to save themselves the embarassment (or administrative headache).<BR/><BR/>Our *long-term* tendency to get into trouble (and why we may find ourselves here again in another decade) has less to do with our acceptance of capitalism as a social methodology, as much as a psychological insatiability--tendency toward exploitation and gain at all costs, and cult of consumerism to the point of enslavement. These notions are not interchangeable with capitalism, per se. Thus, the idea of a "true" market, even in the eye of the most liberated libertarian, has not, and tends not to get an unfettered chance to shine in this petrie dish of ours.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-51559718162616103472008-04-16T15:39:00.000-07:002008-04-16T15:39:00.000-07:00Yeah, and Marx was completely wrong when he was wr...Yeah, and Marx was completely wrong when he was writing, and anyone who believes otherwise now is just as wrong. Sounds like the result of a refusal to think. No surprise.<BR/><BR/>Also reminds me of what I have heard about the 1932 election, when we were considering Socialism, Communism AND Fascism here in the United States.<BR/><BR/>Let's hope we have the same result.Chad Lupkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011268144165790263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-24773757453645837592008-04-16T15:37:00.000-07:002008-04-16T15:37:00.000-07:00Chad,They are hitting Obama with Marxism for imply...Chad,<BR/><BR/>They are hitting Obama with Marxism for implying "in their imaginative interpretation of his San Francisco remarks" the marxist saw that religion is the opium of the masses and for urging that the government no longer favor the wealthy over the poor.<BR/><BR/>A double whammy. Religion and Economics.Will Hagerbaumerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08321083366052159498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-61805471801473509302008-04-16T15:33:00.000-07:002008-04-16T15:33:00.000-07:00Chad,They are hitting Obama with Marxism by restat...Chad,<BR/><BR/>They are hitting Obama with Marxism by restating his comments in San Francisco to mean that he believes that religion is the opium of the masses and tying that to their assertion that he believes in class struggle because he is urging that the government no longer favor the wealthy over the poor.<BR/><BR/>A double whammy. Religion and Economics.Will Hagerbaumerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08321083366052159498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-63217328886241995522008-04-16T11:18:00.000-07:002008-04-16T11:18:00.000-07:00Sounds like it's time to post a copy of this on th...Sounds like it's time to post a copy of this on the Obama blog.Chad Lupkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011268144165790263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-27263895775652951382008-04-16T09:29:00.000-07:002008-04-16T09:29:00.000-07:00Chad,You bring forth a very important topic. Fox ...Chad,<BR/><BR/>You bring forth a very important topic. Fox news commentators and others are already to apply the marxist label to Obama.<BR/><BR/>On your graph, the x axis represents state regulation of capital. Traditionally, the x axis represents ownership of capital. On your new graph, Fascism and Communism both fall way to the left. As Fascists allow the wealthy capitalists to set the agenda of the state, and Communists allow the bureaucrats to set the agenda of the state they are simply two heads of the same monster.<BR/><BR/>I like your graph. We need words for its new left and right (Objectivism is more historically known as laissez faire (sp?) and a term encompassing both Communism and Fascism is more historically known as Totalitarian.) Responsible state regulation of the commons and increased liberty and freedom of the private is the mid point we seek.<BR/><BR/>Bill HagerbaumerWill Hagerbaumerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08321083366052159498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-87426671907186156312008-01-15T13:31:00.000-08:002008-01-15T13:31:00.000-08:00Oh come on. You can do better than that, dlaw.Wha...Oh come on. You can do better than that, dlaw.<BR/><BR/>What should NOT be commoditized, and what mechanism other than the market should be used to regulate the production, distribution and consumption of that thing?<BR/><BR/>I support regulated markets because I believe in market forces. I don't believe in unregulated markets because they enable and encourage the abuse of power.Chad Lupkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011268144165790263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940797.post-52851096114784316932008-01-15T13:10:00.000-08:002008-01-15T13:10:00.000-08:00Ayn Rand has forgotten that capitalism IS governan...Ayn Rand has forgotten that capitalism IS governance. <BR/><BR/>Because capitalism is the commoditization of everything, it makes rules, conventions and other rituals of trust not only important but essential. <BR/><BR/>Rand, a fascist, sees government foremost in terms of the axe in the fasces as the government. She forgets, of course, that the government is where the axe is meant to be bundled and kept out of the hands of unregulated warriors.D. L. Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11538360881255174289noreply@blogger.com