Do We Work Too Hard? - Page 4

SheetWise · #31 10-20-2005, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your second point is utter nonsense, bin-men and cleaners get paid next to nothing, are you suggesting that work is not important, lets have the cities infested with rats and disease rampant then we'll see what work is important. As Peter666 pointed out professional athletes work is much less important and more highly paid than most.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you talk about what's important, when the subject is what's valued?

If a movie actor or athlete can convince 100MM people to spend an extra 50c, then they're valued by 100M people at $50MM. If a cleaner can pull that off, more power to them.

tylerdurden · #32 10-20-2005, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you talk about what's important, when the subject is what's valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gold star.

People can *say* that they value education more than entertainment, but when the chips are down, what they actualy PAY for is what actually determines what is and is not valued. Economics is concerned with *action*, not with what people say is "important."

tylerdurden · #33 10-20-2005, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with our capitalism is that it is not free enough. There should be more small business and less of a tax burden on the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if there "should" be more small business (the market can determine that), but obviously taxes are bad.

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time it is right and proper to curtail the rights of individuals or businesses for the common good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You bemoan the "wage slave" state that so many are mired in, yet you advocate more slavery?

[ QUOTE ]
Monopolies do not enhance quality of life except for a priveleged few.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet that is exactly what you're advocating.

[ QUOTE ]
And government control screws up everything even more so.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you say that's what you want.

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of people in North America are middle class, and it is this class which is most burdened by our economic system. Those not wishing to contribute get a free card through social welfare, and those who are rich have means to extricate themselves from the situation.

As I stated before, the majority of people in our economy, whether they recognize it or not, are wage slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the middle class should be less burdened (I agree), but everyone should be slaves to "society"?

Peter666 · #34 10-20-2005, 06:23 PM

But people are also impressionable, and the mass media has control over this. If we did not have unbridled advertising telling us what is entertainment or what is fashionable, people would be forced to think instead to just follow like sheep.

For example, most of modern music is absolutely horrid, with no rhythem, melody etc. but we have young people lapping it up like Pavlov's dogs.

Of course action is what determines economics, but actions can be either reasonable or unreasonable. We should not encourage the latter.

coffeecrazy1 · #35 10-20-2005, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But people are also impressionable, and the mass media has control over this. If we did not have unbridled advertising telling us what is entertainment or what is fashionable, people would be forced to think instead to just follow like sheep.

For example, most of modern music is absolutely horrid, with no rhythem, melody etc. but we have young people lapping it up like Pavlov's dogs.

Of course action is what determines economics, but actions can be either reasonable or unreasonable. We should not encourage the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should not encourage either, nor discourage either. Listen...since this is a pretty efficient hijack of my OP...here are my thoughts, and the point I was trying to make:

People spend their money and time on the things they value most. Peter, it is not for you or me or anyone to tell someone what they should value, no matter how "impressionable" they are(which I always found to be a cop-out for lack of responsibility). If you would like them to get impressions you favor more, then compete for their interests...but bringing in the government to do it reeks of fascism.

The point I was trying to make is not that people should not work enough to survive, pvn. It was the point that people work themselves past the point of survival, and even past the point of comfort, and it makes me wonder what's the point of all that work if you can't enjoy the reward?

Peter666 · #36 10-20-2005, 06:37 PM

We cannot allow business to do as they please just as we cannot allow people to do as they please. If that were the case, I would murder my neighbour and steal his car. Naturally a society must have laws to protect the common good, and this applies to economic situations as well.

An economic system should logically be for the material benefit of all. If we create an economy where a priveleged few are allowed to stuff themselves full while others starve to death, communism will return. Unbridled capitalims is what caused the rise of socialism. And although we can refute the theory of communism, their arguments against capitalism are sound.

Both systems eventually lead to a monopoly. One is run by the state, and the other is run by a few ruthless businessmen. Neither perpetuates the common good and well being of society.

mackthefork · #37 10-20-2005, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you talk about what's important, when the subject is what's valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I mistakenly wandered down the path of thinking that hat is valued isn't actually that important (smack wrist).

Mack

SheetWise · #38 10-20-2005, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I mistakenly wandered down the path of thinking that what is valued isn't actually that important (smack wrist).

[/ QUOTE ]
Important things will always be valued. At what they are worth.

tylerdurden · #39 10-20-2005, 10:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Peter, it is not for you or me or anyone to tell someone what they should value, no matter how "impressionable" they are...

[...]

The point I was trying to make is not that people should not work enough to survive, pvn. It was the point that people work themselves past the point of survival, and even past the point of comfort, and it makes me wonder what's the point of all that work if you can't enjoy the reward?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I specifically avoid jobs that might pay more, but would require more of my time. I've found the balance that meets my definintion of satisfaction. I'm basically in agreement with you - I was just reacting to the suggestion that there's some "one-size-fits-all" definition of "too much work." There's not.

tylerdurden · #40 10-20-2005, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We cannot allow business to do as they please just as we cannot allow people to do as they please. If that were the case, I would murder my neighbour and steal his car.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus. Who the hell was suggesting that?

[ QUOTE ]
Naturally a society must have laws to protect the common good, and this applies to economic situations as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. I reject the notion of "common good". Rules are needed to protect individuals. The "common good" is an *intentionally* vague concept, because it's used to disguise oppression (i.e. "we're going to steal your money for the good of society - but we're going to define that good, not you").

The rules that protect individuals: thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal. That's pretty much it. Don't initiate violence or fraud.

[ QUOTE ]
An economic system should logically be for the material benefit of all. If we create an economy where a priveleged few are allowed to stuff themselves full while others starve to death, communism will return. Unbridled capitalims is what caused the rise of socialism. And although we can refute the theory of communism, their arguments against capitalism are sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Unbridled" capitalism allows everyone to stuff themselves in proportion to their production. The abuses you're alluding to only occur when capitalism is distorted by force (i.e. by government intervention).

[ QUOTE ]
Both systems eventually lead to a monopoly. One is run by the state, and the other is run by a few ruthless businessmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It's impossible to achieve a monopoly in pure capitalism. You can only achieve true monopoly with the force of government.

[ QUOTE ]
Neither perpetuates the common good and well being of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Capitalism promotes the well being of the individuals that produce value. Anyone promoting a scheme that advances the "well being of society" is secretly planning on oppressing someone to benefit someone else.