Economy 101

[Cruella]

Bravo GenSeneca

 

[Dr.Who]

Production is the product of a person's ability to think, wealth is the product of greed.

Many, many very smart people are not wealthy. And many wealthy people are not smart. Anyone greedy enough will find a way to gain wealth.

And a greedy man is one who collects more than he can consume, and consumes what others have produced.

Wealth is accumulated property. This property may very well be exactly what a person needs. It can be saving for a rainy day it can be providing for ones retirement or for ones descendents.

Greed is an obsession with accumulating wealth or accumulating excessive wealth. Firstly it is never the govs responsibility to determine when our desires for property are obsessive or excessive.

Wealth does not become the product of greed until it is excessive.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'd like to alter to my last post to read:
"And a greedy man is one who collects more than he can consume by consuming what others have produced."

Just makes a nice signature, should I desire one.

Lets talk more about consuming what others have produced. If this represents fair trade then it is completely just. If it is theft then call in the police. Again greed is not the same as consuming what others produce. Greed MIGHT include that but not always nor even frequently. Now if we were talking about liberal politics then wanting to colllect taxes from people to spread it around for political gain would be an example of consuming what others have produced.

 

[GenSeneca]

Greed: Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.​

​

Excessive: More than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.​

​

What is the objection to either of these as character traits? Based on their definitions, I am greedy - my "intense and selfish desire" to build my own wealth has me working 70+ hours a week between 3 jobs. My income and work load are both "excessive", according to the definition of the word, as it would be "normal" for me to work just one job like most people. Having two other jobs really isn't "necessary" as my primary job would cover all my living expenses but I certainly consider the prospect of amassing wealth to be "desirable" - who doesn't?

 

[Valkyrie]

so your saying the "others" were slaves and had no control of where they chose to work?

No . . . I'm saying that "A greedy man is one who collects more than he can consume by consuming what others have produced."

 

[Valkyrie]

Are you honestly trying to suggest that, before currency, there were no looters or moochers? Because I would contend that, since the dawn of mankind, there have been some individuals willing to use force, coercion, and trickery, to confiscate property that rightly belongs to someone else.

I am not suggesting that there were no moochers or looters before currency. If you had read my post, you would know that I said it was harder before money- and it was. Stealing a thousand dollars worth of watermelons is much harder than making off with an equivalent in currency. Also, do not assume that the "looters and moochers" are poor people. Since the dawn of time, people have figured out ways to trick others out of their money- today, many of them operate on Wall Street.

But I'm digressing. Suffice it to say that it would help the discussion if you would address what I actually posted.

It's not really an argument so much as an observation....

Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion.​

​

You're premise is that consumption drives an economy and, therefore, having 100% consumption would create the best possible economy is not logical. Goods must be produced before they can be consumed. Increases in consumption must be preceded by increases in production, we cannot consume more than has been produced, and such an increase in production is only possible through savings and investments, i.e. through the accumulation of wealth. That wealth serves as the capital by which new products and techniques are researched and, if efficacious, adopted.

You're mistaken, GenSeneca- I made no mention of an economy consisting of 100% consumption and zero production. I said that the most robust economy would be one in which everyone spent everything they made. They can produce all they want- as long as they spend all they make, it fits my point.

“Economic growth” means the rise of an economy’s productivity, due to the discovery of new products, new techniques, which means: due to the achievements of men’s productive ability. - Ayn Rand

LOL! Rand was not an economist . . . simply a fascist! The fact that you quote a fiction author indicates that you may not understand what constitutes economic reality.

"Economic Growth" means the increasing ability of a society to fill the needs and wants of it's economy. And since I have made no mention whatsoever of economic growth, it's irrelevent. (And the strawman argument is also a logical fallacy)

Now, depending on your definition of "spending", it could be said that we already have an economy very much like the one you've described - Thanks to wealth.

The amount of spending varies from year to year, and season to season, but I do not think that we have ever had an economy where we all spent everything we made. The point is not that spending is better than credit, so I'll skip over that part of the strawman argument.

I'll try to make this simpler: Stores hire when they have more customers than they can handle. Manufacturers increase their workforce when the demand for their products exceeds their current production capacity. Unless there is spending, there is no economy- and the more that people spend, the more robust the economy (I'm NOT speaking of economic growth, mind you).

Would you agree that the number of jobs in a given society is in direct proportion to the amount of money being exchanged, or not?

​

 

[Valkyrie]

Greed: Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.​

​

Excessive: More than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.​

​

What is the objection to either of these as character traits? Based on their definitions, I am greedy - my "intense and selfish desire" to build my own wealth has me working 70+ hours a week between 3 jobs. My income and work load are both "excessive", according to the definition of the word, as it would be "normal" for me to work just one job like most people. Having two other jobs really isn't "necessary" as my primary job would cover all my living expenses but I certainly consider the prospect of amassing wealth to be "desirable" - who doesn't?

One immediate objection is that your desire to amass wealth means working 3 jobs- and that jobs are finite in number.

Yes, in my opinion it is morally wrong to take three jobs when others are looking for work.

 

[Valkyrie]

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits. - Thomas Jefferson

-It's possible to take this too literally- building ports, roads, bridges and infrastructure is "aiding the people" in their pursuits. Loaning money to businesses is "aiding" them. Educating a workforce is "aiding" the business owner. Taxing anyone is "restraining " them. Would Mr. Jefferson oppose these things? No. But many conservatives will use his words to imply that helping the poor is wrong. Fortunately, Americans are smarter than that.


Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. - Ayn Rand

Well said! I am pleased to see that Ms Rand would oppose incentives for businesses to outsource their labor, which benefits the shareholder and manager at the expense of the worker.

What's that? She would probably support the government interference that helps business owners- only objecting to the interference that protects the least powerful?

Oh well . . . I guess we don't expect intellectual honesty from fiction authors, anyway.

 

[Cruella]

No . . . I'm saying that "A greedy man is one who collects more than he can consume by consuming what others have produced."

What if he "invests" that money into other businesses which provide jobs to other "producers"? Or maybe he puts it in a bank where the bank uses it to loan to people wanting to start their own businesses? How is that "greedy"?

 

[Cruella]

.

Yes, in my opinion it is morally wrong to take three jobs when others are looking for work.

Let's all move into a commune and "share". Oh wait, the hippies and the pilgrims tried that and it
didn't work. Too many freedloaders who wouldn't pull their own weight, and those "evil" entrepreneurs were caught hoarding what they produced.

 

[Dr.Who]

No . . . I'm saying that "A greedy man is one who collects more than he can consume by consuming what others have produced."

If he trades with that person for what they have produced then what is wrong with that? But if he steals what they have produced then the problem is not greed but theft.

 

[Dr.Who]

One immediate objection is that your desire to amass wealth means working 3 jobs- and that jobs are finite in number.

Yes, in my opinion it is morally wrong to take three jobs when others are looking for work.

MAN, that s warped.

Jobs are not finite. Competition for work is good for the economy.

If I pick an apple from a tree in the wilderness and eat it I have done nothing wrong. if I pick more than I can eat and sell them I have still done nothing wrong - in fact I have provided a service to those who do not want to climb the tree themselves. Just as the tree was free for me to use so are the jobs free for me to take.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

One immediate objection is that your desire to amass wealth means working 3 jobs- and that jobs are finite in number.

Yes, in my opinion it is morally wrong to take three jobs when others are looking for work.

^^^^ Our Education System, K through 12, at work for you.^^^^​

​

Probably alumnus of Communist Martyrs High School.​

 

[Cruella]

Yes, in my opinion it is morally wrong to take three jobs when others are looking for work.

^^^^ Our Education System, K through 12, at work for you.^^^^

Yes...it is odd that the creator of this thread doesn't even understand what makes the economy work.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Yes...it is odd that the creator of this thread doesn't even understand what makes the economy work.

Perhaps, after a few boring hours in--Econ 101--he(she?)--might.