May 2022
8:50am, 23 May 2022
42,383 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Can I go back to Fields's question from a few pages back (paraphrasing from memory) "Why do profits go up more than wages?" And I'd add in other forms of wealth, like property values, commodities and the stock market generally? My (simplistic! admittedly) understanding of economics is that what he has said is correct. The only way that company profits can rise faster than people's wages is that the labour put in is valued lower than the goods or services coming out. Whether you call this "exploitation" or just the way that capitalism works (an entrepreneur, manager, owner, whatever you want to call them, comes up with an idea, uses their education, drive, innovation to create or expand a company to provide the goods or services and employs people as part of that. The difference between the value of the goods or services and the cost of the raw materials + labour going into it is called "profit"). So fundamentally capitalism is the exploitation of labour for profit. My follow up question would be, is this a bad or a good thing?! I had a fascinating discussion about this with mrs shanski's son at parkrun over cake on Sat morning. We concluded that capitalism is a necessary evil but it should be much, much more heavily regulated to minimize that gap between a fair exchange of money for labour and the accumulation of wealth through profits. I love talking to young people! Just because it's simple, doesn't mean it's wrong!  G
|
May 2022
9:16am, 23 May 2022
6,100 posts
|
Pothunter
Is it not more about how the profits are distributed that is the issue? If a smallish company is making decent profits and reinvesting them to grow the business (rather than giving the money to owners/shareholders) they are likely to provide a more stable environment for the workers in the future. The windfall tax being talked about for the energy companies has similar challenges for me. On the spot fuel poverty is obviously a huge issue, but if profits can be invested to safeguard future supply and reduce reliance on the likes of Russia then IMO the chances of us landing in a similar situation (wrt high prices) are reduced. |
May 2022
9:51am, 23 May 2022
86,918 posts
|
swittle
Joe Biden & the USA may have bigger fish to fry... 'Biden Says U.S. Military Would Defend Taiwan if China Invaded'. nytimes.com |
May 2022
9:56am, 23 May 2022
1,132 posts
|
paulcook
I watched a fantastic video about how important Taiwan is. It’s an almost no brainer that the US would defend it. And China would obviously know that too never mind how difficult it would be for them to actively engage it in conflict.
|
May 2022
9:57am, 23 May 2022
12,556 posts
|
jda
Quite by chance I’ve just seen a presentation (at a geoscience conference!) talking about Shapley Value and the Wikipedia page about that tells me that the owner of a company deserves half the profit and the workers share the other half. Make of that what you will.
|
May 2022
9:58am, 23 May 2022
21,990 posts
|
DeeGee
It is reasonable that a person should treat themselves as a commodity, or their labour or knowledge as machinery or a raw material which can be bought and used towards producing a a good or service for profit, so long as that person feels that the remuneration that they are receiving is reasonable. And people should be free to go *anywhere* where they feel that they will be remunerated at the correct level for them for the labours they provide. The question, for me, is what keeps a person in a job where the conditions or remuneration are not acceptable to them, rather than being free to tell the bosses where to go. In the states, it's the knowledge that without a job, you don't get healthcare. In Victorian Britain, it was the fear of the workhouse - effectively jail for people who wouldn't do as they were told. The people "underpinning" the capitalist system with a safety net which provides for people who are unable to work, especially in a world where we no longer haul raw materials from the earth or sea and process them into finished goods, is essential, and should be seen as us protecting ourselves against unscrupulous bosses, and by extension any government that would seek to remove our right to have a safety net, universal healthcare or a right to seek employment wherever we see fit should be seen as an enemy of working people. |
May 2022
10:16am, 23 May 2022
17,072 posts
|
rf_fozzy
"Just because it's simple, doesn't mean it's wrong!" If this is a dig at mean. I never said it was. I said ****simplism**** was wrong. Some things do indeed have simple solutions. However, these are in their minority. Take your example. Your solution is regulation. Simple right? Acutally, no. What regulations? How applied? Is the cost the same to small businesses and big businesses? When do we apply this regulation? Is it in perpituity or for a short period (e.g. a windfall tax) etc etc etc. Solutions can be simple and this is fine. But you have to work through the nuance and the nitty gritty detail. Simplism drives a truck through the nuance - e.g. let's take the problem of 2nd homes. In some areas of the country this is acute. The simplism answer is: "no-one should own a 2nd home" The nuanced question #1 to this oversimplification might be: OK, but what about areas that depend on tourism and so require houses that are let for tourist use? So then you might say, OK so no-one should own a 2nd home, except for tourist destinations. Then how many houses should be designated for 2nd homes? SHould they be privately owned? Should they be regulated by the council and not AirBnB etc etc etc etc. Simplism is never the solution. No matter how much the word "neoliberal" or the phrase: "take back control" I offer up the arguments over the border in Northern Ireland as another simplism fail. |
|
May 2022
10:30am, 23 May 2022
17,073 posts
|
rf_fozzy
And incidently, this is why big sweeping change on the left is almost impossible. And why big sweeping change on the right is easier. Despite both being driven by the same false oversimplification. On the left you need *more* regulation and more rules and therefore *must* work through the details one by one. On the right, often the simplism solution is rip up legislation, pull out of things, stop enforcing regulations and so forth. And so you don't need to work through the detail - the mess just comes after you've ripped up the policy. |
|
May 2022
10:30am, 23 May 2022
17,074 posts
|
rf_fozzy
^^^and that in itself is also probably a simplism explanation.
|
May 2022
10:41am, 23 May 2022
4,190 posts
|
J2R
Spot on, fozzy.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jul 2025
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
Report This Content
You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.
Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.