Comments on: Double-edged sword in pay cuts Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Haha Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:32:17 +0000 I have nutted out the problem we have here.

-You ask for criticism.
-I provide it. Based on economic theory.
-You reject the criticism. Because you don’t understand economic theory.
-You ask for proof the theory is correct.
-I tell you that proof is in the economy.
-You reject that proof. Because you don’t understand economic theory.
-You ask for criticism.

And so on, and so on.

You are not in a capacity to understand the criticism being made of your position. So regretfully, I can not see any way to engage in any meaningful debate with you.

If you want your questions answered, then do the research yourself.

To start yourself off, type in “Money is not a factor of production” in Google and work from there.

By: Benny Acosta Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:43:12 +0000 Oh… and if money is not a factor in production then why are we having all of this financial crisis? If money is not a factor in producing anything then why not work for free? Money facilitates the exchange of resources. If you can’t exchange resources then you can’t produce to any significant degree unless you own most of the resources yourself which most people don’t.

By allowing people an equal base from which to exchange resources the innovators can innovate. Try telling the young person getting an education that the return on that investment is wasted.

You basically said in your response to me that people are not worth investing in. And THAT is the problem with this economy. You still value money for its own sake instead of valuing it for how it can serve the person.

By: Benny Acosta Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:16:38 +0000 “The best I will give you is this:

Money is NOT a factor of production. Or a means of production.

Any attempt to evenly spread out profit will not work. Because while there may be tangiable returns, the returns will not equal the cost. The system will stagnate and collapse.

And all the preaching in the world will not change that fact.”

Do you have proof of this or are you just crunching numbers.
I can point to the open source movement as proof that when code is distributed the returns gained exceed the investment because innovation increases the usability of the code.

Unless you have something that proves money will behave in this way then you have nothing but an unproven theory. And so far the economy sucks so if that is the best you’ve got then maybe you need to read up on more of your theory.

By: Benny Acosta Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:09:07 +0000 Haha

I said nothing about replacing the economy. I suggested that the government redistribute tax money that goes to poorly run programs back to the people.

You haven’t pointed out any flaw other than to say that I’m not an economist. Okay… that’s well established.

When I ask you to tell me how forcing poverty is good for society you tell me that I need to understand economic theory. So you tell me then.

Enlighten me. I’m not an economist so tell me how forcing poverty on citizens is good for them. I’m not pointing to economic technicalities. I’m pointing at the fundamental direction our economy is taking. We have people living in the streets, and pensioners having to compete with young new workers because the fruits of their sacrifices have been stolen and destroyed by others who control what the worker depends on.

How is homelessness good for society? How is it that people dieing for lack of money to buy health care is good? How is it that an economic system that requires these conditions in order to function good. I don’t need to know the language of economics to see the result of these ideas at work. And you’re really going to have to answer the question if you think you’re going to get anywhere with me. So don’t bother replying if you don’t have the head for this.

By: Haha Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:45:43 +0000 You speak of replacing the economy. But you have no economic knowledge.

You ask for people to provide flaws in your argument. So people help point out flaws to you. Economic flaws in your plans, which make them *unworkable*.

You don’t understand those flaws. So you dismiss them. Then you carry on, saying “my argument has no flaws”.

And then we end up back at step one.

So there is almost no point in continuing any meaningful discussion with you. You are not looking for debate or critisism. Just people to preach to.

The best I will give you is this:

Money is NOT a factor of production. Or a means of production.

Any attempt to evenly spread out profit will not work. Because while there may be tangiable returns, the returns will not equal the cost. The system will stagnate and collapse.

And all the preaching in the world will not change that fact.

By: Benny Acosta Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:18:24 +0000 Haha,

The idea is that by having access to the code, you have the opportunity to practice. And that way you can actually become a good programmer if that’s what you want to do. Reading the book is important yes. But you can’t create a thing unless you’ve got something to work with. And that’s the idea I’m getting at.

In this economy you are expected to produce. But you don’t have anything to work with when you get started. And because everything is set up to keep you spending more than you take in, it can be near impossible to save up enough to have something to work with. Especially when what you save gets taxed to death.

Your standard of living will go down because there will be no money to protect you from hard times after having bailed out the business sector. Government controls the money so even if you think a bad business should fail, it’s not your choice. You can’t vote with your dollars effectively because the system is set up to keep most people in a paycheck to paycheck situation that compels consumption and stifles saving and production on an individual basis.

Your argument is that I don’t know the technicalities and so I have no room to speak. And yet for all of the speaking done by so called experts well… just look around you at the headlines.
They speak for themselves.

Our system requires financial inequality that forces people into poverty. No amount of technical crap speak can justify this. There is no way that economic theory can possibly prove that forcing people into destitution is good for society as a whole. And if anyone believes they can prove the good in forced poverty then I defy them to prove it.

We are going in the wrong direction. The economy grows from the bottom up. The open source movement demonstrates that giving access to the means of production encourages people to get involved and contribute. Prove me wrong. Otherwise your dismissal is just an empty post.

By: Haha Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:06:22 +0000 If I suddenly decided to take some open source software and tinker with it, you know what I would do? I would read a textbook on software programming.

Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t know what the hell I was doing. I could try to show off my skills, and perhaps fool some other non-programmers. But any competent programmer would know I was wrong, just by reading my code.

And if I was going to come up with an idea to replace the economy, I would read up on economics. For exactly the same reason.

By: Benny Acosta Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:01:14 +0000 Mr Anderson,

I hope you’re right. I don’t see Americans being able to save in an environment that requires two incomes just to break even. But you’re quite right about the value of facts. Mind over matter I suppose. If no one minds, it doesn’t matter. :-)

And I completely agree that consumption economics is not the correct route. I hope I didn’t come across as being in favor of it. Rather my interpretation of the correct course of action comes from what I have observed of the open source software movement.

It’s based on the idea that if the means of production are available to everyone across the board then innovation is encouraged equally.

This movement shows that productivity arises best when allowed to come from inspiration and a genuine desire to contribute and to excel in one’s field of endeavor. It illustrates the high quality and effectiveness that arises from community efforts to solve problems.

So at its core I suppose it’s more about the government actually showing a genuine level of trust in the American citizen. We hear lip service about the individual Americans innovative, pioneering spirits. We hear talk about how wealth should be earned. And to a point I agree. But on the one hand the corporate sector seeks to keep gains private. But when things go bust, the losses must be shared by everyone (socialized). How is socializing debt acceptable, but socializing profit unthinkable?

The direction I propose is about giving every citizen the means to become productive. And about giving business a genuine purpose again by making it profitable to serve the needs of the people in good faith.

Now I realize quite clearly that this sort of thinking will be dismissed out of hand by most people. Because most people still believe that there is a technical solution to the problem. But the problem is not technical. The problem is the way we think about things. We still have an “I wish you well. Just not better than me”, mentality that gives the illusion that our interests are divided. When in fact they are not. If we each have what we need, then we are not competitors. we are neighbors, or collaborators, or business partners.

This is the direction I believe would be best for the country. And if others believe that this is a good direction to go in, then it would seem that no matter what the effort, it would certainly be a better use of our collective energies than trying to find a conventional “solution” to this problem.

By: Mr. Anderson Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:58:16 +0000 Benny…I think that Philosophies are for perfect worlds… a not so perfect world the words of F. Nietzsche (1844-1900) ring very loud “there are no facts, only interpretations”….. I think consumption economics that you imply is not the right route……..I think what would be effective is that the people start saving again….at this time Americans are saving about 5% which is significantly higher than the 0% or less we were doing that got us into this mess……America was built with an entrepreneurial spirit from capital from people’s savings……..this would get us back but I’m afraid the Government will not encourage this because they need people to spend………it’s a double edge sword only the people can change it by saving money

By: Benny Acosta Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:49:53 +0000 Thank you Mr Anderson.

I will read the book and consider your words carefully. The real essence of my point is that citizens are the ones that need the safety net. And I believe that it should not be controlled by the government but rather by the people it was intended to protect.

By dividing the money that would normally go to funding horribly run programs, the government lives up to its promise of ensuring the individual’s rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

It’s true that things won’t change over night. But in the end if everyone from the business exec to ditch digger has an equal share in a real working financial safety net, then innovation is encouraged. Failure doesn’t mean giving up everything in your life that means something to you because of financial ruin.

My argument is one of philosophical approach and not one of a technical nature. We are going in the wrong direction. It is the individual citizen that fosters growth. It is the citizen that should be invested in.

I’m not suggesting that business be done away with. On the contrary. I’m suggesting that business be allowed to fulfill its function of bringing forth innovation to improve the quality of life. People can afford health insurance if they have a stream of income they can count on. Companies can lower rates when they know that everyone can pay. Government gets more tax revenue from consumption when consumers have a stream of income from which to draw. And educational institutions have a whole new market of potential students available to them.

If something as simple as a 5% national sales tax were the single source of tax revenue for the government, and 60% of that was returned to the citizenry, that would encourage more consumption, which would spur more business, which would increase tax revenue etc…

If my reasoning is incorrect please show me where I’m wrong. Again I cannot speak to the technical issues involved. But this approach would seem to provide the greatest benefit and the least drain on the system.