[One Degree]

Here's the trouble with inheritance.

Business (or for that matter basic life) enterprise basically has to do with the conducting of series of tasks. In the case of most enterprises, the series of tasks are complex in nature.

For sake of simplicity, consider the task of digging holes as the model enterprise.

Say digging holes is the main enterprise for the propensity of society's members.

It is as if the vast majority can afford just a modest shovel to accomplish this task.

The wealthy minority however can afford backhoes and other sorts of machinery.

The desperately poor though have to make do with their hands to dig their holes.

Nevertheless, all are free to dig their holes and to dig their holes to the best of their ability. The harder they dig, a voice beckons, the more dug holes they will have to enjoy.

Therefore, the society is equal.

Except that it isn't.

Very good, except I would at to the end “except it is”. It is possible some people find more value in digging one hole by hand than digging many with a backhoe. It depends on what you want from life.

[Crantag]

Very good, except I would at to the end “except it is”. It is possible some people find more value in digging one hole by hand than digging many with a backhoe. It depends on what you want from life.

No, that only works if you ditch the shovel and decide to live among the trees.

[One Degree]

No, that only works if you ditch the shovel and decide to live among the trees.

Kind of true. I ran a small business. Refused to hire employees. Enjoyed doing it myself. I enjoyed digging my little hole, but yes it could be considered I wanted to live in the forest.
The American dream was/is to dig your own little hole.

[Crantag]

Kind of true. I ran a small business. Refused to hire employees. Enjoyed doing it myself. I enjoyed digging my little hole, but yes it could be considered I wanted to live in the forest.
The American dream was/is to dig your own little hole.

It sounds like you were working with one of these.



Some of modest means manage to get into these.

[Unthinking Majority]

The people who clean the bathrooms are just as valuable as Jobs. His business would fall apart if all the bathrooms were filthy.

It's about replacement value. Steve Jobs is more valuable than the bathroom cleaner because not only does Jobs contribute more to wealth creation for the company, he's also far more difficult to replace if he is lost. Virtually anyone can clean bathrooms, and if one bathroom cleaner quits or is fired another cleaner is easily attainable. If Steve Jobs leaves the company, finding somebody with his abilities to replace him is far, far harder to find, if possible at all given his extremely rare combination of abilities.

He is being rewarded for his contributions to capitalism, not for his value as a person.

Steve Jobs is being rewarded with money (economic value) for his contributions to his business in the broader capitalist economy. His economic value within the economy is extremely high compared to most people therefore he is rewarded extremely highly. His value as a "person", well that's for his spouse and friends & others in his personal life to decide and reward or punish appropriately. Being a nice guy is great but on its own doesn't create wealth, doesn't put food on the table.

[Unthinking Majority]

I see what you're saying, but how is it fair that the people who try the hardest end up with the least (in some cases)?

Life isn't fair. Trying means little if you fail to achieve your goals. It feels good & is commendable in its own right, but it doesn't produce results. I wanted to be a pro basketball player, I tried harder than everyone else in my school at it, practiced longer and harder, but i just didn't have anything beyond average ability in the sport. Did I deserve to go to the NBA? Life, and capitalism, has a way of being a very harsh wake-up call. You either succeed or you fail, there's no gold stars for trying and failing. It's harsh, brutal reality. You either accept the truth or you don't.

The best thing to do in a capitalist economy is to find out what you're good at doing and that you also like doing that has the potential to make you a decent living, and do your best to get the most economic value out of it. Trying to be a doctor when you suck at math isn't very smart, nobody will care how hard you try nor should they, lives are at stake. Capitalism rewards efficiency, production, and above all...results.

[Truth To Power]

Let's see how many falsehoods you need for your wiggling this time:

So lets see, you've got one guy

False, as already proved.

... who's an economist, not a Historian ...

False, Will Durant is recognized as a great historian.

who you think is "probably" saying feudalism started in 300 AD.

False. The "probably" was regarding motive, not the FACT that was the origin date of one key institution of feudalism: legal attachment of peasants to the land.

And I've got the entire population of academic historians who say it "Definitely" began in the late 800s and early 900s AD ...

False, as usual. You haven't given any evidence for such a claim, nor will you ever be doing so, as that is when feudalism became FULLY established, not when it BEGAN. It had been growing and evolving throughout the intervening centuries.

Hmmmm I'd say you've been disputed.

False. Only denied, and only by a child. Proof:

But hey why don't you wiggle that around a while and see what you can come up with ...

... a perk for you to wiggle it by ...

Zam

See? By such infantile filth, you refute yourself more eloquently than I could ever hope to.

[Truth To Power]

The people who clean the bathrooms are just as valuable as Jobs.

Their work isn't. They are not being paid for being human, they are being paid for what they produce.

His business would fall apart if all the bathrooms were filthy.

Doesn't seem to have stopped China....

He is being rewarded for his contributions to capitalism, not for his value as a person.

Red herring. It's not to capitalism, whatever that could mean, it's to the value of his company. His "value as a person" is a bald equivocation fallacy.

[Truth To Power]

I see what you're saying, but how is it fair that the people who try the hardest end up with the least (in some cases)?

Because they are being rewarded for what they contribute, not how hard they try.

That's leaving aside the problem of privilege, which legally entitles rich, greedy parasites to take without contributing.

Here's the trouble with inheritance.

No, with the brain damage that is socialism and capitalism.

For sake of simplicity, consider the task of digging holes as the model enterprise.

Say digging holes is the main enterprise for the propensity of society's members.

It is as if the vast majority can afford just a modest shovel to accomplish this task.

The wealthy minority however can afford backhoes and other sorts of machinery.

The desperately poor though have to make do with their hands to dig their holes.

But no one is thereby deprived of anything they would otherwise have. The rich with their backhoes just make the supply of holes bigger, better and more numerous, and thus more abundant for all. If the poor want to pay to use the rich's backhoes, well, they are just better off than using their hands, aren't they?

Nevertheless, all are free to dig their holes and to dig their holes to the best of their ability.

Oh, but under capitalism, they aren't. They have to pay landowners full market value just for PERMISSION to dig holes. There's the rub. The landowner takes, but does not contribute.

The harder they dig, a voice beckons, the more dug holes they will have to enjoy.

But that's not exactly true, because while one person digging harder increases the number of holes he can enjoy, if a lot of people dig harder, IT JUST INCREASES THE NUMBER OF HOLES THEY HAVE TO PAY LANDOWNERS FOR PERMISSION TO DIG HOLES. That is the meaning of the Law of Rent.

Therefore, the society is equal.

No, but absent the landowner, it is fair.

Except that it isn't.

You can't have equality and justice, because people don't all deserve equal outcomes. Socialism is the belief that it is better for everyone to have five small holes to enjoy than for the worst off to have six, and the rest any number up to six million.

[One Degree]

Their work isn't. They are not being paid for being human, they are being paid for what they produce.

Doesn't seem to have stopped China....

Red herring. It's not to capitalism, whatever that could mean, it's to the value of his company. His "value as a person" is a bald equivocation fallacy.

Whatever. A job has always been a job to me. I have had a lot of them and I never saw a reason to rate their value. Don’t all jobs need to be done? I have taught school and I have ‘honey dipped’. They were both jobs someone needed to do. Any other value would be monetary which means it is an invented value.

I remembered I was old. Honey dipping means cleaning out septic tanks.

[Zamuel]

You haven't given any evidence for such a claim, nor will you ever be doing so, as that is when feudalism became FULLY established, not when it BEGAN. It had been growing and evolving throughout the intervening centuries.

In the sense that wars require armies and people have to eat sure. It was never systematic ... or consistent until Charlemagne adopted it. If you want "proof" all you have to do is google "Feudalism." I'm not inclined to waste much time on your education. I'll give you a brief time line.

4th century - Rome disintegrates ... The world enters a period known as "the Dark Ages." Populations are in flux in central Europe, there is little production and much disease is spread by migrants ... Social Chaos. In central Europe the "Merovingian's" emerge and become leaders. They restore a semblance of order and organization, characterized by a wide variance in laws propagated by local warlords.

5th and 6th centuries - Merovingian lords fight constantly among themselves, power shifts frequently and unpredictably. Military vassalage (not tied to land) emerges to support armies and then routinely collapses when wars end. Death and destruction are the predominant social dynamic.

7th century - Things calm down as Kings delegate power to administrators. The population begins to recover. Vassalage (land) is informally extended to agriculture creating stable production and ending petty squabbles.

8th century - Charles Martel (a Merovingian administrator) rallies the empire and saves Christian Europe when he repulses invading Muslim armies at Tours (732). In 751 the last Merovingian King is deposed. Martel's son is crowned and the rule passes to Charles (aka Charlemagne) in 768. Charles ruthlessly expands the empire and plants the seed of "Formal Feudalism" to manage it (estimated as somewhere between 10 and 20 million).

9th century - Order was firmly restored under Charlemagne. His short lived Carolingian dynasty carries the kingdom forward. Chaos ends, the dark ages are over, feudalism is codified and becomes official, it is rapidly adopted throughout the empire.

10th and 11th century - Feudalism expands to Britain and the far reaches of Carolingian influence. It provides stability but allows much larger kingdoms to form and bigger armies to be raised. Warfare reaches a new plateau. Abundant crops and unfettered breeding maintain a stable social order despite the constant fighting.

12th - 15th century - Feudal traditions are corrupted as Central Monarchies are challenged by aristocrats with large holdings. After an aristocratic rebellion, the "Magna Carta" limits Absolute Monarchial power in England. New weapons emerge that make the Aristocratic Armored Knight, obsolete and change the face of medieval warfare. The "Black Death" (bubonic plague) weakens population and production (approx. 30% loss). And the Catholic church initiates "Crusades" that further displace feudal populations. The Renaissance encourages technology and urbanization. Mercantilism takes root.

16th century - Political reality and standing professional armies become entrenched. Feudalism no longer serves any purpose and becomes more ceremonial than functional. As a social dynamic it simply fades away.

And that's the VERY short version.

Now go away again ... Wiggle off.

Zam

[Truth To Power]

Whatever. A job has always been a job to me. I have had a lot of them and I never saw a reason to rate their value.

Your employers did.

Don’t all jobs need to be done?

No.

I have taught school and I have ‘honey dipped’. They were both jobs someone needed to do. Any other value would be monetary which means it is an invented value.

Wrong. Market value is the combined effect of supply and demand.

[Truth To Power]

It was never systematic ... or consistent until Charlemagne adopted it.

Feudalism has certain common elements that are consistent through different historical examples. The Western European example following the fall of Rome is more or less typical, but other examples in Russia, Japan, China, etc. all follow a similar pattern:

1. Private landowning established under government
2. Legal binding of land users to the land
3. Subsequent absence of effective government
4. Large landowners consequently performing the vital security function of government, and often other functions such as administration of justice
5. Emergence of land use/service contracts (vassalage) as a substitute for citizenship and government
6. Hereditary vassalage contracts
7. Devotion of the bulk of landowners' revenue to forcibly appropriating others' land and defending possession of their own against such attacks.

It is clear that the first four were already present by the time Rome fell late in the 5th century. The last three emerged in the next few centuries.

[Zamuel]

It is clear that the first four were already present by the time Rome fell late in the 5th century.

No it's not ...

Getting tired? To much wiggling will do that. But hey, wiggle away ...

Zam

[Truth To Power]

No it's not ...

If you are ignorant of the period.

Getting tired?

Inexpressibly.

To much wiggling will do that.

Yes, your wiggling is exhausting to behold. But not as exhausting as your idiotic and despicable attempts to pretend I am the one wiggling.

But hey, wiggle away ...

You heap disgrace upon yourself.

[Zamuel]

[Thomasmariel]

All capitalism is based on self-censorship, and therefore there's no point in criticising aspects of capitalism

[Truth To Power]

All capitalism is based on self-censorship,

Huh?? That sounds like the sort of gibberish Derrida might have excreted. If it meant anything (it doesn't), it would be wrong.

and therefore there's no point in criticising aspects of capitalism

Non sequitur.

[Thomasmariel]

Huh?? That sounds like the sort of gibberish Derrida might have excreted. If it meant anything (it doesn't), it would be wrong.

Non sequitur.

Why doesn't it mean anything?

[Truth To Power]

Why doesn't it mean anything?

Because it mixes mutual irrelevancies, like saying, "All baking depends on chromatic scales." Capitalism and self-censorship simply have no factual, logical, or semantic relation to each other. None.