Workers wage not in proportion to productivity - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15060743
Donna wrote:That isn't what happened though.

Yes it is.
Historically production was heavily dependent on wealthy aristocratic landowners who possessed the wealth to both invest in the productive improvement of the land

GARBAGE. They only possessed the wealth because they had stolen it from tenants. And they didn't invest it in improvements. They spent it on private military forces, luxury consumption, and monument building. That is why economies were stagnant for centuries.
as well as finance government debt through large bond purchases.

Ahistorical nonsense. Why did governments go into debt? That's easy: they were providing such extravagant subsidies to landowners!
This is also implicit in Ricardo's and Smith's ideas as well.

More garbage lacking any basis in fact.
The Law of Rent basically describes a dynamic created by landowning monopolies,

That is baldly false. As Smith pointed out, land is always a monopoly; and the Law of Rent describes a relationship that is the same whether land is all held by one owner or is minutely subdivided.
which have been disappearing or declining for quite some time now, gradually forcing landlords into the parasitic and non-productive situation they find themselves in today

GARBAGE. The landowner qua landowner is, has always been, and by definition always will be, a parasite.
(ie because their profits became marginal with the rise of industrial capitalism,

Land rents increased exponentially with industrial capitalism. Landowners who understood that, like the Duke of Westminster's family, became rich beyond the dreams of avarice by pocketing land rent. See, "Progress and Poverty."
so did their propagation as a social class). It just seems you are ignoring this when you compare Ricardo's theory to the Pythagorean Theorem.

I'm ignoring it because it is ahistorical nonsense.
#15060746
Potemkin wrote:The fundamental problem seems to be that Truth to Power has no sense of history, of how things actually happened.

No, I am the one who understands how things actually happened.
Instead, he has only an abstract, one-sided view of economic production, which he seems to regard as a branch of pure mathematics.

Unrelated to anything I have said.
However, any theory of economic production must also be a theory of history and also a theory of politics, as Marx understood.

Marx didn't understand anything whatever about economics or history. He was a pre-Darwinian, and consequently had nothing correct or interesting to say on the subject.
Georgism flows from the same well of historical ignorance as libertarianism.

No, feudal "libertarianism" flows from the same well of economic ignorance as Marxism: willful ignorance of the fact that while the factory owner can only provide workers with access to opportunity they would not otherwise have, the landowner can only DEPRIVE workers of access to economic opportunity they WOULD otherwise have.
#15061059
Truth To Power wrote:No, the reason increased productivity can drive down wages is that it tends to push the margin outward onto worse land. This implication of the Law of Rent was thoroughly and conclusively demonstrated by Henry George over 140 years ago in "Progress and Poverty."

I am an enthusiast of Henry George theory, but am not quite sure I understand what you're saying.

Could you explain just a little bit that line of logic?
#15061204
Puffer Fish wrote:I am an enthusiast of Henry George theory, but am not quite sure I understand what you're saying.

Could you explain just a little bit that line of logic?

My pleasure. Increased productivity can happen a number of ways, but take the example of machinery. It will almost always increase production much more on advantageous land than marginal land. But machinery can make it profitable to exploit opportunities on sub-marginal land that was formerly too disadvantageous to use (pushes the margin outward). As the new marginal land (the worst land in use) typically can't justify the investment in machinery to make it more productive, the workers who are relegated to the new margin can't make as much as they did at the old margin, and their wages set the wage for all workers, as any production above that amount has to be paid to landowners in rent.
#15061216
late wrote:Wholly crap.

You cannot refute one word of it.
That looks like someone is trying to kill the income tax, IOW, escape to the 1800s...

The income tax is a way that rich, greedy, privileged parasites shifted the burden of taxation off themselves and onto workers. Your claim that any revenue system better than income tax is "an escape to the 1800s" is an absurd and disingenuous smear with no basis in fact. You can't offer any facts or logic to support your views or refute mine, so you take the intellectual coward's way out and just make $#!+ up.
#15061222
Truth To Power wrote:
You cannot refute one word of it.

The income tax is a way that rich, greedy, privileged parasites shifted the burden of taxation off themselves and onto workers. Your claim that any revenue system better than income tax is "an escape to the 1800s" is an absurd and disingenuous smear with no basis in fact. You can't offer any facts or logic to support your views or refute mine, so you take the intellectual coward's way out and just make $#!+ up.



I'm also not going to refute Flat Earth nonsense.

Btw, I didn't "make up" modern economics.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

All of those are arguable and situationally depen[…]

You guys do realise the longer you do your stupid […]

Oh, in the NY times article that you have to pay […]

We've got 26.7 million ''excuses'', mr Lebensra[…]