 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be
Anyone,
The question (statement), again, is loaded.
The reason why the question is loaded requires a good guess, or a true confession.
The person making that claim (statement, question), will either explain why it is so loaded down with ambiguity, and loaded down with room to make false assumptions, or that person will not confess, and if not, then the person hearing, and then considering that claim, statement, or question, will have to deal with all that ambiguity, all that baggage, the loads, and loads, of room to load up the thing with false assumptions.
My guess is that the person making the claim is a person who fails, or willfully avoids, considering the measures of power involved in the human phenomenon to which the claim, the statement, or the question is targeting.
The thing being considered here, is a power struggle.
A rich country, for example, may be a small native tribe deep within the Amazon Forest, if the measure of richness isn't specified. If the measure of richness is specified as the richness in the richness of being able to avoid exploitation by criminals, then America must be one of the poorest countries, by that measure, therefore the statement doesn't apply to America.
Which place on earth, at which time, does the statement apply, according to the person making the statement?
How confused can a person be, when a statement is so heavily loaded down with dogma?
We, in America, are being robbed by the legal criminals, in a big, and a very big, measurable, and accurately measurable, way.
How much power do you produce? How much power do you produce over the amount of power that you consume, and how much of the power that you do produce, over the power you consume, is your personal power to control, as you see fit?
How much of what power you have left after you consume your power is stolen from you, or transferred from you, to someone else? How do they manage to steal, or transfer, that power, the power you create by your own industry?
If the measure of richness is a measure of units of wealth, adding up to a total amount of wealth, and dividing that total supply of wealth by the total number of people in that country, then that measure can be either very accurate, and factual, or it can be falsified, and very misleading.
Who owns, and has access to, and controls, all the wealth, who, in reality, is all that wealth divided among?
Total Wealth divided by Total number of people
Total Wealth divided by the number of people who have power over that wealth
Is America powerful, or is it powerless?
By what measure?
America is not a rich country if all the riches are controlled by only a few people, and those few people take those riches and move those riches to another country, to boom other countries, like China, or bust other countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Japan, Columbia, Libya, Egypt, Vietnam, Korea, etc.
Boom, bust, boom, bust, boom, bust, and by that means keep the power flowing one way.
If that happens, how can America be on the list of rich countries, and again, if not, then the loaded claim, the loaded question, and the loaded statement does not apply to people getting "paid" in America, certainly not to the mean average, or any calculation of average person.
Unless the actual person being paid, in America, is specified, such as a corporate raiders salary, plus entitlements, plus expenses, plus commission, and plus bonuses, or a fast food cook, the meaning of the claim is relatively meaningless.
One is one, and the other isn't.
Who is this "expert" kidding?
I will now start the Real News Report, after this, my brief, introduction.
Exactly. You know, I mean, we have been brainwashed, this idea that whatever market decides to pay people, we have to accept. You know, so if Mr. Blankfein at Goldman Sachs gets paid $50 million per year, it must be because he's worth it. You know, if people are poor in developing countries, it must be because they have low productivity.
There it is, a specified example, of someone being paid. The reason why that person can raise his own pay, or have his co-workers raise his pay, as much as they please, please consider: that has more to do with who has the power to add zeros to the legal bank account, than it does to any other thing, they have that power, and they do things with that power, including the use of that power to brainwash their targeted victims, or hire flunkies to go around raiding corporations, to eliminate the competition, and to amalgamate all the power from everyone else, to them.
If you have the power to add zeros to the legal bank account, or subtract zeros, then you have the power to make things, or brake things, big things. The people who make up that legal culture, in this case of that legal culture is America,those people who have the legal power to make, or brake big things, is a few people, not many, as is the legal culture, another culture in control of the power, by which things are made, or broken, and those few people, are in their own group, and they use The Federal Reserve franchise, the license, to move the power of wealth, to them, so as to keep that flow of wealth going to them, and they use the business cycle, to do it, and they use that power to eliminate all competition, as they must do, or failing the work of eliminating all competition: they have to increase quality, and lower cost, or fail to keep the power flowing to them, because failure to increase quality (the quality of money is the power that money has to purchase), and failure to lower cost (the cost of money is interest, or the measure of total increase or total decrease in power to purchase as a result of what is done with that power to purchase), and failure to compete in that way, will cause the target market, the consumers, to select the better money, and stop using the worst money.
A. Failure to eliminate competition results in competition
B. Failure to produce better money at lower cost is failure to compete
C. Failure to compete is powerless, power then flows to the better competitor
Failing to accurately identify that real problem, where an effective monopoly power manages to siphon all the wealth by that means, will fail to justify, the supposed validity of the statement, as the statement applies to any other worker, or any other "earner" of pay in America.
A. Corporate raider (legal criminal)
B. Not A
The thing the "expert" says next is a magic act, a bait and switch, and a very troubling employment of willful falsehood, as this "expert" can't be both stupid and smart, at the same time.
The bait is to claim the finance industry worker is in view, and things apply to him, and the switch is any other worker, and the same things don't apply to him, or her.
What things?
The finance industry worker does not face a scarcity of power, all the insider finance industry worker has to do is add zeros, and then the finance industry worker has abundant power.
Is that a significant distinction, or a powerless one?
Any other worker has to make more power out of less power, or manage to exchange human labor, or human ideas, for more power produced by other people who also make more power out of less power, or someone steals power.
Which is it?
If power is stolen, by trickery, or by threat of violence, or actual violence, who pays that bill, power is consumed in the process of stealing, stealing requires work, thought, action, expense. Who pays the bill?
But is it really the market that's deciding? And, I mean, that's my point, because, you know, for example, if you liberalize that in terms of immigration, probably 80, maybe even 90 percent of people in the rich countries can be and probably will be replaced by cheaper immigrants. And we are not just talking about cleaners and taxi drivers; we are talking about medical doctors [inaudible] engineers.
Bait: Market forces work this way on a Wall Street Banker "employee"
Switch: Market forces work this way on people who are not employed in the Wall Street, insiders, club.
They don't work the same way. The insider club steal all the wealth created by all their targeted victims, which include everyone who uses that monopoly legal money, and the measure of theft is as exact as it needs to be, if the idea is to know, exactly who are the criminals, and who are the victims.
Just follow the money back to the source. Who has the legal power to increase the supply of money from what it is today, to 3.3 Trillion more dollars 4 months later, in 2008? Who did it? Why did they do it? Where did that money go? Who benefited by that purchase, and that use, of that money?
Who paid the bill, or who is paying the bill? Stealing costs something, it doesn't fall from the sky.
Did that money, stolen in 2008, 3.3 Trillion dollars, buy things that make more power? Did that money buy things that destroy things that make more power, like people, and hospitals, and farms, and bridges, and power plants?
How much does it cost to bomb Libya? How much power does it cost, if money is worthless? Where does the power come from, who makes the power? Who makes the money? Who is credited with the power of earning?
Do you need 8 by 10 glossy photos of how a bomb destroys a person in reality, how a bomb destroys things that can, and do, make more power out of the power consumed by them? How about a bridge, a hospital (full of people), a power station (full of more people)?
I don't.
If that power, such as that 3.3 Trillion dollars, was distributed among the powerful (productive, not destructive) people in America, or just never stolen from them in the first place, then it is very likely, provable, that the biggest scarcity in America, would be a lack of laborers, not enough of them immigrating, here, to fill the demand for them, and they could then name their own price.
A. Power is stolen from the only place power can be stolen, from those who produce power, and then power is transferred to the people who use that power to destroy all competition that threatens their power to steal, and perpetuate their power to steal.
B. Not A, and therefore there is more power, and therefore more power is used to create more power, and therefore workers become higher in demand, and therefore workers become scarce, and therefore the power to price the price of work transfers from the criminals to the workers.
Why must these "experts" lie so much, as they justify the up-side-down world, as if there could be no other, as if the right-side-up world can't exist?
What is the supposed solution? Higher taxes flowing from productive people to the legal criminals, to "create jobs"?
The right side up world does exist, and all you have to do to see it, is look, but you have to look past the drama that is written in the script, the huge thing called falsehood, where the constructors of that drama use all the power they can steal to keep it real, and it costs a whole lot of people a whole lot of their power to keep it going, and going, and going, like a demonic electric bunny.
Failing to measure the power at play, is a huge failure. Who controls the power, what does the power do as it flows to where it is directed by those who control it?
Failure to know that, is not an oversight, so much as it is a goal.
CHANG: Exactly. You know. And, you know, I personally replaced a British guy 20 years ago when I got my job in Cambridge. So it's not like--.
Well, I don't know that whole story, but perhaps the British guy wasn't reading, as well, from the script, perhaps he was blowing the whistle, confessing the truth?
Can't have that running rampant, so, you're fired.
Who will read from the script?
Ah, you, good, you're hired. Here is your script, don't ever say that, here, here, say this, yes, that, say that a lot.
I mean, it is that our productivity, individual productivity, is largely collectively determined, and therefore you cannot have these people argue that, well, I get $50 million because I'm worth it--no, because his $50 million earning is supported by the whole society.
Again, that is measurable as power, and I can explain.
A single person working alone has an amount of power, some individuals have more power, more brain power, more physical power, compared to another person, but alone, their power is limited to whatever they can produce (or destroy) alone.
When the "expert" says "collectively determined" the actual measure of that "collectively determined" power is determined by agreement between individuals to combine power and make use of tools, just like a wheel is a powerful tool, just like oil and electricity are powerful tools, and a lever, or inclined plane, is a tool, or even math, or science, ideas, are tools, and in the case of "collectively determined" measures of increasing power, the tools are:
1. Division of labor (you do that job while I do this job)
2. Specialization (while you get better at that job, I get better at this job)
3. Economies of scale (the work load, cost, is divided by more workers, therefore each worker pays less, the more the better, as each individual worker has to work less and less to get the same, or more, productive, or destructive, output)
Those tools are not available to the single person. A single person can't divide labor, a single person has to do every job himself; hence a "collectively determined" power increase is not possible by the single person working alone and unconnected to anyone else.
A single person can specialize in one thing, and then specialize in another thing, but the power of specialization only works to the limit of the single person's capacity (power) to work, there can be no "collectively determined" increases in power gained by specialization, since the single person has to stop doing what he is doing, and then start doing the next thing he is doing, or she, and two people combining specializations don't have to stop and start, and that saves, or divides, a whole lot of costs, the entire cost of stopping and starting each job is avoided, traveling to each source of raw material by both is avoided, storing materials by both is avoided, and there are many, many, many costs that are divided through specialization when one single person no longer has to do everything alone.
Economies of scale, the word, does not do the process justice, the actual phenomenon, of "economies of scale" can be understood by measuring the actual things produced "collectively" such as, an Egyptian Pyramid, where they didn't even have oil power to use, as a cost saving tool, a labor saving tool, back then.
Someone claiming to earn a high pay rate for taking all the credit for building the Pyramid, is someone failing to understand political economy, or that is someone using lies to cover-up that tool, falsehood, which they wish to keep as their exclusive tool, a secret tool, and a tool that must be made as scarce as possible to everyone else: do as I say not as I do.
Falsehood and violence must be scarce, because too much of it will completely eliminate productive human activity. Criminals, legal or otherwise, can't allow too many of the workers converting to their religion, the crime God.
I alone have the license to lie, you must obey, not me.
I alone have the license to print money, you can't.
I alone have the license to torture, you would abuse that license.
I alone have the license to benefit from double speak, you must be victimized by it.
Obey, there is no: "or else". This is an offer you can't refuse, you don't have enough power to refuse, and you don't have enough power to disobey, not alone.
So...go build me a pyramid, and get me a drink of water, and tomorrow, just for fun, and profit, I think we will begin an aggressive war, be ready, ahhhh, after you build my pyramid, and after you get me that drink, or do I have that order backwards? Back to the drawing board?
Another example of economies of scale, the power of it, as illustrated with real world examples, are the prices of personal computers, or things mass produced, and things in high demand, things that start out small, and expensive, and then they become big, big business servicing big markets, competitive business, higher quality, and lower cost.
What explains the lower cost? A single person alone could not make a modern personal computer, not enough power, not in a century of life times.
Who get's the credit for making personal computers so cheap?
Socialism?
Capitalism?
"Collective determined" dogma?
Power? If so, what form does that power take?
Division of labor
Specialization
Economies of scale
Competition (forcing quality up and cost down)
Credit, or reason, or cause for the effect, goes to those powers. That is the answer to the question: What power causes an increase in the human capacity to create power?
Who gains control over that surplus wealth, that "collective determined" increase in total power?
What is the process by which those people gain that control over that power?
Well, that's--then you could go to my point 25 would be: if the whole society is producing the wealth of the society, why are we still living with forms of private ownership that come from the 1500s? But--.
But...: There is no "whole of society", the measure of "collective" power is a sum of all the individual powers, using tools, using "leverage", to gain more, and more, and more, power, power enough to travel to the moon, if that is the goal, if the goal is to go to the moon, then there is enough power potential to do so, with the tools, to get to that goal. There is no "state'. All there are are individual people. The "State" or "Society" can't, ever, decide to go to the moon, or conduct an aggressive war for profit, or tax the rich, or give to the poor, since no such "thing" exists. Collective sums of power are aggregates, totals, sums, or measures, of all the individual powers, and an individual person can see how many other individuals add to that collection of total power, the sum, doesn't become a thinking being, a being capable of thought, a being capable of responsibility, a being that has an "interest", such as a "National Interest" or a "Social Interest", or a "Collective Interest", to think so, to dream up that imaginary being, that Man of Straw, is false. It does not exist as a being unto itself, capable of responsibility, and therefore it is incapable of accountability, which is why it is created, as such, in the first place.
The Bank did it.
The Government did it.
The Corporation did it.
The gun did it.
Bad, bad, bad Bank.
Bad, bad, bad Government.
Bad, bad, bad Corporation.
Bad, bad, bad gun.
Bad, bad, bad lie.
While the victims, or the witnesses, are blaming the Bank, the Government, the Corporation, the gun, and the lie (the Man of Straw), the criminal picks up another Bank (name), another corporation (name), or another gun, or another lie, and moves on, as planned.
Isn't that game tiresome by now?
How much does that game cost, and who pays the bill?
What is the process by which the many focus their power in the work of accomplishing the things that are produced, such as aggressive wars for profit, or defensive wars for defense, or Pyramids, or Trips to the Moon, or Personal Computers, or legal fictions?
There must be a process, even if the process is totally random, which may be a claim someone makes, and which may be a claim that someone else may want to question.
What is the process? There is one.
There is a process by which someone, or some group, will determine what the group does, and if the group doesn't decide to employ the power they have into the work of creating more power, then there won't be more power.
What is the process?
If the process is ambiguous, or "left to someone else to figure out", then for that single person, accomplishing that failure to know what the process is, gives up on that power of knowledge, and without the faintest shadow of doubt, someone else will specialize at that job, and it is a very powerful job to have, by hook, or by crook.
Which process?
Socialism?
Capitalism?
You don't know? You didn't do your homework. I did.
The job was, and is, ignored by most people, say, 99.999% of the population, including both the "expert" and Pal Jay, and the remaining .001% of the population are on that job, they do that job, that is their job, they are employed in that work, they are the workers of that goal, and the job they have constructed, the form of it, the actual product they have in place, should not be a surprise, to all the people who have failed to take on that job.
The process isn't capitalism.
The process isn't socialism.
In one word, the process is, crime.
In two words, the process is, legal crime.
Those are sound bites.
In three words, the process is, The Business Cycle, Legal Money Monopoly, Falsehood and Violence.
Confusing the process that is working with other things, like socialism, and capitalism, just so happens to keep the actual process going, and it is working as it is designed to work now; while the ignorant, and the confused, are doing the job they have to do, to keep that process going.
Who is telling the truth?
You are not.
I am.
When will you begin telling the truth? How many people must get on the job of knowing and then producing the process that uses power to make more power, instead of the process that is in operation now?
Answer: more than one.
You may think that I (I can imagine, I have an imagination), you may think that I am a megalomaniac, for claiming such things. The proof is in the pudding.
How is capitalism working for the capitalists? How is socialism working for the socialists? What can you guys do to make those processes work better? If you think that the socialists are in your way, when criminals are really in your way instead, and if you think that the capitalists are in your way, when the criminals are really in your way, then might it occur to you that you may want to find something about socialism, or capitalism, that agrees with the other?
Do you know what Hegelism is, or do you know what is meant by Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis? Do you know that some people work toward the goal of getting one group of people to fight another group of people, trick, and arm, both sides, so as to profit from their fights, to sell them what they must have to defeat each other, and then, they get, for themselves, no bid contracts to clean up the mess when it is over?
They destroy things and then they give themselves bonuses for doing so?
Is that a news item? Is that a surprise?
No, you don't know that, it is absurd to you, unthinkable?
Unspeakable?
Really, and I am the megalomaniac (if that is what you think)?
Yeah. No. You know, I mean, on this I can only agree with Gore Vidal, who some time ago famously said that the American economic system is capitalism for the workers and socialism for the rich. So there you go.
The idea that all economic activity is based upon scarcity, and that "every individual will" profit, by "excluding" all others, comes from Karl Menger, the Austrian Economist.
That is dogma.
The famous "profit motive" and the "invisible hand", and all the other dogma, pertains to falsehood, and is used by those who use falsehood, and so why would anyone read from that script, unless the idea is to follow the script, and therefore, the idea is to keep things going as they are going?
Yes or no?
If someone is greedy, their profit is not simply a gain, the gain must be a measurable gain, that is gained, at the expense of someone else, or the satisfaction doesn't materialize, if I understand the concept of greed.
Not just gain, that is not the goal, the goal is gain, at the expense of someone else, that is the goal. Get it? Are you getting it?
Are you being screwed? Do you think it is random? Do you think that the people you hire to protect you are screwing you by accident, and next time they will do their job better?
Really?
That is not the same thing as someone who thinks that a short term sacrifice is worth a long term gain, such as, volunteering to repel an aggressive army of criminals, repeal an army of criminals who are bent on torture and mass murder, an army of criminals who want torture and mass murder for their exclusive sense oppf profit, at the expense of the target market, the target victims, or the target natives, not the same thing as the goal of repelling those criminals, so as to gain the future profit, the possible future profit, of freedom from victimization by people conducting aggressive wars for profit, or less crimes, or greater crimes.
The gain in view, by the soldier volunteering, is the gain in view by the soldier volunteering.
Ask one. Ask what gets him, or her, up in the morning? What drives him, or her, each moment, any moment, to find out what drives him, or her, according to him, or her, and don't rely upon a talking head, with an axe to grind, or a lie to perpetuate.
What keeps them moving from point A to point B?
Ask anyone. What causes you to move out of bed, ask yourself?
If the motive isn't self-motivation, what is it?
If you decide to sacrifice for others, and that is what you decide to do, then why don't you decide to gain at the expense of others, why do you decide one path, and not the other, at any moment, at any time, during the process of living?
A person who will consume himself, or herself, in the work of helping someone else, is driven to do so by some power. What is that power? If it isn't self generated, then it is externally generated, if it isn't a choice made by the individual, then it is a choice made by some other power, and if the individual decides, despite all external powers, to go ahead and consume his, or her, life to help others, then how can that not be his, or her, profit, by his, or her, exclusive measure?
Capitalism is defined by a capitalist. What do they say? What do they do? Do they consume less than they make? Do they profit at the expense of other people?
Socialism is defined by a socialist. What do they say? What do they do? Do they consume less than they make? Do they profit at the expense of other people?
Do other people give willingly, to expend their power in service of others?
Do other people transfer power un-will-ingly?
What is that process?