Do the rich earn their income?

[ShackledNation]

"There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages."

You're confusing rich people with money. Money is a way of facilitating transfers of goods and services. And it's hard to run an economy without it. But there's no particular reason why it has to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

As long as ordinary people have enough money to pay for the goods and services they consume, there's enough money to pay the wages of the people who produce them.

Who pays the wages then? Let us set up a scenario in which everyone has $50,000. If everyone makes $50,000 then that means employers also make $50,000. So any given individual would only be able to hire one worker, and he would not have any money left over afterwords. That would defeat the purpose of him being an employer, for he would not gain a profit from giving workers jobs.

I feel like the following question is necessary to ask, for the sake of understanding your mind. It is clear there is some type of underlying fallacy to all of this reasoning which makes you believe it is rational. I am taking a wild guess it has to do with how you feel prices and value are determined. So let me now ask you: Where does an object receive its value? Do you believe the labor theory of value? What theory do you believe to be correct? Also, to understand where you are coming from, what economic school of thought to you follow, and what economic system do you support?

You arguments seem to follow unsound reasoning, but it may be there is just one huge unsound theory you are basing all your arguments on. What you say is full of logical fallacies. It is concerning that you do not see how blatantly irrational they are, so I can only assuming you are mistaken at a deeper level that provides justification for your fallacious arguments.

As far as value goes... market price is determined by the market.

You win the most vague answer of the year award.

Value, on the other hand, is subjective. That's why there is a market. Because some people value things more than the market, others less. I do believe that goods and services are created by labor, not by ownership of things.

Yes, value is subjective, and prices represent the subjective valuations of individuals in an economy. We call this consumer preference.

Goods and services are created by labor, of course. But what you wrongly believe is that all rich people do is own things. That is false. They labor to create goods and services just like everyone else.

I don't follow any particular school. However, at least in terms of money, my views are similar to MMT, Modern Monetary Theory.

I think that the Austrians and Monetarists are dangerously wrong. I suspect I have a lot in common with Keynes.

MMT, I suspected it. For all of you still watching, MMT is bogus economics. Here is a refuatation of it by the Austrian school, which MMTers fear because the Austrian school so brilliantly puts their views to the grave.
The Upside-Down World of MMT - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily

I had a suspicion you were influenced by MMT because your thought process is so illogical and full of vague, unsupported assumptions. I have debated MMTers before, and their arguments are often full of fallacies, notably circular reasoning and unproven assumptions. With all due respect, I see no reason discussing anything with you further, for even if somebody refuted MMT clearly and undeniably, you would still hold to your views.

 

[Mr.Nick]

There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages. And by the way, the rich work, or at least worked to get rich.

"There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages."

You're confusing rich people with money. Money is a way of facilitating transfers of goods and services. And it's hard to run an economy without it. But there's no particular reason why it has to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

As long as ordinary people have enough money to pay for the goods and services they consume, there's enough money to pay the wages of the people who produce them.

You're a retard. It doesn't matter if there are ordinary poor shitheads out there dying to buy products (which, by the way, poor laborers wouldn't be able to produce if their evil, wealthy, non-working bosses didn't buy the supplies and tools and machinery for) or services if no one is willing to fund the business to pay the laborers to provide them. Exactly how many fucking salaries do you think you personally are going to be able to provide, anyway?

Just try creating an economy, like ours without all that filthy lucre concentrated into central places to facilitate the creation of goods. I dare you. Maybe YOU want to return to the 1890s (which still contained companies like Montgomery Wards, Sears, and Standard Oil), but I prefer the 21st century standard of living, thanks so much.

You're a fool that has absolutely no idea as to how economics work in general..

 

[Mr.Nick]

I find it funny the minions argue for slave labor as equality..

If they're not Marxists they're certainly corporate fascists or just greedy stupid motherfuckers.

 

[Colin]

"There is no point to working if there are no people to pay the wages."

You're confusing rich people with money. Money is a way of facilitating transfers of goods and services. And it's hard to run an economy without it. But there's no particular reason why it has to be concentrated in the hands of a few.

As long as ordinary people have enough money to pay for the goods and services they consume, there's enough money to pay the wages of the people who produce them.

Who pays the wages then? Let us set up a scenario in which everyone has $50,000. If everyone makes $50,000 then that means employers also make $50,000. So any given individual would only be able to hire one worker, and he would not have any money left over afterwords. That would defeat the purpose of him being an employer, for he would not gain a profit from giving workers jobs.

I feel like the following question is necessary to ask, for the sake of understanding your mind. It is clear there is some type of underlying fallacy to all of this reasoning which makes you believe it is rational. I am taking a wild guess it has to do with how you feel prices and value are determined. So let me now ask you: Where does an object receive its value? Do you believe the labor theory of value? What theory do you believe to be correct? Also, to understand where you are coming from, what economic school of thought to you follow, and what economic system do you support?

You arguments seem to follow unsound reasoning, but it may be there is just one huge unsound theory you are basing all your arguments on. What you say is full of logical fallacies. It is concerning that you do not see how blatantly irrational they are, so I can only assuming you are mistaken at a deeper level that provides justification for your fallacious arguments.

The problem - well, one of them, anyway - is that we disagree about the nature of money.

As far as value goes... market price is determined by the market. Value, on the other hand, is subjective. That's why there is a market. Because some people value things more than the market, others less. I do believe that goods and services are created by labor, not by ownership of things.

I don't follow any particular school. However, at least in terms of money, my views are similar to MMT, Modern Monetary Theory.

I think that the Austrians and Monetarists are dangerously wrong. I suspect I have a lot in common with Keynes.

Bullshit! The only thing you have commonality with is that palce called Bedlam!

 

[Sundial]

Who pays the wages then? Let us set up a scenario in which everyone has $50,000. If everyone makes $50,000 then that means employers also make $50,000. So any given individual would only be able to hire one worker, and he would not have any money left over afterwords. That would defeat the purpose of him being an employer, for he would not gain a profit from giving workers jobs.

I feel like the following question is necessary to ask, for the sake of understanding your mind. It is clear there is some type of underlying fallacy to all of this reasoning which makes you believe it is rational. I am taking a wild guess it has to do with how you feel prices and value are determined. So let me now ask you: Where does an object receive its value? Do you believe the labor theory of value? What theory do you believe to be correct? Also, to understand where you are coming from, what economic school of thought to you follow, and what economic system do you support?

You arguments seem to follow unsound reasoning, but it may be there is just one huge unsound theory you are basing all your arguments on. What you say is full of logical fallacies. It is concerning that you do not see how blatantly irrational they are, so I can only assuming you are mistaken at a deeper level that provides justification for your fallacious arguments.

As far as value goes... market price is determined by the market.

You win the most vague answer of the year award.

Value, on the other hand, is subjective. That's why there is a market. Because some people value things more than the market, others less. I do believe that goods and services are created by labor, not by ownership of things.

Yes, value is subjective, and prices represent the subjective valuations of individuals in an economy. We call this consumer preference.

Goods and services are created by labor, of course. But what you wrongly believe is that all rich people do is own things. That is false. They labor to create goods and services just like everyone else.

I don't follow any particular school. However, at least in terms of money, my views are similar to MMT, Modern Monetary Theory.

I think that the Austrians and Monetarists are dangerously wrong. I suspect I have a lot in common with Keynes.

MMT, I suspected it. For all of you still watching, MMT is bogus economics. Here is a refuatation of it by the Austrian school, which MMTers fear because the Austrian school so brilliantly puts their views to the grave.
The Upside-Down World of MMT - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily

I had a suspicion you were influenced by MMT because your thought process is so illogical and full of vague, unsupported assumptions. I have debated MMTers before, and their arguments are often full of fallacies, notably circular reasoning and unproven assumptions. With all due respect, I see no reason discussing anything with you further, for even if somebody refuted MMT clearly and undeniably, you would still hold to your views.

Frankly, I have the same feeling about Austrians. They're anxious to debate, until you challenge them on first principles. Then they either repeat themselves or get angry. They can't stand to see their assumptions challenged, and hate it when facts get in the way of theory.

 

[bripat9643]

Frankly, I have the same feeling about Austrians. They're anxious to debate, until you challenge them on first principles. Then they either repeat themselves or get angry. They can't stand to see their assumptions challenged, and hate it when facts get in the way of theory.

For instance?

 

[Steelplate]

I hate to get into the middle of a good, rational debate. I mean, I hold no degree in economics and I don't give a shit about Austrian OR MMT as an economic model/ideology.

I will ask one thing.. no matter what economic model you use... what good is it when no one can afford anything... either by lack of jobs or ridiculous inflation?

 

[bripat9643]

I hate to get into the middle of a good, rational debate. I mean, I hold no degree in economics and I don't give a shit about Austrian OR MMT as an economic model/ideology.

I will ask one thing.. no matter what economic model you use... what good is it when no one can afford anything... either by lack of jobs or ridiculous inflation?

What good is what, economics?

How do you know which policies to adopt if you have no theory of economics to base them on?

 

[snjmom]

Frankly, I have the same feeling about Austrians. They're anxious to debate, until you challenge them on first principles. Then they either repeat themselves or get angry. They can't stand to see their assumptions challenged, and hate it when facts get in the way of theory.

For instance?

How about empiricism is useless when studying economies?

 

[bripat9643]

How about empiricism is useless when studying economies?

Empirical evidence cannot prove or disprove an economic theorem. If you disagree, provide an example.

 

[ShackledNation]

As far as value goes... market price is determined by the market.

You win the most vague answer of the year award.


Yes, value is subjective, and prices represent the subjective valuations of individuals in an economy. We call this consumer preference.

Goods and services are created by labor, of course. But what you wrongly believe is that all rich people do is own things. That is false. They labor to create goods and services just like everyone else.

I don't follow any particular school. However, at least in terms of money, my views are similar to MMT, Modern Monetary Theory.

I think that the Austrians and Monetarists are dangerously wrong. I suspect I have a lot in common with Keynes.

MMT, I suspected it. For all of you still watching, MMT is bogus economics. Here is a refuatation of it by the Austrian school, which MMTers fear because the Austrian school so brilliantly puts their views to the grave.
The Upside-Down World of MMT - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily

I had a suspicion you were influenced by MMT because your thought process is so illogical and full of vague, unsupported assumptions. I have debated MMTers before, and their arguments are often full of fallacies, notably circular reasoning and unproven assumptions. With all due respect, I see no reason discussing anything with you further, for even if somebody refuted MMT clearly and undeniably, you would still hold to your views.

Frankly, I have the same feeling about Austrians. They're anxious to debate, until you challenge them on first principles. Then they either repeat themselves or get angry. They can't stand to see their assumptions challenged, and hate it when facts get in the way of theory.

That is total bullshit. The problem is you challenge their assumptions with weaker assumptions.

 

[bripat9643]

Frankly, I have the same feeling about Austrians. They're anxious to debate, until you challenge them on first principles. Then they either repeat themselves or get angry. They can't stand to see their assumptions challenged, and hate it when facts get in the way of theory.

That is total bullshit. The problem is you challenge their assumptions with weaker assumptions.

What "assumptions?" Austrian economics has no assumptions.

 

[Mr.Nick]

MMT is bullshit - look at the global economy.

Let me guess - "if only ____________ then it would work."

 

[Steelplate]

I hate to get into the middle of a good, rational debate. I mean, I hold no degree in economics and I don't give a shit about Austrian OR MMT as an economic model/ideology.

I will ask one thing.. no matter what economic model you use... what good is it when no one can afford anything... either by lack of jobs or ridiculous inflation?

What good is what, economics?

How do you know which policies to adopt if you have no theory of economics to base them on?

No... not economics... economic theory. what does it matter if you are Austrian or MMT? What I am basically asking is this...

What good is it to adopt a theory if no one can afford to make that theory reality?

The bottom line is this... I don't give a shit what theoretical side I fall under... label me as you will.... but the simple truth is, if there is no one able to buy the shit you're selling... what fucking good are you? Sure, you might have the best gadget known to man... but if half the country is either unemployed or underemployed.. you might as well be pissing into the wind.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I suppose Keynesian economics are some sort of compromise....

I suppose we need to be fair now............

 

[Mr.Nick]

I hate to get into the middle of a good, rational debate. I mean, I hold no degree in economics and I don't give a shit about Austrian OR MMT as an economic model/ideology.

I will ask one thing.. no matter what economic model you use... what good is it when no one can afford anything... either by lack of jobs or ridiculous inflation?

What good is what, economics?

How do you know which policies to adopt if you have no theory of economics to base them on?

No... not economics... economic theory. what does it matter if you are Austrian or MMT? What I am basically asking is this...

What good is it to adopt a theory if no one can afford to make that theory reality?

The bottom line is this... I don't give a shit what theoretical side I fall under... label me as you will.... but the simple truth is, if there is no one able to buy the shit you're selling... what fucking good are you? Sure, you might have the best gadget known to man... but if half the country is either unemployed or underemployed.. you might as well be pissing into the wind.

There is no economic theory...

Accountants would laugh at you.

 

[ShackledNation]

I hate to get into the middle of a good, rational debate. I mean, I hold no degree in economics and I don't give a shit about Austrian OR MMT as an economic model/ideology.

I will ask one thing.. no matter what economic model you use... what good is it when no one can afford anything... either by lack of jobs or ridiculous inflation?

What good is what, economics?

How do you know which policies to adopt if you have no theory of economics to base them on?

No... not economics... economic theory. what does it matter if you are Austrian or MMT? What I am basically asking is this...

What good is it to adopt a theory if no one can afford to make that theory reality?

The bottom line is this... I don't give a shit what theoretical side I fall under... label me as you will.... but the simple truth is, if there is no one able to buy the shit you're selling... what fucking good are you? Sure, you might have the best gadget known to man... but if half the country is either unemployed or underemployed.. you might as well be pissing into the wind.

You don't make theory into reality. Theory describes reality.

 

[ShackledNation]

Frankly, I have the same feeling about Austrians. They're anxious to debate, until you challenge them on first principles. Then they either repeat themselves or get angry. They can't stand to see their assumptions challenged, and hate it when facts get in the way of theory.

That is total bullshit. The problem is you challenge their assumptions with weaker assumptions.

What "assumptions?" Austrian economics has no assumptions.

Touché. Let me rephrase my response: "The problem is that you challenge Austrian axioms with weak assumptions."

 

[thereisnospoon]

I hate to get into the middle of a good, rational debate. I mean, I hold no degree in economics and I don't give a shit about Austrian OR MMT as an economic model/ideology.

I will ask one thing.. no matter what economic model you use... what good is it when no one can afford anything... either by lack of jobs or ridiculous inflation?

What good is what, economics?

How do you know which policies to adopt if you have no theory of economics to base them on?

No... not economics... economic theory. what does it matter if you are Austrian or MMT? What I am basically asking is this...

What good is it to adopt a theory if no one can afford to make that theory reality?

The bottom line is this... I don't give a shit what theoretical side I fall under... label me as you will.... but the simple truth is, if there is no one able to buy the shit you're selling... what fucking good are you? Sure, you might have the best gadget known to man... but if half the country is either unemployed or underemployed.. you might as well be pissing into the wind.

WAH WAH WAH....You're constantly crying the blues. You see yourself as a perpetual victim. Your recourse is to have government take from others and give to you. That is the worst kind of greed.
I submit that the underemployed are that way because they are trying to make their situation better.
You are part of the population that is employee focused. In other words ,you know other way to make a living other than to work for someone else. You have no vision. You fear the unknown and abhor the idea of expanding one's paradigm.
Underemployed can come in many forms. The end result is of the same ideology. That is one MUST have a "job"....Baloney.....I have a career. I also have a side business in which I make a good amount of walking around coin. I am not going to tell you what it is because you will just make up some stupid negative comment or you will give me that old pro labor bullshit that "no one should ever have to work outside their regular job."
Ya know what genius, stow it. I am not interested in anything you may have to offer in response. In any event ,it would not stop me from doing what I do.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am a 1 ,man show. I made 4K last week.
Did I "earn" it?
Who determines if someone earned too much, enough or not enough?
Government?