Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few centuries back, the ability of a human to support himself and a few others with his labor was the pinnacle of prosperity. Ideally, the more people one’s labor could support, the more prosperous one was.
This is common sense.
As the industrial age progressed, and men could use tools and machinery to amplify labor, a human could support far more people than just himself and his immediate family. By harnessing old sunshine locked up in fossil fuels, humanity had the means to greatly surpass the limitations of animal and human labor.
This, too, is common sense.
So with the ever increasing population, providing ever more workers, whose labor can be multiplied and amplified to achieve prodigious production, why aren't we all prosperous?
I do not mean “rich” nor “wealthy.” I mean prosperous in the sense that prosperity is based on the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. And that doing more with less so more can enjoy should maximize happiness.
There is so much unmet need, so many unemployed or underemployed, and so many closed factories that it should scream “madness” into our consciousness.
...
One way to see the problem is to ask ...
● Why can’t people in need acquire necessities?
● Why can’t unemployed people find work?
● Why can’t closed factories and lost industries re-open?
Answer: No one has the money to do those things.
...
Why would lack of money prevent people from working, trading and enjoying their production?
...
And who controls the creation and volume of money in circulation?
...
When you figure out the answer to the last two questions, you may find yourself “bonked.”
A few centuries back, the ability of a human to support himself and a few others with his labor was the pinnacle of prosperity. Ideally, the more people one’s labor could support, the more prosperous one was.
This is common sense.
This is a rosy view of the pre-industrial age. It was not the use of one's own labor that made one prosperous, but rather the use of the labor of others (combined with capital assets)--through carrot or stick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
As the industrial age progressed, and men could use tools and machinery to amplify labor, a human could support far more people than just himself and his immediate family. By harnessing old sunshine locked up in fossil fuels, humanity had the means to greatly surpass the limitations of animal and human labor.
This, too, is common sense.
Tools and machinery were pre-industrial, but they became more efficient in the industrial age. The same essential ingredients, however, made one prosperous--the use of the labor of others (combined with capital assets)--through carrot or stick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
So with the ever increasing population, providing ever more workers, whose labor can be multiplied and amplified to achieve prodigious production, why aren't we all prosperous?
I do not mean “rich” nor “wealthy.” I mean prosperous in the sense that prosperity is based on the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services. And that doing more with less so more can enjoy should maximize happiness.
There is so much unmet need, so many unemployed or underemployed, and so many closed factories that it should scream “madness” into our consciousness.
...
One way to see the problem is to ask ...
● Why can’t people in need acquire necessities?
● Why can’t unemployed people find work?
● Why can’t closed factories and lost industries re-open?
Answer: No one has the money to do those things.
...
Why would lack of money prevent people from working, trading and enjoying their production?
...
And who controls the creation and volume of money in circulation?
...
When you figure out the answer to the last two questions, you may find yourself “bonked.”
. Prosperity is unequally distributed. People in need can't acquire necessities because they lack the requisite power. Unemployed people can't find work because they lack the requisite skills. Closed factories and lost industries can't reopen because they lack the requisite competitive productivity. It is not money, or conspiracy, or anything but markets and policy that create these negative results.
This is a rosy view of the pre-industrial age. It was not the use of one's own labor that made one prosperous, but rather the use of the labor of others (combined with capital assets)--through carrot or stick.
In some cases, but not all. Slavery is a sordid practice.
As to building a business and hiring labor, that is "trade" - not some evil exploitation of labor.
Socialism is the REAL slaver - using government to compel labor for the benefit of another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Tools and machinery were pre-industrial, but they became more efficient in the industrial age. The same essential ingredients, however, made one prosperous--the use of the labor of others (combined with capital assets)--through carrot or stick.
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Prosperity is unequally distributed. People in need can't acquire necessities because they lack the requisite power. Unemployed people can't find work because they lack the requisite skills. Closed factories and lost industries can't reopen because they lack the requisite competitive productivity. It is not money, or conspiracy, or anything but markets and policy that create these negative results.
Prosperity is not "distributed."
Prosperity results from the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services.
Prosperity is not dependent upon the existence of money - which is unequally distributed.
I disagree with your claim that unemployed people can't find work because they lack the requisite skills.
Unmet need can encompass the whole gamut of labor, from skilled to unskilled grunt labor. But since there is insufficient money available, the trade in labor is stifled.
Ditto, for "competitive productivity." (In America's case, taxation, socialism and government meddling destroyed the manufacturing sector as well as the jobs that went with them.)
Go ask any businessman what would result if the government ceased taxing him, his employees, and deregulated his business.
What expatriate industry wouldn't repatriate if it had the lure of ZERO TAXES.
There have been no "Free markets" since 1935 in the USA, thanks to national socialism (FICA -aka- Social Security).
The frustrations arise from a misunderstanding of the basic nature of human want. As a friend of mine once said: "If our GNP (per capita) is three times what it was when I was a kid, I ought to be able to live just as well, but working only 1/3 as much."
Dream on.
Human nature is such that once our basic need of a full belly and a warm, dry place to sleep is met, the next of our desires is likely to demand someone else's time and attention. Furthermore, human progress almost invariably leads to a more sophisticated set of wants, unless one is a hermit or a monastic.
Consider for a moment, not so much the physical goods, which can be readily measured, stored, traded or withheld, but all the myriad of services -- variations of everything from entertainment to medical care, which simply did not exist a century, or even a generation ago. All of them provide a new class of specialized function, but those who don't re-invent themselves to fill one of those roles have to compete with the other "left-behinds", at the bottom of the societal food chain.
I don't think that it's human nature to do more with less so that more can enjoy happiness. In just about every modern society that I can think of there are a small percentage of people who have control (direct or indirect) of the surrounding resources. In essence money is a resource. From the beginning of time man has instinctively hoarded resources (wood for fire, food, water, fur, etc.) in order to ensure survival. With the advent of money as suitable exchange for these same resources, much of the world has been allowed to leave our hunter/gatherer days behind. However, this advance in societal evolution has not changed man's primal urge to accumulate and control as many of the available resources as possible. In this day and age money is needed to gain access to everything from shelter, transportation, many times education, healthcare and the list goes on.
Like many of earth's other resources, money is not a limitless commodity. This fact...to me...is what creates the dynamic in which people with money can be hesitant to use this money to maximize the happiness of the masses. If you believe in the thinking that money=power, it shouldn't be surprising that the people wielding the power would be reluctant to weaken their overall control just to ensure that other people get a [taste]. For this reason, the circumstances in which the money elite control a large portion of the world's resources isn't likely to change anytime soon.
But the power of money isn't just limited to resource acquisition. Money represents so much more. Money is freedom. Not simply freedom in the limited physical sense; but freedom in the sense of being able to directly influence more aspects of your individual life. Those with money are able to move around and do far more things than those who do not have money. Money can be used to secure positions of power. Money can even be used to tilt the balance of justice (which is supposed to be blind and unbiased) to your favor.
Does one need to go bonkers over money to attain the necessary resources to survive on this planet? Of course not. But as I stated earlier, money is a limited commodity that provides so much more than the essentials to survive. Couple this with the reluctance that the wealthiest 1% seemingly has in freely circulating more of their wealth than necessary and you'll quickly figure out that the rest of the world's population is left to divvy out a relatively small piece of the pie. Simply put, with 99% of the world's population being left to survive off 61% of the worlds available resources, it's easy to see why there are some people out there going bonkers over money.
The majority of poor people that I see do not work as much as they could. If you look at the poor in our nation a big percentage of them are sitting around watching the TV, they eat high cost, high fat, filled with sugar foods. Many of these people that do work get pay day loans. In California you can get a $255 loan that cost you $300 and you have to pay it back on your next pay check. That is an obscene amount of interest. I saw a woman the other day sitting on the sidewalk with a sign that said "Hungry". She had a large dog that had a bowl of water and a bowl of food. The woman was not thin by any means. She was maybe 180 lbs. From what I could see she must have had plenty to eat. She could feed her dog. This was just a person who has no intention of working. I hear that many of these people can make good money with those signs, and all tax free. I wanted to tell her that the Lowe's across the street from where she was sitting is hiring. They have a big sign outside of the store.
Many of the poor feel entitled to be able to do little. They feel entitled to take from the government. They get free healthcare. Not that they appreciate it. Some of the biggest complainers at hospitals are those that are not paying for the service. I have heard someone say, "Why should I work when I can get everything for free?" A friend of my sisters mentioned that he was upset that his rent was going up. At the time he was paying $160 for an apartment that could rent for $1,400. He didn't want to work and had assistance for everything.
If you want to see people in need acquire things, get the Government out of the day care business. Shut down welfare and let people know that they have to work.
Through the industrial age factors of production (labor) became by necessity centralized. As we all migrated to the cities to "amplify" our productivity we surrendered the control of our lives that we enjoyed when we lived a more decentralized pastoral existence. We now live like a miner under the control of a boss being corporations and government spending our script (dollars) at the company store (walmart).
The good news is the device that I am sending this message on and other technical advancements are allowing some of us to return to the free lives we lived before we were enslaved by corps & govt sacrificing our freedom in the name of productivity
Last edited by boner; 02-22-2014 at 08:42 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Prosperity is unequally distributed. People in need can't acquire necessities because they lack the requisite power. Unemployed people can't find work because they lack the requisite skills. Closed factories and lost industries can't reopen because they lack the requisite competitive productivity. It is not money, or conspiracy, or anything but markets and policy that create these negative results.
