cab21 Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 I got half way through a reply, then I gave up. It is obvious that both of us hold differing opinions on what constitutes just income. Unless we address this, any back and forth will just be us talking past each other. sounds like a important ishue to address. what are you saying constitutes just income? just income wise, i think here are some of the opinions i have 1.mutual consent 2. supply and demand 3. does not violate individual rights 4. both labour and capital play a role in production, and deserve to share in the fruits of production. 5. private property ownership 6 freedom of association 7. individuals have the right to spend their justly earned income as they see fit. 8. the right to view your trade as profitable/valuable to your needs and wants. 9. offer oppurtunities for equity ownership, but equity ownership should be earned. 10. trading labour for capital, and vise versa, is legitimate 11. money is a symbol, and the return for money should be higher than the value the persons values of money, just like any other trade 12. income should leave room for a company to grow, and for the individuals receiving income to grow. 12. a companies net profits are a safty net for the company to help expand on labour and capital, and to give the company room to stay alive if the companies income drops.
LibertarianSocialist Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 sounds like a important ishue to address. what are you saying constitutes just income? just income wise, i think here are some of the opinions i have 1.mutual consent 2. supply and demand 3. does not violate individual rights 4. both labour and capital play a role in production, and deserve to share in the fruits of production. 5. private property ownership 6 freedom of association 7. individuals have the right to spend their justly earned income as they see fit. 8. the right to view your trade as profitable/valuable to your needs and wants. 9. offer oppurtunities for equity ownership, but equity ownership should be earned. 10. trading labour for capital, and vise versa, is legitimate 11. money is a symbol, and the return for money should be higher than the value the persons values of money, just like any other trade 12. income should leave room for a company to grow, and for the individuals receiving income to grow. 12. a companies net profits are a safty net for the company to help expand on labour and capital, and to give the company room to stay alive if the companies income drops. Essentially, what I am saying counts as just income is income derived from labour, in all its forms, and not from monopoly and coercion. I agree with many of your points except: 5. Too vague. I think people ought to own that which they make, with the exception of that they make with base materials destined for others. For example, mixing your labour with all the land, using up the land to make products which you claim as your, while in so doing depriving others of the potential to own that land. (Lockean proviso) 7. As long as it doesn't violate any other rights. 11. I think you mean a right to derive interest? I disagree with this. The classic exchange is one in which equal value objects are swapped to maximize subjective/use values, interest bearing exchanges can only come about through coercion. It requires finding of someone of lesser means in order to exploit their situation. I think this is illegitimate on moral grounds. 12. Does not require profit above labour cost, but rather additional labour inputs. Capitalist accumulation rests on usury and it's end goal is further usury. Usury is based on coercion and not labour. I regard this as morally illegitimate. 13. Capitalist competition creates the conditions where businesses must grow or die. Disagree that companies should have the right to make profits, or to expand on labour (without labours coercionless consent). I don't have a problem with remuneration for managerial roles, they should be paid for their labour just like any other. What I take issue with is payment derived from coercive monopoly, and not of real market value. The problem is that management has been made inseparable from capitalist monopoly. The justification given is that capitalists provide a needed service, one which benefits society, and as such they should be paid in full for this gain. But prices for capitalists cannot be bought and sold among workers, so as to have them fall to the true market worth of the labour, to cost. The capitalist class has gained such a favourable bargaining position by virtue of the monopoly of capital that competition among workers and capital is severely reduced. Capitalists may compete with capitalists, workers with workers, but with few exceptions, economic mobility is sufficiently stagnant as to remove competition between classes. So we see a class of privileged usurers who derive most of their income from monopoly privilege, and another class who by their precarity surrender the overwhelming percentage of the product of their labour. As a side note, worker run enterprises have been as efficient, if not more so than those with extended managerial hierarchies. Which begs the question, would workers even want managers if they weren't forced on them by the necessity of capitalistic hierarchical control?
cab21 Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 5. Too vague. I think people ought to own that which they make, with the exception of that they make with base materials destined for others. For example, mixing your labour with all the land, using up the land to make products which you claim as your, while in so doing depriving others of the potential to own that land. (Lockean proviso) i think typically labor will be mixed with some land, and that land will become exclusive, and that exclusive ownership can be traded. if workers put a factory on some land in a workers coop, how would anyone else also own that land? wouldn't that land have to belong exclusively to those workers until they choose to sell the land, or abandon the land and factory? 7. As long as it doesn't violate any other rights. i did mean to have that qualification 11. I think you mean a right to derive interest? I disagree with this. The classic exchange is one in which equal value objects are swapped to maximize subjective/use values, interest bearing exchanges can only come about through coercion. It requires finding of someone of lesser means in order to exploit their situation. I think this is illegitimate on moral grounds. how do we give people of lessor means the opportunity to gain resources? donald trump and other billionairs borrow money at interest, and call it leverage, so i don't think all borrowing is done by poor people, unless we say that donald trump is being exploited when he borrows money to develup real estate. in the very least, i think lending someone money should not be a cost to the lender, and that the lender should get the same value back that was lent. say a 4% inflation would need a 4% interest just to break even. then the lender could make money through providing labour to the person that the lender provided the loan to. many venture capital deals will have money and labour in return for equity, so if we want, we can call it all labour for equity as a more legitimate means of income. 12. Does not require profit above labour cost, but rather additional labour inputs. Capitalist accumulation rests on usury and it's end goal is further usury. Usury is based on coercion and not labour. I regard this as morally illegitimate. wouldn't investments and stock holdings and lending count as additional labour inputs? it does take time and paperwork and neogiation and other intellectual skills and education to put this all together so a company can continue to serve peoples needs and even allow people to use the products generated from the business. aspects such as stockholder voting, or being employee owned and having all the employees vote either for a manager or directly involve labour in learning to make decisions based on knowledge rather than whim. 13. Capitalist competition creates the conditions where businesses must grow or die. Disagree that companies should have the right to make profits, or to expand on labour (without labours coercionless consent). i feel like life itself creates those conditions. how would a different system create conditions where a lack of growth is sustainable? people must eat to live, so unless we have some system that kills people off when it is deemed there is overpopulation, wouldn't the food supply have to grow as well? if someone wants to have X amount of calories per day, there has to be consistant work to provide such amount of calories per day, having a family expands the amount of calories any family would need. so it seems the only system which does not require growth is a system which kills people off i think labour should agree to the growth of a company, and that companies should grow rational to fit basic needs of populations. by expand on labour, i mean give more resources to labour, such as job training, providing for the needs of families, and giving more people the ability to get proper nutrition, housing, medical, education. what would a socialistic lack of competition look like? wouldn't different workers organization voting on what they want to consume create a environment where different people want to consume different things in a free and subjective marketplace? a musical example could be some people wanting to play guitar and others wanting to play piano, does it make sense to limit choices to just guitar or just piano? I don't have a problem with remuneration for managerial roles, they should be paid for their labour just like any other. What I take issue with is payment derived from coercive monopoly, and not of real market value.The problem is that management has been made inseparable from capitalist monopoly. The justification given is that capitalists provide a needed service, one which benefits society, and as such they should be paid in full for this gain. But prices for capitalists cannot be bought and sold among workers, so as to have them fall to the true market worth of the labour, to cost. The capitalist class has gained such a favourable bargaining position by virtue of the monopoly of capital that competition among workers and capital is severely reduced. Capitalists may compete with capitalists, workers with workers, but with few exceptions, economic mobility is sufficiently stagnant as to remove competition between classes. So we see a class of privileged usurers who derive most of their income from monopoly privilege, and another class who by their precarity surrender the overwhelming percentage of the product of their labour. As a side note, worker run enterprises have been as efficient, if not more so than those with extended managerial hierarchies. Which begs the question, would workers even want managers if they weren't forced on them by the necessity of capitalistic hierarchical control? i think the price for capital can be bought and sold, just look at a show like shark tank where they bid on being the person that provides capital and labour for a Entrepreneur in exchange for equity, or a royalty. all parties have full control over taking or not taking any deal. there is economic mobility in different jobs, i think a person can earn capital in one job through labor, then apply that capital to a new business where the person has a higher ownership level and thus a bigger ability to earn a greater income through leverage. i think of monopoly privilege as something government granted, or granted through the initiation of force. capitalist business ownership is only protected through the retaliation use of force against those that would initiate force. it's never legitimate for a capitalist to initiate force against another, but it is OK to retaliate against others that use force against the capitalist. a capitalist business owner is not going to initiate force to prevent competition if the capitalist is being what i consider legitimate. theyhave to follow the principle of not violating another individual rights. there are many different business structures in capitalist companies, and there has been evolution in management styles, competition allows companies to develop that attract workers. a manager is not forced on workers, the workers can just choose a different company, such as one without management, or choose to open their own business. there are capitalist owned companies that have different management structures, and those structures compete, and can compete with companies that are employee owned, and whatever those employee owned companies choose. what are some examples of worker run enterprises that have run efficient compared to other companies in the same industry in the 21st century?
LibertarianSocialist Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Exclusive ownership is possible under a system of occupancy and use, of personal property. The problem of rightful ownership comes about when one person mixes his labour with a natural resource, thus converting that resource to his ownership, while depleting the total reserve. Since the natural world was made by none, it ought to be owned by all in equal measure, present and future. I see no reason why one should have to accept the prior conversion of his inheritance into someone else's property. I am again arguing the Lockean proviso, in that exclusive ownership is only just if provision is made for others to secure their own rightful portion, equal in amount and quality to all current claimants. You give those of lessor means the ability to gain resources by making labour the only source of income, achieved through the abolition of all coercive conditions which cause the market to deviate from this. Achieved in a multitude of ways, the abolition of absentee property rights, of inheritance, of the various institutionalised monopolies. People like Trump take loans to invest further down the line. It is ultimately the end borrower who foots the bill for both their profits. Yes moneylenders should have their loans adjusted for inflation, but so should everyone technically. And yes, labour should be remunerated, though the time spent doing actual labour would be very small I would think. You would certainly see no Donald Trumps. Well, the labour must be desired. The highwayman labours too. In a system where capitalist monopoly has been abolished, it would be impossible to derive profit from capital. Labour is a component, but hardly the underlying mechanism by which profits are made under lending, stocks etc. Well, growth rates in all developed countries have levelled off, it is only in impoverished nations where growth rates are high. This is because an extended family is the poor man's insurance policy. Remove the conditions of scarcity and precarity, and populations will level off. Capitalism is the mentality of empire. The accumulation of wealth as a symbol of status, becomes the driving force of our economic system. Have you ever wondered why billionaires want to make more money? Why kings feel the need to conquer the world? It is simply unbridled egoism gone mad. So we have a system whose dominant economic driving force is the consolidation of wealth for invidious means. All the conspicuous consumption, the wastefulness and flamboyance are simply means of asserting social standing. Remove the system where the bigger your sandcastle is, the 'better' you are, and you remove the driving force behind the creation of giant piles of pyramid shaped rocks in the desert, or whale penis-skin luxury car seats, along with all the entailed misery and toil by the many for the vanity of a few. Not all systems of anarchistic socialism remove this driving force, but they do put fearsome barriers in its way. Of course organisation's should grow as appropriate. The problem is growth for the sake of Darwinian survival. Voluntary associations can be made as appropriate, without the need for a system of hierarchical organizations in which those at the bottom are motivated to join by coercive pressure rather than self interest. Well communism say would do away with competition, but must be voluntarily agreed too by all participants. Many of the other forms of socialism, such as individualism/mutualism which seek to make competition universal, have reduced forms of competition, but still have the undesirable elements of competition, which is seen by many communists as unfortunate, but still something which must be tolerated in the name of freedom. The true worth of objects is currently unknowable. The price currently is known, but is this the true worth? Too many market distortions are present to ever know. Economic mobility is not perfect. See stats on social mobility to see ownership of capital is a huge indicator of financial success, our system is called capitalism for a reason, not meritocratism. I agree that monopoly is granted by government. I just disagree on what government is. All forms of hierarchical systems are able to change character. Latifundia became feudal holdings, then fortified villages then small nations. Businesses became company towns with all the traits of the state. Soviet and Maoist bureaucracy reverted to capitalistic branches to fill the vacuum. If people have the ability to violate the rights of others for their own gain, they usually will. Capitalist companies are always the same, they always have an owner or group of owners who derive profit off the leverage of capital. If I go into the nearest town and look for jobs, it will always be the same, a position where I must work for the boss. His position is secured. Because he owns the capital, he sets the price for himself and of his workers. I can reject a particularly insulting offer, but the class monopoly is sufficient established that the large majority must work FOR a boss. Examples of worker self management being as or more efficient are the Spanish Revolution, in which productivity increased in many regions after collectivization despite the war. General Electrics "pilot program" of 1968-72, in which workers were left to operate the floor as a method of job enrichment after the unpopular integration of numerical control machinery. Resulting in increased job satisfaction, increased productivity, more efficient machine utilization and lower manufacturing losses. It was eventually scrapped by management because the union was trying to get it adopted in other branches. Plenty other examples I could dig up. 1
cab21 Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 Exclusive ownership is possible under a system of occupancy and use, of personal property. The problem of rightful ownership comes about when one person mixes his labour with a natural resource, thus converting that resource to his ownership, while depleting the total reserve. Since the natural world was made by none, it ought to be owned by all in equal measure, present and future. I see no reason why one should have to accept the prior conversion of his inheritance into someone else's property. I am again arguing the Lockean proviso, in that exclusive ownership is only just if provision is made for others to secure their own rightful portion, equal in amount and quality to all current claimants. How can someone get an equal amount and quality of natural resources, when the earth does not provide such equality, and the value of natural resources depends on human subjective value as well as the inventions of humans? if value comes from the labor applied to a natural resource, how do we tell what the value of the natural resource was? is it if one person is allowed to use a tree, 7 billion people need to get a tree of equal quality? You give those of lessor means the ability to gain resources by making labour the only source of income, achieved through the abolition of all coercive conditions which cause the market to deviate from this. Achieved in a multitude of ways, the abolition of absentee property rights, of inheritance, of the various institutionalised monopolies If income can only be gained through labour, what are the consequences? so what of the young, the old, the disabled, they can only gain resources through labor? No retirement, any maternity leaves, no vacation, no sick pay? Inheritance is simply a person choosing how to spend resources gained through that persons labor I don’t think we can say infants labor, are people not allowed to feed them, since that food is income? People like Trump take loans to invest further down the line. It is ultimately the end borrower who foots the bill for both their profits. Yes moneylenders should have their loans adjusted for inflation, but so should everyone technically. And yes, labour should be remunerated, though the time spent doing actual labour would be very small I would think. You would certainly see no Donald Trumps. i think pay needs to be based on value added, not just time spent paying more because someone spent more time encourages people to waste time, and does not take into account quality control, and the skills needed to perform, and the value added by the performance. Well, the labour must be desired. The highwayman labours too. In a system where capitalist monopoly has been abolished, it would be impossible to derive profit from capital. Labour is a component, but hardly the underlying mechanism by which profits are made under lending, stocks etc. the highwayman is not legitmate because theft violates individual rights. lending capital does not violate rights, and is voluntary. people go to capitalists to get capital, they don't go to highwayman to get robbed. The capital provided by capitalists make it possible for labor, since the capital pays for the means of production, that the labor would not even have without the capital. Well, growth rates in all developed countries have levelled off, it is only in impoverished nations where growth rates are high. This is because an extended family is the poor man's insurance policy. Remove the conditions of scarcity and precarity, and populations will level off. Capitalism is the mentality of empire. The accumulation of wealth as a symbol of status, becomes the driving force of our economic system. Have you ever wondered why billionaires want to make more money? Why kings feel the need to conquer the world? It is simply unbridled egoism gone mad. So we have a system whose dominant economic driving force is the consolidation of wealth for invidious means. All the conspicuous consumption, the wastefulness and flamboyance are simply means of asserting social standing. Remove the system where the bigger your sandcastle is, the 'better' you are, and you remove the driving force behind the creation of giant piles of pyramid shaped rocks in the desert, or whale penis-skin luxury car seats, along with all the entailed misery and toil by the many for the vanity of a few. Not all systems of anarchistic socialism remove this driving force, but they do put fearsome barriers in its way. Not all people that acquire wealth desire to use that wealth in the same way. think empire implies initiation of violence, and free market capitalist does not allow that. more wealth would be a result of giving more value in trades to people. what are some of the barriers some systems of anarchistic socialism puts in the way of natural human driving forces. people choose to have children for different reasons, some choose to have children because they are wealthy, or adopt or foster a lot of children because they are wealthy. Of course organisation's should grow as appropriate. The problem is growth for the sake of Darwinian survival. Voluntary associations can be made as appropriate, without the need for a system of hierarchical organizations in which those at the bottom are motivated to join by coercive pressure rather than self interest. darwinian survival is pressure put on people by nature, not by other people through the initiation of violence. the ability to join or create your own organization is of self interest, and pressure from the natural world, rather than pressure from other people. so people get to pick their self interest, whether to join or create business of their own. Well communism say would do away with competition, but must be voluntarily agreed too by all participants. Many of the other forms of socialism, such as individualism/mutualism which seek to make competition universal, have reduced forms of competition, but still have the undesirable elements of competition, which is seen by many communists as unfortunate, but still something which must be tolerated in the name of freedom. without competition, how do we get better inventions that serve mankind better? different people working to provide safe drinking water is going to help to get safe drinking water faster than noone trying to provide safe drinking water, or only one organization working to provide safe drinking water. The true worth of objects is currently unknowable. The price currently is known, but is this the true worth? Too many market distortions are present to ever know. Economic mobility is not perfect. See stats on social mobility to see ownership of capital is a huge indicator of financial success, our system is called capitalism for a reason, not meritocratism. distortions that change price are usally government driven, and not market driving. economic mobility is slowed down through government intervention more than any free market capitalism. our system is a form of mixed market, rather than free market capitalism, so mobility has to take into account how government intervention in a free market takes away meritocratism. why do they think they must work for a boss, rather than start their own business? there are also jobs where people get paid in equity, thereby becoming a owner through labour. there are many compensation methods availiable for negotiation or for people to just startup. Examples of worker self management being as or more efficient are the Spanish Revolution, in which productivity increased in many regions after collectivization despite the war. General Electrics "pilot program" of 1968-72, in which workers were left to operate the floor as a method of job enrichment after the unpopular integration of numerical control machinery. Resulting in increased job satisfaction, increased productivity, more efficient machine utilization and lower manufacturing losses. It was eventually scrapped by management because the union was trying to get it adopted in other branches.Plenty other examples I could dig up. im not sure about the management practices of pre spanish revolution spain, but i don't think it would be current capitalistic management practices. ill look more into the general electrics program, and others that you dig up. i think current 21st century capitalist managment styles involve workers in a way that 20th century styles did not. 1
LibertarianSocialist Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 COULD A MOD MOVE OUR DISCUSSION TO A NEW THREAD? Thanks. If we go by the fact that the world was made by none, as so belongs to all, we must grant free access to all natural resources. Any deprivation of a particular natural resource or an equivalent alternative should be seen as a violation of the rights of the individual to what is his as much as anyone's. As each asserts his usage rights over a particular resource, land worth will equalize, finding it's equilibrium with equal opportunity elsewhere. 7 million don't necessarily need a tree, but 7 million do need the opportunity to access trees, whether such opportunity is embraced or not.If natural resources become free they cannot contribute to price formation any more than the air. Restricting incomes to labour in no way restricts these. You can still accumulate wealth to use at a later date. Alternately you could get interest free loans until you resume working. This is the function of those plans you mentioned, to detach immediate productivity from income, to spread it over the unproductive periods too. But what of the people who don't inherit wealth? In a market situation, accumulations of wealth actually harm them, as rich buyers drive up auction prices for competitors. I have already discussed the distinction of a market based ltv from a more vulgar time based one. People pander to capitalists because of coercive conditions in which the capitalists have a monopoly on what they need. Equal standing would lead to equal exchange, not of the usurious and feudalistic conditions which capital institutes today. People don't go to the highwayman? Last time I checked we had both mobsters and states. Saying free market capitalism cannot entail violence is about as useful as vulgar leftists making 'democratic accountability' a precondition of representative democracy. Capitalism is a specific social relation and mode of production. It's existence requires coercive deprivation. Unless you think economic coercion is not a type of violence. Sure people have children for a variety of reasons, but it is a fact that birthrate is heavily correlated with poverty. Market competition is darwinian. It is a specific set of competitive parameters, by which individuals and groups of individuals compete. Capitalism itself is simply one gigantic darwinian 'meme'. You know for most intelligent people, going into a career in science is an economic death sentence? Yet we have a whole bunch of scientists who don't do it for the money, they do it for prestige, for the betterment of making, and above all, for their own natural curiosity and enjoyment. Have you seen the study where monetary rewards harmed performance for all tasks requiring creativity, the exception being simplistic 'mechanical' tasks. It seems creativity is its own reward. Evidence please that markets are only distorted by what we define as 'states'. Please explain the countless machinations made by private bodies of power for their own personal gain, including the countless price fixings, market manipulations, collusion, coercion and violent coups. The organizational structures may differ, they might have different facades, but the social and economic relations are the same. 1
cab21 Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 If we go by the fact that the world was made by none, as so belongs to all, we must grant free access to all natural resources. Any deprivation of a particular natural resource or an equivalent alternative should be seen as a violation of the rights of the individual to what is his as much as anyone's. As each asserts his usage rights over a particular resource, land worth will equalize, finding it's equilibrium with equal opportunity elsewhere. 7 million don't necessarily need a tree, but 7 million do need the opportunity to access trees, whether such opportunity is embraced or not.If natural resources become free they cannot contribute to price formation any more than the air. how do you give free access to natural resources? if anything, it's going to take the labor of others to either transport people to natural resources, or natural resources to people. or we could say anyone is free to make their own way to access the volcanic rock of Hawaii, but lets see how many make it their without the labor of others? access to natural resources, where natural resources require human labor for access to, should be a aspect of markets, and people can buy and sell the human labor it takes to provide such access. it does not take labour to get air to people in general, there are circumstances where it does, but it does take labour to get other natural resources to people. Restricting incomes to labour in no way restricts these. You can still accumulate wealth to use at a later date. Alternately you could get interest free loans until you resume working. This is the function of those plans you mentioned, to detach immediate productivity from income, to spread it over the unproductive periods too.But what of the people who don't inherit wealth? In a market situation, accumulations of wealth actually harm them, as rich buyers drive up auction prices for competitors. people that don't inherit wealth are not harmed by those that create wealth, or by those that inherit wealth. people that don't inherit wealth, can work with those that have earned wealth, or those that have inherited wealth, to increase the wealth of all. those that don't inherit wealth could get a loan to pay back with their future productivity. the prices go down on many essentials people need to create wealth, not up, with competition. People pander to capitalists because of coercive conditions in which the capitalists have a monopoly on what they need. Equal standing would lead to equal exchange, not of the usurious and feudalistic conditions which capital institutes today. People don't go to the highwayman? Last time I checked we had both mobsters and states. capitalists don't have a monopoly on what they need, they need to earn it. there is equal standing among free market capitalists, as people that trade with each other of their own free will. Saying free market capitalism cannot entail violence is about as useful as vulgar leftists making 'democratic accountability' a precondition of representative democracy. Capitalism is a specific social relation and mode of production. It's existence requires coercive deprivation. Unless you think economic coercion is not a type of violence. private ownership of the means of production is a social relationship that treats all as equals in their ability to trade capital and labor at their own free will. there is no coercion in people freely trading with one another, unless we also say that a bank giving a interest free loan is coercive if the bank wants to get it's money back in the future, and that banks must accept the loss of money and not being able to use that money to give another person a interest free loan. Sure people have children for a variety of reasons, but it is a fact that birthrate is heavily correlated with poverty. one way to get out of poverty is to not have children until you are out of poverty. is this not a form of violence to just have more kids and then to say others are obligated to increase their labor so that your family can get out of higher and higher levels of welfare needed to be above arbitrary set poverty lines? Market competition is darwinian. It is a specific set of competitive parameters, by which individuals and groups of individuals compete. Capitalism itself is simply one gigantic darwinian 'meme'. market competition is not darwinian, in that a free market has rules against violating individual rights, that other animals don't have. lions don't live by the same rules against the initiation of force that a free market capitalist lives by. people have to live by trading with another, rather than stealing from one another through brute force. darwinianism in the animal kingdom has no such parameters, and the animals are not giving a moral analysis of their actions. You know for most intelligent people, going into a career in science is an economic death sentence? Yet we have a whole bunch of scientists who don't do it for the money, they do it for prestige, for the betterment of making, and above all, for their own natural curiosity and enjoyment. Have you seen the study where monetary rewards harmed performance for all tasks requiring creativity, the exception being simplistic 'mechanical' tasks. It seems creativity is its own reward. if they are doing it for all these reasons, they aren't dead. capitalism rewards people for all these reasons, they are allowed to trade with each other, and not allowed to steal from one another. if creativity is it's own reward, then we should not have a socialist system that steals from those that create wealth and gives to those that give "creativity". the people that want to be creative should labour and trade just like anyone else. Evidence please that markets are only distorted by what we define as 'states'. Please explain the countless machinations made by private bodies of power for their own personal gain, including the countless price fixings, market manipulations, collusion, coercion and violent coups. i'm not saying markets are only distorted by states, private individuals can be just as criminal in initiating the use of force. i am saying those that do initiate the use of force are not using a market. coercian is not using a market. if some price fix, start your own company that does not price fix, and there is no more price fixing in the marketplace if people collude, start your own company that does not collude. people in a market are not prevented from participating in the market.
Recommended Posts