Law School Discussion

Poll

.

.
0 (0%)
.
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

.

nesnut

  • ****
  • 3759
  • Law School is thiiiiiiiis big!
    • View Profile
Re: Would you marry a person with the wrong politics?
« Reply #90 on: April 05, 2006, 02:22:15 PM »
I say we incorprate mercantilism. j.k.

lol, only if we get to barter goods and maybe colonize an island or two

halfjewhalfgoy

Re: Would you marry a person with the wrong politics?
« Reply #91 on: April 05, 2006, 02:25:49 PM »
One of the only books written about mercantilism in that period comes from The wealth of Nations as smith argues against it, thus, much of what we know about mercantilism comes from the father of economics.

Re: Would you marry a person with the wrong politics?
« Reply #92 on: April 05, 2006, 06:13:45 PM »
i think the difference here is that mother teresa dealt with bad figures in order to benefit others, not herself. she didn't buy jets, golf courses and mansions, nor did she Trump herself up as some sort of social wonder (pun intended). 

Also, this whole "one person's success does not come at the expense of others" is antithetical to capitalism as an economic system- it's built on labor hierarchy, which means one person's labor is another's gain.

and all history is class warfare right?

"Regardless of whether you define wealth as the sum total of all currency, the M1 money supply, or a broader measure which includes money, securities, and property, the supply of wealth, while limited, is not fixed. Thus, there is room for people to gain wealth without taking from others, and wealth is not a zero-sum game in the long term. Many things can affect the creation and destruction of wealth including size of the work force, production efficiency, available resource endowments, inventions, innovations, and availability of capital.

However, at any given point in time, there is a limited amount of wealth which exists. That is to say, it is fixed in the short term. People who study short term issues see wealth as a zero sum game and concentrate on the distribution of wealth, whereas people who study long term issues see wealth as a non-zero sum game and concentrate on wealth creation. Other people put equal emphasis on both the creation and the distribution of wealth.

In the very long term, the amount of raw materials is limited to what exists in the universe. The application of human ingenuity to raw materials can transform these to more valuable forms, but, even if human ingenuity is infinite, entropy may eventually put an absolute limit on the amount of wealth that can be created.

One's attitude towards this issue affects the design of the social or economic system that one prefers"



uhhh, what's the point of this- was this directed at proving my comments about capitalism wrong? The stuff I put in bold doesn't contradict what I said- unless you believe money and wealthy magically appears harry potter-style for people.  someone's work is billed at 100 bucks an hour- he sees 10, the company sees 90- how is that not making money off someone else's labor?  yes, that guy is getting paid, but not equal to what he should be getting if his labor really is valued at 100 an hour. I'm not advocating class warfare, here- just stating what anybody who works sees on a daily basis.  And as your quote states (by the way, what is this from?) there is a limited amount of wealth in the world at any given time- I personally believe that it should be more equitably distributed.  doesn't mean we cut off the heads of the fortune 500, but that we distribute it in more socially cosntructive ways (healthcare for example)

and history is a subjectively viewed thing- I can view history through the eyes of class struggle just as easily as I can view it top-down, bottom-up, economically, technologically,  etc. etc. 

You're only looking at the short term. Money and wealth are created all the time. If I cut down a tree (worth $10) and make a world class canoe out of it, that is worth say $1000, I've just created $980 that wasn't there before.

The man isn't necessarily entitled to all $100 becuase he didn't take care of all the intermediary tasks (advertising, customer support, reputation built over time, etc.). In fact, without the company he wouldn't have a nice office to go to, paid vacation, sick leave, or any of the other perks of being employed. He is entitled to is the results of the contract he has entered into, and if that is $10 per hour than so be it. If he is unhappy and would rather make all $100 he can go it alone.

i'm not disagreeing with any of this- but what makes the boss suddenly entitled to $90?  the boss may oversee, but now you are placing his leadership as more important than the actual labor that creates his profits.  That's like saying the general is more important than the grunts, that bush as Commander in Chief is somehow "worth more" than the soldiers he commands.   Furthermore, you are assuming the nice office, the paid vacation, the sick leave- you know just as well as I do that many employers are hawks about this stuff.  Again, it isn't about the guy taking all $100- it's about him taking more than 1/10 of what he generates, say like 3/10.  I think you think I'm out to create a communist society- I'm not.  I just want a more equitable society )This goes back to the debate we had in that other thread about opportunity). 

and great for the man who single-handedly cuts a tree down and makes an investment in the form of the canoe.  he's alone doing that.  But once he sets up shop and hires people to do the same, the game changes a bit.  And what exactly do you mean by "long-term"?

but the "general" is the one taking all the risks. If the canoe building company goes under, he's the one that loses his house. The workers just pack it up and look for another job.

dbgirl

  • ****
  • 4769
    • View Profile
Re: Would you marry a person with the wrong politics?
« Reply #93 on: April 05, 2006, 06:20:37 PM »
I don't consider marrying a Republican open minded.

SplitFinger

  • ****
  • 1057
  • I'm a real pretend lawyer now!
    • View Profile
Re: Would you marry a person with the wrong politics?
« Reply #94 on: April 05, 2006, 06:42:42 PM »
I don't consider marrying a Republican open minded.


More like masochistic.

florentino ariza

Re: Would you marry a person with the wrong politics?
« Reply #95 on: April 05, 2006, 07:09:25 PM »
some people like that :)

nesnut

  • ****
  • 3759
  • Law School is thiiiiiiiis big!
    • View Profile
Re: Would you marry a person with the wrong politics?
« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2006, 07:12:39 PM »

but the "general" is the one taking all the risks. If the canoe building company goes under, he's the one that loses his house. The workers just pack it up and look for another job.

so too does the general and the canoe owner guy- everyone's looking for a job.  my point wasn't that these guys are unimportant- it's that they don't become successful without their employees.  And the general takes risks but rarely sacrifices his own life (in modern warfare, that is)- it's the troops that suffer for that risk-taking.  Once again, that's what I'm arguing against- I don't believe that 90% of the work force should be subject to chance, fate and risk.