A Simple Question about the Current US Economy

Author: Math_Enthusiast
Politics
Society
Economics

Posts

Total: 160
Topic's author
#61
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@Savant
The ECP doesn't really apply here since as I have clarified a couple of times now, I am not proposing a centrally planned economy. These professional investors would be paid a salary set by their employers, just like the rest of us. Also, if the fact that the government happens to be the specific entity employing them is enough for the ECP to come into play, (it's definitely not) why shouldn't we get rid of the government jobs that already exist on the same grounds?
Topic's author
#62
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
I would like to emphasize this point that I made to cristo71:

I'm glad I chose professors as my example. After all, many of the best professors and teachers more generally put lots of unnecessary unpaid hours into what they do. The fact is that if fixed salaries didn't sufficiently motivate people, if anyone who wasn't being offered billions of dollars wouldn't put enough effort into their jobs for the surrounding industries to survive, and if education and application processes weren't at least a decently effective way to sort for the most competent individuals, our economy would have permanently collapsed a very long time ago.

#63
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,606
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The ECP doesn't really apply here since as I have clarified a couple of times now, I am not proposing a centrally planned economy. These professional investors would be paid a salary set by their employers, just like the rest of us.
The ECP is an issue whenever a central entity is the only one setting the price.

if the fact that the government happens to be the specific entity employing them is enough for the ECP to come into play, (it's definitely not) why shouldn't we get rid of the government jobs that already exist on the same grounds?
No, because in those cases, the government is competing on an open market.
#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
And the stockholders scrambled to get Musk paid the following year in a way the Judge could not stop.

So sick of people in power like that government judge refusing to allow others the choice of what to spend their money on.

Employees can and will never be investors of their own work, because by definition, that would make them self-employed, which would mean they could pay themselves whatever they wanted to. Somebody has to be responsible for the risks.
#65
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,210
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
So sick of people in power like that government judge refusing to allow others the choice of what to spend their money on.
Some people have no money to spend, so government should take a bit from those who have too much and give to those who have none.

#66
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
The government judge didn't steal from the stockholders, he just refused to allow them to spend money.
#67
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
GP nothing in your posts is in any way substantive. It's very obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about and are repeating dopey soundbites. Do you ever for a  second stop and think yeah, Elon Musk is earning more per minute than the average household earns in years, that seems a little wild? Is it not ever a level of extreme that cuts right through all your nonsense? It is so extreme. Like, no doubts ever? Again, just curious. 
#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
How would you replace Musk?
#69
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,210
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The government judge didn't steal from the stockholders, he just refused to allow them to spend money.
Well, I too would probably insist that rich people stop being so greedy. You dont need to have a private plane. The workforce and materials used for making private plane are better used to help the common people. The resources and production are limited. The more you produce for the rich, the less ordinary people have. I am not saying that rich people shouldnt be able to enjoy their money. I am just saying they should be cool about it and not spend too much on private planes, big houses and whatever. Rich people can use all their money to buy all the food for themselves and cause mass food shortages, but they clearly shouldnt be allowed to do that. Same applies with houses, building materials, cars, smartphones... like, leave enough for ordinary people. You cant be greedy. If you want to help society, then invest in buisnesses. If you want more money, invest in gold. But you cant have private planes and huge houses, because you are then making houses more expensive for everyone else. You need to consider wishes of others. Many rich people were born rich, and when you are born rich, its very easy to stay rich. When you are born poor, the rate of success decreases. Thus, we need a society which works for everyone, not just the rich, and the rich must not get too much cake, because the cake is limited, and if they take too much, then there is less for everyone else.
#70
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The Math guy has given a number of very sensible alternatives. Personally, I like Bernie's idea. Give workers a seat at the board. There's a little bit of anarcho-syndicalism in that or something. But Musk didn't exist 30 years ago. He exists now because CEO's have leveraged their position at the table in order to grab more wealth for themselves. We had geniuses and innovators  and progress long before him without the absurd wealth inequality. The fact of the matter is that capitalism is a runaway train.

You never answered my question. Does this obvious extreme of Elon Musk earning more in a minute than the average household does in years never give you pause?
#71
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, I too would probably insist that rich people stop being so greedy.
Doesn't greedy mean hoarding money? The Investors wanted to spend the money, and the government judge said "nah, you can't give away your money"


#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
Personally, I like Bernie's idea. Give workers a seat at the board.

Workers can already do that. They just need to go get a loan and buy out the people that employ them. Then they can be rich too.
#73
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 388
Posts: 12,210
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Doesn't greedy mean hoarding money?
Mass hoarding of resources is worse greed than hoarding money.

The Investors wanted to spend the money, and the government judge said "nah, you can't give away your money"
If they wanted to spend money to hoard resources for themselves, then the judge was right.
#74
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Still talking rubbish. I'm asking a very easy question. The economy is not a simple thing, we can leave that aside for now. I want an answer to the easy question.
#75
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
It's not rubbish. There's a real reason why the workers collectively refuse to commit to a 30 year loan to buy out their employers.

To your question, I already demonstrated that Musk is underpaid due to the fact people willingly traded less money for his goods and services than what it was worth to them.
#76
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
The judge knows nothing. It was an abuse of power that the investors had to work around.
#77
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Still sidestepping the question. Very telling I must say.
#78
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
What if a judge says "nah, you can't spend your money on the internet, because that would make the internet companies rich"

How about groceries? How about anything?

I bet you would tell the government power judge to fuck off. It's your money, you should own it.
#79
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
What about my answer did you not like?
#80
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
The part where you keep on talking rubbish instead of answering my simple question. We both know it's rubbish, hence the sidestepping.
Hey it's a tough gig to advocate for something so obviously ridiculous on its face. You just keep on saying the word risk to yourself over and over. 
#81
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
I get it, you think he is overpaid, I think he is underpaid.
#82
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Underpaid earning more per minute than the average American household does in years. Think is a soft word in justification of something like that. Never gives you pause?
#83
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
No, I am not foolish enough to think I could Monday morning quarterback what people do in the moment to achieve greatness. I know my limits.
#84
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
You obviously do not know your limits. You're very shy of them here at least.
#85
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
Being cocksure about knowing what a smarter person is worth must have some payoff for you.

I bet you laughed your ass off when Piggy was killed in the book/film Lord of the Flies. Primal jealousy is my guess.
#86
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Not sure about anything. Will readily admit it.

Underpaid earning more per minute than the average American household does in years. Think is a soft word in justification of something like that. Never gives you pause?

No, I am not foolish enough to think I could Monday morning quarterback what people do in the moment to achieve greatness. I know my limits.


I think you look like a total dumbass here though. 
#87
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
Same, I think your "Hurr Durr, man makes stuff, man gets money for stuff, man evil" is a retarded and hypocritical tree to die on.
Topic's author
#88
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@Savant
I concede my attempt to compare professional investors to preexisting government jobs. Even so, I still don't believe that the ECP would be a problem here for one simple reason: The government wouldn't be trying to "calculate the value" of anything here. Like any other organization, they would simply be trying to find the lowest price for which they could still get high quality work. Like other organizations, pay would probably vary. Elon Musk would still be making a lot of money, but not nearly as much as he currently does. It's also important to note that we already know the value of what Musk does, and it probably is at least somewhat in range of what he actually makes. As I've said before, I'm not trying to pay people the "value" of their work. We know how well that turns out. I'm trying to pay people enough for them to still be productive while not giving one single person 1.61% of the US GDP. Maybe even a high six figure salary underestimates the ideal pay for top professional investors, but even something in the tens of millions would be a lot more reasonable than the situation we have right now.
#89
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,013
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I'm trying to pay people enough for them to still be productive while not giving one single person 1.61% of the US GDP.

You must be familiar with a normal distribution curve.

How would you flatten that curve? Mandatory eugenics so people have the same ability and same ambition and same autism and other disorders that put people like Musk at the extreme ends? Or worse, eliminate the extremes through genocide like Cambodia did with their Marxist killing fields pogram?

That would be the end of civilized society as we know it. And likely be the end of our evolution as a species (which will start us down the road to natural extinction)
Wealth equality enthusiasts really have not thought this out to the horrid conclusion.

As a math enthusiast, you should not see large numbers and think "I can't imagine such a large number"

That is what math is for, to explain why those large numbers exist, despite what you feel. 
Topic's author
#90
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 239
1
2
8
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
1
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
You must be familiar with a normal distribution curve.

How would you flatten that curve? Mandatory eugenics so people have the same ability and same ambition and same autism and other disorders that put people like Musk at the extreme ends? Or worse, eliminate the extremes through genocide like Cambodia did with their Marxist killing fields pogram?
I would propose that we don't.

As a math enthusiast, you should not see large numbers and think "I can't imagine such a large number"
I don't. This is actually remarkably ironic as I was just thinking of making a post describing the scale of numbers in the hundreds of billions, something which I feel pretty comfortable with, but is often misconceived by others as smaller than it actually is.

That is what math is for, to explain why those large numbers exist, despite what you feel. 
Is this actually what you think mathematicians do? Believe it or not, one does not walk into an advanced math class to see "1,000,000,000,000,000" written on the board, followed by the professor saying "Alright, today we will be explaining why this number–even larger than our number from yesterday–exists." I must say, it's really funny to imagine math journals filled with articles titled "On the Number 1,000,000,000,000,000,000", "On the Number 2,000,000,000,000,000,000", and "On the Number 3,000,000,000,000,000,000".