Originally Posted by lewblue83
Karl Marx also once said, "if a person consumes more than they produce, well they are useless and they should be killed" what the hell did Marx produce then? besides a bunch of idiotic ideologies.
I hate that guys way of thinking. it just doesnt work like that in todays society. we wouldnt have all the technology and be as advanced as we are now if we all just traded services with each other.
Am I to believe that you think that it is sustainable that everyone should be able to consume more than they produce?
also what has consumption and innovation got to do with anything?
most of the world greatest innovations for example Jet engines, nuclear power... have come from times of war, and he inventors have seen no benefit what-so-ever as the innovations have been sequestered by governments. -i.e there is still innovation even when there is no reward at all to the innovators... if there was the ability to claim patents and royalties on that frank whittles family, and the guy involved in the Manhattan project would all be very rich right now! -they aren't, do you think that if they'd have known before hand that they wouldn't get very rich that they wouldn't have put in the time and effort to invent these things?
To say that if people could only consume as much as the produce and therefore there would be no innovation completely devalues all the innovations up to date as well!
think about it, a man who produces a spade, does he only produce spades, or does he produce a more efficient way of moving earth than digging with sticks and your hands? does he contribute a bit of metal, (we can calculate the value of a bit of metal simply be weight), or does he contribute a tool for a better way of doing thing?
his innovation and production may only be a flat piece of metal, but the worth of his innovation/production is great.
the idea that you should only consume the worth of what you produce doesn't mean that I didn't grow any carrots this year therefore I can't have any carrots this year.
it means that I didn't grow any carrots this year, and the reason that I wasn't able to be self sufficient in food is that I was doing other things that were useful. for example, I was fixing computers thus enabling people to complete their education and contribute to the world, (for one of our customers that's a college), I was fixing computers enabling people to find other people employment so that they could contribute to the world (another one of our customers is a recruitment agency, I was fixing computers enabling people to invest money in financial markets and help assets grow to provide for people when they've finished working (another one of our customers is a pensions management company).
Therefore I have contributed? albeit not directly? or does my work not qualify? have I not produced?
I think I have, even if my output was only to enable other people to produce in more efficient ways.
As far as I can see i'm still entitled to be able to eat carrots, just rather than going to a carrot farmer and bartering a pound of potatoes for a pound of carrots, I take a selection of money that I've been awarded based on my contribution and exchange that for goods and services that is decided by a market place based on their contribution, (their being the people selling things, be that carrots or other services).
Marx never qualified how people should produce. our society can fit in with the ideals of his philosophy without completely changing around the way that things work.
you have a completely different welfare system in the US, but consider this:
that's a family, (who lives in the same place as one of our members -don't know if the member knows them or not).
The mother of the (large) family has not contributed at all the society.
the father of the family, (note I do not say 'man' of the house) decided to give up work as he figured he could have a better life living on the welfare system than he could by paying his own way...
that's the kind of person that Marx was talking about, and in the end he's right, if all of society thought that they could just get by on a welfare system and didn't bother to work then there wouldn't be any money in a welfare system.
in our society we contribute by having a job. if we have no job, and make no contribution to society.
indeed if a persons only contribution to society is to add extra burden by only taking from the system and never contributing, then Marx was right, society would be better off without those people.
(note that I'm not talking about people using a welfare safety net as a safety net, i.e people that loose their jobs and need state benefits to live day to day whilst looking for another job and another way to contribute to society, I'm talking about people who make a concious decision that they should not work, or don't want to work, that they should not contribute and that they can live comfortably only ever taking from society/others).