4588686 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The student loan industry is regulated. It's just not well regulated. If it were then Sally Mae wouldn't be able to give Jon Boehner's daughter a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 POWER1Samuel Bowles§ and Herbert GintisA 12 December, 2005 Abstract. We consider the exercise of power in competitive markets for goods, labor and credit. We offer a definition of power that may be exercised when exchanges are not governed by complete contracts, and show that it may be exercised both in Pareto-improving and abusive ways. Contrasting conceptions of power including bargaining power, market power, and consumer sovereignty are considered. Because the exercise of power the terms of exchanges, abstracting from power may miss essential aspects of the workings of an economy. We consider the exercise of power in competitive markets for goods, labor and credit, setting aside the widely recognized exercise of power by governments and other coercive bodies. “An economic transaction is a solved political problem ...†wrote Abba Lerner (1972). “ Economics has gained the title Queen of the Social Sciences by choosing solved political problems as its domain.†Prior to the development of modern contract theory, the standard approach to power among economists was aptly summed up by Paul Samuelson (1957)894: “Remember that in a perfectly competitive market, it really does not matter who hires whom; so have labor hire capital.†As if responding to Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith (1967):47 chided economists for not having asked “why power is associated with some factors [of production] and not with others?†But with some notable exceptions (Zeuthen (1968), Coase (1937), Simon (1951), Hirshleifer (1991), Lundberg and Pollak (1994), Rotemberg (1993), Bardhan (2005), Aghion and Tirole (1997)) economists have treated power as the concern of other disciplines and extraneous to economic explanation. The reason is that Samuelson’s claim is true in the Walrasian model because if contracts are complete, “hiring†simply means “buying.†“What does it mean,†Oliver Hart (1995) asked, “ to put someone ‘in charge’ of an action or decision if all actions can be specified in a contract?†As we will see, this elementary distinction between complete and incomplete contracts also explains why, according to Karl Marx (1967) buying and selling goods on competitive markets appears to be a free exchange among equals (“a very Eden of the innate rights of manâ€), while in the workplace, the two parties to the employment contract take on a different appearance: the employer is boss, “extracting†work from “his laborer.†I can't link PDFs but the article is linked here: http://people.umass.edu/gintis/ Under 'Political Theory' and titled 'Power' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I have already pointed out why this is a bad argument It's not an argument. He presumes the corporation withholds higher wages and benefits it could easily pay from profits. He has to demonstrate those profits are sufficient to do this and if so that they are morally bound to do so. I don't expect a coherent response, however. Just more of the same blather about the rich and profits and its not fair, waaaah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 Profits go to people. Little old ladies receive profits in the form of dividends. Profits are important to everyone. If there are no profits, the business is failing and soon will be out of business. I don't know her situation except that she foolishly stayed in the same low-paying job for 19 years. Unless she liked and wanted that job, of course. It's her choice. But during that time she could have bettered herself and made herself more employable or could have started her own business. Nobody owes anybody any loyalty. The company should be free to fire their employees and the worker should be free to fire his employer and work for someone else. I'll be shopping at Wal-Mart this evening and I am grateful to have access to most things I need, at the best prices most of the time, 24 hours per day. The people who work there have agreed to work there and I have agreed to purchase many things there. We're all exercising our rights to trade. Yet there are "do-gooders" who would strive to restrict our freedoms for the sake of "fairness." i love it when i hear capitalists say just start your own business. the risk for extremely great you will fail when you try to start your own business. more than likely you will fail and lose everything. something that is made a lot more detremential when you have a family to support. statistically to many business's fail and that is not something for a lot of people to chance when they have a family support. also add to the fact that woman are discriminated against in the job market, it means getting money for a start up business is going to be that much harder for her than a man and more likely for her to fail than a man. so the company should be free to fire their employees for any reason?cause they are to old even though they can perform the job? cause they are salary is to much? cause their faith? cause the color of their skin? should an employer be allowed to fire anyone for any reason at all? so now people who don't agree with capitalism are do-gooders who want to restrict freedoms. man your like a broken record. you should run for office. its us or them. there are no other options. once again there are more options than capitalism or socialism. it would help if you understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 havok, could you define what you mean by "capitalism"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 It's not an argument. He presumes the corporation withholds higher wages and benefits it could easily pay from profits. He has to demonstrate those profits are sufficient to do this and if so that they are morally bound to do so. I don't expect a coherent response, however. Just more of the same blather about the rich and profits and its not fair, waaaah. and your delusional if you think Walmart is just barely getting by on its profits. in 2011 walmart made 15.7 billion in profits. man, those poor guys. barely getting by. i mean who can survive on profits of 15.7 billion. oh wait, i forgot to add, that's just their profits in america. that doesn't even take into account their profits out of america. the ceo of walmart received a pay package of 18.1 million dollars in 2011. but again their are just getting by. i mean you can't pay liveable wages or offer health insurance or cut hours to keep them under full time status but hey paying a ceo only 18.1 million is unjust. i mean how dare they consider paying him ever so slightly less so they can not stiff their employees by cutting hours and not paying a liveable wage. how will the ceo ever survive on 10 million dollars a year. oh the humanity. they are morally bound to provide a liveable wage to its employees according to the catholic church. unless you believe capitalism trumps church teaching. although i don't expect you to understand it since capitalism seems to trump all for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 How about everyone gets $100k per year, a free house with a swimming pool, and full retirement pay beginning at age 40? If you think you can wave a magic wand and have high salaries and benefits by decree, why not go big? ok scarecrow. how's the straw feel? life is not capitalism and socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 and your delusional if you think Walmart is just barely getting by on its profits. in 2011 walmart made 15.7 billion in profits. How many people does Wal-Mart employ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 How many people does Wal-Mart employ? i don't know exactly. i would have to look it up. although are you contending walmart is barely getting by on their profits in america and world wide? just wondering where your headed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 i don't know exactly. i would have to look it up. although are you contending walmart is barely getting by on their profits in america and world wide? just wondering where your headed here. I'm just asking. I would think someone opining on Wal-Mart's ability to pay more would know these things. I see no reason to defend Wal-Mart. I'm a libertarian anarchist. Wal-Mart operates in a manner antithetical to my beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC Patriot Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 i love it when i hear capitalists say just start your own business. the risk for extremely great you will fail when you try to start your own business. more than likely you will fail and lose everything. something that is made a lot more detremential when you have a family to support. statistically to many business's fail and that is not something for a lot of people to chance when they have a family support. also add to the fact that woman are discriminated against in the job market, it means getting money for a start up business is going to be that much harder for her than a man and more likely for her to fail than a man. I think it's kinda funny that you say "starting a business is risky, you'll most likely fail," But for the last 10 pages, you've been saying they have no right to the full reward for taking that risk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I think it's kinda funny that you say "starting a business is risky, you'll most likely fail," But for the last 10 pages, you've been saying they have no right to the full reward for taking that risk... Well, one of the main problems with starting a business is overcoming the barriers to entry erected by government at the behest of other businesses. You have to get big in order to receive massive bailouts from the kind, caring, wonderful government that exists to protect social justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 I think it's kinda funny that you say "starting a business is risky, you'll most likely fail," But for the last 10 pages, you've been saying they have no right to the full reward for taking that risk... i never said they don't have the right to a full reward. i said they don't have the right to put profits above people and give people unliveable wages(which the church agrees with) just so their profits can be even bigger. A worker has a right to a liveable wage. its not right for a company to give unliveable wages to employees just for the mere fact they can make even bigger profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 its not right for a company to give unliveable wages to employees just for the mere fact they can make even bigger profits. To clarify my position, I'd like to say that I agree with this, but where I disagree with many people is that any force may be wielded to stop this. I hold that the just wage is that which is agreed upon, provided there is no deception by either party (this is a position held by the Late Scholastics). But Catholics are called to be not merely just, but also compassionate. The answer to paying poorly producing workers beyond their production level (meaning they represent a loss to the business) is for the more productive employees and the employer to voluntarily subsidize their jobs. But realistically, there is a limit to this. Everyone will be worse off if a business runs itself into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 It's not an argument. He presumes the corporation withholds higher wages and benefits it could easily pay from profits. He has to demonstrate those profits are sufficient to do this and if so that they are morally bound to do so. I don't expect a coherent response, however. Just more of the same blather about the rich and profits and its not fair, waaaah. Yes it was. It was an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now