4 ms·

His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. Not sure how 'ideolo

His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of.

objektif 6y ago
What he does not point out is exploitation of the working class by the wealthy. However, do not expect to see that in his books. You can always claim that there are too many people looking for work so it is natural that wages are pushed down blah blah. But think for a second does it really have to be that way? Can Bezos afford to pay more to his employees?
wry_discontent 6y ago
"Corruption" is the wrong word, but from a Marxist frame, owners of business (which is what's actually talked about in Marx) profit by collecting more labor (and therefore value) from their workers than they pay them. It's usually called "exploitation" and it's pretty central to Marxist theory. If you work for me for $15/hr and produce value v where $v <= $15, I won't keep you on.
ardy42 6y ago
>> Here's a typical Sowell quote: "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." >> Why did the rich man "earn" it but not the poor man? Why is it "somebody else's" when it's the poor man's money but not when it's the rich man's money? >> The answer is ideology. > His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. No it doesn't. His comment holds true only if you assume the current economic system that created the rich and poor men is right and just. For instance: the rich man is rich typically because he owns the capital (which can be owned at massive scale) and "earns" its profits. The laborers that operate that capital for him are much poorer than he is, because all they "earn" are wages for their time (which cannot scale). Sure a particular rich man theoretically can loose his shirt (but so can laborers, for different reasons), but the general relationship will remain the same between those groups under the current system. It's a deeply ideological assumption that the labor that enables profit is entitled to none of it (as such), and the owner (who may have enabled none of it) is entitled to all of it. Admittedly, it's an ideological assumption so fundamental to current society that it can be as hard to see as a mountain you're standing on. > Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of. I think the point is it's not much of an argument if it's little more than the output of certain ideological assumptions (e.g. assume P therefore P).

objektif 6y ago

What he does not point out is exploitation of the working class by the wealthy. However, do not expect to see that in his books. You can always claim that there are too many people looking for work so it is natural that wages are pushed down blah blah. But think for a second does it really have to be that way? Can Bezos afford to pay more to his employees?

wry_discontent 6y ago

"Corruption" is the wrong word, but from a Marxist frame, owners of business (which is what's actually talked about in Marx) profit by collecting more labor (and therefore value) from their workers than they pay them. It's usually called "exploitation" and it's pretty central to Marxist theory. If you work for me for $15/hr and produce value v where $v <= $15, I won't keep you on.

ardy42 6y ago

>> Here's a typical Sowell quote: "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." >> Why did the rich man "earn" it but not the poor man? Why is it "somebody else's" when it's the poor man's money but not when it's the rich man's money? >> The answer is ideology. > His comment holds true if you don't assume that every single 'rich' person did not 'earn' their wealth, and only gained due to corruption. No it doesn't. His comment holds true only if you assume the current economic system that created the rich and poor men is right and just. For instance: the rich man is rich typically because he owns the capital (which can be owned at massive scale) and "earns" its profits. The laborers that operate that capital for him are much poorer than he is, because all they "earn" are wages for their time (which cannot scale). Sure a particular rich man theoretically can loose his shirt (but so can laborers, for different reasons), but the general relationship will remain the same between those groups under the current system. It's a deeply ideological assumption that the labor that enables profit is entitled to none of it (as such), and the owner (who may have enabled none of it) is entitled to all of it. Admittedly, it's an ideological assumption so fundamental to current society that it can be as hard to see as a mountain you're standing on. > Not sure how 'ideology' is constructing any sort of counter argument to any of Sowell's arguments that I'm aware of. I think the point is it's not much of an argument if it's little more than the output of certain ideological assumptions (e.g. assume P therefore P).