Those are terrible economics and a pathetic microcosm of the United States. Wealth is created from the production of goods, not from consumers destroying goods. The act of selling his goods to consumers doesn't make him wealthy, the act of producing the desirable goods makes him wealthy.

If the businessman arbitrarily sets the wages he pays too low, then he will see that all of his best workers are relocating to work for a competitive business that is offering better wages and he will soon find himself raising wages just to keep his business functioning.

As for the government confiscating one apple to redistribute, you forget that 1/4 of an apple will be wasted in the collection of the tax, 1/4 of the apple will be wasted deciding how to best distribute the remaining apple, and 1/4 of an apple will be wasted actually distributing the welfare, leaving 1/4 of an apple for the people to consume. And in the meantime the government inflated the apple supply 10% by printing apples, further devaluing the apple's value.

As far as jobs going overseas, this is inevitable when there is over-regulation and taxation of business. American cars cost something like $8,000 to produce before a worker even works the first piece of steel. Despite popular myths, the United States has a very heavily regulated "free" economy. Our businesses pay one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, are forced to provide costly benefits, to seek licensing for everything they do, and to practice absurdly detailed and costly accounting of their business operations.

It is the industrialists creed to make the best quality goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, and to pay the highest wages possible.

A rich man earns 3 apples a week by selling his products to consumers.

The rich man keeps 2 3/4 apples to himself leaving 1/4 of an apple for all his workers. The government gets none.

The people who don't get any apples for whatever reason get really pissed off and start to cause trouble. The government doesn't have enough apples to pay for enough police or good enough schools to teach the people with no apples how to earn enough apples.

The people start to riot because they don't have enough apples or the means to produce enough apples.

The orchard gets burnt down in the riot.

So far off the track, I don't even know where to begin to correct the misconceptions represented in this revisionist look at the same parable told by Draginol.

I guess I might start with this:

If only the man had been willing to give up... {control to} the government

Because that is what you are asking for, give up control to the government, and abdicate all responsibility to the government, which would be a complete mistake and would result in the government that you would absolutely deserve.

Giving up productivity to the government is almost always a mistake.  Giving the government more control is a mistake.  And giving the government more responsibility is definitely a mistake.  Government services are typically far less efficient than private industry can provide.  Government health insurance/coverage results in more bureaucracy, longer waits for service, and so many regulatory hassles that many doctors leave that business and move into other things instead.

This has to be just about one of the dumbest things I have read on this site.

Lee

After the government took to many apples from
the business the owner quit because it isn't
worth the trouble.
Now where do you get the apples whether you are the
government or the out of work customer.

The government doesn't have enough apples to pay for enough police or good enough schools to teach the people with no apples how to earn enough apples.

Yay! Good!

Question to ya'...

Why should the government pay for the police or the schools?


WHY should the government have a right to demand our apples? It is there for us, not vice versa.

Why does the government need to "help" everyone? Sometimes I think liberals want a paycheck from the government for not doing anything.

So the government can sometimes pay for things like the development of internet. So that you can freely express your opinion.

A rich man earns 3 apples a week by selling his products to consumers.

Very good.

The rich man demands that he keeps all 3 apples for himself and pays what he arbitrarily decides to pay his workers.

And his workers decide to work for a man who doesn't pay them what they are worth? What happens if they decide to work for different rich guy?

But too many of his potential customers can no longer pay for his product because their jobs have been moved overseas and the infrastructure is falling apart.

Seems like none of his potential customers paid any taxes. Did they all expect him to pay for the infrastructure everybody needs?

Soon, the rich man is only earning 2 apples and then 1 apple and then no apples.

That is bad.

If only the rich man had been willing to give up one of his apples so that the government could provide the services and help to others to ensure people could buy the rich man's products.

That way people in the third world could continue to starve?

Why should the government pay for the police [...]?

That's a stupid question.

The police, as the name implies, is supposed to enforce government policy (i.e. the law). Hence it must be paid for by government. Perhaps what you mean is why do we have a police force? The reason for that is that a police force is a natural part of a government monopoly on the use of force. Why does government have such a monopoly? The government has that monopoly because if it didn't the result would be warring factions that all try to enforce their own laws (i.e. anarchy).

Incidentally, if such warring factions existed, they would all attempt to become the only warring force in the country/region, simply because each of them will think it is right. The result will be, eventually, a single government that claims a monopoly on the use of force. If we are lucky, that government will then become democratic.

WHY should the government have a right to demand our apples? It is there for us, not vice versa.

The government has that right because the social compact says it does. If you disagree with the social compact you should either not immigrate or, if you were born into the compact, leave the area where it applies immediately.

Why should the government pay for the police or the schools?

Hence it must be paid for by government.

Schools and Police are usually paid for, at least in part, by property taxes.  A town can not have police (I live in one- we just get patrolled by the county now and then) which also leads to poor 911 service. 

Schools can be the same way- they depend on millages.  Don't vote in a millage if you don't want to pay more.

But, if you want well educated kids and dependable 911, you might want to pay more

But, remember, the ones with the most land, and the businesses, pay the most.  So, the business man and the "rich" are still paying more than the "common" person.

Now, to the original post.  Let me ask you this- how does the the rich man keep all his apples?  Is this in a country that doesn't exist? 

The government wouldn't have to fund anything if everyone was employed and making a fair wage.  In Draginol's example, he is not able to employ as many people since the government is taking that money.  Therefore, the business doesn't grow so that it can employ more and somebody doesn't get a job from the start because of taxes.  I think there is a great misunderstanding of how much a COMPANY pays in taxes a year.  We could employ several well paid employees for what the government taxes us for.  Those people could have good jobs, good pay and good benefits.  Instead, the government takes the money and spends it on crap programs.  Doesn't help the company, doesn't help the unemployment rate.  Doesn't really help anyone at all.

Let's put some numbers to this to show a point:
Say a company grosses $10 million
Say out of that, they only net/and or get taxed on $2 million of that
The government takes at least 33% - that is $660,000!
How many employees could you hire with that and provide full benefits?
Is taxing the company really helping?  Or, would the country be better off having more people employed?

Of course, if you are a socialist, I guess it would make sense to just keep raising taxes on the people who are working hard and trying to get further ahead.  Heck, why should somebody who works 60+ hours a week have more money than those who work 40 or less?  Why should those who works their butts off to better themselves and their company make more than those who work the least amount of time and do the least?

After looking at the time stamps on yours and Draginol's articles, I realized why this is so bad. You should have put more than five minutes of thought into this.

An economics lesson even a Republican can understand
by Calor on Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:27:59 PM in Politics

An economics lesson even a Democrat can understand
by Draginol on Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:22:01 PM in Politics

In a free market economy, nothing it decided arbitrarily. If there was only 1 rich man, and 2 workers, the economy would collapse. But there are lots of places to work, and lots of workers. So in order to attract employees, you can't arbitrarily set a wage - you have to set a wage that will attract an employee!

In a free market economy, nothing it decided arbitrarily.

Well, actually, he was right about that.

Given the attitude the original author displayed, I can imagine that it would be possible to set an arbitrary wage for people like him, and they would accept it and complain to the government about being underpaid.

I am not being sarcastic here, actually. Point is that wages are prices, and prices go up and down with supply and demand. If you want a higher price for your goods (or higher wages for your work), you have to decrease supply and be willing to sell less and hope that your competitors are as cooperative with you as you are with them.

But people like the original author, who see no need to refuse wages too low, increase the supply of labour and hence lower the wages for all workers. That's why unions were formed to organise workers and form a trust that will keep prices (wages) high.

Of course, evil capitalists might demand that anti-trust laws be created to protect them from the trusts. Or such laws would have specific exceptions for unions to represent the fact that we have all equal rights, just the unions have more.

Does the author even understand how capitalism works?  Or are they all just greedy rich people trying to hoard money under a mattress?

The correct quote is: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise"

Not that ignorance is bliss.