The only force capable of preserving a thing is the force that created it. With this in mind, let's see if we can figure out where wealth comes from.
There are two definitions of wealth, both refer to the personal, but one definition regards an individual and the other in regards to a person in an economy, or a communal definition of wealth. The definition of wealth in regards to the individual relates to property, money, goods and services that individual commands. The other definition is in regards to the access to goods and services a member of a community can afford. For the individual, property is for subsistence and the means of production.
In this secondary definition, wealth is when a free market and its division of labor gives us both constant innovation in goods and services, plus the natural commodification which results in more better cheaper faster production of the most popular introductions. We see this process to some degree when phones were unregulated to a certain degree, and the combination of phones and computers gave us the astonishing computer revolution with the internet. If we had a similar unregulation in medicine we'd see similar advances, and our economy recover. But that is another point made her many times before. Cancer cures, OTC, $29.95.
People may identify themselves in terms of a unit in the sense of individual, a family, or a cooperative of some sort. What property they have may be shared among each group, or combined in some way.
Generally when we think of wealth, our minds drift to Rockefeller, Buffett and Gates, and not to the idea of an individual's access to goods and services. These people certainly have exceptional wealth, since the wealth at their disposal, in terms of money, property, goods and services is in excess of the natural law definition of what you earned by mixing your labor with natural resources, your property no more than the total product of individual labor, or in the case of a family or a coop, of all members.
People might object, isn't Microsoft just a big co-op? No, the legal fiction is a corporation is a person and a co-op is a membership organization. What's the difference?
Let's look at REI, a coop, formed in 1938 by a group of mountain climbers. None of the founders are in management roles. End of year 2011 REI had member equity of $581,000 and 11.6 million members, or roughly equity of about 5 cents a member. People are generally happy with the products, and all members are owners and any customer may become a member. REI has no lobbyists, gets no tax breaks, no subsidies, indeed paid taxes at the personal rate of 35%. Plus it pays out a rebate each year of about 10% to its members. REI members are the single most effective recruiter of members.
REI sells camping equipment that you can take or leave.
Microsoft has quite wealthy owners (in one sense), frustrated customers (start me up - you make a grown man cry...), subsidies, most customers are not owners, (most owners are not customers) tax exemptions, massive lobbying, perpetual lawsuits, and spins off breathtaking individual wealth. For a very few. And for those few, it is well worth preserving. Microsoft pays actors to say "I'm a PC."
Microsoft sells software you are rather obliged to use since the government and big business generally use it.
But people will object, those fellows were simply the most clever, played by the rules, rules we all agree to, and created wealth for many others as well. Capitalism at its best.
Not quite, the rules are set by power brokers, lobbyists, judges, etc, and are much admired by those who benefit by them, which means all those in the commanding heights, and all those whose sense of entitlement assures they too are not only able to ascend such heights, but very much expect to. And then there is too the minions who attend to the status quo, and have no desire to see their portion of the landscape change. Finally, there are those third party rent-seekers who take taxpayer money to enforce agreements between Microsoft and its customers and vendors, and also such items and IPR.
How do corporations create wealth? By conforming to the patterns and practices established in capitalism, the Microsoft players have done very well by the state. Did the owners of Microsoft create their wealth, or did the state? In the particular case of Microsoft, state regulated "IPR," state specification of Microsoft on computers (and the growth of government and Microsoft correlates almost perfectly), and the 1994 Justice Department settlement, in which Microsoft agreed change its marketing practices (and slam the door on anyone else competing the way Microsoft did, or as we say, shutting the barn door after the horses are out) are three ways Microsoft depended on the state for its concentration of wealth. Exceptional wealth is always the result of state intervention in the economy.
So lets compare Microsoft and REI. Microsoft and the exceptional wealth in the sense of the individual, is assured in perpetuity, sustained by the creator of the wealth, the state. And REI, well, wait. There is no exceptional wealth at REI, only the other kind, the communal wealth. The professional managers are paid reasonable market rates, and the equity holders each have a slice worth 5 cents. With shareholder equity that would disgrace a Pink Sheet listing, REI is one of the soundest outfits in USA. To be sound, 75 years old, and 5 cent equity is a tribute to excellent management and the value, or wealth finely matched to member consumption.
With Microsoft, the state created the wealth and the state sustains it. With REI the members created the wealth and the members sustain. it. With Microsoft it is wealth in that sense individual sense. With REI it is wealth is the secondary sense, access to goods and services universally affordable.
At both coops and corporations, management can fire employees. But here is one more profound difference: at PCC and REI, the customers/employees can fire the managers, and do.
If we were to eliminate the state, the wealth of those associated with Microsoft would evaporate given that those who "own" it now simply would not have the perspicacity to work it. It would be "adversely possessed" away. Those whose individual wealth from Microsoft was within their means to mix their own labor, the vast majority, would be able to keep their portion. If we were to eliminate the state today, tomorrow REI would still be selling ice axes to mountain climbers. Microsoft would evaporate for lack of state support. The state is the force which created Microsoft, people are the force that assures REI's continuance. The only force capable of preserving Microsoft is the force of the state.
It is not envy to ask why we pay taxes to support patterns and practices in law to maintian a state that maintains the individual wealth of some individuals. We are not advocating the transfer of wealth, at least not by the state. Only by natural law. Let everyone keep what they have. Just don't make us pay for you to keep it. All we are saying is, is give free a chance. Instead of sitting on exceptional wealth, come out and play. We already know we need no state to enjoy private property commensurate with our abilities and wealth in the communal sense, as in affordable camping equipment at REI and cancer cures, $29.95 over the counter.
The economy we have now has fallen apart, and we see the powers that be and their facade, the state, have many tricks yet to deploy. Repudiating govt union pension liability is rather early in the options available.
It would not hurt our economy anything if the state were to put a 100% wealth tax on what it creates, that is, corporate wealth, and the individuals who derive their wealth from corporations. Let the corporations pay their "employees" ever more, and watch it taxed at the personal rate. Let the stockholders watch management gut the company for paychecks. To whom will they turn in plaint? For all their talent, let them pursue self-employment, like the rest of us.
The Gates family is a heavy supporter of inheritance tax which dispossesses family property directed at subsistence and means of production. Vast resources are directed at strategies aimed at circumventing these laws by small businesses. At the same time, the Gates family and Microsoft has armies of lawyers to assure the the Gates wealth, in the individual sense, is in Foundations that assure the wealth is expendable on Gates whims but untouchable by the State and unavailable for the competitive market.
Sitting on vast individual wealth, we are denied the good of the competition of very talented people. This is the real cost of capitalism, not what Joseph Stiglitz has to say. The state is the force that created such vast individual and exceptional wealth. We are denied the free market and internet-style innovation in such fields as medicine because of the state and the laws and patterns and practices it enforces.
We see in spite of the state what communal wealth would like like in the individual efforts of persons and co-ops. The most revolutionary thing a person can do is start a business.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
There are two definitions of wealth, both refer to the personal, but one definition regards an individual and the other in regards to a person in an economy, or a communal definition of wealth. The definition of wealth in regards to the individual relates to property, money, goods and services that individual commands. The other definition is in regards to the access to goods and services a member of a community can afford. For the individual, property is for subsistence and the means of production.
In this secondary definition, wealth is when a free market and its division of labor gives us both constant innovation in goods and services, plus the natural commodification which results in more better cheaper faster production of the most popular introductions. We see this process to some degree when phones were unregulated to a certain degree, and the combination of phones and computers gave us the astonishing computer revolution with the internet. If we had a similar unregulation in medicine we'd see similar advances, and our economy recover. But that is another point made her many times before. Cancer cures, OTC, $29.95.
People may identify themselves in terms of a unit in the sense of individual, a family, or a cooperative of some sort. What property they have may be shared among each group, or combined in some way.
Generally when we think of wealth, our minds drift to Rockefeller, Buffett and Gates, and not to the idea of an individual's access to goods and services. These people certainly have exceptional wealth, since the wealth at their disposal, in terms of money, property, goods and services is in excess of the natural law definition of what you earned by mixing your labor with natural resources, your property no more than the total product of individual labor, or in the case of a family or a coop, of all members.
People might object, isn't Microsoft just a big co-op? No, the legal fiction is a corporation is a person and a co-op is a membership organization. What's the difference?
Let's look at REI, a coop, formed in 1938 by a group of mountain climbers. None of the founders are in management roles. End of year 2011 REI had member equity of $581,000 and 11.6 million members, or roughly equity of about 5 cents a member. People are generally happy with the products, and all members are owners and any customer may become a member. REI has no lobbyists, gets no tax breaks, no subsidies, indeed paid taxes at the personal rate of 35%. Plus it pays out a rebate each year of about 10% to its members. REI members are the single most effective recruiter of members.
REI sells camping equipment that you can take or leave.
Microsoft has quite wealthy owners (in one sense), frustrated customers (start me up - you make a grown man cry...), subsidies, most customers are not owners, (most owners are not customers) tax exemptions, massive lobbying, perpetual lawsuits, and spins off breathtaking individual wealth. For a very few. And for those few, it is well worth preserving. Microsoft pays actors to say "I'm a PC."
Microsoft sells software you are rather obliged to use since the government and big business generally use it.
But people will object, those fellows were simply the most clever, played by the rules, rules we all agree to, and created wealth for many others as well. Capitalism at its best.
Not quite, the rules are set by power brokers, lobbyists, judges, etc, and are much admired by those who benefit by them, which means all those in the commanding heights, and all those whose sense of entitlement assures they too are not only able to ascend such heights, but very much expect to. And then there is too the minions who attend to the status quo, and have no desire to see their portion of the landscape change. Finally, there are those third party rent-seekers who take taxpayer money to enforce agreements between Microsoft and its customers and vendors, and also such items and IPR.
How do corporations create wealth? By conforming to the patterns and practices established in capitalism, the Microsoft players have done very well by the state. Did the owners of Microsoft create their wealth, or did the state? In the particular case of Microsoft, state regulated "IPR," state specification of Microsoft on computers (and the growth of government and Microsoft correlates almost perfectly), and the 1994 Justice Department settlement, in which Microsoft agreed change its marketing practices (and slam the door on anyone else competing the way Microsoft did, or as we say, shutting the barn door after the horses are out) are three ways Microsoft depended on the state for its concentration of wealth. Exceptional wealth is always the result of state intervention in the economy.
So lets compare Microsoft and REI. Microsoft and the exceptional wealth in the sense of the individual, is assured in perpetuity, sustained by the creator of the wealth, the state. And REI, well, wait. There is no exceptional wealth at REI, only the other kind, the communal wealth. The professional managers are paid reasonable market rates, and the equity holders each have a slice worth 5 cents. With shareholder equity that would disgrace a Pink Sheet listing, REI is one of the soundest outfits in USA. To be sound, 75 years old, and 5 cent equity is a tribute to excellent management and the value, or wealth finely matched to member consumption.
With Microsoft, the state created the wealth and the state sustains it. With REI the members created the wealth and the members sustain. it. With Microsoft it is wealth in that sense individual sense. With REI it is wealth is the secondary sense, access to goods and services universally affordable.
At both coops and corporations, management can fire employees. But here is one more profound difference: at PCC and REI, the customers/employees can fire the managers, and do.
If we were to eliminate the state, the wealth of those associated with Microsoft would evaporate given that those who "own" it now simply would not have the perspicacity to work it. It would be "adversely possessed" away. Those whose individual wealth from Microsoft was within their means to mix their own labor, the vast majority, would be able to keep their portion. If we were to eliminate the state today, tomorrow REI would still be selling ice axes to mountain climbers. Microsoft would evaporate for lack of state support. The state is the force which created Microsoft, people are the force that assures REI's continuance. The only force capable of preserving Microsoft is the force of the state.
It is not envy to ask why we pay taxes to support patterns and practices in law to maintian a state that maintains the individual wealth of some individuals. We are not advocating the transfer of wealth, at least not by the state. Only by natural law. Let everyone keep what they have. Just don't make us pay for you to keep it. All we are saying is, is give free a chance. Instead of sitting on exceptional wealth, come out and play. We already know we need no state to enjoy private property commensurate with our abilities and wealth in the communal sense, as in affordable camping equipment at REI and cancer cures, $29.95 over the counter.
The economy we have now has fallen apart, and we see the powers that be and their facade, the state, have many tricks yet to deploy. Repudiating govt union pension liability is rather early in the options available.
It would not hurt our economy anything if the state were to put a 100% wealth tax on what it creates, that is, corporate wealth, and the individuals who derive their wealth from corporations. Let the corporations pay their "employees" ever more, and watch it taxed at the personal rate. Let the stockholders watch management gut the company for paychecks. To whom will they turn in plaint? For all their talent, let them pursue self-employment, like the rest of us.
The Gates family is a heavy supporter of inheritance tax which dispossesses family property directed at subsistence and means of production. Vast resources are directed at strategies aimed at circumventing these laws by small businesses. At the same time, the Gates family and Microsoft has armies of lawyers to assure the the Gates wealth, in the individual sense, is in Foundations that assure the wealth is expendable on Gates whims but untouchable by the State and unavailable for the competitive market.
Sitting on vast individual wealth, we are denied the good of the competition of very talented people. This is the real cost of capitalism, not what Joseph Stiglitz has to say. The state is the force that created such vast individual and exceptional wealth. We are denied the free market and internet-style innovation in such fields as medicine because of the state and the laws and patterns and practices it enforces.
We see in spite of the state what communal wealth would like like in the individual efforts of persons and co-ops. The most revolutionary thing a person can do is start a business.
0 comments:
Post a Comment