Brother Saye's Official Site

Saye:  If you make $10 an hour, working 10 hour shifts daily, why should you not make a profit when the corporation has a successful quarter, due to your labor? At the end of the year, if the corporation makes millions in profits, why should you have to continue to earn $10 an hour, or have a yearly review in which you only receive a 5 or 10 cent raise? That is exploitation of one’s labor, and pretty much free labor. Your labor creates wealth for the already wealthy, and you do not get to enjoy the wealth that your labor has created…that is complete foolishness and highway robbery. They also determine what “your” labor is worth, and they control if you work, or make money as an entrepreneur, through monopolies and the banking system.

They will send jobs overseas for cheaper labor, if you decide to join ranks (unite with other workers) and demand fair paying wages and reasonable work demands. And then they (the elite) will find a spokesman to speak against those who are demanding fair treatment, by using terms that describe the opposition as Marxist, or just plain un-American (not a “True American”). This is a divisive way to relate to the ignorant and uneducated, while promoting their cause and agenda of exploitation, in disguise of freedom and justice. Capitalism has no monopoly on freedom, since we all know that people of color were oppressed during America’s rise under capitalism. The mere fact that we conclude that socialism takes away freedoms and capitalism gains freedom is a false and misleading observation.

Peter Gray:  You do make a profit! Your share of the profit is the wages you received that you agreed to work for. If a corporation continually loses money, at some point in time, there would not be any profit to even pay your wages.

Many corporations do also have profit sharing plans that will pay bonuses when the corporation has a great quarter. If they are more profitable, they are also more likely to increase wages, to keep a happier and loyal workforce. It is in the corporation’s financial interest not to have to incur the expense of having to retrain workers constantly.  If the corporation loses money at the end of the year, do you have to give back some of those wages paid to you? Why not? If one expects to receive a greater share of the profits if a corporation makes greater profits, (which usually does happen through wage increases) why should one not receive a lesser share (a retroactive pay cut) if the corporation loses money? A corporation can lose money as well as making money.  The corporation does not have “a successful quarter” ONLY because of your labor.  A corporation must utilize various factors of production to make a profit. Labor is just one component. The most important factor of production is capital. As a worker, you do not risk the loss of your capital, the shareholders do. Why should a worker get an equal share of the profits without owning and risking any of the capital that is required to create the production? If you want an equal share of the profit, then own an equal share of the capital, and put that equal share of capital to the same risk as the shareholders do.  A corporation has to invest in machinery and equipment, buy or rent buildings, pay licensing fees, business taxes, property taxes, insurance, and pay for the costs of electricity and other utilities, plus a whole lot of other expenses. All of this is paid for with capital investment, and there is no guarantee that a profit will be made for this risk taken.  A corporation actually gives the laborer an income well in advance of the revenue from the goods they produce. Labor can only be paid in advance in relation to the estimated present value of any foreseeable output. It is possible that the value of the output will be less than the estimated value at the time of production. This is a further risk that the corporation takes.  “That is exploitation of one’s labor.”  This view is reflective of the “labor theory of value”. The “labor theory of value” is that the value of a good or service is directly proportional to the input of labor that is utilized to create that good or service.  This view has long been refuted in the discipline of economics. If it were true that labor was the measure of value in production, then if one spends 10 hours digging a hole and filling it back up again then this should have the same value to society as one spending 10 hours digging a hole and retrieving the gold ore that is buried in that hole. Labor that is utilized in creating production that the mass of consumers do not want to consume is not valued as highly as labor that is utilized for production that consumers do want to consume.

“They also determine what “your” labor is worth,”

Labor is the same as any other price in the economy. In a free market, it is determined by supply and demand. If it was true, that “they” determine what your labor is worth, then why do “they” not pay $1 per hour or nothing at all? After all, they “determine what your labor is worth”.  You speak of “fair paying wages” and “fair treatment”. How is this determined? What is “fair”? In a free market, there is a market for labor. If corporation A pays less for the same labor requirement than corporation B, then all else being equal, labor will move to corporation B. The only way this would not be true would be if all corporations colluded in a giant conspiracy to pay the same lower wages, and if this was true, then all wages for labor would be at the legally mandated lowest level, which is obviously not the case.  There is nothing wrong with deciding to “join ranks (unite with other workers)” but labor should not have the right to force others to purchase only their labor, at the price they want to be paid. Are you suggesting that an individual has to buy gas at the station that is charging $4 per gallon, instead of the one charging $3.50 a gallon? Why should it be any different for labor?  You speak of the “elite”. Most of the overall employment is created by small business. Are the owners of small businesses part of the “elite”?  As for “socialism taking away freedom”, this is true in the sense that for socialism to achieve its desired “economic” ends or results, it only can create these economic ends or results through the political power of enforced and mandated centralized decision making. For if the desired economic results or ends were the actual choices of free individuals, there would not be a need for socialism to intervene and attempt to create the economic ends or results.

Saye:  Let’s be serious here.  If you make $15 hr at your corporate job, what happens when revenue increases in the millions? You get a ten-cent raise, or some times, you get no raise at all. But when revenue falls, you are fired, or others are fired, then they expect you to do just as much work for the same pay as before, or sometimes, even take a pay cut. I embrace the socialist concept that rewards workers as a collective group, for production and revenue success.  If the corporation makes a 1 million profit, the workers pay should move up from $15 hr to at least $20 hr. After taxes, it'll be a 2 or 3 dollar raise.  My idea of an ideal working condition is this. 500 people live in a community.  Many have different strengths and weaknesses. For the longevity of the community, they decide to work WITH one another, to improve their conditions. They are expected to use their talents, and they will all combine their resources, so that all of them can improve their conditions. The harder they work as a unit, the more each individual makes. Yes, they are mostly making the same, (spreading, or balancing the wealth) but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority. Hard work in this socialist economy means, more production for the group. More production for the group means, more wealth for each individual in the group, and the community. 

In all seriousness, I understand that it would never work if every single person played the role of a king, within society. Here is the problem with the capitalism you are promoting.  Self-pride and self worth can come as a result from working hard, but economic empowerment has little to do with working hard. The mother who works as a bus driver, and a cashier at the local grocery store, works hard, and is dedicated to her employers, but she struggles to pay her bills. She may be a great driver, and awesome at dealing with customer service issues, but she may never be as great of a doctor, or engineer, even if she attends school for it, and receives a degree. The engineer, or doctor with a degree may fail, if they are put in a situation where they have to manage driving a bus. No matter how long they train for handling customer service, their results and outcome may never be the same as the mother, because her instincts for the job just comes natural to her. The personality of the individual may determine how complex certain jobs are to them. No matter how one studies the position of the professional athlete, he or she may never excel at the job, which would have nothing to do with their lack of hard work. In life, there will always be people able to do some things better than you, just like you will be able to do some things better than others. The objective should be to find out what you are best at, and to try to train, and expand your skills in that particular field. If you excel in physical labor, and you find more comfort in digging ditches, or moving heavy boxes, than in sitting near a desk, at a cubicle making spreadsheets, and talking on the phone, why should you be penalized? Everyone cannot handle physical labor and perform at a high rate, while others find it more difficult to concentrate while sitting in one place for a long period of time. If both individuals spend hours of their lives to fulfill the job requirements of each job, why should one make greater wages then the other, or one struggle to make ends meet, while the other does not? The idea is that individuals work together, in a process, to accomplish a goal, and every contributor is needed, or the operation does not flourish. For efficiency, you find out which person is best at which duty, or responsibility, and you assign duties to individuals based on their strengths. Only in a backwards society do you reward the decision makers more than the individuals who actually do the work on the ground. Good decision-making, and hard and smart labor, unfolds well when combined. One is no more important than the other. Compensation, and currency wages, creates the divides, and adds the false sense of superiority, and importance, among individuals. It creates the, “I’m better then you”, complex.  Have you ever heard of the term monopolies, and crony capitalism?

Peter Gray:  “I embrace the socialist concept that rewards workers as a collective group for production and revenue success.”  Does this mean that the workers as a collective group all have equal shares in the capital invested in the production enterprise? Do they all pay the same costs and take the same risk if the enterprise fails? If so, then yes they all should get an equal share of the profits.  Capital is required to create and operate a business. The creation of capital requires saving. If an individual does not consume all of his/her income, he or she saves. This saving is known as capital. The reason why the “real” average standard of living is greater today than 100 years ago is a result of this capital formation (saving). For if all the production is consumed and none is saved, there cannot be the capital formed to invest in more efficient means of production. It is more efficient means of production (creating more output with the same or less input per capita) that lowers the real price of production and because of this the aggregate average “real” wage rate increases. If we increase the total production with the same population, we get a higher production per person, and the aggregate average “real” standard of living increases.  Savers sacrifice and are rewarded for this sacrifice, and the society as a whole is also rewarded with greater production and a higher average real standard of living. What is so objectionable about this? As I see it, you want some people to not share in the costs and risks but get equal rewards to those that do. Why should someone who did not sacrifice and save, get to have an equal share of the returns on the capital risked in a business venture? Why is this fair?   “My idea of an ideal working condition is this. 500 people live in a community. Many have different strengths and weaknesses. For the longevity of the community, they decide to work WITH one another to improve their conditions.”

“The harder they work as a unit” Hard work in this socialist economy means, more production for the group.”  There are a number of problems with this scenario. We do not live in an ideal community of 500 people; we live in a world with billions of people. The question of WHAT to produce and HOW much of it, apparently would have to be decided by a central decision making apparatus. How can this centralized decision making apparatus, answer these above questions? Who decides what to work hard at? How does the central decision making apparatus know that what is being produced is being produced efficiently or not, or how much value the individuals who make up the community have for THIS production over THAT production, or that more of THIS should be produced than THAT?

For production efforts to be centrally planned and directed requires the “community” to choose what it values, more of THIS production, or more of THAT production. However, to speak of the “community” valuing this or that is erroneous. Value is subjective, only individuals value goods and services, and they value goods and services differently. That is why trade exists. You value your orange less than my apple. I value your orange more than my apple. We trade one orange for one apple. Does the “community” value one orange more than one apple or one apple more than one orange?  Here is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote, “Unpredictable changes in consumer preferences and the supply and demand of the economic factors of production, is not something that can be mathematically, deduced, calculated and computed. Unforeseen technological breakthroughs, political upheavals, and natural events (i.e. earthquakes, hurricanes) can change all the variables, including the demand and supply for oil, wheat, rice, steel, gold, bonds, etc. The necessary economic information or data is so dynamic, dispersed, complex, voluminous, and mostly un-ascertainable that there is no way for central planners to know beforehand to calculate what the ‘best’ economic use of the factors of production is. Therefore, there is no point in having a ‘ central plan’ or ‘directive’ to attempt this, or that end. It is an exercise in futility!

The price system, and profits and losses in a free market, allocates economic effort to produce what the consumers desire most. The price system conveys information that is not possible for a single mind or a small number of minds to acquire. It is simply impossible for central planners to know all of this information and superfluous to attempt to guide and micro-manage production when the price system does it anyways, much more efficiently and effectively than central planning could ever do!   “Self-pride and self worth can come as a result from working hard, but economic empowerment has little to do with working hard.”

“If you excel in physical labor, and you find more comfort in digging ditches or moving heavy boxes than in sitting near a desk, at a cubicle making spreadsheets and talking on the phone, why should you be penalized?  “If both individuals spend hours in their lives to fulfill the job requirements of each job, why should one make greater wages then the other, or one struggle to make ends meet while the other does not.” An ounce of gold is valued more than an ounce of copper. Is it unfair that gold is valued more than copper? Quite simply, there is less gold than copper! As with gold and copper, the supply and demand for labor determines the price of labor (wages).

One is not “penalized” by the market. One’s reward is based on the value one creates for others. The value preferences and free choices of individuals, determine what one’s work is worth. The aggregate of individuals in society value the services of doctors more than the services of school bus drivers. If there were as many doctors as school bus drivers, then their wages might be similar. The professional athlete’s work is valued to a greater degree to more individuals in society, than the school bus driver, and this greater value is displayed by the fact that individuals are willing to pay such high wages to them (through tickets sales and endorsements etc.).

Hard work is essentially irrelevant. What matters is the value the production has to the consumers who make up society. If one spends one’s day working very hard at sewing clothes or spends one’s day performing life saving operations what has more value to the individuals that make up society?  The value preferences of individuals (the consumers) who make up society, determine that some goods and services are valued more than other goods and services. The consumers prefer more of THESE goods and services, than THOSE goods and services As a result of these individual preferences the price of the more preferred goods and services are bid up higher than the price of the lesser valued goods and services. The bid up higher price encourages more production of these goods and services, and results in the lowering of the price of these goods and services, therefore satisfying more consumers’ preferences to consume these good and services. This is how the free market works (short of government-imposed interference). Is it not worthy to satisfy the majority of consumers with what they as individuals choose to consume?  “but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority.”

You frequently speak of “exploitation”. This concept of exploitation is an offshoot of the Marxist philosophy and the untenable concept of “surplus value”. Marx’s idea of surplus value comes from the fact that we use the medium of exchange “money” (the price system). If we lived in a world, where only barter existed (apples for oranges etc.) there would be no concept of surplus value.  If I trade some of my onions for some of your potatoes, am I exploiting you, or are you exploiting me? I sell my neighbor a watch that I own and I happily receive $100 for it. Then later my neighbor takes the same watch and sells it to Mr. X and Mr. X happily pays $150 for it. Would Marxist economic theory say have I been exploited? If not, why not?  I work for my neighbor and receive $100 for my labor in making a watch, and then my neighbor sells the finished watch for $150 making a $50 dollar profit. According to Marxist economic theory the $50 profit that my neighbor received by selling the watch I worked on, is “surplus value” and I have been “exploited”. Why is it surplus value in one case and not the other? The theory of surplus value is quite simply not logically sound, and I might add that a good deal of your argument rests upon this erroneous concept.

Saye:  Let me make sure the readers understand what has taken place thus far.  I asked you if you had ever heard of the terms monopoly, and crony capitalism, and you did not provide me, or the readers, with a response.  I asked, “why should you not make a profit when the corporation has a successful quarter, due to your labor?”  You responded, “The Corporation does not have a successful quarter, ONLY because of your labor.”  I asked, “If you excel in physical labor, and you find more comfort in digging ditches or moving heavy boxes, than in sitting near a desk, at a cubicle making spreadsheets, and talking on the phone, why should you be penalized?”  Your response was, “The professional athlete’s work is valued to a greater degree to more individuals in society, than the school bus driver, and this greater value is displayed by the fact that individuals are willing to pay such high wages to them (through tickets sales and endorsements etc.).

Hard work is essentially irrelevant. What matters is the value the production has to the consumers who make up society.”  All your responses explain how the capitalist system works.  None of them give solutions to the problems, which I have presented in my arguments.  Yes, we all already know that more people in society have a higher demand for corporate ran commodities, like professional sports, and that they are not willing to economically invest in the educators, and the education of their children.  This sad fact that you have pointed out is the very reason that some forms of socialism in society are very needed, and why many forms of capitalism, have been very damaging to society.  The fact that corporate driven sports leagues are more valuable to citizens in a capitalist driven economy, than the value of investing in good educators for our children, explains the heart of the problems I have with capitalism.  Greed, materialism, and limited form of critical thinking, is what it all boils down to.  If you read my article, “We need more balance” I clearly explain the implementations of socialism, I would like to see in our current capitalists economic system, and I explain how the dynamic of wages should be reevaluated.  Your entire argument, thus far, has been to use the old term and definitions that are always used to explain the current form of a failed capitalist system.  For example, I said, “My idea of an ideal working condition is this. 500 people live in a community.”  Instead of evaluating the substance and ideals of the sample working conditions, which I presented, your immediate response was to attack with a statement “We do not live in an ideal community of 500 people; we live in a world with billions of people.”  The fact that we live in a world of billions, has nothing to do with rather or not my ideals were morally just, or impractical.  In the world of billions, many do not live in a capitalist society.  You did however ask one question that I think the readers deserve for me to answer.  You asked,

“Does this mean that the workers as a collective group all have equal shares in the capital invested in the production enterprise? Do they all pay the same costs and take the same risk if the enterprise fails? If so, then yes they all should get an equal share of the profits.”  If you noticed, when I explained my ideal working conditions, I noted: Yes, they are mostly making the same, (spreading, or balancing the wealth) but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority.  In the initial stage of implementing this socialist concept, of course only a few will be able to provide the means for the others to have access to the resources.  Everyone may not have the financial capital of $10,000 to acquire the natural resources needed for eventual production, which then will require labor investment.   But there are so many factors of this argument, which have been untouched.  We can debate for whom the natural resources belong to within a community, but this is my last response.  The working community can allocate a certain amount of agreed ownership, or shares, for those who have invested more capital in the beginning stage, but have to work out a way where the group can eventually buy that additional ownership back to the group, to balance back the equation of the wealth.  If there is a risk involved, and the capital investment of few are lost, then the others are responsible, through their labor and combined resources, to compensate for their losses.  For example, if 20 of the 500, who invested in the financial capital, in the early stage, lost $10,000 after purchasing resources for the group, the remainder of the group can work together to help build, or prepare, $10,000 of those individuals private property.  This is just one of many things the group can collectively decide to do, to cover the risk of the initial investors.  As a reader, please do not feel pressured by anyone to accept old economic principals, and to feel that current economic principals are the only way that modern society can operate.  There are many forms of socialist concepts, which exist, and no, I am not trying to promote old forms of failed state dictatorships.  There are ways to go about new socialist democracies, or even to create productive forms of market socialism.  Please examine the specific points, which were made in my arguments, and please reexamine your outlook on modern capitalism, as seen around you everyday.  Thank you.

Peter Gray:  You stated, “All your responses explain how the capitalist system works. Non of them give solutions to the problems which I have presented in my arguments.”  I explained how many of your claims about capitalism are not conceptually sound. With all due respect, some of the claims you make are strongly indicative of someone who does not have a good grounding in what the philosophy of classical liberalism/capitalism actually is.  The solutions to the problems you pose are not workable. They are not the result of “critical thinking” that you claim to promote. You have a misconception of what capitalism actually is. You misunderstand the nature of the price system and profits and losses and the role they play in the allocation of factors of production to their most efficient uses. You do not comprehend that economic value is subjective, and evidently you also do not appreciate the nature of legal contracts.

Additionally and most importantly, you cannot explain how a centrally planned economic decision making apparatus (that would be necessary for your solution to the “problems”) can more efficiently and effectively direct the factors of production to their best use rather than the free market pricing system. The “economic calculation problem has never been satisfactorily answered by any proponents of socialism, and you are no exception.  You routinely talk of “exploitation”. You stated, “but no one individual, or group, is exploiting the majority” “that is exploitation of one’s labor and pretty much free labor.” “while promoting their cause and agenda of exploitation” However, you never give a philosophical justification of what exactly constitutes “exploitation”.  From your writings, apparently the main “problem” you have with capitalism, is that some labor is valued higher than other labor. I explained that this is due to the laws of supply and demand. Some factors of production are scarcer than other factors of production. Skilled labor is less plentiful that unskilled labor, so it is paid a higher wage. This is the world that we live in however much you may dislike it.

You apparently think that the laws of supply and demand are somehow “old terms and definitions” and are apparently outdated. Please explain to the readers of this article why the laws of supply and demand are “old economic principals” and are not valid anymore.  Your “dictator” style desire to control and direct society to your preferred state is exhibited in the following quotes from your entries.

“If both individuals spend hours in their lives to fulfill the job requirements of each job, why should one make greater wages then the other.”  “Only in a backwards society do you reward the decision makers more than the individuals who actually do the work on the ground.”  “Good decision-making and hard and smart labor unfolds well when combined. One is no more important than the other.”

“This fact that you have pointed 0out is the very reason that some forms of socialism in society are very needed, and why many forms of capitalism have been very damaging to society”  “I clearly explain the implementations of socialism I would like to see in our current capitalists economic system, and I explain how the dynamic of wages should be reevaluated.”  “Your entire argument thus far has been to use the old term and definitions that are always used to explain the current form of a failed capitalist system.”  “In all seriousness, I understand that it would never work if every single person played the role of a king within society.”

The last quote is ironic, because the reality is that you want to play the role of “king within society”. You are the judge of what is of value to society. You are the arbiter of what wages individuals should receive for their work. You want to control and direct the economic efforts of individuals according to your master plan of creating some kind of socialist collective “utopia”. You decide what is more “important” to individuals in society and how wages “should be reevaluated” according to your judgment of what is of value and worthwhile. You have the audacity to conclude what is “backwards”, what is “failed” and what is “damaging”.  From the general direction of your arguments, one can infer that your philosophy is that you prefer restricting individuals from having the freedom to choose what is of value to them. You object that they value this, more than that, and because of this, you reject individuals earning higher incomes for creating more value to consumers. You essentially abhor the economic actions of free individuals, the consumers who decide what they prefer to consume and not consume.  You presume to have the “intellectual superiority” and “higher morality” to know better than the mass of the consumers what is in their best interests and what they should want. As with all socialists, you are arrogant and delusional in your “fatal conceit” (as F.A. Hayek would have called it) that being the misguided belief, that you have the knowledge and means to shape and engineer society exactly to your liking to create your ideal utopia.  The truth is; the results and ends you desire, the aggregate of free individuals would not voluntarily choose! To move society towards your “better” socialist end or result, necessitates that you have the power of government mandated force and coercion to direct and manipulate the setting of prices, wage rates, worker’s economic roles, etc.)

All of this is the very antithesis of freedom that you supposedly support.  It would be hard to believe that the American people would freely choose to live in this socialist “utopia”.  My preference is for individuals to be free to choose what they value.  The original topic of this debate was that “capitalism has no monopoly on freedom”.

I submit that capitalism may not have a “monopoly” on freedom, but it allows individuals to have MORE freedom than your preferred socialist utopia where the “proper” values are decided by “wise philosopher kings” who are essentially just central planners (dictators?) who enforce their dictates on individuals by the force of the state.  Therefore, I can conclude that true free market capitalism provides greater freedom for individuals that your preferred state socialism.