Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Nope, sorry. I don't remember that. I rarely remember what I'm saying or arguing from day to day.

I am flattered though.

I found it. I found it!

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Variation is a cost and reward of freedom.

I think it beautifully expresses whats wrong with concepts that try to equate opportunity and outcome.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

What was I responding to?

[EmperorNero]

You can go to the post through the quote. The topic was whether a worker is exploited by the capitalist if he receives less in pay than the value his work creates. Which is the conventional wisdom. You were saying - now in my own words - that it's impossible to say what value a worker creates so it's not possible to say what pay he 'deserves'.
For example a beer will cost a fraction in a super market of what it costs in a club. So what value did the worker in the brewery create? The value of goods is 'created' from supply and demand. Thus it's not possible to say that the worker is exploited by the capitalist.

Now that I looked at the post, that wasn't what that very quote was about. It ties into it. 'Variation is a cost and reward of freedom' means that in a free market, one that is not controlled from above, there is no reason to assume that outcome will go along expected statistical lines. Because people are different. One guy comes in and is happy to get a job. The next guy, just because he is a more aggressive personality, bargains at the job interview and gets a higher pay. They may have the same education and do the same work, is the first guy exploited because he receives less pay for equal work? No, that's the variation of the free market. The reason I like the quote is that it is an answer to catch-phrases like 'equal pay for equal work'. In fact I believe that inequality in pay for equal work (which is a sketchy concept) is a sign of a free market! But I am a dilettante on the topic at best.

In a related thought, which is something that is just on my mind at the moment. If we break up the population along arbitrary lines. Like for example on race or gender. Then finding disproportional outcome is not necessarily caused by what we chose to break the groups up into. That may just be a statistical variation. As we would find if we broke up the groups along some other criteria. But for some reason when we find that groups that are perceived as 'victim classes' have an disproportional outcome, this variation is suddenly proof of unequal treatment of these groups and the horrific failure of the free market system. If women make less they must be discriminated against. If African Americans are disproportionately poor it must be because of racism. We seem to extrapolate from outcome to opportunity. This claim of discrimination may have a basis in reality, but assuming opportunity from outcome is as Marxist as it gets. You just can't say that two people should make the same and if they don't it's proof of unequal opportunity. You can't judge opportunity by outcome, because in a free market there is variation.
Essentially, asking the question whether people are discriminated against along some line as race makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because we chose to break up the statistic along those lines and find variation.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

Now that I looked at the post, that wasn't what that very quote was about. It ties into it. 'Variation is a cost and reward of freedom' means that in a free market, one that is not controlled from above, there is no reason to assume that outcome will go along expected statistical lines. Because people are different. One guy comes in and is happy to get a job. The next guy, just because he is a more aggressive personality, bargains at the job interview and gets a higher pay. They may have the same education and do the same work, is the first guy exploited because he receives less pay for equal work? No, that's the variation of the free market. The reason I like the quote is that it is an answer to catch-phrases like 'equal pay for equal work'. In fact I believe that inequality in pay for equal work (which is a sketchy concept) is a sign of a free market! But I am a dilettante on the topic at best.

Yep.

It all comes down to the concept of subjective value. Many people attack the free market because it allows inequality. But ultimately this equality is due to the fact that people simply view things differently. It may not seem fair to you that you make less than someone in a very similar position, and while there may be discriminatory practices that are truly despicable. However, that same process that results in what you perceive as unfair also results in your ability to pursue the subjective values and goals that make you who you are and allow for your own personal actualization and satisfaction.

Don't tell anyone, but on another forum:

NationStates • View topic - Equal Work means Equal Pay?

In a related thought, which is something that is just on my mind at the moment. If we break up the population along arbitrary lines. Like for example on race or gender. Then finding disproportional outcome is not necessarily caused by what we chose to break the groups up into. That may just be a statistical variation. As we would find if we broke up the groups along some other criteria. But for some reason when we find that groups that are perceived as 'victim classes' have an disproportional outcome, this variation is suddenly proof of unequal treatment of these groups and the horrific failure of the free market system. If women make less they must be discriminated against. If African Americans are disproportionately poor it must be because of racism. We seem to extrapolate from outcome to opportunity. This claim of discrimination may have a basis in reality, but assuming opportunity from outcome is as Marxist as it gets. You just can't say that two people should make the same and if they don't it's proof of unequal opportunity. You can't judge opportunity by outcome, because in a free market there is variation.
Essentially, asking the question whether people are discriminated against along some line as race makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because we chose to break up the statistic along those lines and find variation.

Trends may be ignored on the individual level, but in large groups they will be shown. Appropriate statistical sampling should do away with random variation. In other words, while two people may have different incomes and not be the victims (or beneficiaries) of discrimination, taking whole groups would discrimination.

But is important to draw the line between failure in the market and failure in society at large. As you know, the market represents those subjective values of people, and if we do see the market creating different outcomes for different groups along certain lines, we should appropriately recognize this as a social problem, not particularly an economic problem.

As a side note, many libertarian economists have run into major controversy by attempting to relate market differences to inherent differences in different groups. Mainly along race and gender differences.

Look up Walter Block and Hans Hermann Hoppe. I am inclined to think Hoppe is more of a prick, but I have been the member of a forum that Walter Block frequented, and would vouch for him being an extremely fair-minded individual.

[EmperorNero]

So I did read the rest of Grapes of Wrath.
And, holy cow, it's a commercial for communism.
The rich become richer, while the poor cant feed themselves. That's portrayed as the fault of the free market and not, say, the technological shift in that time and the markets not really being free.
The government program camp works, the administration is pretty much communism, and it works!
The only problem is the crazy Christian, who makes stuff up to scare people. And the evil capitalists who want to end this good government program.

All in all, I find it kind of scary that this is read in schools.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

So I did read the rest of Grapes of Wrath.
And, holy cow, it's a commercial for communism.
The rich become richer, while the poor cant feed themselves. That's portrayed as the fault of the free market and not, say, the technological shift in that time and the markets not really being free.
The government program camp works, the administration is pretty much communism, and it works!
The only problem is the crazy Christian, who makes stuff up to scare people. And the evil capitalists who want to end this good government program.

All in all, I find it kind of scary that this is read in schools.

Good! I'm glad you read it; and yea, I could see how you'd see it as a commercial for communism (although to make a political interpretation; I think it more condemns systems which encourage economic disparity than advocate anything in particular). And yes, I can also see the basis for your interpretation with regards to the success of the relief camps.

I still really liked it; and if I could offer a suggestion in how it's viewed: Try to look at it as revealing a human side of suffering without any single "villain". The events in the book were as attributable to the dust bowl and drought as they were on the great depression. And although a political agenda could be implicated in referencing the depression itself (I suppose), the weather and farming practices, as a contributing cause, probably doesn't have much to do with communism.

In any case, I'm glad you read it - this thread's been going on forever.

Thanks

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Trends may be ignored on the individual level, but in large groups they will be shown. Appropriate statistical sampling should do away with random variation. In other words, while two people may have different incomes and not be the victims (or beneficiaries) of discrimination, taking whole groups would discrimination.

Hi.
Sorry for ate response. I have this one point. Maybe I'll respond later to the first part of the post.

Even with a sufficiently large statistical sampling you can't ever correct for all the factors that explain disproportionality, in order to conclude that the remaining disproportionality is caused by "discrimination".
When we compare black and white incomes, that are oversimplified statistical groups. Whites are on average older than blacks and people tend to earn more with age. So it would be a good idea to correct for age, to not be comparing apples and oranges. I.e. we are simplifying our statistical groups a little less.
It would also be a good idea to correct for hours worked and education level. (Btw. blacks and whites of the same age and education level have very small differences in income.)
Do we now have comparable groups? How about the preference that blacks to a larger part want to be NBA players. Should we expect a group that has different priorities to achieve the same as, say, office clerks as everyone for whom being an office clerk is a higher priority?
What if blue-eyed people for some reason like chemistry. Does the fact that a high rate of blue-eyed people are accepted to study chemistry mean colleges are racist against non blue-eyed people? Are we to decide that people who like a subject, and those who are less eager to succeed in it, should have the same success in it?
The point I'm making is that you can't ever correct for every human difference. Without simplifying we'd have as many statistical groups as people. So whatever disproportional outcome is found is merely an artifact of the way we chose to simplify the statistical groups. "Racism" and "discrimination" simply can't be measured.

[xris]

Dissolving known racism in a weak solution of irrelevant contrasts and blinkered ignorance will not weaken the view that Blacks have historically been disadvantaged.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by xris

Dissolving known racism in a weak solution of irrelevant contrasts and blinkered ignorance will not weaken the view that Blacks have historically been disadvantaged.

Yes, particularly in Africa. By blacks.

[xris]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes, particularly in Africa. By blacks.

WOT are you on about now? whites have penalised whites in europe how relevant is this bizarre statement.