Random Thoughts on Economics

[americanpride]

As a disclaimer for what I am to say here, I would like to make known that I am not an economics professor or an economics major.

With that, I'll continue with my "random" thoughts.

I was reading through Parade today, as it contained a "special report" on incomes in America. Here are some of the figures:

Zachery Rasmussen
SFC, US Army
65,000

Brian Koonce
Registered Nurse
85,000

Ronnie Kuley
Firefighter
58,000

Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
180,000

Lindsay Lohan
Actress/Singer
10 million

John Travolta
Actor
25 million

Now I will say here that I recognize the enabling capacities and industrial production levels available only through the freedom of market interaction (capitalism), however, it is evident that its income distribution falls far short of just. One may counter with the argument of supply/demand, however, I ask them to consider: are police, firefighters, EMT, military, and the like not in demand? Others may counter with the argument of labor input. But consider Kamen Petkov, the manager of an orchestra who has no doubt devoted considerable amount of his life to his profession, but his income is a mere 24,500. Did he not put in the "required" amount of "labor"?

What are the talents of Lindsay Lohan and John Travolta? Indeed, they can imitate the talents of others - but is that a talent, much less a talent worth millions of dollars?

Economics seems to be a sensitive and unmovable monolithic issue - you're either a capitalist or a socialist. But I don't buy that. Our Nation needs a more dynamic, imaginative, and innovative approach to economics. I think our economic values are backwards. But that's just my thought.

[MARIO]

AmericanPride said:

As a disclaimer for what I am to say here, I would like to make known that I am not an economics professor or an economics major.

With that, I'll continue with my "random" thoughts.

I was reading through Parade today, as it contained a "special report" on incomes in America. Here are some of the figures:

Zachery Rasmussen
SFC, US Army
65,000

Brian Koonce
Registered Nurse
85,000

Ronnie Kuley
Firefighter
58,000

Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
180,000

Lindsay Lohan
Actress/Singer
10 million

John Travolta
Actor
25 million

Now I will say here that I recognize the enabling capacities and industrial production levels available only through the freedom of market interaction (capitalism), however, it is evident that its income distribution falls far short of just. One may counter with the argument of supply/demand, however, I ask them to consider: are police, firefighters, EMT, military, and the like not in demand? Others may counter with the argument of labor input. But consider Kamen Petkov, the manager of an orchestra who has no doubt devoted considerable amount of his life to his profession, but his income is a mere 24,500. Did he not put in the "required" amount of "labor"?

What are the talents of Lindsay Lohan and John Travolta? Indeed, they can imitate the talents of others - but is that a talent, much less a talent worth millions of dollars?

Economics seems to be a sensitive and unmovable monolithic issue - you're either a capitalist or a socialist. But I don't buy that. Our Nation needs a more dynamic, imaginative, and innovative approach to economics. I think our economic values are backwards. But that's just my thought.

Well, wages are determined by three factors:

1-Supply and demand

2-Productivity

3-The ability to please your fellow humans


The reason why actors and athletes make the money they do is because people are willing to pay the amounts they do to see them perform.

Moreover, there are simply not as many people who can act or play sports well as there are who can be a firefighter, a paramedic, a cop, etc.

Economics can't be shaped into something better. It is what it is. And what we find is that there are always trade-offs involved.

Take care.

[americanpride]

MARIO said:

Well, wages are determined by three factors:

1-Supply and demand

2-Productivity

3-The ability to please your fellow humans


The reason why actors and athletes make the money they do is because people are willing to pay the amounts they do to see them perform.

Moreover, there are simply not as many people who can act or play sports well as there are who can be a firefighter, a paramedic, a cop, etc.

Economics can't be shaped into something better. It is what it is. And what we find is that there are always trade-offs involved.

Take care.

I don't buy that. Economics is what we the people make of it. It is not some elusive, divine, invincible force. We hvae the power to direct its destiny, not vice versa. If we want to mold it into something better, we can. And peoples have over time.

You say supply/demand. But police, fire, EMT, and etc are NECESSARY - everyone requires their services. Why are they not paid substansially more? For instance, our Nation is facing a shortage of nurses because nurses are paid squat relative to other, less stressful occupations. What happens when we run out of nurses?

You say productivity. Lindsay Lohan pretends to be non-existent people for 2 hours. A nurse saves lives. I would argue that a nurse is infinately more productive than little Lindsay.

You say the ability to please others. That's hedonistic. But I can see that argument. However, what's more pleasing - having your life saved or drooling over Lohan's tits for 2 hours?

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people can play sports. And they do. I do. Yes, some are more skilled than others. Just like some cops are more skilled than other cops. Not everyone makes it to the pros. But not everyone makes it to police chief either.

Athletes and actors are the highest paid individuals in America - but the least respected. Soldiers, police officers, etc, are some of the lowest paid, but the highest respected. Why can't we the people change that?

[NixonsGhost]

The reason we have income disparity like this is that certain jobs create a large amount of money for the company in question. If an actor can create an audience large enough to bring in a significant amount of money, it is necessary that this person be compensated!

Sorry, this has been a fact of life from when time began.

The jobs that you feel should earn more money are noble professions. But they don't produce anything of intrinsic value. While it is a terrific thing to save a life, it doesn't create an environment that makes millions.

[MARIO]

AmericanPride said:

I don't buy that. Economics is what we the people make of it. It is not some elusive, divine, invincible force. We hvae the power to direct its destiny, not vice versa. If we want to mold it into something better, we can. And peoples have over time.

You say supply/demand. But police, fire, EMT, and etc are NECESSARY - everyone requires their services. Why are they not paid substansially more? For instance, our Nation is facing a shortage of nurses because nurses are paid squat relative to other, less stressful occupations. What happens when we run out of nurses?

You say productivity. Lindsay Lohan pretends to be non-existent people for 2 hours. A nurse saves lives. I would argue that a nurse is infinately more productive than little Lindsay.

You say the ability to please others. That's hedonistic. But I can see that argument. However, what's more pleasing - having your life saved or drooling over Lohan's tits for 2 hours?

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people can play sports. And they do. I do. Yes, some are more skilled than others. Just like some cops are more skilled than other cops. Not everyone makes it to the pros. But not everyone makes it to police chief either.

Athletes and actors are the highest paid individuals in America - but the least respected. Soldiers, police officers, etc, are some of the lowest paid, but the highest respected. Why can't we the people change that?

No, Chris; economics is not what you make it. There are absolute truths inherent to the science of economics.

For example, price controls on something will result in shortages, rationing, etc.

Actually, the pay of nurses has risen significantly because of that shortage. However, let us distinguish between the market and the government.

Cops are employees of local governments, state governments, and the federal government. They're in demand from the taxpayers.

Taxpayers and customers are two different things.

I don't consider unions to be a component of the Capitalist system. We have to realize that we don't have a truly free market system in this country, considering the existence of all these taxes, regulations, subsidies, etc.

Not many people can do what Michael Jordan does. A lot of people are capable of doing what a police officer does.

Law-enforcement individuals may be able to make a heck of a lot more in the private sector, such as being a private investigator or what have you.

And I wouldn't say that people don't respect actors and athletes. In fact, the reason people pay the money they do to see these people perform is because they DO RESPECT them for providing them with entertainment.

Take care.

[ReformedLiberal]

Wages are subject to the forces of supply and demand, but...there is also the principle of "what the market will bear." If no one would pay more than $3 dollars to see a movie or a Yankees game, that's what the price would be.

Nurses, paramedics, cops, teachers, etc. may be of more value to the welfare of society, but entertainers market themselves and it is up to the audiences to decide who is woth paying to see. For every over-paid entertainer there are untold numbers of amateures and wannabes struggling to get a shot in the limelight, paying their dues as it were.

We are free to choose our professional goals and take risks. The higher the risk, the greater the payoff of success. Athletes and entertainers get way too much money because we pay way too much money to see them perform. Civil servants don't get as much because they took the job for what they get and if they quit someone else will accept that job for what it pays. The market for these jobs does not intertwine. They are like apples and oranges. Each is a system unto itself.

[americanpride]

Mario and Steven,

I am not satisfied by such excuses - and excuses they are; for our fates as they are not drawn out in the stars, neither are they drawn out in the dollar - the strengths, and indeed the faults, lie within us as individuals and as a Nation. Economics is not a science of any sort - it is a vague guessing game of a people partcipating in an environment of interaction.

Economics is about our values, and how these values affect our distribution of our National resources, but it does not necessarily concern itself with the appropiate and efficient - much less just - application of these resources.

We fear crime, but pay our police officers squat.

We fear terrorism, but let our military institutions rot.

Our Nation is rotting from within because of this very reason! The very things that democracy permits do not allow for its sustainment through time; it requires activity, sacrifice, courage, and above all, justice. It requires great men, men who rise above petty self-glorification and this non-sense of "market science".

[MARIO]

AmericanPride said:

Mario and Steven,

I am not satisfied by such excuses - and excuses they are; for our fates as they are not drawn out in the stars, neither are they drawn out in the dollar - the strengths, and indeed the faults, lie within us as individuals and as a Nation. Economics is not a science of any sort - it is a vague guessing game of a people partcipating in an environment of interaction.

Economics is about our values, and how these values affect our distribution of our National resources, but it does not necessarily concern itself with the appropiate and efficient - much less just - application of these resources.

We fear crime, but pay our police officers squat.

We fear terrorism, but let our military institutions rot.

Our Nation is rotting from within because of this very reason! The very things that democracy permits do not allow for its sustainment through time; it requires activity, sacrifice, courage, and above all, justice. It requires great men, men who rise above petty self-glorification and this non-sense of "market science".

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said your economic views are unorthodox.

I'm sorry, but economics is what it is. It cannot be changed into something more palatable. It serves a purpose as the science it is.

The Socialists believed they could shape economics to fit their utopian vision as well. Look how well that worked out.

[americanpride]

MARIO said:

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said your economic views are unorthodox.

I'm sorry, but economics is what it is. It cannot be changed into something more palatable. It serves a purpose as the science it is.

The Socialists believed they could shape economics to fit their utopian vision as well. Look how well that worked out.

Mario,

You will resign yourself to such a fate and justify it as "economics is what it is"?

I for one will not stand before God and tell him that the laws of men discouraged me from fulfilling His virtues.

[MARIO]

AmericanPride said:

Mario,

You will resign yourself to such a fate and justify it as "economics is what it is"?

I for one will not stand before God and tell him that the laws of men discouraged me from fulfilling His virtues.

Chris, what laws of man?

How is God's virtues pertinent to economics?

I'm stating a simple fact: Economics is a fixed science. It's all about trade-offs, as the socialists discovered.

[americanpride]

MARIO said:

Chris, what laws of man?

How is God's virtues pertinent to economics?

I'm stating a simple fact: Economics is a fixed science. It's all about trade-offs, as the socialists discovered.

God's virtues are pertinent to all that we do - they are eternal, our secular existence is not.

The laws of the "free market" are the laws of men.

The laws of supply and demand are the laws of men.

The laws of dollar values, credit, and interest rates are the laws of men.

We invented these things to satisfy our secular wants. But at what cost? What was the trade-off? Economics is not a science, nor an end it in itself - it is, and should remain, a means toward a higher National good; and to elevate its status is to reduce the value of the human spirit and our National well-being.

Are we to allow our own inventions to limit our potential? Indeed, everything has its time and its place, to include free market capitalism, but it is time our Species, and our Nation furthers integrates our values into our political and economic systems in such ways as to sustain them indefinately through time.

I have a link for you, and perhaps it will encourage you to consider things as I have, not only in regards to economics, but to democracy, and the Fate of our Nation.

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38c664523490.htm

[Remey688]

Steven13 said:

Wages are subject to the forces of supply and demand, but...there is also the principle of "what the market will bear." If no one would pay more than $3 dollars to see a movie or a Yankees game, that's what the price would be.

Nurses, paramedics, cops, teachers, etc. may be of more value to the welfare of society, but entertainers market themselves and it is up to the audiences to decide who is woth paying to see. For every over-paid entertainer there are untold numbers of amateures and wannabes struggling to get a shot in the limelight, paying their dues as it were.

We are free to choose our professional goals and take risks. The higher the risk, the greater the payoff of success. Athletes and entertainers get way too much money because we pay way too much money to see them perform. Civil servants don't get as much because they took the job for what they get and if they quit someone else will accept that job for what it pays. The market for these jobs does not intertwine. They are like apples and oranges. Each is a system unto itself.

Movie Stars and Athletes haven't changed since I was a kid! They maded out of sight money, got into trouble, and divorced in an era when it was a scandle.