: This strict "did you hand touch it?" view of valorizing does an injustice to that which makes the product and thus the opportunity to add labor possible.
But by that Reasoning my income goes to my parents who made me possible. YEs, the system is a totality, but we have to look at which bit of the system adds value, and which bits simply enable that valorization- a shop-floor foreman is not valorizig, but he helps create value by making the workers work hard.
: The desire of parents to specifically cater for their particular offspring is not a casual social 'meme', the fact that people discriminate between their valuation of others and then seek to act upon those valuations is the dynamic here.
Well, in a society where 'the condition for the devlopment of each is the devlopment of all' contributing to society as a whole is contributing to the welfare of your bairns.
: I think thats what I said, and to add ofcourse that what is "useful" is a subjective opinion.
Well, I think we should be allowed to express our subjective opinoions democratically, rather than have teh subjective opinions of the extremely rich.
: But more value adding in terms of wealth creation. creation not re-juggling.
No, because they don't create wealth. If I blocked the door to the tool shed, and extorted money out of the workers before letting them go in there, am I creatign wealth? No, I'm conditioning access to wealth.
: Incidently its not a tiny minority, observe the amount of personal and company pensions.
There may be many, but they are in no way the majority of the population. Certainly, few could afford to retire before 50.
:The reason many are left underfunded is that they could not spare the income after shelling a third of it out in income tax, nearly 17.5% in vat and then some more on every item which receives special taxes.
The working class doesn't pay tax.
: A lot of which was spent desperately trying to keep that ponzi scheme called state pensions alive.
What, you mean that scheme whereby all citizens regardless of income are garaunteed a pension, sounds fair to me...
: These two situations could be independant, ie he could stop working but live on investments (luxury house, meals out)
I think the word 'Luxury' makes all the difference there, as soon as your possessions become 'Excessive' in a technical Bataillean sense its no longer expenditure on consumption, but spectacular expenditure to demonstratye wealth.
: For the welfare of *his* children whom he naturally values over other peoples children.
: Modern capitalism was built upon what people did with the resources they had, ie new techs, new ways to poduce, greater abundance, creation of more capital - not the original ways in which a proportion of that static pre-capitalist capital was acquired.
But Modern Capitalism was built on the foundations of Primitive Accumulation- America made its wealth through Empire Just as much as Britain did.
Best Continue at the top of the page...