: Isnt it just the study and theory of how stuf happens, and 'what if' scenario models? the goals of economists are personal ones.
No, the word derives from tehg Greek, meaning 'household management', and it was opposed by Aristotle to Chremesmatics (sp?), which is marketeering, and trade. Aristotle thought the former moral, and the latter immoral, since all parties were trying to cheat each other.
: (also for benefit of Pig) You had earlier accepted that without the intelligence of the organisation of various contributors to production that it could not occur. Even in a non profit environment your wage could only be the sum of the products value minus the cost of organising and paying for the various other contributors. If the object is worth $20 then you cannot claim it all or you would have cheated all other factors out of their value adding entities.
Indeed, (although the intelectual labour is not as easilly asimilated as you make out, sometimes people sell their intelectual produce, which (not being subject to the laws of thermodynamics) is problematic, but others actively add labour through organisation). Leave that aside, for now, since just taking Pigs model, we are talking about one persons produce, lets ignore the production line, and assume an artisan working by themself for another. In that case what I said holds true.
in your case, what would happen, is that the sum of our wages would not toal the full value of our collective produce, and our employer would find profit from that.
: Your main disagreement with the system seems to be the ownership of capital by individuals rather than 'profits' perse.
Rather, that it is a socialised system of production, with a privatised system of gaining from it.
:An organisation owned wholly by its members may still agree to retain profits for investment rather than take it all out, and would be wise to do so whether in a money system or a co-operative commune (which for money read resource).
But those 'profits' would, unlike now, not be an end in themselves, but a means to an end, meeting future needs of the group. But such investments are 'necessary' we are dealing with teh excess, which is garnered by private individuals, not the socialised labourers.
: Hmm, think about this one RD - when is it easier to have 'generous unemployment benefits'? When most people are working (and paying taxes) or when many people are not working and drawing benefits? you may have gotten this one the wrong way round, causally.
No, thats precisely the way round I have it- when there is full employement (and hence a good incentive to work, sice Labour can push wages up easilly then), then the state can afford munificent benefits for a small number of temporarilly unemployed, when mass unemployement, endemic unemplyement sets in, then the state has to roll welfare entitlement back in.
: Oh, I though it was 'wah!'
Thats an alternative.