Interchangeable does not mean worthless. All are important, some more so. Sort of like how different outlets in your house provide different power; 99 are interchangeable, but you probably have different ones that will work for your stove and dryer (if electric).
Each outlet is important, most are interchangeable, only a few generate enough power for big ticket items.
I don’t think the wall outlets, or anything around a normal person’s house, really generate power. The power comes from a power plant, and is distributed into homes. The wall outlet doesn’t generate the power, but without it there would be no power at your house.
The company I work for has skills through its owners that I do not, they generate the work that I do. I could be interchanged with many other people. But without the time put in by their employees, they have no product to sell.
I take it sir you are not an electrician by trade. If you were you’d know your analogy is worthless…but then perhaps so is your idea.
All wealth is generated by labor. In the past few decades there have been other types of wealth, if I can call them “virtual wealth”, that are based on gambling and speculation, but they are all superficial financial structures that also depend on labor.
The idea and practice of wealth being generated by labor but being concentrated and amassed on a minuscule 1% to 5% of a population, is mainly based on the consumption drive and need of the laboring people that create the wealth in the first place.
People work so they can consume, but mostly they want to consume therefore they have to work.
The ones that can funnel the wealth from the production of such huge numbers of manpower into a sliver of individuals, can then claim it was them that created that wealth.
Msmith (the originator of the arguments I posted in the OP) has yet to explain how the top 1% can produce any wealth if the other 99% aren’t around to buy anything. At this point it’s pretty much obvious that he’s got nothin’. 
I was going to explain it yet again, but then I decided to just go on with my life after seeing the beating you were getting.:eek:
Why don’t you explain to me the difference between 99% who don’t exist and 99% who don’t contribute anything of value to trade with the 1% who do? The difference is that the producing 1% don’t need to support the other 99% if they aren’t around.
I feel like you are trying to convince us that the 1% need to give 99% some of their wealth so that they can buy more stuff from the 1% and make them richer with their own money that they just gave away.
I think his point is that the 1% doesn’t is not generating that wealth in a vaccuum. If not for the other 99% that slogs into work every day for a paycheck, they would not have the opportunity or ability to generate that wealth. Is the market structured to equitably distribute wealth between the 1% and everyone else?
Even more importantly, much of that wealth is returns on capital (much of it inherited) not some John Galt type of wealth generation. Is the market structured to equitably distribute wealth between capital and labor?
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I think his point is that the 1% doesn’t is not generating that wealth in a vaccuum. If not for the other 99% that slogs into work every day for a paycheck, they would not have the opportunity or ability to generate that wealth. Is the market structured to equitably distribute wealth between the 1% and everyone else?
[/QUOTE]
But there you are buying into Le Jac’s strawman. AFAIK, no one is saying that only 1% do anything, or are solely responsible for all wealth, and everyone else just sits around doing nothing and having no impact. That’s ridiculous and the fact that Le Jac believes this to be someones position just shows he has a rather tenuous grasp on the points others are making.
The market isn’t structured to distribute wealth AT ALL. That’s not the function of the market.
-XT
“useless eaters” was a term used by Viktor Brack, a Nazi war criminal. He’s the guy that started the program that killed people with disabilities. And then started killing the “useless eaters” in prison camps. Those were the Jews that were too sick or old to work, so he had them shot. Then he expanded his definition and had then gassed.
It’s exactly the effect Le Jacquelope is going for, it seems his only pony has died and he now finds it easier to just insinuate msmith537 it looking for the final solution (that’s also a Nazi reference in case you weren’t sure).
What beating? You’re spouting delusions now. Who here isn’t absolutely taking a dump all over your argument?
The point is that without the other 99% the 1% has no one to sell their stuff to. Which means they generate no wealth. Why do you keep dodging and running away from this basic fact?
Everyone else here seems to see it.
I had envisioned a long answer, beginning with a train travel, but I think I can sum up my opinion with one of my favourite sayings (*) :
“Cemeteries are full of people who believed themselves indispensable” (That’s the 1%, in case it wouldn’t be obvious)
In other words, to take your example of Stephen King, there are a lot of people writing stories, as you stated yourself. Once Stephen King will retire some other author will produce best sellers. Even people generally perceived as geniuses can be replaced. See the recent thread about Einstein’s discoveries. Their time had come and if it hadn’t been him, it would have been another.
You would generally have to cut very deep in the high ranks of a large organization to guarantee that there aren’t people left who could take it over (even though there might be some adjustment time) and to make sure it will grind to a halt. And at the other extreme, a single low level worker could accidentally fuck up and break the whole machine (I’m thinking of the black-out of half of Europe some years ago caused by a single accident on a single power line in Germany).
Our societies are very complex. Fascinatingly complex, in fact. The most prominent elements, are, in my opinion, perfectly replaceable in most cases, and in fact, are replaced every day. Kill the CEOs of the 10 000 largest corporations of the planet (the ones paid so much because supposedly their competences are uniques), and I’ll bet you won’t see a difference (do I need to restate the obvious recent example of many of them being shown to be, in fact, incompetent?). And the most obscure elements can suddenly be discovered to be vital.
I might admit that 10% of the workers aren’t bringing anything to the table. But all the others do. They collectively create the wealth. Despite that, except in rare circumstances, all of them are “carbon blobs” easily replaced. Including Stephen King and the CEO of his edition company.
Again, look at all those cemetaries…
(*)and in fact it ended up being a long post nevertheless 
(Nicely played M.S. If your argument is annihilated, respond with a belligerent question. Straight Dope rhetoricians take note.)
Best said by Nelson Muntz. Though, there’s a fallacy here.
Relativity is so obvious in retrospect, somebody surely was going to figure it out, no?
How much wealth did Einstein generate in his lifetime?
I dunno. Japan got nuked- that has to count for something.
He’ll never, ever, ever answer that question.
Yes, if Stephen King died tomorrow it is true that people would buy stories from another author, and the world would continue. But what you’re missing is that the next author isn’t as good, meaning that fewer books will sell at a lower price. Fewer books means less work for printers, and lower costs (demand) means less money for book stores, which together means less wealth.
Said in another way, if at next year’s NBA all-star game the roof collapsed and killed the 24 best players in the league the world would continue, and so would the NBA. Plenty of players ready to take their place. But the result would lower demand meaning lower ticket sales, which translates into fewer sales for the popcorn guy. Again meaning less wealth is generated.
Remember, all the players are important, and needed. Interchangeable does not mean worthless. And if this still doesn’t sink in, let’s take this one step further and pretend every NBA player dies in a freak accident, so in a moment of haste the league and network broadcasters decide to use the WNBA. Will there still be the same wealth generated? Or do you think fewer people will watch the games and buy tickets?
Yes, every cog in the machine is essential, otherwise it wouldn’t be there. Not sure if you knew this or not but interchangeable does not mean worthless.
Instead of ‘interchangeable’, how about ‘replaceable’? It’s more machiney, conjuring the notion of replaceable parts and industrialization. Ok, now consider the victory of the Japanese car companies a few decades ago. Their cars needed less ‘replacing’ because they were more durable and apparently better designed. Less maintenance made them a more valuable asset.
What about ‘fungible’? That one *part *can be replaced by another part, and that the *whole *is unchanged. The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. That sort of thing. That, in terms of society, each individual is fungible.