Monday, March 1, 2010

Government and Healthcare according to Friedman

In the New York Time and all over the news there is talk of Obama's healthcare plan and the desicions being made by the House and Senate to pass these proposed bills. These bills aim to expand coverage to millions of people who are uninsured and also take steps to control soaring health care costs. “The president expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director, “And our proposal is designed to give us maximum flexibility to ensure that, if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health care.”
While this may look good to some American and devastate others, Friedman would not agree totally with this act. Providing an overall health care plan will help those who cannot afford it but hurt the healthcare companies by taking away business and forcing them to lower their cast. This in a way restrict economic activity which Friedman believes is not a role that the government should have. Then again this would just be a form of regulation from the governments part. Imposing these laws so that healthcare would become more affordable and accessible to more people. Although this may not fullfill total lack of government intervention it would fall under the role of an umpire in regulating the price so that it is fair to the people. Implimenting this interferes with competitive capitalism because the power is still in the governmant hand, which is not the way Friedman believes that you can have a free society.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Cost Living and Actually Living

According to Marx wage is money paid for Labor power. Wages pay us for our time and not the actual value we add to the product we produce with our time. The minimum wage is determined by calculating the cost of living and reproduction. The value that we add goes to someone else so we never have enough to better ourselves and our children; we become stuck living pay check to pay check. The companies underpay us to make a profit for themselves.
In the Onion an article titled “Cost Of Living Now Outweighs Benefits” it shows that the calcualtions for the cost of living is understated and therefore it is not worth living. “The fact is, the supply of Americans greatly outstrips demand," said Evan Alvi of the Portland-based Maynard Institute. "Americans seem to believe that minting more lives will increase the value of their own holdings. All they are doing, though, is inflating the supply and reducing the dividends paid by long-term familial bonds." This supports the theory that the further the labor is divided the less you have to pay the workers because the easier the job becomes. Dividing the labor and lowing wages lowers the cost of production and allows production to increase; the higher the production the lower the wage. The easier the job becomes the less people need to be hired and this creates joblessness. Joblessness gives the capitalist a large pool of unemployed people to choose from creating competition amongst the workers, depreciating the wages. This means less money even for those of us lucky enough to have a job.
Because of this miscalculation we are forced to live a lower standard of living. In Marx it says, “He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.” Seeing this proof that the wages we are paid is lower than the cost of living definitely connects with Marx that we are just living to work. We are not satisfied by our job, it does not fulfill all our wants. We cannot escape the capitalist class. We need the capital so we have no choice but to accept the job and the wage just to live. The capitalist need us but having so many to choose from we suffer. So is it worth living?

Sunday, January 31, 2010

The Value of Money

In money news an article about money "Time to End Monopoly of the Dollar" by Julie Crawshaw gives a good idea of how we value a dollar. We place a value on this paper and use it to purchase goods and services. As the years go on the value of that dollar becomes less and less. It creates a way for things to be priced and valued at more then they are actually worth. With placing a value on the dollar we have create a false idea of how much something should be.
According to Locke money represents labor value. The value of labor that was put into an object to create something that consumers want to purchase is the value that it should be old for in the market. Money according to Locke is stored up labor value and since money can't spoil people can acquire as much as they please. So who really gets to decide the price tag placed on the product?
Today we place a value on the dollar but the real value is in the labor. Things should be priced according to the amount of labor put into it, with the dollar value. If the value is in the dollar are we paying for the dollar or the labor? Or with the value of the dollar in a decline are we paying for both? Locke would say that men have agreed on the use of money so the unequal possessions are ok! People work to gain money and so what they acquire and are willing to pay is in the hands of the consumer.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Aristotle and the Banks

Aristotle believes that money should not be saved. Gaining interest on money is wrong. Money was meant to be spent, used to buy property to build a household. Banks today take advantage of people's money. Making profit off of the money people put away to save to create a better life for their family and household is not what money was intended to be used for. Another big point made by Aristotle in his books is the idea of greed and how property should be common for the good of the community. This meaning that we should share our riches; use what we gain to help others less fortunate.
JP Morgan Chase is one the banks profiting higher this year then in previous years. This can be surprising considering the circumstances of the economy today. Where unemployment rates are high and many markets are in jeopardy, how are banks getting so much money? What are they doing with their high profits? JP Morgan Chase plans to pay out the money in bonuses. So the money they are gaining off of ordinary people they are giving it back to themselves. According to Aristotle this would be considered wrong. This is the wrong use for money and it is not helping the community. Aristotle believes that people should use their profits to better the community, what the banks are doing is not that. JP Morgan is just the first bank to report these profits. This is only the beginning but will any of the banks use their profits to better the community or will they all pay out their profits to themselves in bonuses?