Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ctdonath2
Just because someone can create a whole greater than the sum of its parts doesn’t mean the creators of those parts are owed more than they sold those parts for. EVERYONE’s profit comes from leveraging the parts to create a more valuable whole.

Darn, that's good. I don't understand a word you said but it sounds good and I'm impressed.............really impressed....... ;-)

62 posted on 07/17/2012 8:21:27 AM PDT by varon (Sleep sound, the Patriots stand watch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: varon

Then I’ll try to clarify. (Kinda enjoying kicking this idea around.)

A bucket of paint is about $10. A large canvas is about the same. Nothing about either is typically any different than any other bucket of paint or sheet of canvas. The sum of the parts is worth $20. The paint salesman gets $10, the canvas salesman gets $10, both get their fair market value asking price.

Having put the two together, what’s the value?

If I dribble the paint on the canvas, the result will be pretty much worthless, maybe worth $5 to someone needing a used dropcloth. The whole is worth less than the sum of the parts, as neither component can be used any more. I’ve wasted $15.

If Jackson Pollock picks up the can of paint and dribbles it on the canvas, the result will be worth about $10,000,000. The whole is worth more than the sum of the parts, as the union of the parts (assembled with talent) is worthy of a museum wall. He just created $9,999,980.

The Obama’s idiocy is looking at the latter example, and saying “hey! three people were involved in this - the paint retailer and the canvas salesman and you - so you need to divide this up three ways and ‘give back’ to the people who helped you make this happen! you didn’t do it yourself, ya know!” No, the salesmen got their fair value for what they sold and their involvement ends there. The call to “give back” is just greed.

The Obama’s other idiocy is looking at the former example, and NOT - in consistency with his own stupid Marxist notions - telling the salesmen to give me $7.50 each so they can share in the loss.

The Obama’s third idiocy is not applying the principle backwards thru the chain of purchases: the paint salesman charged me $10, but bought the paint for $6, so by Marxist principles he should pay the paint manufacturer another $2 to split the $4 profit ... but then the paint manufacturer got the ingredients from others for $3 so he should split the $3 profit with them ... and so on backwards forever, where everyone should “play fair” and share their profits with anyone & everyone who ever had anything to do with anything they did to create value. This is, of course, stupid - and pure Marxism where nobody owns anything, and everyone shares a fraction of all wealth created just because they exist and therefore are somehow considered part of it all ... and nobody wants to do anything useful because there is, well, no profit in it.

I’m amused by this topic too much.


70 posted on 07/17/2012 10:56:57 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson