Capitalism is fundamentally Flawed(Logically?) Discussion with Rob Huesdens

Economics Political Theory
81

Since when were we talking about the homeless? I don’t recall that being your point. At any rate is that even a point at all? I’ll offer a rebuttal to the strawman anyways. I’d argue that a vast percentage of homeless are in that situation voluntarily. It’s middle-income america whos trying to shove help down their throats when many of them don’t want it.

But again I restate myself. Whats this have to do with anything?

Ok and my response to you is two important points you need to clarify.

A) There is a difference between land ,labor, and capital. The re-produced means of production, capital, is not land and labor. Since you cannot re-produce land and labor(at least not yet). They are very different types of factors of production and it’s unfair to lump them into one category. When understanding this your statement becomes nonesense. Capital is created and produced for example, cars, homes, and various other durable goods. Capital can be brought from scarcity into abundance. Land and labor however are more restricted. New wealth is generated each day. It makes no sense at all to state that all capital has been claimed, especially when the pie grows each day and new goods are produced each day. Thats the equivalent of saying that all future cars already have a present day claim on them.

See http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/guidechap7.asp

If your referring to land, well sitting/squatting is still a very prominent practice around the globe, not just isolated to 3rd world countries. This is the homestead principle in practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting

But even if we conceded that all land is claimed, you act as if that is a lasting and static condition. That people do not, on a day to day basis, trade their labor and land to alter their individual situations. Land ownership changes, things become abandoned, while others acquired.

Furthermore the modern age has found ways of producing available land vertically. Further increasing the real-estate available on earth. Condos, apartments, ect… Who knows what the future and technology will bring. It would seem to me that arguing that all the capital has been soaked up and extinguished is a severe fallacy that I would shy away from.

I don’t think I follow. Care to elaborate on this opinion?

I can’t think of any rational acting person, homeless or otherwise, who doesn’t play the capitalism game on a day to day basis. The type of capital acquired and moved is one of size, scale and degree.

And, If your not trying to make a concrete distinction then why are you so vigilant in disagreeing with me? Remember capitalism is a descriptive term illustrating a persons actions, it is not an adjective that concretely discerns one man from another. It’s akin to the word “runner” to describe a man who runs. There are no barriers to entry in playing “capitalism”. One just chooses to do it. It’s a voluntary behavior and in many cases one that cannot be avoided, like breathing.

Look I have to point out that much of this arguing is built on a foundation of opinions grounded in pessimism. You’ve made alot of assertions without any followup, and to be honest I don’t even know why. What exactly are you trying to prove? The argument is spreading in 360 degrees touching topics that are meaningless. That is effectively the retropper/Rob Heusdens method of debate. Repeated assertions, no backed evidence, jumping from subject to subject while abandoning the original points. While you may not agree with those gentlemen, you commit the same fallacies IMHO. Any one who can’t be bothered to do homework on their own arguments will remain in a state of ignorance for as long as they so choose.

Provide some logical or empirical evidence or otherwise. Otherwise this is just going to continue as a: You say vs I say kind of game.

82

That’s a really interesting point. If we view statism as a systemic disease of society, a driving factor would be low self-esteem (see Eric Hoffer’s classic The True Believer*). And if we’d like a holistic remedy, perhaps raising people’s self-esteem would do it, or getting rid of guilt complexes. There’s a direct relationship between low self-esteem and low levels of personal responsibility. Low personal responsibility is what the state seems to primarily cater to.

83

That’s a really interesting point. If we view statism as a systemic disease of society, a driving factor would be low self-esteem (see Eric Hoffer’s classic The True Believer*). And if we’d like a holistic remedy, perhaps raising people’s self-esteem would do it, or getting rid of guilt complexes. There’s a direct relationship between low self-esteem and low levels of personal responsibility. Low personal responsibility is what the state seems to primarily cater to.

I like that way of looking at it. I think when people are willing to look around, take responsibility, and actively work towards changing their position (as opposed to having someone change it for them) is when we will start seeing less statism across the world.

@filc

And, If your not trying to make a concrete distinction then why are you so vigilant in disagreeing with me?

Haha. what?! If you remember I originally just responded to Giant Joe. Any disagreement with you was merely in defense of my statement, I assure you.

Since when were we talking about the homeless? I don’t recall that being your point

pure laborers who are in no meaningful possession of capital.

I’d argue that a vast percentage of homeless are in that situation voluntarily

Ok? Too bad they have to get a permit to hunt or fish, right? That is all I am saying. Where can the voluntary nomad go to live his life wherein the oppurtunity costs are economical? I want people to be able to live their lives as they see fit.

The re-produced means of production, capital, is not land and labor. Since you cannot re-produce land and labor(at least not yet).

What? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+capital&aq=f&aqi=g2g-c1g2g-c2g3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

based on that the rest of what you said is not needed, other than that capital is being created everyday… of course.

If your referring to land, well sitting/squatting is still a very prominent practice around the globe, not just isolated to 3rd world countries. This is the homestead principle in practice

And it is illegal. That is my point.

But even if we conceded that all land is claimed, you act as if that is a lasting and static condition. That people do not, on a day to day basis, trade their labor and land to alter their individual situations. Land ownership changes, things become abandoned, while others acquired.

Furthermore the modern age has found ways of producing available land vertically. Further increasing the real-estate available on earth. Condos, apartments, ect… Who knows what the future and technology will bring. It would seem to me that arguing that all the capital has been soaked up and extinguished is a severe fallacy that I would shy away from.

And if I squat in an unused apartment it is still illegal. I don’t understand what you are arguing against me… do you have a substantive point or is it just everything? I am not here to fight you brother, this is all about coming to a better understanding.

I don’t think I follow. Care to elaborate on this opinion?

It wasn’t much of a point, just something that came out when I was distracted from my original point. If you must assign deeper meaning, I already explained it. Most of the americas were forcibly confiscated from native peoples. And fuedalists/nobles around the world have no real claim to the land they “own.” I don’t have any answers to this, but I know it is a problem that will remain deep-seated in any system.

There are no barriers to entry in playing “capitalism”. One just chooses to do it. It’s a voluntary behavior and in many cases one that cannot be avoided, like breathing.

True. I have said repeatedly that I agree with this. Do you just not agree with my personality or something?

What barriers of entry are there to becoming a professional capitalist? (Runner; speed, dedication, somewhat how famous your college is, etc)

Look I have to point out that much of this arguing is built on a foundation of opinions grounded in pessimism

Ad hominem much?

Look I have to point out that much of this arguing is built on a foundation of opinions grounded in pessimism. You’ve made alot of assertions without any followup, and to be honest I don’t even know why. What exactly are you trying to prove? The argument is spreading in 360 degrees touching topics that are meaningless. That is effectively the retropper/Rob Heusdens method of debate. Repeated assertions, no backed evidence, jumping from subject to subject while abandoning the original points. While you may not agree with those gentlemen, you commit the same fallacies IMHO. Any one who can’t be bothered to do homework on their own arguments will remain in a state of ignorance for as long as they so choose.

This whole paragraph is based off of you trying to win an argument against me. You have done nothing but this the whole time, and tried to accuse me of it before I could accuse you. But J’accuse! (lol you should probably do this professionally tho. Most people faill for these things very easily). Once again, I was never trying to win an arguemnt, I am just trying to come to a better understanding. And the more hostile the supporters of liberty become, the more looney our movement looks, and the more hate we seed into our thoughts. Hate only breeds hate, which just breeds tyranny.

You’ve made alot of assertions without any followup,

Any assertions I made without backup were products of me being distracted from my original point by misleading, diversionary tactics. I showed that there is a clear difference in practice between a non-professional capitalist laborer, and a pure professional capitalist, as evidence of my stance that this non-professional capitalist doesn’t neccessarily have the choice to work for himself.

jumping from subject to subject while abandoning the original points

Haha, see above

Look at how long this post is, it sort of looks like a Retropper post doesnt it? Now look at most of my previous posts, they are not this long are they? Perhaps it is not our fault our posts look like this? Let us come to a better understanding, instead of this game you are trying to play.

Do you agree or disagree that in practice non-professional capitalists, which must labor for their daily sustenance, as opposed to regular laborer/capitalist, or pure professional capitalists, do not necessarily have the choice to work for themselves?

84

It’s not just the state. We’re swamped by “hurrah”-type automatons with no self-esteem, self-respect, and self-awareness all around us. Wheels yearning to be placed into a machine – any machine. Since it was someone else that placed them there and gave them purpose, would it be too much to ask for – or feel entitled to – a regular oiling regime?

God forbid one had to wake up every single morning and think about improving his situation on his own. “It’s just too hard, you see?” The first waking thought most people have is: “What am I entitled to today, and who will provide it to me?” or “I’m alive, therefore entitled”. Parties, gangs, armies – you name it – are manifestations of the same symbiosis between megalomaniac leaders and these automaton sheep. Neither side could live without the other. I’m not nearly as optimistic as you on this one.

85

Parties, gangs, armies – you name it – are manifestations of the same symbiosis between megalomaniac leaders and these automaton sheep. Neither side could live without the other..

It’s a cult of personalit-a cult of personalityyyyy

Probably the most dangerous human phenomenon known.

86

I’m standing by the road with a shingle stapled onto my forehead saying: “Two Hands LLC”, waiting for a farmer to drive by and negotiate an exchange of his money for my labor (two hands) for a day. Am I a capitalist or a laborer? Is the farmer my client or my employer?

87

The capitalist/laborer distinction is not useful or necessary to show that capitalism does not result in the perfect ability to negotiate. Put in its most general terms, under capitalism, if you want something from your fellow man you have to find some way to convince them to give it to you. Convincing them may be easy or hard. It has nothing to do with who is a capitalist or proletariat.

88

No such thing exists. The circumstances of the negotiating parties (and their desire to change them) are the inescapable forces guiding every negotiation. If my circumstances were satisfactory (“perfect”) why would I negotiate? To summarize, an agent with a “perfect” ability to negotiate on an issue doesn’t have a need to negotiate on such issue, hence wouldn’t enter negotiation to begin with.

Everything else in your post was very well put.

89

Yes it is the utopia fallacy. I think a neoclassical model of perfect negotiation would ocurr if there were an infinite number of parties offering homogenous services with zero transaction costs :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m really thinking that voluntarism is a chimera. Since if human beings can deny services to eachother, it might be a service someone really needs. The alternative is to attack your fellow man to take what you need, but that’s not voluntary either…

this is all using the leftist definition of voluntary, which I really think is the normal definition of voluntary… I only point this out because maybe some libertarian has a really rights based (tortured) definition of voluntary.

90

You mentioned this a few times already, and I’m not sure I understand it. If I really need to get back to my house as it’s obviously burning in the distance, is my running towards it rendered non-voluntary by my inability to fly? I think you’re over-thinking “voluntary”. It really is as simple as it sounds.

91

Yeah I don’t know if I want to take ‘voluntarism’ that far because I don’t think its proponents mean to advocate some way of smashing the human condition of not having perfect freedom. I think they just mean that human beings vis-a-vis should be able to interact with one another free from pressures, on even footing, or whatever.

In both cases voluntarism falls apart.

92

I’m standing by the road with a shingle stapled onto my forehead saying: “Two Hands LLC”, waiting for a farmer to drive by and negotiate an exchange of his money for my labor (two hands) for a day. Am I a capitalist or a laborer? Is the farmer my client or my employer?

I had anticipated the contractor response. Contractor or not, you are the client of the farmer. I am self-employed, so I know how this works. I am free to write my own schedule, and manage my day to day affairs, but I get all my work and pay from the higher ups. I am called their client. If I have a question on whether to do this or that, i have to call my boss.

In this case; is that the only means of production you own is your hands? If so, that means you will largely have to live off of labor, not capital profits. You can dodge the issue all you want but you are still a non-professional capitalist, and therefore primarily a laborer. I am simply using nomenclature that has been in use for over a century.

In a quick search I was able to find at least 3 threads where members of this forums, highly respected mods like Liliburne even, clearly differentiated between capitalists and laborers in practice and theory.

93

Originally you were arguing that there is a clear distinction between laborer and capitalist. I consider this a false dichotomy.

Again I don’t know how such a condition is even possible unless it is self induced voluntary action to remain in that state. However even the poorest of the poor aquire tools, equipment, and objects to improve their productivity or leisure. Even people who get paid less then minimum wage under the table can and have saved their wages and purchased larger durable goods.

A) You only need the permit if the statesmen is around, and even still most statesmen turn a blind eye to the homeless. Also, they can’t enforce something they don’t know about. Besides most nomadic who gravitate to the inner city’s aren’t trying to fish.

B) there is huge abundance of other opportunities for the nomadic. Thats why people are still able to pull it off.

Yes and if you look up the definition of inflation and central bank you will get different definitions as well. I left you a link to Chapter 7 MES. Did you bother to read it? Rothbard explains the important difference between land & labor and the “Reproduced means of production”. It’s an important distinction. There is a clear difference between Land and Labor and the re-produced means of production.

Again not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act

In other countries where land isn’t as thoroughly claimed you will find this practice far more common. I know in Latin America, at least in the area I worked in, it was not uncommon for people to establish a parcel of land that was unused or abandoned.

Furthermore you entirely missed my point. Arguing that all land is claimed is a strawman. Land is moved around, sold, and traded. It’s not static. You commented that all “capital” had already been claimed. You made it sound like the “laborer”(whatever that means) is shut away from these opportunities. This is clearly false. The laborer has every opportunity to become a land-owner. In fact in America that is an extremely prominent practice.

yes that would be wrong if the property was currently owned by someone else and not abandoned. I may have used bad terminology when I said squatting. When I learned of squatting it didn’t always mean living in someone else’s property that was not already abandoned.

Sigh, look. There is no attack on your character here. This whole conversation between you and me was brought up by two points you stated earlier. I was simply attemping to address those points. This is nothing against you personally, perhaps it’s my ability to comprehend your points? Allow me to go ahead and re-quote you and remind you what all of this was about.

First it’s about the taxonomy of people, classifying them in two camps. Between laborer and capitalist. First you stated that you agreed with me that this concept is nonesense, but then your followup contained this statement which contridicted the previous.

_

_

You also followed up with a statement that leads many of us to believe that your attributing labor owned capital as being a success story of the labor movement, and not the consequence of a natural process called “capital accumulation” which occurs by default in a generally more free capitalist society. To quote you, you said.

The argument then proceeded down a strawman direction away from the points I just requoted above using your statement

It’s a strawman because a laborer does not need to homestead land and property. He can simply purchase it like all other capitalists do.

Fair enough but don’t you realize how much ammunition your giving people like Rob Heusdens when you agree with him that there is a distinction between laborer and capitalist? IT’s a key tenant of marxism, but one that holds no logical or empirical grounds. That is ultiamtely what this whole conversation is about. It’s what you jumped into. Sorry =p

You have not showed this. The distinction in practice is voluntary. At any given time a laborer can choose to save a specific sum of his wages, in practice that would be him playing capitalism. If the laborer purchases a car he is playing capitalism and aquire wealth/capital. We must also remember Jon’s earlier point that the laborers quality of living has consistently risen over time. So even if he maintains a high time preferences and is not very thrifty, that does not mean he will not be the benefactor of future more productive endeavors of society as a whole. Though I don’t think you’d argue that…

Yes that was my point. :frowning:

Ofc I disagree. I make no distinction between professional and non-professional capitalist but I get your point. However often times(More often then not) the path into the two different lines of work is gradual and the two worlds overlap. I believe it is a false dichotomy to even attempt to identify people as capitalist or laborer, simply because you see him working at the register at office-depot.

I also do not know of any case where a laborer has no other choice but to continue to work at his same place of employment against his will. I again attribute that as another marxist originating fallacy. The laborer has literally thousands of places to attempt to work at.

This is why I brought up the point about pessimism vs optimism, though you took it as a personal attack, which I apologize for.

At any rate, I agree this thread is blah blah blah rabble rabble rabble.

I’ll happily agree to disagree with your whole laborer/capitalist distinction thingy. :slight_smile:

94

You’re confused. The farmer is my (or my LLC’s) client and the people that pay for your work/services are your clients. Both pay for (buy) something they need and that you (and I) have. You are the seller and they are the buyers.

We’re all born naked. We acquire capital (beyond our two hands) by deferring consumption and saving. Your problem is your feeling that the universe not only owes it to the chimpanzee to teach him about using the long stick, but to magically make the bananas fall into his lap, simply because he’d be dead otherwise.

95

I think the whole discussion is “out of touch” with basic premises and indeed fueled by the totally different definitions on basic terms, like work, capitalist, worker, and the like. As long as we do not get our terms straight no discussion makes sense, or can even start out, because we do not know what we are talking about.

Labor is a derivation of the basic prerequiste of human life, called action. Action is a requirement for every human being to survive, because of scarcity and an uncertain future. Every human being has to act because without acting purposeful it can not exist. Labor in the fundamental - and the austrian - sense is the oposite of leisure, nothing more and nothing less. What labor and leisure constitutes is a subjective evaluation of a single human being and not a law of nature or anything.

In this sense, earning interest is labor as well, even if the individual person does not take any actions, that are “considered” labor from any outside perspective. Who is going to judge, and by what criteria, what work ought to be? Another think is the usage of the term labor as the twins of land and labor who are the prerequisites to survive in a scarce environment - which we are all bound to live in, no matter how “rich” one is - only labor can produce goods by transferring nature given resources into something, subjectivly, useful. This labor does not only include manual work but also the development of ideas and other processes of the mind to come up with methods to ease scarcity and thereby decrease the impact of an uncertain future.

Diggin holes in the ground, is sure manual work, but doesn’t produce any good, until there is a use for the hole. Thinking about uses for holes befoe digging takes time, which is a scarce resource, and must therefor be considered labor as well. At a certain point in the process of creating personal wealth there is a point, where personal manual labor can not achieve further increase and other means have to be found to be used. One of these means is to give others part of ones wealth, i.e. a loan, to empower them to achieve their goals sooner.

People living off of stock dividens, do exactly that. They are not the parasites in the system, the parasites are those who have chosen to live by coercing others to feed them - like the state -. Rather they are the incubators of wealth for the whole society, including the poor, who benefit the most from them, because they can get better jobs and more choices for whom to work, besides other advantages (lower prices, better products etc.).

96

Originally you were arguing that there is a clear distinction between laborer and capitalist. I consider this a false dichotomy.

Actually, no, I wasn’t.

I don’t think it is so black and white. Nowhere in the world did the expansion of capital happen in completely capitalist societies; they happened in mixed economies (but correlation isnt causation). Was this a result of capitalism, the labor movement, and/or state intervention?

Originally I was arguing that people were discounting the effect the labor movement had in getting more capital into the hands of workers.

Again I don’t know how such a condition is even possible unless it is self induced voluntary action to remain in that state. However even the poorest of the poor aquire tools, equipment, and objects to improve their productivity or leisure. Even people who get paid less then minimum wage under the table can and have saved their wages and purchased larger durable goods

Again, I said I agree with this. But my position was that, in order to do so, he has no choice but to work for someone else.

Did you even read the Homesteading Act you posted? About 3 lines down it clearly says “The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ended homesteading”

It’s a strawman because a laborer does not need to homestead land and property. He can simply purchase it like all other capitalists do.

And if his wages do not meet his or his families caloric needs, he will not be able to save. If he could homestead, his pitiful wages would mean much more as he wouldn’t have to spend it on food.

Fair enough but don’t you realize how much ammunition your giving people like Rob Heusdens when you agree with him that there is a distinction between laborer and capitalist?

I care not what ammunition the truth gives to my enemies. And I still hold it as true that there is a clear distinction between a professional laborer and a professional capitalist. This does not pose a problem for capitalism.. in fact it shows the strength of it, as many (not nearly all) have come from the ranks of professional laborer to become professional capitalists.

I initially just jumped into this debate to stop people from spreading the idea that all laborers are professional capitalists, that is just burying your head in the sand to hide from reality. If you want your system to beat Marxism, you will acknowledge this difference and show that your system is the better for turning laborers into capitalists (which as Rob pointed out, is the primary end Marxism seeks).

The distinction in practice is voluntary

Not entirely, as he has no choice to work for himself. I am not saying it is mandated, just that it is not entirely voluntary.

At any given time a laborer can choose to save a specific sum of his wages

And if those wages do not meet his and/or his families caloric needs, he will not be able to save.

I also do not know of any case where a laborer has no other choice but to continue to work at his same place of employment against his will. I again attribute that as another marxist originating fallacy. The laborer has literally thousands of places to attempt to work at.

So you are saying that all those applications I sent out the past 3 weeks didn’t happen? I can assure you, noone is hiring. And self-employment doesn’t pay your bills and buy you food, especially when you have kidney stones and no medical insurance. Luckily I have a little social capital (friends and family) and have been able to stay on my feet. But, once again, I can assure you; I have to do the work I do now, as noone else is hiring, or I am over-qualified. Hopefully my gung fu school turns from a hobby to a business, but it is hard as I can only run it out of my rented house, which is not zoned for commercial enterprises.

Yes, I am practicing capitalism as a worker. Yes, with a little luck I may one day be able to give up laboring if I choose. But I am as of now, primarily a laborer, and my inability to homestead land for commercial use is becoming a barrier of entry to me becoming a professional capitalist, if that is what I choose. This isn’t a problem with capital, it is a problem with the current corporatist, socialist and general statist systems that have been foisted upon us by tyrants.

Once again, see above many members of this forum (Lilliburne included) making clear distinctions between capitalist and laborer in practice.

But ya, blah blah, rabble rabble. It was fun debating.

97

We’re all born naked. We acquire capital (beyond our two hands) by deferring consumption and saving. Your problem is your feeling that the universe not only owes it to the chimpanzee to teach him about using the long stick, but to magically make the bananas fall into his lap, simply because he’d be dead otherwise.

Ya, that is my argument to the T. We should all just be handed everything and only someone else should have to work.. ya, that is exaclty what I was saying. Not that 6000 years of statist tyranny has gobbled up all the sticks thru force, and the bananas, and if I touch either one without paying another chimp, I am stealing…Good job figuring that one out!

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a marxist… you know that, right?

98

__

I also pointed this out as a strawman. Capital did not accumulate because of the were mixed economy. You said yourself coorelation, not causation. So I don’t even know why you mentioned that point in the first place.

I admit I was lazy there. But you ignored me how I point out that it’s a strawman and pointless. A) the world is not the US. B) property is traded and exchanged and ownership changes on a daily basis.

**

In both first and even now in third world countries excessive caloric intake is more of a problem. There is also a huge “immigrant” community that gets paid below minimum wages under the table which has consistently been able to save and aquire their own capital. The best your going to be able to argue is blame the poor american’s for beign fiscally irresponsible. shrug

Also, how many poor people do you know are starving to death? In the US the poor now days generally suffer from obesity issues, or excess in caloric intakes beyond what is needed. Now I will agree that there is definately a problem with malnutrition and poverty in the US, but that is more generally associated with state’s subsidies of poor quality food. IE we subsidize high caloric foods with low nutrients, as opposed to nutrient rich foods with lower calories.

Corn, and wheat come to mind…

**

The problem again is your not talking about the truth. Your talking about a theoretical concept. Your still trying to make a laborer vs capitalist class distinction. Heh..

**

All professional capitalists work for someone. It may even be the consumer, shareholder, whatev…

**

He can choose to work for someone else, himself, or become nomadic. Your misrepresenting reality, there are loads of options to even the poorest. It’s the pessimism that you represent which the poor often subscribe to. A state of hopelessness builds and their motivation plumits. The truth is there are tons of opportunities. Some people genuinely are happy where they are financially also…

**

Such conditions are not as common across the globe now days. Even in the western hemisphere, or latin america, it’s not an issue of not getting enough calories.

It’s counter economical to assume that the price of food will exceed that which wages can afford. There you will potential customers. If people aren’t buying because they cannot afford it, the price will drop eventually to the point that they do.

**

Incorrect. People are hiring. They just aren’t hiring you. There is alot of idle labor and capital however. That is the fault of post business cycle conditions which are being maintained by the state.

__

See I am in a different situation. Despite the economic turmoil companies actively solicit me for my resume and job interests. But I’ve made a huge effort in making myself desirable to business as a whole. I can’t comment on what you’ve done but really our anecdotal points are meaningless.

**

Thanks.

99

I know socialists. You’re just saying that companies shouldn’t force their workers to work 12 hours in a day. However, if the worker wanted to, nothing should stand in the way of his working 12 hours a day.

Believe me, it can be done. Have you ever worked in fast food? Have you ever voluntarily held 2 jobs at once, when you could just mooch off your parents? Well see…

100

Uhm, no. Your argument is that someone else should provide you a job and pay you a “decent” wage, and/or provide you with an alternative lest you feel coerced (exploited) by this lack of choices. As if your mere existence implied a universe filled with bananas, sticks, and lobbing you ideas on how to use the latter to get the former. Given that, you would be willing to swing the stick and fetch the bananas yourself, cause you’re not that lazy. Got it.

All the valuable stuff on this planet is already owned by someone else?! All the good ideas (sticks) have already been used? The horror! By definition, something is valuable exactly because it is already valued and pursued by many. Tough luck. Try a universe devoid of scarcity next time around.