Hi guys,
What would you guys respond to something like this:
Of course, this guy seems to completely disregard simple concepts like the Comparative Advantage theory. I mean, if that “upper class” that builds the factory, offers a deal to the “lower class” where they make 1/10th of the product output, or whatever, then if the “lower class” accepts it, they are better off, because it means that their old farm work or whatever didn’t produce as much.
A free market, in time, would actually improve the situation to the workers side by the creation of more capital that production makes possible, and sequential competitveness for labor.
Anyway, I wonder if there is some kind of good analogy to destroy this argument. Some scenario that you could describe that would show the flaws of this thinking. For instance, I think if we use engineers and space agencies, there isn’t much of an emotional attachement for the “engineers class”, because, even though each of them would not be able to build a space agency, he always has plenty of other work available, and so the point might come across easier.
But maybe an everyday scenario might prove more effective. I wonder if we could use print shops, and some poor student that needs to print his lenghty essay in special paper or whatever, and so is in the hands of the evil print shops owners. The problem with this one is that communist folks see money has being all-powerful in an exchange, even if you say the poor student has to deliver the essay the next day…
Thoughts?