“Producers of Value” are the Real Parasites
The idea proposed in this post is somewhat heretical though hardly unprecedented.
“Producers of Value” are the Real Parasites.
Producers = so-called ‘productive’ people that produce useful stuff (inventors, entrepreneurs, companies and services) and net useless or obviously harmful stuff (venture capitalists, MBAs, lawyers, bankers etc). So why are “producers” parasitic? If you believe the average brainwashed moron- we should be thankful to these “gods” for letting us live.
Let us start by defining parasitism-
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
An obligate parasite is a parasitic organism that cannot live independently of its host.
An obligate parasite is then something which cannot exist without its host, and benefits more from the relationship than the host. It is important to remember that even obligate parasites can confer survival advantages and other quantifiable benefits on its host.
So the question is-
Can humans, as a species, survive without these overcompensated producers? The answer- Humans can survive without these parasites. The majority of our existence as a species occurred in the absence of such parasites. As previously noted, some of these obligate parasites do confer advantages on their hosts, but most do not.
The guys who created the first CPU, discovered antibiotics, vaccines, made new metal alloys, created various new machines constitute the minority of obligate parasites. Most obligate parasites are rent-seeking thugs and CONmen, who also constitute the vast majority of our highly compensated classes. They do not intentionally do, contribute or facilitate anything that confers a survival advantage on the host.
If anything, their actions actively undermine the continued well-being of the host, often to levels where the host dies- quickly (western roman empire), slowly (eastern roman empire, british empire) or stagnates into a perpetual twilight (the last 2.5 thousand -100 years of chinese/ japanese/ korean history).
Most laws, regulations, customs, institutions and a large part of the real and social infrastructure benefits these obligate parasites at the expense of the host, even though most of them do not help the host in any manner whatsoever.The only good news is that parasite-heavy hosts always die or are taken over by other less parasitized hosts.
Oh, and by the way- most of that so-called “value” these producers generously add to the host is fictional bullshit to justify their ass-raping.
Comments?
All humans are parasites at birth by default. They need others to survive until they are able to take care of themselves.
—-
But they usually return the favor, at least throughout most of human history.
But real producers (e.g. a cow farmer who produces food) are also monopolists because they have a surplus which can be given for free.
—-
But most “producers” do not produce anything useful to others over the long run.
What are your criteria for judging useful?
—
Does it improve the condition or add to the host abilities in an objectively measurable manner?
Bankers provide a very useful function they help to allocate resources. The poor economical performance of the Soviet Union shows the benefits of bankers.
—-
Failure due to totalitarianism is not the same as failure due to lack of bankers.
What do you mean then by inventors?
Anyway, entrepreneurs, companies, services, venture capitalists, MBAs, lawyers and bankers are not producers.
“Can humans, as a species, survive without these overcompensated producers?” Why would anybody care about this question? Yes, a species can survive, just take a look at Africa.
—-
Do you think that the current level of human civilization could survive the disappearance of MBAs, corporate lawyers, most businessmen, most doctors, investment banksters and bureaucrats?
Yes, I do. Why would I care about this question? I am not only interested in surviving.
In your “frugality is bad, part 1″ post, you talk about how we can easily provide plenty for everyone, and I agree.
Based on that, an inventor isn’t really a parasite, except maybe in the most pedantic sense, a helpful parasite. Even if he does something really obscure– like, hey, me, I research abstract mathematical logic– it’s not as though there’s a dire need for him to go plow the fields instead. If an inventor is a parasite, then someone on welfare is a parasite; the latter is false so the former is false.
Of course, MBAs and bankers and corporate lawyers and most businessmen, are NOT inventors. I guess my real complaint is why you’re equating them with inventors.
—-
Because not all obligate parasites are harmful, some can be incredibly beneficial.
My aim is at Ayn Rand types who try to use examples such as inventors to justify their rent-seeking scams. It is therefore necessary to first destroy the myth of Galt.
“Producers = so-called ‘productive’ people that produce useful stuff (inventors, entrepreneurs, companies and services) and net useless or obviously harmful stuff (venture capitalists, MBAs, lawyers, bankers etc). So why are “producers” parasitic? If you believe the average brainwashed moron- we should be thankful to these “gods” for letting us live.”
A common collectivist fallacy is confusing what is determined as “useful” as the arbitrary whims of “society”. They think it is up to “society” to determine what is and what isn’t useful rather than the individuals (i.e. consumers) making the decisions in a free marketplace.
Inventors, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists etc who fail to produce something useful to enough of their market (consumers) will fail in their undertaking (making money) every time, so it has to be “useful” to someone. Their “profit” or the amount of money made after all costs put into the production, sales and marketing of a product or service is objective proof of its relative usefulness and their efficient practices. In capitalism “consumers” are the arbiters of value, not “society”.
A red herring argument is in thinking that “producers” make our “lives” possible. Your life is certainly possible without them, but who can argue ours lives are not better off in absolute terms without the guy who invented air conditioners? Heaters? Air planes? In short they make “modern” life possible with their inventions and products.
It’s more likely that they will fail to make money for their shareholders and provide financial stability for their subordinates in the institutions that they are supposed to be running. They will make money for themselves, which means ultimately they are indeed successful. What failed ‘producers’ haven’t walked away from a dead or crippled ‘host’ company fabulously wealthy in return for their ‘service’ (that didn’t also wind up in jail)? What percentage are these destitute failures in comparison to their wealthy failed peers?
The issue at hand with the ‘producer’ ideology is a failure to understand sociobiology and how these leaders of men are actually selected. One not need be productive to reach the upper echelons and rake in money. They only need to appear to be producers, and these chameleons are probably more successful at social climbing into power than are the ‘real producers’ who happen to be socially inept and will rarely get near real power and real wealth. The ‘producers’ of today are for the most part not the kinds of people capable of creating what they operate. In many cases they aren’t the kinds of people capable of operating what they operate, but are skilled at social manipulation and jockeying for power.
I give you Carly Fiorina as a prominent example that got paid $20 million dollars to leave HP, and then went on to advise a Presidential candidate on economics, and potential US Senator. Obviously she is a huge failure. She is too big to fail though.
I’d like to see Atlas Shrugged re-written with Galt as an antisocial, slightly out of shape man with a serious case of Aspergers or some other isolating defect; which is a more true to life profile of a brilliant engineer and scientist. These are people that make well above average income but are certainly not the larger than life Galtesque leaders of industry, and are by no stretch of the imagination actually wealthy. They are ‘poor’ when Republicans and Democrats argue about taxes.
“My aim is at Ayn Rand types who try to use examples such as inventors to justify their rent-seeking scams. It is therefore necessary to first destroy the myth of Galt. ”
On one more thing.
Your also confusing what a producer determines as just payment for a product as a “scam” or “fraud” and then denouncing it as “rent seeking”. The consumer is free to look elsewhere for the same product or service at a better price (or even free). If the consumer decides to pay for producer A’s product instead of producer B, he has determined that that producer A has a superior product for his purposes and will gain more than he loses by buying it.
—-
Less theory, more real world implementation.
“Less theory, more real world implementation.”
In the “real world”, companies like Walmart and inventors like Ray Kurzweil make money because they satisfy consumer wants and needs. Your issue with them is that you perceive them to not be “contributing to society” in some vague way. I corrected that erroneous position above, because in the “real world” capitalism doesn’t work like that. It doesn’t care about altruistic vanities or appeals to society. Its run by selfish, rational (or irrational) actors.
—-
Walmart and Kurzweil.. come on. There are much better examples of what you want to say.
They are adequate examples. They adequately demonstrate my point, regardless of whether or not there are better examples present.
Walmart = company
Kurzweil = inventor
Do you have nothing more to say than petty one-liners?
—-
Use examples that changed the world beyond recognition-
Intel = Company (CPU)
Domagk= Inventor (Sulfonamides)
The term ‘producers’ is by itself bullshit.
It is rooted in French Revolutionary and Marxist ideology. I can tell it from my personal experience.
‘Producers’ can justify eliminating you if they consider you a ‘parasite’. Isn’t this what happened in the French and Soviet revolutions?
Read writings in all languages before the 18th century and you won’t find any reference to a producer class versus a parasite class.