expression is more then words, stop, the dirtiest word in economics

Facial expressions say more than a thousand words

People talk to exchange information. Yet understanding another person involves far more than just the content of the message. Only with the correct intonation and facial expression does the message acquire meaning. People can improve their communication skills by deliberately managing these non-verbal messages.

The extra layer of information that you add to a message when speaking is called prosody. The most important conclusion is that prosody lies not only in the voice but also in the facial expression. Further it appears that auditory and visual information together are more effective than the same information separately.

That a text is more than a series of words becomes clear as soon as you read a story aloud, for example, Little Red Riding Hood.

Prosody is the ghost that looks over my shoulder when i write most of these posts. How can I get across my intended meaning, using just words. “There’s nothing to writing.  All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open a vein.”  ~Walter Wellesley “Red” Smith

stop

The redistribution of wealth. Sounds painful, something like a colonoscopy. Some people are even convinced its closely associated with one of those isms or some kind of demonic ritual. I know this because I gots me one of those TV dealys, cable and all. If its on the TV all the time it must be true. Maybe its like that experiment where Microsoft showed people an operating system called Mojave and which most of them liked. Later its revealed they were using Vista. They need to rename it to something else, because most Americans are pro redistribution when its divided into categories. An Economy for All

…a February 2008 Associated Press/Ipsos poll found that 70 percent of respondents thought that “increasing spending on domestic programs like health care, education, and housing” would help fix the country’s economic problems. A January 2008 Fortune Magazine poll found that 67 percent would support “increasing government spending on things like public-works projects to help create jobs.”

The idea is create and maintain an educated, healthy population that can provide the labor, ideas and consumers who in turn create a stable striving middle-class. Redistribution. Economic Inequality in US

The first is obvious. Capitalism depends on capital, and some members of society have a lot more of it than others. So the in-built tendency of capitalism is to reward those who have capital, which in less technical terms means that those with money tend to see their wealth grow much faster than those who have no money. The rich get richer is a fundamental corollary of capitalist dynamics.

There are two ways of suppressing this tendency toward increasing concentration of wealth. One, obviously, is taxes; the other is government spending. Taxes support public services and government functions, but they have, always, another function. Taxes redistribute income. Governments take money from people via taxes, and they also give money back to people, via social programs. Who the government takes money from, how much it takes, and what it spends the money on: these are decisions with redistributive consequences.

The biggest rewards in America are not reaped by those that work the hardest. It is not reaped by the people with the best minds or the best ideas – how many multi-millionaire biologists do you know, or historians, or mathematicians, or physicists – a modern industrialized nation cannot run without these essential skills. Bill Gates, a college drop out made billions – he ‘borrowed’ DOS, renamed it MSDOS and put a GUI on top of it – none of which took much brain power – huge rewards. Axiom, work hard and you’ll make money,

Compensation: Recent work by MIT economists Frank Levy and Peter Temin shows that a wedge has been driven between productivity gains and compensation (wages plus health care and fringe benefits) for full-time workers at peak earning age. Since 1980, productivity has increased by 71 percent while median compensation rose by only 19 percent, and 82 percent of personal income gains went to the top 1 percent of the population.

Its not possible for 1% of the population to produce even a simple majority of America’s goods and services. A few people are making tons of money for not doing much. They have money which makes money. Even if you have increased your productivity 71% over your retiring uncle, you still have a better chance of winning the lottery then breaking into that upper 1%. The same people that have turned wealth redistribution into a dirty word, have not said, but demonstrated they have no problem with the concept per se as long as it is redistributed upward. No wealth is possible without labor. As dependent on the entrepreneur is on capital, she is equally dependent on labor. No work means no new great next idea. If you’re bright and invent something, few would argue that you don’t deserve fair compensation, but try manufacturing your gizmo, marketing it, distributing it or incorporating the next research and development in gizmoes without people to help you. Its a codependent relationship without the alcohol.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. – Abraham Lincoln

If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and the resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor. – Frank Lloyd Wright

Labor was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things.  It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased. – Adam Smith

Many of the same people that hate the concept of wealth redistribution, which has nothing to do with socialism, love Adam Smith. I can only guess they’re ignoring Smith’s relative contempt for the acquisition of wealth for its own sake and focusing on his proposition that some abuses of capitalism would have to be tolerated. Tolerate for what. Smith claimed for the over all good of society – the original trickle down theory of economics. It is possible to go overboard in trying to correct the trickle down effect and punish capital, but a progressive tax system and spreading some of that unearned wealth back to those that did the lion’s share of helping to create it is not oppressive.

Advertisements