這個思維實驗有什麼邏輯漏洞？

01-12

將所有資本家抽象為一個，所有勞動者抽象為一個。資本家僱傭勞動者生產一件100元產品，賣個這個勞動者。資本家發給這個勞動者50塊工資，剩餘50元擴大生產。不斷重複這個過程，社會貧富差距必然越來越大。
這個邏輯推理有什麼漏洞嗎？
這個推理的結果符合社會實際嗎？

……勞動者50元工資是怎麼買得起100元的商品的？

我覺得題主需要看看下圖，來自曼昆《經濟學原理》的「循環流量圖」

當然有了，50元用來擴大生產，不就是消費掉了嗎，假設有30元用來修建新工廠，20元用來僱傭工人，而你又把所有工人抽象成一個，現在工人的工資不就是70了嗎。再來看看修建新工廠的30元又到哪去了，修建新工廠需要人力與物力，假設人力耗費15元，物力耗費15元，現在工人工資已經是70+15了，對吧，物力那15元又給誰呢？難道你買一塊磚是付錢給磚嗎？不是的，你是付錢給生產磚的人，因此所有的交易都是由人完成的。我建議你還是不要用什麼工人資本家那套去理解經濟現象了，用現代經濟學的術語理解更容易，讀讀薩繆爾森的書。

Just for practicing English essay, I would write in English.

This argument has the unfounded assumption that the economic model cannot be broken, namely, there is no way for one to negotiate salary or to work for another employer, and that business will exist forever. Of course, it is not true. Also, I may have other points to make.

Firstly, running a business has inherent risks. If you want to set up a business, whether big or small size, you have to accept the fact that you could lose your money and your commercial practice goes south, if nobody or not enough customers need your products or service to sustain your business. What"s more, one regime can bust and retire as well. In addition, everyone can be an employer, and every boss is working for someone else.

Secondly, the wealth or income gap between the rich and the poor results from other things, while this argument has the assumption that there are no other factors involved.

Wealth distribution is quite a big issue, not to mention the redistribution. In China, I have to say that the statutory minimum wage is too low, if there is one, and the inflation is ridiculously high that an average income individual would have to work 2 hours or so to buy a coffee, while in Australia you only need about 10 minutes of work. The inflation gives the curse to everyone, including "bosses". Which means, there are more flaws in the social structure/regulation rather than just private sectors, and that"s happening right now.

Thirdly, the supply-demand dynamic is (one of) the foundation of the economics, if I may say. Which entails that if you can provide unrivaled skill-set, you can be the top brain whose income could be the 1%, say, you may have $10,000,000 yearly salary. In that case, a small company does not have the privilege to have you working for them. So how can a person, who is totally out of his reach, play games with people from a high level? Therefore, you can quit the job if you only paid 50/hour, if the time is right. However, there is more sht keeping you stay (normal case would be less than 10rmb/hour). Eg, inflation. The expense is so high, you can only work 6.5 days a week to eke out a living. And that is a thing to blame, and that"s exploitation, and it is not a story of yesterday. and education fails him/her, not the other way around(example? u kidding. Where does this concept in question come from? text book).

Fourthly, anyone can ""exploit"" from the others, for instance, raise chicks to have eggs for breakfast and meat for dinner. Once again, the social wealth structure is the outcome of other shts, where fundamental one is the redistribution mechanism, and inflation is an outcome too, not a contributor. If not oversimplified, it is the problem of tax levy system and market (labor, finance, etc. yeah! we have so many markets!) regulation. The "exploitation" bs is just an escape goat for some govs, especially the one next to NK. If it"s true, why do we still have markets? Let a small group of bs be rich 1st, till then communal richness is established? where the market is no more existing? That joke is good.

In conclusion, wish we might read more, think more. Thanks for reading.

Peace.

你既然都抽象成這樣，那不如再抽象一下，工人和資本家都是同一個人，全世界就一個人給自己生產和消費，現在他生產了一個價值100元東西，決定先給自己發50元工資，剩下的50元拿來擴大再生產，那這用於擴大再生產的50元應該拿給誰呢？拿著又去幹嘛了呢？

有漏洞，也不符合社會現實。

@Richard Xu 先把那張圖給你看了，這是經濟學模型里最基礎最簡單的一個。雖然很簡化，但是本質是符合一般性現實的。

簡單說，勞動者和產品的購買者在社會整體層次上是同一群人，如果按照你所假設的進行極限地簡化的話，那這群人所得到的工資只有50塊，而物價是100塊，沒得東西買，經濟體系恐怕要崩潰。在不同的市場(該簡化模型中的要素市場和商品市場)中，公司和家庭都同時扮演著生產者和消費者，貨幣和產品/服務以相反的方向循環流動。只有這個流動是完整而可持續的，經濟才能維持並發展下去。而事實上，在答主的想法中，用來擴大生產的50元是和工人們沒關係的，實際上不是的。現實中，給你打工做產品的和你擴大生產時僱傭的工人不是一批人，但是在你的簡化條件下，就是一批人。那這50元是不是也應該算作工人的所得？雖然實際的形式是勞動和擴大生產所需的物資。總之，在這種極限簡化條件下，勞動者會得到全部的100元，只不過形式不同。而實際上這100元也會全部以購買商品的形式流動到公司的手機，用於繼續發工資和擴大生產。

其實很多人對經濟的理解有很大誤區，這大多是由思維方式導致的。推薦格里高利·曼昆的《經濟學原理》，這是多數經濟學專業的西方經濟學教材，屬於入門級讀物，面對的讀者立體感經濟學的大一學生和非經濟學專業學生，是一本類似於掃盲和科普性質的經濟學基礎教材。原版是英文的，國內只有北大出版社的譯本，逐年更新版本，版本間價格和內容區別都不大，一般來說買最新的就好。作為外文教材來說是很便宜的書，我記得幾年前我買的時候，微觀+宏觀兩厚本的最新版也只要70。

書很通俗易懂，可以當做讀物來讀。