Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know, SD, when attempting to discuss issues with people who are so clearly ignorant about even the most fundamental concepts as some are now taking umbrage with, it's a fairly hopeless task.
My original post is interpreted by these ignoramouses as some kind of attack on capitalism.
I mean, seriously, having a worthwhile discussion about economics with people that ignorant about the subject isn't really possible.
Professor:Its time for you to study economics, lad.
You seriously don't understand even the basic principles underlying the capitalist economic system we have, that's bloody obvious.
It's bloody obvious that someone doesn't have a clue.
In capitalism, goods are traded. Labor is traded for cash. Cash is traded for beer. Beer is traded for credit receipts.
Capitalism is based on the unconcerned trade of what the buyer values who exchanges what the seller values in return.
The claim that the laborer has ANYTHING to do with the final product is idiotic, totally ignorant. The laborer trades his labor for cash. The amount of cash he gets is a matter of negotiation between him and the purchaser of his labor.
I need to study economics? Please. I think it is painfully clear that you haven't the faintest idea how free markets work. The reducation of your arguments to ad hominem makes that quite evident.Wrong. Laborers are not paid less than they produce, nor does capitalism have that assumption. Laborers are not paid for what they produce. They are paid for their services. The labor theory of value is incorrect. Final goods are valued by individuals in society, and supply and demand of these goods determine their market price. The wage is simply another price, the price of offering a service. Laborers are paid less than the price of a final good. Otherwise there would be no point in hiring laborers.Peers of the realm once argued that without them OWNING EVERYTHING society would collapse.
CApitalism is based on the assumption that laborers must be paid less than they produce so that capital can be concentrated for future projects.
And that is a good economic system when the economy is CLOSED.
But when that capital can migrate to other economies, then the basic concept of how this system works is flawed.
And that is what is happening to this nation right now.
Trade with different countries is no different than trade with different states. The system before capitalism was mercantilism, based on the same fallacies that anti-free traders are using today. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Its time for you to study economics, lad.
You seriously don't understand even the basic principles underlying the capitalist economic system we have, that's bloody obvious.
"CApitalism is based on the assumption that laborers must be paid less than they produce so that capital can be concentrated for future projects."Peers of the realm once argued that without them OWNING EVERYTHING society would collapse.
CApitalism is based on the assumption that laborers must be paid less than they produce so that capital can be concentrated for future projects.
And that is a good economic system when the economy is CLOSED.
But when that capital can migrate to other economies, then the basic concept of how this system works is flawed.
And that is what is happening to this nation right now.
Maybe we haven't uncovered the common ground necessary to establish "the most fundamental concepts"?
Profit:
"In economics, the term profit has two related but distinct meanings.
"Normal profit represents the total opportunity costs (both explicit and implicit) of a venture to an entrepreneur or investor, whilst economic profit (also abnormal, pure, supernormal or excess profit, as the case may be monopoly or oligopoly profit, or simply profit) is, at least in the neoclassical microeconomic theory which dominates modern economics, the difference between a firm's total revenue and all costs, including normal profit..."
Profit (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would nominate "all costs" as one possible starting point in this discussion.
Capitalism as it's practiced in much of the world, enhances profit by externalizing as many costs as possible onto the wider society.
Socialize cost.
Privatize profit.
It's as old as the Fall of Man, and it's suicidal.
Professor:
Land.
Labor.
Capital.
Take away any of the above and there is no final product to sell?
"A negative externality is an action of a product on consumers that imposes a negative side effect on a third party; it is 'social cost'.The idea that an economic numskull like you thinks he is qualified to school anyone about economics is simply too absurd for words.
Maybe we haven't uncovered the common ground necessary to establish "the most fundamental concepts"?
Profit:
"In economics, the term profit has two related but distinct meanings.
"Normal profit represents the total opportunity costs (both explicit and implicit) of a venture to an entrepreneur or investor, whilst economic profit (also abnormal, pure, supernormal or excess profit, as the case may be monopoly or oligopoly profit, or simply profit) is, at least in the neoclassical microeconomic theory which dominates modern economics, the difference between a firm's total revenue and all costs, including normal profit..."
Profit (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would nominate "all costs" as one possible starting point in this discussion.
Capitalism as it's practiced in much of the world, enhances profit by externalizing as many costs as possible onto the wider society.
Socialize cost.
Privatize profit.
It's as old as the Fall of Man, and it's suicidal.
Wrong again.Professor:
Land.
Labor.
Capital.
Take away any of the above and there is no final product to sell?
However, all your theories depend on the idea that Land and capital are irrelevant to the production process.
Peers of the realm once argued that without them OWNING EVERYTHING society would collapse.
CApitalism is based on the assumption that laborers must be paid less than they produce so that capital can be concentrated for future projects.
And that is a good economic system when the economy is CLOSED.
But when that capital can migrate to other economies, then the basic concept of how this system works is flawed.
And that is what is happening to this nation right now.
You mean closed as in held hostage, right?
I mean in the NATIONAL interests.
You know (or more likely you don't) rather like the Floundering Fathers envisioned AND THEN PRACTICED it?
Wrong again.Professor:
Land.
Labor.
Capital.
Take away any of the above and there is no final product to sell?
However, all your theories depend on the idea that Land and capital are irrelevant to the production process.
While I believe labor (and land) are prior to and independent of capital, I recognize all three factors of production are indispensable to the production of goods and services.
I would add one more factor, namely the cultural inheritance of society, defined by CH Douglas "...as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization."
Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only kidding.
Land.
Labor.
Capital.
Take away any of the above and there is no final product to sell?
Land.
Labor.
Capital.
Take away any of the above and there is no final product to sell?
Really?
So without land, Google ceases to exist?
Marx wrote from the perspective of the 19th century. He understood feudal relations with the landed gentry. His ideas are simply not relevant to the modern world.
Communists are trying to stick an 8" floppy disk into a SD flash slot, and are confused why it doesn't work, convinced that if they just try again, it will somehow succeed.
If he would replace land with property he's much closer to right.
Mike
Marx did not understand the structure of capital, and his understanding of value was also incorrect. The labor theory of value, like the cost theory of value, does not accurately explain reality. The entire notion of exploitation was based around the labor theory of value, and once you recognize that subjective value theory is much closer to the truth, the entire economic model of Marxism collapses.
Marx did not understand the structure of capital, and his understanding of value was also incorrect. The labor theory of value, like the cost theory of value, does not accurately explain reality. The entire notion of exploitation was based around the labor theory of value, and once you recognize that subjective value theory is much closer to the truth, the entire economic model of Marxism collapses.
Prices of things are set by the law of supply and demand, not by the amount of labor that goes into making them, or by the subjective opinion of the purchaser. Buyers try to get the lowest price, and sellers try to get the highest. Labor and subjective value might represent boundaries, but that's it.
"Exploitation" implies immorality. That human labor (physical and mental) produces all goods and services is a simple fact. It follows that people who don't work, whether because they're unemployed or wealthy, too old or too young - or whatever other reason - are subsisting on the efforts of others. It also follows income derived from profits is unearned income, which is what the tax code says it is. This is meant to be positive, not normative. It's not a value judgment. (Though personally I think the development of a class of extremely rich, unproductive people is probably unhealthy.)
What's important is that when too much of the income goes to the owners, rather than than the workers, workers can afford to buy less and less stuff. When they can't afford to buy stuff, effective demand for the stuff they're making goes down. When there's not demand, workers get laid off, which decreases demand even more. It's not a cycle that automatically ends by itself. It's an enormous, unnecessary waste that could be fixed, given the right policies.
Prices of things are set by the law of supply and demand, not by the amount of labor that goes into making them, or by the subjective opinion of the purchaser. Buyers try to get the lowest price, and sellers try to get the highest. Labor and subjective value might represent boundaries, but that's it.
Prices of things are set by the law of supply and demand, not by the amount of labor that goes into making them, or by the subjective opinion of the purchaser.
"Exploitation" implies immorality. That human labor (physical and mental) produces all goods and services is a simple fact. It follows that people who don't work, whether because they're unemployed or wealthy, too old or too young - or whatever other reason - are subsisting on the efforts of others. It also follows income derived from profits is unearned income, which is what the tax code says it is. This is meant to be positive, not normative. It's not a value judgment. (Though personally I think the development of a class of extremely rich, unproductive people is probably unhealthy.)
What's important is that when too much of the income goes to the owners, rather than than the workers, workers can afford to buy less and less stuff. When they can't afford to buy stuff, effective demand for the stuff they're making goes down. When there's not demand, workers get laid off, which decreases demand even more. It's not a cycle that automatically ends by itself. It's an enormous, unnecessary waste that could be fixed, given the right policies.
Marx did not understand the structure of capital, and his understanding of value was also incorrect. The labor theory of value, like the cost theory of value, does not accurately explain reality. The entire notion of exploitation was based around the labor theory of value, and once you recognize that subjective value theory is much closer to the truth, the entire economic model of Marxism collapses.
Prices of things are set by the law of supply and demand, not by the amount of labor that goes into making them, or by the subjective opinion of the purchaser. Buyers try to get the lowest price, and sellers try to get the highest. Labor and subjective value might represent boundaries, but that's it.
"Exploitation" implies immorality. That human labor (physical and mental) produces all goods and services is a simple fact. It follows that people who don't work, whether because they're unemployed or wealthy, too old or too young - or whatever other reason - are subsisting on the efforts of others. It also follows income derived from profits is unearned income, which is what the tax code says it is. This is meant to be positive, not normative. It's not a value judgment. (Though personally I think the development of a class of extremely rich, unproductive people is probably unhealthy.)
What's important is that when too much of the income goes to the owners, rather than than the workers, workers can afford to buy less and less stuff. When they can't afford to buy stuff, effective demand for the stuff they're making goes down. When there's not demand, workers get laid off, which decreases demand even more. It's not a cycle that automatically ends by itself. It's an enormous, unnecessary waste that could be fixed, given the right policies.
Prices of things are set by the law of supply and demand, not by the amount of labor that goes into making them, or by the subjective opinion of the purchaser. Buyers try to get the lowest price, and sellers try to get the highest. Labor and subjective value might represent boundaries, but that's it.
Fair market value is not going to be less than the cost to get the product or service there for long, if one plans to keep doing what one is doing. If there is no profit margin, why on earth would anyone continue to operate at a loss? Nice try though.
Maybe we haven't uncovered the common ground necessary to establish "the most fundamental concepts"?The frightening thing is that we HAVE to, GP.
I make a statement that no economist in the UNIVERSE would take exception to, and some completely ignorant nitwit here imagines that such a statement is an assult on capitalism?
Profit:
"In economics, the term profit has two related but distinct meanings.
"Normal profit represents the total opportunity costs (both explicit and implicit) of a venture to an entrepreneur or investor, whilst economic profit (also abnormal, pure, supernormal or excess profit, as the case may be monopoly or oligopoly profit, or simply profit) is, at least in the neoclassical microeconomic theory which dominates modern economics, the difference between a firm's total revenue and all costs, including normal profit..."
Profit (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would nominate "all costs" as one possible starting point in this discussion.
Capitalism as it's practiced in much of the world, enhances profit by externalizing as many costs as possible onto the wider society.
Socialize cost.
Privatize profit.
It's as old as the Fall of Man, and it's suicidal.
One way or the other, in EVERY economic system that is a GOING CONCERN, capital or resources MUST BE put aside for FUTURE endeavors.
In our system, the folks who put asdide that capital, do so from the profits made today.
Those profits are generally the result of paying workers LESS than 100% of the value of their labor.
Now there's isn't a serious economist no matter how conservative they are, who would question that.
But in this place, a place loaded with constitutional scholars who never studiued the law, and economic theorists who never studied economics, even the most apodectic truthm the most pedestrian of observations is questioned by people wholly ignorant of what is being disucssed.
Hence instead of having real discussions, this boards completely cluesless serves up the same old stupid content FREE arguments daily.
Jesus people, READ A FUCKING BOOK!
