Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[dblack]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

But why is that important? What do you propose to do with this "definite value"?

 

[Tehon]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

By whom? Against what standards of measure?

Accumulated labor hours.

 

[bripat9643]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

 

[dblack]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

By whom? Against what standards of measure?

Accumulated labor hours.

Ok, so we can count labor hours. Again, I'm more interested in why it's important to establish. What do you propose to do with this number?

 

[bripat9643]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

But why is that important? What do you propose to do with this "definite value"?

it's important because Marxists need to justify looting capitalists of their property. They therefor need to justify it by claiming that capitalists are cheating labor.

 

[Tehon]

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

By whom? Against what standards of measure?

Accumulated labor hours.

Ok, so we can count labor hours. Again, I'm more interested in why it's important to establish. What do you propose to do with this number?

It's a theory associated with Karl Marx. It has already been established, I am trying to explain it to someone who doesn't believe in the theory.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

 

[Tehon]

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

 

[jc456]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

So material doesn’t matter, location, price per hour, all other expenses?

 

[jc456]

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

He also has talent, tools and expenses

 

[jc456]

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

By whom? Against what standards of measure?

Accumulated labor hours.

Ok, so we can count labor hours. Again, I'm more interested in why it's important to establish. What do you propose to do with this number?

It's a theory associated with Karl Marx. It has already been established, I am trying to explain it to someone who doesn't believe in the theory.

So, you think you’re an expert? I just spit my coffee out!

 

[dblack]

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

 

[bripat9643]

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

By whom? Against what standards of measure?

Accumulated labor hours.

Ok, so we can count labor hours. Again, I'm more interested in why it's important to establish. What do you propose to do with this number?

It's a theory associated with Karl Marx. It has already been established, I am trying to explain it to someone who doesn't believe in the theory.

It certainly hasn't been "established." It has been rejected.

 

[Contumacious]

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

Infrastructure is the product of those who labored to produce it.

Your tax money is used to hire capitalists to produce infrastructure.

The capitalist hires wage labor to produce infrastructure.

The capitalists profits off the unpaid value of the labor to produce infrastructure.

Is that then your idea of the social ownership of the means of production? That we all, through our taxes, use our collective capital to exploit labor for private accumulation?

Do you then also believe that the armaments industry is an example of socialism?

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

All that matters is that the funding came tax payer revenue and these services are then utilized by tax payers.

Is this the definition of socialism that you intend to use?

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

Do you need help understanding it?

When our tax money is used to contract with a private contractor to build infrastructure, we don't control the means of production. The private contractor does. That is capitalism.

RULE OF THUMB

IF THE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION IN ANY WAY SHAPE OF FORM THE YOU HAVE SOCIALISM OR FASCISM.


.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

But you said the price of the orange isn't always the same as the "value" of the orange, as in after a freeze. How do you know what the value is if it's not equal to the price? You can't claim it's equal to the labor required to produce it because you haven't demonstrated that. You've simply asserted it. You may as well claim the labor content of the orange is equal to the labor content of the orange. That's pretty much all you said. It's a tautology. It explains nothing. You're so-called "value," as you define it, plays no part in economics. It certainly doesn't affect consumer decisions.

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

The guy would charge you a lot more than what you can buy the same item for in a furniture store. I know because I used to make furniture, and there is no way I could sell it for the same price as a furniture manufacturer and make a living. You can't just arbitrarily pay whatever you want to pay. No one's going to do it for any arbitrary terms you dictate. The craftsman who did it has a shop and equipment that he has to pay for. You don't even mention those. Furthermore, in a realistic scenareo, the craftsman would have to go to a lumber yard to buy the wood.

 

[bripat9643]

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Not necessarily. If one was made by an inefficient manufacturer, it may have required twice the labor to create. According to Tehon, one has twice the intrinsic value of the other. However, the consumers will pay the same price for each. They don't give a damn about how much labor they each took when they make a purchasing decision.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

I found that when i was a burger flipper at McDonalds back in 1976 i was more than willing to make $2.10 an hour. But after a while i knew that i needed to get a better job because minimum wage was for College kids and the elderly. What really happened is more liberals with Welfare supplemented the minimum wage earners thus keeping stupid people in the minimum wage jobs, instead of developing skills to work themselves out of poverty, thus keeping them reliant on the liberals who give them welfare. I used to feel sorry for those, but then i realized that if they are that STUPID to stay in poverty, then they deserve the MISERY and POVERTY the liberals FORCE upon them. Elections have consequences, we saw it from the last 1/2 community faggot. He was all for his RICH buddies, and put the most in poverty since the war on poverty started...

 

[dblack]

Not necessarily. If one was made by an inefficient manufacturer, it may have required twice the labor to create. According to Tehon, one has twice the intrinsic value of the other. However, the consumers will pay the same price for each. They don't give a damn about how much labor they each took when they make a purchasing decision.

I think it's just a round about way of justifying their view that capitalists don't add "value". It makes it sound less silly if they dink around with obscure theories hinging on questionable premises.

 

[Billy000]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.