Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[bripat9643]

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

You're fishing.

No, he's pointing out the flaws in your theory of value.

 

[bripat9643]

It

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

You're still fishing.

So you're saying the Ford dealer lots full of unsold Edsels never happenec?

 

[bripat9643]

It

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

Take, for example, the discovery of penecillin. It took a few men to learn about this and turn it into a drug that has saved the lives of millions of people. It also saved the limbs of hudreds of thousands of WW II vets. On the other hand, PBS produces almost nothing than anyone wants and it employs thousands of people.

 

[Tehon]

It

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

That's demonstrably untrue. Lot's of things get produced that people don't buy. That's how businesses fail. Are you contending that the products people don't want are just as valuable as those they do?

You're trying to hard.

If someone produces something that doesn't have utility and therefore doesn't sell, it stops being produced. Is that better?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

It has nothing to do with time. The number of people who have the brains required to complete medical school is quite small, and their skills are extremely valueable to society. Therefore they can charge a much higher price for their services than someone who only knows how to flip hamburgers, even if it took the burger flipper the same amount of time to learn his skills.

 

[bripat9643]

It

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

That's demonstrably untrue. Lot's of things get produced that people don't buy. That's how businesses fail. Are you contending that the products people don't want are just as valuable as those they do?

You're trying to hard.

If someone produces something that doesn't have utility and therefore doesn't sell, it stops being produced. Is that better?

And, of course, the way you determine it has utility is the fact that it sells.

Circular logic.

 

[Tehon]

It

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

You're still fishing.

So you're saying the Ford dealer lots full of unsold Edsels never happenec?

Are Edsels still produced?

 

[Flash]

Pretty simple. It is when some asshole takes the money that I earned and gives it away to some shithead that didn't earn the money.

 

[bripat9643]

It

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

 

[bripat9643]

It

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

You're still fishing.

So you're saying the Ford dealer lots full of unsold Edsels never happenec?

Are Edsels still produced?

Many thousands were produced and never sold. Furthermore, Ford built a huge factory to manufacture them and shut it down almost immediately.

 

[Tehon]

It

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

You're still fishing.

So you're saying the Ford dealer lots full of unsold Edsels never happenec?

Are Edsels still produced?

Many thousands were produced and never sold. Furthermore, Ford built a huge factory to manufacture them and shut it down almost immediately.

Really, they shut it down almost immediately! You don't say.

Derp

 

[bripat9643]

It
It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

You're still fishing.

So you're saying the Ford dealer lots full of unsold Edsels never happenec?

Are Edsels still produced?

Many thousands were produced and never sold. Furthermore, Ford built a huge factory to manufacture them and shut it down almost immediately.

Really, they shut it down almost immediately! You don't say.

They built a factory that basically wasn't used. In other words, they produced something that didn't sell - something you claim never happens.

 

[Tehon]

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

You're still fishing.

So you're saying the Ford dealer lots full of unsold Edsels never happenec?

Are Edsels still produced?

Many thousands were produced and never sold. Furthermore, Ford built a huge factory to manufacture them and shut it down almost immediately.

Really, they shut it down almost immediately! You don't say.

They built a factory that basically wasn't used. In other words, they produced something that didn't sell - something you claim never happens.

I didn't claim it never happens. I said things don't get produced if they don't have utility.

How do you know if something has utility prior to building it?

Risk is part of doing business.

 

[dblack]

It

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

 

[Tehon]

It

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

 

[dblack]

Here's an idea: Tehon, instead of chasing you around the mulberry bush of "intrinsic value", Let's cut to the chase. Am I correct in assuming that you think capitalists make "money for nothing"? What's your view on profit?

 

[dblack]

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

So, it has nothing to do with how good or bad the movie was? Doesn't that seem kind of idiotic, even to you?

 

[Tehon]

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

So, it has nothing to do with how good or bad the movie was? Doesn't that seem kind of idiotic, even to you?

Whether or not that movie was good or bad is of no consequence. Someone took the risk in producing it and had to pay to have it made. There was a lot of labor required to do so.

Every movie made takes that risk.

And people went to see it. I bet even some liked it. Personally, I don't know anything about it.

 

[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.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

No prominent liberal has ever suggested eliminating the private market or paying everyone equally. Democrats in office sure as hell don’t say stuff like this.

Why am i not surprised you dont understand what communism is? You do understand of course that America has always had socialized programs right? What do you think our defense budget is? Fire and police? Or social security? Are you suggesting America has always been communist? Socializing oil wouid not be communism, duh.

 

[Tehon]

Here's an idea: Tehon, instead of chasing you around the mulberry bush of "intrinsic value", Let's cut to the chase. Am I correct in assuming that you think capitalists make "money for nothing"? What's your view on profit?

It depends on the capitalist. Many perform labor. Many don't. Those that don't are making money for nothing.

My view on profit is that it should be spread around more equitably.