Alternative market? - split from Inmate's introductions

[Lynx]

I think I see what you mean though. 'Labor market' is a misnomer since it implies that human beings and human labor energy is an alienable resource that can be traded on the open market. I don't believe it is.
However, the products of labor , i.e. alienable resources , could be traded and, clearly, these would have to be moved around to get to the people that need/want them. I hold both capital and finished or consumer goods/services to be products of labor. I don't see a problem with a capital market in this sense but clearly there can't be any real labor market.
What is required for a capital market?

[Dejavu]

What is required for a capital market?

What do you mean?

[Lynx]

What do you mean?
Under capitalism, M-C-M' requires private ownership of the means of production, and a break-even point or profit. M-M' involves rent or interest.

[Dejavu]

Under capitalism, M-C-M' requires private ownership of the means of production, and a break-even point or profit. M-M' involves rent or interest.

I'm not talking about capitalism.

[Lynx]

I'm not talking about capitalism.
Yes, so please describe this alternate capital market and its requirements.

[Dejavu]

Yes, so please describe this alternate capital market and its requirements.

There really is no 'alternate market.'

I merely stated that both capital goods and consumer goods are the products of labor which can be alienated unlike labor energy itself. Since they are both products of labor that can be exchanged between people , I consider them in the same category as far as trade goes.

For example I should be able to trade with you a lemon ( consumer good) and a juicer ( capital good to make lemonade, lemons then become capital goods) in the same voluntary fashion.

[trivas7]

Under capitalism, M-C-M' requires private ownership of the means of production, and a break-even point or profit. M-M' involves rent or interest.
Indeed; the dialectical converse of the private means of production is labor-power, wage-labor sold as a commodity. One doesn't exist without the other.

[Dejavu]

Indeed; the dialectical converse of the private means of production is labor-power, wage-labor sold as a commodity.

Any theory that holds labor energy or power itself can be sold as a commodity is incorrect. Thus , this is a huge flaw with capitalism. By definition , labor or energy of a human being is inalienable from that human being. It's not as if I can bottle up some my energy and sell it to you. Aside from that there a moral considerations such as the 'validity' of slavery and servitude.

Wages in the capitalist system pay people according to their energy exhumed, as if the capitalist is buying up human energy itself and not according to the product of that energy.

This can also be sent to my new topic under OI Learning.

[Demogorgon]

One of economics' biggest problems is its inability to define the term "capital". It can mean so many different things. I think though when we talk about "capital markets" we should be referring to capital investment. David Schweickart's distinction between Labour markets, Capital markets and markets in goods and services is a really good one I feel and is the one I use. Hence I view capital markets as fundamentally flawed as they focus control of the economy into the hands of a few owing to their near monopolisation of investment power.

So under this definition capital is not the product of labour, the physical objects that can be used to make other objects fall into the category of "goods and services" though they will typically be bought with investment money.

For this reason both labour and capital markets are fundamentally flawed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

David Schweickart's distinction between Labour markets, Capital markets and markets in goods and services is a really good one I feel and is the one I use. Hence I view capital markets as fundamentally flawed as they focus control of the economy into the hands of a few owing to their near monopolisation of investment power.

So under this definition capital is not the product of labour, the physical objects that can be used to make other objects fall into the category of "goods and services" though they will typically be bought with investment money.

I don't know how original Schweickart's distinction is. I saw on YouTube Boris Kagarlitsky in Toronto making the same analysis, using the exact same words. BTW, why wouldn't investment capital be the product of labour - that is, someone else's labour?

[Lynx]

There really is no 'alternate market.'

I merely stated that both capital goods and consumer goods are the products of labor which can be alienated unlike labor energy itself. Since they are both products of labor that can be exchanged between people , I consider them in the same category as far as trade goes.

For example I should be able to trade with you a lemon ( consumer good) and a juicer ( capital good to make lemonade, lemons then become capital goods) in the same voluntary fashion.
Should this restrictive form be considered a capital market?