Income distribution visual.

[RGacky3]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/385561/INCOME-DISTRIBUTION.jpg

[RichardAWilson]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/315524_296195343742055_197197443641846_1125119_892 330431_n.jpg

[Black_Rose]

At least the working class owns America's wang (it is a The Simpsons reference).

[Judicator]

Someone makes more money than me?!?! :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::c rying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::cry ing::crying::crying::crying:

[Veovis]

Someone makes more money than me?!?! :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::c rying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::cry ing::crying::crying::crying:

Workers make money. Capitalists extract it.

[Judicator]

Workers make money. Capitalists extract it.

Workers are just extracting value from their human capital.

[RichardAWilson]

You're such a moron.

[Judicator]

You're such a moron.

Along with all of the other people with an IQ higher than yours who recognize human capital.

[RGacky3]

Someone makes more money than me?!?! http://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gif:c rying:http://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gif:cry ing:http://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/income-distribution-visual-t163353/revleft/smilies2/crying.gif


Sooo ... you think this is a good way to run an economy?


Workers are just extracting value from their human capital.

What the hell? So they are extracting value from themselves? ...

[RGacky3]

BTW if Capitalism rewards justly, i.e. its a system of merit, did the top .001 precent actually create that much wealth? and did the bottom 90% create that little amount of wealth? Is that really justifiable?

Dispite the fact that there is no justifiable reason for the disparity, and the obvious conclusion that Capitalism does not reward according to merit, this sort of inequality is economically unstable.

And here are the growth numbers

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/387253/INCOME-INEQUALITY.jpg

Damn that 1 percent are AMAZING, they produce all that wealth with just their brains and muscles.

[#FF0000]

Someone makes more money than me?!?! :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::c rying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::cry ing::crying::crying::crying:

They've been making exponentially more while working class wages have stayed stagnant of went down.

They also made loads from golden parachutes after destroying the economy.

[RichardAWilson]

Along with all of the other people with an IQ higher than yours who recognize human capital.

You can't even agree with the facts.

[Judicator]

Sooo ... you think this is a good way to run an economy?


What is a good way to run an economy?



What the hell? So they are extracting value from themselves? ...


No, from their human capital.



BTW if Capitalism rewards justly, i.e. its a system of merit, did the top .001 precent actually create that much wealth? and did the bottom 90% create that little amount of wealth? Is that really justifiable?


Labor income is generally based on consent, which is just. Ditto for capital income.


You can't even agree with the facts.

I can't agree with which facts?

[RGacky3]

What is a good way to run an economy?


A way with not as much inequality, but do you think this extreme inequality is the right way to run an economy?


No, from their human capital.


Your confusing terms here, if you go outside in your backyard and trim the grass, is that "exploiting your human capital"? Anyway, it does'nt matter your just playing bullshit semantics that does'nt mean anything.


Labor income is generally based on consent, which is just. Ditto for capital income.


Thats not what I asked.

[Judicator]

A way with not as much inequality, but do you think this extreme inequality is the right way to run an economy?


"Extreme inequality" is an outcome, not a way to run an economy.



Your confusing terms here, if you go outside in your backyard and trim the grass, is that "exploiting your human capital"? Anyway, it does'nt matter your just playing bullshit semantics that does'nt mean anything.


You're deriving value from things you have: machines, skills, knowledge, whatever. How is that semantics?



Thats not what I asked.


You asked if it was justifiable and I explained how it was.

[RGacky3]

"Extreme inequality" is an outcome, not a way to run an economy.


Exactly, is it a desirable outcome?


You're deriving value from things you have: machines, skills, knowledge, whatever. How is that semantics?


Your point is basically that Capitalists extracting value from labor, is the same as working for yourself ... Because your somehow extracting value from youself, which is meaningless apriori bullshit.


You asked if it was justifiable and I explained how it was.

I asked if the bottom 90% created THAT little amount of wealth and if the top .1% actually created that much wealth?

[Dean]

Along with all of the other people with an IQ higher than yours who recognize human capital.

Human labor creates value. The fact that this is variable capital does not in any way change that power and wealth are accumulated in the hands of those who possess constant capital (the 1% and 9% above, for instance).

You've said nothing unique, argued nothing, proven nothing. You'll have to try harder if you want your contradiction to be taken seriously.

[Judicator]

Exactly, is it a desirable outcome?


Desirable or not, it's not a "way to run an economy" so it can't be a good or bad "way to run an economy."



Your point is basically that Capitalists extracting value from labor, is the same as working for yourself ... Because your somehow extracting value from youself, which is meaningless apriori bullshit.


Capitalists get value from capital. Workers get value from skills. The process of "getting value" could be called extraction. It's not complicated.

Do you even know what a priori means?



I asked if the bottom 90% created THAT little amount of wealth and if the top .1% actually created that much wealth?


That was one of the other questions you asked.


Human labor creates value. The fact that this is variable capital does not in any way change that power and wealth are accumulated in the hands of those who possess constant capital (the 1% and 9% above, for instance).

Wealth accrues to anyone who saves more than he spends.


You've said nothing unique, argued nothing, proven nothing. You'll have to try harder if you want your contradiction to be taken seriously.

Human capital isn't a concept unique to this thread, so no, not unique.

Argued nothing? I argued workers get value from their human capital.

Proven nothing? I suppose one would have to go out and find out if workers have any skills and if these skills allow them to do anything valuable. This shouldn't be too difficult now should it?

[Dean]

Wealth accrues to anyone who saves more than he spends.

This doesn't change that control over production tools allows the accumulation of wealth without the input of any value from those who control it.



Human capital isn't a concept unique to this thread, so no, not unique.

Argued nothing? I argued workers get value from their human capital.

Proven nothing? I suppose one would have to go out and find out if workers have any skills and if these skills allow them to do anything valuable. This shouldn't be too difficult now should it?

Indeed, this has absolutely no bearing on the effect of constant capital. My point is that Marx described human labor as capital - variable capital - and that this doesn't change that those who own constant capital are capitalists because they accrue value not from labor, but from their mere ownership of the means of production.

What you are talking about is artisans. We no longer live in an artisan economy; quit whining about your anachronistic models.

Tell me, how does your human capital account for the value of derivatives and securitizations? What bearing does it have on the value of the pharmaceuticals production industry?

In fact, it is human labor that produces value all along. But you see, it is control over one kind of capital that actually takes control over the exchange of the service to its consumer base, and resolves itself into a power structure that saps value from the labor of others.

Ignoring this doesn't even make you effective at contradicting us.

[Judicator]

This doesn't change that control over production tools allows the accumulation of wealth without the input of any value from those who control it.

I think here it's ultimately a semantics debate. Workers possess skills/knowledge/motivation which they use to get wages. Capitalists possess capital which they use to get interest.



Indeed, this has absolutely no bearing on the effect of constant capital. My point is that Marx described human labor as capital - variable capital - and that this doesn't change that those who own constant capital are capitalists because they accrue value not from labor, but from their mere ownership of the means of production.


They both accrue value from something they possess.



What you are talking about is artisans. We no longer live in an artisan economy; quit whining about your anachronistic models.


It's you who has an anachronistic concept of skill.



Tell me, how does your human capital account for the value of derivatives and securitizations? What bearing does it have on the value of the pharmaceuticals production industry?


Built into the price of any pharmaceutical product is all of that expensive R&D, which requires scientists, who have human capital.



In fact, it is human labor that produces value all along. But you see, it is control over one kind of capital that actually takes control over the exchange of the service to its consumer base, and resolves itself into a power structure that saps value from the labor of others.

Ignoring this doesn't even make you effective at contradicting us.


Factors of production produce value. The value created by each factor corresponds to the marginal increase in production resulting from the addition of some more of that factor.

[RGacky3]

Desirable or not, it's not a "way to run an economy" so it can't be a good or bad "way to run an economy."


A way to run an economy where this the outcome?

I'm asking is this a desireable outcome?


Capitalists get value from capital. Workers get value from skills. The process of "getting value" could be called extraction. It's not complicated.

Do you even know what a priori means?


Capital has no value beyond the capital unless its mixed with labor, so the value the capitalist gets is really from the labor. Capital gives you no extra value unless its mixed with labor. Workers contribute their own effort, Capitalists only contribution is through their state protected ownership of capital.

What I meant by apriori, is that your argument that labor extrats value from himself, and thus he's exploiting himself, and thus capitalist exploitation is no different, is priori, because your juts playing with definitions.


That was one of the other questions you asked.


Ok, and your answer is?

[Manic Impressive]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/315524_296195343742055_197197443641846_1125119_892 330431_n.jpg

But who owns Hawaii and Alaska :scared: must be da gubberment

[Dean]

I think here it's ultimately a semantics debate. Workers possess skills/knowledge/motivation which they use to get wages. Capitalists possess capital which they use to get interest.

And this is the difference. The value controlled by the capitalist is value that labor has already produced. It passes its value on to commodities and services passively, by being used by labor. The value that workers control actively creates value.

Capitalists accrue interest without expanding the value of their possessions. Laborers create value (and transfer value from the means of production via deprication) by their own labor.

It is not a semantics debate. It is the difference between controlling a bottleneck in a production process (the capitalist) and introducing value into the market by your own energy (the laborer). This is profoundly important to economics and the social order because it describes whether someone accrues wealth via exploitation of the labor of others or the production of value with one's own labor.

[Judicator]

And this is the difference. The value controlled by the capitalist is value that labor has already produced. It passes its value on to commodities and services passively, by being used by labor. The value that workers control actively creates value.


So now you're saying they both create value, but the workers are "active." They're alive and the machines aren't but that's neither novel nor relevant to the question of who creates the value.



It is not a semantics debate. It is the difference between controlling a bottleneck in a production process (the capitalist) and introducing value into the market by your own energy (the laborer). This is profoundly important to economics and the social order because it describes whether someone accrues wealth via exploitation of the labor of others or the production of value with one's own labor.


Capitalists produce value with the capital they own. Workers produce value with the human capital they own. Who is exploiting what is the semantics point.

[Rafiq]

Workers are just extracting value from their human capital.

Human "capital" doesn't exist idiot.

You don't make any fucking sense.

Even if Human Capital did exist, how can you extract something that is already inheritly in you? Fucking dumb shit, do you really think that "Human Capital" is a different entity inside of you that produces value and you just extract shit out of it? Why don't the lazy ass fucker capitalists extract value out of their Human Capital then? Why do they even need workers to do everything?

[Rafiq]

You're deriving value from things you have: machines, skills, knowledge, whatever. How is that semantics?
.

Well, you low life crock of shit, wouldn't that have to mean that Capitalists extract value out of your "Human Capital", instead of you doing it yourself? Jesus you're a moron. I mean why do you even post here, I'd be so embarrassed if I were you right now.

Capitalists take advantage of people who have Knowledge and skills and extract surplus value out of the labor they produce with it.

[Judicator]

Human "capital" doesn't exist idiot.

You don't make any fucking sense.

Skills aren't real :drool::drool::drool:


Even if Human Capital did exist, how can you extract something that is already inheritly in you? Fucking dumb shit, do you really think that "Human Capital" is a different entity inside of you that produces value and you just extract shit out of it? Why don't the lazy ass fucker capitalists extract value out of their Human Capital then? Why do they even need workers to do everything?

:cursing: lol, like I said it's mostly a semantics point. When you extract value from something...this just means get value out of it. You can get value from your skills/etc. just like anything else.


Well, you low life crock of shit, wouldn't that have to mean that Capitalists extract value out of your "Human Capital", instead of you doing it yourself? Jesus you're a moron. I mean why do you even post here, I'd be so embarrassed if I were you right now.

Capitalists take advantage of people who have Knowledge and skills and extract surplus value out of the labor they produce with it.

Your tone really is unbecoming of you. I'd be embarrassed to be a raging Socialist, but thank God I'm not.

Capitalists buy, sell, and rent their capital at the fair market rate. Capitalists get the value from their capital because of the extra production you get when you increase the amount of capital involved in the production process.

[Dean]

So now you're saying they both create value, but the workers are "active." They're alive and the machines aren't but that's neither novel nor relevant to the question of who creates the value.

No. Value is subsumed into constant capital by the active process of labor. Constant capital does not create value; value is subsumed into it by labor, and taken out by labor (by depreciation).


Capitalists produce value with the capital they own. Workers produce value with the human capital they own. Who is exploiting what is the semantics point.

Nope. Capitalists own the means of production - they are valuable and their value is useful only insofar as they are used in production, i.e., subjected to the labor process.

Whomever owns it is merely who profits off of it, much like an overlord profits off of the production on his fief - production which is always, in fact, the responsibility and work of serfs.

The mere possession of capital does not create value. It allows for the control over the production process, however.

[Rafiq]

Skills aren't real :drool::drool::drool:


But in what way do they qualify as "capital". Skills have existed forever. They are not inherently capital.



:cursing: lol, like I said it's mostly a semantics point. When you extract value from something...this just means get value out of it. You can get value from your skills/etc. just like anything else.



So your post is useless. Pointless. Workers produce something, Bourgeoisie extracts surplus value from their labor, embodied in the commodities or the services they provided.


Your tone really is unbecoming of you. I'd be embarrassed to be a raging Socialist, but thank God I'm not.

Capitalists buy, sell, and rent their capital at the fair market rate. Capitalists get the value from their capital because of the extra production you get when you increase the amount of capital involved in the production process.


Um, No.

Capitalists make a profit off of the labor of the proletariat. Capital is merely dead labor. So your post fails

[Judicator]

But in what way do they qualify as "capital". Skills have existed forever. They are not inherently capital.


They're all factors of production in a stock variable from which the owner derives value.

I think the historical reason it's called human capital is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leontief_paradox



Workers produce something, Bourgeoisie extracts surplus value from their labor, embodied in the commodities or the services they provided.


All factors of production produce something. Surplus value is largely a fiction created by ignoring the rental rate of capital (the capital analogue to the wage).



Capitalists make a profit off of the labor of the proletariat. Capital is merely dead labor. So your post fails


You get more production from adding capital to a process. This is valuable. Capitalists, who possess the capital, thus create value.




Value is subsumed into constant capital by the active process of labor. Constant capital does not create value; value is subsumed into it by labor, and taken out by labor (by depreciation).


The value created by anything is just the extra production you get when you add more of it. Labor isn't special.



Nope. Capitalists own the means of production - they are valuable and their value is useful only insofar as they are used in production, i.e., subjected to the labor process.

Whomever owns it is merely who profits off of it, much like an overlord profits off of the production on his fief - production which is always, in fact, the responsibility and work of serfs.

The mere possession of capital does not create value. It allows for the control over the production process, however.


Workers are only valuable insofar as they use their human capital. Great.

Whoever owns the human capital merely profits off of it.

Deploying capital creates value, and the capitalist deploys his capital. The worker uses his skills. Same idea.

[Dean]

You get more production from adding capital to a process. This is valuable. Capitalists, who possess the capital, thus create value.
Capitalists don't have to lift a finger.

Laborers get nothing by possessing skills. It takes active use of them to produce value.


Deploying capital creates value, and the capitalist deploys his capital. The worker uses his skills. Same idea.

Oh, I see. You think that by phrasing them the same way you can prove your point. You want a semantics game; this is why you ignore the comparison to feudalism.

But you refuse to even acknowledge the fact that possession of material is different from the active input of energy. I have no time for intellectual slackers...

[Rafiq]

All factors of production produce something. Surplus value is largely a fiction created by ignoring the rental rate of capital (the capital analogue to the wage).

Here we go with your bullshit economics. Again, you are stating nothing. You can't disprove the theory of value. No one has every done this. What makes you think you are qualified?




You get more production from adding capital to a process. This is valuable. Capitalists, who possess the capital, thus create value.


Capital is merely fucking dead labor you buffoon.

The only reason adding "Capital" Speeds up production is because of the labor embodied in it. Labor gives all things their value. Otherwise the yare worthless.

What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is worthy of the other.

A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar.

I'd like to see your fucking capitalists produce all of that without their workers, or, more importantly, the fucking machines that the workers produced themselves.

You're a joke. It surprises me you're still trying to argue with me when you are falling flat on your face every time.

[Judicator]

Capitalists don't have to lift a finger.

Laborers get nothing by possessing skills. It takes active use of them to produce value.


Value doesn't come (exclusively) from "lifting fingers."

Laborers without skills could wave their arms around all day and produce nothing.



You think that by phrasing them the same way you can prove your point. You want a semantics game; this is why you ignore the comparison to feudalism.


Deploying capital doesn't create value?

Don't see the relevance of the feudalism analogy; I usually ignore bad analogies. Anyway, overlords create value by protecting their kingdoms from raiders (they provide security services).



But you refuse to even acknowledge the fact that possession of material is different from the active input of energy. I have no time for intellectual slackers...


Different in what sense?

Evidently you have time to respond above....



Here we go with your bullshit economics. Again, you are stating nothing. You can't disprove the theory of value. No one has every done this. What makes you think you are qualified?


I'm stating the obvious. "Surplus value" disregards the fact that capital isn't free.



The only reason adding "Capital" Speeds up production is because of the labor embodied in it. Labor gives all things their value. Otherwise the yare worthless.


The reason capital speeds up production is because we design it to do so.

[Revolution starts with U]

Value doesn't come (exclusively) from "lifting fingers."

Laborers without skills could wave their arms around all day and produce nothing.


They would produce lactic acid :lol:

[Robert]

You've said nothing unique

Unique? Your arguments are unique? Nobody here makes "unique" arguments.
And if they did, they'd get banned.

"Value comes from labor" has been said so many times just in this one thread that I'd think even you'd be bored with it by now.

It's both an overstatement (some finger lifting is a waste of energy and produces no value, as has been shown) and an understatement (other things besides lifting fingers do produce value, as has also been shown).

[RGacky3]

(other things besides lifting fingers do produce value, as has also been shown).

Where?

[Robert]

In all of Judicator's, my, and Bud's posts on the subject. Any of a thousand mainline descriptions of "value" say more or less the same. I'm tired of repeating (and hearing from the left) the same arguments.

It's just a point of view that doctrinaire leftist's don't share, just like I don't share the materialist conception of history, at least as it's inflexibly elaborated here.

[RGacky3]

Value as defined as what something would be worth at supply and demand equilibrium.

[Dean]

Laborers without skills could wave their arms around all day and produce nothing.



Deploying capital doesn't create value?
And capital can be deployed without creating value (i.e. in producing goods for which demand has collapsed).

But nothing goes to the market as a value without labor, and the deployment of capital only works with labor. Your argument is akin to saying that lumber creates value, when the fact is that lumber is only ever a tool in the creation of value - a creative process undertaken by labor. On the other hand, some things require no material (which is what constant capital typically is) to create value.

Constant capital is not active without energy - which is labor.

Indeed, Marx understood that labor and constant capital are both a kind of capital. Your "revelation" of this adds nothing. And so we get to:

Unique? Your arguments are unique? Nobody here makes "unique" arguments.
And if they did, they'd get banned.

"Value comes from labor" has been said so many times just in this one thread that I'd think even you'd be bored with it by now.

It's both an overstatement (some finger lifting is a waste of energy and produces no value, as has been shown) and an understatement (other things besides lifting fingers do produce value, as has also been shown).
I make unique arguments. For instance, I've pointed out that Federal Reserve policies tend to support unemployment and focus on teh maintenace of asset prices. A lot of liberals don't like to criticize the fed, but those are the facts.

The problem is that you idealists come in here to debate the simple issues which were largely concluded in neoclassical economics before the mystification of finance capital and Miseans, Keynesians came into the picture. The issue of value is an obvious one: Marx quoted a famous scottish economist that "the earth is the mother, and labor is the father of value." The attempt to describe previously produced goods as "creating value" is absurd. They are the embodiment of created value. The only post-hoc "value creation" could be in the demand curve, which is a shaky way of considering value.


In all of Judicator's, my, and Bud's posts on the subject. Any of a thousand mainline descriptions of "value" say more or less the same. I'm tired of repeating (and hearing from the left) the same arguments.
Prove to me how a king creates agricultural value with his fiefdom (rather than what his serf creates) and I'll show you a capitalist whose possession of something creates value.


It's just a point of view that doctrinaire leftist's don't share, just like I don't share the materialist conception of history, at least as it's inflexibly elaborated here.
That's right - because immaterial conditions determine the flow of history!

[Bud Struggle]

Prove to me how a king creates agricultural value with his fiefdom (rather than what his serf creates) and I'll show you a capitalist whose possession of something creates value.


What's the difference between a worker picking oranges in a field and a robotized machine doing the same thing? Does the robot create value? Does the picking machine? Does the robot deserve a higher grade of lube oil because it puts value into what it does?

Industrialization showed that there is no difference between a machine and a peson when it comes to adding value to a product. It's is the entepreneaur that ceates the value in the first place. It's the idea--not the work that maters.

[RGacky3]

What's the difference between a worker picking oranges in a field and a robotized machine doing the same thing? Does the robot create value? Does the picking machine? Does the robot deserve a higher grade of lube oil because it puts value into what it does?


The difference is you pay the full price for the robot, which is why you have the tendancy for hte rate of profit to fall in industry as technology grows, which is exactly what happened to Capitalism. Also a robot is nothing without somone operating it.

Industrialization showed that marx was right, as productivity went up, over time, profitability of industrial capital dropped. A lot of what Marx wrote about was the relationship between the capitalist, to capital and labor, and the rise of technology.

You may say the idea creates the value, and sure it may create the pre-requisite for value creation, but actual economic/material value still comes from the work being done.

an idea in itself is worthless unless you mix labor and capital to make value out of it.

BTW, mental labor, is still labor, labor is defined as human effort to create value.

(thanks for finally making an arugment and not just a snarky remark or a strawman.)

[Robert]

It's is the entepreneaur that ceates the value in the first place. It's the idea--not the work that maters.

Now watch, someone will say it's the guy that lubricates the robot, not the inventor or designer, who own the company by the way, that adds the real value.

[Judicator]

And capital can be deployed without creating value (i.e. in producing goods for which demand has collapsed).

Correction: Laborers without human capital necessarily wave their arms around all day and produce nothing.


But nothing goes to the market as a value without labor, and the deployment of capital only works with labor. Your argument is akin to saying that lumber creates value, when the fact is that lumber is only ever a tool in the creation of value - a creative process undertaken by labor. On the other hand, some things require no material (which is what constant capital typically is) to create value.

Constant capital is not active without energy - which is labor.



Sure, anybody can waste resources. That's not unique to Socialism :lol:

The lumber, via its involvement in the production process, adds value because without the lumber you would have had less of whatever you're producing.

Plus, it's plainly absurd to think that in a completely automated factory, the person who flicks the "on" switch at the beginning of the day is responsible for all of the value created there.



Indeed, Marx understood that labor and constant capital are both a kind of capital. Your "revelation" of this adds nothing. And so we get to:


If that's the case, I don't know why it was so offensive to certain revlefters.



Prove to me how a king creates agricultural value with his fiefdom (rather than what his serf creates) and I'll show you a capitalist whose possession of something creates value.


He prevents the land from being raided by neighboring bandits, thus increasing agricultural productivity. Your turn :lol:

[Dean]

The lumber, via its involvement in the production process, adds value because without the lumber you would have had less of whatever you're producing.

No, the lumber does nothing. It is done to.


Plus, it's plainly absurd to think that in a completely automated factory, the person who flicks the "on" switch at the beginning of the day is responsible for all of the value created there.

This is where you don't understand the labor theory of value.

Those who built the factory, produced the capital, those who mined the coal, those who built the coal plant, and those who ran the cables to the factory all created this value.


He prevents the land from being raided by neighboring bandits, thus increasing agricultural productivity. Your turn :lol:

It most cases this is not true. Even assuming your argument applied, those who defended the land where militia and army of various sorts.

But military and property controls don't really define the basis process of production, and certainly not the value form therein. They are external power structures, specific to provinces and systems not necessarily endemic to the production process.

Concerning oneself with such power structures goes outside the realm of the discussion of value; this is why mere possession is obfuscatory in the discussion. It could just as easily be argued that the worker collective is the sole source of value given a socialist economy, especially if you define it to encompass the labor of the workers. But that in and of itself doesn't explain what creates value.

[Klaatu]

Suppose a factory has 100 workers, earning $20/hour (this is what their labor is actually worth, minus overhead costs, etc)
But suppose the factory owner only pays the workers $10/hour. That's 10 dollars per 100 workers per hour. This means
that the moment the doors open at 6AM, the owner is making $1,000/ hour. By the time he arrives at his "work" at 9 AM,
he has already made $3,000 that day, before he even starts reading his copy of The Wall Street Journal.

Speaking of Wall Street, that factory owner invests his millions into this humongous poker game, probably earning even
more money. But not as much as he wants to, because of the stock market wizards, that in turn, exploit HIM, raking in many
millions, perhaps billions of dollars, on his investment. So he exploits the worker, while hedge fund managers exploit him.
Big fish eat little fish, all the way down the line. It's as if Capitalism is a big Ponzi Scheme (where have we heard this recently?)

The bottom line is that the rich are overbearing, shameless parasites on the backs of the tireless worker.

[Judicator]

No, the lumber does nothing. It is done to.


The fact that the lumber is added to the process means you get more value. Thus, we attribute the added value to the extra lumber.


Those who built the factory, produced the capital, those who mined the coal, those who built the coal plant, and those who ran the cables to the factory all created this value.


Once the factory is built these are all sunk costs. Past costs (all that labor) have no bearing on present value.



It most cases this is not true. Even assuming your argument applied, those who defended the land where militia and army of various sorts.


Well evidently it's true in at least one case, so you have your example. The ruler organizes and commands the militia.

I'm still waiting for you to give me an example with the capitalist....



But military and property controls don't really define the basis process of production, and certainly not the value form therein. They are external power structures, specific to provinces and systems not necessarily endemic to the production process.


It's only through rule of law that significant production is possible...having an effective legal system adds a whole lot of productivity (consider lost productivity due to corruption/civil war). In this sense it creates value...but I suppose yes it is somewhat out of the scope of the discussion.



Suppose a factory has 100 workers, earning $20/hour (this is what their labor is actually worth, minus overhead costs, etc)
But suppose the factory owner only pays the workers $10/hour. That's 10 dollars per 100 workers per hour. This means
that the moment the doors open at 6AM, the owner is making $1,000/ hour. By the time he arrives at his "work" at 9 AM,
he has already made $3,000 that day, before he even starts reading his copy of The Wall Street Journal.

Suppose I open a factory next door and offer $10.01, then I'm making all of that money. Then he offers $10.02...and you get the idea.

[Klaatu]

Suppose I open a factory next door and offer $10.01, then I'm making all of that money. Then he offers $10.02...and you get the idea.

But it doesn't work that way in the real world. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Dean]

Now watch, someone will say it's the guy that lubricates the robot, not the inventor or designer, who own the company by the way, that adds the real value.

The inventor and designer create more value than the assembly line worker because they do a much harder task, which requires training or education to accomplish. It counts for "labor intensified."

This is accounted for in Marx's Capital as well. The fact that you think otherwise shows just how little you know about the theory you've already rejected.

[Revolution starts with U]

He prevents the land from being raided by neighboring bandits, thus increasing agricultural productivity. Your turn :lol:

He did that all by himself? Was it perhaps this guy?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/30837418_c38cf07774.jpg

[Judicator]

But it doesn't work that way in the real world. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Wages were lower at some point in the past, so this did happen.

Anyway, I agree finding workers which are paid anything other than $10 for labor that's worth $10 is uncommon. (In competitive labor markets, of course, worth= fair market value)

[Klaatu]

Wages were lower at some point in the past, so this did happen.

Anyway, I agree finding workers which are paid anything other than $10 for labor that's worth $10 is uncommon. (In competitive labor markets, of course, worth= fair market value)

I said that the workers in that shop are worth $20/hour (but being paid only $10)

Our "fair-market-value" is going down down down. So are union rights. And "The Market" is anything but fair. That's because "The Market" always favors those who own the most wealth. Capitalism does not create fairness. Only Socialism can even begin to become close to guaranteeing wage fairness. Throughout most of the 20th Century, unions have helped the worker in this respect. So have high taxes on the wealthy.

So if we continue this charade of "tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-create-jobs," we are going to continue to sink into the abyss of nationwide poverty.

[Judicator]

I said that the workers in that shop are worth $20/hour (but being paid only $10)


They probably aren't worth $20. If they were, some greedy capitalist would think "hey, I can hire this guy for $11/hour and keep $9."



Our "fair-market-value" is going down down down. So are union rights. And "The Market" is anything but fair. That's because "The Market" always favors those who own the most wealth. Capitalism does not create fairness. Only Socialism can even begin to become close to guaranteeing wage fairness. Throughout most of the 20th Century, unions have helped the worker in this respect. So have high taxes on the wealthy.


The fair market value is the value set by willing buyers and sellers. The willingness is what makes it fair. According to many of the others on this board, wages in the US have been flat (i.e. not down down down).



So if we continue this charade of "tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-create-jobs," we are going to continue to sink into the abyss of nationwide poverty.


I don't see how allowing the rich to keep their money *causes* poverty. Do you?

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't see how allowing the rich to keep their money *causes* poverty. Do you?


It doesn't. It may perpetuate it. But what causes poverty is the artifical scarcity created by the implementation of a property and corresponding money system.

[RGacky3]

Now watch, someone will say it's the guy that lubricates the robot, not the inventor or designer, who own the company by the way, that adds the real value.

No the inventor or designer contributes to the value, but no value is created by just thinking, its just when that thinking is put into effect, an engineer comes up with ideas, its creating value, just owning shit, which is the definition of a capitalist is not creating value.


Anyway, I agree finding workers which are paid anything other than $10 for labor that's worth $10 is uncommon. (In competitive labor markets, of course, worth= fair market value)

Their pay has no comparison to what the labor is worth.

[Dean]

The fact that the lumber is added to the process means you get more value. Thus, we attribute the added value to the extra lumber.

The value is in the form of the production and shipment of the lumber, those are costs of labor.


It's only through rule of law that significant production is possible...having an effective legal system adds a whole lot of productivity (consider lost productivity due to corruption/civil war). In this sense it creates value...but I suppose yes it is somewhat out of the scope of the discussion.
Any number of security threats can be added to a production process. For those threats, commensurate security is needed.

These threats can be removed and the value is still created. However, labor is always a fundamental part of the production process. Even lumber can be replaced, but labor, that is energy applied to material or a service, will always be present. And things which require more labor will have more labor value in them.

It has been repeated ad nauseum that material is an accepted form of value in the Marxist tradition. The difference in value is attributed to the different cost of labor time in acquiring the material. This is why diamonds and gold cost so much: the general cost of labor-hours in finding and mining x weight in the precious material is higher than something like lumber.

There is nothing in Marxist theory that pretends that materials do not have value. They are largely considered to have been taken into the political economy in primitive accumulation. As economies progress, natural resources are increasingly integrated into the economy such that their relative scarcity is reflected in that relative cost of labor to acquire and improve them.

Your attempt to repeatedly simplify the question is nothing more than an exercise in ignorance.

[Dean]

I don't see how allowing the rich to keep their money *causes* poverty. Do you?

Oh, it does cause poverty, because capital expands its possessions in this form:

Profit = Investment*1.xx, where xx is the percentage rate of return.

While workers do so in this way:

Wages = Hours * x.xx where x.xx is the wage-rate.


With the re-investment of capital (which requires huge startup-costs only affordable by those with accumulated wealth) the first form expands exponentially, indefinitely. The wage-rate not only doesn't exponentially expand, but it is mostly taken up by cost of living, which in turn determines the wage-rate.

And since cost-of-living has been able to be maintained with credit since the 70s, the wage rate has steadily ceased to meet the level at which it would give a quality life in and of itself. But with credit, the working class could maintain its standard of living, if not its solvency.

[Judicator]

It doesn't. It may perpetuate it. But what causes poverty is the artifical scarcity created by the implementation of a property and corresponding money system.

What you're saying here is totally unrelated to your point about the tax rate on the rich....


Their pay has no comparison to what the labor is worth.

It's a pretty easy comparison. They're paid $10/hour. They're worth $10/hour.




The value is in the form of the production and shipment of the lumber, those are costs of labor.


No, the value is in the form of the actual wood in your warehouse.



However, labor is always a fundamental part of the production process. Even lumber can be replaced, but labor, that is energy applied to material or a service, will always be present. And things which require more labor will have more labor value in them.


Saying something is a necessary condition for production hardly implies that it's the source of value. Breathable air is a necessary condition for labor but nobody attributes any value to air in the production process.



The difference in value is attributed to the different cost of labor time in acquiring the material. This is why diamonds and gold cost so much: the general cost of labor-hours in finding and mining x weight in the precious material is higher than something like lumber.


Diamonds and gold can only be expensive if people want them in the first place, that is to say, if people are willing to give up a lot of stuff to get them. Not to mention the fact that the cost of capital needed to extract them matters.



There is nothing in Marxist theory that pretends that materials do not have value. They are largely considered to have been taken into the political economy in primitive accumulation. As economies progress, natural resources are increasingly integrated into the economy such that their relative scarcity is reflected in that relative cost of labor to acquire and improve them.

Who said there was?

Anyway, the value of things is determined only by what people are willing & able to give up to get them.



Your attempt to repeatedly simplify the question is nothing more than an exercise in ignorance.


I'm not simplifying the question; you're the one trying to say "everything is reducible to labor and nothing else." I'm merely pointing out that labor, capital, and other factors of production are distinct in their contributions to value.

[RGacky3]

It's a pretty easy comparison. They're paid $10/hour. They're worth $10/hour.


There is no corrolation to the price of what they ACTUALLY produce. If they produce in 1 hour 2 chairs, I doubt those chairs are going for $5 each, if they were the capitalist would be making no profit.


Diamonds and gold can only be expensive if people want them in the first place, that is to say, if people are willing to give up a lot of stuff to get them. Not to mention the fact that the cost of capital needed to extract them matters.


Sure, but even if supply and demand if gold and diamonds were equal, the price would still be much higher than lumber.