The Gap Widens

[cormacobear]

$136,000,000,000 in corperate tax cuts just before the house quits for elections.
the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10...s.ap/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/corporate.taxes.ap/index.html)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:50 AM
the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer
You mean so-called poor aren't being allowed to legally steal as much from the so-called rich as they used to ?

[LSD]

so-called poor

so-called rich

Tell me, what would you call them?

The economically valuable and the useless piles of shit?

It's nice to see linguistic revisionism is alive and healthy.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 8 2004, 07:32 PM
You mean so-called poor aren't being allowed to legally steal as much from the so-called rich as they used to ?
As long as the rich have as much money as they can, everything&#39;s alright isn&#39;t it.... <_<

[Marvs Cicero]

Tell me, what would you call them?

The economically valuable and the useless piles of shit?

What he seemed to imply by the "so called poor" was that the "poor" in the United States relitive to both the past and the rest of world is not poor. That is to say if the "poor" in the United States were to move anywhere else in the world outside of the United States/Western Europe/Asian Tigers (even including some of these nations they would be considered wealthy) they would be considered wealthy.

Also by the "so called rich" a logical assumption about what he meant was that the people being taxed were not really rich. In fact the Corporations which half the tax cuts are going to could not possibily pay all the taxes without losing money, so what they have to do is raise the ammount of money they charge for a given product. So the consumer most of which are not "rich" end up paying the cost.

Now was this so complicated?


the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer

How so, got any proof?

If you went by this logic the "poor" would be in a worst position then they were at the advent of Capitalism in the mid to late 19th Century. Any person with eyes and a brain can deduce that this is infact not the case.

If you mean "poorer" relitive to the rich, then all I have to say is, so what?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anyone "with eyes and a brain" can see that increase in quality of life is due to improvements in the technology of production, not some beautiful myth of the wealthy poor - because, while, globally, the (North) American working class is definately better off, their wealth has not improved in relation to that of the North American rich elite (Who now toss around billions).

". . . &#39;poorer&#39; relative to the rich," means that a small group of greedy fucks monopolizes our society&#39;s - No, the world&#39;s) - wealth our expense, and thus, is able to excert unprecedented control over our culture, understandings, freedoms, etc.

[Marvs Cicero]

Anyone "with eyes and a brain" can see that increase in quality of life is due to improvements in the technology of production, not some beautiful myth of the wealthy poor

Exactly&#33; It was the thinkers and the capitalists working within the system of Capitalism that allowed the technology of production to increase, thus decreasing the average costs of goods and raising the wages of workers.


because, while, globally, the (North) American working class is definately better off, their wealth has not improved in relation to that of the North American rich elite (Who now toss around billions).

Who cares? The fact that the "rich elite&#39;s" real wages have increased by 400% and the workers only by 20% does not change the objective fact that both have become richer and substantially so.


". . . &#39;poorer&#39; relative to the rich," means that a small group of greedy fucks monopolizes our society&#39;s - No, the world&#39;s) - wealth our expense, and thus, is able to excert unprecedented control over our culture, understandings, freedoms, etc.

Expand on this, perhaps give some examples?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Exactly&#33; It was the thinkers and the capitalists working within the system of Capitalism that allowed the technology of production to increase, thus decreasing the average costs of goods and raising the wages of workers.

So are you saying that the Asian sweatshops are simply lacking technology?
You&#39;re not making any sense. Next time maybe you ought to think a little before you start spouting off nonsense.


Who cares? The fact that the "rich elite&#39;s" real wages have increased by 400% and the workers only by 20% does not change the objective fact that both have become richer and substantially so.

The objective fact is that the capital-owners are making money from our collective labor. If nobody cares" maybe you&#39;d like to switch places with a minimum wage-earning single mom. They&#39;re still better off, right?

[LSD]

Exactly&#33; It was the thinkers and the capitalists working within the system of Capitalism that allowed the technology of production to increase, thus decreasing the average costs of goods and raising the wages of workers.

Nazi&#39;s invented the jet engine...so Naziism good?


Who cares? The fact that the "rich elite&#39;s" real wages have increased by 400% and the workers only by 20% does not change the objective fact that both have become richer and substantially so.

The "objective fact" is that a slave who&#39;s been given a 20% pay-raise is still a slave.

No one denies that life is better today than 100 years ago, but life was better in 1600 than in 1500, better in 200 than 100.

To quote your own eloquent response, So what?

[tcip]

So are you saying that the Asian sweatshops are simply lacking technology?
You&#39;re not making any sense. Next time maybe you ought to think a little before you start spouting off nonsense.

Why are companies outsourceing work to asian sweatshops?


The objective fact is that the capital-owners are making money from our collective labor. If nobody cares" maybe you&#39;d like to switch places with a minimum wage-earning single mom. They&#39;re still better off, right?

The minimum wage earning single mom is reciprocating by making money from their collective capital.


Nazi&#39;s invented the jet engine...so Naziism good?

Strawman.


The "objective fact" is that a slave who&#39;s been given a 20% pay-raise is still a slave

True. Since 120% of 0 is zero. Or are you referring to the increased wage earners? Because, well, by definition a slave can&#39;t earn a wage.

[LSD]

Strawman.

Hey, it was his argument (It was the thinkers and the capitalists working within the system of Capitalism that allowed the technology of production to increase), not mine&#33;



Why are companies outsourceing work to asian sweatshops?

Because they love humanity&#33;&#33; ...wait, no.....oh yes...profit.


The minimum wage earning single mom is reciprocating by making money from their collective capital.

She&#39;s "making money" is she?

How much?

As much as the "owner" of the company?

NO?&#33;?&#33;? ...but...but why not? She&#39;s working harder and longer than him. She&#39;s actually making the product he&#39;s selling, and he&#39;s giving her less than the value of that product... but she&#39;s "making money"?

Sure.

[tcip]

Hey, it was his argument (It was the thinkers and the capitalists working within the system of Capitalism that allowed the technology of production to increase), not mine

His arguement of capitalism, with its policy of rewarding success, insipred great deeds of science.

You counter arguement is naziism, with its violent reprisals, inispired deeds of science as well.

Now let me break this down.

Him: A is good because it caused B
You: C is bad, and also it caused B

Therefore, A is bad, because it caused B?


Because they love humanity&#33;&#33; ...wait, no.....oh yes...profit

Why do they earn more profit in asian countries?


She&#39;s "making money" is she?

How much?

More then she would make anywhere else.



As much as the "owner" of the company?

I don&#39;t know. For this the sake of simplicity in this arguement, I&#39;ll say no, although that is not necessarily true. See dockworkers in the (70s?)?


NO?&#33;?&#33;? ...but...but why not?

I don&#39;t know. She agreed to her wage-her reasoning is entirely her own. I do not claim omnipotence here.


She&#39;s working harder and longer than him.

How are you defining "harder"?


She&#39;s actually making the product he&#39;s selling, and he&#39;s giving her less than the value of that product... but she&#39;s "making money"?

How does the first part of this sentence actually refute the second half? Does she come home with goods that she would not had if she had decided not to labour?

[Guest1]

First, he said that just because Nazism was the system under which the jet engine was produced does not mean Nazism caused the jet engine to be produced, or that its production is a valid argument for Nazism. Thus, neither are the technological advancements which happened under Capitalism viable arguments for it.

Next, to both tcip and Marvs Cicero:

As you have admitted being supporters of Capitalism, I will make you acquainted with the Che-Lives guidelines:


What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behavior that is deemed in conflict with the membership&#39;s vision for this site.
Thus, you are now restricted.

Enjoy.

[Marvs Cicero]

The "objective fact" is that a slave who&#39;s been given a 20% pay-raise is still a slave.


You want to keep claiming that labour is the origin of wealth, prove it.


No one denies that life is better today than 100 years ago, but life was better in 1600 than in 1500, better in 200 than 100.

Life was not better in 1000 A.D then it was in Athens in 450 B.C. The truth you are trying to tell me is completely false.

This being said life is not only better but it is better by orders of magnitude compared to 100 years ago. The world&#39;s economy has expanded at a rate (since the advent of Capitalism) not even close to being paralelled by any other time in history.


First, he said that just because Nazism was the system under which the jet engine was produced does not mean Nazism caused the jet engine to be produced, or that its production is a valid argument for Nazism. Thus, neither are the technological advancements which happened under Capitalism viable arguments for it.

I agree. The main reason I support Capitalism is a moral one. I have stated the moral reason, that it is most contiguos with our natural rights. So the fact still remains what he posted was a Strawman.


Thus, you are now restricted.

Enjoy.

I have read the rules. I did not intend to post elsewhere.

[LSD]

Why do they earn more profit in asian countries?

What is this twenty questions?

They make more profit because they pay their workers less.
They pay there workers less because their workers have less rights.
Their workers have less rights because these countries have less of a history of a worker&#39;s movement.

Fine, so....what&#39;s your point?


More then she would make anywhere else.

I think your missing the argument.

I&#39;m not saying the job sucks, I&#39;m saying the system sucks.

The fact that it is the "best job available" only reenforces my position.


I don&#39;t know. She agreed to her wage-her reasoning is entirely her own. I do not claim omnipotence here.

But wait I thought it was "more then she would make anywhere else".

So, not so much of a choice, is it?


Does she come home with goods that she would not had if she had decided not to labour?

Again, you miss the point.

Yes, she is being "paid". The point, however is that her "financial remuneration" is not equivilent to the labour she has put in, nor is it nescessarily adequate to sustain her.

It&#39;s what the "market" decides, right?


The main reason I support Capitalism is a moral one. I have stated the moral reason, that it is most contiguos with our natural rights. So the fact still remains what he posted was a Strawman.

You&#39;ll have to define "natural rights" for us poor undecated masses who have not felt the glory of your "morals".


This being said life is not only better but it is better by orders of magnitude compared to 100 years ago. The world&#39;s economy has expanded at a rate (since the advent of Capitalism) not even close to being paralelled by any other time in history.

I agree&#33;

Capitalism is better than Feudalism&#33;

But....does that mean that it is the end of economic development? That we&#39;ve reached the "pinnacle" of development?


You want to keep claiming that labour is the origin of wealth, prove it.

As opposed to what?

The "market"?

[Marvs Cicero]

You&#39;ll have to define "natural rights" for us poor undecated masses who have not felt the glory of your "morals".

I&#39;ll begin at the axioms relivent to this. The first being that Exsistence Exsists. That is to say that exsistance exsists seperate from man&#39;s conscience. The second being the Law of Identity. Everything that exsists has a certain nature. Now of course morality is how man should act in order to live, and man requires certain things to live. First he must have a right to his own life, that is to say that his body is soveriegn, it belongs to him by right and as such can be claimed by no one else unless he choses to violate the rights of others. As an estension of the right to life he must have the right to self-defense, the means of defending that life, and the right to property, the means of supporting and expanding that life. Also finnally he must have the right of liberty, the ability to use your property (and yourself) within the confines of the rights of others.


I agree&#33;

Capitalism is better than Feudalism&#33;

But....does that mean that it is the end of economic development? That we&#39;ve reached the "pinnacle" of development?

I have a certain morality and as such Capitalism is the only system that works within my morality, it is the only one that allows man to act in his own interest for his and happiness.

I would also argue that it is the only system that allows man to produce wealth freely, and as such no other economics system can match it&#39;s economic progress.



As opposed to what?

The "market"?

I asked you, how does labour produce wealth?

It has nothing to do with "as opposed to what".

[LSD]

&#39;ll begin at the axioms relivent to this. The first being that Exsistence Exsists. That is to say that exsistance exsists seperate from man&#39;s conscience. The second being the Law of Identity. Everything that exsists has a certain nature. Now of course morality is how man should act in order to live, and man requires certain things to live. First he must have a right to his own life, that is to say that his body is soveriegn, it belongs to him by right and as such can be claimed by no one else unless he choses to violate the rights of others. As an estension of the right to life he must have the right to self-defense, the means of defending that life, and the right to property, the means of supporting and expanding that life. Also finnally he must have the right of liberty, the ability to use your property (and yourself) within the confines of the rights of others.

I have a certain morality and as such Capitalism is the only system that works within my morality, it is the only one that allows man to act in his own interest for his and happiness.

I would also argue that it is the only system that allows man to produce wealth freely, and as such no other economics system can match it&#39;s economic progress.


Wow, so your philosophy of life aximatically defines capitalism as moral.

So, it really doesn&#39;t matter if your arguments are logically disproved....you "believe".

[Guest1]

Labour creates wealth, because it is the productive force. Capital is the accumulation of surplus labour. Where does the surplus come from? From the devaluation of one&#39;s labour, in favour of managers of that labour.

Are you telling me the management of labour actually creates?

If you and your friend are knitting sweaters, does me telling you what to knit create more sweaters than if you and your friend decided together what to knit? The sweaters are still produced, are they not?

[tcip]

If you labour all day to create a hole in your back yard, have you created value?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Does the threat of unemployment and poverty make the hole any more valuable?

[Marvs Cicero]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2004, 10:57 PM



Wow, so your philosophy of life aximatically defines capitalism as moral.

So, it really doesn&#39;t matter if your arguments are logically disproved....you "believe".



You have to base logical reasoning on certain axioms. The axioms you choose should be logicaly defined and they must be objectivly self-efident. Unless you believe axioms are bad and we should completly reject reality like nihlism?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 12 2004, 10:57 PM
Labour creates wealth, because it is the productive force. Capital is the accumulation of surplus labour. Where does the surplus come from? From the devaluation of one&#39;s labour, in favour of managers of that labour.

Are you telling me the management of labour actually creates?

If you and your friend are knitting sweaters, does me telling you what to knit create more sweaters than if you and your friend decided together what to knit? The sweaters are still produced, are they not?
Capital represents a number of things, including the value of labour.

what is odd is that anyonw here is attempting to argue with an individual over an unimportant and subsequently economically irrelevant definition of what "wealth" means.

From an economic viewpoint, both Marxist and capitalist, the concept of "wealth" as it is applied to economic theory is a completly unrelated and irrelevant discussion.

It is a topic reserved for those that "think" they know what they are talking about but in reality do not.

In other words, the concept means "something" to him but means nothing to anyone that knows what they are talking about.

For the most part, this individual is talking bollocks and nothing more.

For example, look at this statement:

I have a certain morality and as such Capitalism is the only system that works within my morality, it is the only one that allows man to act in his own interest for his and happiness

Not only is it economically irrelevant but for the most part it&#39;s absolute nonsense.
Why are people even speaking with this kid?

This cat has spent too much time discussing "philosophy" in coffee houses and not enough time in class.

Period.



If you labour all day to create a hole in your back yard, have you created value?

Are you even familiar with what bourgeois value is? What about Marxist value?

Obviously not.

[tcip]

Are you even familiar with what bourgeois value is? What about Marxist value?

Obviously not

This is not a refutation.


what is odd is that anyonw here is attempting to argue with an individual over an unimportant and subsequently economically irrelevant definition of what "wealth" means.

From an economic viewpoint, both Marxist and capitalist, the concept of "wealth" as it is applied to economic theory is a completly unrelated and irrelevant discussion.

It is a topic reserved for those that "think" they know what they are talking about but in reality do not.

In other words, the concept means "something" to him but means nothing to anyone that knows what they are talking about.

For the most part, this individual is talking bollocks and nothing more.

For example, look at this statement:

I have a certain morality and as such Capitalism is the only system that works within my morality, it is the only one that allows man to act in his own interest for his and happiness

Not only is it economically irrelevant but for the most part it&#39;s absolute nonsense.
Why are people even speaking with this kid?

This cat has spent too much time discussing "philosophy" in coffee houses and not enough time in class.

Period.

This is also not a refutation.

(argumentum ad hominem)

Maybe this will make it easier, since everyone here loves to bold every other word. That way, you know they are super angry people ready to lash out at The Man.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Silly boy, there is nothing to refute.


Get it now?



(argumentum ad hominem)

Do you even know what this means?

[Marvs Cicero]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 12 2004, 10:57 PM
Labour creates wealth, because it is the productive force. Capital is the accumulation of surplus labour. Where does the surplus come from? From the devaluation of one&#39;s labour, in favour of managers of that labour.

Are you telling me the management of labour actually creates?

If you and your friend are knitting sweaters, does me telling you what to knit create more sweaters than if you and your friend decided together what to knit? The sweaters are still produced, are they not?

Labour creates wealth, because it is the productive force. Capital is the accumulation of surplus labour. Where does the surplus come from? From the devaluation of one&#39;s labour, in favour of managers of that labour.

You just begged the question. You essentially said "Labour creates wealth because it creates wealth". It is complete nonsense.


Are you telling me the management of labour actually creates?

Say I work harder then any other person on the planet to make a cheese doodle that smells like gravy. Am I creating any wealth or in anyway adding to the value of anyones lives? According to you I am.

Now on the same token, say I am a manager. I make a decision to make pants out of stainfree cotton instead of say wool. Now let&#39;s say that the people love it, they go on a buying freenzy of these pants, and because of the increase of profit people also invest in the company allowing the company to make these pants even cheaper by developing more efficient means of doing so with the invested capital and to of course make new kinds of pants. That one decision has created an enourmous ammount of wealth. Now of course you need workers to make the pants but the decision that created all this wealth happend prior to the workers physicaly manipulating the raw materials into the good that is being sold. In fact by your logic the workers should be payed the same, because the ammount of work required to make the two different types of pants are the same but the idea which created the wealth required little or no work so by your logic the manager who came up with this idea is not needed.

[LSD]

The axioms you choose should be logicaly defined

Allright, "define" this:
"and the right to property, the means of supporting and expanding that life."

How do you go from "self-defense" to "property"?

How do you figure that owenership of oneself nescessarily means owenership over things?

Besides which, doesn&#39;t the act of profiting from someone else&#39;s labour violate your principle of liberty and self-ownership?

Furthermore, none of your "axioms" preclude collective owenership so long as they provide "the means of supporting and expanding that life". If the purpose of "property rights" are to ensure the survival and enjoyment of ones life than shouldn&#39;t we try to employ the property scheme that ensures a maximization of these?

Clearly, capitalism abuses property, by giving capital holders effective ownership of the labour and work of others.

In fact, by your axioms, I would say that it is capitalism that is immoral&#33;

[Marvs Cicero]

Prove that labour is the origin of wealth&#33; If you can do that I will be more then happy to change my ideas.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 12 2004, 07:23 PM
Now of course you need workers to make the pants but the decision that created all this wealth happend prior to the workers physicaly manipulating the raw materials into the good that is being sold. In fact by your logic the workers should be payed the same, because the ammount of work required to make the two different types of pants are the same.
What you ignore, is that under communist society there would be no pay. No one would be paid the same, cause there would be no money.

Furthermore, what I said was:


If you and your friend are knitting sweaters, does me telling you what to knit create more sweaters than if you and your friend decided together what to knit? The sweaters are still produced, are they not?
Thus, in a bigger setting, like a cheese puff factory, the workers would vote together on whether they think that a gravy flavoured cheese puff is worthy.

If they vote that it is, then it is more likely for them to be right, than one man. So that decision is still made, only there are more people making it together.

[Marvs Cicero]

What you ignore, is that under communist society there would be no pay. No one would be paid the same, cause there would be no money.

Is it impossible for you to seperate the essential from the non-essential?

It seems so. You completly ignored the theme of my message and instead chose to attack something that has nothing to do with my main point.


Thus, in a bigger setting, like a cheese puff factory, the workers would vote together on whether they think that a gravy flavoured cheese puff is worthy.

If they vote that it is, then it is more likely for them to be right, than one man. So that decision is still made, only there are more people making it together.

So according to you the production of the cheese puff is the creation of wealth even if no one on the planet values it?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No - what is relevant here is how value is created under capitalism - not whether or not any particular work creates something of value. Within capitalism, it is *labour* that adds value to any given product. Consider gold in the ground - it is worthless - it is the labourer, the miner who adds value to it. Suppose we want to make a diamond ring - the combination of gold and diamond in the labour process adds value. And intellectual proletarians? The ring is worthless if nobody knows about it - the guy putting up the billboard adds value. Now, what role does the capitalist play?

By virtue of owning the mine, the capitalist claims ownership of a part of the value of the miners labour.

The cost of running/maintaining the mine, subtract the wage of the miner - we&#39;re left with value that is created by the labour-process that is stolen by our friend the capitalist. This applies to the other examples as well?

Understand? Go read about labour theory of value if you don&#39;t get it. Come back when you know what the fuck you&#39;re talking about.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Why are companies outsourceing work to asian sweatshops?

Your friend said that the technology developed in capitalism is what has led to an increase in wage. Asian sweatshops obviously have not experienced this significantly and I was wondering whether that&#39;s because they lack technology. My point is that wages in the first world have increased only to keep the people satisfied. To say that people are paid more because technology allows to produce more is absurd. People have always produced more than they earn, otherwise capitalism would never exist. Your boss and his cronies were just afraid that you might see that. That&#39;s why you earn a little more than your 19th century counterpart.


The minimum wage earning single mom is reciprocating by making money from their collective capital.

"Their" collective capital belongs to those who set it in motion: the working public. She isn&#39;t making money, she&#39;s paying them by producing essentially more than she receives back as wage.

[Marvs Cicero]

No - what is relevant here is how value is created under capitalism - not whether or not any particular work creates something of value.

No it has everything to do with that, the origin of the creation of wealth is at the heart of our disagreement.



Within capitalism, it is *labour* that adds value to any given product. Consider gold in the ground - it is worthless - it is the labourer, the miner who adds value to it. Suppose we want to make a diamond ring - the combination of gold and diamond in the labour process adds value. And intellectual proletarians? The ring is worthless if nobody knows about it - the guy putting up the billboard adds value. Now, what role does the capitalist play?

So if a tiger wonders upon a peice of gold in the ground, and the tiger digs it up, does that peice of gold now have anymore value then it did in the ground prior to it&#39;s excavation?

It is the capitalist who puts fowards the funds to pay for the mining equipment, it the capitalist who pays for the excavation of the mine, and it is the capitalist who made the decision to mine there, and it was the capitalist who decided to turn the raw materials into a ring.


Understand? Go read about labour theory of value if you don&#39;t get it. Come back when you know what the fuck you&#39;re talking about.

Please don&#39;t take your anger out on me. It&#39;s not my fault you have not proven it. Oh and I would like you to kindly read George Reismans Economic Treatise as well as "Human Action" by Ludwig Won Mises.

[Marvs Cicero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:56 PM



Your friend said that the technology developed in capitalism is what has led to an increase in wage. Asian sweatshops obviously have not experienced this significantly and I was wondering whether that&#39;s because they lack technology. My point is that wages in the first world have increased only to keep the people satisfied. To say that people are paid more because technology allows to produce more is absurd. People have always produced more than they earn, otherwise capitalism would never exist. Your boss and his cronies were just afraid that you might see that. That&#39;s why you earn a little more than your 19th century counterpart.

No they have not experianced a major wage increase because of the system of their Government. Your blaming a problem on Capitalism that has no relation to it what so ever.

[Vinny Rafarino]

So according to you the production of the cheese puff is the creation of wealth even if no one on the planet values it?




Actually son, we&#39;re all wondering why you are bringing up an economic concept that you know nothing about.

I really think you need to research what bourgeois "wealth" means.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, and India aren&#39;t capitalist?

[LSD]

It is the capitalist who puts fowards the funds to pay for the mining equipment, it the capitalist who pays for the excavation of the mine, and it is the capitalist who made the decision to mine there, and it was the capitalist who decided to turn the raw materials into a ring.

funding, decisions, equipement

So... if the workers decided where to dig, provided their own equipment. and there was no "funding" required ....what do we need him for?

Other than providing "capital" which is a moot point in a communist enviroment, what you seem to be crediting the capitalist with is making choices. The very same choices that the workers would communaly make otherwise. These choices are part of the labour itslef, they&#39;ve just been artificially seperated to give the owner "something to do".

[Guest1]

As for providing capital, where do they get the money to provide it?

Since you obviously can&#39;t read big texts on this, the following comicstrip simplifies it to a level even you could understand:

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/uploads/post-32-1084481139.jpg

[Osman Ghazi]

Your blaming a problem on Capitalism that has no relation to it what so ever.

Capitalism exists in any country where the dominant ruling class is such because they possess capital.

So, in England, capitalism started in 1832, with the Reform Bill. In France, it was 1848 when the bourgoisie finally took power for themselves.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 13 2004, 02:15 AM
As for providing capital, where do they get the money to provide it?

Since you obviously can&#39;t read big texts on this, the following comicstrip simplifies it to a level even you could understand:


Still the same fallacious cartoon.......

When are you going to pick up a book and start to learn that the startingpoint for production is saving/investing, not the other way around?


Please don&#39;t take your anger out on me. It&#39;s not my fault you have not proven it. Oh and I would like you to kindly read George Reismans Economic Treatise as well as "Human Action" by Ludwig Won Mises.

Don&#39;t expect people to have actually read any Austrians. Austrians are to socialists what water is to fire.

[DaCuBaN]

When are you going to pick up a book and start to learn that the startingpoint for production is saving/investing, not the other way around?

Well, in truth it&#39;s more borrowing. Very few ventures are set up with money that is actually owned by the individual: It&#39;s almost always a bank loan or similar. So, I suppose in a way you are right: I can&#39;t shake my christian upbringing though - that bit that tells me that expecting a return on all your actions is wrong.

However, the scenario outlined in the above &#39;comic&#39; is quite valid nonetheless: The capitalist need only borrow once, and if a success can continue to live off the backs of others indefinitely.

[Vinny Rafarino]

When are you going to pick up a book and start to learn that the startingpoint for production is saving/investing, not the other way around?



:lol:

The real question is when are you going to learn the dynamics of the economic system you support.

You actually know nothing about capitalism; that&#39;s the sad part.

So son, why don&#39;t you explain to me where that fixed capital investment originated?

In other words, how did the investor accumulate the investment capital to be used as a fixed capital investment?

Did the individual inherit that capital or did the individual accumulate that capital by extracting surplus value from previous production efforts?

Never mind kid, this is well beyond you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Savings don&#39;t create value - only labour creates value, which is why investing allows yr money to grow, but shoving it under yr bed doesn&#39;t. Investment (even in the so-called "wieghtless" post-industrial economy) is still tied to goods and services - and by that, to the productive activity of human beings.

Try thinking these things through yrself - it&#39;d save me some trouble.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2004, 09:14 PM
Nazi&#39;s invented the jet engine...

No they didn&#39;t.


The "objective fact" is that a slave who&#39;s been given a 20% pay-raise is still a slave.

A slave does not get paid anything, otherwise he wouldn&#39;t be a slave.

"It&#39;s nice to see linguistic revisionism is alive and healthy."

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 12 2004, 11:55 PM
The cost of running/maintaining the mine, subtract the wage of the miner - we&#39;re left with value that is created by the labour-process that is stolen by our friend the capitalist. This applies to the other examples as well?
So if I get a brand new car and pay a labourer to smash it up with a sledge hammer, it&#39;s now more valuable because more labour went into it ?

[cormacobear]

I&#39;d have responded sooner, but I was out of town. In his first thread Marvs Cicero asked me to prove the title of this thread. So here. U.S. census statistics all laid out for those slightly slower individuals that still don&#39;t realize that capitalism is evil

http://www.newsbatch.com/econ.htm

[LSD]

No they didn&#39;t.

HE-178 / ME-262


So if I get a brand new car and pay a labourer to smash it up with a sledge hammer, it&#39;s now more valuable because more labour went into it ?

No.

Because that isn&#39;t productive labour, that&#39;s smashing something to bits.

Again, no one is advocating a world in which workers randomly "smash things", but rather the workers will communally decide what they should or should not work on. It&#39;s really quite simple.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2004, 05:37 PM

:lol:

The real question is when are you going to learn the dynamics of the economic system you support.

You actually know nothing about capitalism; that&#39;s the sad part.

So son, why don&#39;t you explain to me where that fixed capital investment originated?

In other words, how did the investor accumulate the investment capital to be used as a fixed capital investment?

Did the individual inherit that capital or did the individual accumulate that capital by extracting surplus value from previous production efforts?

Never mind kid, this is well beyond you.
Jeez RAF, you must be some sort of god if you can see through people sitting behind a pc......

I do not think I have to offer an explanation to someone who has remained stuck in an obsolete theory. Maybe in the mathematical world of equilibriummodels with 3 farfetched assumptions the LTV holds, for the majority it&#39;s nothing more than a relic. (or a nice slogan for the working class who generally understand "exploitation" better than subjectivity).

Even Marx had to admit that contrary to his theory wages in the real world actually rose above subsistence levels. This means that every worker can save and at a certain point can choose to work for himself (which also happens a lot in the real world), and start accumulating more capital.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 13 2004, 05:39 PM
Savings don&#39;t create value - only labour creates value, which is why investing allows yr money to grow, but shoving it under yr bed doesn&#39;t. Investment (even in the so-called "wieghtless" post-industrial economy) is still tied to goods and services - and by that, to the productive activity of human beings.

Try thinking these things through yrself - it&#39;d save me some trouble.
Hmmm, I doubt you see the circular reference in your slogan. If value is created by labour, how is labour itself valued?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 13 2004, 05:58 PM
So if I get a brand new car and pay a labourer to smash it up with a sledge hammer, it&#39;s now more valuable because more labour went into it ?

It depends on other market forces. If there is a demand for smashed up cars, then I suppose it could be. If you sold the smashed up car, yr profit would come out of the labour of the smasher.

Your profit is what you have left from the sale after considering a) the cost of the car, b) the wear & tear on yr hammer, c) Any gas you may have used to bring the car to the smashing site, and, most importantly, d) the wage of yr labourer. But what is the origin of yr profit? It arises from the combination of big-fucking-hammer and car, creating something socially valued - that is, from the labour process.

Understand now? Or did you actually think yr last post was relevant?